Fred Thompson says he is “not consumed by personal ambition.” He says that he won’t slit his wrists if he loses the presidency. He says “I’m not particularly interested in running for president, but I think I’d make a good president. Nowadays, the process has become much more important than I think it used to be.”
The press is having a field day, of course. They love it when a candidate seems to confirm all the supposedly nasty things they’ve been saying about him. Go here for a full transcript of what Thompson said in response to an earnest question from a voter who asked “if I caucus for you next week, are you still going to be there two months from now?”
It’s too late for Thompson to change the minds of the press regarding the importance of having an overweening ambition to be president. Collectively, it appears they have decided that this is an extremely relevant and serious criteria by which to judge a candidate’s worthiness for high office. Somehow, a candidate’s thoughtfulness, integrity, instincts, temperament, and views on the issues have become secondary to an artificial measurement of the heat given off from how much fire is in his belly.
Our gatekeepers are, if nothing else, consistent in their criticism of Thompson’s commitment to running for president. Ever since the first weeks of the campaign when the press woke up to the fact that Thompson was going to run the campaign his way and not the way that everyone (including the press) expected him to run it, the conventional wisdom developed that it didn’t matter what Thompson was saying or what he believed. What mattered is that he failed to meet the arbitrary standards set by the media denoting what might be termed “the cup of desire” test. Thompson refused to drink deep draughts and has been skewered for it.
I can’t think of any other candidate in the last 35 years who has been judged by such extraordinarily shallow criteria. There were whispers prior to Reagan running for President in 1980 that the candidate was too laid back. Indeed, Reagan’s loss in Iowa in 1980 was attributed to a “lazy” campaign. But no one accused The Gipper of lacking desire for the office or even that his laid back style disqualified him from consideration.
This is an entirely new phenomena in politics and is directly related to the fact that running for President has become pretty much of a 4 year undertaking. A large part of the reason for that is the ungodly sums of money that must be raised to build what amounts to a $100 million nationwide business whose only product is electing the candidate president. Those few candidates who can accomplish this have a huge leg up in the race.
Declaring early means wrapping up the party “whales” and “bundlers” who invest in a candidate as they would a promising stock or top performing mutual fund. When you consider the fact that the top 4 fundraisers in the race had all been mentioned as possible presidential candidates as far back as 2004, you begin to see where a candidate like Thompson, already at a huge disadvantage, would seek to break the mold and run a different kind of campaign, freed from the necessity of living up to anyone’s expectations about how a successful run for office should unfold.
Unfortunately, mold breakers are inevitably punished for their apostasy. In Thompson’s case, the candidate himself hasn’t helped much. Voters may not have been asking the questions raised by the media about Thompson’s demeanor and desire, but judging by the poll numbers, those questions may have been uppermost in their minds. The fact is, Thompson has failed to adequately address the issue – until he hit a home run with his response yesterday. Predictably, the press spun the story the way they wanted – an easy task given the complexity and subtly of Thompson’s argument. But an examination of his explanation reveals a refreshing honesty about the candidate’s inner thinking and what exactly is motivating him to run.
Surprisingly, the reasons are no different than any other candidate. A desire to serve, a belief that he can accomplish “special things,” the confidence that he is running for “the right reasons.” So if it is not his motivation for running that is in question, what exactly is it that has the press so doggedly determined to portray him as “lazy” or “lacking fire in the belly?”
In an age when candidates run campaigns that are dependent on emotionally connecting with the voter (usually by trying to frighten them to death about their opponent), Thompson seeks to engage people on an intellectual level. Rather than using rhetoric to inflame passions, the candidate tries to make the voter think. There is little pizazz and less of the campaign superficialities in Thompson’s effort than one finds in any other campaign. In short, as entertainment, the Thompson campaign receives failing grades. The candidate does not make good copy nor do his appearances necessarily make good TV. Rather than giving off sparks, the campaign emits a stolid, steady feeling of seriousness.
The press uses code words like “lazy” simply because they can’t bring themselves to describe the campaign and the candidate as “boring” – a description that would reveal them to be as stupid, shallow, and cynical as we all know that they are. In our media saturated world where people (and the press) demand to be constantly entertained, Fred Thompson fails miserably.
That is his greatest sin. He has broken the mold of what the press expects of a candidate and a campaign and is being punished for it. Not a very elevating reason to eliminate a candidate from serious consideration for the presidency but given the reality of presidential politics and the times we live in, it is perhaps not surprising.
