Purple†Pain
Banned
Would you vote for him?
A few weeks ago Chris Matthews asked liberal
> columnist Margaret Carlson
> who would win in a Thompson-Hillary election. She
> said Thompson without
> hesitation--Chris was absolutely flabbergasted by
> this quick and unembellished response.
> ----------------------
> The Next Reagan
>
> By Bruce Walker
>
> Two months ago, I wrote an article, "The Next
> Reagan," in which I
> outlined many of the reasons why Fred Thompson will
> be the next Ronald
> Reagan. Events since then have confirmed my
> arguments. I predict that Fred
> Thompson will enter the Republican nomination, that
> he will win it
> fairly easily, and that he will also defeat Hillary
> comfortably in the
> presidential election. Why?
>
> First, no Republican since Ronald Reagan draws
> remotely as much genuine
> enthusiasm among conservatives as a serious
> presidential candidate.
> Both of the Bush presidencies have been mild
> disappointments. Though
> respect for our current commander-in-chief is high,
> President Bush is
> simply not an effective communicator or articulator
> of conservative
> principles. President Bush, however, is light years
> ahead of Senator Dole, the
> 1996 nominee, and also better as a communicator and
> campaigner than his ******. That is how bad things
> have been for
> conservatives since the Gipper left the White House.
>
> Fred Thompson, in stark contrast, is a phenomenal
> communicator. His
> background as a film and television star combines
> perfectly with his
> background as a very persuasive trial lawyer so that
> he is not only
> comfortable in front of the camera or at the
> microphone, but his skills in
> rhetoric are unequaled in any major political figure
> since Senator Robert
> Taft over fifty years ago.
>
> Second, Thompson has always walked the walk on
> ethical issues. When he
> was Republican counsel in the Watergate hearings -
> the same hearings in
> which Hillary cut her teeth in politics as a
> Democrat - Fred Thompson
> did not tolerate the corruption of the Nixon
> Administration. He can
> effectively point out that both Hillary and he were
> on the same side in
> opposing corruption when it was his political party
> that had problems.
> Thompson also, though, was unrelenting in his
> opposition to the
> corruption of the Clinton Administration and stood
> out as the lone Republican
> senator with real guts during the impeachment trial
> of Clinton. The
> combination of these two principled stands will
> allow Thompson to
> relentlessly condemn Hillary as an accomplice in her
> husband's thoroughly corrupt
> eight years in office, to ask her point-blank about
> how she became the
> best investor in
> America (with no experience), and otherwise to do
> more than simply
> suggest that
> Hillary is a liar, a hypocrite and a bully.
>
> Third, Thompson would unite the whole leadership of
> the Republican
> Party. No one dislikes him and almost everyone likes
> him Although some
> conservatives may worry about his friendship and
> past support for John
> McCain, the critical fact is that friendship is
> reciprocated: McCain would
> be a very active and passionate supporter of Fred
> Thompson in the
> presidential election.
>
> Fourth, the rap on Thompson is that he was "lazy"
> when he was in the
> Senate. This is precisely the same sort of rap that
> Leftists made about
> Ronald Reagan. In fact, this is a strength. Because
> Thompson acts from
> principle, he does not need to engage in the
> Machiavellian machinations
> which pass for "work" in Washington. The reality is
> that it is absurd
> to consider Thompson, who has worked during his life
> in more real jobs
> than almost any politician in Washington and who
> today stars in two
> television programs as well as being the substitute
> for Paul Harvey and a
> frequent commentator in conservative periodicals as
> "lazy" at all. Like
> Reagan, he probably works harder than anyone in
> Washington.
>
> Fifth, because he was an extremely popular Tennessee
> senator, Thompson
> would completely sweep the South, including
> problematic states like
> Arkansas, Florida and Virginia. Thompson, like
> Reagan, is one of the few
> modern candidates who has true regional drawing
> power. Thompson, though,
> would run very strongly in swing states outside the
> South like Ohio,
> Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon and New Hampshire. His
> appeal to truly
> independent and undecided voters is real.
>
> Sixth, Thompson cannot be demonized. His whole life
> has been a study in
> how the American ***** works. His blue collar
> background, his
> constancy of moral purpose, his lack of ambition for
> power for its own sake,
> his palpable decency - all of these will make anyone
> who tries to slime
> him look awful and any attempt will backfire in
> sympathetic support for
> him.
>
> Seventh, because Thompson cannot be hurt in the
> usual ways that
> Leftists hurt conservative Republicans, Hillary will
> have to campaign him on
> the issues. This will create an insurmountable
> problem for her because,
> like all Leftists, Hillary has no stands on any
> issues. She just wants
> power. Thompson just wants what is best for America.
>
>
> We have our Reagan.
