Kim du Toit (a right-wing blogger who writes well) is plugging Fred Thompson for POTUS. I’ve seen Sam Stone mention him favourably a time or two here, but being on the wrong side of the Pond, and not a great TV watcher, I’m not in such close contact with American politics. I’d appreciate learning more. Clue me in, guys!
For a start, it seems silly, but he doesn’t seem to have the congenial and convivial air that Reagan and Clinton had. Secondly, he doesn’t exactly have a lot of experience - but the same can be said of others, like Barak Obama.
Somebody who’s not running, and therefore hasn’t had the scrutiny of opponents and muckracking “journalists” looking for a name for themselves, will almost always look more attractive than an actual candidate.
I think it speaks greatly to the general dissatisfaction among many Republicans at their current slate of front-runners. Giuliani has too sketchy a history of “liberal” opinions about social issues. Romney is “religious”, but not in a way that makes many right-wingers feel comfortable or confident. And McCain has pissed off too many people in the past by being contrary. All 3 are now seen as doing some major pandering to get in the good graces of some factions within the GOP, but will they really represent these voices when they get into office? And will their pasts provide enormous ammunition from the Democrats when a general election comes along? All of them have, to varying degrees, histories of not getting along with the media as much as might be necessary when the going gets tough.
Thompson (unlike all the other 2nd-tier GOP hopefuls) is extremely well-known and has a high comfort level in front of cameras. He hasn’t faced the full level of scrutiny, of course, but there are also no conspicuous smoking guns in his past re: voting records, flip-flopping positions, etc. The GOP is desperate for someone who can win against a Hilary or Obama or Edwards, and Thompson has the combination of familiarity, straight-forwardness, and absence of serious baggage that makes him much more promising than the truly mixed-bag of variables that acompany a Rudy or Mitt or John.
Another, perhaps relatively minor, positive for Thompson is his association with the Watergate panel. That, plus his movie roles where he has been almost universally the conscientious and well-meaning bureaucrat or military leader adds to an image of rock-solid man of principle without the additional stigma of being arch-anything. He’s the “good old boy” without the redneck trappings.
His Southern roots can’t be all bad either, considering where the more recent Presidents have come from. It’s odd that the typical Southern backwardness and provincialism seems to wash away when it come President time.
Thompson has been the darling of the Republican party for a long time. His main claims to fame are:
He seems extremely honest and uncorruptible.
He’s not a career politician. He retired from the Senate because that’s what he said he’d do, despite being extremely popular (his margins of victory in his elections were the biggest in Tennessee history). That means he’s more likely to do what’s good for the country than what’s good for the political career of Fred Thompson.
He’s a great speaker, and Republicans are yearning for someone who can actually supporrt their point of view. They are tired of the face of Republicanism being George Bush.
He’s conservative, but not wacky about it. He’s no 700 club supporter. He supported Lamar Alexander in one election - not exactly a conservative firebrand.
He is extremely intelligent. He has degrees in philosophy and political science in addition to his law degree.
He’s got gravitas. When Thompson speaks, people listen.
He can completely distance himself from the shenanigans of the Republican party of the last few years.
He’s well known by the public and well liked.
Despite the OP’s claim that he lacks experience, he’s actually got plenty of it. He started in politics as council on the Watergate Committee (he’s the guy who asked the famous question: “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”). He worked in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was council to the Senate Intelligence Committee before becoming a Senator. He won two elections as senator, spending 9 years there, then retired voluntarily. He has more experience than anyone running on the Democratic side.
He’s an actor, and actors have done extremely well for Republicans. Reagan and Schwarzenegger have shown that the skills that make you a good actor (charisma, communications ability, being comfortable in front of the camera, having a sense of humor) translate well into executive politics.
Thompson is the darling of the right because he’s got the ‘Reagan thing’, and Republicans are yearning for another Reagan. They were both actors (although Thomspon is better than Reagan was). Thompson has similar beliefs to Reagan. Reagan was a great communicator, and so is Thompson. Both Reagan and Thompson had radio gigs as commentators, writing and delivering their own material.
That said, I have to think he’s still a longshot. The very assets he has, particularly his disconnect from Republican power and financing circles, make it hard for him to raise the money he needs (although that may not be a problem in the internet age - if he runs I predict a huge grass-roots fundraising campaign). Also, he’s good friends with John McCain, and I have a hard time seeing Thompson run against him. McCain is fading in the polls though, so it’s possible at some point McCain could just tell Thompson to take the ball and run with it. Not likely, however. McCain wants this too badly to give up.
Thompson is keeping his options open, but probably only because he’s waiting to see if the other candidates implode. If there’s a clear front-runner that Republicans can get behind, Thompson will stay out of it. But if McCain fades and Guliani shoots himself in the foot (as he has a tendency to do from time to time), you’ll see Thompson and Gingrich in the race.
If he’s everybody’s darling, then why hasn’t he been on more people’s lips as potential Presidential timber, well before now?
Maybe in some backroom, he was everybody’s darling :D, but he really didn’t make much of a name for himself as a politician; even amongst Senators from Tennessee, he was that other guy, and it’s not like this is the frist time anyone realized that.
