Why in the world would Republicans ever think that an actor could bring together the religious and economic conservative bases of their party? Oh, wait …
While it’s just early rumblings at this point and nothing is concrete when it comes to a Law & Order Fred Thompson presidential campaign, it’s worth mentioning if only for the irony of it all. One thing absent from a lot of the coverage, and perhaps this is appropriate, is Thompson’s religious beliefs. But will that matter to conservative Christians looking for a chief executive they can support?
For starters, see what former presidential candidate Gary Bauer of American Values had to say about the current crop of candidates and a possible Thompson candidacy in a Wednesday column by The New York Sun’s online editor, Ryan Sager:
Republicans, it seems, are dissatisfied with the current field of candidates. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that 57% of Republicans nationwide want “more choices” for president. And given that Mr. Romney has failed to catch on, dogged as he is by an image as a flip-flopper, social conservatives are the primary Republican constituency casting about for a fresh face.
“There is this yearning for somebody else,” other than Messrs. Giuliani, McCain, and Romney, a former presidential candidate, Gary Bauer, now president of the nonprofit American Values, told me yesterday.
“With the current field, there is, as of now, some difficulty in getting economic, foreign policy, and social conservatives all on the same page,” Mr. Bauer said. “So, in view of that, I would like to see Thompson throw his hat in. … I think he’d have a reasonable chance of getting support from all three of the legs of the stool President Reagan put together.”
While I’m not exactly sure who Bauer represents these days, reporters should note Bauer’s failure to mention former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback. What’s unappealing about them? Perhaps their ability to deliver a victory? Since when were folks on the religious right so pragmatic? Oh, wait …
What should we make of this situation? We know about Giuliani’s closet skeletons and Romney’s conservative reformation (note that people aren’t talking about his Mormonism anymore), but what’s wrong with McCain? Well, The Weekly Standard’s Matthew Continetti has an answer:
But there’s a problem. While Mr. McCain and the conservative activists who compose the Republican grassroots share many positions — pro-war, pro-life, against waste in government and for low taxes — a significant portion of those grassroots just … doesn’t … like him.
For some, the animosity is issue-based. Conservatives recall that during the 2000 primary campaign, Mr. McCain adopted some of the left’s pet issues and flirted with the idea of a party switch. Others have become First Amendment absolutists with respect to campaign finance reform legislation, which Senator McCain champions. Many refuse to accept the scientific consensus on global climate change and recoil at Senator McCain’s attempts to find a free-market solution to the problem. Others cannot forgive the senator for his votes against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.
Another reason for the animosity is personal. Ideologues have long memories. There are Republicans who haven’t forgiven Senator McCain for labeling the Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance” back in 2000. There are others who bought into the story that Mr. McCain’s temperament made him unfit for the nation’s highest office. An article in April’s Reason magazine, a libertarian journal, calls Senator McCain an “authoritarian.” You hear conservatives saying Mr. McCain’s turn back to the right seems desperate, or that Mr. McCain seems tired and “old” on the stump.
Could Thompson be the under-covered story of this presidential season? Some are saying why not, but it’s far too early to say, especially since Thompson hasn’t formally announced. One thing is for sure, conservative Christians aren’t settled on a candidate yet and Thompson very well could be their candidate.
 | Posted at 8:00 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (5) |
March 26, 2007, at 12:49 am
Daniel, you could be right. I heard Thompson’s possible run being discussed last week on Christian radio and it made me want to find out more about him. The other Republican candidates pretty much leave me cold, or they have very little chance of winning the nomination. (I’m a pro-life, conservative Anglican.) On the other hand, if it came down to McCain vs. Clinton, I’d do my part to put John in the White House.
March 26, 2007, at 3:11 am
I can’t see myself supporting Fred Thompson at this point. IF he were to actually declare and IF he were to win the GOP nomination, then maybe. He’d certainly be better than The Three RINOs (Giuliani, Romney and McCain). But for now I’m banking on a true pro-life conservative: Sam Brownback.
March 26, 2007, at 8:16 am
“One thing absent from a lot of the coverage, and perhaps this is appropriate, is Thompson’s religious beliefs.”
Why is that appropriate? What are his beliefs?
March 26, 2007, at 10:25 am
Like Jill I’m also a pro-life, conservative Anglican, and I am yet to find someone worth supporting, but I am interested in Thompson. I’m also interested in Romney, and Gingrich. Yeah, Gingrich is “unelectable” but that is what they said about Ronaldus Magnus…(then again that is also what was said about Barry Goldwater…).
I respect the heck out of McCain, and I think he and “W” are the only sane Republicans when it comes to the issue of immigration. That being said, when McCain goes out of his way to offend someone (and he does that quite a bit) he does a really, really, good job of it. I AM one of those Republicans who haven’t totally forgiven Senator McCain for labeling the Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance†back in 2000. I was a FORBES supporter back then (being a Forbes supporter in Texas in 2000 did not make me any friends in the local GOP) but I switched to “W” as an “anyone but McCain” voter after McCain’s “agents of intolerance” remark.
Yeah, Pat Robertson occasionally says or does something nutty…(almost as nutty as the story about how Obama is actually part Irish ( should it be O’Bama?) and how this is supposed to help him with Irish voters). Still Rev. Robertson’s 700 Club has donated more than a few free blankets, meals, etc. to the poor and homeless over the years, and I think that diserves some respect… and if the press noticed that as much as they do his occasional dumb remark the world would be a better place.
Most importantly we need to remember that it is 19 months to election day. We fought the Spanish American War in less time than that. We fought the Gulf War I in less time than that. Heck the Mexican War took only 21 months! Who in the summer of 1988 knew that the Berlin Wall would be down 19 months later? Who knew in the spring of 2000 we would be sending troops into Kabul 19 months later? Heck 19 months is longer than the USA was involved in WW I.
I strongly suspect that this whole trend towards earlier and earlier campaign kick offs is being driven by political consultants (who have a hard time finding work in odd numbered years) and reporters (who like simple, easy to report, “horse race” stories). I am reminded of how Dole and Grahm were spending money so early in the 1996 cycle… and look at what it got them.
It is far to early for any serious discussion of the 2008 election. The world can, and probably will, change radically between now and Nov ‘08.
March 26, 2007, at 11:16 am
I hate to disagree with Larry, but the primaries will be virtually OVER by early February, 2008, thanks to the mad dash to move up the primary dates to be “relevant” to the process. So that’s not that far off at all, just a year. And if candidates aren’t raising money NOW, they will not be able to compete in those races - especially expensive media markets like California - so it’s not too early for a serious discussion of this race and which religious groups may or may not get on board with individual candidates.
Frankly, I won’t be voting for an open-borders, corporate pro-slavery politician like “W” or McCain or others. I need to know where Fred stands on this.
Back to the media, since that’s why we’re here, we need to see more than Romney and the Mormon thing in relation to candidates on both sides and their faiths. And such is completely relevant and acceptable as topics of stories. We can learn a lot about a presidential candidate by knowing what faith they profess, and how that affects their judgement, morality and worldview.