So says WaPo:
Fred Thompson fervently backed the Iraq war, railed against an expanding federal government, took stands that occasionally annoyed his party and rarely spoke about his views on social issues during his tenure as a senator from Tennessee or in his writings and speeches since leaving office.
In short, the man some in the GOP are touting as a dream candidate has often sounded like the presidential hopeful many of them seem ready to dismiss: Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).
With some in the party clamoring for an alternative to their current field of presidential contenders and Thompson’s allies hinting strongly that he will run, 400 conservatives flocked to Newport Beach, Calif., on Friday night to hear the actor-turned-politician-turned-actor address the annual dinner of the Lincoln Club of Orange County, a group that credits itself with pushing Ronald Reagan to run for governor of California in the 1960s. Thompson delivered a vision of cutting taxes, reducing the size of government, overhauling Social Security and staying in Iraq until “there is some semblance of stability.”
He also called for “reform-minded, change-minded leaders,” a profile that McCain — whom Thompson described as “a man of the highest integrity and courage” in 1999 when he co-chaired the Arizonan’s presidential run — has worked hard to lay claim to over the past decade. Thompson was one of only four GOP senators to back McCain’s bid in 2000, and a former aide to the Tennessean said McCain “was far and away his best friend in the Senate.”
…
Thompson, while he was in Congress, earned a reputation as a maverick. “He’s not predictable,” said Tom Ingram, who was a top adviser in Thompson’s 1994 campaign and now serves as chief of staff for Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). Conservatives may be drawn to Thompson’s lonely effort in the Senate to reduce the role of the federal government. He opposed bills providing funding for local police departments to buy bulletproof vests and was the only vote in the Senate against a 1997 bill that would have shielded volunteers from liability suits; he argued that both were instances of the federal government reaching into areas that should be restricted to states.
In a recent column on the National Review’s Web site, he bragged about occasionally losing 99 to 1 on votes because of his federalist views.
Read the whole thing. One of the reasons I’ve been less bearish than some about Thompson’s chances in the general is that ever since I studied his record, I’ve felt that he’s far more of a Phil Gramm/John McCain Republican than a Bush Republican. We know how popular McCain is in states like Michigan; perhaps Fred would do well in those same purple states given his comparable positions.
May 6th, 2007 at 10:52 am
I agree DaveG. One of the reasons I’ve warmed up to Thompson in recent weeks, is because I see him as basically a younger version John McCain, the man who brought me into the Republican Party. But one who, due to his southern heritage, and the lack of a CCA in the minds of many Republicans, might make conservatives more comfortable with is candidacy. Let’s not kid ourselves here. A man who was the second Republican sponor of McCain/Feingold (after only McCain himself), years before support had coalesced, and while sterling conservatives like Susan Collins still weren’t sure if they were going to sign up can’t, with a straight face, be considered a “conservative savior”.
May 6th, 2007 at 10:52 am
The only problem I see with your analysis is that McCain also has decades of experience and “War Hero” status. Being a war hero is a big deal and I think it really gets him a lot of votes.
Thompson on the other hand is only popular because people think he is the only “true conservative”, not because he is similar to McCain. I don’t think being a Maverick is the image FDT wants out there. It is something that could potentially help him in general election, but if he gets that far he will have already defined himself as a conservative, because that is his only chance to win the primary.
FDT reminds me of Giuliani. If it weren’t for Law and Order nobody would be talking about Thompson, just as if it weren’t for 9/11 nobody would be talking about Giuliani. Both are defined by those personas, (Rudy as “America’s Mayor and Fred as a “Tough Prosecutor”) which makes them very vulnerable because their negatives have the potential to soar when the campaign starts in earnest.
May 6th, 2007 at 11:42 am
“…makes them very vulnerable because their negatives have the potential to soar when the campaign starts in earnest.” -dskinner11
I’ve always felt this about Giuliani. Once he (hypothetically) locks up the nomination all you will see in the MSM is stories about his private life, which let’s face it, is very very ugly.
Thompson I know little about. Stories like this one from DaveG, along with multiple stories about his tendency to buck the GOP a la McCain, make me skeptical that Thompson is some conservative savior with electability.
The way this thing is going, I’m going to be right back where I was in 2000; voting McCain.
May 6th, 2007 at 11:49 am
I didn’t make it very clear; The reason I quoted you dskinner is because I think you are very correct with that statement. All I hear from Giuliani supporters is electability electability electability. Ironically, I don’t think he’s very electable at all. Once the Dems and their cohorts in the media take off with Giuliani’s personal life, his negatives, as you said, have the potential to soar and make him a disasterous candidate.
May 6th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
dskinner11 (in #2), the potential Giuliani negatives that can be exploited, I agree, are numerous and substantial and have been enumerated plenty. But I don’t see how you come to the conclusion that Fred Thompson has a similar degree of vulnerability. Such a claim seems to be of the type that are so typical around here from supporters of another candidate who just throw accusations out when another candidate threatens their guy.
I also think that while FDT certainly needs to prove himself out on the presidential hustings, to conclude that his only claim to fame is “Law and Order” is a similarly weak and tendentious smear. The man was a U.S. Senator for two terms and served as the Watergate Committee chief minority counsel (and FDT wrote a book about the latter experience, “At That Point In Time”) as well as in the U.S. Attorney’s office – and all of that adds up to significant government experience.
May 6th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
How personal life issues are viewed by the electorate may be unpredictable, but where is your recent evidence that having had and presumably moved beyond a merely messy personal life (as opposed to an ongoing personal catastrophe) has destroyed an otherwise viable politician? Is it even necessary to bring up the great finger-wagging example of an extremely personally messy politician who maintained and even increased his popularity after massive public (re-)exposure? In Giuliani’s case, further, theoretical character issues are nullified by a combination of long familiarity and post-9/11 leadership. In other words, people rightly or wrongly believe that they know Giuliani, warts and all. So what if things got ugly with what’s-her-name, or if he put on a dress for a joke? He’s still a beloved uncle you’d gladly take in a game with, and would trust when it really matters.
May 6th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
CK MacLeod (in #6), the tag line from Giuliani supporters that voters know all about his weaknesses and largely believe his strengths overcome them is a dog that won’t hunt.
First of all, in the latest national poll from Quinnipiac University, 20% of voters said they did not have enough information to assess favorability, one way or the other, when it comes to Giuliani.
Secondly, I see no evidence that some of the more controversial aspects of the Mayor’s tenure and personal life are well known across the spectrum. I think that is much more hope than fact on the part of Giuliani supporters. How many voters who claim to know all about Giuliani can actually identify Cristyne Lategano?
Thirdly, while Giuliani supporters want to give him the nomination by acclimation right now based on what I think are dubious conclusions as to what voters know about the entirety of his record, why don’t we see how he does in a campaign when the media and opponents bring these weaknesses to the front? Nobody I know believes Giuliani did well at the debate the other night in answering abortion questions – and we are going to have eight more months of such scrutiny before anyone votes in a way that actually selects delegates to the Republican National Convention.
Republican voters had better vet all of their presidential candidates completely (which is an important function of primary campaigns) rather than have the Democrats reveal and exploit Republican nominee vulnerabilities in November of 2008.
May 6th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
If Fred Thompson was as akin to John McCain as DaveG suggests then, especially given how close they are as friends, the former would not be entering this race.
The comparison is a complete stretch given that they are Republicans and by definition have a lot in common.
But, then again, it is a piece by the Washington Post, so what do you expect?
For example, FDT is much more of a tax cut advocate than McCain; FDT has moved away from McCain-Feingold while its sponsor has not; temperamentally (which is a crucial aspect of this race) they could not be more different in how they work and interact with others; FDT is from the Bible Belt and has never and would never criticize Christian conservatives the way McCain did in 2000; and Thompson has been a vigorous partisan all his life in contrast to a McCain who considered becoming a Democrat in 2001 and 2004.
McCain is an eccentric conservative; FDT is a mainstream Reagan conservative.
May 6th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Republius,
Stop repeating that slander about McCain considering becoming a Democrat. No one, Democrat or otherwise, claims that McCain considered becoming a Democrat. Instead, there are reports that he considered becoming an independent that’d caucus with Democrats in 2001, and a member of a psedo-bipartisan ticket with Kerry in 2004. Becoming an independent is quite different from becoming a Democrat, even if the practical effects would have been the same.
May 6th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I guess this explains why I’ve been feeling as “iffy” about Thompson as I have been about McCain.
May 6th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Republius, I’m not making the argument that voters already know about his weaknesses, I’m arguing that they’re not very inclined to get into his personal life, and, if forced to do so, they’re not disposed to take them very seriously.
Personally, I’m not at all interested in seeing Giuliani receive the nomination by acclimation, and, though I’d support him without a second thought over any of the Democrats, I could say the same thing for almost all of the other Republican candidates. I’m interested in seeing Rudy sort things out against the others, and am inclined to support whoever hones his message most effectively and emerges as the best candidate. On that note, I’ve been a bit disappointed with Rudy’s recent performance, but I see all the candidates, including the main non-candidate candidate, as still in a tuning-up stage, and I find the frequent declarations that so-and-so’s campaign has fallen apart to be laughable. A few weeks ago, McCain was supposed to be completely out of it. I didn’t think that was the case then, and I think it’s even less so now.
I also don’t see how Giuliani would ever be seen to have “done well” with abortion questions by those who consider abortion an issue on the same level as slavery or genocide, for which only an aggressive and uncompromising pro-life position would be acceptable. These same positions, if more widely known, and in contrast to the messy love life stuff, are more likely to help Rudy with the general electorate than harm him, even if they’d obviously be likely to cost him in the Republican base.
May 6th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
How can you say that Thompson promotes smaller government when he wants to ban flag burning?
May 6th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
CK MacLeod (#11), the argument that voters won’t and shouldn’t want to get into the personal lives of candidates with respect to Giuliani is the same argument supporters of Bill Clinton made during impeachment. If having an affair with your Communications Director while in high office and married or having sex with an intern in the Oval Office are not incidents of interest to the American voter then surely all is lost.
I believe those are reckless acts that show a paucity of judgment and character. And I hope we can agree that judgment and character should be an integral part of a president.
May 6th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Gee, Matt (in #9), I congratulate you for a passion and devotion to McCain that allows you to rationalize that becoming an Independent and caucusing with Democrats and joining a Democrat presidential ticket are meaningfully different from considering becoming a Democrat.
We could throw in the Gang of 14 episode, as well.
Okay, in an effort to make you feel better, let’s just say that McCain considered eschewing and abandoning the Republican Party in 2001 and 2004.
So much for the Straight Talk Express, at least among McCain supporters. More like the Spin Talk Express.
Just more delusional argumentation from a rabid supporter. The bottom line is that McCain cannot be trusted by Republican voters.
May 6th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Dave,
I think you forget one of the keys to McCain’s popularity, his personality and life story. You of all people should know that people (largely) don’t vote based on issues. As I’ve long maintained, it’s exactly McCain’s maverick reputation that makes him so popular among independents and moderates. But that very same maverick streak makes him extremely vulnerable to a challenge from the right. Fred Thompson, while having many similar positions as McCain, is running as the conservative savior that doesn’t have any of the baggage as McCain. So conversely, Fred Thompson is more likely to be swooned over by the GOP but he has much less of a chance to appeal to independents and moderates in key swing states.
May 6th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I’m not a McCain supporter Republius, something which I can’t imagine you wouldn’t know (I’ve been posting here daily since November). I’m a Romney supporter, with Fred as my number 2.
May 6th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Republius, personally I think there’s a big difference between having an affair with a subordinate half your age and then lying about it publically and also while under oath, and having an affair with another adult during the late stages of a failing marriage and dealing with the situation more or less forthrightly, but we’ll just have to disagree about what the American voter’s possible lack of interest in either case – lack of political as opposed to prurient interest – has to say about whether or not “all is lost.”
Apparently, you’ve taken a lot of interest in Rudy’s personal life. I confess I haven’t, and I’ll simply take it on faith that a hostile reading of what’s known can put Rudy in an extremely unflattering light, but I stand by my prior analysis, which you’ve come close to conceding. I agree that judgment and character matter, but I believe there are more, and more important, dimensions to judgment and character than who you are or aren’t sleeping with and when and where. Throughout human history, there have been many great leaders whose personal lives have been rather worse than spotless. Sometimes, it almost seems like a qualification for the job, though I think it’s more likely it’s part of being a human being on earth.
May 6th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Does anyone else here not give a damn about a candidate’s personal life? It’s totally irrelevant to the office! “Gee, Rudy wants to reduce the scope of government and cut taxes, but…he did live with a gay couple for a little bit!” Who cares?! (Lying about it under oath is another matter entirely.)
May 6th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Republius,
Not only did McCain never consider abandoning the Republican party (this is the second time you buy into DNC talking points!) but the fact that you called Matt a McCain supporter seriously diminishes your credibility in my eyes.
It seems that you had a unbiased attitude to “hold the Big Three’s feet to the fire” but in reality that was just a cover until Fred Thompson came in. If you’re going to attack any of the candidates, make sure you have your facts straight.
May 6th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Let me clarify my earlier statement. I am not saying that FDT has a bunch of negatives that nobody is talking about, but he might. As soon as he jumps in and gets vetted I will feel much better because I think either as President or VP, he has the best chance of anyone to be on the GOP ticket.
I do believe that even if he doesn’t have any “Giuliani like” skeletons he will have some positions or statements that people won’t like. That will inevitably lower Thompson’s numbers and he will have to campaign hard to maintain support and climb in the polls. Right now Romney and McCain are being hard in the media and blogosphere, but they are staying in the race and have arguably they have the most momentum because they have a good organization and they are outworking Giuliani.