If you ask me, every American should spend twenty minutes of his weekend with a cup of coffee and Jamison Foser’s “Media Matters” column. (In fact, the whole Media Matters site is worth a spot in your news reader, if only because it makes Bill O’Reilly go even more nuts than usual.)
Today he took on a popular topic–the difference in the way the media treats Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates. The catalyst is Fred Thompson’s entry into the race and the way he has been described as authentic and “folksy”, even though the red pickup truck he iconically drove during his Senate campaign was a rented prop. He made a comparison that I thought was particularly apt:
I’ve heard people around here call Edwards a phony, and not just the right-wingers. Like Foser, I just don’t see it–he’s a rich guy, and he doesn’t act like he isn’t. He’s also a rich guy who’d like to make things easier for the poor people in the country, and I don’t see what’s wrong with that. He’s quick to bring up his humble beginnings, but a rags-to-riches story has to have a first half. There may be plenty to not like about Edwards, but inauthenticity isn’t on the list.
Meanwhile, I don’t think Fred Thompson is particularly fake, as politicians go. But he’s no more authentic, either, and there are (IMO) more reasons to call him a phony than Edwards. (After all, he’s an actor; his job is to fake it.) So what’s the difference? It it because Thompson is a Republican? It it because he hasn’t been around for that long, national campaign-wise?
As you noted, Thompson is an actor. His main qualification appears to be he looks and sounds like a Presidential candidate. His actual record is slim - he’s known as a Senator who’s spends relatively little time in the Senate.
I don’t think Edwards is a phony. I think he is an authentic policy lightweight and genuine metrosexual, and by God, he does nothing to conceal either.
I think the media picks their darling candidates (and shuffles them around during the campaigns) on both sides. Thompson might fall apart under the scrutiny of constant media attention, just like Obama is likely to. I don’t know why they do it, or even if they know they do, but as long as I can remember there’s been media bias for individual candidates that doesn’t seem to have a predictable political party bias.
One thing about the media darlings is that the tiniest little stupid mistake could make the media winds change, like Dean’s brief mania. It took just a few seconds of goofy shouting for the media to wake up of from their daydream and say “just who IS this guy, anyway?”
Then is it fair to assume you think Fred Thompson is a lightweight as well? After all, like Edwards, he only served a single full term in the Senate. (Although Thompson also had a two-year partial term before being re-elected in 1996. I suppose those two extra years make ALL the difference … .)
Nobody dislikes Edwards because he’s a trial lawyer. Some people dislike him because he was a product liability lawyer, filing suits against big companies on contingency in hopes of making a giant megamillion-dollar payout. Some think he made his millions as an ambulance chaser.
Half the politicians in Washington are lawyers, and it’s rarely a political issue. To try to equate ‘trial lawyer’ with ‘ambulance chaser’ is a nice bit of false equality from Media Matters.
And Edwards’ hypocrisy is of an entirely different nature. This is the guy who says there are two Americas - and he owns one of them. His 28,000 square foot house complex is one of the biggest homes in Orange County, which is no slouch when it comes to big homes. When rich multimillionares get $400 haircuts on their private jets and then go out and play the ‘man of the people’, it just rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
I don’t see Fred Thompson as being anything like this. His pickup truck schtick comes closest, but he’s not trying to split people by class or anything. I think it’s a stupid idea if he really does that, and it does put me off the guy a bit. But the hypocrisy and deception are just not in the same league. With Thompson is just a symbol, a gimmick. Just like John Kerry wearing his boonie hat or a president wearing an A2 flight jacket.
You’re right, it’s not really fair to equate Fred Thompson with a mere “ambulance chaser” like Edwards. After all, Thompson spent fifteen years as a **lobbyist ** … one of the most respected professions in the nation. In particular his work lobbying to deregulate the Savings & Loan industry in the 1980’s is a hallmark of his good judgement and integrity.
Fred Thompson’s well of experience actual comes from legal practice more than public service, and he has had a fair bit of work in the behind the scenes world of Washington as a lobbyist. He has a lot of experience as a political gadfly, toppling power figures (including a Governer as well as Nixon). his supporters don’t just think he sounds Presidential; they think he combines obvious charisma with a keen knowledge of polci and a sharp eye for political logrolling. He is a political heavyweight, just not as an elected official. He also has a strong knowledge in theory to match his practice.
His reputation for honesty with reference to policy helps a lot. He doesn’t agree with everyon on every isue (as certain politicians are wont to do) and isn’t afraid to say so without giving insult or explain himself. His fame certainly helps, but he has worked intelligently to build it up and it grows right out of his reputation. He’s demonstarted his knowledge of politics and diplomacy through speeches and articles, and he’s a fine writer.
I don’t think John Edwards is stupid or neccesarily phony. I do think he’s probably a very good public speaker if he gets a chance to prepare. He puts his foot into his mouth a lot, but meh, no biggie. He certanly was dishonest in at least some of his cases, but I don’t know how his track record compares to other lawyers in the situation.
The “Two America” theme is basically classic left-wing nonsense. His wife, frankly, doesn’t help, and has managed to insult half the planet. He doesn’t have a terribly good insight into political issues, flip flops on issues but tries to pretend he didn’t, and has all the marketing acumen of a dead beaver.
Fair to assume nothing. How long John Edwards was in office is of relatively little concern to me.