>
peace out
·
·
A few weeks ago Chris Matthews asked liberal
> columnist Margaret Carlson
> who would win in a Thompson-Hillary election. She
> said Thompson without
> hesitation--Chris was absolutely flabbergasted by
> this quick and unembellished response.
> ----------------------
> The Next Reagan
>
> By Bruce Walker
>
> Two months ago, I wrote an article, "The Next
> Reagan," in which I
> outlined many of the reasons why Fred Thompson will
> be the next Ronald
> Reagan. Events since then have confirmed my
> arguments. I predict that Fred
> Thompson will enter the Republican nomination, that
> he will win it
> fairly easily, and that he will also defeat Hillary
> comfortably in the
> presidential election. Why?
>
> First, no Republican since Ronald Reagan draws
> remotely as much genuine
> enthusiasm among conservatives as a serious
> presidential candidate.
> Both of the Bush presidencies have been mild
> disappointments. Though
> respect for our current commander-in-chief is high,
> President Bush is
> simply not an effective communicator or articulator
> of conservative
> principles. President Bush, however, is light years
> ahead of Senator Dole, the
> 1996 nominee, and also better as a communicator and
> campaigner than his ******. That is how bad things
> have been for
> conservatives since the Gipper left the White House.
>
> Fred Thompson, in stark contrast, is a phenomenal
> communicator. His
> background as a film and television star combines
> perfectly with his
> background as a very persuasive trial lawyer so that
> he is not only
> comfortable in front of the camera or at the
> microphone, but his skills in
> rhetoric are unequaled in any major political figure
> since Senator Robert
> Taft over fifty years ago.
>
> Second, Thompson has always walked the walk on
> ethical issues. When he
> was Republican counsel in the Watergate hearings -
> the same hearings in
> which Hillary cut her teeth in politics as a
> Democrat - Fred Thompson
> did not tolerate the corruption of the Nixon
> Administration. He can
> effectively point out that both Hillary and he were
> on the same side in
> opposing corruption when it was his political party
> that had problems.
> Thompson also, though, was unrelenting in his
> opposition to the
> corruption of the Clinton Administration and stood
> out as the lone Republican
> senator with real guts during the impeachment trial
> of Clinton. The
> combination of these two principled stands will
> allow Thompson to
> relentlessly condemn Hillary as an accomplice in her
> husband's thoroughly corrupt
> eight years in office, to ask her point-blank about
> how she became the
> best investor in
> America (with no experience), and otherwise to do
> more than simply
> suggest that
> Hillary is a liar, a hypocrite and a bully.
>
> Third, Thompson would unite the whole leadership of
> the Republican
> Party. No one dislikes him and almost everyone likes
> him Although some
> conservatives may worry about his friendship and
> past support for John
> McCain, the critical fact is that friendship is
> reciprocated: McCain would
> be a very active and passionate supporter of Fred
> Thompson in the
> presidential election.
>
> Fourth, the rap on Thompson is that he was "lazy"
> when he was in the
> Senate. This is precisely the same sort of rap that
> Leftists made about
> Ronald Reagan. In fact, this is a strength. Because
> Thompson acts from
> principle, he does not need to engage in the
> Machiavellian machinations
> which pass for "work" in Washington. The reality is
> that it is absurd
> to consider Thompson, who has worked during his life
> in more real jobs
> than almost any politician in Washington and who
> today stars in two
> television programs as well as being the substitute
> for Paul Harvey and a
> frequent commentator in conservative periodicals as
> "lazy" at all. Like
> Reagan, he probably works harder than anyone in
> Washington.
>
> Fifth, because he was an extremely popular Tennessee
> senator, Thompson
> would completely sweep the South, including
> problematic states like
> Arkansas, Florida and Virginia. Thompson, like
> Reagan, is one of the few
> modern candidates who has true regional drawing
> power. Thompson, though,
> would run very strongly in swing states outside the
> South like Ohio,
> Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon and New Hampshire. His
> appeal to truly
> independent and undecided voters is real.
>
> Sixth, Thompson cannot be demonized. His whole life
> has been a study in
> how the American ***** works. His blue collar
> background, his
> constancy of moral purpose, his lack of ambition for
> power for its own sake,
> his palpable decency - all of these will make anyone
> who tries to slime
> him look awful and any attempt will backfire in
> sympathetic support for
> him.
>
> Seventh, because Thompson cannot be hurt in the
> usual ways that
> Leftists hurt conservative Republicans, Hillary will
> have to campaign him on
> the issues. This will create an insurmountable
> problem for her because,
> like all Leftists, Hillary has no stands on any
> issues. She just wants
> power. Thompson just wants what is best for America.
>
>
> We have our Reagan.
>
peace out
·
·
