Fred Thompson Holds Up A Mirror To American Politics
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Fred Thompson — Comments (51) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
. . . [Senator Fred] Thompson is running the kind of campaign -- substantive, policy-laden, not based on gimmicks or sound-bites -- that pundits and journalists say they want, but he's getting no credit for it from the people who claim that's what they want. It's like in Tootsie when Dustin Hoffman tries doing the things he's heard women say they want from men, only to discover that they don't really want those things at all . . . .
Well, I think that Glenn (I call him Glenn) is right, but then you would expect that, since I announced my support for Thompson. But even if you don't support Thompson, ask yourself whether the thrust of Glenn's post is right and whether your biggest beef with the Thompson campaign is that the Senator has not acted too much like a traditional politician in seeking the Presidency.
If you come to that conclusion and still decide that you are not going to vote for him . . . well . . . that's your right. But if a lot of people feel this way and the Thompson campaign fails as a result, then I will have to laugh bitterly and sardonically the next time people talk about wanting a breath of fresh air in politics. It's okay to say that Fred Thompson didn't approach the campaign with the right mindset. But isn't that even more of an indictment of the political environment than it is of the candidate?
Remember: We are not voting for "Best Campaign." We are voting for the person who would be the best President if forced to walk into the Oval Office tomorrow and assume the responsibilities of the Presidency instantly. And I have a feeling that if more people voted on that basis, Fred Thompson's campaign would be running away with popular support.
See also this. I'm not sure that I trust Zogby. But I can certainly understand the motivations of David Limbaugh in writing what he wrote. I feel the same way. And so does Patterico.
Would any of us know who Willard Mitt Romney is if he hadn't spent $17 million of his own money? He's hardly been a lifelong conservative bulwark.
Huckabee's main marketing gimmick is "he's not angry"--beyond that, peope know little about his positions.
McCain is "respected" mainly for his service, less so for his "independence"--not for cleaving to any ideology.
And RP? Well, he's been clear on many issues, which is why he won't win.
So Fred entered a 21st Century, new-media contest and thought he'd win on the basis of his ideas. That issues-only campaign might have worked in the 1800's but those days are gone.
People vote as much with their eyes these days, and in addition to vitality, vigor, and energy, they also read the candidate's eyes, posture, and body language. Maybe that's wrong (like President Bush's glimpse into the soul of Vladimir Putin) or maybe what a candidate does thunders so loudly, his words cannot be heard.
Thought I was agreeing without overtly stating so.
Let's be honest about Fred, though:
If he was short, like Tancredo, or odd and squeaky, like RP, Fred wouldn't have ever entered the game. There is some kind of LBJ-esque big, manly, southern presence that makes Fred seem presidential. Further, take away his sense of humor and timing, and Thompson is less presidential than Duncan Hunter. So he wasn't "ALL about ideas"--there was some image.
Secondly, if FredHeads are disappointed, look in the mirror. Another campaign has thousands of self-directed operatives raising money, buying blimps, running ads, writing songs, shooting videos, making signs, spamming polls and canvassing neighborhoods on behalf of their candidate--a scrawny, whiny codger with a Pittsburgh accent. Why hasn't Fred inspired, or benefitted from, a similar groundswell?
Maybe the number of fiscal federalists in the GOP is smaller than we thought--kind of depressing, eh?
Everyone seems to like a handout so long as someone else is paying for it. That's what we have politicians for. To convince us that someone else is paying for our handout.
Visit www.StickItToPolitico.com and buy Fred a ticket to the dance and stick it to politico.com for their journalistic malpractice!
www.StickItToPolitico.com - Politco biased against Fred?
So Fred outdrew Romney today at a campaign stop? Surge!
P.S. I call him Mr. Instapundit.
we are the puppet masters right?
Oh I forgot, these are human beings, not trained seals.
Then again, they have to 'earn' our votes and that only comes with showing us how hard they are going to work...
Give me substance over a show any day of the week.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
Why is the obvious so imperceptible to so many otherwise intelligent people?
“We are discreet sheep; we wait to see how the drove is going, and then go with the drove. We have two opinions: one private, which we are afraid to express; and another one — the one we use — which we force ourselves to wear to please Mrs. Grundy, until habit makes us comfortable in it, and the custom of defending it presently makes us love it, adore it, and forget how pitifully we came by it. Look at it in politics.”
Mark Twain
And the reflection in that mirror is Reaganesque, according to a new NRO post by Peter Robinson at http://tinyurl.com/3yerzu.
...is that he refused to support FMA. It didn't have to do with his campaign style. He is just flat-out wrong on some issues. That being said, Fred is much better than Mitt or Rudy.
Fred opposes the FMA as an adherent to federalism. Before he declared his candidacy, he wrote an excellent defense of federalism in response to an accusatory post by NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: http://tinyurl.com/2uobre.
If Fred supported the FMA but had instead come out and said that he thought "Lawrence v Texas was probably correctly decided," that would be enough reason to disqualify Fred right there. As it is, Huck actually said it, so it's OK and just a cause for some spinning.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
An article from the well respected Family Research Council:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04C01
You are still posting the same exact comments months later.
Fred doesn't support the FMA, with good reason. He does support DOMA in amendment form if it becomes necessary.
The guy just makes mitt/john/rudy look like midgets in an NBA game. He is the only conservative running and he is running a Presidential campaign.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
he is substance as well as truth. It's been many elections since I've been able to support a candidate with pride, and the first time ever I've supported a candidate financially.
As this campaign has developed, the press coverage has convinced me that the political system is terribly skewed in ways that are detrimental to the process.
I have known it for a long time, and threw my tv away 6 years ago. Having to view the coverage of my candidate has been truly shocking. It is one thing to have Jerry Springer (oh my God, is that STILL on the air?) on the airwaves. But seeing the ineptititude of what passes for journalism/commentary is frighteneing. Sometimes I used to wonder how totalitarian regimes were able to manipulate the populace. Well, now I no longer wonder. It is happening here, in this country, and if we allow a D in the oval office, the slide downward will begin immediately. What I am hearing from Edwards and the others is scaring me to death. We MUST nominate a conservative, or if not I will even vote for Huckabee, though I doubt it will come to that.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
It is "funny" how we hear about the lack of substance of candidates from the media, & then when a candidate is substantive the media doesn't know what to do. It's like someone wailing for a good steak & when they can have one, choosing McDonalds...
is that Fred Thompson will win the nomination if for no other reason than the possibility of a change in our political culture.
As it turns out, there are plenty of other reasons for me to want him to win. But politics is like the NFL -- it's a copycat league.
If Fred manages an upset and takes the nomination with his brand of politics -- serious, grave, focused on the issues -- think what we might see in 2010 and 2012: politicians wanting to talk about policies, principles, and views.
I suspect that even Dems might start to forego all of their cult of personality and worship at the Liberal Altar and perhaps find themselves engaging in substantive debate about substantive issues.
The political culture in America has been trending more and more towards entertainment -- witness the Clinton Saxophone gambit. Is the pendulum on the backswing now? God, I hope so.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
Finally someone gets it. You are exactly right. Fred Thompson is not only trying to get elected, he's giving us a lesson in how the political process ought to run. it's one of the reasons I like him...
Fred holds up the mirror and reflects the media's juvenile behavior back at them.
Frankly, I don't know how they sleep at night.
a candidate be expected to have substance and decent media relations. Even if Fred's message is that he detests the media, he still should have a campaign that is savvy enough to have him get that message out using the media.
Whoever is in charge of Fred's media relations should be replaced if Fred stays in the race. I think he can keep the same message of disdain for the media but still be strategic enough to use it well. The current strategy at this point sure doesn't seem to be working.
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
Didn't he say he wasn't going to run the standard campaign? Fred Thompson is violating one of the oldest tenents in politics as stated by Ben Franklin,(Don't pick a fight with someone who buys his ink by the barrel). I believe Fred thinks it's the only way he has a chance of righting this screwed up system. If he wins, we all win. Lets pray he does.
who was really interested in "righting" the system have played the game and then turned on them after the win? I am ever so fascinated with the us of twisted logic by FDT supporters.
"We're hoping for the best, but we need to prepare for the worst." -Fred D. Thompson
that there is plenty of room for improvement in regards to "the system", but.......
hasn't FDT now reinforced the fact that you can't run a nonconventional campaign? Hasn't he now paved the way for more glib, plastic phonies? If he flames out this early in the campaign, it tells future candidates to NOT follow his lead - thereby continuing that which you hate most about "the system".
If Fred had been a truly exceptional candidate, there may have been a chance to shake things up, but as is becoming painfully obvious, he wasn't that guy.
"We're hoping for the best, but we need to prepare for the worst." -Fred D. Thompson
Yes, he running an unusual campaign and NO, he has set the standard for future campaigns, not the opposite. Whether he survives or not will not change this fact. Actually, he has changed the way I look at politics (40 years) so it has had an effect, maybe not enough, but it certainty is a start. Hopefully he will change things for the better - even if he doesn't win the nomination.
Maybe you just set your sights too low...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
What has Fred proven, if not that you can have almost pristine conservative credentials, virtually no personal baggage, exceptional policy positions - and it isn't enough. Not enough even for a Republican Primary!
I think it is great that his message resonated with you, but I ask on a bended knee that you not drop out when and if your candidate does. We are going to need every vote possible come November.
"We're hoping for the best, but we need to prepare for the worst." -Fred D. Thompson
and I mean MINOR...I could not vote for any of the other candidates. Of course that rules out all Democrats. Your on your own...reap what you sow...or as you would say, I would reap what I sow...(No Democrat is electable and the remaining Republicans would make a 'spit' of difference).
Professional politicians are a dime a dozen...and worth less!
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Fred has said what he was going to do and he has done what he has said. Playing the game and then turning on them after he wins sounds more like McCains strategy with the GOP. Im waiting for your sign.
In Politics trying to figure out what's going to happen before it happens makes us all look like idiots at times, but if the past is any indicator I wouldn't count any of them out just yet,(except maybe Keyes).
who falls in love with a convicted felon and known cheater marrying him, because he will change for her.
Come on matchmatic, usually your arguments have some logic to them...
If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.
Thompson has stood his ground, which is why his supporters respect him...Doing what you suggest would not be the man we respect, support and pray will be our next President.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
but if you're not going to run a standard, media-driven campaign, at least pull a Howard Dean and use alternate venues for spreading your views and ideas. Otherwise, you could have the best ideas in the world and still not make a shred of difference. (Oh God, today must be my off day - I just said Fred should learn from Howard Dean!)
what I want most is a candidate who shares my values and gives me the option to select the man I like best to run this country. I don't want a candidate who engages in an idealogical confrontation he cannot win (exhibit A: it's badly hurt his campaign no matter what occurs from here on). Such a confrontation takes away from his ability to be there when I make my choice.
BTW I'm a staunch Fred supporter and have contributed money to his campaign.
Whatever Fred said about the kind of campaign he was going to run, I think the notion that Fred is taking on the media is unlikely. It's far more likely that he didn't want the job enough to jump through the hoops, and figured (incorrectly) it wouldn't be fatal if he ran an unconventional campaign. I think it's wrong that he or anyone has to jump through any hoops, but the hoops can be dealt with later; the net effect is that I won't get the chance to vote for who I really want (Fred) by the time my state gets in the act, because he'll be gone. I hope I'm wrong. By the way, I find no fault with him for not wanting the job badly enough. He was sort of drafted, after all. I just wish it weren't so, because his loss is our loss.
I don't think this is all the media's doing, either. I think they exaggerate and distort, but I think there were things Fred could have done and did not (or did not do well) do to counter their distortions.
He's my guy, I'm going to vote for him (if he's around), nothing will change that. But if the media or his competitors end up downing him because of how he ran his campaign I will not be taking any solace in some imagined, lost battle between Fred and the media. The presidency is more important to me.
