If this seems like a hit piece on Thompson… I apologize in advance. Just note… I’m not doing the hitting… I’m just the librarian.
First, from CBN’s David Brody. After noting that Thompson simply misspoke. claiming that no state legislatures had approved gay marriage (California has just this last week), Brody questions aloud:
[Thompson will] take some heat for that but the larger issue for social conservatives may be this: If California start to have legislatures endorse gay marriage and have a liberal Governor sign it into law then what Thompson is saying is that he’ll live with that because it didn’t come from an unelected judge but rather elected representatives. How will that go over with conservative pro-family groups?
Now from a largely pro-Fred camp, Erik E from Redstate has this to say about Fred’s campaign and their faux pas using “Osama” and “due process” in the same sentence:
One would hope that on the fundamental, driving issue of national security — the issue that is driving so many as we head toward 2008 — having to backtrack on the very basic issue of what to do with Osama would be unnecessary.
The first Thompson statement was a tacit endorsement of the Clinton policy this nation repudiated after September 11th.
And at this stage in the game, even Hillary Clinton has answered more competently on that subject that the Thompson campaign’s first stab at it.
That the campaign required a second stab at that basic question makes me shudder with disbelief.
Next from the Washington Post with George Will:
Fred Thompson’s plunge into the presidential pool — more belly-flop than swan dive — was the strangest product launch since that of New Coke in 1985. Then, the question was: Is this product necessary? A similar question stumped Thompson the day he plunged.
…
“Right now”? He has been living “up there” in that upscale inside-the-Beltway Washington suburb, honing his “Aw, shucks, I’m just an ol’ Washington outsider” act, for years. Long enough to have noticed that McLean is planted thick with churches. Going to church is, of course, optional — unless you are aiming to fill some supposed piety void in the Republican field.
New Coke was announced on April 23, 1985, with the company’s president piling on adjectives usually reserved for Lafite Rothschild — “smoother, rounder yet bolder.” Almost 80 days later, the public having sampled it, the company pulled the product from stores. Perhaps Thompson’s candidacy will last longer than New Coke did.
Next up, Paul Weyrich from Townhall.com:
It is not entirely clear what Thompson believes. When he was Senator he seemed to support an open-borders approach to immigration. In recent speeches Thompson has not supported President George W. Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform bill, which was soundly defeated.
…
If the Thompson balloon were launched high but then returned to earth, with Thompson falling behind other candidates, that would mean the several-month tease in the form of his exploratory committee would have been for naught.
Lastly, Gail Collines from the NYT:
When it comes to overhyped underperformers, Fred Thompson’s entry into the presidential race was right up there with Britney Spears at the MTV awards.
The Republican Party’s great tall hope announced his intentions on Jay Leno’s show, and timed it to coincide with his avoidance of the candidate debate in New Hampshire. That was supposed to send the message of – what? A fear of crowds? A preference for answering questions only while seated? His performance certainly could not have been more low-key. You do not often hear somebody say “I’m running for president” in the same tone Jay’s guests use to announce that they’ve signed on for the next season of “Dancing With the Stars.”
September 13th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Then there was Brookhiser at The Corner describing Thompson by far the least qualified of the supposedly major candidates, and declaring his candidacy untenable in a time of war.
And Dick Morris describing him as the first lobbyist to run for President (not a good thing!).
And even Rich Lowry’s softer column questioning the rationale for Thompson’s candidacy was devastating in its way.
Welcome to the campaign, Fred!
September 13th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Hey, I really liked “New Coke” ………..
September 13th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Thompson is unprepared for the presidency. All these misstatements and backtrackingmakes us wonder how prepared Thompson is to be President. Thompson has had a free ride to the top of the national polls for the GOP primary by doing almost nothing, and it shows.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:28 am
I have said it before, Thompson will fade! His supporters are superficially attracted to him because they are looking for a conservative white knight. Once they get to know him, they will be disappointed. This will be a Guiliani – Romney showdown for the nomination, with McCain playing spoiler for someone.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:29 am
“I’m not doing the hitting… I’m just the librarian.”
Totally hilarious, Justin, LOL
September 13th, 2007 at 10:30 am
BTW, how did Newt and Huckabee pass McCain in the “power rankings”? Did I miss the post on that?
September 13th, 2007 at 10:32 am
In this cycle, every candidate will go through a “pile on” phase. Fred is going through that now. Let’s see if he makes it.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:39 am
I hate to be a spoiler, but this is the fourth negative column about Thompson by Will in the last few months. They aren’t souring because they’ve been sour for a long time.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Fred won’t deserve most of the criticism that he’s going to get, but then again, he hasn’t deserved most of the accolades either. He’s a pretty good guy, we just have stronger candidates.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Justin, you left out some of the best parts of these articles:
“He’s here. He’s tanned. He’s ready.
