The Fred Thompson Buzz
By fredo1 Posted in 2008 — Comments (29) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have to admit being truly baffled about the Fred Thompson buzz. Novak's out with a column today stating that he's a serious threat to win the nomination. Novak knows the lay of the land, so I'm in no position to argue with him. But that doesn't answer the bigger question: why?
Why would a one-and-a-half term former Senator, with no executive experience whatosever, and a fairly low-key tenure on Capitol Hill, be rating so highly among the politically active GOP class?
I mean, surveying the ruins of the once mighty GOP majority, itself shipwrecked on the rocks of fiscal irresponsibility and executive incomeptency (whether W failed in substance or merely lost the PR war over Iraq and Katrina, he failed either way), one would think that GOP voters wouldn't want to take any chances in '08. They would want to vote for a conservative candidate who has the proven ability to run large, complex organizations; to balance budgets and cut spending; and to make the right calls under pressure.
Clearly a lot of Republicans are looking at Thompson and making the judgment that he seems like that kind of man. But why are they overlooking the current field, with two candidates that have proven the ability to do these things?
The answer I keep hearing: because Romney and Giuliani are not real social conservatives. In my personal opinion, I think that can accurately be said about Rudy and not Mitt. But even if these Fred Thompson supporters are not inclined to believe Mitt's conversion on life issues, I would ask this follow up: fine, Rudy and Mitt are out for you, but why Fred?
If the goal is to get a "real" social conservative, there are plenty of other options that are already in the field. And if you are as concerned with executive competency as I am, you could still get a more "pure" SoCon with some actual experience as an executive (Huckabee, T. Thompson, Gilmore). In addition to proving themselves as capable governors, Huckabee and Tommy were also able to maintain political support over time, something that would be a welcome change for our next standard-bearer.
Now, I'm not a Huckabee or T. Thompson supporter. I think Mitt is the right man at the right time. But almost any option makes more sense to me than Fred Thompson, who has been out of politics, lacked the fire to keep up the fight in DC, has never run anything, and wasn't a prominent leader in the organization he was a part of, the Senate caucus.
Do I think Fred's right on most of the issues? Sure I do. But I'm not willing to support a candidate just because he checks off the same issue boxes that I do. Not anymore. The past 8 years have shown me that political movements rise and fall not just on ideology, but on job performance. I need both from my next candidate.
CLARIFICATION: I am not saying history will judge W to be a failed President. I am saying that he has failed as the political head of the GOP.
If it's that he hasn't been in DC, the exact thing may be said of Mitt, Rudy, Huckabee, T. Thompson, and Gilmore.
If it's that he hasn't been seeking higher office, the same may be said of me. I'm not currently on L&O, but I do look good on camera.
______________________________________
"Our job is to bash the president"
Newsweek's Evan Thomas, on the role of the MSM
1) Support for the top tier front runners is soft, at best. The grass roots are still looking for a candidate that is more than minimally acceptable, which is about all the enthusiasm that can be mustered for Rudy, Mitt, and McCain.
2) The second tier "social conservatives" don't have the kind of name ID that the front loaded primaries are going to require, nor the national fundraising footprint that would enable them to "buy" their name ID.
3) Thompson's image is one of a conservative, but not reactionary in such a way as to scare off independent voters.
4) Thompson is an articulate spokesperson for the conservative movement. He can make a message resonate with independent voters.
All that said, I'm not on board yet. But I'm very open to the idea of a Thompson presidency, for the reasons listed above.
I mean, surveying the ruins of the once mighty GOP majority, itself shipwrecked on the rocks of fiscal irresponsibility and executive incomeptency (whether W failed in substance or merely lost the PR war over Iraq and Katrina, he failed either way)
It has nothing to do with incompetency or lack of experience. It has to do with W not being a conservative in the first place, and being an extremely poor communicator who can't seem to get his message out in the second place.
As for the front runners: I'm not a huge fan of Romney because I kind of doubt he stands for anything at all other than getting himself elected. I'm not a huge fan of Rudy because I don't like a lot of what he stands for and I'm not sure he is actually any kind of conservative in any way, shape, or form. There's enough I dislike about McCain to fill a 1000 page book. The excitement about Thompson is there because the frontrunners are so weak.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"It has to do with W not being a conservative in the first place"
W was supposedly the "real conservative" in 2000 to McCain's moderate. This is exactly the point. Conservatives love to project on candidates what they're getting based on how they sound. Bush talked an evangelical talk, so many of us (myself included) projected down-the-line-conservatism on him. Thompson has a conservative voting record (no great feat for a TN politician--should Frist be President?), but mostly conservatives are drawn to how he sounds. Common man plain talk, etc. I feel like we've just been down that road and are not learning our lesson.
