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.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.