Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you want to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Posted on 06/27/2007 6:49:34 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Last week every Republican presidential candidate with hopes of emerging as "The True Conservative" in the race--Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul--traveled to Kansas City to speak to the National Right to Life Convention (NRLC). And then there was Fred Thompson. Although he's not yet an official candidate, Thompson clearly plans to run--and he plans to run as the Truest of True Conservatives. So it seemed that a sojourn to Kansas City to stoke an important segment of the conservative base would be in order. But Thompson skipped the trip, choosing instead to address the NRLC by a pre-recorded two-and-a-half-minute video. His reason? He had a scheduling conflict.
When I first read about this, I was dumbstruck. What sort of scheduling conflict could Thompson have that would prevent him from going to the NRLC? Since he's not even an official candidate yet, it's not like his schedule could be that busy. But then, a few days later, I learned what the conflict was: Thompson was going to London to kiss the ring of Margaret Thatcher and give a speech to Policy Exchange .
Now, there were obvious political benefits from such a trip: He got to associate himself with the last living conservative icon (since Ronald Reagan is dead and President Bush is in disrepute) and give a hawkish speech on foreign soil. But I think this episode reveals something about Thompson that makes me doubt he'll do much in the presidential campaign once he does officially enter it. At a basic level, he's a lazy dilettante--someone who would much rather go to London than Kansas City. Which is a perfectly understandable preference for you and me, but not for someone who wants to be president.
I understand the flaws of the other Republican candidates--particularly the big three of Giuliani, McCain, and Romney--and the reasons each one of them will have trouble capturing the nomination. And I realize that there's an opening for another candidate to enter the field late in the game--relatively speaking, of course, since it's only June--and win the nomination. But I doubt Thompson is that candidate, mainly because there's nothing in Thompson's background that suggests he has the stamina and desire to actually mount a serious presidential campaign. If Richard Ben-Cramer were writing What It Takes about the '08 presidential crop, I don't know how he'd be able to eke out more than just a few pages on good old Fred.
hompson's Senate career, of course, was completely undistinguished. His highest-profile moment came on the opening day of the 1997 campaign-finance hearings he chaired when he asserted that the Chinese government was pouring illegal money into American campaigns. But then, when it came to the hard work of actually backing up that assertion, he completely whiffed. Even his acting career, I'd argue, reflects a certain lack of follow-through. On one level, maybe it's not Thompson's fault that he's been pigeonholed as a character actor; but most character actors, at some point, get tired of being character actors and at least take a stab at playing a leading role. Thompson's never done that--contenting himself to play the same straight-talking, tough-minded rear admiral (The Hunt for Red October), NASCAR commissioner (Days of Thunder) or district attorney (Law & Order) in role after role. Indeed, in the last feature film Thompson appeared in, Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World, he played "Senator Fred Dalton Thompson." Talk about stretching himself.
Of course, Thompson has done a masterful job, to this point, of positioning himself as the GOP's great conservative hope. But his pre-campaign--which has consisted primarily of Internet videos and radio commentaries--doesn't require much heavy-lifting. It's the real campaign itself that will be Thompson's true test. And, right now, I don't see anything in his past that suggests he's up to the challenge.
Best, Jason
-------------------------------------
I think Fred Thompson has a very strong chance to become the GOP nominee, and every time I see somebody argue against that proposition, it just seems to make me think it even more. Let's start with his trip to London. I thought it was a brilliant move myself. Thompson is looking for ways to hint to the conservative base that he's one of them without harming his general election viability. The Thatcher trip was a perfect way to do it.
Likewise, I think you're missing Thompson's niche. I don't think his appeal is as the truest of the true conservatives. I think his appeal is that he can check all the boxes and has the personality to be a strong general election contender. He's extremely good at playing authority figures, and conservatives understand that this is a valuable asset to have in a nominee. He doesn't have to be 100 percent pure, he just needs to be pure enough. The Thatcher trip is one of the ways he's showing he's pure enough. After all, Ronald Reagan himself inaugurated the practice of phoning in his remarks to the Right-to-Life rallies in Washington.
