-
You may remember Fred Thompson from such unmemorable primary films as You’re the GOP’s Only Hope, I Love You, You’re Lazy, Now Change, and his breakthrough role Failure to Launch. After the primary-going public didn’t buy Thompson’s presidential character, he was pushed out of his new career and forced to retire to Tennessee.
But now, Thompson wants back in—to Hollywood. After two months off the trail, he joined a Hollywood casting agency again, assumedly to pursue the law and politics roles he was acting in before he ran for president. But here’s the thing—if America didn’t buy him as a real president, they may not buy him as a fake one anymore, either.
In that case, Thompson will have to look for other roles. Our first thought: Forget showing his face—go 3-D and try voice acting. Thompson’s most memorable feature is his laconic Southern drawl, which echoed around the debate hall (especially compared with Ron Paul’s squeal.) Thompson could corner the market on the wise but gruff grizzly bear. At the least, it will mean Thompson is animated, for once.
And if that doesn’t work, he can always relive the horror film that was his primary run. Working title: Freddy Thomspon: Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue.
-
We will also admit that we had no idea Fred Thompson had endorsed John McCain. Maybe it’s because he released a stealth statement to the Associated Press on a Friday afternoon. That’s what you do when you resign after appearing on some escort-service phone list—not when you’re endorsing a presidential candidate.
McCain could have used a more public blessing, too. The conservative radio mouths calling for his head (Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter) might tone it down a bit if they knew that one-time GOP messiah Fred Thompson was backing him. A message from the ghost of Fred might also have blunted Huckabee's strength among evangelicals. But Fred has always done things his own way. It’s as if he wanted to back a winner but didn’t want to give McCain the satisfaction of a flashbulb handshake.
-
So Fred’s dead. Cut to frantic speculation about what’s next for him.
One idea, floated by a campaign adviser to the Examiner: Fred for vice president!
"Having somebody like Thompson on the ticket, it seems to me, could go a long way toward unifying and energizing the base," Galen told The Examiner.
Unifying, perhaps. “Energizing”—that’s probably taking it too far. Galen continues:
"I don't even know if he'd take it, although I'm not sure I've ever heard of anybody turning it down," he added. "He has said flat out he's not interested in becoming vice president, but that's what they all say."
Frankly, we’re going to take Thompson at his word on this one. If the man doesn’t want to be president, why would he want to be VP?
Another theory, floated by the Dickensianly named Chadwick Matlin: Fred dropped out because young Thompson doppelganger Javier Bardem snagged the nomination—for best supporting actor! Thompson knew he'd been eclipsed.
P.S. As usual, the Onion had the story first.
-
According to CNN's fancy map of South Carolina, Fred Thompson is sapping votes away from Mike Huckabee in the socially conservative north. If that's the case, Thompson probably has a smile on his face.
Thompson's distaste for Huckabee has been apparent throughout the campaign. Thompson often pushes back against Huckabee at debates and regularly sends emails critiquing Huckabee's stances on immigration and taxes. Persona-wise, Huckabee is everything Thompson isn't—charming, funny, and self-effacing. Most importantly, Huckabee possesses the star power that many Republicans hoped Thompson would have in the race. Huck is bizarro Fred.
Most importantly, Huckabee has stolen Thompson's base right out from under him. Thompson's from neighboring Tennessee, after all, so he was the guy supposed to be doing well in conservative South Carolina. Thompson was supposed to be the guy who grabbed the evangelical vote. Thompson was the guy people were supposed to coalesce around. Instead, the story became about Thompson's lassitude and Huckabee's quips.
Given all of this, it's not unreasonable to think that Thompson would stay in the race through Florida just to torment Huckabee. Despite a litany of shortcomings, Thompson still pulled in 15 percent in South Carolina tonight (with 72 percent precincts reporting), so he holds some sway. One would think he'd sap some of Huckabee's strength in Florida, as well. It may be Thompson's only chance to stay relevant.
In his speech tonight, Fred Thompson said his presidential campaign was never about him. He's right. Maybe it was always about Huck.
Photograph of Fred Thompson on Slate's home page by Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images.
-
Fred Thompson, in his withdrawal way-out-of-first-place speech, finally looked and sounded presidential. But, alas, his time has finally come, whether or not he wants to realize it—and it's all Ronald Reagan's fault.
Thompson reached the most stirring line of his speech this evening when he said that the Reagan coalition was alive and well. If Thompson was right, he would have had more success in this primary race--therefore, he's totally wrong.
A quick primer on the Reagan Coalition: Three different conservative groups—foreign policy, economic, and social conservatives—all coalesced around one candidate to put him in office for eight years. But if any message has become apparent during this mad primary season, it's that there isn't a coalition anymore: It's every splinter group for itself.
Mike Huckabee courts social conservatives because of his hidden-crosses in political ads. Mitt Romney attracts economic conservatives because the only thing about his candidacy that stays constant is his business background. And John McCain courts foreign policy conservatives because of his Senate experience and military years. Note how those three men won the first three major contests. The coalition is dead. And it's questionable whether it will show up again in time for the general election.
If Thompson really thought the Reagan Coalition was going to get him elected, then he just wrote his own obituary.
-
News is crossing the wire that Duncan Hunter is dropping out of the race. We hold a special spot in our heart for the wily California congressman, so here are a few posts to remember him by:
Duncan Hunter Gets Hacked - Relive Hunter's most dramatic moment, when Turkish nationalists messed with his web site.
The Hunter Who Cried Wolf - Dunc teases us and pretends to drop out, only to tell us he's in for the long haul. Looks like he changed his mind.
Just Give Up - Analyzing his barren, unkempt website.
It appears Fred Thompson may be joining him this evening. Thompson is in 4th in exit polls and early returns and John King on CNN says Thompson advisers think he'll pull out this evening. They can share tears in political heaven.
-
A number hidden at the bottom of the returns: Fred Thompson is beating Rudy Giuliani in Michigan by nearly 3,000 votes. This matters not because Thompson is beating Giuliani, but because Giuliani is losing to Thompson.
Rudy Giuliani used to be a peculiar kind of national frontrunner—a guy who performed poorly in the early-primary states but who did well nationally because of name recognition. Part of Giuliani's problem was that the more he campaigned and advertised in states, the less that people wanted to vote for him. For a while, Rudy was better off staying in the national headlines but off the campaign trail.
Well, it's clear that that's not possible any more. Giuliani stayed as far away from Michigan as possible, and he's paying the price. (Due to his own strategy, his headlines have been insulated inside of Florida.) But that's not Giuliani's problem. The real issue is that Thompson has done the same, and he's still beating Giuliani.
Even if Giuliani comes back to recapture momentum after a win in Florida, the Michigan result calls into question the strength of his candidacy. Without momentum, he's worse than Fred Thompson. With momentum, can he be much better?
-
Always count on Fred Thompson to put a positive spin on things. Especially election losses. This statement just went out:
Tonight's results, with no clear frontrunner, prove the GOP nomination is wide open. The next battlefield is South Carolina, where voters are far more conservative than in New Hampshire and deeply concerned about illegal immigration in America. Fred Thompson is uniquely positioned for victory in the Southern states. He is the only true conservative with a plan to end illegal immigration and protect our sovereignty.
He's right until the third sentence. Sure, the race is as wide open as ever. Romney has failed to snag either of his
make-or-break states. But that doesn't mean Thompson is the one who benefits so much as Giuliani does. While we've all been drooling over Huckabee and McCain, Rudy has been hiding in the grass, getting a big head start on the Feb. 5 states. Unless McCain makes a clean sweep of the other early states, Giuliani has as good a chance as anyone to take the nomination. Thompson, on the other hand, is still third in South Carolina, his best state, and he doesn't poll in the top four nationwide. He might be "uniquely positioned," but it's not for victory.
-
Two new ads for Fred Thompson and John McCain prove that while voters' energy might be waning, theirs isn't.
In Thompson's spot, we see the candidate swaying back and forth and waving his arms, proving that he has more than enough energy to be president—maybe even too much. The film editor is clearly excited about split screens, but that's OK, because more screens means more Fred.
In McCain's ad, the candidate is bouncing around in fast motion, then slow motion, then fast again. Positive descriptors zoom across the screen, like the title sequence in Spider-Man. The upbeat music tells us that McCain is a man on the go. (Compare to his ghastly spot from last spring.) More than anything, though, the ad looks high-budget. What it should really say at the end is, I'm John McCain, and I could afford this message.
It's obvious why both candidates are trying to look energetic. Thompson still hasn't shed his rocking-chair rep, while McCain is trying to avoid more questions about dying in office. In McCain's case, the adrenaline injection is slightly more believable. He's riding a slew of newspaper endorsements to become once again competitive in New Hampshire; a strong showing there and he's back on the national map. Thompson, on the other hand, is still sagging, and in more ways than one. He's not a shoo-in anywhere—even in his best state, South Carolina, he's polling third.
Apparently that old saw about writing—"Everyone needs a good editor"—also applies to politics. But sometimes even that's not enough.
-
Tom Tancredo didn't only end his own candidacy today. He killed Fred Thompson's as well.
Thompson had picked up a very, very slight comeback narrative in the past week, thanks to a strong showing at the Des Moines Register debate and a two-week bus tour through Iowa. But, predictably, just as Fred got going, he started stumbling. First came a schadenfreude-rich column from Roger Simon, and then came news that he doesn't have any money.
So, today's Tancredo withdrawal was a last chance that turned into a last gasp for Fred. It was expected that Tancredo would endorse another candidate—most likely Romney or Thompson. And after a close friend of Tancredo's, Iowa Rep. Steve King, endorsed Thompson, Thompson seemed to be in line to get the nod from Tommy the Tank. But that was not to be.
Tancredo endorsed Mr. Illegal-Immigrant-Groundskeepers instead. The endorsement will help Romney show undecideds that he's Tancredo-tough on immigrants, compared with the recently Tancredo-ized Huckabee.
But an endorsement for Thompson would have helped Fred more than the support helps Romney. Fred would have picked up a signature policy platform—something he currently lacks. Plus, Thompson has more to gain than Giuliani or McCain by finishing in third in Iowa. Tancredo would have helped him get there.
Now Thompson is once again left without any purpose. Tancredo had become the poster boy for immigration hawks everywhere. Thompson is still stuck on Law & Order pin-ups.
As we have a habit of paying tribute to fallen candidates, we thank Tancredo for his service. I know I wrote a post back in October that called on Tancredo to withdraw, but I had sort of warmed to his wily grin. Here's hoping that Tancredo's political death wishes are followed and his candidacy is buried under the border fence. On the U.S. side, of course.
-
Before the debate, I cobbled together a list of things to expect, all of which predicted that the candidates would be looking to draw contrasts three weeks before the caucus. Boy was I was wrong. The only fireworks were between Fred Thompson and the debate's moderator, Carolyn Washburn.
That's what happens when you suck immigration and terrorism from the agenda. Right off the top, Washburn declared that she would avoid those topics because Iowans wanted to hear about issues that hadn't been widely discussed. But in a state where 63 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers think immigration is very important and 66 percent say the same about Iraq—according to the latest Newsweek poll (PDF)—it seemed odd to prevent the Republicans from talking about what the people want to hear about.
Instead we got a moribund discussion of economic policy. Granted, 64 percent of likely caucus-goers care about the economy, but today's discussion didn't go into details. Candidates talked about fixing the deficit, repairing American industries, and making President Bush's tax cuts permanent, but we didn't hear how they would do these things. In the past, Giuliani and Romney have had fun drawing minute distinctions between their tax plans, but this is no longer a Romniani race. In Iowa, Mike Huckabee is the big fish, yet nobody scuffed up his fair tax plan.
On climate change, McCain—who is the most visionary on green energy among the Republicans—was one of the first to respond, so the rest just aped his plan. Not exactly illuminating.
The Republicans are most comfortable speaking about their platforms and drawing distinctions when they're talking about issues they can rally their base behind. That means national security, the war on terrorism, and securing the border. Without those issues on the table, we weren't left with much to get worked up about. Neither were the candidates.
-
When I heard Fred Thompson had been endorsed by right-to-life groups in Wisconsin and South Carolina, it was like hearing about an old high-school classmate. Oh yeah, Fred—how the hell is that guy?
Not so good, apparently. When he has appeared in headlines over the past week or two, it’s mostly been to attack Mike Huckabee. He issued a sourpuss statement dinging Huckabee for making jokes, calling him a “court jester.” (Something of which Thompson is far from innocent.) He slammed Huck for not knowing about the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. But Thompson’s fusillade hasn’t slowed the Arkansas governor’s ascent. If anything, Thompson has been a victim of the Huckabee surge. Fred has slipped to fourth place in national polls; in his best state, South Carolina, he's tied for second.
Meanwhile, his campaign schedule remains a few lunges short of a workout. (As his spokeswoman Karen Hanretty brilliantly put it last month, “Fred will never rush to war because Fred doesn’t rush to anything.”)
But the main problem seems to be that Thompson isn't a high-concept candidate. In other words, you can’t sum up in a few words what he represents. Or you can, but it’s not as catchy a sell as the other candidates. Just look:
Mitt Romney: Mormonism; morals; business acumen
Rudy Giuliani: Fixed New York; tough on terror
Mike Huckabee: Baptist minister; funny; social conservative
John McCain: Former POW; straight talk; Iraq war
Thompson, on the other hand, isn't so easily reduced. He doesn’t have a set of foundational characteristics to fall back on when he needs to remind the press he exists. It could have been his acting career, but he chooses not to emphasize that. He opposes abortion, but he doesn't support a "human life" amendment. He opposes gay marriage, but doesn't support a federal marriage amendment. He's a true fiscal conservative, but somehow the Club For Growth hasn't rocketed his candidacy to the front. The one descriptor that seems to stick—lazy—doesn't do him any favors. In this frenetic, sound-bite-friendly race, traditional conservatism isn’t enough. It's December already, and Fred Thompson still needs a hook.
With Chadwick Matlin. Photo illustration by Andy Bouve.
-
Here’s a shot of a young, lawyerly Fred Thompson from his most recent ad, “Marie”:
And here’s Javier Bardem as hypnotic serial killer Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men:
Hulking frames. Rumbling bass voices. Floppy Prince Valiant 'dos. Sign this man up for the inevitable Fred Thompson biopic.
-
Spotted in an AP story about Fred Thompson's visit to a gun store in Bristol, N.H.:
"I used to have my own skeet shoot," Thompson boasted as he wandered through the gun shop and bought his children gifts. "Some of my opponents, you know, have a bad record or no records. I have a solid record. ... I'm not embarrassed to remind anybody of it." [emphasis added]
Baby's first AK-47? A flak jacket with matching booties? Not exactly, says Thompson spokesman Jeff Sadowsky: "He got Hayden some winter gloves and Sammy a T-shirt. ... I believe it was a camo T-shirt."
Still—a gun store? Surely there was some charming antique shop or Mom and Pop toy outlet just around the corner. Either way, best to save the 12-gauge for next year.
-
One problem with always talking like you're in a rocking chair is that you tend to mumble, or trail off at the end of sentences. Fred Thompson has a tendency to do this. But sometimes it's not his fault. Just watch his latest ad and the short postscript tacked on at the end. Here's what he sounds like:
Thanks for watching my message. You can make sure that a lot of other folks see it, too, by making a contribution to my campaign. I’d sure apreshumoshmmhm.
You know what they say about a crumbling campaign: It always starts with the sound technicians.
-
Security, small government, and family values, according to a panel of four spokeswomen for the top Republican presidential campaigns. In other words, they want the same thing as their male counterparts.
The panel, organized by the National Review and held today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., discussed how each GOP candidate could appeal to women voters. But for a gathering of Romney/Giuliani/Thompson/McCain reps, they didn’t disagree on much. Instead, they turned most of their barbs toward Hillary Clinton. Barbara Comstock, a spokeswoman for Mitt Romney, chided Hillary’s campaign for “playing the gender card” after the last Democratic debate. Karen Hanretty, representing Fred Thompson, called the notion that women should automatically vote for Clinton “insulting.” And as for whether Hillary can get mileage out of her womanhood, the panelists were dubious. Just because she’s a woman “doesn’t mean you can’t have a tough discussion on the issues,” said Giuliani communications director Katie Levinson.
But they refused to go after each other or their men. Except for the occasional familiar sound bite—a reference to the “terrorists’ war on us,” say, or the “three-legged stool”—you could be forgiven for assuming they were backing the same candidate. Rather than talking about differences, they mostly discussed similarities. “I think we all support a market-driven approach” to health care, said Comstock. The need to fight Islamic extremists is “something our candidates all agree on,” said Hanretty. Levinson argued that the differences between the candidates are “minimal.”
It wasn’t until the end, when a questioner asked about abortion, that the women began to seriously disagree. As a senator, Thompson opposed the federal funding of abortion and as president would not sign the Freedom of Choice Act, Hanretty said. Romney would go a step further and veto the act, said Comstock. Giuliani’s spokeswoman emphasized the former mayor’s record as a “strict constructionist” and his support for adoptions over abortions. But even then, none of the panelists challenged each other, and the moderator, NR’s Kate O’Beirne, didn’t press them.
It was actually amazing how little time the panelists spent discussing “women’s issues.” The reason, they would argue, is that there’s no such thing. Women care most about Iraq and national security. And on those issues, Hillary’s gender shouldn’t be an advantage or a disadvantage. As far as they're concerned, the general election might as well be mano a mano.
-
Karen Hanretty, a spokeswoman for Fred Thompson,
fired off a great (and telling) line at a panel
today on “Women Voters and the Right Guy,” sponsored by the National Review. Responding to a question on how much personality
matters in the 2008 election, she argued that it matters quite a bit: “Fred
will never rush to war because Fred doesn’t rush to anything.”
-
That shouldn’t be news. But it
is, seeing as it was only his second time there.
Fred Thompson is sticking with his “Southern Strategy,” the Wall Street Journal reports
today. In other words, he’s largely bypassing Iowa
and New Hampshire in favor of early southern states like South Carolina
and Florida instead of :
It's not a conventional presidential strategy to play down Iowa and New
Hampshire. Candidates who have tried skipping them
generally haven't fared well. And Mr. Thompson said during his visit yesterday
that he's planning on spending enough time and money in New Hampshire to at least make a respectable
showing before the vote heads South.
Is he serious? It’s not just that Iowa
and New Hampshire
have been important in the past. They’ve been essential. In the last 28 years,
the only presidential candidate to win his party’s nomination without winning one
of those two states has been Bill Clinton. And, to borrow a put-down, Fred Thompson
is no Bill Clinton. Sure, he’s faring better in South
Carolina and Florida—second
place behind Giuliani. But even Giuliani knows that’s not enough.
Giuliani, who initially planned to focus on the February 5 “Tsunami
Tuesday,” has decided to go all in in the
Granite State. You don’t want to risk going into
Feb. 5 having already lost a handful of states—Iowa,
New Hampshire, and Michigan being the riskiest. He has recently
seen a jump in the polls there—although
Romney still leads—and he plans to start
airing TV ads as well. Without a victory, or at least a respectable showing, in
NH, he would have trouble stopping Romney’s momentum.
Thompson has yet to face this fact. It’s one thing to
recognize your limits in the early states. It’s another to pretend they don’t
exist.
-
The
politics of illness is particularly sensitive in this election, with so
many candidates and their spouses battling one disease or another. Fred
Thompson announced in April that he had been diagnosed with lymphoma but that the cancer was in remission. Before that, Elizabeth Edwards revealed
that her cancer had returned but that her husband's campaign would
continue. And now Rudy Giuliani, pushing his health-care plan in New
Hampshire, is rolling out a new radio ad discussing his experience with prostate cancer, which he defeated in 2000.
"I
had prostate cancer, five, six years ago," Giuliani says in the spot.
"My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of
it, in the United States, 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate
cancer in England, only 44 percent under socialized medicine."
It
feels icky to discuss life-threatening illnesses in PR terms, but it's
no accident that Rudy chose to weave his own story into his message
about health care. We're used to seeing warrior Rudy, victory this and
security that. We're not used to seeing vulnerable Rudy.
Of
course, there's good vulnerable and there's bad vulnerable. In
Thompson's case, people initially wondered if he would be able to
launch his campaign. In Edwards' case, allies speculated that he would
drop out. But Rudy's case is—forgive me for saying it—a good one, at
least from the political angle. For one thing, he beat the cancer.
(Look out, Islamofascism.) But more importantly, it softens him up. As
Elizabeth Edwards might say, he has stared the worst in the face and not blinked.
This
sort of human touch—candid without being cheesy—is just what Rudy
needs. For him, religion is private, and the same seems to be true for
other personal and emotional issues. But personal narratives matter to
voters. We know he's willing to put people in a hospital. It's also
good to know he's been there himself.