January 11, 2008

"Nothing ever upset Fred Thompson more than the story that he was considering dropping out to endorse McCain."

What lit a fire under Fred Thompson?

So Fred's good when riled. But do we want a President who needs riling to be good? I know you can say that somehow Fred would be good behind the scenes, and he only needs riling to be good in front of the camera, but don't we have to judge him by what we see?

By the way, the rightosphere clearly prefers Fred, according to this poll.

39 comments:

MadisonMan said...

From the story: Thompson, my friend explained, has a kind of Reagan-like innocence about him.

Innocence, or naivete?

There are many adjectives that accurately describe Reagan. I would not include innocent in that list. But it was a nice linking of Thompson to Reagan. How the Republicans do try to wear his mantle.

Paddy O. said...

A President is going to be riled. And it's important to see how they respond when the are riled.

Others when riled get flustered. They're good if they can manage the moment and control the situation and keep things according to their plan. But when that is snapped they get lost, unsure, and begin to flounder. When Fred gets riled he steps up to the plate and blows everyone else away.

I want a president who is sharpest when riled, especially when dealing with global politics in which the usual bag of tricks for domestic popularity don't work.

And honestly, I also don't want a president who is so excitable everything becomes an issue and they want a hand in everything to get it done right away. Busybody presidents don't solve anything and they cause a lot of divisiveness. Fred's calm when it is appropriate and riled when challenged seems a great balance in a president.

Though not necessary great for a campaign.

Invisible Man said...

Fred Thompson as President would probably be like Bush but with more vacations and a 1-3pm nappy time. I'm glad that conservatives might have finally found a person in the race who probably embodies most of the familiar traits of a conservative Presidential candidate, but they might want to find one who actually wants to be President.

Pogo said...

But do we want a President who needs riling to be good?

He only needs riling to be on fire; he's always good, and would be a good President.

He makes me think less of Reagan than of Washington, who had to be begged to be President, and did not glory in it. It was a duty, and he was the right man for the time. But he did not have 'fire in the belly' to rule.

I can think of little better than to have a President who knows he can and should do the job, but is not desperately seeking the title; a reluctant warrior.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The conservatives/right I think have always preferred Fred. I just don't think Fred has his heart in this race.

JackDRipper said...

Fred, fred, fred, fred ,fred ,fred........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMDMtsphVkU

I tried it with Mitt, mitt, mitt, mitt........and it doesn't have that same fredness to it.

Invisible Man said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Invisible Man said...

He makes me think less of Reagan than of Washington, who had to be begged to be President, and did not glory in it.

Your joking right. Fred Thompson resembles George Washington who defeated the British and made Democracy possible for America. That George Washington. Really. Maybe a George Washington who was lazy and devoted his time to minor roles in plays and dating starlets. And who plays Benjamin Franklin in this play of yours.. Ron Paul?

Dan said...

Hoosier Daddy: "I just don't think Fred has his heart in this race."

Did you come up with that on your own? Or maybe you heard it somewhere? Excellent job parroting the mantra. Here, let me add to your repertoire... "Fred lacks the fire in the belly." There you go. Keep saying it. Here's to free thinkers!

George said...

I like it when you talk Southern, Professor.

Fred is not a man to trifle with.

Or with whom one should trifle, as they say up North.

The man grew up with Buford Pusser on one side and the Jack Daniels distillery on the other.

Sloanasaurus said...

found a person in the race who probably embodies most of the familiar traits of a conservative Presidential candidate, but they might want to find one who actually wants to be President

I agree with the above quote responsding to this. The people who we really want as President are the ones who don't want to be President. It's a western virtue not to desire power. (Because corruption always follows desire for power).

"Maximus, that is why it must be you."

Roger said...

IM: cute but totally off target--I don't think anyone would compare Thompson to Washington in terms of lives lived and accomplishments. To clear this up for you, the analogy refers only to what some people think are Washington and Thompson's respective views toward being President--you know, the Cincinnatus thing? As Cyrus Pinkerton would say: sharpen up.

Pogo said...

Invisible man commits a fallacy which has components of the fallacy of Composition and the fallacy of Division.

Sophomoric at best.

You think the Monkees are like the Beatles? Did the Monkees ever do a White Album? I rest my case.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier Daddy: "I just don't think Fred has his heart in this race."

Did you come up with that on your own? Did you come up with that on your own? Or maybe you heard it somewhere? Excellent job parroting the mantra.