In some way, Thompson's ability to keep his distance from parts of the conservative base is also part of his appeal to conservatives. The other contenders all have massive conservative liabilities. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney both held office in very liberal places and took liberal positions. John McCain went to war with the conservatives from 2000 through 2004. For that reason, all of them almost have to go over the top in establishing their conservative bona fides. But the mere fact that they have to embrace George W. Bush and the conservative base to such an extent explicitly undermines their general election viability and makes them less useful to the party elite.
Thompson's luxury is that, in his stint as senator, he was basically a party regular. So he doesn't have to shout his fealty to the right from the rooftops. He can send out more subtle signs.
ut, hey, maybe you're right that Thompson decided to make a transatlantic trip just because he's lazy. I will concede that the lazy stereotype about Thompson is probably true. Is this a liability? Sure. The key question is, compared to what? Giuliani was and is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and was wildly pro-illegal immigrant. He seems to step on a landmine every week. And talk about lazy--he seems not to have prepared himself for a question about Roe v. Wade before the first Republican debate.
McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, violated Republican orthodoxy on just about everything, is despised by enormous chunks of the base, and is ten years older than Thompson. Romney has been defined as a flip-flopper in a way that just destroys his public persona, and his religion makes him utterly anathema to the very constituency he hopes will be his strongest supporters.
Compared to these liabilities, I'd take the candidate who spends a few less days pressing the flesh in Iowa diners. I think the principle of diminishing returns applies to shoe-leather campaigning anyway. I also think the Republican Party is a hierarchical organization, and the party elite is pretty good at deciding what it wants and getting the grass roots to follow along.
Thompson is the one contender who hasn't alienated a major segment of the party. He may not win voters over one by one over coffee klatches in Des Moines, but by the end he'll have Rush Limbaugh and Fox News making his case for him.
Best,
Jonathan
-------------------------------------
Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the man who glorified ass-welt reporting would take such a dim view of shoe-leather campaigning. But I do think you underestimate the importance of a candidate hitting the hustings--particularly as a way of impressing the party elite.
For one thing, if the rap against Thompson is that he's lazy--as it certainly seems to be--then he would be smart to prove otherwise to the party elite by doing some actual shoe-leather campaigning. After all, I don't think the party elite is going to rally around Thompson as the strongest general election candidate unless it thinks Thompson is going to work to win the general election.
Moreover, in early primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire, shoe-leather campaigning is crucial to winning the support of the party elite, which, more than anything, wants to be flattered. And there's no better way to flatter the people that matter in those states than by showing up time and time again and telling them how wonderful they are.
Which is why, if I was looking for a sign as to whether Fred Thompson does have a shot at taking the GOP's presidential nomination, I'd keep my eye on what approach he takes to the Iowa Straw Poll in August. As it stands right now, the Iowa Straw Poll is Romney's to lose--and the chances of him actually losing it are exceedingly slim, hence Giuliani and McCain's recent decisions to skip the event. But that doesn't mean Thompson wouldn't stand to gain from participating in the straw poll. And, by participating, I don't mean just showing up in Ames on August 11, but hauling his red pickup out of the garage and driving it around the state pretty much non-stop between his official campaign announcement--now apparently set for July 4--and the straw poll itself.
Of course, I don't really expect Thompson to do that. Sure, he'll probably take the red pickup for a spin or two through the cornfields, but I imagine he'll spend more time behind the keyboard tapping out blog posts than behind the wheel driving across Iowa.
Which will raise an interesting question: Can he appeal to the party elite with such a casual, almost meta approach to the campaign? I agree with you that the GOP tends to be a hierarchical organization in which the elites basically control the grassroots--and, in that respect, appealing to the party elite is crucial for any Republican hoping to win the GOP presidential nomination. But I still don't understand what makes you so certain the elites will decide Thompson is their guy.
