Thompson's Formidability

Jon Chait says he thinks Fred Thompson will "be formidable both as a primary contender and as a potential nominee." In a general election, I think Thompson is going to end up as a case study in why governors have an easier time winning the White House than do Senators. If you combined Thompson's persona and TV skills with a few token gubernatorial accomplishments (cut taxes eleventeen times, tripled awesomeness, etc.) you'd have a bitchin' presidential contender.

Instead, as a 1990s-vintage GOP Senator he has no real accomplishments to his name and a voting record ready to be mined for attacks (voted for three zillion dollars in Medicare cuts, helped Newt Gingrich make adorable children cry) in a way that will help undermine his considerable assets as a candidate. It's not an insurmountable burden by any means but it does leave him weaker than he might be.

Comments

Making children cry is now the negative for a Republican? Since when?

Posted by abb1 | May 30, 2007 5:07 PM

I think Thompson's role in bringing down wartime president Nixon will work against him more than his seat warming Senate term.

"What did the president know and when did he know it" indeedy.

Posted by alphie | May 30, 2007 5:08 PM

Jon Chait thought McCain ought to've been the Democratic nominee in 2004, so I think he can just take a seat for this cycle.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | May 30, 2007 5:09 PM

The best thing that Thompson has going for him would seem to be that the MSM likes him, and as a result, won't look to find inconsistencies (real or imagined) in every statement he utters, as they did with another former senator from Tennessee, Al Gore.

If, however, the MSM decides to do their job, they will scrutinize his role in Scooter's defense fund:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002151.php

Posted by Rich | May 30, 2007 5:38 PM

If the MSM decides to do their job, they will note that awesomeness quadrupled in neighboring states during Thompson's tenure.

Posted by Adam | May 30, 2007 5:53 PM

But I totally want to have a beer with him! How can he lose?

Posted by bobbo | May 30, 2007 5:58 PM

Thompson will comfort the heart of many a GOP primary voter, but he's a pretty standard-fare, mainstream conservative Republican. In other words, he's same old same old. The Repubicans need someone with centrist appeal. They're going to have all kinds of trouble in places like Ohio. I doubt Thompson's the man to help them hold on to purplish states Bush won the last two rounds.

Posted by Jasper | May 30, 2007 6:07 PM

Thompson convicted more terrorists, sexual predators, child abusers and murderers than all the other candidates combined. Thompson also has good relations with both liberals (Jack McCoy) and women.
The gay community will not be happy since he fired Serena Southerlyn for being an advocate/lesbian.

Posted by make believe | May 30, 2007 6:20 PM

The Repubicans need someone with centrist appeal.

centrist appeal /= centrist positions

Thompson, like McCain, has good centrist appeal without actually holding any centrist positions. They're both pretty formidable candidates. 2008 is a very weird year, such that even formidable candidates like McCain and Thompson are real underdogs to the Democrats, but they have centrist appeal. They have good relationships with the media, good cultural markers, and a lot of the intangibles.

Posted by DivGuy | May 30, 2007 6:35 PM

This is a problem for Edwards too, who also did not achieve anything of note in his six year senate term. Indeed this is one of the primary reasons I don't like him.

Posted by Korha | May 30, 2007 6:37 PM

BTW, Matt: what exactly ARE the "considerable assets" Fred Thompson brings to the Republican race?

Good stage presence?
Can remember his lines well?
LOOKS like TV's idea of a President?

I agree Jasper: TV-rerun exposure or no; Old Fred is just more of the same-old: and just like every other GOP sacrificial goat -sorry, "candidate"; in 2008, he's going to have to, to get past the primary process, appeal on one hand to the Jesus-and-Hellfire wing of the Party with sops to their "social agenda" (and thus alienate most of the rest of the population) - while at the same time keeping the big-bucks backers interested (which probably won't be as hard!)

Posted by Jay C | May 30, 2007 6:56 PM

Yeah, Thompson is already yesterday's news. Before he anounces he's going to anounce, or whatever.

On the plus side this could make it more difficult for the soulless Mr Romney, by injecting another, this time genuine, generic Republican into the race.

Posted by AJ | May 30, 2007 7:14 PM

Gee, when was the lasttime someonewho played the role well convinced Americans he had some real substance?

Posted by della Rovere | May 30, 2007 7:18 PM

Surely this announcement hurts McCain the most, as his appeal is most like Thompson's, but Thompson is the fresh face (figuratively speaking). If McCain doesn't have the media primary sewn up, like in 2000, don't you have to figure it's pretty hopeless for him? But media types fawn on Thompson at least as badly as they did for McCain 6 years ago.

