Here Comes Fred

It's official: Fred Thompson is running. The conventional wisdom has it that he lost his momentum by waiting this long to enter. The conventional wisdom is concocted by people who have trouble remembering that 95 percent of the country isn't paying attention to the campaign yet. (The other five percent is running.)

I'm not saying Thompson doesn't have problems -- there's been talk of anemic fundraising, for example -- but it's far too early to write him off. Giuliani still has the substantial handicap of being pro-choice in a fiercely pro-life party. The other frontrunner, Mitt Romney, has been counting on the support of social conservatives uncomfortable with the former mayor of New York. But they're less than enthusiastic about settling for the former governor of Massachusetts. (When exactly did the northeast take over the GOP?) When Romney speaks, the question isn't whether he believes what he's saying; it's whether he believes anything at all.

There are other social conservatives in the race, of course, but they don't have the TV star's crossover appeal. I don't say this as a partisan -- I'm a Ron Paul man myself -- but I think Thompson still has a substantial shot at the nomination. I'd even put some money on it, but then I'd have an incentive to cheer for the guy, and I don't think I could stomach that.

Comments

[Chancellor]

I'm a Ron Paul man myself

Wait, Jesse is a MAN?!?

...I kid of course (or do I?).

[stephen the goldberger]

If the party falls for this bush part deux then they are clearly beyond saving

[SugarFree]

stephen the goldberger,

Wouldn't this technically be Bush part trois? Wasn't 2004 the 2nd time voters fell for this brand of idiocy?

[x,y]

It's called conventional wisdom for a reason. Thompson is a piker.

[Cesar]

Thompson is probably the emptiest suit to ever run for President on the Republican side. And thats saying something.

[Pro Libertate]

But he's a celebrity.

[Rhywun]

Wouldn't this technically be Bush part trois?

Or part quatre if you're including Bush p?re.

[ChrisO]

Fred Thompson: Bringing K Street and Mayberry RFD Together.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Fred, our laziest president yet and most petulant.

[Franklin Harris]

Thompson is probably the emptiest suit to ever run for President on the Republican side.

Essentially, he's the Republican Obama, except he substitutes folksy "aw shucks" charm (if you go for that sort of thing) for Obama's "hope is audacious!" self-help-guru persona.

[Rhywun]

folksy "aw shucks" charm

That describes every president elected in my lifetime, except maybe Carter who combined both traits.

[de stijl]

He's only 65 but he looks 80. At he got "old" in a big hurry - last year or two. He doesn't have a chance.

[rho]

Wow, this thread is a snoozer. Fred is so limp he's not even worthy of a good mocking?

[econ2econ]

First post on H&R! I don't see how he has a real chance. People like to talk about him, and he says things that many Republicans like, but he's got no credibility whatsoever. I like Ron Paul, as well, although his anti-war stance is what's going to kill him.

[Rhywun]

Fred is so limp he's not even worthy of a good mocking?

Well, I stopped watching Law & Order long before he showed up, so I have nothing more to say about the guy than about any of the other schmucks I'd never heard of before.

[BakedPenguin]

Betfair has Thompson as a 4 to 1 shot, along with Romney. Guissolini is 2.7 to 1. McCain is 17 to 1, and Paul rounds out the top 5 at 27 to 1.

Since this thread appears to be dying anyway, let me add this: Whenever I see/hear Huckabee's name, I picture a little kid throwing a bumblebee at someone.

[anon]

I'm not saying Thompson doesn't have problems -- there's been talk of anemic fundraising, for example -- but it's far too early to write him off. Giuliani still has the substantial handicap of being pro-choice in a fiercely pro-life party.

Fred is also pro-choice. He won't use that word, but he made some very clear statements on the subject in the 1990s. He even did lobbying work for a pro-choice group.

[Isaac Bartram]

Fred is also pro-choice.

So was Romney when he wanted to be elected in Massachusetts.

Fortunately for American politicians they serve a populace with exceedingly short memories. Hence, noone even notices the changed minds.

I started to get this germ of an idea in nineteen-sixty-something that you could not count on what a politician said being what he actually thought or believed.

It has only gotten stronger since.

[grumpy realist]

This is the same Fred who just had another three main people quit from his campaign, right?

I don't know what is going to be funnier--watching the Republicans hanging on to the sinking ship mewling "but he's another Reagan! (blub blub blub)" or watching the pundits Being Very Serious About Fred Thompson's Chances.

[Jesse Walker]

Fred is also pro-choice. He won't use that word, but he made some very clear statements on the subject in the 1990s. He even did lobbying work for a pro-choice group.

He did some lobbying that he's managed to explain away to at least some conservatives' satisfaction. It's possible that it will continue to haunt him, but when he's up against the much more naked flip-flopping of Mitt Romney and the outright apostasy of Rudy Giuliani, I suspect the pro-lifers will consider him the most acceptable of the candidates who might actually get the nomination.

watching the pundits Being Very Serious About Fred Thompson's Chances

Maybe I need to get out more, but nearly all the pundits I read are pooh-poohing him.

[Aresen]

For all the substance Mr. Thompson has shown, I think I prefer the "Fred" depicted above.

Yabba-dabba-doo!

[Grand Chalupa]

Thompson is probably the emptiest suit to ever run for President on the Republican side. And thats saying something.

Isn't that what libertarians want? Better an empty suit than someone sitting around figuring out the best way for the government to control our health care and extort twice as much of our money.