We need to know what we're getting from someone based on track record. While somewhat instructive, a legislative voting record is not the same thing as an executive standing up to hundreds of elected legislators and saying, "this will not stand." Of knowing how to prioritize the governing agenda and game the machine to get results. That takes a different kind of political courage and a different skill set from being a legislator, just one of the group. Look to the governors--Rudy, Mitt, Huckabee, T. Thompson, Gilmore: whether you're impressed or not, you know what your getting from them as executives.
______________________________________
"Our job is to bash the president"
Newsweek's Evan Thomas, on the role of the MSM
______________________________________
"Our job is to bash the president"
Newsweek's Evan Thomas, on the role of the MSM
W was supposedly the "real conservative" in 2000 to McCain's moderate.
I was never under the impression that he was a real conservative. The choice in 2000 was a lesser of two evils. Many Republicans (myself included) were afraid we would turn out to be a clone of his father, who was also not any kind of conservative. McCain was unacceptable because he was running to the left and courting Democrats in the primary. I ended up voting for Keyes. I probably couldn't vote for him again today, but he is certainly conservative and articulate and that's why I voted for him.
We need to know what we're getting from someone based on track record. While somewhat instructive, a legislative voting record is not the same thing as an executive standing up to hundreds of elected legislators and saying, "this will not stand."
I completely agree with that statement. However, if my lunch choices are three kinds of rotten fish or a mystery grab bag that doesn't smell too bad, I'll go for the mystery grab bag every time. Yes, we have executive records on Rudy and Romney. And they both have serious problems. I also think the usefulness of a record is severely limited when the bearer of that record changes his positions more often than most people change their socks.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"W was supposedly the "real conservative" in 2000 to McCain's moderate. "
"you know what your getting from them as executives. "
Despite GWB being a Governor, it turns out that his executive experience neither prepared him for success in the Presidency at which he seems to be failing miserably nor served as much of a predictor of how he would govern. It turns out, despite being able to look at his record, we did not know what were getting.
Executive experience is an over-rated predictive measure as to how somebody is going to perform as President. Of our last 5 Presidents, four were governors and that experience proves my point. Two (the first and the most recent) were ineffective and incompetent. One was incredibly talented but unfortunately morally corrupt and a liberal. Only one turned out really well. Having previously been a successful Governor can be empirically shown to be a poor predictor of being a successful President.
What made Ronald Reagan a great President was not his executive experience as a Governor but rather the innate communication skills that he was blessed with and which he honed as an actor. He coupled these skills with a steady belief and adherence to a set of conservative principles that he brought to both the Governorship and the Presidency.
To a lessor extent, because he squandered his opportunity due to his own moral corruption, the same could be said of Bill Clinton. His communication talents were what allowed him to be Governor and President. His stint as Governor did not give Clinton any special skills that allowed him to be President. It was just a stepping stone that allowed him to bring his innate abilities, that he had before he was Governor, to the national stage and the Presidential race.
The most important skill for President is not executive experience (which does not equal ability) but communications ability. Thompson seems to have this ability and that coupled with a consistently expressed conservative philosophy is what attracts people to him.
I'm trying to pin down who this is:
One was incredibly talented but unfortunately morally corrupt and a liberal.
He must have served during a time when I was having blackouts
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Having previously been a successful Governor can be empirically shown to be a poor predictor of being a successful President.
This would be a valid argument if only successful governors became President. However, Carter and Clinton were not successful governors. As you note yourself, Clinton's communication talents were what got him elected both in Arkansas and as President. These remarkable talents were also what has kept him out of prison. He was very good at winning elections. Carter was not even that, as he was never re-elected to anything.
You seem to be of the opinion - which I don't share - that the current President was a successful governor who became a failed President. Even if you were right, it marks just one example out of four.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Fred Thompson?
Pro-America... compassionate tough guy... pro-military and general "this will not go unanswered/there will be heavy punishment" sort of guy when our country is attacked... gives good speach... politically involved... actor...
(sniff... sniff...)
Am I the only one smelling a fond hope of reviving that (oh so overdue) Reagan-esque American Pride here?
