The Candidates
Steve Bainbridge echoes my feelings on Fred Thompson — that on paper, he’d make a darned good Republican president:
Here’s why I’m happy:
* The last President I really liked also was a former actor
* Lifetime 86 rating from the American Conservative Union - solid but not rigidly conservative.
* Lifetime 5 rating from Americans for Democratic Action, so he’ll really annoy the far left.
* Unlike say Hillary or Romney, he hasn’t been planning to run for President ever since s/he got elected President of the 9th Grade class and the senior football players ran his/her underwear up the flagpole, as illustrated by his famous comment that “After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood.”
* “With iris traditional Southern values, his common-sense reform goals, and his folksy demeanor, “Ol’ Fred,” as the senator sometimes refers to himself, puts a populist face on a party struggling with an elitist image. Factor in Thompson’s media savvy, and you have the makings of a political icon. You have, in fact, the makings of another Ronald Reagan.” (Link)
* Unlike Romney or Edwards, he doesn’t look like a combination of a ken Doll and a local TV weatherman. “Americans are easily starstruck, and Thompson, frankly, looks the part of a president.” (link)
* He bugs James Dobson, who bugs me.
* There’s the Kung Fu case for him.
* He’s got a great voice, which will be perfect for things like the SOTU.
* He smokes cigars.
I think what the professor is saying is that Fred Thompson is both a real person and a real conservative, and considering that most politicians are neither, he’s a breath of fresh air. But over the past few months, I’ve grown more and more hesitant to make him our nominee, as I just don’t think he’s got the fire in the belly to win the general election. My evolution on the subject of FDT took place as I began to listen to the senator’s speeches, at which point I realized that Fred Thompson the politician is not, in fact, the dude from Days of Thunder or Law and Order. And absent that charm and larger than life personality, what’s left other than just another southern senator who will probably remind non-southerners of Bush, whose approval rating is currently under 30 percent? As such, I’m beginning to agree that Thompson may be another Wes Clark:
I don’t have time to write a long post on this, but I wanted to get this out there before someone else beat me to it: Fred Thompson is to the Republicans in ‘08 as Wes Clark was to the Democrats in ‘04. In other words, the highpoint of his campaign will be the day he gets in the race, because once he’s a serious candidate–and not just the fevered daydream of a dissatisfied base–voters will realize he’s not all that. Remember, you heard it here first. And if Thompson doesn’t flame out and actually goes on to win the GOP nomination and (gulp) the White House, well, forget I ever wrote this.
Now before you flame me, Thompson supporters, consider the analogy in its appropriate context. In 2004, Democrats were looking for a Scoop Jackson liberal — an unapologetic leftist who was also tough and convincing on foreign policy. On paper, Wes Clark fit the bill. Once he hit the stump, it became clear his political instincts were nonexistent, and he fizzled. But his CV kept him in the race long enough to ensure that a significant portion of the anti-Kerry vote was kept from John Edwards, ensuring that the frontrunner won the day. In 2008, Republicans are looking for a Reagan conservative — an unapologetic conservative who is also able to communicate conservatism to swing voters and win moderate and centrist votes. On paper, Thompson fits the bill. But if, as I suspect, he hits the stump without bringing along his on-camera persona, he will fail to energize anyone except for the “Rudy McRomney” types. Like Clark, he won’t be able to actually win any primaries. But also like Clark, he has the potential to help the frontrunner, in this case, Rudy, by ensuring that no single conservative alternative emerges to face him in the later primaries. It wouldn’t be hard to imagine Rudy winning a series of 40% pluralities in the later primaries against Romney and Thompson, with the remaining 60% divided evenly between the latter candidates. In this scenario, Romney plays the Edwards role from 2004 and McCain, like Lieberman, never gets the McMentum going in Iowa and New Hampshire and is forced to drop out early.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:11 pm
The glaring difference between Thompson and Clarke is that Thompson has the campaign experience. Clarke had no prior record to rely on, Thompson does. Clarke had no real experience in politics, Thompson does.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:14 pm
DaveG, how is Rudy supposed to “ensure that no single conservative alternative emerges to face him in the later primaries”? His strategy to win depends on everyone else screwing up. Not a good place to be.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Listening to the Orange County speech is not exactly the best way to gauge him. Watch some of his debate performances. Remember, he’s also considered one of the best lawyers in America during his heyday. Also, check out his campaign ads from 1994, and though I’m not a big fan of letting ads decide for me, they show some of his strengths in front of the camera.