Posted by kth | May 30, 2007 7:28 PM

Thompson, like McCain, has good centrist appeal without actually holding any centrist positions.

I disagree with this. I'm saying that there's been explicit change in the electorate -- both in terms of demographics and the reaction to policies of the last seven years -- that will make it difficult for a nice conservative man you could take to your church social to win in 2008.

For a Republican to prevail in 2008, he'll need two of the following three: a) an absolutely booming economy; b) an absolutely horrible opponent; c) TRUE centrist/moderate appeal (as in, a tangible record the media can sell to moderate voters who feel the country is headed in the wrong direction). McCain actually has a record of having taken some moderate and/or liberal positions (gun control, responsible fiscal policy, CFR, the environment), as has Giuliani. As far as I know you can lump Thompson -- ideologically, at least -- with someone like Newt Gingrich. I predict that's just not going to get it done for the GOP in 2008.

Posted by Jasper | May 30, 2007 7:34 PM

Seems to me he's the easiest "not Hillary" vote of all of the republican candidates. Romney's a farce, McCain has alienated a lot of conservatives, Giuliani is even more of a farce...but if this country loathes Sen. Clinton as much as I believe it does (for reasons that confuse me, but that's neither here nor there), I think Fred Thompson is a pretty good "how bad can he be?" choice.

Posted by dan | May 30, 2007 7:47 PM

I think Fred Thompson is a great candidate. He's a manly man. A reluctant warrior, protecting his family. You know, like Shane.

Posted by Howard Fineman | May 30, 2007 8:11 PM

Given the weakness of the current bunch vying to run in '08, I guess anything's possible, but frankly I think Thompson's only natural constituencies are TV pundits and Law and Order fans. It's more difficult to believe he could actually generate enough excitement among grassroots wingnuts to win the nomination. He's from Hollywood, James Dobson doesn't believe he's a Christian, and he simply doesn't have the right visceral red-meat appeal. He also doesn't seem to have any actual policy ideas, but that's probably a plus.

Posted by Jake | May 30, 2007 8:19 PM

Only in Washington would Thompson seem like an unusually appealing guy.

He's a mediocre character actor and he was a boring back-bencher in the Senate.

Reagan was Laurence Olivier in comparison, both in acting chops and charisma.

Thompson ain't going anywhere. He's the Republican Wes Clark, only not nearly as smart and accomplished.

Posted by Philly | May 30, 2007 8:40 PM

Philly, I got to say Thompon is quite a good character actor. He's got a lot of appeal on screen. Charming and reassuring. Makes you feel warm and safe.

But Jasper has really hit the key point here. Thompson is a generic Southern conservative Republican. That brand is not doing well. At the very best, Thompson-as-nominee can hope to cheer up the base and save a few House and Senate seats in the red states. But all the swing voters are going to go Democrat and so will a lot of moderate Republicans. That will happen no matter who gets the GOP nom, but it will especially happen if the party trots out a candidate whose policy views come down to a checklist of positions approved by one of the most reviled groups in the country, namely House Republicans. And Thompson is such a candidate.

Posted by Kyle | May 30, 2007 8:56 PM

I think Thompson's only natural constituencies are TV pundits and Law and Order fans. - Jake

In which case, the Dems. should nominate Stephen Hill if the GOP nominates Thompson. Every true-blue Law and Order fan prefers Adam Schiff to Arthur Branch. Arthur Branch might give Jack McCoy some homespun wisdom, but if Adam Schiff is President, the terrorists will know that as soon as some low level operative is captured and Schiff gives McCoy the go-ahead, a plea will be arranged that'd lead to every terrorist leader being captured by Briscoe and Greene within the span of a double episode. No amount of torture or anything like that'll ever scare terrorists as much as President Adam Schiff grunting three simple words to Deputy Attorney General Jack McCoy: "make. a. deal."

;)

Posted by DAS | May 30, 2007 9:05 PM

Thompson might have been a strong candidate had he entered the race from the beginning, and not just for the usual organizational reasons. The ideal Republican nominee is someone conservative enough that the base can take his conservatism for granted and settle for dog-whistles, but able to portray himself as a centrist/moderate in the general. Thompson could have pulled this off had he been in the race from the start, but now that the race has shaped up to be Rudy McRomney vs. A Real Conservative To Be Named Later, Thompson has to make the affirmative case that he's a real conservative, which means disavowing moderation and centrism.

The Republican nominee, whoever he is, will be someone who spent the better part of 2007 trying to convince that 28-Percenters that he's one of them, and either succeeding, thus turning off general election voters, or failing, but winning the nomination anyway by attrition and pissing off the base. Either way, the Democrats win.