The sympathy for the Dems, Obama in particular, on this site is sickening. The guy is a fucking socialist, and not even a third way Bill Clinton type whose made his peace with the market.

[Pro Libertate]

I object to Obama and have little to no sympathy for the Democrats. Or the Republicans, with one major exception.

On the other hand, I guess I'm mildly okay with Richardson, with plenty of reservations.

[Gene Berkman]

Conventional wisdom be damned! Fred Thompson lost momentum the moment he entered. I was watching Fox News rather than Leno, but the outtakes from his appearance on Leno made me wonder - Is that all there is?

Do you think maybe he waited this long to announce so that he would not be in many of these debates? Down home only gets you so far when you lack substance. Maybe his fellow Tennessean Lamar Alexander can let him in on that secret.

[Pro Libertate]

I'll vote for Thompson if he does a commercial where he sits in front of the camera in a wifebeater, while holding a bottle of Tennessee's own Jack Daniels and saying, "Whiskey: It's what's for dinner."

[Cesar]

Isn't that what libertarians want? Better an empty suit than someone sitting around figuring out the best way for the government to control our health care and extort twice as much of our money.

An empty suit can also be easily manipulated by the more disgusting elements in their party, as we have seen with George W. Bush.

I don't have any sympathy for Obama who, too, is pretty much an empty suit. The only people in this race I really like are Paul and to a much lesser extent Richardson. Anybody else makes me throw up.

[Cesar]

Oh, and an empty suit would be just as ineffective at expanding government as he would be at effectively reducing it.

[Pro Libertate]

But would you vote for a whiskey-swillin', Stella-screamin' candidate?

[stephen the goldberger]

"An empty suit can also be easily manipulated by the more disgusting elements in their party, as we have seen with George W. Bush.

I don't have any sympathy for Obama who, too, is pretty much an empty suit. The only people in this race I really like are Paul and to a much lesser extent Richardson. Anybody else makes me throw up."

Thats exactly the way i see it

[Cesar]

But would you vote for a whiskey-swillin', Stella-screamin' candidate?

As President of my fraternity in college? Sure! As President of the United Sates? Not so much.

[Grand Chalupa]

Oh, and an empty suit would be just as ineffective at expanding government as he would be at effectively reducing it.

Nonsense, to get universal health care you've gotta go up against a lot of special interests. Someone like Hillary who has been socially conscious (or to put it less kindly, a power freak) her whole life is much more likely to want to use government to save the world.

This is nuts. Let's look at the options

Democrats win:

Sure to lose an extra 10-20% of your income and have your health care be under the control of the government (health care is about 15% of the US economy). This is a real possibility if the congress stays democrat and they get the white house too.

Republicans win:

You get a one in hundred million chance of someone easdropping on your telephone conversation with your aunt Martha.

Why do people here seem to think Republicans are worse? Explain this to me.

[Isaac Bartram]

But would you vote for a whiskey-swillin', Stella-screamin' candidate?

Might be an improvement over the last lot of Preznits.

As for me I'm waiting for the candidate who says, "I have a cunning plan."

Then I'll vote for the bloke who says, "Baldrick, you're an idiot."

[Cesar]

Nonsense, to get universal health care you've gotta go up against a lot of special interests.

And to get truly free market health care, you have to do the same. A dipshit like Thompson can't accomplish that.

We've had eight years of an empty suit, hows that workin out for ya Chalupa? I used the same logic in 2000, many other people used it in 2004, but I for one won't be fooled again. It truly pains me to say this but this country was better off in 2000 than it is now.

This doesn't mean I have any sympathy for the Democrats, let alone Hillary. Its just a statement of fact.

[Cesar]

I also find it extremely ironic that the great IQ fetishist Chalupa is actually prefers a President with a low IQ!

[Cesar]

should read "is actually preferring"

[Grand Chalupa]

Of course I want my government run by people who have low IQs! That means they'll be incompetent, fuck everything up and discredit government service.

Koreans according to some tests have the highest IQ in the world. Think a dumb person could set up a dictatorship that manages to opress its people to the extent that Kim Jung-Il's does?

The only priority for lovers of small government right now should be to stop universal health care. Nothing else that government can do any time soon will effect our lives and the type of society we will have as much as this will. With the current public mood, and the possibility of a Dem president with a huge congressional majority, I am very scared.

[Cesar]

So, George W. Bush is your ideal President then?

[Cesar]

Oh, and there have been plenty of "successful" sub-saharan African dictators. I guess they must have had high IQs right? Oh wait! Blacks can't have high IQs!

[Pro Libertate]

I'd vote a Blackadder/Baldrick.

[Pro Libertate]

. . .ticket.

[Aresen]

PL

How about the Baby Eating Bishop of Bartham Wells?

[Isaac Bartram]

Pro Lib

We'll have to find the Blackadder line that emigrated to these shores.

Wait a minute, I've got a hot new TV sitcom concept going here.

Blackadder with the Pilgrim Fathers, Blackadder at Valley Forge, Blackadder at the Battle of Baltimore, Blackadder at Blackadder at Gettysberg.

Comedy gold I tell you.

[Robert]

"I think Thompson still has a substantial shot at the nomination. I'd even put some money on it, but then I'd have an incentive to cheer for the guy, and I don't think I could stomach that."

It's called insurance.