He looks like he needs a nap.”
————————
“In Iowa, he rambled. The Daily News reported that at one town hall meeting he seemed to be telling the audience that Americans were winning over Iraqis because of Al Qaeda’s no-smoking policy. He appeared to be developing a different position on Osama bin Laden for every state.”
————————
There was always speculation that Thompson’s supporters were trying to cast a president rather than nominate one, and that his big selling point was not a résumé or even a personal story, but simply that down-home aura — a drawl in a nice suit. What nobody really expected, though, was that the former senator/lobbyist/actor would emerge on the political stage in a state of apparent exhaustion. He’s 65, but compared to him, 71-year-old John McCain looks like a pup. Either the guy never had an edge, or he lost it somewhere between “Die Hard 2†and “Baby’s Day Out.â€
————————
“At the national meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council, Huckabee spoke first and wowed the audience, with his humor, candor and principles. Thompson read his speech. Many described it as the single worst speech they had ever heard. The content apparently was fine but the delivery was terrible. Many legislators came to the convention as Thompson supporters and left supporting Huckabee. The Thompson staff put out the spin that Thompson did so poorly because the teleprompter broke down and he had to read the speech. The only problem with that defense was that there was no teleprompter.”
————————
“Thompson has been a United States Senator. His Senatorial performance was mediocre.”
————————
“There is the question of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Thompson initially stated that, although he is a federalist, he reluctantly supported the Amendment because it was too important to do otherwise. Now his staff has put out a clarification suggesting that Thompson does not support the Amendment.”
————————
“Almost immediately after the launch of Fred Thompson’s long anticipated presidential candidacy, important neutral Republicans decreed privately that it had crashed and burned on takeoff.”
————————
“Thompson’s late start in itself is not a fatal flaw. Still, it had been conceded in party circles that when he finally became a candidate, his beginning better be memorable. It was not. While Thompson voiced obligatory conservative slogans in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina, he was not the white knight that worried Republican loyalists desperately desire.”
————————
“Failing to perform opposition research on himself, Thompson has been taken by surprise by the dissection of his career.”
————————
“Thompson, contrary to his current memories, was deeply involved in expanding government restrictions on political speech generally and the ban on issue ads specifically. Yet he told Ingraham, “I voted for all of it,” meaning McCain-Feingold, but said “I don’t support that” provision of it.
Oh? Why, then, did he file his own brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold McCain-Feingold, stressing Congress’s especially “compelling interest” in squelching issue ads that “influence” elections?”
——————–
“He also is unfamiliar with the details of his own positions. Consider his confusion the next day when talk radio host Laura Ingraham asked him about something he ardently supported — the McCain-Feingold expansion of government regulation of political speech. His rambling, incoherent explanation was just clear enough to be alarming about what he believes, misremembers and does not know.”
——————–
Some choice nuggets there.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Edit: Your time here CK has come to an end. I am sorry that Race 4 2008 does not meet your expectations. I try hard to do the best job I can here. I am sincerely sorry that I failed to meet your standards.-KWN
September 13th, 2007 at 10:48 am
If you compare the top-tier candidates, the pundits do have a point. Rudy and Mitt have executive experience. McCain has 24 years in Senate, has been a ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, and has military experience himself.
Thompson has 1.5 terms in the Senate, and that’s about it.
I think an argument can be made that Hillary is more qualified to be President than Fred. She saw first-hand how a state government is run for 8 years. Saw firsthand how the U.S. Federal government is run for 8 years. Has been a moderate and successful Senator in her own right for as long as Fred was. She has been a member of the Armed Services Committee during the 9/11 attacks and GWOT.
I think a lot of Indy’s (those that don’t care about parties) might compare the two and figure that Hillary deserves it more than Fred.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Oh crap. I didn’t see it. What did he say? Lol.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:08 am
The animosity coming from Paul Weyrich is surprising. Weyrich is no pundit. He is a very influential social conservative leader. Thompson must have done something to seriously piss him off. Only a few weeks ago Weyrich sounded like a Thompson supporter. Now Weyrich seems to be ranking Thompson lower than Giuliani which for a socon is only a tad above Hillary.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:31 am
I think they have been souring on him for months now. They have set an incredibly high bar for him.
just wait until the next debate. He is going to get nailed with a bunch of questions that he will not have yet formalized a good answer to. He is constantly flubbing.
I don’t see him here for the long haul. better make some money this month.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Oh my. What did that ungrateful bastard CK say? Don’t you go bashing R408, CK! This site eats Red State and Free Republic for breakfast.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:56 am
I am gettiung to the point where, when Fred is out (and he will be OUT), I will give Romney more respect, because its going to be either Rudy or Romney and WE NEED TO UNITE.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:58 am
“This site eats Red State and Free Republic for breakfast.”