Yes as a matter of fact I did, about a month after he declared he was running and then disappeared. Considering I heard more from him before he announced his candidacy speaks for that.

Sorry if my enthusiasm for him exceeded his perceived enthusiasm for the office and in politics, perception is reality.

Pogo said...

Sorry if my enthusiasm for him exceeded his perceived enthusiasm for the office

You are right about this, and it has been his biggest negative.

Synova said...

"...they might want to find one who actually wants to be President."

Bush LOVES being president.

(just saying)

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"about a month after he declared he was running and then disappeared. Considering I heard more from him before he announced his candidacy speaks for that."

That's because you aren't looking and listening in the right place. The media is controlling the coverage and until just recently their focus and spotlight has been on the candidates that they want to push to to forefront. Huckabee and Clinton or Obama (they can't make up their minds on that). In order to get television time Fred would have to set his hair on fire, and since we see what little he has of it that would have been a futile gesture. If you only take the crap that the media offers as the whole truth, you will never be anything other than a mushroom in the dark.

What I saw in the debate last night was a true believer in conservative principles pisssed to the nines that Huckabee is shucking and jiving to the conservative dance tune but is in no way shape or form a conservative.

I also don't want someone like the Hillarys or Kerrys of the world, who have devoted their entire being to lusting after power, to be President. I would much rather have the person who is called to duty by his fellow citizens just as Washington and now Fred has been.

MadisonMan said...

That's because you aren't looking and listening in the right place.

That's a very convenient excuse, but it sounds like you're blaming HDaddy, or the media, or anyone but Thompson for Thompson's inability to connect with him. I don't buy it.

A person campaigning for office has no business doing it, and they will not suceed, if they don't have the ability/knowledge to connect.

My opinon is that if Thompson doesn't do well in SC, his days are numbered. He got fewer votes in NH than Dennis Kucinich. And if Thompson does do very well, what does that do to Giuliani? It's very interesting to watch.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If Fred (or a person like him) is defeated just because of the short attention span of the American public and their distraction by the shiny thing....ooooh look over there a woman/black man running for president.....oooh doesn't Romney have funny hair....Fred has bags under his eyes..... it will be our loss as a nation.

The media has us rushing back and forth mindlessly with their innuendos that Fred is going to drop out, Hillary is going to be crushed by Obama...oh wait.. maybe not. Look over there something glittery!! The American public reminds me of this:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1019313/india_village/

hdhouse said...

i'm reminded of the frankenstein movies with the villagers chasing him with torches.

Hoosier Daddy said...

you will never be anything other than a mushroom in the dark.

Hey I happen to like mushrooms. I happen make a wicked spinich stuffed mushroom appetizer BTW.

You do have a point although outside of his debates, he certainly doesn't get much face time which whether its because of the media or not I can't honestly answer.

MadisonMan said...

he certainly doesn't get much face time which whether its because of the media or not I can't honestly answer.

Well, look to his campaign staff. Is it hard for a campaigner to get booked on a Sunday show in a campaign season? Isn't his wife, who I hear has great tits, supposed to be media-savvy? What's really up?

Roger said...

Channeling titus here: can you bounce a quarter of Ms. T's bosom? That seems to the acid test.

Trooper York said...

Actually you should bounce your face off of her bosom and go Brreeewwwwski.

Synova said...

Demanding the humiliation of those entering public service (particularly any of those who get the Senate dog-and-pony treatment before confirmation) and demanding that candidates beg prettily and most importantly *sufficiently* strikes me as a way to eliminate most of those who might run for public office.

Narrowing the field to those with the biggest egos and the psychological need to either have public acclaim or power seems like a fabulous plan.

Lets just keep doing that.

Paddy O. said...

As far as I've heard Thompson has only said he "really, really wants to be President." That's one 'really' insufficient to garner my acknowledgment of his fervor. I need at least three "reallys" and a healthy dollop of pandering before I think someone is serious. Otherwise I think this is all a way to justify a long road trip around the country to otherwise balking wife and kids.

joe said...

Madison Man:
Republican invocation of Reagan is nothing compared to the way the Democrats attempt to reincarnate JFK every 4 years, this year's zombie being Hussein Obama.

Paul said...

Fred's strategy has been different all along. He's resisting the trend to start campaigning earlier and earlier, thus his late entry, and he doesn't appear to care for or pander to the media, including Fox. These are good things from the right's point of view. He's the right blogoshere's favorite candidate, endorsed by Human Events, and people can glean that Rush thinks he's the best candidate too, so the base support is there ready to be galvanized.

