Thursday, April 5, 2007

Personal Asides: Fred Thompson Making it a Race…The New Sun-Times? Underwhelming.


Fred Thompson.

As my weekly column in The Wanderer shows, former U. S. Senator Fred Thompson is making it a horse-race by peeling poll numbers off Rudy Giuliani’s hide. If Thompson proves to be as good a campaigner as his advance billing says, he may well become the latest darling of social conservatives…a group that has some dissidents who have been dissatisfied with all the Big 3 for one reason or another. Somehow because I’ve been writing some good things about Rudy (while at the same time saying that I wasn’t endorsing him or anyone else) the idea has come forth that I’m for Rudy. Nope. That’s not what I said.

At this point, with the Republican party experiencing the lowest doldrums since Watergate, I’m playing the unlikely role of pragmatist. I believe any of the Republican choices would be insuperably better than Obama, Hillary or Edwards. There are some who say that if the winner is Rudy, they’ll stay home or vote for the Constitution Party candidate. They can do what they wish but that ain’t me, kids. The stakes are far too great from every perspective to enjoy the luxury of sulking in the tent. That’s only for Janssenist purists, not me.

Rudy made a big mistake yesterday, I believe, in coming out once more for public funding of abortions. But hear me out: if Rudy is the nominee, I’m for him. If Fred Thompson is the nominee, I’m enthusiastically for him (as of now, this early in the race). If Romney is the nominee, I’ll be enthusiastically for him basis his excellent managerial skills. And if any of the rest are nominated…Newt…Duncan Hunter…Ron Paul…Tommy Thompson…you name him--I’ll be for any of these wholeheartedly because the survival of this nation is at stake. I haven’t done this before. The times have so changed for the worse that this is the only prudent course for me to take.

The one thing you won’t hear me say after the convention is…no-no, I can’t vote Republican because our guy has freckles…or said something at a church picnic in 1996 that isn’t kosher…or didn’t sufficiently pursue the social conservative mantra as governor…or has a bad marital record. There was once a time when the Democratic party was worthy of being considered as a second choice. That time has long passed. To my mind, there is absolutely no option but to vote for the Republican nominee for president.

The New Sun-Times.

The drastically remodeled Sun-Times that appeared yesterday was underwhelming to me. It makes the old massively-headlined (with railroad type) version look attractive—which is a hard thing to do. The reason I don’t like the new one is that so much space is given to glitzy graphics, the copy has to be slashed accordingly. Attention-getting graphics are great but when they are at the expense of the news coverage, it’s short-sighted. What do you think?


  1. The Sun-Times has stopped competing on the Tribune, and has set its sights on the Red Eye's readership.

  2. Jansenist PuristApril 5, 2007 at 8:25 AM

    Calling those who disagree with you Jansenist Purists doesn't really address the issue. They can call you a Cafeteria Catholic. Where does that get us?

    He spits in the face of the Hyde Amendment and you roll over for him. WWHD (What would Henry Do?).

    He's not just for abortion but wants to forcibly make you and me material cooperators in murder. When you and any other pro-lifer assure him in advance that you will support him if nominated, you are enabling him--letting him know there is no position he can take that would cost him your support.

    Is that good, from a political tactical standpoint? Why not at least play hard-to-get, make him work for your vote.

    I don't get it. You've become a Jesuitical Consequentialist--and if anyone knows a JC when he sees one, it's an old-fashioned Jansenist Purist.

    You are playing Wolsey to Thomas More's principledness.

  3. Tom, don`t forgot that Republican Senator Fred Thompson voted to NOT impeach President Clinton. Do you remember?

  4. It runs in my recollection that some Republicans actually said they were glad that Clinton was not convicted after Henry Hyde so courageously led the impeachment effort. They said something to the effect that, "it's better that he serve out his term, wounded--we can make more political hay out of that than if he were removed from office and Gore becomes Prez, with a leg up on the 2000 election.

    Wow, that was tactically brilliant, now, wasn't it? Some of us warned that Clinton would turn acquittal to his advantage--read it as total vindication and use the House impeachment as a club.

    In that light, how serious a disqualifier was Thompson's vote to acquit?

  5. Thompson is a good choice, but I'm partial towards Rep. Duncan Hunter as a conservative presidential candidate. He's a "what you see is what you get" kind of candidate.