MotherJones Blog: Fred Thompson Exits, Stage Right

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Fred Thompson Exits, Stage Right

Fred Thompson, we hardly knew ye.

Well, actually, we did. And we—or, more importantly, Republican voters—didn't like what they saw: a halfhearted and curmudgeonly candidate who didn't seem to have all that much to say.

The failed candidacy of Thompson, who announced his retreat from the presidential race on Tuesday, does not demand much analysis. On paper, he seemed ideal: a Southerner with a conservative bent, a popular television star, and a Republican who did not piss off any major bloc in the GOP coalition. But as any Hollywood veteran knows, a project on paper can look a lot better than what eventually hits the local multiplex or TV screen.

Thompson put in the worst presidential campaign performance of recent years. At times, he didn't seem to want the part. The media narrative that emerged—Thompson the Lazy Candidate—was, whaddayaknow, kind of true. A few days ago, NPR asked several presidential candidates to name their all-time favorite presidents. The replies were predictable. And Thompson selected George Washington. But his explanation was all-too telling. Thompson did not cite Washington's military victory over the British or his achievements as the nation's first president. He said he admired Washington because he had been able to walk away from the presidency after serving two terms. Thompson pointed out that Washington never returned to Washington (the city) once he was no longer chief executive. Thompson was more intrigued by how a president leaves office than how one governs while in the job.

Thompson never had any fire; thus, he didn't catch fire. He missed a darn good opportunity. The GOP race this time around is a contest to determine which candidate can be the default Republican nominee—the one who offends the least number of primary voters. Each of the major contenders alienates (or provokes concern among) large swaths of Republicans. Rudy Giuliani fancies gay rights and abortion rights (not gun rights). Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on social issues. John McCain is despised by Republican activists for having passed campaign reform legislation and for having questioned the Bush II tax cuts. Mike Huckabee's fundamentalism scares the country clubbers. Thompson, in theory, would appeal for each of the three main GOP constituencies. For the national security conservatives, he talked a mean game on Islamofascism. For the social cons, he highlighted his solid voting record against abortion rights. For the economic conservatives, he called for limited government and reining in Social Security and Medicare spending. At the start of the campaign, one of his aides told me that Thompson would be embraced by Republicans as a modern-day Davy Crockett, another Tennessean

So what was not to like? Nothing but Thompson himself. He was no Davy Crockett. A week ago, I speculated that Thompson was flopping on the campaign trail because he had become too accustomed to being handed television and film scripts in which he merely had to play himself: as a gruff White House chief of staff, a gruff CIA director, a gruff admiral, a gruff senator, or—get this!—a gruff president. He never understood that auditioning for president in real life required much more of him.

Ultimately, his withdrawal from the race doesn't mean much. The Republican contest is a jumble, and Thompson never developed the sort of political following that he could now easily steer toward another candidate, should he wish to. He's obviously closer to McCain than to the other Republican contenders. (Thompson was one of only two other Republican senators who endorsed McCain's campaign finance bill in 1997.) But Thompson's surrender to the obvious will not automatically translate into votes for McCain.

The conventional wisdom regarding Thompson's candidacy was that he entered the race too late. But he probably joined the field too soon. He had wild success as a near-candidate. His performance, though, couldn't match the preseason reviews. He might have fared better had he teased the media and public even longer. And what are the lesson of Thompson's embarrassing and destined-to-be forgettable candidacy? They are rather basic: messenger matters more than message, and voting does count.

Comments

For the first time ever I agree with Thompson. Most people in Washington's position --- successful military leader in a crisis, national leader after a successful revolution --- can't be removed from power except feet first. Leaving power voluntarily might well be the most important thing Washington did.

Posted by: Eric Ferguson on 01/22/08 at 1:25 PM Respond

"He had wild success as a near-candidate"

But the audition was too long and the energy-bars and coffee couldn't get help him to rise to the occasion.

Not even a flash in the pan.

Posted by: capt on 01/22/08 at 4:39 PM Respond

I do believe you are correct - he seeemed almost not to want the job and to be talked oout of it. There was some spark missing there.

As for his discussion of Washington as president and the city, when he was president, I thought the capital was New York City? In fact, it is written in onbwe textbook I am aware of that "On April 23, he crossed the bay from Bridgetown to New York City in a magnificent barge built especially for the occasion."

He can indeed lay claim to laying the cornerstone but there was still construction ongoing when Jefferson was President. In fact, he is often touted as the ONLY president who never ived in Washingtn!

So, if he wants to be President, should he not research his history

By the way, why do I - a Canadian computer science professor- know this but someone seeking the highest office in the land does not. There is a problem somewhere! And even if he was a Republican, I at least liked his integrity - from his legal work and offer to represent Marie Ragghianti when a corrupt Tennessee state government were making jer life a living nightmare- and I am basing my opinion on the book, NOT the movie!

Thanks! Perhaps I am misinterpreting some issue here but what does he mean in his reference to that first George (a far better one that this current one who scares me to be quite frank) walking away from Washington?

Posted by: Siobhan Cohen on 01/22/08 at 8:51 PM Respond

Thank Zeus he is gone. Touting the success of promoting democracy around the world by whatever means, Thomson told a cheering crowd that thanks to this policy "most of the people in the world now live in democracies." Just over half do, if you count places like Kenya as democracies. We can't stand another deluded (and deluding) ideologue as President. (For the facts, see the recent survey in The Economist).

By the way, Putin had the best wry demolition of this neocon obsession. When Bush pushed his policy to him, he asked "Who wants a democracy like Iraq's?)

Posted by: Michael MacDonald on 01/23/08 at 12:00 PM Respond

"Voting does count?" Please explain.

Posted by: john mulligan on 01/25/08 at 8:59 PM Respond

Thompson is about as qualified to be president as Pee Wee Herman. And probably just as big a pervert. He just wants to stay home, pop Viagra and bang his trophy wife. Can't say as I blame him....

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on 01/26/08 at 9:05 AM Respond

He was still in it? How could they tell?

Posted by: rage on 01/28/08 at 9:46 AM Respond