What he did in that time, and the policies he advocates, are of far greater concern. And Edwards doesn’t show signs of thinking his positions through. He uses them more for rhetorical impact than for the genuine betterment of the country.
I will disagree with Ted Kennedy six-and-a-half days out of the week, but I would never describe him as a lightweight. I wouldn’t describe Hillary Clinton that way either, though her experience in elected office is on a par with both Edwards and Thompson.
Thompson isn’t running yet, officially, so it is difficult to gauge his views and positions on some subjects with total clarity. You’ll forgive me if I withhold judgment on his status as a lightweight or heavyweight until a somewhat later date.
I do a lot of work and advocacy for the people in the US without health coverage. And yet I have excellent insurance for myself. Is a person not allowed to care about or do anything for groups of people he isn’t a part of?
Edwards doesn’t pretend to be anything he isn’t. He talks about Two Americas, but I’ve never seen him try to create any illusions about which one he lives in. Getting a $400 haircut is exactly what a you’d expect a person with nice hair and more money than God to do; if he went to Supercuts and paid $12, that would be phony.
Fred Thompson has no more claim to be part of the hoi polloi than Edwards. If Thompson drives around in a pickup truck and dials up the I-may-not-be-a-big-city-lawyer schtick, he’ll be doing exactly what people seem to think Edwards is doing.
Do you know he also billed spa services to the campaign? From an establishment called the Pink Sapphire?
Now, I can guarantee you something. If I were rich and needed a massage and TV makeup, and I were running for President, I’d get the services billed in a way so that no company called the Pink Sapphire is on the forms. Especially if I were going after the votes of union guys and minority voters.
The Pink Sapphire? That would be dumb for anyone. Considering that there is video from the last campaign of John Edwards adjusting his hair while looking in a fucking compact, of all things, it’s dumb squared.
A Presidential candidate getting an expensive haircut is HARDLY evidence of vanity. Bill Clinton probably had a stylist on retainer when he was running. Expecting a Presidential Candidate NOT to be mediapathic in this day and age is just ridiculous. It’s much ado about nothing and you’re a sucker if you buy into it. By even repeating it and bringing it up as though it’s an issue that should be taken seriously, you’re just poisoning the well of honest debate about real issues that actually matter. Caring how much Edwards paid for his haircut is borne of the same impulse that puts Paris Hilton on the front page one week and Lindsey Lohan the next.
If Republican voters are not pissed off by someone renting a pickup truck to appear folksy then they truly are the idiots big cities liberals think they are. We have just gone through one president who was all hat and no cattle, and yet people bought into it. “Hey, he’s just like me, he clears brush in spotless clothes to create a photo-op for the media. I really identify with him.”, if another candidate were to get elected on that criteria again I’d sit in my handbasket and embrace my fate.
Fred Thompson is a shrewd operator in both Washington and Hollywood, trying to appear folksy is the height of inauthenticity.
That being said Fred Thompson is my favorite Republican contender and Edwards is down toward the bottom of the list, which goes Richardson, Obama, Clinton in that order. I just hope Thompson can beat Giuliani. I’d rather have Bush for a third term than Giuliani.
He’s contemplating trying out a big role. Unfortunately he’s going to have to follow one of the best actors the world has ever known if he gets the part.
Yeah, he sure blew a wad at The Pink Sapphire. Looking at how little was spent, I doubt he even got a massage out of the deal. Of course it would be better for people who are both concerned enough to investigate line by line the petty cash purchases of his political campaign and superficial enough to make assumptions about a company based on nothing but its name, but maybe he had trouble finding a professional makeup establishment titled something along the lines of “Chuck’s Face Painting and Manly Back Rubbing”
People who won’t vote for Edwards because he had an expensive haircut or because he got some TV makeup advice from a place with an effeminate name would find some other, possibly equally stupid reason not to vote for him if he hadn’t.
Hell, if I had Edwards’s money and every moment of my life were being filmed, $400 haircuts would just be the beginning. I’d pretty much have myself rebuilt, Steve Austin-style.
Why doesn’t anyone ever ask politicians how much they pay for their suits? Joe Lunchbox is no more likely to own a $2000 suit than he is to pay $400 for a haircut, but I’m sure (insert folksy politician here) has one for every day of the week.
Shit like this is why Fred Thompson rents a big red pickup truck as a campaign prop, and why every national candidate is practically required to be photographed in hunting gear at some point. It’s all about who has the bigger dick, and the biggest, manliest, hairiest balls. You can act like you’re above it, but every time anyone brings up haircuts or spa payments or “Breck Girl”, he’s playing right into it.
I love that people so concerned about substantive policy issues actually talk so much about $400 haircuts and Pink Sapphires.
In fact, I love that people claiming to be so concerned about substantive policy issues can continue to be supportive of the Bush administration or the current Republican office holders at all. Six years of enacting exceptionally bad policy, or looking the other way while it has been done should be a tip, if one cares about substantive policy issues so very, very much.
On the other hand, if one actually cares about their party more than the well-being of the country, they would make these kind of statements and focus on exactly what they are told to focus on in these debates, like haircuts.
There’s some truth to the idea that people are voting for Arthur branch, but I don’t consider it a bad thing. AFAIK, Fred Thompson really does combine folksiness with media savvy and a keen political instinct. C’est la vie.
I dislike Edwards for his political ideas, but it’s true that he has all the sharp sense of a retarded badger. I don’t think he can particularly win.
