Fred The Sunday Pitcher (Or, Why I'm Not With Fred, Even Though I Like And Agree With Him)
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Fred Thompson — Comments (41) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I started this as part of a longer post on my choice between Giuliani and McCain that I'm still working on, but it got long enough to stand on its own.
As regular readers will recall, I have been publicly supporting Rudy Giuliani for president since February 2007, before Fred Thompson was even being seriously discussed as a potential candidate. My first serious flirtation with switching away from Rudy, back around May or June, was Fred Thompson. For the reasons I'll discuss at greater length in the longer piece, I was already worried about the problems Rudy's social-issue stances present for the general election by that point, and Fred looked like the one guy who might, if he played his cards right, unite the national security and social conservative wings of the party behind a charismatic candidate who also had a solid record on fiscal issues.
Fred had one significant, though not insurmountable, weakness as a candidate: no executive experience and little leadership experience of any variety aside from a largely ineffective tour as a Senate subcommittee chairman. Heck, even in Fred's years in acting he'd rarely had a starring role. Executive/leadership experience isn't everything - and no presidential candidate has all the qualifications we'd like to see - but it's one of the most important credentials for a potential president (John F. Kennedy's only such experience was commanding a PT boat; of the 13 other successful candidates since 1900 - not counting the three who were first elected as incumbents after succeeding from the vice presidency - we've had 8 governors, two VPs, a military leader (Ike), a colonial administrator (Taft), and a Cabinet Secretary/businessman/wartime reconstruction administrator (Hoover). And the last two were disasters at the job.). So before I was willing to throw my support behind Fred, I wanted to see him in action actually running something - see if he could manage a media-savvy campaign that would command the narrative and hit the ground running with Hollywood flair. After all, if there's one thing a trial lawer or an actor (and Fred has been both) should know, it's stagecraft - the kind of stagecraft that so excited everyone on the web when Fred rolled out that rapid response to Michael Moore.
I waited to see Fred come roaring out of the gate - and waited, and waited. He never did. He dithered, and he entered the race with a whimper rather than a bang, and he reshuffled his staff, and he seemed to go out of his way at times to fly under the radar in a crowded field. Rather than media-savvy, Fred has been media-shy. In a business in which communications is the lifeblood of presidential influence, that's bad, bad news.
Some will object that the mainstream media is misleading us by downplaying Fred because he's conservative, because he's Southern, because he refuses to bow to a lot of their silly rituals. But like it or not, the MSM is as much a reality for a president as the strike zone is for a baseball pitcher. If you can't hit the umpire's zone consistently, it really doesn't matter how good your pitches are. Maybe it's just me, but I have yet to encounter anyone who (1) takes Fred's campaign seriously and (2) doesn't get the majority of their news from the internet.
To continue the baseball analogy, Fred reminds me most of all of Pedro Martinez. Not the Pedro of his Boston glory days, but the Pedro who has pitched for the Mets since 2005. Pedro is a true master of his craft, full of guile and skill, and on those days when he arrives at the ballpark healthy and in possession of what passes these days for his good fastball, Good Pedro is still a beauty to watch, dissecting opponents, messing with their timing and generally looking like a man pitching to boys. But many days, Pedro doesn't have even that fastball to work with, or he's pitching hurt, or he isn't healthy enough to take the hill at all.
That's Fred - Good Fred is a master at work, at turns folksy, frank and commanding. On policy, he's right on nearly everything, he's been mostly consistent through the years (with the exception of campaign finance issues), and after a maddeningly vague rollout to his candidacy he has produced issue proposals worthy of the title "Policy Fred." About the only issue where Fred worries me is immigration, where he may be too much of a hard-liner for the sake of the GOP's long-term relationship with Latino voters sensitive to overdoses of nativism.
