The Candidates
Featured Archives
(For the record, this Southerner leans to Mitt, a Yankee.)
Hugh Hewitt wondered aloud on his radio show this week if Fred Thompson might not be a good GOP nominee for President because the country “might not want another slow talking Southerner after Bush.” He’s not the only GOP commentator I have heard express this sentiment.
Every time I hear someone say this, I have to wonder if the person saying it is projecting their own anti-southern bigotry onto the American public or if their really is a large bloc of voters that would base their vote on where someone is from and/or how fast they talk.
It was especially interesting for Ohiophile Hewitt to say this given that he accuses anyone of bigotry that thinks Romney’s religion is relevant to their decision whether to support him for President.
Since I started blogging at Redstate three years ago and since my conservative epiphany in 2000 I can say that the biggest disappointment I have had with some conservatives in the blogosphere is the amount of anti-southern bigotry I have seen. I have even come to have a superiority complex on all things regional given that I have never known a Southerner that would not vote for someone because they were not from the South. I guess we developed this superiority during the formative Civil Rights years!
Or maybe we base our votes on relevant information? Like their policies, duh? Character?
Folks, voters vote on issues, character and leadership. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are all from the South. Bush kills terrorists. The other guys that talk slow appeased them. Bush cut taxes. The others from Dixie raised them. Bush picks good judges.
Clinton put a feminist on the court. Carter lusted in his heart.
Clinton lusted all over the carpet and Bush is faithful to his wife.
Southern Diversity. (Except on immigration, all three would sell out the country)
Voters will not be “reminded” of Bush if Thompson advocates border security first, cuts in government spending and delivers lines like a fine actor from Law and Order.
Where a candidate is from is irrelevant at the top of the ticket.If it is relevant to you, look in the mirror.
Mike DeVine
Op-Ed Columnist The Charlotte Observer
Blogs as Gamecock at www.redstate.com, and www.race42008.com and is Legal Editor for http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com and http://thehinzsightreport.com/.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:00 am
Advocate: “X has an advantage because he is a one-legged tap-dancer, and our last two Presidents were one-legged tap-dancers. This proves people prefer one-legged tap-dancers as President.”
Adversary: “People are tired of one-legged tap-dancers. The novelty has worn off. Besides, everyone is begging for a change after our current President, and ‘X’ being a one-legged tap-dancer will only remind people of the incumbant.”
Is Adversary being an anti-one-legged-tap-dancer bigot? I can certainly see why other one-legged tap-dancers might think so. However, in this case he is mainly reacting to the argument that being a one-legged tap-dancer gives X a ‘leg-up’ on the competition.
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:39 am
I was a big believer in the anti-southern bigotry that could show up in this next election due to Bush (which is funny since hes really not a “southerner”). I do think it will exist but maybe not to the extent many of us believe.
The real issue may not be how FDT is similar to Bush in his southern characteristics, but how similar he, and for that matter the rest of the GOP candidates, will be to Bush on Iraq. If a southerner came along that could convince the moderate part of the electorate they can handle Iraq in a more competent fashion then I think they would give him the nod. So far I haven’t heard any candidate so that has done this…so far its all been we need to support the president which isn’t going to be good enough in a general election…its early though…who knows we may be out of iraq before the 2008 elections anyway.
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 am
Mark
Good one!
I guess I haven’t seen the “advantage” or “leg up” argument being at the base of some of the anti-Southern candidate comments, but that may very well be an underlying resentment now that I think about it. I wish you would explain more what you mean by the leg up though. Do you mean that Southerners have an advantage due to regional block voting in primaries?
Being from a place notorious for regional pride, I guess I have to have some sympathy for non-southerners who would like to have a nominee from their neck of the woods.
The bottom line for me is policy and character. I don’t care where they are from. The novelty of those qualities never wears out.
Now if we could just get some good policies!
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:57 am
Gamecock,
I think Southerners absolutely have an advantage in the GOP nominating process. You need look no further then George Allen and now Fred Thompson. In party with people like Mike Pence, Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, Jo
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:03 am
Eh…
Gamecock,
I think Southerners absolutely have an advantage in the GOP nominating process. You need look no further then George Allen and now Fred Thompson. In party with people like Mike Pence, Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romneyand Jon Kyl, the most characteristically Southern, goold old boy candidate like Allen, would be propped up into the top tier, before the race had even begun (and actively urged to run), is nothing short of lunacy. Allen was and is a joke. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity could have seen that. But, if it weren’t for Maccacca, Romney’s candidacy would likely have been vamoosed by Allenn, and the stumbles of Giuliani and McCain would have been much more damaging had people had Allen to flee to (while they still have reservations about Romney).
