Tea Party Time

Fred Thompson's decision to voyage to England in order to court Margarat Thatcher "which his advisers hope will enhance his support among devotees of former President Ronald Reagan" sure does seem a bit strange. Did word not get to him about the Revolution?

It all points to a weird quandry fro the follow-the-leader party. Bush is too unpopular to be the ring everybody wants to kiss, Reagan is dead, and H.W. Bush is the incumbent's father. Newt Gingrich, of course, steadfastly refuses to fade away and play the elder statesman role. So you've got Thatcher serving as a kind of ersatz symbolic leader of American conservatism. And, of course, if the USA circa 2007 actually exhibited the problems associated with British statism circa 1977 rather than, you know, the actual problems we actually have, I, too, might be tempted by the idea that we need a dose of Thatcherism.

Comments

You make it sound like Britain needed Thatcher at the time. That's a curious claim.

Posted by Minipundit | June 18, 2007 11:57 PM

If the USA circa 2007 actually exhibited the problems associated with Spanish Republicanism circa 1936 would you, too, be tempted by the idea that we a dose of Francoism?

Posted by Son of a Bad Man | June 19, 2007 12:02 AM

Well, Ms. Thatcher has been described as "Ronald Reagan with balls."

Is this photo from The Big Book of British Smiles?

Posted by croatoan | June 19, 2007 12:03 AM

So back to the campaign, in other words, not a bad move by Thompson.

Posted by CosmoReaxer | June 19, 2007 12:28 AM

I think it's a curious claim that Britian didn't need Thatcherism in the late '70s. It's certainly an unusual enough claim that the burden of proof should be on the person making it.

And calling Thatcher a fascist doesn't count as an argument.

Posted by too many steves | June 19, 2007 12:54 AM

An aging politician probably suffering from senility if not dementia is the perfect symbol of the GOP.

Nothing wrong with Thompson underscoring the reality by flying to pay homage to someone who may not even understand what's going on in the world right now.

Now if only all the other GOP hopefuls understand so well the Party that they want to lead.

Posted by gregor | June 19, 2007 1:18 AM

"And calling Thatcher a fascist doesn't count as an argument."

No? How about this:

"Baroness Thatcher has visited General Pinochet at the home where he is staying under house arrest near London - and talked of the "debt" she believes the UK owes him."

Can I call Pinochet a fascist, or do we need to rewind back to first principles?

Posted by HeavyJ | June 19, 2007 1:19 AM

'too many steves' hasn't yet been served with the papers from Jonah Lucianne that when a liberal calls somone 'fascist' he is offering high praise to one of their own.

Posted by gregor | June 19, 2007 1:23 AM

gregor gets it exactly right. The British press have kept Thatcher discreetly out of the limelight; the American press shouldn't ignore her condition if Thompson is choosing to bring it into the public arena. I don't know if there's a way for journalists to bring it up without looking more assholish than Thompson should, though.

Posted by Jackmormon | June 19, 2007 1:24 AM

Isn't this kind of a genius move by Thompson? Out of left field, sure, but I listen to a lot of conservative talk radio and they sure do love Thatcher. I mean damn, who the hell would ever have thought of asking for Thatcher's support? Brilliant.

Posted by Random Dude | June 19, 2007 1:25 AM

A new wingnut Hajj?

Shall we call him Hajji Thompson when he returns?

Posted by alphie | June 19, 2007 1:52 AM

I was going to note that the last person most people remember having tea with Thatcher was General Pinochet, but HeavyJ beat me to it.

This strikes me as bizarre: the British public are basically waiting for her to pop her clogs -- for every mourner, there'll be someone celebrating. Every so often, the rumour goes around that she's snuffed it. Her public appearances are highly limited, and don't include speaking: smart money is on the Falklands anniversary being her last big moment in the public spotlight.

Perhaps Thompson will get adulation from the US wingnut press, where Thatcher's image is preserved in aspic, but the British press isn't likely to be impressed. 'Law and Order' old guy wants to be president? Who the fuck is he, anyway? No-one knows he was once a senator, and most people don't know much about senators in the first place. It'll be perceived as cheap and tawdry exploitation, but that's presumably what the wingnuts want from Thompson.

(In fact it appears that British press isn't covering Thompson's visit at all: even the Times or Maggie-loving Telegraph have nothing.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 19, 2007 2:01 AM

So back to the campaign, in other words, not a bad move by Thompson.

You think so? What percentage of the American electorate do you think could find the UK on a map, let alone knows who Margaret Thatcher is? Considering how many Americans can't name our vice president, I have a hard time believing in the power of the Margaret Thatcher celebrity politician endorsement.

