The Candidates
Featured Archives
Fred Thompson and his spinners contend that the overwhelmingly critical reception he has garnered in the media is limited to inside the Beltway “liberal media” which do not appreciate his charms and folksy appeal. The New York Times coverage this week of his visit to Iowa was typical: “Iowans saw a subdued, laconic candidate who spoke in a soft monotone, threw few elbows and displayed little drive to distinguish himself from his opponents.”
There are two problems with the Thompson explanation: 1) conservative pundits have been equally harsh and 2) local media has been even worse.
As for pundits, conservative heavyweights from George Will to Bob Novak have remarked on his lackadaisical performance, lack of ideas and unending stream of gaffes (a term now more closely associated with Thompson than any other candidate). Figures as diverse as James Dobson and David Frum have added their own version of “where’s the beef?” in commenting on Thompson’s disappointing start. Conservative websites like RedState.com (”He said “uh” about five too many times and made a couple of jokes but I got more passion from the no-namer who spoke an hour before him to be honest. . . Thompson rarely elaborates on specific issues and how he would handle them) have soured on him and his laconic speaking style.
Out in the heartland, the reviews have been especially biting. The Des Moines Register’s David Yepsen greeted Thompson’s arrival tour this way: “Fred Thompson’s announcement speech Thursday in Des Moines was underwhelming. . . The crowd of a few hundred didn’t seem enthused. Thompson’s oratory didn’t soar but was somewhat rambling.” Iowa local media is often peeved that Thompson avoids questions.
Radio Iowa last week remarked: “His staff indicated Thompson would answer reporters’ questions just outside the hall, so as not to interrupt the event. … Outdoors, Thompson quickly climbed in a black SUV and someone drove him away. No questions. No answers.” Similarly this Monday WHO-TV reported: “Thompson leaves more questions than answers.”
Even from his home state Tennessean.com notes that although his folksy image please some, it reiterated the same complaints from national commentators that he: “sometimes wanders when he talks. His light schedule in the first days of his campaign fed the image of not being a hard worker. And most devastating are the repeated instances in which Thompson has not been aware of prominent public issues, such as the Supreme Court challenge to the use of lethal injections for executions”
No where has the coverage been more antagonistic than in New Hampshire where the Union Leader excoriated him for ducking the September debate in favor of a Jay Leno outing. Others like the Concord Monitor followed suit (”[Thompson's] refusal to debate his fellow candidates before a live audience hints at more than a bit of cowardice on Fred’s part. If he’s not ready to stand up to mildly challenging questions now, how on earth will he cope with the rigors of a real campaign?”) as did the Portsmouth Herald (”And Thompson has already miffed a few Republicans in the state – including the head of the New Hampshire Republican Party – by choosing to make his announcement on ‘The Tonight Show’ on the same night the rest of the GOP candidates were debating at the University of New Hampshire.”) Once Thompson arrived to campaign the Union Leader cut him no slack remarking: “If his campaign had better organization in New Hampshire, he might have brought out bigger crowds… instead of simply hitting whoever happened to be wherever he stopped.”
Things did not improve when Thompson visited the Mackinac Republican Conference in Michigan at the end of September. In addition to conservative blogs such as National Review Online and Robert Bluey who panned his speech local media was underwhelmed. The Detroit News commented: “But when [Thompson] got to the meat of his speech, there wasn’t much there. … But when it was over, the most asked question was: ‘What was his message?’ There were no take-aways and little energy.” The Lansing State Journal’s Tim Skubick chimed in: “First impression: This is one inaccessible and perhaps somewhat arrogant candidate. No warmth, no connection, no humanness about him.”
In South Carolina where the local media should be most in tune with his Southern appeal the key political news outlet, the State, on September 16 greeted his announcement with terms like “underwhelming” and “not ready for prime time” and “disappointing.”
But no where has the coverage been more critical than in Florida where Thompson’s now widely remarked upon lack of familiarity with the Terri Schiavo case, drilling in the Everglades and catastrophic insurance all drew a blank. On September 21 the St. Petersburg Times remarked: “If you had talked to someone ahead of time – maybe the state’s current or former Republican governors, the president of the United States or any of your Florida staff – you might have learned that oil exploration in the Everglades was resolved long ago.” Once again the Orlando Sentinel used the phrase “not ready for prime time.”
