Only Two Things Can Kill Superman
Kryptonite and Fred Thompson. Jonah Goldberg uses that "Fred Thompson Fact" cribbed from IMAO to open a column discussing Fred Thompson's entering the presidential race.
But there’s no denying that Fred Thompson has one of the most profound personality cults we’ve seen in politics for a long time. While traveling around the country in recent months, I’ve been amazed at how many rank-and-file Republicans see Thompson as a secular savior, as if Thompson were designed by GOP-friendly alien scientists as some sort of Super Candidate.
For some skeptical observers, this has resulted in comparisons to retired General Wes Clark, the Democrats’ onetime man on a white horse. “Fred Thompson is to the Republicans in ’08 as Wes Clark was to the Democrats in ’04,” writes Jason Zengerle of The New Republic. “In other words, the highpoint of his campaign will be the day he gets in the race, because once he’s a serious candidate — and not just the fevered daydream of a dissatisfied base — voters will realize he’s not all that.”
On the surface, there’s merit to the comparison. Wes Clark, as I wrote in ’04, was the “Johnny Bravo” candidate. That’s a reference to the Brady Bunch episode where Greg Brady is picked to be a rock star, not because of his musical talent but because he fit into the glitzy costume that rock promoters had already created. Clark, with his admirable military record and perceived “toughness” in foreign policy, seemed like the ideal candidate to beat Bush in ’04.
Similarly, Thompson seems to be what Republicans are yearning for. But there’s a key distinction. Wes Clark was a candidate for Democrats who wanted to beat Bush. Thompson’s appeal is based partly on a desire for victory, but there’s also a desire to get beyond Bush.
First and foremost, Thompson’s articulateness shouldn't be underestimated. He shares with Ronald Reagan — another actor-politician — an ability to communicate ideas in folksy, almost conversational ways without losing important nuance or meaning.
That skill at communication and Thompson's extremely good media savvy, for both old and new media, are exactly what is keeping his profile so high even though he is not officially in the race yet. And it is exactly what the other candidates - from either party - should rightfully be very, very worried about.
(IMAO is having a ball with being cited by Goldberg, incidentally.)
By Kyle, Friday, 1 June , 2007 @ 5:12 pm
At the very best, nominating Thompson may rev up the base and save some GOP House and Senate seats in the red states. But he won’t win a single swing voter and — like any Republican nominee — he will be slaughtered by whomever the Democrats put up. After 8 years of disaster, the Republicans can count on getting creamed in ‘08.
By jpe, Friday, 1 June , 2007 @ 8:43 pm
He’s tall, has a deep voice, and is from the south. Let’s not kid ourselves: those are his only qualifications.
By Gaius, Friday, 1 June , 2007 @ 9:29 pm
And Obama’s qualifications are?
By Kilo, Friday, 1 June , 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Irrelevant unless we’re playing my candidate is slightly less qualified to be President than your’s.
Are you honestly asking whether Obama can beat voice, forehead and place of birth in terms of his qualifications ?
By Gaius, Friday, 1 June , 2007 @ 10:45 pm
No, pointing out the inanity of that particular comment.
But I see the attackers are out in full force to attempt pre-emptive character assassination.
By Kilo, Saturday, 2 June , 2007 @ 1:44 am
I’m not quite sure how such statements can qualify as either (a) Pre-emptive or (b) character assassination.
The guy’s running for President. At what point would his qualifications for such a position, drawn from the life he’s led prior to 2007 become non-preemptive ?
Likewise, was comment about anyone isn’t character assassination if pointing out that someone running for President with little to offer has little to offer ?
Your article here links to someone posting about Thompson in the same way that people ran stories about how handsome Obama was.
Let’s not pretend there’s some deep, meaninful context being missed here.
By Kilo, Saturday, 2 June , 2007 @ 1:45 am
I’m not quite sure how such statements can qualify as either (a) Pre-emptive or (b) character assassination.
The guy’s running for President. At what point would his qualifications for such a position, drawn from the life he’s led prior to 2007 become non-preemptive ?
Likewise, what comment about anyone isn’t character assassination if pointing out that someone running for President with little to offer has little to offer ?
Your article here links to someone posting about Thompson in the same way that people ran stories about how handsome Obama was.
Let’s not pretend there’s some deep, meaninful context being missed here.
By Gaius, Saturday, 2 June , 2007 @ 5:59 am
IMAO? Frank was, as is usual, joking. Or didn’t you read his post about the reaction to being cited?