Thanks TLG!
I never ban people for their opinions. EVER. I ban people for:
1. Profanity
2. Personally insulting either myself, other writers, or members of our little Race 4 2008 family.
3. Trolling. This is a judgement call on my part. But if I feel that someone’s comments are not substantive and are for the sole purpose of inflaming people’s emotions, I will ban them.
I ask people to look at my track record in this regard. I am a Rudy supporter who operates a site that has (at minimum) 5 Romney writers. I wanted R4′08 to be for everyone. Not just “Rudy Guys” or just “Mitt Guys”, etc… I think I have done fairly well in this.
Respecting each other has always been a requirement of participation here, and it always will be.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
I predict that Mike Bloomberg is going to embarass Giuliani and Romney on the issue of executive experience becasue, while theirs may look great in comparison to Obama’s or Fred’s or Hillary’s, the level of exdcutive CEO managerial competence that Bloomberg has achieved in the business world makes everybody else look like they’ve run a lemondae stand.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Personally I like the fact that Redstate seems to keep a higher standard than r408. But R408 is a great site for
it’s purpose, which is a narrower purpose than that of Redstate.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Here is a comment (I hope it’s okay to copy it here.) from George Will’s article that
really sums up the way I feel about the Fred Thompson candidacy.
Warren Small writes: Thursday, September, 13, 2007 5:39 AM
Gipper Mk II? You’re kidding
The difference between Ronaldus Maximus and Fred is this.
Reagan was an actor who stopped acting and ran a labor union and a nation-sized
state effectively. He did not spend years … around DC as a lawyer and corporate
lobbyist.
Fred is an old CFR pseudo-hick, saturated in Beltway culture and with little
achievement to his name as a senator, who BECAME an actor, more or less accidentally.
Fred “looks presidential” in the eyes of certain red state Suzy Soccermoms who saw
him nailing the evil rich white serial killers week after week on “Law and Order”.
He lets himself be told what to say, how to say it, where to stand, what faces to pull.
That’s what being an actor is.
Fred hopes to parlay this late-learned expertise into playing the role of a president.
Reagan could have done that at any time after c. 1955, but he knew he had to put himself
through a course of experience and must rethink his reflexive Hollywood liberalism in
the light of changing circumstances. Reagan’s easy, genial manner concealed layers
and layers of substance, as historians are still finding out.
There are no signs that Fred has ever mastered his brief; as Will demonstrates, the
old fellow’s knowledge of elementary details is hazy despite all those years in Washington.
Fred looks old, is known to be in poor health and thinks a talk show is the right venue
to declare a candidacy. RWR posed as a lightweight. Fred’s the real thing.
Email It | Print It | Flag as Offensive
September 13th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
[...] by Fred Thompson, George Will provides his sock full of quarters, the Oracle points out, as do many others: Suppose he does something unprecedented — gets 100 people a day, from now until Jan. 1, to [...]
September 13th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
I have to disagree with John regarding Red State.
It seems as if you can be banned or warned for simply having a different opinion than the editorial staff there. They do not really allow dissent there at all. I know many people who where banned or warned simply because their opinion deviated from that of the staff.
Here, you are feel to say whatever you want as long as you don’t swear and are respectful to others.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Word to KT. I am ready for a Rudy Romney fight. May the bets man win and then we get behind him to kick Hillary’s butt.
Argamenon
I think this might explain your obversavation regarding Paul Wyreich.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucmg/20070905/cm_ucmg/seefredflipseefredflop
When that NRO article came out, the Arlington group members became very upset and decided to hold back from their support for him. apparently, the arlington group is very influential in the christian right and although they do not endorse a candidate as a group, the members have been known to endorse candidates. Many of them were going to come out in support on Fred’s announcement but then pulled back after Fred’s staff told the NRO that he did not support a federal gay marriage ban.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/groups/arlington_group/index.html
September 13th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I found out that Sheriff Arpaio of Arizona voiced his support for Mitt Romney on Neil
Cavuto’s show. The posting was in http://www.californiansoformitt.blogspot.com.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Let’s try it this way: http://www.californiansfor mitt.blogspot.com.
If that doesn’t work, just — well, write it in.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Oops … I’ll try one more time.
http://www.californiansformitt.blogspot.com.
(Can you tell I’m new at this?)
September 13th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
help!
September 13th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Nicolas, regarding Redstate, that isn’t what I have seen. I started out in Redstate posting about how
taxes shouldn’t always be cut, that’s a dissenting opinion, and I wasn’t banned. I argued something along
the lines of why we should be sympathetic to illegals and instead of only discussing stopping illegal immigration
we should have a discussion regarding changing our immigration laws. I argued that we should let in
as many immigrants as we could and still screen the bad people out. This certainly seemed to be a dissenting opinion
as I was told that I was confused and a raving lunatic (though not by the directors). I and others have
argued in favor of McCain definitely a disenting position and I don’t recall any of us being banned for it.