He’s been mentioned as presidential material since 2000, when there was a rumor campaign going around that he was going to be Bush’s pick for VP.
He hasn’t been on people lips before because he was retired from politics, and gave absolutely no indication that he had any interest in returning to it.
A recent poll on hannity.com (a site I don’t read - I read about the poll in a news article) asked Republicans to pick their desired candidate. Despite not even being in the race, Thompson pulled over 50% of the vote. Hannity.com has a BIG readership.
I will go out on a sturdy limb and say that either Thompson or Huckabee will be the eventual nominee. I just don’t think the Republican base is happy with the three media-darling candidates.
There’s plenty of room for a dark horse or a white knight (if I may mix my equestrian metaphors).
Nitpicks: “counsel,” not “council,” and it was Sen. Howard Baker (R-Tenn.) who asked that question, not Thompson.
I think Sam Stone and ArchiveGuy have pretty much nailed it. Thompson is seen as above the fray, conservative but not a nut, and a low-key guy with high name recognition. As an actor in politics he walks the same familiar GOP path as Reagan and Ah-nuld. Still, this says a lot more about widespread “Is this all we’ve got?” dissatisfaction among the Republican rank-and-file than it does about Thompson’s merits as a presidential contender. I doubt he’ll jump in the race, when all is said and done.
I mean, I’m a political junkie living a half-hour from the Beltway. First I’d heard of this.
And after that 15 minutes of fame (OK, maybe 45 minutes), Cheney picked himself, and that was that.
And there’s a big difference between veep material and Presidential material. Remember Dan Quayle?
When you’re everybody’s darling (in the backroom or wherever), if you leave, people try to get you back again.
That’s this month’s blip, alright.
Holy crap, have they given up on Rudy already? Yep, they’re desperate, alright. By the time the GOP Convention rolls around, some state senator from Nebraska will be nominated because they’ll have already run through everyone else.
Fred Thompson reinforced his Watergate image as Counselor to Howard Baker when he took on his first movie role playing himself. He was one of the heroes who helped to rid Tennessee of a really corrupt governor. I think the name of the movie was Marie with Sissy Spacek.
Keep in mind that I am a liberal Democrat and I rarely pay homage to conservatives. I did not hesitate to vote for Thompson when he ran for the Senate. He is very well respected in Tennessee.
As a Senator, he was selected to give the response to one of President Clinton’s speeches. Clinton was damned good. But Thompson was so effective that he became the story at the time and suggestions on his being “presidential timber” began.
Before he became well known outside of Nashville, he already had great presence. When he walked through a room, he seemed to own it. He just exudes self-confidence. But it’s not cockiness or arrogance. He’s very likeable.
He has a sharp mind and a dry sense of humor. Very astute.
I was under the impression that he left politics because a daughter had died and he didn’t have the heart for it then. But I could be totally wrong. His private life was and is very quiet.
When Bush was considering Supreme Court nominees (after the Harriet Myers debaucle), he turned to Fred Thompson for advice.
He is very capable. I don’t know his current stand on the issues of the day.
That’s it, isn’t it? The ability to deliver a speech well. That’s enough to Thompson be considered presidential timber, just like Obama for his keynote at the last Dem convention, and, in the minds of many, Mario Cuomo for his own keynote.
Why not? That ability is what made Reagan President.
Then there was Die Hard 2. I’d almost vote for Bruce Willis after that one.
(speaking straight) I respect the hell out of Fred Thompson. Had the Republican party attracted more of him and fewer Karl Roves, I might’ve stayed with the party, though I’m much more liberal than he. I respect, like, and vote for good people and Fred’s proven himself to be Good People. He’s an honorable man, and I don’t mind if he disagrees with me because I know it’s his convictions, not politics, that drive his decisions.
He seems to have a decent amount of experience. He served one full term in the Senate and finished out a good portion of Al Gore’s term when he became Vice President (I think, I can’t remember how long Thompson’s first term was.) He’s also had experience as a government lawyer rooting out corruption and et cetera, he was a player in the Watergate hearings.
I’ve thought Thompson has a good presence on screen, but I have absolutely no idea what his politics and policies are. I suspect a similar situation is a big motivation in his polling so well. Most people are probably vaguely familiar with his persona on screen, and he’s a generally likeable/gruff character in most roles he plays (although sometimes he’s played a more villainous role), so devoid of any real knowledge on what his stances are on a wide range of important issues any polls about him are basically just “do you like Fred Daltonn Thompson?”
Of course. But the things mentioned are what should be expected of *any * mature adult, few of whom get thought of as presidential timber. Good guy = normal. Good guy + good diction = good President, in the public eye. Experience, judgment, managerial ability, pshaw, that’s for the geeks to get excited about. Speaking ability = leadership.
He’s anti-abortion and believes Roe v Wade should be overturned. He’s anti gay marriage. He’s a global warming skeptic. He’s pro death penalty. The notion that he’s “Republican Lite” is just a good selling job, much like John McCain’s image.
