David Weigel | April 30, 2007
Instapundit has video of a Draft Fred Thompson rally in Tennessee and Rep. Zach Wamp's rationale for the Thompson candidacy is mighty convincing.
We need a president of the United States after the 2008 election who will rise above the partisan challenges... That person is 6 foot 6. He has a commanding voice. He has a commanding presence. He makes people feel secure. He makes us feel confident. He is slow to act but he is resolute. He is the kind of leader innately that the United States needs today.
"An' he reads the best bedtime stories! And he takes us out for ice cream after soccer practice!" A suggestion: If the GOP wants to rebut Steve Chapman's theory that modern Republicans are obsessed with strong authority figures who can cradle them in their arms, don't send Wamp out to debate it.
Wamp's explanation of why so many Republicans met with Thompson when he visited the Hill is worth a read, too:
These people understand that these are very difficult days in the history of America. They understand that radical Islam is actually sheltered in the middle of moderate Islam, which will not stand against radical Islam, and that Muslim women are having 3.5 children each, and Western women are having two children each. So we're going backwards and they are growing.
That seems even stranger than the "deep voice" thing as a reason to support Thompson. Has he written or spoken about birthrates before?
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
He makes people feel secure. He makes us feel
confident.
Like deodorant...or Stuart Smalley.
If there is a big Islamic terrorist attack in 2008, then the
Republicans win. Otherwise they probably won't. Republican
candidates are therefore positioning themselves for this
contingency.
There is a lot of motivation for the Bush administration to allow
any planned Islamic attacks happen and be as spectacular as
possible. However, they probably won't cross a line into actually,
actively helping. Still, 2008 will probably not be a hugely safe
year, terrorism-wise.
The solution, of course, is to make a federal law mandating that every woman in the United States births at least 4 children. This will both help us to beat the radical Islamists and fix our Social Security woes by increasing the workforce!
Republicans have always had more children than Democrats, what with their issues with birth control and abortion and all. Yet they continue to lose out to Democrats (and libertarians), if not always in the polls, but consistently in the marketplace of ideas. So, if the population assault thing didn't work for the Republicans, why should we fear it working for the Islamofascistnazicans?
"He's the guy you sometimes confuse with Joe Don Baker, for shit's sake!"
These guys and their mancrushes. If you won't be embarrassed,
I'll be embarrassed for you.
Any candidate who will promise a mandatory breeding program for
white guys will have the bloggers behind him.
Republicans have always had more children than
Democrats,
Have you anything to support that statement?
I don't know who James Inhofe is, but I've never heard a "makes [...] look like Stephen Hawking" line I didn't like!
Wow. Why do I get the feeling that the RNC is going to be checking Wamp's cell phone record for calls to pages...
He is the kind of leader innately that the United States
needs today.
"The kind of leader innately..." Who edited this?
Wow, they developed a mancrush on him without even waiting to see him in a codpiece on a flight deck!
"Republicans have always had more children than
Democrats,"
What about Catholic Democrats?
What about Catholic Democrats?
Hush! You can knock evangelicals and fundies here all you want, but
you're not supposed to say anything about Catholics - especially
Hispanic and Italian ones. :-)
I have a deep voice and I have always hated speaking in public. Perhaps I should embrace it and start grooming myself for a Republican nomination.
[Republicans] understand that radical Islam is actually
sheltered in the middle of moderate Islam, which will not stand
against radical Islam ...
I assume they understand that from their first-hand experience with
radical Christianity and how it has hijacked so much of the GOP
agenda.
The biggest factor behind enthusiasm for Fred that I can see is; he clearly isn't Rudy McRomney.
There is a lot of motivation for the Bush administration to
allow any planned Islamic attacks happen and be as spectacular as
possible. However, they probably won't cross a line into actually,
actively helping. Still, 2008 will probably not be a hugely safe
year, terrorism-wise.
As much as I distrust the government, I think Dave W has crossed
over into crazy-land with this statement. Furthermore, would
another successful terrorist attack help the Republicans, or hurt
them? The current narrative has shifted such that a lot of people
believe GWB bungled 9/11 and could have prevented it or at least
minimized the damage. Another attack on American soil would
reinforce that narrative to the strength of the Democrats. It would
also give more credence to the narrative that our foreign
interventions have resulted in breeding grounds for
terrorists.
(FWIW - I believe the latter narrative and am agnostic on the
former.)
I assume they understand that from their first-hand
experience with radical Christianity and how it has hijacked so
much of the GOP agenda.
Ice burn! (Completely agree)
The biggest factor behind enthusiasm for Fred that I can see
is; he clearly isn't Rudy McRomney.
Yeah, that alone has me sold on him. Unless he turns out to be a
child molester, he couldn't be much worse than those three
assholes.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245