So while it is always convenient and indeed a crowd pleaser with conservatives to blame the national media in this case the perception seems to extend to all corners of the press and across the political spectrum. As an actor, Thompson should know that the fault may lie not in the stars (or the tribunes or the posts) but in himself.
October 8th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
well, after Fred Thompson told the folks in Iowa that the Soviet Union is still a threat I have come to the conclusion that he should go back to testing the waters. That was the best thing he ever did. He should test the waters for another 3 months and then announce again on Letterman this time. He will get the bump just in time for the Iowa caucus.
October 8th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Sen. Thompson better impress tomorrow night or he’s done.
October 8th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Thompson Team once said they will do this race entirely in a radical and new way. I am still waiting, as I have not seen anything differently, unless it is his laying back method, then that is definitely something new in the recent memory!
October 8th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Jennifer,
You’re obsession is amusing.
October 8th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
After all the other gaffes, the Soviet Union thing was bad…really bad!
October 8th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Maybe that’s how he plans on emulating Reagan.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
The first month of the Thompson campaign has been a disaster, support him or not, he has been far from impressive in the last 30-odd days. I’m sorry, but any thime you have to que your audience for applause, well, you get my point.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
ACT,
Did you see the audience? It was an assisted living home. They practically had the nurses carting out the IV bags. I’ve seen enough about how he doesn’t say anything but is “warmly recieved” that it doesn’t matter as much what the MSM says.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Tommy, I don’t think Jennifer’s article was obsessive in and of itself. Thompson just has not shown us what he has got, if he has got it. Let’s watch the debate and see how it goes. I am so excited because it is Wall St. Journal (which I subscribe to) and don’t expect to see snowmen, and wasted questions.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
9. Tommy, That made me crack up. I didn’t know that or expect that was the case after having heard the reports. If that is the case on this one, Fred got a bad rap!
October 8th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I still can’t fathom how the Soviet Union gaffe happened. It’d be different if this was the 1992 campaign, but the USSR has been gone for 16 years.
Tomorrow could potentially make or break the campaign.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Shawnie,
I was refering to Jennifer’s blog on Amspec where Philip Klein, the journalist, said she needs to quit seeing things through “anti-Fred tinted glasses.” I follow the blog, and Rubin is just a teeny bit (understatement of the year) on the “bash Fred” bandwagon. Any move he makes, she is all over it, to the point of where she thinks anything that Rudy says is a little shot at Thompson that she revels in.
Proof? Read through it.
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp
October 8th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Scott,
Check out the photos of the event (I don’t have a link in front of me). The average age of the audience, in my best estimation, was around 87.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
LJ,
When you spent most of your life refering to Russia as the Soviet Union, as I did for the first fifteen years, it’s an easy mistake. Thompson would’ve refered to them that way for about 45 years of his life, so I can understand why he made it. It’s something he should’ve caught in time and didn’t, but it’s an understandable mistake.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
correction from above post
first fifteen years “of my life”
October 8th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
14. I believe you Tommy. Everyone ought to leave Fred alone on that story.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I understand that Tommy, but preception is everything. What got reported was that Thompson had to remind his audience to applaud.
October 8th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
The USSR broke up when I was 16, and I have actually lived (for a short time) in the former Soviet Union.
Even I occasionally screw up and refer to Russia as the “Soviet Union” every now and then.
October 8th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
ACT,
I could care less what the MSM say, at this point. And by most accounts, Thompson really doesn’t care either. Let them spin everything however they want. It doesn’t shape my opinion until I check the facts and the whole story.
Shawnie,
Here was the exact post I was refering to from Philip Klein.
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=8496
Kavon,
I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s been around long enough that they still refer to it as the USSR. Growing up in the age of Rocky IV.
October 8th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
I can hear the Rocky theme in my head as we speak
October 8th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Rocky IV…propaganda films were never better.
October 8th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Amen to that, Peter!
October 8th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Tommy,
It does lack credibility when someone puts you under a microscope and you can do NO RIGHT. You have to assume bias and lack of objectivity to some degree. I can understand where Jennifer is not considered a balanced opinion.
I do wonder if there is any truth at all to her reporting, but more appearances, including tomorrow’s debate should bring things back into balance where the liberal media has skewed it.
October 8th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Fred gives me no reason to take him seriously. He’s more like Pat Paulsen than Ronald Reagan. This is the most unimpressive, uncompelling, and unqualified republican candidate that has ever been given a chance to win in my memory. He’s a 10 in the unintentional comedy scale. I’ll miss him when he drops out in embarrassing fashion.
