Today's Seattle Times runs a decent profile of Fred Thompson from the LA Times, covering the basic pros and cons of his background. That's a decent start for those still seeking to bone-up on Thompson. Those seeking a little more meat can also plow through profiles today in the Washington Post and the Tennessean.
For the real junkies though, the question is how does Thompson's impact affect the current Republican Presidential race? Noted analyst Charlie Cook says it hurts Rudy Giuliani, and has the numbers to back it up. Richard Baehr at the American Thinker says it probably hurts Mitt Romney, though his hypothesis is more intuitive guessing rather than actual analysis based on data.
Cook's point about Thompson hurting Giuliani has more evidence to support it than he cites. ARG polling in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina reveals much. The firm has been polling consistently for months in those early battleground states. A read of the numbers shows Giuliani (and Gingrich) falling notably over time as Fred Thompson is added to the polling. Meanwhile, Romney trends noticeably upward in Iowa and New Hampshire, while holding steady in South Carolina, even as Thompson joins the survey. Note also John McCain shows little movement in either direction in any of the three states.
Of course we really won't know the answer to Thompson's impact for certain until Thompson gets in for sure. An even more relevant question after his much anticipated speech in Orange County, CA yesterday, where reviews indicate he was "solid but unspectacular."
As the profiles linked above also mention, there are questions about his willingness and ability to approach the race with the necessary intensity. Recent coverage of his potential announcement date only supports that theory, conveying a potentially odd lack of enthusiasm for engaging in the early caucus and primary states in a way that those citizens have come to expect from candidates:
Thompson, his wife and advisers in Washington and Tennessee also are drawing up plans for a new style of campaign that would rely heavily on technology and his celebrity status to avoid some of the slogging through the snow in Iowa and New Hampshire that is normally required of White House hopefuls.
Maybe that works, maybe it doesn't. Other bloggers have said it could have its pitfalls.
As more events such as the upcoming GOP debate in South Carolina and the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa unfold, it would be helpful for Republicans to have a full picture of what their options are. And if Giuliani isn't able to remedy his recent stumbles, it would seem even more advantageous for Thompson to put himself out there sooner rather than later.
UPDATE: Robert Novak has a first-hand account of Thompson's speech over the weekend, reporting lackluster reviews of the performance. More than anything, that seems a product of the inflated expectations for Thompson based on recent hype. In the end, it's probably unfair to him, but a high standard to which he'll probably be held in many cases.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 06, 2007 03:32 PM | Email ThisThompson is clearly my favorite (potential) candidate at this point, but his potential to win the general election should be a consideration on whether he should get the nomination.
Posted by: Morisseau on May 6, 2007 04:00 PMIt won't sell...
I mean it was working for me (Senator from Tennessee...nice...and all...but then "dated starlets")
See Americans want their President to be a bit of a loser...a Homer Simpson on a grand scale who goes out during the day time and slays dragons, but in the evening comes home and gets yelled at by the wife and has the kids ask him for money.
Posted by: John Bailo on May 6, 2007 06:07 PMThat's pretty close to what was said about one president whose only elected office was one failed term as a backbench congressman from Illinois.
But Honest Abe turned out OK in the White House, wouldn't you agree?
Last time we had an actor in the White House (at least an acknowledged actor), he did OK, too.
Besides, right now the country needs a soothing, Ike-type as president, and Fred, in his physical resemblance thereof, is straight from central casting.
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 6, 2007 07:09 PMThe policies that Ronnie Raygun put in place helped turn the world's largest creditor nation into the world's largest debtor nation. We are paying $180,000,000,000 that is BILLION dollars a year in interest on the money Raygun borrowed to keep his trickle up economic disaster from showing up as the disaster it was. Not to mention how his CIA buddies were arming both sides of a little Central American conflict, where tens of thousands of innocent civilians were slaughtered with bullets he supplied, and he never paid any real price for lying about it. Remember we only go after presidents who lie about bj's. This is Amerika.
Ronnie never got the credit for creating the homeless problem either, kicking 600,000 mentally ill patients into the streets to fend for themselves. Justice would have served him properly if when he became ill with Alzheimer's he was given a shopping cart and sent to a streetcorner to beg for nickels. Thank god he had some $$$$ saved up!
Moral of the story. Be rich, or you are screwed when it all slips away.....
Next to Bush, Ronnie Raygun was the worst president we have had in the last 100 years. I am even including ol Nixon. The only thing he had working for him was the fact that it was so hard to hate him. Heck, even I don't hate him, even though the flat world insanity he promoted has destroyed the way of life for our once strong, and now losing ground middle class.
I know the pea brainers love to prop him up on a pedestal, but face it, he is all they have. Every other top republican leader, except pappy Bush, who wasn't all that bad, has been a total disgrace.
Posted by: Facts on May 6, 2007 07:38 PMIf you want to talk worst president in 100 years, try Jimmy Carter...or LBJ...or Edith Galt Wilson...
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 6, 2007 07:52 PMThere is no way on earth that we want to risk a Clinton or Obama in the White House during the war on terror, so we will end up picking by electability. If Thompson doesn't show that by next year, he won't be nominated.
Piper, the country doesn't need a soothing figure, it needs someone who will pursue the battle with Islamist radicals. The question the Republicans must ask is how do we ensure that someone will be in the White House that will do that...I would not run my own mother over for a candidate who at this point is our LEAST likely to win the General Election and give the White House over to the defeatists.
Posted by: Doug on May 6, 2007 08:31 PMThatcher makes a great point: watch the grassroots.
The rest of the candidates all have some piece of mondo-serious baggage or are for many reasons functionally unelectable.
Fred's done some significant stuff. We have the chief justice we have because he guided that nomination through the Senate. He's not perfect (he voted in favor of McCain-Feingold...USSCt will fix that), but he brings much to the table.
And anyone who doesn't think the country is in desparate need of a soathing figure doesn't understand the power of symbols. I've heard him speak about the war on terror, and I'm confident he'll take the battle to the enemy.
He's solid, serious, and someone people can have a viscerally positive response to. Ike whipped Stevenson in '52 not just on his war record, but because in a very turbulent era, he offered the country the security of a steady hand.
He who underestimates the power of such things is doomed to forever loose elections.
When he drops his chits on the table, that sucking sound you hear will be from the poll numbers of Rudy, Mitt, John McC, and every other candidate.
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 6, 2007 09:02 PMIf you look at bad Presidents, you have Harding and LBJ, if you take the mistakes of the former and add our bad Presidents you have a great reason not to put someone into the Presidency that doesn't have executive experience. The voters know that and have been electing Governors or former VP's. Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee have that advantage over the current democrats.
How would you rate "viscerally positive responses" between Thompson and Obama - about the same. As for Thompson's role in Roberts, I think Giuliani was the one that brought us Scalia. And if you are interested in Abortion law, it is Scalia and Thomas that holdfast to the belief that there is no right to an abortion in the constitution, of course Roberts and Alito in the recent partial birth abortion case would not concur with that.
It goes back to the candidates' polyannic use of the states' rights phrases in trying to get Republicans to support them. I really don't think they know what the issue is on the right to kill the unborn issue. It's a Federal issue and not a states rights issue, which candidate got that one right?
If a candidate is asked what type of justices they would put on the court and they say Scalia and Thomas, then they are what we are looking at. If they say Roberts and Alito, they are just politicos as candidates.
Posted by: Doug on May 6, 2007 10:15 PMThis field is better than any others for a long, long time. Check out your own field- the Dems are lightweights and make the Rs look like SuperHeavyweights. I'll take any of your professed R 'lightweights' over your crop of Ds.
Eric, you have brought up the 'fire in the belly' thing again. Once s candidate starts, he/she gets carried away with events and momentum. He'll do okay.
Posted by: swatter on May 7, 2007 07:09 AMIf Thompson shows the necessary energy and discipline then great. If not, I would really hesitate to want a nominee for the general with that handicap. Either way, we won't know until we actually see him in action.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 7, 2007 07:28 AMThe "fire in the belly" issue doesn't really worry me simply because I would actually like an adult who hasn't invested their entire life into becoming President. John Kerry had "fire in the belly", Hillary Clinton has "fire in the belly" and so does pretty boy Edwards. But, does that translate to someone who is good for the country or someone who is just desperate for power? I would argue that the "best" presidents we have had, from George Washington to Ronald Reagan didn't have a burning desire to be powerful. They were simply grown ups who recognized the need for leadership and took on the challenge and performed from a position of maturity rather than ego. I am hopeful that Fred Thompson feels the same way and I think the electorate would sense that and respond.
