The media had some rather interesting takes on Fred Thompson's November 12 speech at The Citadel in Charleston, SC, or at least takes different than my own.
Jim Davenport of AP keyed in on the size of the military that a President Thompson would champion. Jeremy Pelofsky of Reuters parroted the same sentiments.
I saw the first half of the speech, and then Roger L. Simon and I were fortunate enough to have Senator Thompson alone for an interview that will run on Pajamas Media Thursday.
I was impressed with the military numbers that Thompson favors, but found his call to engage the will of the American people in winning the "long war" to be a far more compelling story.
Twice in Thompson's speech, he referred to the synergy needed between civilian will and military might needed to win wars.:
I spent some time recently with a book called A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900, by the historian Andrew Roberts. He describes the strengths that have seen America and England through danger and adversity. But there's one quality in particular that no nation can do without in such a time. As Roberts observes, "The will of a people is at least as important as their military might in overcoming an enemy."
And later:
This radical threat we face today is committed to a hundred year war, and has been waging one against us for decades ... in Beirut, Somalia, embassies in Africa, Saudi Arabia, on the USS Cole. Each time Americans were killed. Yet each time our response sent the wrong signals. This is an enemy that understands only the language of power. Today, the focus of this war is Afghanistan and Iraq, but it is clear that this struggle and our enemies extend far beyond those borders. To defend ourselves, we in the democratic world must assert our intentions in the clearest possible terms.
Diplomacy, economic influence, and other means of persuasion are always to be preferred in our dealings with dangerous regimes and rival states. But the words of our leaders command much closer attention from adversaries when it is understood that we are prepared to use force when force is necessary. And for that deterrent to exist, the will of our people and the strength of our military must be unquestionable.
We had a chance to establish that synergy as lower Manhattan, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field still smoldered. Our leadership failed to unite us then, and has since.
Senator Thompson seems to have some ideas about what it takes to unite our country to win "the long war."
It's too bad that such ideas are so easily overlooked by the Fourth Estate.
Cross-posted to Confederate Yankee.
—Bob Owens is an investigative blogger who writes at Confederate Yankee.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'm With Fred!
November 14, 2007 - 12:22 ET by Free StinkerFred is just great!
And last night I saw that George Allen is backing Fred!
Even a blind person on this
November 14, 2007 - 12:33 ET by Clear thinkerEven a blind person on this forum would know that I also support Fred.
I can only hope that others see what I have seen for a very long time in this honest-down-to-earth-realist conservative.
We have a candidate that can continue the Reagan revolution!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Media Ignore Larger Points
November 14, 2007 - 12:39 ET by mattmWhat else is new?
National Right to Life
November 14, 2007 - 12:45 ET by LilyPearlI really like Fred and would have no problem voting for him in the general election, although I plan to vote for Huckabee in the primaries. I think Huckabee is more solid on pro life issues, which is why I can't figure out for the life me why the National Right to Life endorsed him instead of Huckabee. Not that Fred is a bad choice, but isn't Huckabee better? Thoughts anyone?
LilyPearl... They (NRLC)
November 14, 2007 - 12:54 ET by Clear thinkerLilyPearl...
They (NRLC) know Fred's history and how it stacks up against Mike.
This may help explain. It's a clip of something I have posted before.
Considering Forbes is not exactly a haven for liberal thinking, their rating system could be taken more seriously than some of the MSM has put out.
Below are the rankings and the link to Forbes. After looking at the chart on Forbes, scroll down to the picture of your favorite candidate and click on it to see how they stack up.
Ratings of how Conservative a candidate is...
Out of 50
Fred 40.6
John 40.5
Mitt 36.7
Rudy 36.2
Duncan 34.3
Ron 31.2
Tom 31.1
Mike 26
These were compiled by Forbes at...
http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/01/election-candidates-politics-oped-cz_gm_1002thompson.html
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
FRED
November 14, 2007 - 13:02 ET by lastconservativeinmaThe old Huck is a nice guy but too liberal. Abortion is one reason to vote but if it is the only reason than get used to President Hillary Clinton. Not the time in history to be drawing lines in the sand over abortion unless you want the Hill to be president. Imagine after school abortions for everyone of any age.