"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."
"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."
Well no one has accused me of being a rep of SoCons, but I think Fred Thompson is an exciting nominee b/c
1) There is no MAJOR issue where he is at odds with any conservatives.
2) His communication ability makes him a good prospect to win over voters, especially independents and moderates.
3) He is probably the most conservative electable candidate.
4) He was outside politics from 2002-2008 when Rs stock went downhill. As a corollary, he is not tied to President Bush or the Senate in any way.
5) The combination of conservative and actor makes many think of Reagan's ability to win over people to ideas that are not necessarily popular (say seeing Iraq through until victory)
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
when he speaks, you are confident in what he is saying. He talks TO you not AT you -- like so many politicians do. There is a lot to like with the guy.
This guy knows how to talk to people in "down home" ways. He will win over the skeptical moderates. He has been out of Washington during the times of the melt down in recent years. Did I say he is a great communicator? Then add to that no weaknesses in his conservative credentials. The ugliest skeleton anyone has mentioned about this guy is he married a younger woman. Anything else?
Bring this guy up on stage.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
"The past 8 years have shown me that political movements rise and fall not just on ideology, but on job performance. I need both from my next candidate."
Both GWB's successes and failures come in large part from his ideology. That applies both to his firmness on Afghanistan/Iraq, and to his refusal to publicly counter Democratic talking points.
That doesn't mean a fool should be allowed to govern, but I've seen no evidence that Fred Thompson is a fool. I grant some state executive experience would be nice, but it's not as if he has a Reagan as a primary opponent.
I'd like to know more about Thompson's policies before I jump on the bandwagon. But the idea of a charismatic conservative is intoxicating. The last election shows how badly we need to convince Independents.
Fred Thompson frankly scares the crap out of me, because I do see him catching that Reagan vibe. He's far more direct and engaging that the majority of the Rep candidates -- and previously I'd thought Romney was the guy to be scared of (as a MA native). He's got the same thing that Obama has on the Left -- a way of speaking directly to the people that is both exhilarating and scary at the same time, because it's the same thing that allows one to be a demagogue.
I don't know enough about him at all to say even one word about his positions or politics, but as a *candidate* I think he's got that ineffable something that gets people excited. But what do I know, I was a Dean supporter early in the last race...
---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
But I do want to remind you that we are "family-friendly" site. Just watch the 4-letters in the future.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
I hear my 13-year old kid say "cr*p" and thank myself silently that it wasn't something *else*...
---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
And our line is a fuzzy one, but I just wanted to make sure you were on notice before anything further happens.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
Bar of soap in mouth, standing in The Corner in hopes of avoiding The Pile.
---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Thompson may not have a lot of big-time executive experience, but he sure does EXUDE executive gravitas and capability. I'm not saying that image is everything--of course not. However, the presidency is about direction, vision, and ability to articulate it. This is not a job like a CEO where you are constantly managing the daily affairs of running a corporation and where if you accidentally hire someone who doesn't like keeping a strict calendar, the place turns all Vandelay Industries. That's the job of the Chief of Staff and the cabinet.
Personally, I don't think George W has strong management capability, but the job of president is not to make the trains run on time, and the trains do run in the federal gubmint.
Thompson also clearly has brains and is a level-headed person. He's not some demagogue with nothing to back it up.
Just look at Lincoln. Lincoln came to the presidency with absolutely zero executive experience and painfully showed it for months, if not years. However, he had what no one else had--a vision and an ability to articulate it like no one else. That is what allowed him to shepherd the most incredible federal military campaign in American history.
The problem with Romney is he has gotten caught in two unambiguous flip flops. That is deeply harmful to credibility.
Not to threadjack, but there is something to saying that the War on Terror is akin to the Civil War in that we need a strong and in some ways "stubborn" leader who will keep pressing. Lincoln faced immense pressure to just pack it in as casualties mounted and battlefield victories for the Union were hard to come by. But he persisted and insisted that the Union be held together at all costs. He drew anti-war challenges in 1864. He did not waver.
As for executive experience, U.S. GRant had lots of executive experience running the Union Army - he was not particularly good at the job of President. Jimmy Earle was also and executive that failed miserably. And for whatever we might say about his policies, JFK had no executive experience but was able to tap into something in the populace that inspired them. He managed to drastically cut taxes and started the drive towards dismantling Jim Crow laws in the South (I for one think the Civil Rights Acts were valuable in their time - not as a permanent addition to the federal statutes).