His performance last night has put him in a strong position to win SC, as the debate was no doubt watched by most of the Republicans that will be voting in the primary. He will be stumping hard down there....it's do or die and he knows it. He's the one candidate that the party can really unite behind...he's right on all the issue for conservatives and has gravitas in spades. The media knows this and fears him most. No wonder they boycott him. If he pulls it off in SC the media will be forced to cover him. He will catch fire and have a better than even chance to be the next President.

The ingredients for a perfect storm are there and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Synova said...

How much of the "fire in the belly" crap is just the media wanting to maintain their own exalted role as king-makers?

Not deliberately choosing who should win or lose (though there's some of that sometimes, too) but defending their *place* in the process.

It needs to be a HOOPLA, dang it!

Which is why half the time the coverage is of the coverage. Reporters reporting on themselves.

"It's been said you don't have fire in your belly."

Well, said by whom? By reporters mostly, reporting what pleases them about their own ruminations, and then pretending their own reports are worthy of reporting on in turn.

Synova said...

Did I ever mention how once, way back when, when the national or world news was only a portion of a half-hour network news show, how the anchor (the fellow with dark hair, a round face, and horn rim glasses) looked up at the camera and said with utter sincerity.

"The news for tonight is that there is no news."

Can you even imagine?

I don't remember if it was that nothing happened in the country that day or if it was nothing particular happened in the world.

I just remember that the anchor didn't make something up to fill the lack.

Paul said...

Synova,

I think the naked personal ambition of all the Democratic and some of the Republican candidates is what they mean by fire in the belly. It's craven egotism, and the fact that Fred is responding more to the perceived needs of the country is a great reason to support him. Motives count.

You're right that the media is in love with itself and it's power, and that's why Fred holds them in contempt.

It's the adults vs. the children, and Fred is the most adult of the lot.

Revenant said...

I think Paul just hit the nail on the head. Thompson doesn't seem to have the same ego-driven need to prove himself that everybody else in both sides of the race does.

My feeling is that the perceived lack of "fire in the belly" is just a reflection of the fact that Thompson was happy with his life before he started running for President. He's smart, and charismatic, and I'm sure he's do a good job -- but at the same time, my feeling is that if he loses, he'll be fine with that.

Freeman Hunt said...

How much of the "fire in the belly" crap is just the media wanting to maintain their own exalted role as king-makers?

Exactly. Why should we voters be especially attracted to people who especially want power over us?

Plus, I've seen no lack of "fire in the belly" from Fred in matters of substance. I don't remember other candidates writing numerous, substantive editorials about policy issues prior to entering the race.

Paul said...

Revenant,

I agree he would be fine with it for himself, but not for the country. And "fire in the belly" or not you can be sure he is campaigning in SC with total energy and focus.

I'll vote for whoever the Repubs nominate as the lesser of the two evils, but I could vote for Fred with real enthusiasm and I believe that will true for almost all Republicans if he gets the nomination.

Paul said...

"Plus, I've seen no lack of "fire in the belly" from Fred in matters of substance. I don't remember other candidates writing numerous, substantive editorials about policy issues prior to entering the race."

That's exactly right, Freeman. He's the responsible adult in the race.

Revenant said...

Yeah, Paul, I tend to agree with you. I've been supporting Rudy, but I'm starting to feel he's just too divisive a figure. Thompson would be ok too, because while he's socially conservative (in his voting, at least) he doesn't seem pushy about it.

Blake said...

Narrowing the field to those with the biggest egos and the psychological need to either have public acclaim or power seems like a fabulous plan.

It's worked so far. Sorta. Heh. [ulp]

If it's Fred, we'll have a race between someone with genuinely conservative plans versus someone with genuinely liberal (though IMO far well less defined) plans.

That's not so much a knock at the Dems, as the fact that Fred seems to be the One Guy running on a very specific set of plans, and no one else Dem or Rep compares. (Though I've heard Rudy at least state some interesting things.)

The rest seem to be following the "avoid saying anything that might alienate anyone" plan.

Paul said...

Blake,

'The rest seem to be following the "avoid saying anything that might alienate anyone" plan.'

Another example of Fred's honesty and refusal to pander. That kind of integrity is pretty much weeded out of the candidate pool these days.

Blake said...

Yeah, I noticed he didn't go all ga-ga over Ethanol in Iowa. But again, what's the percentage in telling people, "No, the government isn't going to help you! It's going to get out of the way so you can help yourself!"?