Does anyone honestly think that if Fred Thompson was from New Jersey, he’d be going ANYWHERE? Because, I think it takes an awful lot of turning the other way to realize that it’s entirely absurd for a candidate with 50% name recognition to jump into the top tier without doing anything, and could only occur if people were voting based on something surfacey.
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:05 am
To not realize*
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:07 am
We are looking at two sets of populations. The people within GOP itself, and the some of the general population. The GOP pretty much is tight with the south, and trying to do something different about this relationship is a party suicide (Rudy, this is a no-no!). I think we here in the party do not have any problem with the Southerners running for the presidency. In fact, I think it is almost required that one of the ticket members would be a Southerner.
However, it is not the same story for the some of the general population. Some of them do have the perceptive that the infamous southern hospitality may not be the most appropriate at the present time due to dangers on all fronts. They want someone who would be tough (Rudy, here is your hook!). Again, this is the initial respond of some people. But then, we also have the “meek” folks (liberals with their wife-beating symtoms). I think these two groups would mostly cancel out each other.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:22 am
Gamecock,
I think anything that you can do to separate yourself from your competition is a good thing. Looking at the current GOP field, just what does Fred Thompson have to distinguish himself from the pack?
“True Conservative”? Who decides what is a true conservative? The phrase has as many meanings as there are people using it. It’s like the term “True Republican”. This is why I never use the word RINO to describe anybody except maybe Lincoln Chaffee, and he is gone.
“Top lawyer”? As a candidate for Attorney General, that would be a definite advantage, but as President? Given the antipathy the general public has towards lawyers, I suspect this is a two edged sword.
“Senator”? So is McCain. So are the three top Democrat candidates.
So what should Fred Thompson and his supporters do to separate him from the pack?
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:45 am
I think we should be avoiding legislators as our nominee due to the last half-century of history. Executives get elected over legislators, time and time again. The Democrats will almost certainly nominate a senator.
We’ve got two strong executives at the top of the pack: Romney and Giuliani. We need one of them. A lack of voting history is phenomenally important.
As for this Southern bias, it’s non-existent. The GOP “brand” has been immensely marred by Bush. Garden variety Americans believe that Bush is what conservatism is. You need someone who doesn’t look, talk, or act like Bush if you’re to change the brand. It’s not an anti-Southern bias, but an understanding that Thompson, to most, looks like another Bush.
Also…what the hell is the big deal with Thompson? He’s folksy? He’s a true conservative? What happened to record? Competence? Do we know anything about these areas?
In the state we’re in in Iraq, positions are second to competence, which is why I wouldn’t be distraught over a Rudy nomination. Forget Thompson. He’s an image to gush over, a walking position paper, nothing more (at this point).
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
DaveG had a good post that relates to Fred.
http://race42008.com/2007/05/29/speaker-gingrich-displays-hubris-brilliance-in-pre-campaign-interview/
In that post Newt equates Bush popularity with that of the disastrous Carter administration. As much as I like Bush, I have to agree that at this moment in history, Bush=Carter.
A traditional southern Republican like Fred would remind the public of Bush.
Fred=Bush
Many recent polls seem to confirm this. Fred Thompson would be a disaster for the GOP.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Kevin and Mark
I just don’t see how Thompson “looks like another Bush”. Thompson’s greatest asset is his ability to frame issues and deliver his message effectively as a public speaker. Plus, he opposes the amnesty bill. Thompson’s radio addresses remind me of Reagan in the late 70s. As for me, I still lean to Mitt.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Gamecock,
A traditional Republican, with a southern accent from Tennessee will remind the public of Bush. There is nothing that Fred can say or do that will change that.
The polls confirm that Fred would be the weakest of the top 4 candidates in the general election.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Gamecock,
A candidate could be Bush’s or Mao Tse Tung’s identical twin for all I care. That has no bearing on whether or not he is the best candidate for the job. My main concern is if someone has the same detached quality that Bush has.
Giuliani and Fred Thompson both have this problem, IMO. They both seem to want to get away with doing as little as possible and still win the nomination. We already have a President who does this. Witness his signing with nary a squeak every pork-laden bill that crossed his desk, starting a big stink on Social Security Reform but doing next to nothing to promote it, and running the Iraq War without going beyond the minimum requred to sell it.
I want a hands-on President, a person who will have his hand on the tiller of the ship of state at all times. That person will get my vote.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
TM,
So polls show Thompson as the weakest of the top four candidates. I am not impressed.
The polls just a couple of months ago showed Mitt as the weakess of the big three. Now he is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire and pulling even in South Carolina. And he is rising in the National Polls.
And before the November elections, most polls showed McCain way out in front of Giuliani. Things have changed a bit since then, it would seem.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
markK,
I’m referring to general election polls. You are correct to suggest that these polls can and will change over time. But the general election polls do confirm the significant challenge that a candidate like Fred will face if he becomes our nominee.