I gather in your mind that it's a process of elimination: There's no way the powers that be in the GOP will support Giuliani, McCain, or Romney, so they'll have to go with Thompson. But, while I can understand your certainty about Giuliani and McCain, I'm not so sure about Romney. As Noam Scheiber has already argued at TNR Online, Romney, in fact, is the perfect test case about who really controls the GOP--because, while rank-and-file evangelicals may be suspicious of him due to his Mormon faith, evangelical leaders are quite impressed by him. And one of the reasons they're impressed, it seems, is because Romney has worked overtime to woo them. As Noam wrote:
In addition to [Jay] Sekulow, Romney wowed the likes of Jerry Falwell and Gary Bauer at last October's meet-and-greet with evangelical heavies. He performed a similar feat two weeks earlier in a meeting with the Baptist leadership of South Carolina. Romney won positive reviews this January at a conclave of influential conservatives sometimes called the GOP's Renaissance Weekend. And he has thus far gained the admiration of anti-tax jihadist Grover Norquist, disgraced evangelical huckster Ralph Reed, Focus on the Family honcho James Dobson, and much of the staff of National Review.
Thompson, to be sure, has earned his fair share of hosannas from GOP heavyweights, but so far, they mostly seem excited about the fact that he slapped around Michael Moore. Will Thompson's pithy, 30-second YouTube spots be any match for Romney's sustained--and in-person--charm offensive? I have my doubts.
Best,
Jason
thinking not included.. we’re talking about “the left” here...
A bit snide, what?
Tomorrow will be the final installment of this series, and I will post it at that time. If all they have is “Fred is lazy” and “he was once a lobbyist”, Senator Thompson needs to make an appoinment to pick out new drapes for the Oval Office...
Jason remains a bit clueless. The other guy’s more on track.
Funny that they don’t realize that instead of speaking at the NRLC in front of a few, he got to make a video that was viewed by millions AND got a standing ovation from the NRLC.
He can win. But only if he actually enters the race.
He is the most talked about candidate now, and he has yet to spend a single dime. He has gotten $20-30 million in free advertising, he is being drafted by a huge grass roots movement, and he doesn’t need to associate with the pigmy’s now running for president to gain credibility, he has plenty of gravitas all on his own.
Should be about a week from now, IIRC...
What the hell was his name? Rogers...Regen, Rea, yeah, that was it, that guys name was Reagan.
I'll take another one of those.
Yeah, but without the side of RINO this time (i.e., GHWB).
Is that so? Curious. - I don't know of anyone up to this point who mentioned that in conjunction with his presidential aspirations. - or anyone at all, for that matter.
Perhaps the writer has a sore spot from whatever he is writing about, but I doubt that it has a any bearing on our support for Fred.
Oh, I get it now. Fred is lazy because he doesn’t run around spewing mindless sound bites, incessantly redefining his ‘beliefs’ and explaining why conservatives should vote for liberals like Rudy and Mitt... and shrieking “We gotta do something” at every overblown ‘crisis’ invented by the blood-drenched gutter press.
I’m more than happy to have a ‘lazy’ candidate like that. I prefer that to the frenetic Rino and Demon candidates who, for all practical purposes, act like they are snorting crank 15 times a day.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you want to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Aah, the “Fred is Lazy” route.
Fred is the kind of guy that is so likeable, laid back, and softspoken, you don’t realize he just kicked your a$$.
The office is about charecter too.
In the months ahead you’ll see footage of Fred Thompson, seeking the truth, as a lawyer a the Watergate hearings (He asked the question to Butterfield that doomed Nixon).
Remember that according to Jerome Ziefman, who was lead Dem counsel, Hillary didn’t believe Nixon was entitled to an Impeachment lawyer.
That’s the difference between the two in a nutshell.
That's not a political statement. It's a fact.
Right, and the surprising thing is how successful he has been at everything he has tried.
Just think what he could do if he had a little more ambition.
Democrats talking point about Fred Thompson
- he’s lazy, because he don’t follow everyone else
- evil lobbyist who makes $60k/year for 20 years, not the good lobbyists on the Democrats side that makes millions/year like Clinton
Well, beats those hyperactive idiots on dems’ roster. It's about time someone noticed that.
JCEccles wrote: “The truth is, Fred is lazy. That’s not a political statement. It’s a fact.”
No, it isn’t. It’s just more of JCEccles’ usual lies. Total BS without a single supporting shred of evidence...
There IS solid evidence, however, for the opposite view:
*
Every profile I’ve read on Thompson contains references, by the typical unnamed coward sources, to him being “lazy”, his Senate career lackluster, and gasp, there’s not a piece of legislation with his name on it! (Well gee, Teddy Kennedy has his name on a bunch of bills – and that’s made the nation a better place, n’est ce pas?)
My experience with Senator Thompson dates to when I was the public affairs chief for GAO, the Government Accountability Office, a legislative branch agency providing oversight of the feds. Thompson was chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, the complementary panel to GAO. It’s kind of a backwater committee, with not the visibility of say, Foreign Affairs, or Armed Services, or Appropriations. But the committee is essential to investigating the mechanics of government – and how those gears can be made to work more efficiently.
So yeah, Thompson was a big show boater – a huge proponent of the Clinger-Cohen Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996, doncha know; which required that the “government information technology shop be operated exactly as an efficient and profitable business would be operated.” Then there was his support for the President’s Management Agenda, announced in the summer of 2001, “an aggressive strategy for improving the management of the Federal government…focusing on Expanding E-Government: Improved Service Delivery for the American People Using Information Technology and Expanding E-Government: Partnering for a Results-Oriented Government.” Yowzah, man, hot Hot HOT! Front page baby!
...So now I hear the stories about Thompson, which are typical of 1. Opponents who want to drag him down, which is the way it works, and 2. A lazy press corps who but for a few stalwarts, didn’t cover this subject matter when Thompson was preaching at the wind.
Now, I’m too much of a nothing burger to have any say in this race. But Thompson, whatever his faults, is not getting a fair shake. When you’re waxing on about OMB circulars and Clinger-Cohen’s e-billing protocols, you’re not exactly lazy or lackluster. In fact, you’re actually doing what government is supposed to be doing, which is trying to do better.
- Jeff Nelligan, The Coastmaster..., June 8, 2007
http://coastmaster.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-slacker-big-fred-grinds-it-out.html
*
Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank, said he saw Thompson as a thoughtful lawmaker able to reach across party lines.
“He worked plenty and he absorbed plenty,” said Ornstein.
Thomas Ferraro, Capitol Hill Blue, June 2, 2007
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2619
*
In interviews, several of his former Senate aides expressed surprise at suggestions by unnamed critics that their old boss might be lethargic.
“Whoever says this man is lazy never worked for him,” said Bill Outhier, a former aide who recalled the campaign finance staff “working until midnight” because the senator was still in the office.
- Julia Malone, Cox News Service, May 11, 2007
*
As Robert Novak reported last week, the rap againt Thomspon is that “he was not a hard worker during his eight years in the Senate.” Yet I’m told by a source who was there that Thompson was a reasonably diligent member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In any case, this rap is unlikely to hurt Thompson with voters outside the beltway.
What will matter is whether Thompson is prepared to campaign diligently for the nomination. If so, he likely will represent a force to be reckoned with.
- Paul Mirengoff, Power Line, March 25, 2007
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017150.php
*
The rap on Thompson is that he was “lazy” when he was in the Senate. This is precisely the same sort of rap that Leftists made about Ronald Reagan. In fact, this is strength. Because Thompson acts from principle, he does not need to engage in the Machiavellian machinations which pass for “work” in Washington. The reality is that it is absurd to consider Thompson, who has worked during his life in more real jobs than almost any politician in Washington and who today stars in two television programs as well as being the substitute for Paul Harvey and a frequent commentator in conservative periodicals is “lazy” at all. Like Reagan, he probably works harder than anyone in Washington.
- Bruce Walker, Intellectual Conservative, March 22, 2007
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/03/22/yes-the-next-reagan
*
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.