LCIMA...
November 14, 2007 - 13:19 ET by Clear thinkerLove your nick. I was born there in MA but my folks had the good sense to get us out of there.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
I would love to get out of
November 14, 2007 - 15:30 ET by lastconservativeinmaI would love to get out of Ma but my business is state specific and I cannot move to another state and keep the business. I will retire someday to a red state.
after school abortions -
November 14, 2007 - 21:21 ET by TruthMongerafter school abortions - just because hillary is president? i don't think so...congress still has a thing or two to say about it...
having hillary in the WH could quickly fill up congress with pro-life repubs at light speed:)
having bill in there did the trick
Fred Thompson mirror Ronald Reagan
November 14, 2007 - 13:58 ET by Lame CherryI notice often how bloggers here are led around by the media in not understanding the historic vision which Fred Thompson is engaged in. I see reports and no explanations here when Thompson is accused of "is that all his speech was".
If one knows history and has bothered to sift through the personal letters of Reagan and the influence of Richard Nixon's brilliance in a campaign one soon learns the principle Thompson is utilizing.
Reagan was scolded terribly by supporters for announcing "and not saying anything". Reagan replied that it was a long primary season and he was not going to say all his policies in one speech and then have the press say, "Oh that is Reagan just repeating himself".
Fred Thompson is mirroring this proven policy of Reagan. Here am I very pleased he gave a speech and interview with Pajamas in which he literally shows his brilliance and the vital necessity of unified policy that even liberals can understand.
I will nit pick on Ron Paul and his simplistic isolationist non strategy to the rest of the field spending money and not stating in depth policy as Fred Thompson now has begun.
There are no holes in the Thompson logic and while I support those voting for who they do........one has to remember who will win this. Huckabee can appeal to the Iowa mob which was not purchased by Romney big eats parties..........but the hatred coming out of the Ron Paul camp is distasteful (see the members who commented on the Dick Armey piece yesterday and the Jeff Rense rabble for the hatred they espouse) and the weakness of Rudy, Mitt and Huckabee having no national following........there just has to be an understanding who has the potential of being a national unifying candidate who will not change his tone, but be able to compel liberals and Democrats to vote for him. Fred Thompson is the candidate.
He will trounce Hillary, look like a mental giant compared to Edwards and Obama and appear human compared to that ghoul Al Gore.
Rudy is personal, but most of the party will hold their noses and he makes the socialist policy mistakes Nixon did........America needs a real Conservative as we have had Bush 43 meandering with Hillary policies and they are bringing inflation disaster.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Lame Cherry... Very well
November 14, 2007 - 16:29 ET by Clear thinkerLame Cherry...
Very well stated. Two thumbs way up from an obvious Fred Head!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
just wish fred had more
November 14, 2007 - 21:59 ET by TruthMongerjust wish fred had more executive experience - other than running the DA's office on tv - actually that's enough for me i guess
i still have fred down for VP, Mitt for Prez - maybe vice versa? maybe
I've decided. Fred.
November 14, 2007 - 21:01 ET by BlondeUnless something changes in a most bizarre way, I am going to vote for Fred Thompson in the primary.
He's following the Reagan blueprint....not putting it all out there at once to confuse people.
Cogently starting from his most important policy and then moving to his next most important position. And succinctly stating the reason for combining them, in a particular order. After reading his speech today (and thanks! for that link), I know this is the correct way to go.
Of course, if we listen to the MsM (as the majority of the lemmings in this country do, even our fellow Republicans) the only thing one would have heard was that Fred is for increasing the size of the military.
The man can think. And I value cogent thought over all else.
That's it. I'm decided. Sorry, Mitt, Mike, I was willing to give you a chance.
No more.
I'm with Fred.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive