Thompson joins GOP field
By Michael J.W. Stickings
The hype lately has surrounded former Tennessee Senator (and current movie/TV star) Fred Thompson -- with conservatives looking for a celebrity candidate to bolster a field of (in their view) less-than-desirables, he may be both suitably conservative and suitably famous -- but it was Tommy, not Fred, who entered the race yesterday.
Appearing on ABC's This Week, the former Wisconsin governor and Bush II cabinet secretary referred to himself as a "reliable conservative," the one people "can count on". Although well behind the leading candidates -- Giuliani, McCain, and Romney -- in terms of name-recognition, he sees himself as "the dark horse candidate," "the underdog".
So -- can he win? Let's turn to Ed Morrissey: Thompson was "a popular governor in the Upper Midwest," which will help him in Iowa. "He has plenty of executive and legislative experience" -- indeed, he was governor for 14 years -- and he was secretary of health and human services for four years. Although he was at HHS for Bush's pharma-friendly prescription drug benefit bill, he "has some credibility among centrists and independents on health care". And his promotion of welfare reform and school choice while governor gives him credibility among conservatives.
In short, Morrissey sees Thompson as "the doppleganger for Bill Richardson in the Democratic race," that is, as a second-tier candidate with a lot more experience than the current first-tier candidates: "He has the best resume of any Republican in the race so far. With fourteen years of executive experience, he has more than Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney combined. He has a national presence, and his continuing popularity at home in a purple state cannot hurt him, either."
All of which are good points. But here's why I don't think Thompson can win: It is very likely that the Democrats will select a "celebrity" candidate, that is, a candidate with enormous name-recognition and national popularity: Obama, Clinton, Edwards, or perhaps (just perhaps) Gore. With this in mind, I cannot see the Republicans going into the '08 election with a non-celebrity candidate, even one, like Thompson, who has a great deal of experience and local/regional popularity. If presidential elections were about competency, then, yes, by all means, Thompson would be a leading Republican candidate, just as Richardson would be a leading Democratic one. But they're not. They're about image -- about style, not substance. Even if Thompson manages to rise into the top tier, which is hardly likely, he is too lackluster a candidate, with too lackluster a personality, to secure the nomination. This isn't fair, but it's the way it is.
What's more, Republicans rarely select non-celebrity candidates to run for the presidency. Think about it. Democrats have gone with non-celebrity candidates five times since World War II -- Clinton in '92, Dukakis in '88, Carter in '76, Kennedy in '60, and Stevenson in '52 -- but how many non-celebrity Republican candidates have there been during that span? Again, what I mean here by "celebrity" is a candidate who was not, say, the sitting vice president or the clear establishment choice or, like Eisenhower, a major public figure. Aside from Goldwater in '64, who was at least a celebrity to conservatives at the time (and one of the driving forces behind the conservative movement that emerged thereafter), I don't think there's been a non-celebrity Republican candidate since Dewey in '44, although this too is arguable.
What this means is that Republicans tend to go with major public figures (Eisenhower), sitting vice presidents (Nixon, Bush I), prominent political figures who have run before and who have occupied the national stage (Nixon again, Reagan), prominent political figures with connections to the establishment (Bush II), or establishment leaders who are seen as next-in-line in terms of orderly succession (Dole). Given the extent of America's growing celebrity culture, it seems unlikely that either party would select anyone other than a major national celebrity -- hence Obama and Clinton among the Democrats -- and this would seem to be especially the case with the Republicans.
This is why Giuliani and McCain are the top two candidates. This is why some on the desperate right are talking up Fred Thompson (even with his lack of experience: style over substance). This is why non-celebrity candidates like Romney and Brownback likely won't win the nomination (although Romney is may be on the doorstep of legitimate national celebrity-status).
And this is why Tommy Thompson doesn't have a chance.
The hype lately has surrounded former Tennessee Senator (and current movie/TV star) Fred Thompson -- with conservatives looking for a celebrity candidate to bolster a field of (in their view) less-than-desirables, he may be both suitably conservative and suitably famous -- but it was Tommy, not Fred, who entered the race yesterday.
Appearing on ABC's This Week, the former Wisconsin governor and Bush II cabinet secretary referred to himself as a "reliable conservative," the one people "can count on". Although well behind the leading candidates -- Giuliani, McCain, and Romney -- in terms of name-recognition, he sees himself as "the dark horse candidate," "the underdog".
So -- can he win? Let's turn to Ed Morrissey: Thompson was "a popular governor in the Upper Midwest," which will help him in Iowa. "He has plenty of executive and legislative experience" -- indeed, he was governor for 14 years -- and he was secretary of health and human services for four years. Although he was at HHS for Bush's pharma-friendly prescription drug benefit bill, he "has some credibility among centrists and independents on health care". And his promotion of welfare reform and school choice while governor gives him credibility among conservatives.
In short, Morrissey sees Thompson as "the doppleganger for Bill Richardson in the Democratic race," that is, as a second-tier candidate with a lot more experience than the current first-tier candidates: "He has the best resume of any Republican in the race so far. With fourteen years of executive experience, he has more than Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney combined. He has a national presence, and his continuing popularity at home in a purple state cannot hurt him, either."