Posted by Greg | May 30, 2007 9:33 PM

Is it really that hard to believe that Thompson would beat Sen. Clinton? She begins any general election race with more than 40% of voters determined to vote against her. That's long odds to overcome, even if the GOP is having its troubles.

Many things can happen between now and November 08 that can change the dynamics of the Presidential election, e.g., a domestic terrorist attack, a sudden spike in the Iraq insurgency, a US/Iran military confrontation, a recession, a massive spurt in economic growth. But barring unforseen, dramatic events, I think the Republican candidate has a really good chance of winning the 2008 election, especially if it's someone like Thompson.

Posted by Daniel, Esq. | May 30, 2007 10:57 PM

Matt, where did you learn the paleologism "bitchin'"? I thought that died with my generation's youth.

Posted by Barry | May 30, 2007 11:24 PM

Thompson seems like a strong primary candidate, but a weaker general election candidate than the current top 3 Republicans. McCain Giuliani, and Romney all have a better shot at appealing to moderates with "compassionate conservatism" or some such nonsense.

Go Thompson!

Posted by Ragout | May 31, 2007 2:05 AM

Here's how it will play out.

Thompson will torpedo Romney immediately. That dude is the biggest empty suit I've seen in a while. Then Thompson starts to fade, as McCain stagnates and GOP dissatisfaction with the field increases until... Newt gets in in September.

Gingrich has the name recognition to get in late and still win. He's the most genuine conservative choice (by far) that GOP primary voters have. And, even as a liberal, I have to respect the fact that he is the only serious intellectual and thoughtful candidate in the GOP field.

By January it comes down to Gingrich and McCain. Flip a coin.

In any event, the GOP nominee is toast, unless Hillary wins the Dem nomination (which I find almost unimaginable).

Here's why that won't happen. No one is really inspired by her. No one in the Democratic party will vote for her, unless they think she can WIN in the general election. But it's becomeing pretty clear that, as I said above, she's really the only Dem candidate with any large chance of LOSING the general. This is due to her enormous negatives among independants, and also lefties who can't stomach her war positions.

I also suspect that, while Hillary might do pretty well with the women's vote in the Dem primary, all of this nonsense about Clinton and Obama splitting the African American vote will go by the wayside. When all is said and done, the best candidate in either party by a mile is a Black Democrat, and hise BASE is white liberals. The opportunity will be too much for Black voters to pass up. Eventually it will become clear that, by the very act of BEING President, regardless of what he at he actually DOES as President, Obama will break down all of the walls African Americans have strggled to bring down for 400 years. Barrack gets 90% or more in the primaries. This carries him to the nomination.

Just my $.02 here.

Posted by Jello | May 31, 2007 2:34 PM

I agree with Jello that Thompson's entrance into the race hurts Romney the most. It hurts McCain too, of course, but McCain's candidacy was already in freefall due to his increasingly Magoo-like behavior (the stroll through Baghdad) and his unwavering and well-documented support for the mess in Iraq.

Romney, on the other hand, seemed to be making some inroads among southern conservatives over the last several months. Thompson's announcement puts an end to that. If Romney tries to criticize Thompson or argue that he, not Thompson, is the true conservative in the race, Thompson can counter by pointing out the many socially moderate skeletons in Romney's closet. This coupled with the fact that Thompson comes off as infinitely more down to earth than the remote-controlled ken doll Romney means Romney's campaign is effectively done (except perhaps as a running mate?)

Posted by tworivers | May 31, 2007 4:36 PM

None of this matters.

Thompson, like all the other Republican contenders except maybe Hagel, is at some point going to have be lowered into the paper shredder that is Iraq.

All that will be left of his electoral chances after that will be confetti; good for the nice-try-even-though-we-lost party afterward, but that's about it.

(By the way, don't forget that Thompson 'married his daughter'.)

Posted by lampwick | May 31, 2007 4:54 PM

Has anyone pointed out that Fred Thompson is a Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute? As such, he is as neo-con as they come.

http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.78,filter.all/scholar.asp

This will tie him hand in hand with Bush,Cheney, et al.

This will be a big negative in his campaign.

Posted by Kiteboy | May 31, 2007 5:00 PM

It won't take much effort to frame this guy
as Boss Hogg from The Dukes of Hazzard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boss_Hogg

I can't wait for the YouTube mashups.

Posted by John | May 31, 2007 5:14 PM

If the press lets Thompson get away with the regular guy schtick, he has a chance. It looks to me like they might, which makes Sommersby essential reading.

Posted by Gus | May 31, 2007 6:10 PM