But then he is open to the darts that even he caved to the system he is trying to fix. This man is attempting to make it clear to the voters that you don't have to sell out to get elected. He is openly trusting them to see through the media BS and do the right thing for their Country. He is putting the power back in their hands where it belongs. He knows the risk but he is willing to take it. If he is wrong and they are not that smart then he will lose. I hope they see it....
A man should only act in accord with the truth. Win or lose I will still respect Fred.
Isn't it interesting how a man with Thompson's high moral and ethical standards has such a hard time presenting his case to the American People. The MSM really needs a big overhaul...
of the USA. Damn the MSM for their stupid ways... Maybe the alternative media will make headway this year...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Well folks, no mattter what happens tomorrow I have enjoyed the chance to discuss my beliefs with you all. I'm going to bed now. I will say a little prayer for the folks in Iowa as it is now in their hands. God Bless America....
Thompson's campaign style, but he has been hurt by the conservative media's negative comments about his campaign. I like the idea of having a president whose whole world does not revolve around politics. I think he has the qualities of statesmanship that our country needs.
They're usually pretty good if the questions are unbiased. 12% for Thompson and tied with 3rd with McCain. Not bad, but the 3.3% MOE puts him about where he was if this poll caught him on the high end of the range.
The internet polls are junk because they're a self selected group on a mailing list (I answer them myself every few weeks). Three's no random sampling to them which makes them statistically useless.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I'm with Fred!
The media really doesn't want what it says it wants. Neither do the voters.
Obama has also tried to run a "new kind of campaign" and unlike Fred he gets rave reviews...but Obama can't beat Hillary without using all the traditional campaign tools he likes to denounce.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
"Remember: We are not voting for "Best Campaign." We are voting for the person who would be the best President if forced to walk into the Oval Office tomorrow."
But that doesn't happen until January 2009. Getting from point A to point D, while skipping B and C is the problem. Our candidate has ten months of mental and physical hell to endure. Ten months of relentless campaigning funded by gazillionaires like Soros. All the energyand resources of Left and MSM bearing down full bore. the It won't be easy for anybody.
Yes, campaign do matter. First, we have to WIN the presidency. Also, running a campaign is the first real test of poltiical skill, executive ability and communication skills.
it's not an either-or proposition. The person who wins the nomination has to have values and leadership skills attractive to his or her party, and must also demonstrate the ability to navigate through treacherous political waters.
I also agree that while campaigning doesn't say all there is to say about a candidate, it does as you say test several things that are relevant to what it takes to run a country. If a candidate is unable to win an election that has to raise doubt about the tactical thinking, work ethic, savvy, etc. of them and their staff.
If Fred bombs in Iowa, drops out, and deprives us of the opportunity to vote for him for president, then I have no problem asserting that he failed the voters and his party. Voters who, in some cases, gave their hard-earned money to his campaign (I did) and were frothing at the mouth to vote for him.
And the media excuse is no excuse at all. Every candidate has to decide how deal with the media, and the media don't go away when one gets into office. I want my president to be a little more cunning than to take on the media and thereby assure themselves zero or negative coverage going into an election.
That said, I'm praying he shows strongly in Iowa, and I'll give him all the credit in the world if his strategy works.
It is sad to see the GOP follow the Democrats into the "emo trumps ideas" arena.
blowing into NH and SC. That will be the Thompson campaign on full display after their good 3rd place showing in Iowa and more leadership by example during the debates this weekend.
The MSM keeps wanting a new "comeback kid", Romney, no McCain, no, um Hillary, um no...
What a sweet January surprise it will be for all to see this REAGAN CONSERVATIVE roll on to compete well into the remaining primary season.
Question: If McCain drops out, will he endorse Thompson???
The question isn't has he or hasn't he run a principled, issue based campaign. It isn't whether he should or should not be heard because he isn't playing the media game.