youtube.com/watch?v=jzcvtZ0mjV4
youtube.com/watch?v=OqqpILUAvEo
May 31st, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Murphy,
It’s Thompson who will ensure that no single conservative contender faces Rudy one on one. FDT will do this by being a solid choice for the “No Rudy McRomney” voters but not convincing enough to make the sale to a majority of Republicans.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Tommy,
Where is video of his debates?
May 31st, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Jason: Currently in my VHS collection. We’re looking for someone to put them on the net.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Strange… It seems that Dave and I have done a complete 180 with each other on FDT. Dave is starting to sour on him, and I am more bullish on FDT than I have ever been.
I can just see FDT ending up winning SC, and then going on to win AL, TN, WV, GA, OK, NC, & TX on Super Duper Tuesday.
But for the record, when Dave and I have disagreed, Dave has always been right so far.
May 31st, 2007 at 6:01 pm
To quote what Tweety Matthews just said on TV:
“Will Hillary try her fake southern accent with this guy on stage?”
May 31st, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Fred hasn’t done anything significantly inside or outside of politics. We don’t have the same issues that Reagan faced. Today we have more complex and diverse issues that require someone who is more than folksy and/or conservative. We need someone who has experience in successfully leading, governing and turning things around. Fred isn’t it. Point me to someone to take on our issues. Please!
May 31st, 2007 at 6:25 pm
“Fred hasn’t done anything significantly inside or outside of politics.”
I take it you’re not very educated with Thompson. He was ranked as one of the 100 Best Lawyers in America. He led the investigation that brought down the most corrupt administration in Tennessee history. He’s chairman of the State Department’s International Security Board. He also played one of the lead roles in the Watergate investigation. Do some research. It might not be the same thing as what you’re looking for. But to claim he’s done nothing outside of politics is uninformed.
May 31st, 2007 at 6:44 pm
It wouldn’t be hard to imagine Rudy winning a series of 40% pluralities in the later primaries against Romney and Thompson, with the remaining 60% divided evenly between the latter candidates.
Agreed. Not inevitable, but there’s a realistic probability.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:00 pm
I think we will know by Ames whether FDT is in it to win or if he is either hoping to be the VP or maybe just satisfying his power hungry wife.
If he doesn’t compete (compete, not win) at Ames I don’t think he will be able to win the nomination because he won’t be able to win Iowa and if he loses both Iowa and New Hampshire I think the winner of those two states will be able to catch him in South Carolina.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Also, the comparison to Kerry doesn’t work for a bunch of reasons.
Kerry never polled above the mid-teens until after he won Iowa. Gephardt was the front-runner until Dean passed him, Kerry was never expected to win.
Kerry had the same position on every important issue as the entire liberal moonbat base, so it was easy for him to pick up support after winning Iowa.
Kerry put all his eggs in the Iowa/NH baskets and by so doing was able to win Iowa despite being in single digits in the national polls just before Iowa. His victory vaulted him all the way to nearly 50% which gave him clean sailing the rest of the way.