I find it difficult to believe that a traditional southern Republican like Fred will be able to escape the implosion of the Bush presidency and the Republican Party in 08.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Anyone concerned about what state a person happens to be from and what his accent happens to be is an utter idiot and doesn’t deserve to vote. That being said…there are a lot of idiots out there.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Gamecock, I think it is more of the game of “who is on the inside?”. The majority of Americans are tired of the politicians from inside the beltway. They will look for anyone outside who could lead, and have proved they have the experiences in leading. So far, both Rudy and Romney have it. True, Fred has worked a lot “on the outside” since he stepped down as the senators — on the investigations and commissions, but… he is pretty much known as the former senator rather than the person who have worked to clean up (investigations) and to look at options for some solutions (commissions). He will need to emphasize this “outside” perspective.
But then, this understanding may be wrong, because Hillary/Obama/Edwards are leading when they lead from the inside, and Richardson being an outsider is not doing well…
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
TLG, I won’t exactly call those idiots. Yes, there are always the exceptions. However, in the past, there really is no place with you could go to learn about each candidate. There are the pitches from the candidates, either they are something bad about other candidates, or something good about themselves. They are often taken out of context, anyway. Then there are MSM, enough say. So, really, unless you are on the inside with the political circle, there really is no way to know each candidate. A townhall with a candidate for an hour is the best thing you could do in getting to know them. I was so excited when the FactCheck.org came out during the Bush/Kerry race. It analyzed their claims in depth. We need something like this, but there was nothing before the Internet came along.
It is why this site is so wonderful, with the posters for different candidates having a open and honest discussion on why they believe their candidate is the best man for the job. So, Kudos to Kavon and his staff! Thank you all for your contributions. I really do appreciate your efforts and times!
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Do ont underestimate the severe buyer’s remorse being felt by voters of GW Bush. They want to stay away from any ‘08 candidate that resembles W in any way. That’s why the Dems and Rudy are basically the only contenders for the general.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Mark and SGS
You both make good points. I especially agree that Rudy has been a bit lazy so far.
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
to all
Isn’t the Southern advantage really a conservative advantage given that politicians in the Northeast and west coast have to compromise so much with libs in order to govern, that they get tainted?
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
The anti south bigotry is real. Just go to any left of center forum and inevitably you will get multiple comments about wanting to “nuke the south”.
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
WE MADE INSTAPUNDIT!!
http://instapundit.com/archives2/005878.php
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
“Slow-talkin’ Souhterner…”
Well, to point out one minor difference, has anybody ever had the slightest confusion over what Fred Thompson thought he was saying…?
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I appreciate this post Gamecock. Thank you for discussing this.
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
If regional bias is relevant to anything, Massachusetts should never have anyone running for national office. Teddy, Mike, John — losers all. And I don’t think much of Mitt’s chances either.
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
As for Southerners not voting for someone because of their regional identification, this Southerner learned not to do that because of Jimmy Carter. I voted for him because he was a Southerner. I regretted it on inauguration night. I was at a party of military supporters of Carter when word came through of his blanket pardon for draft dodgers. It ruined the party and gave us a good dose of what to expect for the next four years. He was the last Democrat I ever voted for, and probably ever will have voted for. I’ll certainly never again vote for someone just because he or she is from the South.
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
For an otherwise reasonable article, why undermine it by using ‘feminist’ as a pejorative?
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Michael
Generally, because radical feminists have been major contributors to the degredation of the culture and strength of the United States and specifically because Justice Ginsburg has been an unmitigated disaster on the Supreme Court.
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I keep seeing the same memes in the comments about Fred across many blogs.
Out of curiosity, how many of the commenters here are associated with, have contributed to, or performed volunteer work for one of the current candidates?
Second question, how many people think there are campaign volunteers trolling blogs?
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
[...] From an op-ed column on Race42008: Hugh Hewitt wondered aloud on his radio show this week if Fred Thompson might not be a good GOP nominee for President because the country “might not want another slow talking Southerner after Bush.” He’s not the only GOP commentator I have heard express this sentiment. [...]
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Southern Bigotry is certainly real.
When I was younger I had a thick rural Southern accent (it’s grown mild). On the job (up in New York) people would assume I was uneducated despite having both an Econ and a Finance degree.
I had to continually prove myself. I think this prejudice is probably common in the liberal parts of the North and West.
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Considering the downright astounding news coming out of Iraq these days (Anbar turnaround, 4 provinces entirely run by Iraq government, more areas run by Iraqi forces every week) finally being covered by the MSM, I’m not so confident that Bush’s drag on the 2008 GOP nominee is going to play out as most commentators have assumed to this point. Certainly there’s plenty of areas where he hasn’t covered himself in glory lately but I don’t think that Thompson’s vulnerable on immigration or judicial nominees. If the MSM don’t dare continue their “Iraq is lost” spin in mid 2007, by campaign time 2008, we might very well have an entirely different set of issues. I think Thompson’s separating himself from Bush where it’s smart (immigration) and not going out on a limb on Iraq because he might be paying more attention than most.
As for bigotry, it’s all over. I live in Indiana on the Illinois border, essentially a Chicago suburb. After I started lying on my resume with an Illinois address, I got many more interviews and eventually a job. My chances of landing an interview essentially doubled in the Chicago market with an Illinois address. No candidate of any party is going to be able to dodge all the state and regional rivalries. It costs all of them. Why Thompson should be disproportionately hit, I don’t know. Both TN and TX residents would be insulted to be mistaken for the other. They are very different states with proud histories.
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
If the worst thing that can be said against Thompson is that he might remind left-of-center bigots of Bush 43, well, he’s a shoo-in for the nomination.
I doubt anyone who’d refuse to vote for Thompson because of this reason (he’s from a region that the current PotUS has sorta lived in for some of his life – ) would vote for any Republican, anyway. Attempting to placate BDS sufferers who are bigots to boot probably isn’t sound political strategy.
Of course, given that Texas is actually closer to Arizona than Tennessee, maybe the GOP should make certain they don’t nominate a prickly Southwesterner (like, oh, say, McCain), since people might confuse him with 43, too. And Giuliani and 43 are both tied to 9/11, so we shouldn’t nominate him since people might confuse the two…
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Jeff
you said what I wanted to say better than me
amen bro
June 3rd, 2007 at 2:13 am
WHAT accent??
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 am
I am suprised to hear you say this. I think the republican party as a whole loves southerners because we feel they are more down to earth and reliablyl conservative. I don’t think it was Hugh’s intention to bash on him because he was from the South. I think he was just getting to a point about electability which I kind of buy into somewhat.
It is not so much because he is a southerner, usually this “folksy” persona would help a candidate. People like it. But, it reminds people of Bush and anythign that reminds people of Bush, well, we know the consequences of that.
The race is really getting excited now. I think Romney was wrapping things up, but now that Thompson is in, it creates a whole new dynamic.
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 am
[...] DeVine at Race 4 2008 reminds us of the amount of diversity we’ve had in our last three “slow talking [...]
June 3rd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
[UPDATE]
RICHMOND, Virginia — Republican Fred Thompson, making his first appearance since his late entry into the 2008 White House race, criticized the immigration pact in Congress on Saturday…
He won a standing ovation from the dinner crowd of more than 450 in Richmond with a call for stronger borders and an attack on the immigration compromise pending in Congress, and backed by President George W. Bush, that would give 12 million illegal immigrants a shot at citizenship.
“This is our home and we get to decide who can come into our home,” he said.
He said Washington’s partisan politics had bred cynicism about government and there was a “disconnect” between Washington politicians and Americans.
READ IT ALL
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/3/124027.shtml?s=lh
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Polls may show that Thompson is the weakest of the four major GOP contenders in general election match-ups.
BUT…
Early in the 1980 race, polls showed that Reagan would be the weakest of the major GOP contenders against either Carter or Teddy Kennedy.
It’s early; this is a weakness that can be overcome.
June 4th, 2007 at 8:02 am
JWE,
Reagan had a +20 point political environment to defeat Carter.
Our nominee will have a 20 point political environment, which could be even worse next year.
Bush=Carter
Unfortunately, a traditional southern Republican like Fred will remind the public of Bush.
Fred=Bush=Carter
June 4th, 2007 at 8:57 am
I’m not making Southern ties a basis for my vote, one way or the other. I don’t see why any voter should. Party insiders should probably think about that sort of thing when they’re trying to make sure every part of the party feels included. This is why a Southern nominee should go for a very un-Southern Veep and vice versa.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
TM, where is Clinton in the =s
June 4th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Gamecock,
I hate to say it but:
Clinton=Reagan
Clinton certainly does not equal Reagan from an ideological standpoint, but from an electoral point of view, she will be the Ronald Reagan in 08 to the general public.
If we nominate someone like Fred, who could easily be portrayed as an extension of Bush, Clinton will win in a landslide.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
TM
Clinton never won 50% of the vote but was re-elected and impeached. Carter did once but was not re-elected. Bush did once and was re-elected. Reagan did twice in two landslides.
Don’t see any Clinton equality with Reagan. Clinton left office in pardon disgrace and tech bubble after not responding to UBL and Saddam despite 1998 speeches pomising to do so after saddam’s defiance and the African embassy bombing al qaida act of war.
It only took ONE act of war on Bush’s watch to remove both regimes.
Bush = Reagan