Posted by Freddie | June 19, 2007 2:07 AM

I'd have to say there are only three living past or current foreign leaders the base knows about: Kim Jong-Il, Chirac and Thatcher. She's the only non-American they truly love. I wonder of Thompson asked her how her son's career as a mercenary is going.

Posted by Reality Man | June 19, 2007 2:58 AM

If Thatcher's health and mental faculties are in as deep a decline as many suggest, a visit from Thompson seems in very poor taste, regardless of her politics.

Posted by sangfroid826 | June 19, 2007 3:46 AM

"What percentage of the American electorate do you think could find the UK on a map, let alone knows who Margaret Thatcher is?"

This isnt aimed at the american electorate; this is aimed at republican primary voters, a great number of whom hold thatcher in high regard.

Thompson is set on portraying himself as the authentic conservative candidate. Getting some sort of(I would expect implicit) endorsement from thatcher seems a canny move to that end.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | June 19, 2007 3:47 AM

I ... I'm confused ... pimp ... what? ... what is this? What the hell is going on here? No "Matt-you-fat-vile-bastard" shtick?

Look pimp, we all have our roles to play. We rely on you for the middle-to-lowbrow ad hominems. You start making reasonable posts which illuminate the issue at hand and I'm going to start thinking I'm on the wrong site. I will be forced to go back to Ezra for my quality troll-watching. Steve Sailer's keeping up his end. Al, Fred Jones, etc., --they're pulling their weight. I have no complaints. But this ... this is inexcusable.

I don't even know who you are anymore, man.

Posted by sangfroid826 | June 19, 2007 4:07 AM

If Thatcher's health and mental faculties are in as deep a decline as many suggest, a visit from Thompson seems in very poor taste, regardless of her politics.

Given that it's a photo op, I absolutely agree. It's rank exploitation. If he truly cared about her condition, he would have done it privately.

Posted by Rich | June 19, 2007 4:08 AM

And, of course, if the USA circa 2007 actually exhibited the problems associated with British statism circa 1977 rather than, you know, the actual problems we actually have, I, too, might be tempted by the idea that we need a dose of Thatcherism

But, fortunately, the US is managing to destroy its own society and manufacturing base quite well by itself, and so is in no need of Thatcher's guiding hand.

Could anyone who still believes Thatcher was some sort of economic genius please take a look at a) how much money Britain got from North Sea oil (hint: a lot) and b) when it got it (from the end of the 1970s on - in other words, the oil started flowing just before Thatcher came into power)?

Posted by ajay | June 19, 2007 4:52 AM

It all points to a weird quandry fro the follow-the-leader party. Bush is too unpopular to be the ring everybody wants to kiss, Reagan is dead, and H.W. Bush is the incumbent's father. Newt Gingrich, of course, steadfastly refuses to fade away and play the elder statesman role.

I agree, which is why I think it's curious they haven't drafted Bob Dole or someone to fill the role, rather than genuflecting towards Nancy Reagan like she's the Queen Mum.

Posted by right | June 19, 2007 5:09 AM

This isnt aimed at the american electorate; this is aimed at republican primary voters, a great number of whom hold thatcher in high regard.

Well, 'hand', it's aimed at the subset of Republican primary voters who both hold Lady T. in high regard but are ignorant of her physical and mental frailty. Perhaps the intention is to suggest that she's prepared to make a rare public appearance on his behalf, rather than his exploiting someone who may not even remember his name.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 19, 2007 6:18 AM

Probably a good thing that Pinochet's dead-- Thompson didn't have to make a hard choice.

Posted by MattF | June 19, 2007 6:55 AM

Not to mention that Thatcher is basically senile now.

Posted by bob h | June 19, 2007 7:04 AM

Who will be the first Republican candidate to seek a photo-op with Ariel Sharon?

Posted by Other Bill | June 19, 2007 7:40 AM

Too many, outside of the elite, the same people who declared Reagan the best president ever, there is far from the sort of consensus opinion on Thatcher that you're trying to pretend there is. You're on a liberal blog, you're best of assuming you're going to have to prove that Thatcher was a great leader to us. Most of us think she was a cruel bitch who didn't give a damn about her country or anything else other than the maintaining power for those who already had too much. Way too many of the liberal elite have bought into that supply-side BS arguments, primarily because conservative economics instructors have taught that part of history as if there were no doubt as the fact that Reagan and Thatcher saved the republic from the evil communists, rather than that supply-side economics was a political belief that originated in political trade papers, not economic ones.

Posted by soullite | June 19, 2007 8:01 AM

We've already got the pointless imperial war--all we need is a poll tax, and the Thatcherization of American will be complete

Posted by rea | June 19, 2007 8:23 AM

Except Thatcher won her imperial war.