The question for me is whether or not Thompson has correctly assessed the political landscape, the electoral dynamics to win and the needs of the country at this time. I think he has got the third one right. He knows what this country needs - no question about it. He also examined the other candidates and correctly saw serious definciencies and thought he could fill the gap as a real conservative alternative. His failure so far is in not correctly understanding the changing way that campaigns need to reach people in order to win. We may not like it, we may detest it, but we are a media driven consumer culture. Any candidate who doesn't employ marketing savvy, sophisticated media based campaigns is simply not dealing with the reality of our culture. Any candidate who fails to understand this will also fail to win. If you can't win all the good policy ideas you have mean nothing because you won't get to implement them. All this talk of principle over capitulation to the media is meaningless. It is a false dichotomy. What principle compels someone to not give powerful stirring speeches? What principle leads to a lack of catchy persuasive ads? What principle says to play down debates and retail politics? If Thompson claims be campaigning according to a different strategy, a different set of principles, I don't know what they are and maybe the American people don't know either.
Ideally he would focus his principles on what is needed for good governance and be savvy in regards to message and media. Sometime we need to decide where the battle really lies.
To remain free we must think freely.
Since you agree with Fredheads that FDT knows what this country needs, your point comes down to this:
We may not like it, we may detest it, but we are a media driven consumer culture. Any candidate who doesn't employ marketing savvy, sophisticated media based campaigns is simply not dealing with the reality of our culture.
I don't disagree with you, necessarily. But I do think that the people deserve their leaders. I live in the benighted state of New Jersey where we elected the execrable Jon Corzine to the governorship.
We deserve every bit of what we get here in NJ. Good and hard.
So if you think FDT is no goodniks because he does things his way, that is your every right.
But let's not then complain about the quality of leaders we get in Washington. If the country wants entertaining scoundrels, then that is what the country will get. Good and hard.
Those of us who don't want that are hoping and working for a Thompson nomination and ultimate victory. It may be a foolish hope, and one of the other flawed candidates may win the nomination. I will vote for almost any Republican (Huck and Paul will have me sitting at home) over almost any Democrat, but I will know that we as a party and we as a nation deserve exactly what we get.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
My point is that I believe Thompson could run a campaign that does both things well - run on well developed and thought out conservative principles and policies and a media savvy campaign that gets attention, develops enthusiam and communicates effectively. Why not!
The fact that he somehow thinks he can and should run a different kind of campaign - whatever that means - tells me he doesn't really understand the culture at large or how to reach them.
If the average voter were as serious about issues and elections as the Redstaters then our country would look very different and the political landscape would be filled with statesmen and leaders and serious policies. Given the nature of a pop culture focused, uninformed, economically ignorant, philosophically challenged, MSM driven information age how can anyone who is serious about POTUS, who wants to actually bring change to our political landscape not utilize every tool to use, influence and manipulate the media for their advantage. I am not advocating unethical or immoral campaigning. I want to see a fully developed internet presence, powerful image driven TV ads, powerfully rhetorical and policy smart entusiastic speeches, and retail campaigning and debates that can articulate a strong conservative agenda and philosophy. If Thompson can't do it then maybe he isn't the guy for this time.
Huckabee just won Iowa with a 34% result. Huckabee has many policy deficiencies, but he is a good speaker, articulate, humorous, self-deprecating, humble sounding, and used the media smartly. Obama also won Iowa and is a great speech maker, and very smart with the media. He used Oprah very effectively.
I don't "think FDT is no goodniks because he does things his way". I just think that is a naive way of looking at the election process. A company that tried to market a new product without extensive market research and appropriate advertising would fail and rightly so. The same applies for any candidate who must sell himself to the American public.
The bottom line is that in our culture image trumps substance and style is more important than content. So use that to one's advantage. It doesn't mean you can't have substance and content, but you have to sell yourself in a way that reaches the masses. I don't like it that way, but that's the way I see it.
To remain free we must think freely.
I know, I said I wasn't going to recommend pro-Fred blogs anymore. But hey, it's Pejman.
Besides, I can't tell you how many times I've heard from friends, acquaintances, and the media that they wish we could get a candidate to just talk about the issues. I always knew they wouldn't know what to do with one that did.
Thompson / Romney
==== 13 ====