Executive experience is something to consider, but it is not, and never should be, a litmus test. No experience can even remotely prepare a person for the 24-7-365 nature of the White House or the magnitude of the decisions that need to be made. I think more important is "executive temperment" - that certain something that will allow him to deal with the unique and unforeseen circumstances that will arise.
The GOP still seems to be looking for something in its candidate field, and Thompson is tapping into that. Will he be able to get that "not quite satisfied" cohrt to coalesce around him remains to be seen - but I don't think it benefits anyone to imply that he offers nothing that isn't somehow already there in the form of an announced candidate.
He comes across as a true conservative who truly is conservative and doesn't take his stances in order to get elected and unlike any other candidate, he seems to be less 'political' than the others. Looking at Mitt, Rudy, and McCain... all three of them take stances on issues simply because they think it will get them votes. Thompson also has name recognition and has the demeaner that people want. Whether Romney truly is pro-abortion or pro-life... I don't know the answer to that. Maybe he was pro-life back when he was running against Teddy but took his stance in order to win that election. Maybe its the opposite. I don't know... but that's the point, isn't it? Maybe Romney is in favor of individual rights and less government intrusion. Maybe he only passed government-mandated health insurance to please the liberals in Mass. I don't know... but that's the point. I don't want to risk him coming in and forcing everyone in the country to buy health insurance. Is Thompson the guy? Maybe not. I'd like to hear more from him, but based on everything I have heard him say in the past, he'd have my support right now. That's not to say he'd have it when I go to vote in the primaries... I will wait until after the debates to make my final decision, but right now he seems like the only decent candidate to me. We'll see if that holds true for the next year.
A Fred Thompson candidacy is just fascinating. As of this moment, there are only two knocks against him. The first is his lack of executive experience (for what that is worth), and second, his personal background - which I know very little about (and no one has written about). According to Wikipedia (grain of salt) and IMBD.com, Thompson has been married twice, divorced once. His first marriage lasted 26 years (1959-85) with three children. His second and current marriage is almost five years along (and they have a young child). Jeri, according to the web sites, is a political media consultant (something the Republicans badly need) and has done work for the Senate Republican Conference and Republican National Committee.
What does all that mean? On the surface, Thompson has less personal baggage then Rudy has, and Gingrich will, if he runs.
I read a column (not sure where, now) about a Thompson run, and it made me believe McCain will have to either bow out or give his approval. The men are friends and Thompson won’t run if it means challenging McCain. At least, that’s what I took from the column. If Thompson does run, it will be a late announcement, at least for this election cycle. It is foreseeable that he will need an established campaign infrastructure (McCain’s?) to challenge the pack.
Right now, the Republican’s have laid their cards on the table, and it isn’t clear there is a winning hand. Is Thompson the ace we need for victory?
R.J.
In order to defeat Hillary Rodham Edwards, the republicans will need someone who not only can get conservatives motivated to vote, but the candidate will need to get swing voters. (Reagan democrats)
Rudy's biggest problem is that while he might do well attracting moderates and Reagan democrats, he won't do well with one third of the republican party which are social conservatives. A Rudy nomination could very well trigger a third party conservative candidate in the general. Even if the third party candidate got only 2% of the vote, it would do great harm in a close election against Billary.
McCain's biggest problems are 1) He looks old. 2) Conservatives hate his guts.
Romney biggest problem is that as the campaign unfolds, his prior flip flops will doom him as nothing more than an opportunist.
Fred Thompson is the only mainstream republican who can motivate the base to go out and vote, but also get enough swing voters to win the general election. In addition, Thompson looks and sounds like a president. In the age of TV sound bites, that is a huge advantage for a candidate to have.
that the Bill Mahers of this world might be a little hesitant when it comes to ridiculing him. He's a physically big guy that has a presence that says he may well not be willing to put up with a lot of guff. Just that in itself lends him a certain John Wayne-like distinction that you can't help but notice. Gives him an air of 'street cred' as it were. Not a bad characteristic to have in someone touting your ideals.
his appeal IS his lack of experience. Maybe thats the wrong way to put it. Perhaps its that he hasn't been slogging around DC his entire life and has actually lived different experiences that add more to him than just seeking office over and over and over like so many tired old pols on both sides.
He is the quintisential outsider, and Americans have historically fawned for that since the days of Andrew Jackson.
I think that is the excitement.
-------------------------------------
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason