Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Fred Thompson, DOA?
Slate's John Dickerson discusses the problems with putative potential maybe could-be GOP savior Fred Thompson:
Thompson's chief appeal is emotional. Until now, many conservative Republicans have had to wince when they thought of their plausible presidential choices. Giuliani is too liberal, McCain is too unpredictable and too well-liked by the media, and Romney seems like a flip-flopper on the issues they care about. The possibility of a Thompson candidacy excites the Republicans I talk to. He's an "outsider"-having left Washington for Law and Order before the Beltway rot set in. He's a good communicator, which means he can sell conservative policies and has the star power to battle Hillary or Obama. Though he hasn't been through the press-vetting process, his voting record and talk-radio performances suggest he holds conservative enough positions.....
The myth behind the Thompson quasi-candidacy is a dangerous one that bedevils both parties: If we just get a better communicator, people will love our policies. But once Thompson enters the race, he will have to either embrace or distance himself from GOP policies, which will either ruin his chances in the general election or hurt him with his conservative supporters. In short, he'll become just like any other candidate-something he might not like after such a big buildup.
I daresay the Libertarian Party also sometimes suffers from that belief Dickerson notes--that is, that getting libertarian ideas out there via a skilled communicator is all it takes for the nation to fall in line. Who, after all, doesn't like freedom? Well, depends on what the meaning of "freedom" is....
The Thompson wavelet seems to me a prime example of media and activists needing something new to talk about every few days to stave off the inevitable endgame of repetitious and predictable boredom, in an endless campaign where "every few days" is going to bring us any number of go-nowhere flashes in the pan.
wsdave|3.30.07 @ 7:19PM|#
I wonder: Is instant gratification news (or anything, for that matter) like a drug, in that it takes more of it, more frequently, to gratify us?
Reason\'s Buddies|3.30.07 @ 7:46PM|#
I don't think Dickerson understands that current "GOP policies"
are quite a bit different from what "his conservative supporters"
want to support.
For instance, the massive corruption and corporatism of the Bush
administration tends to find quite a bit more support among Reason
writers than it does among the Republican base or those
further right.
|3.30.07 @ 7:54PM|#
My problems with big Fred are 1) that he's a Republican, which
is basically a deal-breaker with me from the get-go, but also 2)
the guy is an empty suit.
What has he done? He was elected senator and set out to kick
Clinton's ass with his investigation of the 1996 election, which
turned up bupkis despite all the lurid allegations that Thompson
led with, accusing Bill of taking money from the Communist
Chinese.
It's my impression that Thompson spent the most of the rest of his
one term dating Hollywood babes and pissing off his Republican
colleagues. It's entertaining that Republicans are actually excited
about this guy, because it strongly suggests that, basically, they
got nothing.
The Republican base--the real Republican base--are southern and
western evangelicals. They know that neither Giuliani nor McCain
give a damn about Jesus, while Romney is more into Joseph Smith. As
for Newt, he worships Newt. Everyone knows that. There isn't an
evangelical in the whole crowd. So naturally they're ready to get
pumped about anyone whose real name is "none of the above."
|3.30.07 @ 8:00PM|#
the massive corruption and corporatism of the Bush
administration tends to find quite a bit more support among Reason
writers
Maybe you're reading a different Reason than the rest of us?
|3.30.07 @ 8:25PM|#
Maybe you're reading a different Reason than the rest of
us?
The Spanish version?
Guy Montag|3.30.07 @ 9:33PM|#
My goodness. Fred Fear has spread from Mr. Weigel to the rest of
the Reason staff.
And still no coverage of the captured and exploited British Sailors
and Marines; not a word about that other Thompson, aide to Senator
Webb.
|3.30.07 @ 10:27PM|#
...that is, that getting libertarian ideas out there via a
skilled communicator is all it takes for the nation to fall in
line.
I guess I've disassociated myself from libertarians who fall prey
to this; and it is a source of no small amusement to me to try
disabusing a leftist of the same. Right-wing-nuts don't usually
expect better communication to work, because they believe it's up
to you to hear the Lord's word and take it to heart - so any
failure is on the part of the listener and not the
communicator.
|3.30.07 @ 10:53PM|#
I really wish I weren't this cynical, but, honestly, I think that people support Thompson because they confuse him with his characters. The Manhattan DA is tough on crime but seems so nice and competent; the guy who plays him must be wonderful, too. Reagan had been governor of California and a few other things before he ran for President. This guy spent what? two terms? in the Senate and several seasons playing a DA. If we need someone to impersonate steely-eyed and lantern-jawed toughness, Thompson's our guy. Actual competence, maybe someone else.
eb|3.30.07 @ 11:00PM|#
I've always had a positive impression of Thompson but after
reading and hearing recent opinion pieces that I understand were
done as he filled in for Paul Harvey, I was unimpressed. His
attempt at the folksy approach bordered on patronizing.
Others have pointed out that he is taking this approach because of
the format of the Harvey show but if he wants to be taken seriously
as a candidate, the first thing he should do is drop the Harvey
show and put a little more thought into his statements.
|3.30.07 @ 11:04PM|#
This guy spent what? two terms? in the Senate and several
seasons playing a DA.
Which is more terms than any of the Democratic candidates has spent
in the Senate.
Single Issue Voter|3.30.07 @ 11:04PM|#
libertarian cred for Fred Thompson?
how about 99-1 on a Senate Vote to set national drunk driving BA
standard at .08
Though I'm sure Fred's opponents will portray this in the typical
political manner, "Thompson Supports Drunk Driving",he was the lone
dissenter as he saw it no business of the Feds to set state drunk
driving laws. I believe he was in a similar position on a "____
Free Schools Act" as well (Fred Supports Guns and Drugs in
Schools)
Thompson's recent radio opinion on abortion should please everyone
but the "baby-killing is a constitutional Right" Left and "Save the
Sperm!" Right. He stated Roevs Wade is bad law
and should be overturned (anyone besides the lefty trolls here
disagree with that?) Opposes a Constitutional ban and says abortion
should be left to individual States. I believe that is Ron Paul's
position as well.
|3.30.07 @ 11:06PM|#
As an addendum to that post, I'm not trying to bash the Democrats (not that I wouldn't like to...) - it's just that in recent years, the level of experience in office required to be a "serious" presidential candidate has dropped a lot - if it was ever extremely high to begin with.
Fluffy|3.30.07 @ 11:07PM|#
I don't think "Reason's Buddies" understands that the "GOP
policies" that any putative Presidential candidate will have to
genuflect to in order to win the nomination are:
1. War Forever
2. All Torture, All The Time
3. Carve W Into Mt. Rushmore
All that "we've lost our way because we forgot about small
government" whining that goes on at freerepublic is nice to hear,
but has no real electoral reality within the Republican primary
voter base. All the candidates will make nice-nice and talk about
small government, so it's irrelevant. Every candidate will be
forced to declare their desire to drink the blood of every Iraqi in
order to have any chance in the primary, and doing so will make it
essentially impossible for them to win the general.
That goes for Thompson too.
Single Issue Voter|3.30.07 @ 11:24PM|#
Fluffy,
I think your requirements for a Republican nominee are more
acceptable to the American people at large than that demanded by
the Dem base.
1 Surrender and Apologize to Al Qaeda for our actions/policies that
lead to our well deserved spanking on 9/11/01-agree to scrap the
Constitution for Sharia Law.
2 Turn authority over our military over to the UN while reserving
our sovereign rights to have gay and women combat units commanded
by officers with liberal arts degres from a "Peace College"
3 Renounce our use of technology and capitalism
until we can replace it with centrally planned govermentally
determined collective/socialist green alternatives while giving the
rest of the world a chance to "catch up"
|3.31.07 @ 12:17AM|#
What do you want to bet that the cable networks and syndicators
whose paychecks rely on innundating us poor viewers with Law and
Order reruns are going to offer Fred beaucoup de buckos, if he will
only set aside any ambitions he may have for the Presidency. The
minute he becomes an official candidate, there goes their meal
ticket.
