« The Scan of the Beast | Main | Holier Than Thou »

March 29, 2007

Famous for Being Fred

Some additional thoughts about Fred Thompson. I couldn't find space for it in my last post, but I really like this Matt Yglesias article from American Prospect. While writing on the other side of the aisle, I think Yglesias puts his finger on why conservatives are waiting for a white knight like Thompson to save them rather than forcing a Brownback or a Huckabee onto the party: he's already famous.

For Yglesias, the most qualified Democratic candidate is Bill Richardson. It's hard to disagree with him. Richardson was a congressman for 15 years, energy secretary, ambassador to the U.N., and is a respected governor. Yet his presidential campaign so far is a non-starter. He's fallen behind lesser-qualified but more famous candidates. John Edwards served only one term in the Senate but is well-known for being on the 2004 losing ticket. Barack Obama hasn't even completed a term, but is famous for his 2004 convention speech. The source of Hillary Clinton's notoriety is obvious, and she might even be the best qualified of the top-tier candidates if she learned anything by osmosis from her husband. But the fact remains that the Democrats have won a whole bunch of statehouses since 2000 and should have a bumper crop of qualified presidential candidates. Yglesias mentions Bill Richardson, Katherine Sebelius, Rod Blagojevich, Ed Rendell, and Janet Napolitano as some, yet only Richardson is running (and it's hard to tell). There may be reasons why the other folks aren't in it, but it seems to me that Yglesias is on to something when he says, "[the national media] simply decided unilaterally some years ago to only cover people who were already famous."

You have the same thing on the GOP side. Giuliani and McCain have been famous for years. As have fantasy candidates Thompson and Gingrich. Romney's political resume is comparatively short, but he has been in the public eye for a while due to his prior engagements (such as the Olympics). Meanwhile, candidates with records to run on, like Mike Huckabee, or Mark Sanford, or Tim Pawlenty up in Minnesota (who's signed on with McCain), get ignored. I'm sure our readers can suggest other qualified individuals who have better resumes than the current frontrunners. The point is, these guys aren't famous enough for the national media to take them seriously. And that's a problem.

Or perhaps I should say, "to take them seriously yet." That's the real issue facing conservative Republicans right now. Do conservatives begrudgingly get behind a Giuliani or a Romney? Do they continue to hold out for a Fred Thompson to come in with guns blazing? Do they force one of the more conservative guys currently in the race to the front line via hard work? It's time for choosing.

Update: As alluded to in the comments, James Dobson gave the thumbs down to Thompson, thumbs up to Gingrich.

Posted by David Darlington at March 29, 2007 09:01 AM

Comments

Despite James Dobson's apparently cold shoulder, I find Fred Thompson to be both right on the issues, and have the necessary personality/persona to win the race. All of this is in addition to the built-in fame you speak of here. For that reason he is my favorite at this point.

The Economist recently noted that, in terms of elected office experience, Fred Thompson is hardly better than Clinton or Obama. Yet Thompson has spent a career behind the scenes in government work and so I think that experience should count for something.

Good post.

Posted by: Joshua Claybourn at March 29, 2007 10:28 AM | permalink

I think it is worth noting that very early in the 2000 election process that Thompson was among the leaders. He ended up losing the momentum when G.W.B. came into the fray with his big-money backers. Thompson even graced the cover of one of the major news magazines in early 1999 with a title asking the question if he might be the next president.

He would be an interesting choice for the Republicans and perhaps could inspire voters. Dobson's recent comments probably do not help his chances in the primary however.

Posted by: Trey McClain at March 29, 2007 12:20 PM | permalink

There is nothing to say about Fred other than for the last six years while the GOP has taken it from everyside..he has been out in Hollyowood "play acting" politics and banging some broad thats young enough to be his daughter.

He wont ever get my vote.

Fred Thompson = CHINO (christian in name only)

Posted by: Beansox at March 29, 2007 12:41 PM | permalink

"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.

Considering comments like that, and from Beansox, it's no wonder that the Republican Party in 2007 is have trouble connecting with anybody but the religious right. Six years of George Bush have made America (and the world) all too familiar with the Christian Reconstructionist movement

Probably the most reassuring thing GOP primary voters can do for the rest of us is to tell Dobson and his ilk to stuff it, and nominate someone like Fred Thompson. But I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: JohnS at March 29, 2007 01:17 PM | permalink

Go on an push Fred as the GOP nominee, and when he cant win a general election because his wife reeks of gold-digger...dont come crying to me.

Do you honestly think middle America is just going to turn a blind eye to the fact his wife, who is 25 years younger then him, is a walking plastic barbie doll who spends more money on plasitc surgery than they make in year, with gold and fame in her yes, because he makes you feel all warm and fuzzy? Get real.

Posted by: Beansox at March 29, 2007 01:37 PM | permalink

Why must people be so degrading and determined to say cruel things about another person so quickly. Our ability to have free speech has turned to our ability to be cruel and nasty.

Where are the good statements and encouraging comments?

Everyone has their favorites but must we brow beat and degrade others in the process? Vote for who you like best but it is not necessary to bring the entire family tree and all the nasty comments into the picture. It would seem that people don't care about others feelings any longer. It is a game of who can be the most cruel to get their point across.

Shame on us.

Posted by: Linda at July 10, 2007 04:11 PM | permalink

Post a comment




Remember Me?





(you may use HTML tags for style)

 
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----



Rankings and Aggregators
Technocrati
Blogdom of God
Who Links Here

Site Meter