Posted by Other Bill | June 19, 2007 8:35 AM

Then I would think you were a fool.

Posted by Marshall | June 19, 2007 8:47 AM

Can we give Thatcher credit for giving inspiration to The Housemartins?

Posted by Kurzleg | June 19, 2007 8:56 AM

give Thatcher credit for giving inspiration to The Housemartins?

Not to mention Julian Cope:

She's the apostolic hag! She's the apostolic hag! She's screaming! Screaming mad!

Posted by rea | June 19, 2007 9:06 AM

Except Thatcher won her imperial war.

If you call bankrupting the country to acheive status quo ante bellum "winning" . . .

Posted by rea | June 19, 2007 9:09 AM

rea, the Falklands War didn't bankrupt Britain. It cost £1.5 billion.

Also, in a purely defensive war against an aggressive enemy (like the Falklands) achieving status quo ante is "winning".

Posted by ajay | June 19, 2007 9:29 AM

The other thing about the Falklands war is that Britain fought against the torturers. Argentina's loss in that little war helped discredit their military junta and paved the way for its removal from power.

Posted by blah | June 19, 2007 10:18 AM

Suddenly, I feel the need to go listen to Elvis Costello's "Tramp The Dirt Down".

Posted by Robert Earle | June 19, 2007 2:09 PM

Thatcher isn't all there, folks. Her health has been failing for years and she was advised not to speak in public after suffering strokes in 2002.

This is only a few steps removed from a corpse-fucking. But then again, Thompson does hail from the party that brought you the Terri Schiavo Necrophiliacs.

Posted by Dear Random Dude | June 19, 2007 4:03 PM

What did Pinochet do that the British people ever owed him anything? Did the Chilean army invade Argentina during the ludicrous Falklands War, to distract the vile junta while the Royal Navy sank the General Belgrano? Did they shell BA in support of the British land forces battling their way across Goose Green? Or did he intercept, and decode Provisional IRA messages about bomb targets in the UK, then hand them over to the Iron Lady?
I feel like I've entered one of those "What If," alternative history novels.

Fred Thompson, and all the Repugnant presidential wannabes live in one already.

Posted by Ken Byrne | June 20, 2007 12:14 PM

Good grief - as a Brit I'm amazed by the level of vitriol swilling around the comments section of this blog. Is that usual?

In the UK we have a hard left fringe party called the SWP that hoovers up really angry and disturbed wanabee revolutionaries. They have pretentions to ideological consistency but frequently reveal themselves as emotionally driven bundles of rage and negativity.

Is this the home of the US equivalent?

Posted by Seb | June 20, 2007 3:53 PM

I think that we too still have an SWP in this land here of the free, and lots of factions that split off from it over finer points of Marxist theology. No one pays any attentiion to them at all. In fact, in the eighties, as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request, said party obtained most of their secret FBI files. And guess what? The Bureau, under J. Edgar Hoover, decided that they posed no threat whatsoever to the established order. Some revolutionaries!

Some of what you read here, and elsewhere in the progressive blogosphere, may be vitriolic. That happens when a batch of creeps wipe their bums with our Constitution, then act like it's we who are daft for getting all upset over it. And when the corporate mass media ignore the crimes of Bush and his cronies, to focus on the antics of spoiled, rich, young ladies, behaving badly in public, well, it does tend to raise one's hackles.

If you were aware of what a perfectly corrupt, liar and phony Fred Thompson is, the tought of him crossing the pond to kiss the hand of the Dear Old Thing, might raise your hackles as well.

How many British squaddies must die in Basra before you start shouting, "Enough is enough!" You needn't be a Marxist to be disgusted with the way things are.

Posted by KGB | June 21, 2007 12:16 AM

Please go to truthout.org, and see a well written explanation of the rage by William Rivers Pitt.

It's called A Time To Reap

Posted by KGB | June 21, 2007 12:27 AM

Interesting. Thompson can't be bothered to mix it up in a debate with the likes of Jim Gilmore and Duncan Harris but he can fly to Britain for an audience with this disgusting piece of filth.

I may have missed something, but I don't recall that the liberal media have raised the possibility that this somewhat desperate effort among the GOP elite to prepare Thompson for a coronation seems an admission on their part that no one in their sorry "top tier" can win next year.

Now, I don't know if McCain/Giuliani/Romney are losers and I'm taking nothing for granted. But it's strange to me that so many Republicans are enthusiastic about a guy who's not willing to go out there and EARN what he wants, but doesn't really want, wink.

I forgot--the Republicans just talk about Americans needing to earn what they get. What the GOP truly believes in is entitlement and Fred is becoming the embodiment of that these days.

Posted by R Pence | June 22, 2007 12:33 PM