All of which are good points. But here's why I don't think Thompson can win: It is very likely that the Democrats will select a "celebrity" candidate, that is, a candidate with enormous name-recognition and national popularity: Obama, Clinton, Edwards, or perhaps (just perhaps) Gore. With this in mind, I cannot see the Republicans going into the '08 election with a non-celebrity candidate, even one, like Thompson, who has a great deal of experience and local/regional popularity. If presidential elections were about competency, then, yes, by all means, Thompson would be a leading Republican candidate, just as Richardson would be a leading Democratic one. But they're not. They're about image -- about style, not substance. Even if Thompson manages to rise into the top tier, which is hardly likely, he is too lackluster a candidate, with too lackluster a personality, to secure the nomination. This isn't fair, but it's the way it is.
What's more, Republicans rarely select non-celebrity candidates to run for the presidency. Think about it. Democrats have gone with non-celebrity candidates five times since World War II -- Clinton in '92, Dukakis in '88, Carter in '76, Kennedy in '60, and Stevenson in '52 -- but how many non-celebrity Republican candidates have there been during that span? Again, what I mean here by "celebrity" is a candidate who was not, say, the sitting vice president or the clear establishment choice or, like Eisenhower, a major public figure. Aside from Goldwater in '64, who was at least a celebrity to conservatives at the time (and one of the driving forces behind the conservative movement that emerged thereafter), I don't think there's been a non-celebrity Republican candidate since Dewey in '44, although this too is arguable.
What this means is that Republicans tend to go with major public figures (Eisenhower), sitting vice presidents (Nixon, Bush I), prominent political figures who have run before and who have occupied the national stage (Nixon again, Reagan), prominent political figures with connections to the establishment (Bush II), or establishment leaders who are seen as next-in-line in terms of orderly succession (Dole). Given the extent of America's growing celebrity culture, it seems unlikely that either party would select anyone other than a major national celebrity -- hence Obama and Clinton among the Democrats -- and this would seem to be especially the case with the Republicans.
This is why Giuliani and McCain are the top two candidates. This is why some on the desperate right are talking up Fred Thompson (even with his lack of experience: style over substance). This is why non-celebrity candidates like Romney and Brownback likely won't win the nomination (although Romney is may be on the doorstep of legitimate national celebrity-status).
And this is why Tommy Thompson doesn't have a chance.
Labels: 2008 election, Democrats, history, Republicans, Tommy Thompson
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
12:13 AM
4 Comments:
You state "This is why some on the desperate right are talking up Fred Thompson (even with his lack of experience: style over substance)"
Lets see, Thompson has more time in public service than Hillary Clinton or Obama. Both in the Senate and as Prosecutor. Who is more qualified among the three? Clearly Thompson!
This article projects the fear the left has of Fred Thompson. Can you imagine a televised debate between Clinton or Obama? If Thompson is the GOP nominee, suddenly the left has a problem with the lack of gravitas.
Listen to Thompson's own words at a website created by college student (http://www.anotherronaldreagan.com).
By
Phil Bailey, at 6:15 AM
I haven't paid much attention to the GOP candidates yet but I have been wondering about the appeal of Thompson. He's enormously popular on the non-poli right wingish blogs I read. He has no platform but people would "vote for him in a minute."
I wouldn't discount his face recognition. I had no idea who he was when his name was first floated but I recognized him immediately when I saw his photo as the Law and Order guy. The comparisons to Reagan are pretty much on target. He's photogenic but not pretty and he plays a wise authority figure on TV on a program that's so syndicated it's virtually available on some channel 24/7 around here.
I think he was would be a formidable opponent in the general and the GOP field is so overloaded right now he could take the nomination by default.
By
Libby Spencer, at 3:43 PM
Oops. I got my Thompsons mixed up.
By
Libby Spencer, at 10:44 AM
Interesting analysis, Michael. I myself am one of those conservatives not too please with our current field, and I think you've got it half right about Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.
Senator Thompson's national celebrity, and straightforward demeanor are what's making him so interesting to us right now, so to say style has much to do with it is not a huge stretch. After all, with the current president's exemplary speaking skills, I don't think anyone can blame those of us on the right with nostalgia for the "Great Communicator" and having an unspoken litmus test that requires us to find another one. I don't think he's "another Ronald Reagan" as so many are quick to say, but I do believe they share some genuine similarities besides their having been actors. For instance, both Reagan and Senator Thompson left elected politics for several years before actively seeking the presidency, and both have done political commentary on current events despite being out of office. Fred Thompson isn't without substantial experience, though. He was a decent senator from 1994 to 2003. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Mr. Bailey pointed out earlier, that's longer than both Hillary and Obama.
Both Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney are photogenic spokesmen for the ideas many on the Right want to see articulated well at the national level. I could see either getting the GOP nomination, although Thompson would have an easier time.
Also, I think you're spot on about Bill Richardson. Were it Richardson vs. McCain, I would have a hard time at the ballot box on election day. Unfortunately, I couldn't see him making it through today's Democratic primary.
By
A. Mocny, at 1:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home