Why did Kerry get so much support after winning Iowa? Because the supporters from every candidate but John Edwards were looking to jump ship and Kerry’s boat looked like the best bet. Dean’s hooooaaaaaaaaaah!!!! moment also helped ensure New Hampshire wouldn’t even be close.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Yes, I was aware of Thompson’s achievements and I didn’t mean to minimize them either. Don’t get me wrong, if Thompson is the GOP candidate, I will vote for him in the General. However, I was looking for someone with more national achievements, although I don’t know if any of the candidates rise to that level. ( maybe Rudy’s 911, Romney’s olympics etc). If Thompson had been tapped to head Katrina relief and he turned things around, I would be impressed and probably take a more serious look. However, I don’t see that happening. (getting tapped or even turning it around). He just doesn’t seem too proactive to me, maybe that will change as I see him in some of the debates and hear more about him.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Steve Bainbridge said, “He smokes cigars.” In this day and age
any politician who smokes is not showing the intellectual matter
which separates us from apes. Health Care is a nation issue and
we do not need a leader who can not accept proven data. Fred
must be living a virtual actor’s life. Does the California
governor still smoke cigars? Maybe Hollywood glamorizes this
behavior but it is a seriously idiotic example to set for our
youth.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:34 pm
“Steve Bainbridge said, “He smokes cigars.” In this day and age
any politician who smokes is not showing the intellectual matter
which separates us from apes. Health Care is a nation issue and
we do not need a leader who can not accept proven data”
I dip and smoke. It’s my life. And I sure as hell don’t want the Government telling me how to live it. Don’t tell me you’re one of those who wants all movies rated R because somebody smokes in them.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Tommy,
I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess you don’t want the government prohibiting you from smoking. But what are your thoughts on the government actively encouraging smokers to quit and encouraging young people never to start?
And I’m really just tossing ideas around, but what are your thoughts on an insurance company removing coverage of self-inflicted illnesses like lung cancer?
Not trying to pick on you…just curious about your thoughts given that this kind of stuff probably hits closer to home for you than for me.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Why is it the government’s job to encourage people not to smoke/start?
May 31st, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Nusrat,
Not saying it’s the government’s job. But I can easily see why the government has an interest in promoting healthier lifestyles in its citizenry.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Murphy #17
I think that if people smoke, people smoke. I have no problems with people educating to ill affects, but I’m also from the tobacco belt, so its a little different. I take exception when people are judged over it. I don’t have a problem with higher rates necessarily for smokers, but dropping them is a little extreme.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:03 pm
FDT’s speeches have been underwhelming and he won’t talk to reporters or people in attendance. His claim to fame is You Tube with a producer and two camermen and a script when he went after Michael Moore to take the spotlight off the debate. He is a liteweight and the rest of the field would have him for lunch in a debate. He plays a good ole boy but that is not going to fly in most of the Country. A lot of Republicans are fed up with the social conservatives losing electiona and are ready for a change where not everyone in the GOP has to agree on every issue.
FDT left the Senate by his own words he was bored to go back to acting. Being pushed by his wife and Frist to run for President. Don’t see the big states on 5 Feb voting for a southerner with no executive experience and by all accounts not the most energetic person which is why he doesn’t want to run a normal campaign but wants to run it on the Internet. What would he do in the WH, talk to foreign leaders on the Internet and not travel or send his wife.
He looks and sounds old with no energy. Don’t see Ohio going for FDT at all.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:34 pm
I think health care would be drastically improved if we adjusted plans and prices to control for those illnesses which are traditionally brought about by lifestyle choices, and those brought about by sheer bad luck. Most forms of cancer, diagnostic tests, preventive care, diabetes’, etc would be covered, while illnesses like lung cancer, heart disease, and the like, would be either optional or more expensive or both. Just an idea.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Tommy,
No, I never meant to suggest dropping smokers from insurance plans. I meant to make lifestyle choices reflected in the pricing of coverage, as per Matt’s #21.
Seems to me that there could be some great improvements made with insurance companies taking the lead. I’m not sure why they don’t. If a provider offered me an equivalent plan for 30% less cost (provided I meet certain health standards), I’d be all over that.
As for “judging” smokers, or demonizing them over their habit, I think we agree(?). Love the sinner, hate the sin kind of thing…
May 31st, 2007 at 10:15 pm
I pretty much agree eith adjusting pricing. That’s what I meant by saying “higher rates for smokers”. I think that would be a fair way to approach it.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:16 pm
BREAKING NEWS:
I know this is way off topic but it made me laugh. I was channel-surfing and passed by the 700 Club. I don’t normally watch it, but they were doing a bit on Fred Thompson. After the Thompson segment they go back to Pat Robertson. He mentions something about Thompson being an exciting candidate, and then, out of nowhere: “The problem is that he’s going to have a tough time catching up to GEORGE Romney in fundraising.” (My emphasis) Pat! Still living in the sixtys? I winced at first and then just couldn’t stop laughing! Wait an hour or two and I bet it’ll be on YouTube. Again, I know it’s off topic but highly amusing.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:38 pm
He was ranked as one of the 100 Best Lawyers in America.
Do you know by who and when, Tommy? I have no reason to think you’re wrong, cuz Fred! seems to have done some impressive lawyering back in the day, but I’d like to track this down a little.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I don’t hold with smoking but I don’t care if Fred! smokes cigars.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Hold on a minute Henry, I have to look it up.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
“Seeking public office for the first time, Fred Thompson was elected U.S. Senator from Tennessee in 1994. A native of Lawrenceburg, Senator Thompson graduated from Memphis State University and received a law degree from Vanderbilt University.
He practiced general law until 1969, when he was named Assistant U.S. Attorney for Middle Tennessee. While in this post, he also served as Middle Tennessee campaign manager for the U.S. Senate campaign of Howard Baker. After that election, he was asked by Senator Baker to serve as minority counsel on the Senate Watergate Committee. He later returned to private practice and wrote a book about his Watergate experiences, At That Point in Time. In 1977, Senator Thompson took on the case of Marie Ragghianti, who had been fired from her job as Chairman of the Parole Board by Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton for questioning his early-release decision for prison inmates. He and Mrs. Ragghianti helped to expose a clemency-for-cash scandal that eventually brought down the Blanton administration. The case was the subject of a book and a film in which the senator was asked to play himself. He went on to portray authority figures in many television productions and in 17 films, including In the Line of Fire, Cape Fear, and Hunt for Red October. He also continued to practice law and maintained offices in Nashville and Washington. Congress called on him to serve as Special Counsel to the U.S. Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees, and he is listed in Naifeh and Smith’s book, The Best Lawyers in America.”
http://artemis.osti.gov/coninfo/other.html
May 31st, 2007 at 11:05 pm
One great source of information, but hard to track down, is his own book, At That Point in Time, which details his part in the Watergate Investigation. He wrote it in 1975 or so, and hopefully, it will come back in print, since he is running. I got my copy for about $50 on Amazon, but maybe ebay has it cheaper.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:33 am
Tommy,
For me Thompson’s three weakest areas are:
1. Lack of experience- being one of the 100 best lawyers means there are 99 others. Being able to litigate well does not qualify one to run an entire branch of government. I haven’t ofund anything the relegates him above the average senator. HE accounted for 1% of total legislation while he was in office. He sat on a couple important commitees, adding to his knowledge, but so have many many senetors.
2. Folksy Southern talk- not bad just not good. I don’t personally mind it, but he will be portrayed as a Bush Patsy come generals if he gets that far.
3. The fact that half of his supporters have no real idea why they like him. I have posted the question about what are Thompson’s qualifications all over the net; here, Redstate, Free Republic. The only person who has attempted to answer the question is you. At redstate no one really knows why he is qualified other than he has a folksy southern charm and voted well.
Thompson’s strongest areas are:
1. Well liked within certain establishments: needs no explanations
2. Honest straight talker- I think. He seems to be so.
3. Those who know him love him. It’s obvious.
So that’s where I put Thompson. I know I am biased but I haven’t seen him tackle any certain issue. He has spent more time on Michael Moor than he has this immigration debate and Iraq.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:35 am
But I am interested in his debate videos. You could take them to a transfer place and get them on DVD. Then just put them on You Tube. It would probably be $50. I’ll send the money if it helps.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Buckeyefan…are you in Ohio?