The Real Clear Politics boys think it might:
Fred Thompson picked up two peculiar endorsements over the weekend, reports the Hotline, both from Missouri — Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder and Speaker Pro Tem of the MO House Carl Bearden.
“Fred Thompson is the real deal, the closest thing to a natural we’ve had (or are likely to see) since Reagan,” said Kinder, echoing the Reagan/Thompson analogy. He also cites Thompson’s solid conservative credentials as well as his “cross-over appeal.”
What to say about this? Ordinarily, endorsements from two unknown Missouri Republicans isn’t that big of a deal (with apologies to Messrs. Kinder and Bearden). But, as the Hotline speculates, “either Thompson, or someone operating in his orbit, has started to solicit endorsements in the hope of either pushing Thompson into the race by sheer force of will, or to begin to build momentum towards a Thomson-endorsed presidential candidacy.”
Indeed, National Review Editor Rich Lowry is sensing serious movement on the Draft Thompson front:
“Now, the odds seem to strongly favor him getting in. If I had to bet, I’d say he does it.”
I imagine Lowry’s basing his opinion on his sources, but from a common-sense perspective rarely does a draft movement get this kind of momentum without some prodding from the unannounced candidate himself. And one also doesn’t pen an op-ed for the conservative RedState.com if he’s just 50-50 on the matter. I’d say what Thompson wrote energized the conservative grassroots far more than what Sen. John McCain had to say in the Washington Post Sunday, which is not to malign what McCain wrote. It’s just that all the energy out there seems to be with Thompson and whether he’s the man conservatives want him to be. His RedState.com article gives them reason to believe.
The base’s enthusiastic support for a Thompson candidacy also tempers fears that for fundraising reasons it’s too late. In fact, I think that’s nonsense. The Politico’s Jonathan Martin has some thoughts yesterday that I think support this:
“The empirical evidence — namely the $15 million+ the ‘08 Dems raised online in the first quarter — is compelling. Indeed, when it comes to using the web as both a fundraising and organizing tool, Dems and their liberal allies have clearly blown the Republicans and conservatives out of the water.”
The reason for this is that the Democratic liberal base is pumped about its choices — namely, John Edwards or Sen. Barack Obama (with Sen. Hillary Clinton picking up the establishment enthusiasm). There is no equivalent excitement coming from the right, and it shows in the GOP candidates’ inability to generate Internet buzz. Perhaps that’s because the possibility of a Thompson candidacy is stealing whatever buzz there is.
Consider, for instance, conservatives’ melancholy at the present moment: The frontrunner has just said he thinks abortion is a constitutional right that deserves public funding; the self-described conservative in the race keeps getting reminders about the many ways he hasn’t been conservative over his career; and the heir apparent has just had to rejigger his entire campaign.
Thompson of course couldn’t have foreseen all these scenarios playing out at exactly the same time. But he waited, because, as he said, he wanted to see how “the lay of the land” would look in a few months. It looks pretty good right now.
I find it interesting that the same folks on the Right who continuously scour the political horizon for signs of Romney’s rise or McCain’s comeback seem to be the most bearish on Thompson’s presidential chances. These folks are making a critical error, one that has a lot to do with their underestimation of the potency of identity politics. Thompson’s critics are correct that there exists ample evidence that FDT made his first run for the Senate as a nominally pro-choice candidate, a label that is nearly forgotten today due to his flawless pro-life voting record while in the Senate. Still, this has led many McCain and Romney supporters, as well as those from other camps, to claim that what’s good for the goose is…well, you know. If McCain gets taken to the woodshed over a couple of statements from Campaign 2000 regarding the feasibility of overturning Roe, and if Romney gets nearly YouTube’d out of the race at least once a month, so their reasoning goes, what’s to stop the GOP base from souring on Fred once they learn that he too at least made a lurch to the left on abortion, even if that lurch was probably due to bad political advice from his guru, Howard Baker?
Here’s where cultural identity comes into play. Unlike McCain and Romney, FDT is true-blue red-stater. He’s from Tennessee, and he has the accent to prove it. Gov. Romney is a Bay Stater, the natural enemy of conservatives since at least Michael Dukakis, and probably long before. And Sen. McCain, while an Arizonan, has spent enough time here in the east to feel more “blue” than “red” — with a persona that is increasingly urbane and secular. As such, Thompson enters the race as a candidate that reminds red-staters of their friends, their family members, their neighbors, and, in many cases, themselves. In politics, this is a dynamic that covers many sins. Red-staters will infer from Thompson’s cultural identity that he’s a fellow who “thinks like them.” Fair or not, Thompson will get a pass on many cultural issues that has been given to none of the GOP Big Three. This has already led one Romney supporter to suggest a deal for her man Mitt:
So as a Romney fan, I continue to casually float an early Thompson-Romney ticket. Solves Fred Thompson’s initial money and organization problems. They can get Rudy to be their secretary of Defense. John McCain as ambassador to Iraq (by putting someone of his stature there we emphasize how important we think it is to help Iraq succeed). John Bolton as secretary of State. Pat Toomey for Treasury. Santorum as DOJ. (Yes, I did those last two together on purpose. Permanently make peace over Pennsylvania on the Right.)