I have defended the torture ban, and yet I have not been banned. There have been long debates on the site
regarding abortion gay marriage, where I don’t see either side of the debate get banned. Redstate has someone
that argues against the Bush tax – cuts increasing revenue( Brooksrob), they have a liberal that has posted
for some time – Flyerhawk, and they allow me to post ( PopulistConservative) eventhough I am not a traditional
conservative. I have seen other liberals too that don’t get banned. So to say that Redstate doesn’t allow
dissent is a huge overstatement.
What Redstate doesn’t allow is dissent that has the quality of Daily-kos. For example, you won’t see the
Mormon bigotry that you sometimes see here. If you dissent and are disrespectful in your disagreement you will
get thrown out. Some of that I think would make R408 a better site. I like R408, but sometimes there are
people who don’t add much to the debate but hate or dislike of a certain candidate. Redstate doesn’t ban
all dissent, they ban irrational dissent. This is a fine line which they may sometimes cross, but considering
that I’m still allowed to post on the site I don’t think it’s a line they cross as a general rule.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
[...] Hat-tip to Race42008.com. [...]
September 13th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I really like the sentiment on this blog. Congrats for a classy, intelligent blog. I think “Jed” is a falling star (forgive my pun) with a real bright flash, but in the end just a crater to be remembered by. And it will be between Rudy and Romney. And as Republicans, though we debate behind our closed doors, to the country we show a united front when the time comes.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
It looks like attacks on Thompson are starting to surge. I do feel sorry for the guy, but everyone else running is getting their fair share (especially Romney). Well, we will see if he can withstand the fire.
Honestly, we need to see a Rudy vs. Romney race, because it makes our party look a little more intelligent having those people run. We are looking for a LEADER, A STRONG LEADER, Rudy and Romney are the only ones who meet that criterion in my opinion.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Beth, I think you’ve got to not put the last period in the link.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
The NY blasts Fred for having a young wife with kids at his age but says nothing about Chris Dodd who also has a much younger wife and young kids. Go figure
Jeri Thompson is an asset(s) to Fred’s campaign
September 13th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Thanks, Mellow Yellow! 3rd time’s a charm (I hope).
http://www.californiansformitt.blogspot.com
September 13th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I like race42008. The debate is usually more substantive and less inflammatory here, something that often gets out of control on other blogs.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
The reason that the NY blasts Fred and not Dodd is because Dodd’s wife is Mormon (she really is).
September 13th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Kavon
did I get banned? My comments are not posting.
September 13th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Jon, I agree it’s a pretty good site I just disagree with the Redstate bashing.
September 13th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Jack,
Nope. The “Spam Monster” just got you (for some unknown reason).
I restored your comments. Sorry about that Jack.
September 13th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I’m happy to see more and more people coming to the conclusion that Arthur Branch is unserious and unqualified for the job. He’s the only R408 Top 4 guy who I think would get slaughtered by Hilary while I think the other 3 would win. I’m a Romney guy but I am also an “anyone but Fred” guy. I don’t even find him to be likeable. I hope he becomes such a laughingstock that he will regret the day he even thought about running.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I’m not a Thompson, but what’s with the hostility. If he wants to run thats his right, nobody has to vote for
him. how is he hurting us?
September 13th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Thank God he’s not hurting us! He’s merely a joke.
I wouldn’t consider myself hostile. His comportment and that of his non-campaign campaign turned actual campaign has personally rubbed me the wrong way big time. Sure he has a right to run but it doesn’t mean you cant have a miserable ending.
September 13th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I don’t see the desire to have be a laughingstock. Isn’t just having him lose and your candidate win enough.
And as far as his late entry – so what? So what if a candidate wants to wait untill December to announce.
If that doesn’t give them time to present themselves to the voters than the voter don’t have to vote for him,
if the voters do than that’s their choice. Also I think it’s pretty much just some of us political geeks that
care. As far as not considering yoursef hostile, take another look at this : “I hope he becomes such a laughingstock that
he will regret the day he even thought about running.”
September 13th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
I don’t take Fred seriously enough to be hostile. I find Fred entertaining. When this is over, Fred will draw more comparisons to Pat Paulsen than Ronald Reagan. I think he’s a fraud, I don’t trust him, and he’s way in over his head. I want to feel the schadenfreude when he goes down. Its all Fred is good for. He’s comic relief for a long election cycle.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Randy, I agree with you. The fact that folks take him seriously is what troubles me.