Posted by: suzihomemaker on May 7, 2007 08:28 AMPeople are increasingly turning away from Hillary Clinton for the reasons you point out. She wants it too much, and we're all uncomfortable with that level of...lust.
I do think that the American people want someone who can soothe...someone who both can do the job while not getting all twisted in knots about it. Carter was fixated and always seemed burdened. Reagan smiled, waved, and we felt confident he was OK so we could be OK. To give the devil his due, Bill Clinton gave many in America the same impression.
Hillary always looks like she's about ready to give us Hell for not drinking our milk.
What they do in private is one thing, but publicly we don't want our leaders to look or act worried or hopeless. And I think genuine leaders act in private pretty much the way the act in public.
Next time anyone is watching Fred Thompson on TV, try turning off the sound and just watch the picture. What does that tell you? To me, he seems real and comfortable inside his skin. I like that.
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 7, 2007 09:05 AMDavid Glick: Thompson is as smart as anyone else who's running. I lived in MA for most of my life. I was a delegate to Romney's nominating convention. I voted for him. I like Rmoney a lot. And I can't see any reason to think he is significantly smarter than Fred Thompson. Oh sure, he probably knows business better, but OTOH, Thompson seems to understand conservatism and conservative principles better.
Facts: your nickname is ill-advised. Like, saying he created the homeless problem; saying he created our national debt; comparing him unfavorably to Carter.
Doug: again, you are just wrong about Thompson's inability to win. You can only think that way by looking at literally meaningless polls. Interesting analysis requires looking past meaningless polls. Because they are, you know, meaningless. I think your assertion that he is unelectable has no rational basis. And to say he's moderate ... jiminy cricket, have you heard him talk or read his words? He is far more to the right than any of the other top candidates.
And yes, we do need someone who will pursue the battle with Islamists. Thompson, quite clearly, would do that.
Doug, I frankly think you just don't like Thompson, because most of your complaints have no basis, are just wrong, or apply equally well to everyone else.
Posted by: pudge on May 7, 2007 09:31 AMWhat the country is tired of is a certain KIND of southerner. The kind who is perceived as socially intolerant, as bigoted, as closed-minded, as dim-witted ... as GW Bush. Thompson won't be seen that way any more than Romney or McCain. And Giuliani can't win the nomination anyway.
Posted by: pudge on May 7, 2007 09:39 AMFred Thompson is well on his way.
Posted by: Sakaki Onsei on May 7, 2007 12:35 PMBTW, thanks for the cato institute free podcasts. They give a well thought different viewpoint. I like them.
Posted by: swatter on May 7, 2007 03:33 PMmurtz: you're kidding, right? By that standard -- one bad speech, you will not be nominated -- how do you explain Bush winning two elections?
Polls are not meaningless. They are full of insightful information if you know how to find it in there, else the parties wouldn't be doing polling.
My point is very simple, I will not risk voting for someone in the primary or caucus, that at that particular moment doesn't appear to be able to be positioned to win the General Election. Just won't risk having one of the defeatists in the oval office, even if it means temporarily giving up on another issue or two.
If outside influences occur that make the republican slate look better across the board, such as halfing of the gas prices, then a guy like Thompson has a better chance to win, otherwise we will be stuck having to nominate someone who can get a higher percentage of the vote of the moderates from both sides.
Posted by: Doug on May 7, 2007 07:33 PMAnyway: again, no, he would not have a tough time positioning himself. You think a known conservative can't win. I don't think that's true at all, and I don't think you have any data that shows it.
However, I never said polls are meaningless. I said THESE polls are meaningless. Earlier you said they are a good indicator, and that simply isn't true, not for this early, not for people who have not even joined the race, not that most people have never heard, or know the views of.
I'll say it bluntly and clearly: there is absolutely no validity to any poll pitting Thompson against any Democrat in November 2008. If a party is doing that type of polling (I can't see why they would), they are foolish.
Maybe he will run, maybe he won't. But your conclusions that he won't win the nomination, and your completely unwarranted speculation about what cancer he may or may not have, is utter foolishness.