I’m thinking on HHS. Who would be PERFECT? I’m coming up with some fun ones, including Phyllis Schlafy.
And, of course, Ponnuru for SCOTUS.
While I don’t necessarily endorse K-Lo’s Cabinet picks (Schlafy?), and while I think Thompson would be better off teaming up with the midwestern Pawlenty, I do agree that Thompson/Romney would be a strong ticket, and I think this demonstrates even more the craving that exists for a red-state conservative. Lots of smart conservatives who know full well the ins and outs of Thompson’s history are predicting seismic activity when he enters. Don’t bet against it.
Oh, and yes, Ponnuru for SCOTUS.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
QUOTE Fred Thompson is the real deal, the closest thing to a natural we’ve had (or are likely to see) since Reagan,” said Kinder, echoing the Reagan/Thompson analogy. He also cites Thompson’s solid conservative credentials as well as his “cross-over appeal.”
In the name of objectivity…whatever accolades you like to accord to Reagan, it has to be conceded that he ran against one of the weakest, least popular, politically damaged presidents in the nation’s history, Jimmy Carter. The oppostion is not quite so anemic here. Say what you like about the Clintons, the right has not fared very well in mano a mano with them.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Thjompson:: What cross-over appeal? Please tell me what blue states Thompson
would carry.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
For everyone looking for more info on Thompson… I posted a HUGE file down at the first blog on this page with a lot of information for those interested, and lots of links to speeches. Be sure to look at his experience in dealing with foreign policy.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
On todays page, I mean. Good to see some more Thompson support Dave
April 10th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
I got my firsts email from Illinois Family Institute naming Thompson as pro-choice and not a social conservative. I was also reading today on the Brody File where Thompson said in 2006 he lines up with Lincoln Chaffee on a majority of things.
Reagan he ain’t.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
National Right to Life Committee on Fred Thompson:
“This morning, I cited reports being promoted by the pro-Romney blog Evangelicals for Mitt suggesting that Fred Thompson ran his two campaigns for Senate in Tennessee as a pro-choicer. Not so, National Right to Life executive co-director Darla St. Martin just told me.
St. Martin said that she went down to Tennessee in 1994 to speak with Thompson personally when he first ran for Senate, and that she determined he was against abortion.
‘I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion,’ St. Martin said. She told me that the group went on to support him in that election, and his record reinforced for her that their determination was correct.
‘He has a consistent voting record that is pro-life,’ she said.
On the NRLC website, they archive their congressional ratings back to 1997, so they include six of his eight years in the Senate. Thompson took the pro-life position on every vote he cast on the abortion issue…”
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6017
April 10th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
This phrase “Reagan Republican” seems to get bantered about with little recognition of the fact that Reagan was not really all that conservative.
Reagan was a Democrat throughout most of his life. Only when the Democrat Party fell under the command and control of ’60s radical secular socialists did Reagan jump ship, claiming the Republican Party as his new home, after the DNC left him and all other pro-American morally conscious capitalist freedom-lovers out in the cold.
Reagan was most conservative in the arena of national security and firm foreign policy. Reagan understood that America was the only nation in the world with the power and moral authority to defend freedom and liberty around the globe, in defense of freedom and liberty here. Reagan commanded respect across the political aisle at home and abroad, and remains one of the most loved U.S. Presidents in U.S. history, even today.
But he was somewhat liberal on social issues. Or, like Thompson, he was at least an anti-federalist, who sought to return private assets and personal liberty to the states and the people at every chance.
- JB Williams, the New Media Journal, March 20, 2007
http://therant.us/staff/williams/03202007.htm
April 10th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Tommy,
Funny that you would quote the Spectator, considering that the Spectator did some research and in the end admitted that Evangelicals for Mitt was right. Thompson DID run as a pro-choicer in both of his Senate campaigns. They have quotes out of the man’s mouth.
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6230
Now of course his voting record is pro-life. It’s the same story for Romney. I’ll welcome a convert to the pro-life cause any day…but I do require that such a convert is honest about where he or she is coming from before they get my vote.
Is Thompson honest?
April 10th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Tommy,
You can cast those votes he cast and still be pro-choice.
Did you see where he said in 94 where he said it was a womens choice?
Did you see he after being Senator where he said he is with Chaffee a majority of times?
April 10th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Like I said, If Thompson said something 15 years ago, so be it. People can evolve. I have NEVER been critical of Romney, McCain or anyone else for changing their views on abortion. Thompson’s voting record speaks for itself on anything regarding Chaffee. Go to the first blog today and look at his ratings and records. that I postd. Read through his speeches. What was the context of the Chaffee quote? I’ve seen a lot of different things said at different times, and a lot are conflicting. A lot of conservatives are supportive Thompson, if not endorsing him. He has the respect of his peers.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
As DaveG mentions cultural identity is paramount. Why do you think Bush got a pass from social conservatives despite his lukewarm support?
He got a pass because he spoke in Texas drawl and mentioned Jesus was his favorite philosopher. Is Rudy, McCain or Mitt going to do that?