But, like Good Pedro, Good Fred just doesn't show up often enough to carry the team for the whole season; sometimes he's off his game, and sometimes he's just not to be found at all. And as we have seen with George W. Bush, a guy who doesn't come out swinging every single day will sooner or later get eaten alive by his inability to control the terms of debate. A Fred Thompson presidency would, I am sure, be characterized by integrity, good judgment, a stable, steady hand, wise policy, and rarest of all, perspective about the things that really matter. But a Fred presidency, and a Fred general election candidacy, would also be afflicted by periods of drift and apathy, resulting in the steady bleeding of support in the face of the typically ferocious onslaught that faces any president and in particular a conservative Republican. Fred might well propose good things, but proposing things and making them happen are two different animals.
In the 1930s and 1940s, baseball teams played a lot of Sunday doubleheaders, and accordingly could make use of a pitcher who would pitch once a week rather than every four days. Teams would often fill this role with a talented but sore-armed veteran who was no longer up to the task of going every four days - a "Sunday Pitcher." Some of these were very successful, most famously Hall of Famer Ted Lyons, who worked in the role for nearly a decade, starting 20 games a year instead of 35 or 40 and leaving hitters baffled, while resting his arm during the week. That, to me, is Fred: the Sunday Pitcher of politics, the guy who is at his best as he has been in the movies and on TV, showing up at a few key points to provide wise counsel and sly one-liners. A man like that can make a tremendous addition to a national ticket - for any of the others, really - as the Vice Presidential candidate, to pop up here and there when he has something to say, and otherwise act (as Dick Cheney has) behind the scenes as an advocate for conservative ideas and principles. He can be trusted to provide a steady hand at the till if he's needed to step into the big job. I wouldn't be heartbroken by any means to see Fred pull out the nomination, and obviously a stirring comeback in the primaries would require Fred to show more of what we have too rarely seen from him. But we have a tough race ahead of us, and Fred just hasn't shown in an extended audition that he's the guy to carry the team on his back accross the finish line.
I've been dodging Redstate a lot lately due to the silliness rampant among the booster clubs. I'm glad I read this excellent post, though.
I'm with Fred, and I like McCain. I've been trying to bark up this tree for some time now about Fred. The standard "if you prefer style over substance" response you get from Fredheads is part of why I spend so little time here these days.
Not playing by "their rules" is a nice attribute as far as it goes. But this is politics on a mass media scale. You have to play by your own rules, focus on policy, basically run the Fred campaign described here, while at the same time making that media splash and creating buzz that is the opposite of such a campaign. Both can be done. And you are right on about how it will be necessary during his Presidency as well. President Bush is the perfect example of how you can lose hearts, minds, and poll points by not handling the media properly.
You don't have to play to a crowd to excite one. And just because you refuse to dance to someone else's tune, doesn't mean you shouldn't dance at all, especially when you are at a dance!
Leadership is an important thing. Rudy is a natural leader. It pours out of him. The Mighty Reagan was a natural leader. It's not the only thing, but it's an important thing.
Leadership is more than correct decision-making. It's more than clear thinking. It's more than right policy choices. It's more than conservativism. Leadership is what it is. You know it when you see it. So let's see it.
absentee
and contributing, and calling, and working -- so Fred has managed to excite us -- but then again -- maybe we Fredheads get all excited about policy and issues -- and aren't so moved by slick.
See what I mean?
slick
Standard response. Oh well, if you prefer style over substance.
Give. Me. A. Break.
absentee
What response to your comment would have been acceptable to you?
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Oh come on, flagstaff. This nonsense really is getting tired.
As I've outlined ad nauseum, emphasis on nauseum, the ridiculous idea that wanting Fred, (who by the way, I am for, as I noted above) to make a bigger stir somehow means that one is more interested slick than substance is a stupid idea. Fredheads repeating this absurd talking point are, themselves, giving the appearance of substanceless cheerleaders.
I don't know how many times I can repeat the same OBVIOUS FACT. Wanting a candidate to run a better campaign, do a better job, and hey, maybe not finish THIRD By The Way, doesn't mean you are more interested in nice hair than good policy. Sick to death of hearing that absurd and repetitive nonsense.
