« Asia’s Biggest ‘Talk-Fest’ Begins
What Will it be Sir, a Buffalo or something Cheap, like a Child? »
Politics & Entertainment: The Fact & Fiction of Fred Thompson
According to Bob Novak, GOP celebrity Fred Thompson is — wait for it, wait for it — “for real”!
Yes: “In just three weeks, Fred Thompson has transformed the contest for the Republican presidential nomination. It is not merely that he has come from nowhere to double digits in polls. He is the talk of GOP political circles because he is filling the conservative void in the field.”
The conservative void? Sure. McCain is now neither a maverick nor a conservative — at the very least, social conservatives don’t trust him. Giuliani is way too liberal on key wedge issues and has a past that is, well, eccentric. Romney claims to be a social conservative, but his Mormonism and his former liberalism on some of those key wedge issues have alienated quite a few of those whom he has tried to win over. And Brownback just isn’t “a viable candidate,” despite his extremism on the key wedge issues.
Which leaves the Thompsons, I suppose — Fred and Tommy.
As I argued here, I don’t think Tommy can win the nomination, but who knows? Given the problems with the major candidates, he could just sneak up into the top tier and pull off the huge upset.
Fred lacks Tommy’s experience — he lacks experience generally — but, again, he’s a celebrity. And not just a political celebrity like, say, Obama. No, he’s a genuine pop culture celebrity, the macho star of testosterone-driven hits on big screen and small screen alike, just the sort of Hollywood type Republicans like. (See also Schwarzenegger, Arnold; Willis, Bruce; and Norris, Chuck.)
Social conservatives may see Fred as “the only conservative who can be nominated,” but in this case, as in most cases when it comes to presidential politics, it’s all about image. Here’s the most revealing line in Novak’s column:
Their appreciation of him stems not from his eight years as a U.S. senator from Tennessee but from his role as Manhattan district attorney on the TV series “Law & Order.” The part was molded to Thompson’s specifications as a tough prosecutor, lending him political star power.
That says it all. Republicans are desperately searching for a celebrity candidate to run in ’08 — they won’t be able to run on their record, which has been horrendous, so they’ll have to run on the personality of their nominee — and Fred seems to fit the mold perfectly.
Or, rather, his character does, the on-screen version of the man.
In a literal case of politics as popular entertainment, Republicans could soon find themselves supporting, and eventually voting for, a fiction.
19 Responses to “Politics & Entertainment: The Fact & Fiction of Fred Thompson”
How about a Thomson/Thompson ticket?
He’s also been a practicing attorney on the national level since the early 70s at least and a two term senator. But if apparently you appear in a popular movie as well, those credentials disappear? He is not Chuck Norris or Arnold. He’s got some real credentials.
Look, I’m a bleeding liberal. And it annoys me to no end when I hear people say that Obama is a leading candidate simply because he’s just a nice guy. No, my uncle Mel is a nice guy. Obama to many thousands and thousands of people is inspiring and brings out the best in them. This is a real virtue that he brings to the table. Thompson also comes across as trustworthy and honest and possibly inspiring to many thousands of people. This is also a virtue. Could both of them have more experience? Yes.
Actually, I think Thompson is closest to Clinton in experience. Both are two term senators whose time in office has been fine but not particularly distinguished. They also have some other experience at the federal level, Clinton as First Lady and Thompson as a counsel. Otherwise, they are popular because people know them. Fame and a decent political career. If you compared Clinton’s senate career to Thompson’s I don’t think you’d find a world of difference in the matter of accomplishment.
For the 3rd time now, I will say that I am not voting for Thompson because I disagree with him. But the fact that he was once in a movie or two does not erase his actual experience in government.
read a little blurb on him about 2 weeks ago. it was enough to get me interested and the more I read the more interested I become.
check it out
http://joeleonardi.wordpress.com/2007/03/18/a-republican-to-vote-for/
To paraphrase an old saying: Are you popular because I like you, or do I like you because you’re popular? To be honest, much like with love, the two can’t be split. It’s in our heads.
Oh, and I’d like to offer a side note, Holly. If they were to go as Thompson and Thompson, would they have the Thompson Twins play at their inauguration? Would this be the politcal equivalent of the kids in the hall sketch where scott thompson meets scott thompson climbing mout scott thompson?
I wonder these things…
Dog bites man. Michael Stickings actually being ‘fair and balanced’ towards a Republican would be news.
He has more experience than either Clinton, Obama or Edwards so I do think its silly to bash him on that. But lets face facts here. The guy has largely been out of public politcal office for a long time now. Specifically he’s been out of the public scene these last critical years, perhaps the most politically divided we’ve been since the 60′s. How is it possible he merely announces his interest in the highest office of the land land and is now a serious contender?
It speaks to me of a broken system. The kind where yet again a memeber of the immediate family of a former president is in the running despite lackluster credentials and unspectacular performance. Maybe we can let Hillary have 2 terms, then Jeb can get his 2 terms, and by that time Chelsea should be of age to run. It’ll be like a fairy tale and it’ll be great TV! We really need to look harder for candidates than the star quarterback of the moment, or his girlfriend.
Well said Sam. I’m going to spend some time researching Fred Thompson.
I’m waiting for the generic republican/Lieberman ticket. Speaking of traitors.
I think the party is looking for the next Reagan. They thought they had it in Bush, but he was not competent enough to carry it off.
“Fred lacks Tommy’s experience — he lacks experience generally — but, again, he’s a celebrity.”
Nine years in the Senate. That’s more than Hillary and Obama combined.
I’m old enough to evaluate Presidents since Kennedy. And in that string, Kennedy and Reagan had the greatest impact in that office.
Fred Thompson’s “experience in government” is certainly not much less than theirs.
Hell, if its “experience” you want, look no further than Dick Cheney…he out does anyone in the present field.
casualobserver- Thats not really saying much. Between Kennedy and Reagan no president served a full two terms. I think Bill Clinton had more success than Reagan. I really can’t remember much that Reagan actually accomplished.
> since Kennedy. And in that string, Kennedy and Reagan had the greatest impact in that office.
No doubt at all. With whom are modern presidents compared?
Reagan did help to bring down the Soviet empire by scaring them first with a big build-up (they thought when he was planning SDI that meant he intended to strike first) then by striking up a close relationship with Gorbachev. When the Soviets figured that they couldn’t beat him, they negotiated a peace agreement on his terms.
I was not a fan of his domestic policies, however, and he most certainly broke the law in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Novak: Their appreciation of him stems not from his eight years as a U.S. senator from Tennessee but from his role as Manhattan district attorney on the TV series “Law & Order.�
The sad thing is that this isn’t a parody; Novak is seriously asserting that this is the way that “sophisticated social conservative activists” think, and he doesn’t see anything wrong with it.
Unlike pacatrue, I don’t think that Stickings was saying that Thompson is unqualified to be president. My concern, which I think is shared by Stickings, is that the dominant conservative view of elections is that the way to win elections is to mislead the voters, thereby denying voters a meaningful say in the direction of the country. They don’t want voters to judge Thompson on his actual qualifications to be president (which, I gather, are perfectly adequate). Instead, they want voters to confuse Thompson with a fictional character, and vote for the fictional character.
> Instead, they want voters to confuse Thompson with a
> fictional character, and vote for the fictional character.
To better compete for Democratic votes?
http://www.ndol.org/
> The conservative void? Sure.
Absolutely. The GOP front-runners are RINO-ish and risk being seen as little different than the Dems, openly placing themselves to court voters who will vote Democratic normally or consider the candidate of either party. What will get non-mushy moderates and conservatives to do other than stay home or vote Democratic in favor of the real thing rather than an imitation?
You’ve got to be kidding. Your article is nothing but a a fluff attack piece. Lack of experience? Thomson happens to be a REAL attorney. A quick Google search turns up the following. Any objective observer would have to concede that Thompson is eminently qualified:
Thompson was admitted to the Tennessee Bar Association in 1967 and commenced the practice of law, serving as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1969–1972. He served as co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in its investigation of the Watergate scandal, (1973–1974). In 1975, Thompson began his eighteen year engagement as a lobbyist in Washington, D.C., eventually representing clients including Westinghouse, General Electric (the current corporate owner of the NBC Universal-NBC television network), and the Tennessee Savings and Loan League. He served two terms as a Tennessee senator.
Oh yeah, but he’s “just an actor.” Moron.
Why do you even pretend not to be a liberal Democrat?
The charge that Thompson’s appeal has to do with being an actor rather than from his record in public life- where have I heard that one before?- is hooey. This is a guy whose career in the Senate is at least as distinguished as Hillary’s (whose appeal comes from having been married to a president) or Barak Obama’s (who has hardly any career at all, but who is much more a creature of the media than Fred Thompson) or John Edwards (whose appeal comes from being telegenic and having been selected by a weak presidential nominee as a runningmate in 2004).
Thompson was the Watergate Committee counsel whose questioning revealed the existence of a tape recorder in the Oval Office, and the crusading lawyer whose lawsuit in support of a wrong citizen brought down a corrupt Tennessee governor. Those two things alone are more than Clinton, Obama, or Edwards have contributed to the nation’s welfare, service in the Senate aside.
Thanks, though, for furthering the comparisons between Thompson and Ronald Reagan!