No they’re northern non-evangelicals who wouldn’t be taken serious. Meanwhile a candidate like Thompson can appease the right with his cultural affiliation without pandering.
Rudy’s big strike against him is that he is too New York City. If he spoke with a Tennessee accent he’d probably get a pass on abortion or be allowed a graceful flip. But a New Yorker is just assumed to be a pushy liberal. Rudy’s weakness with social conservatives is at least partially mistrust of a ‘yankee’.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
In a database of congressional voting records maintained by the non-partisan Project Vote Smart, Thompson shares the No. 1 spot with a handful of senators who most consistently vote the Republican party line. And in a November 1995 analysis, Vote Smart lists him as having supported Contract With America items 100 percent of the time. So Thompson may be seen as a moderate, but his voting record has made him a darling of the far right. ‘When Thompson was first elected, we were afraid he would prove to be a liberal Republican like Howard Baker,” says John Davies, head of the Tennessee Conservative Union, “but we’ve been extremely pleased with his voting record so far.
Copyright © 2000
The Washington Monthly 1611 Connecticut Avenue. Washington DC. 20009. 202-462-0128
April 10th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
And like I said earlier, that’s from a liberal magazine.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Tommy,
What about something he said in the fall of 2006?
April 10th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Post a link and let me read it, and I’ll give you an answer to the best of my ability.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Jason,
“There are a lot of reasons I support Linc. We agree on most issues, disagree on some. Obviously, keeping control of the Senate is very important. I don’t like the sound of ‘Chairman Kennedy.’”
Your characterization of the quote is flat-out disingenuous. It’s a soundbite for a campaign for a Republican Senator in a contested race with control of the Senate at stake. Chafee, by the way, had ACU ratings of 52 and 49 the two years Thompson and Chafee served together.
The far right of the party made Chafee out to be some Ted Kennedy clone, which he wasn’t. Now we have Shelden Whitehouse casting 100% of his votes with Ted Kennedy instead of Chafee casting 50-60% of his votes for him. Quite frankly I wish more Republicans had listened to Thompson.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
(and to be clear, I’m not trying to threadjack into a discussion of the merits of primary-ing Chafee. I just can’t say that cutting soundbites for Chafee isn’t an indication that Thompson is a closet hippie).
April 10th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
That’s a clear misrepresentation of Thompson, and honestly, a low blow. Have I said anything to misrepresent your candidate? Nope. I would hope you had the same respect for others.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Primary-ing Chafee was stupid, but he would have lost anyway. Bob Ehrlich lost in Maryland with a strong approval rating. The Iraq war just gave too many voters an itch to vote against us. Corruption and overspending helped to depress our turnout at the same time.
Fred did campaign for Corker and that appeared to work. It’s too bad he couldn’t have ventured into Missouri or Virginia. A few votes in either would have kept the Senate Republican.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
econ grad:
It worked wonders for Corker, who was a weaker candidate than Ford.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
The Thompson ad for Corker was everywhere, and that’s when Corker’s support started to rise (not saying it was solely Thompson’s support, but that was a huge factor)
April 10th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
“I got my firsts email from Illinois Family Institute naming Thompson as pro-choice and not a social conservative.”
Ha!! I knew it. I’m only surprised it took that long!
April 10th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
What exactly did he line up with Chaffee on?
April 10th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Sean,
I think I was bing pretty upfront about the quote.
People can read about it here.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/134774.aspx
Like it or not Thompson will have to deal with this stuff and it will get worse I am sure. Right now he is enjoying the honeymoon Rudy enjoyed only a month ago.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Fred’s record speaks for itself. Anyone with any amount of knowledge of his positions knows where he stands on issues. If you guys buy it when an IL group says that after all the national groups have given him pretty much perfect ratings. Why don’t you ask a TN group about his abortion record, or right to life, or the NARR, or the fact that NARAL rated him with only nine other Republicans with an F grade, or the planned parenthood rating of 0%?
April 10th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Let’s see here. Republicans in danger of losing Senate. What do they do? They support other Republicans, since keeping control of the Senate was a MAJOR priority.
Why don’t you compare the voting records and see for yourselves. Look up Chaffee’s record, and then look up Thompson’s record, and you can see for yourselves. I’m not being dishonest, and am completely confident Thompson can deal with attacks a lot better than I can.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
One last thing before I call it a night: If Thompson’s a moderate in disguise, then why has J.C. Watts already endorsed him, and vouched for Thompson’s record?
April 11th, 2007 at 12:43 am
McCains campaign is in trouble, despite gallons of endorsements. And Romney’s conservative credentials despite lots of conservative endorsements from the likes of DeMint, Hatch, etc.
i.e. Endorsements are irrelevant.
April 11th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Jay:
I’m not that big about endorsements either. My point is that most of the conservatives are very receptive to a Thompson ticket. Most of his former coworkers would be quite familiar with his positions, and if he was liberal, I think they would have been vocal about it.
April 11th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Jason, I just got an email back from Brody. You are taking his article out of context.
April 11th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
GIULIANI-STEELE WILL BE THE ‘08 TICKET!