If Fred actually goes for the Oval, you can be pretty sure it is
because he can't be bought -- or because someone else was willing
to pay a higher price to own the next POTUS.
|3.31.07 @ 1:04AM|#
It seems to me that a few too many voters want a 'rock star'.
For the Democrats, it's Barack Obama. For the Republicans, it's
Fred Thompson and/or Giuliani. Wouldn't it be nice if some of the
voters in both of these parties could actually use some
intelligence and look at the issues and do some research on the
candidates. How many people who support Obama have read his book
"Audacity of Hope" for example? How many people who bash Mitt
Romney have read Hugh Hewitts new book on him, "A Mormon in the
White House, Ten Things Every American Should Know About Mitt
Romney"? After reading some of these books, how many people then
start inspecting a candidates voting record?
These, of course, are just some examples of potential starting
places in ones' research.
Sadly, it seems that many are just listening to little blurbs
instead.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.31.07 @ 1:13AM|#
....that getting libertarian ideas out there via a skilled
communicator is all it takes for the nation to fall in
line.
Yes. I used to think that too. Then I got old waiting for it to
happen. I think Walter Williams said something to the effect that
libertarians have the best stuff in the world but we can't sell it
to anybody. Actually, we can't even give it away. Pretty sure
that's an indictment of our fellow man, but maybe not.
|3.31.07 @ 1:15AM|#
Why would Dick Wolf or other people want to bribe Fred Thompson
not to run for POTUS?
Does something similar to the Tiki Barber Rule Apply?
If Fred runs for POTUS, will he have to give up his Cadillac
endorsements..I mean his L&O episodes will have to stop airing?
When Reagan was Prez, were cable stations banned from airing his
movies?
I dont remember that.
If you are implying L&O will end if Thompson leaves... The show
has been on like 18 seasons and every member of the cast is
expendable. Apparently SVU needs it's main cast, but the original
show cast is revolving ( and Criminal Intent cast literally
alternates). DAs, ADAs,detectives- come and go. If anything it
might be time for it to end soon anyway.
Hell, Fred thompson is on that show? I thought it was Dianne Weist.
I barely noticed.
BTW, I remember Fred playing senator-types as an actor, long before
he was a Senator.
He was an actor before Congress, kinda like Cooter from Duks of
Hazzard.
|3.31.07 @ 1:27AM|#
If tomorrow, Sam Waterston announced he was running for president, I bet he and Romney would be at least tied in the polls... Let's give this Fred Thompson thing a month before we start devoting precious thought-power to it. Hell, that goes for the whole election.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.31.07 @ 1:37AM|#
Sam Waterston. Pfffft! Sam Elliot, you mean. Now there's a guy who can play a stand up guy.
|3.31.07 @ 1:59AM|#
Listening to Thompson fill in for Paul Harvey, he sounds pretty good on domestic economic policy, favoring limited government. But he sounds way to hawkish on Mideast foreign policy to be taken seriously. And those foreign policy views would likely make him a loser in the general election anyway if he got the nomination.
|3.31.07 @ 8:55AM|#
If Fred runs for POTUS, will he have to give up his Cadillac
endorsements..I mean his L&O episodes will have to stop
airing?
You can be sure his opponents would make that argument.
BlogginIowa|3.31.07 @ 8:59AM|#
Sadly, Thompson is looking awfully phat to the bouffant-poofing Republican ladies of Iowa right now. He's got that certain jowl-de-vivre they cream their Lane Bryants over on bridge night. I think if he gets out here, he'll do well, at least at first blush.
eb|3.31.07 @ 10:34AM|#
"This guy spent what? two terms? in the Senate and several
seasons playing a DA.
Which is more terms than any of the Democratic candidates has spent
in the Senate."
That is a great point I hadn't thought of. The "lack of experience"
argument from the Dems is simply hollow.