That answer your "question"?
absentee
in the midst of a hissy fit. (^;^)
Let me start by saying that I agree with your original comment. In fact, I not only agree with it, I commend you for saying it very well. I especially liked "You don't have to play to a crowd to excite one. And just because you refuse to dance to someone else's tune, doesn't mean you shouldn't dance at all, especially when you are at a dance!" That is exceptionally well put. So, we are on the same page, I believe.
"As I've outlined ad nauseum, emphasis on nauseum, the ridiculous idea that wanting Fred, (who by the way, I am for, as I noted above) to make a bigger stir somehow means that one is more interested slick than substance is a stupid idea."
Again, we're on the same page. I have said substantially the same thing myself, at least the part about wanting Fred to make a bigger stir. I think that it's crucial to his success, but he may have plans I don't know about, so I can only voice my opinion. But in any event, it has nothing to do with "style vs. substance," it has to do with being effective in delivering your message.
Personally, I think you just went off on Taylor's comment. Maybe he was baiting you. I think he completely missed your point.
So, to answer my own question, a better answer would have been a short explanation to set Taylor straight, or none at all. In fact, the answer you gave me, minus the snark, could have worked very well.
I liked this, too.
"Leadership is more than correct decision-making. It's more than clear thinking. It's more than right policy choices. It's more than conservativism. Leadership is what it is. You know it when you see it. So let's see it."
I hope we see it soon. Until Fred gets his face and ideas before the public on a regular basis, we won't know if leadership exists or not. And that does require him to "dance," one way or another.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
I just don't see him getting it done.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
has realized there will be no coronation for him so he has started to show movement. The question is whether it is too late to play well consistently.
totally surprising. I mean, really.
Question: If you are a dedicated Rudy supporter, which differences between Thompson and Rudy caught your attention? Abortion? Immigration? Tax policy? Gay issues? If these issues were important to you, you would likely not be supporting Rudy. And probably it was not any significant differences on defense, since both Thompson and Rudy support the GWOT with total commitment and no reservations.
(Actually, Rudy's commitment to the GWOT is why he is my second choice. Another important issue for me is that Rudy made no last minute "conversions" to appeal to Socons like me, or to Ficons, or whatever. Even though I disagree with him on the issues above, Rudy is what he has always been. So I trust him. Kinda like Fred.)
Fred announced and began to form his team in September. Four months later, he has a serious shot at 3rd place in Iowa, and this is against people who have been campaigning for a minimum of a year. Not so bad for a really lazy guy.
I guess you still support Rudy, which is fine by me. But this is really just another "Lazy Fred" post. Another whine about "No fire in the belly." All that is missing from this post is a reference to his cancer and his trophy wife.
Feh.
For people who support Fred Thompson, there is no justifiable reason for people to NOT support him.
I like Fred, I think he is a good person. I think a lot of his policy ideas are good, but I don't agree with all of them. My problem with him has nothing to do with being "lazy" or lacking "fire in the belly." I don't think that he would be a very good President. Several reasons come to mind:
First, he has NEVER had executive/leadership experience. like the original post says. This would be okay if he had demonstrated effective leadership in the Senate or in private life, but I don't think he has.
Second, I can't see any area where he actually solved a problem or championed an idea and actually accomplished something with it. While I may agree with his policy, I want someone who will actually get that policy implemented.
Third, I don't think that he can effectively communicate and persuade anyone, especially a younger generation, to convert to conservatism. In other words, I don't think he'll be an effective Party leader, which is what the President is, the leader of our party.
There are several more, but that is all I have time to write today.
I just don't see what the Fredheads do. I am glad that you have found a candidate you believe in, but I think that the zeal for Thompson at Red State has many to notexamine what his weaknesses are.
Voters have been saying for years that they want a serious candidate who doesn't pander. They wanted someone who would focus on thie issues and give detailed plans to solve the countries problems.
Fred gave that to them. Turns out that that is NOT what the voters wanted.
Fred should have realized this and adjusted his campaign accordingly.