October 8th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Shawnie,
Well, for starters, she quotes the Tennessean as proof of Thompson getting questioned in his home state. She conveniently leaves out the fact that the Tennessean is a liberal paper from Nashville. Heck, I don’t quote my hometown paper (Chattanooga Times/Free Press), because it has already endorsed Thompson and says he does no wrong. The problem with Ms. Rubin’s argument is that you can find criticism anywhere if you look hard enough for it. I’ve seen positive, as well as negative coverage throughout newspapers. It really just comes down to which one you read.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
It’s a very sad day when a man can be in the top tier of party just because he has a southern accent and he is folksy and pro life. Very sad state for the republican party.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Scott (#16), Remember when our present President Bush first ran? Media sure had field trip with his foreign countries knowledge, when he continually mis-prounced names of the leaders, the people of the countries and so on. I think we need to take this lesson quite seriously. Fred obviously is not taking it in stride, and it disappointed me greatly. Really, I did had (still somewhat) hope that Fred will do well, especially with his long water-testing phrase. I had thought he would use the time to study the issues and see how he could contribute toward them.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Peter (#21), How about Rocky VI or whatever they have arrived at last, where the aged Rocky would hit the Iran President Ahmadinejad in the head with his boxing shoe until a knock-out? That will boost the esteem of the mullahs!
October 8th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
#4 Tommy, I don’t see Jennifer Rubin as being obsessed. Many of us are just incredulous. We can’t believe that otherwise intelligent, thoughtful conservatives are falling for this guy – Fred Thompson.
When I read accounts of why people support Fred Thompson, other than his stance on federalism, they talk about how Fred makes them FEEL: safe, comforted, etc.
It just reminds me so much of why the Democrats like Obama. They like the way Obama makes them FEEL.
There’s no substance there, there’s no experience there, there’s no vision there, there is no there there.
Tommy, if you accuse Jennifer of being obsessed, then many conservatives are “obsessed” about why FDT is even running for the nomination.
For me — I think Fred doesn’t care much about what happens one way or the other. Almost everything he has done he seems to have accidentally stumbled into. If he happens to stumble into the nomination, great. If he happens NOT to stumble into the GOP nomination, so be it. He keeps himself safe — cloaked behind generalities and platitudes. He’s the guy who sets incredibly low standards for himself so he doesn’t have to suffer heartbreak if he doesn’t win.
He reminds me of the saying: “Set your goals so miserably low that you can’t help but succeed.”
Fred Thompson is the “whatever” candidate. Whatever happens, he will say, “Whatever.”
I’m sorry, Tommy, but I want something more from my candidate.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
#27: SGS said: “I had thought he (Fred T.) would use the time to study the issues and see how he could contribute toward them.”
============
I have to say that my gut feeling about Fred Thompson — from reading about his past and from watching him in present time, is that this is a man who shoots from the hip.
He has always shot from the hip and it has always worked for him.
He has had great success in doing so.
I am an insurance salesperson and have been in sales for a long time.
There are a lot of salespeople who shoot from the hip. They do well because they are good at thinking on their feet. They do well because they have charm, personality and can easily connect with people, and make people feel relaxed. They have the natural born ability to create instant rapport.
These kinds of people usually don’t prepare. They don’t spend hours practicing their sales presentations. They have a gift, a knack for making things up as they go.
Trust me — I am one of those people.
I recognize this in Fred Thompson.
At the heart of this is laziness and also arrogance. He has that type of arrogance that people have who are so easily able to “improvise.”
I see both of these in Fred Thompson.
He’s riding high in the polls right now, so any criticism he may receive he just waves off, knowing that
“without even trying” he is first or second in the national polls.
This fact just adds to his arrogance.
Believe what you may, I just have a sense that this is what’s going on with Fred Thompson. Campaign workers who have left his campaign have testified that this is his M.O.
The Bible says that “pride comes before a fall.”
Fred has made it on his ability to improvise so far … but we shall see.
I just guess that his unwillingness to play the game by the rules (”I don’t dance to anyone’s tune.”) the way the other guys do, and his arrogance in thinking that he doesn’t have to do anything to get ahead, will eventually be his downfall.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Beth,
Consider the source and follow the links:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/02/016513.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/09/018511.php
hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/67be0584-325d-45ac-b31e-a649645f3d88