I'm trying to determine if the Dems will think military experience
is important this election cycle. Last time it was the #1 issue. I
don't hear about it now.
|3.31.07 @ 11:02AM|#
For instance, the massive corruption and corporatism of the
Bush administration tends to find quite a bit more support among
Reason writers than it does among the Republican base or those
further right.
Good luck getting back to your own universe.
|3.31.07 @ 1:11PM|#
John C Jackons 3: Cable is in a tricky position. The government
keeps rattling a saber about imposing more regulation (censorship)
on the industry, even though I don't think they have a proper leg
to stand on, given the First Amendment and the fact that the cable
channels don't use "the public airwaves," which the FCC controls.
So the cable stations may run L&O and they may not, depending
on how badly they need the money or how little they fear pissing
off the "regulate cable" guys in Congress.
Broadcast stations, however, will have to observe the Equal Time
rule. So they will probably refrain from running Thompson vehicles,
including L&O, just as California TV stations wouldn't run
Terminator and other Schwarzenegger vehicles when he was running
for Governor, and as an earlier generation of broadcasters
refrained from running Reagan movies and TV shows when he was
running for Governor and President. (Remember Death Valley Days?
That was still running in some places, as late as the
mid-70s!)
Frankly, I do hope that cable channels will run L&O if Thompson
runs for the Oval. I just don't expect it. As Batman said,
"broadcasters are a superstitious and cowardly lot..." Or was he
talking about criminals (or politicians)?
|3.31.07 @ 8:10PM|#
The Thompson "wavelet" is going to turn into his Tsunami. The
dems are scared to death this guy is going to run. A few
points:
1. Mr. T has better credentials than Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.
The "he's just an actor" rap ain't gonna wash.
2. Thompson is a bona fide conservative. Small government, stong on
national defense, social conservative but not on the nut
evangelical.
3. Thompson is a slam dunk to sweep the south and Reagan
Republicans.
4. Has the charisma and speaking skills to crush any Dem in a
debate and could also use the bully pulpit like no one since
Reagan.
Mark my words, if he runs he'll be our next president.
|3.31.07 @ 8:55PM|#
A couple of days back while channel surfing I caught Lou
(ick...) Dobbs who had a report on efforts to get Thompson to run.
The story stated that Fred's primary roadblock, the Christian
Right, represented by James "Look! Daddy has a penis"
Dobson, does believe that Fred has the Fundy street cred to woo
the bible-beaters. The Jesus-freaks prefer Newt, regardless of his
three divorces and extra-marital affairs.
Still, I wouldn't vote for Thompson anyway.
|3.31.07 @ 8:58PM|#
What? I know I pasted that URL.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Dobson#Masculinity
|4.1.07 @ 12:28PM|#
Dobson's commentary on Thompson is interesting. "I'm glad he
professes to be a Christian."
His issue isn't whether a candidate is a believer, or someone who
lives his life according to Christian principles, as the
Gingrich-love demonstrates, but whether that candidate incorporates
Christianity into his public identity and political ideology.
Thompson could spend every Saturday night holding vigil in the
chapel, and every Sunday leading the choir, but if he kept his
religion to himself rather than using it as a political weapon,
people like Dobson wouldn't have anything to do with him.
Phil Bailey|4.1.07 @ 4:03PM|#
How do you determine that the response to Fred Thompson is only
emotional? I strongly disagree with that assessment. The support
for Thompson has two sources in the GOP.
1. Those who reject all of the above for whatever reason. Since all
three front leaders must contort their records to fit the middle of
the GOP's beliefs.
2. Many in the GOP do not want to support someone that they have to
guess about their positions. Thompson has a track record.
What's not calculated in to Thompson's support numbers are the
Independents that he will pick up in the General Election, just as
he did in Tennessee, when he stood for reelection. He gathered more
votes for a statewide office than any other individual in Tennessee
history.
In addition, Thompson puts the fear in Democrats. Think about it! A
debate between Thompson and Hillary or Obama. I would pay to see
that event. Visit http://www.AnotherRonaldReagan.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245