I am not totally convinced that he will fail. But I am totally convinced that if he had adjusted his apporach weeks ago, he'd be in a lot better shape right now.
Sorry to say this, but it's the reality given the current polling that's out there. I wish this wasn't the case being a Christian myself because I think it makes Christians look so ignorant.
Fred hasn't made a good enough case of why his policies based on federalism is the best way to go (My 1st Choice).
Romney's problem is he's a Mormon (My 2nd Choice for Family Values and issue changes).
After these two I start finding it hard to vote:
Rudy's problem is his liberal time as mayor flies in the face of those values no matter what he says he's going to do to support them (Probably would vote out of pure desperation).
McCain - Immagration (Probably would vote out of pure desperation)! I personally see him as one who does things simply for political expediency.
Huckabee's played it right for the short term (I personally loathe this man and could not vote for him at all).
You start your posting out with an inflammatory comment (and I don't care if you're a Christian - it's still inflammatory) and you do nothing to back your assertion. What makes Christians look ignorant? Why?
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Dobson attacks Fred as to how federalism relates to Christianity, He begins his fall.
Romney gets endorsed by Bob Jones, he begins to do well in South Carolina.
Huckabee surges after You Tube Debate when he starts flashing his faith all over the place.
Does this answer the question?
Guilani begins fall after moral corruption surround his extra-maritial affair.
McCain is rising because some Christian's/Moderate still admire the guy.
and you have not demonstrated why those display ignorance. Tell me what behavior is "ignorant".
I am not necessarily disagreeing. I am asking for logic. When we make unsubstantiated accusations, it makes us look bad. I don't like the Dobson antics any better than anyone else, and I've said it multiple times here. I detest Huckabee's use of Jesus as a campaign tool. But I have intentionally avoided accusing Christians of being "ignorant" or "stupid" or anything else. "Naive" may be a much better word...or even "hoodwinked".
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
These things tend to escalate too quickly.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
You should turn this into a blog all by itself, it looks very much like the nomination process right now. And was that Fred I saw on fire? :o)
"Braveheart-esque"
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
and I don't mean that in an inflammatory way, because they jump on a ship without knowing were it's going simply because the captain appears to be one of there own!
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
You know, I lost count of how many state right-to-life organizations have endorsed Fred along with the National Right-To-Life. You have extremely conservative politicians endorsing him, conservative blogs, and such. It just doesn't make sense that you can put a blanket statement out there that the majority of christian voters are abandoning him without cause.
This is a really confusing race, simply because it seems like people are acting like robots. I do wonder though if we are going to see a huge surprise tonight in Iowa. Maybe the christian voters aren't coming out for Huckabee even though these polls, which I am skeptical of anyway, seem to say otherwise.
Fred support started it's down turn when Dobson made his comments about federalism in respect with abortion and the marriage ammendment. Unfortunately I don't think most thought it through enough and started looking for another candidate. I certainly had to take a couple of weeks to analize Freds position. Not once have did I see or have I see yet anything from Fred that has really attempted to explain federalism in reguards to these issues. Romney and Huckabee seem to be the ones who have benefited the most from Fred and Guilani falls.
Here's the great news in all of this for Fred. I've come back to him with more support than ever and I think most Christians and ordinary Americans when they really see what he's doing are going to as well. That's Fred's real strength. We'll see tonight. I'm hoping it's going to be great for Fred!
Christian, let me say, James Dobson sometimes can't see the world around him because his eyes are on Heaven...If all you can see is the goal, sometimes you forget to recognize the work it will take to accomplish the goals.
To not see how Federalism and Christianity go hand in hand is, in my opinion, a sign of ignorance of the subject.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
I agree that Rudy is a great leader, but he has suffered a monumental collapse from 38% in the national polls to 13% as of today. Despite what Fox News wants us to believe, I don't think Rudy is a viable candidate. Social conservatives absolutely hate the guy, and the rest of the conservatives don't really like him that much either. Rudy is going to finish 5th or 6th in Iowa and 3rd or 4th in NH. That should further erode his 13% into the single digits with Ron Paul. Rudy stands no chance in South Carolina and will likely make his final stand in Florida with his national ratings hovering around 8%.
I have four issues with a Rudy nomination:
His record clearly shows that he is
1. Pro-Choice
2. Pro-Gay rights
3. Pro-Gun control (Called the NRA a group of extremists and cracked down on guns while mayor)
4. Pro-Illegal immigration (NY was a sanctuary city)
In short, Rudy has failed to convince most of the Republican party that he is even a Republican.
This articulates precisely my problem with Fred. I also agree with him on policy, I believe he would make a decent President - notwithstanding the aforementioned periods of drift and apathy - and I think America would be in better shape after 4 years of a Thompson administration.
However, could he really drive the policy changes he advocates? Does he have the ability to provide leadership to a weakened Republican contingent in Congress? Does his joining McCain in campaign finance reform indicate too much willingness to compromise in the face of opposition?
Furthermore, the video that Thompson made for the final day of the Iowa campaign posted by mbecker is just not inspiring. It is long on platitudes and rhetorical phrases, but doesn't excite or motivate me. I just don't believe that Thompson can capture the imagination of the electorate to win in the general. Like it or not style does matter! Anybody who doesn't accept that has their head in the sand and will not win! You can say he is running his own kind of campaign, but look where it has got him so far. Third in Iowa - maybe!
Thompson was supposed to be the candidate to unite conservatives. Instead Huckabee has stolen the evangelical vote. Yes, naive is an accurate description of many evangelical voters. Why? Because too many believe that a Christian in office will do God's will and be led by the Spirit and the Bible and that is more important than the detailed policy or political philosophy they articulate or don't. Evangelicals have been one issue voters for too long and have not developed robust political philosophies outside of the pro-life issue. The exception to that would be the evangelicals here at Redstate. But you guys are the exception not representative of the average person in the pew. Listening to the interviews with evangelicals in Iowa only comfirms this. The pastors and the people love Huckabee because he is a Christian not because he has articulated a winning political philosophy. I won't go into it here, but there is a lot of biblical teaching that sounds liberal and many Christians haven't understood the relationship between conservative political philosophy and Christian values. Just look at the evangelical misunderstanding of fiscal conservatives. We have a lot of education to do to rebuild a conservative Republican coalition.
Finally, if Romney or Rudy get the nomination it will allow for a clarification of the differences and by highlighting those differences among us will allow for a rebuilding process as we decide it is important to rebuild in order to stop the liberal progressives.
To remain free we must think freely.
If you agree with Fred on policy and have any semblance of settled personal principles as guides, then there's no way you could have ever been on the Giuliani bandwagon. So, I'm going to go out on a 2-inch limb here and declare that everything you wrote beyond the title was calculated more to persuade some who don't necessarily have a deep understanding about how fundamentally disparate these two guys are.
I could go on,and initially planned to, but why waste my time?
Let it suffice for me to say that the nation would have been far better off had Giuliani switched to the Democrat party to run because that's where the vast majority of his positions would be more palatable everywhere in America except for the State of New York and San Francisco.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
or you can generalize without the facts. Your call.
I happen to think that the ability to get good policy enacted is the goal.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
"Let it suffice for me to say that the nation would have been far better off had Giuliani switched to the Democrat party to run because that's where the vast majority of his positions would be more palatable everywhere in America except for the State of New York and San Francisco."
Which is why so many liberals start foaming at the mouth at even the thought of a Giuliani presidency. You in all of your self-righteousness need to realize that, no he is not perfect, none of them are, but he's no Democrat.
I feel like I should weep for America that politicking counts more in the hearts of voters than policy.
I enjoyed your overview and analogy. I have often wondered if Fred was really running for VP. When he entered, both front-runners were northeastern liberal-leaners, and he would balance the ticket well with either Romney or Giuliani. I agree with the points you make, even though he is still my first choice.