10:11 am
Rick, I made this comment on Redstate & hope you don’t mind if I copy it here:
“Fred Thompson does not cater to hyperventilating hysterics or single-issue panaceas. Fred peddles no anodyne quack medicines nor apodictic class-warfare rhetoric. The very fact that the man has risen from a small-town upbringing and has retained a broad-gauge view of how society works and the importance of traditional values impresses me.
What impresses me even more is how Fred does NOT kow-tow to silly newsies and pundits like Roger Simon. He is a man of integrity. He appears to be a man who will do what he says he’ll do. He wants to enforce laws even when a significant number of people believe the laws are unfair or should be modified [illegal immigration—-build the fence, dammit!]
But what impresses me the most is that he’s not consumed by Potomac fever, not driven by overwhelming ambition, not determined to “rescue” the country from evil-doers of one stripe or another.
Fred is comfortable in his own skin, as the French say, and he drives hyperactive meddlesome busybody MSM types to new heights of nuttiness by disdaining the process of getting nominated—-a process which has driven a class-warfare type like John Edwards to virtually LIVE in Iowa over the last two years, when he wasn’t picking up “consulting fees” from offshore sub-prime mortgage hedge funds!—-a process which obviously needs reform of one kind or another.
I’m born & bred a Midwesterner & have lived in MI, WI, MN, IL, and Missouri episodically for almost three decades. I find it refreshing that a very sane & relatively sober jurisdiction like Iowa has a prominent place in the nomination process for both parties. Ditto NH, with its rock-ribbed Yankee backwoods common sense mixed with chattering-class urban professionals. Even SC, with a strong accent on traditional values & a good mix of urban & rural, piedmont & tidewater, black & white—-the Palmetto State fits into a manageable extension of the first two states, so that anyone pulling off the hat trick of taking all three demonstrates a real political attractiveness that might work nationwide.
But to follow these three states with a Super Tuesday for what may be all the marbles doesn’t seem sensible—-even for political junkies. The front-end lopsidedness of the newest version of primary madness might end up deciding the candidate for one or both parties TEN MONTHS before the election—-leading to incessant and what will seem like interminable campaigning for both parties.
I happen to like a horse race as well as anyone—-but this newest version of primary retail-politicking suddenly jump-shifting to a Super Tuesday might eliminate sincere thoughtful candidates and give the overall advantage to energizer bunnies with nutjob attitudes and single-issue agendas.
I’d like to see a final two of Fred Thompson and Barack Obama—-both seem less driven by power-mad constituencies of hysterics and are not prisoners of the press/electronic lords of Mordor.
Sadly, Gresham’s Law may be driving out the best candidates—-leaving the field to chronic campaigners who simply love the adulation of the masses filling the cavities of their own personal emptiness.
10:12 am
CNN and USA Today are still attending the Mad Magazine School of Journalism. No wonder they can’t handle grownups!
10:16 am
If a person in any field hopes to “break the mold” it takes some considerable effort. Mold-breaking isn’t done easily. You don’t get into the game late and barely show up for work.
I have no pity for a man who a) wants to be president, and b) seeks to do it in a way that will defy conventional wisdom and redefine the campaign paradigm, but really doesn’t do much to effect either “a” or “b.” We are all judged by results, and Thompson’s results speak for themselves.
12:04 pm
It’s a shame that our country has become reduced to a 30 second flashy sound byte culture. People of character and substance are dispatched as boring and not news worthy. If as some commenters are saying, that Thompson and Hunter are not viable candidates nationally then we are screwed. That means that the majority of the country has moved too far left and wants the government to run our lives for us. McCain, Huckabee and Guiliani talk tough but will not do anything about illegal immigration. McCain will continue to poke conseratives in the eye with the gang of 14 ploys. Who knows what will motivate Romney to change his mind again. Ron Paul has some good platforms but after he withdraws from the war on Islamo-fascism, his policies will not matter as the world around us crumbles. Fred Thompson is a true federalist who sees and understands the entire picture and has clear plans, unfortunately Paris Hilton’s latest blunder is more entertaining and will capture the publics 30 second attention span.
1:08 pm
What I see in Fred Thompson is a man who is not driven by the need to attain power. Of all the candidates, he is the least narcissitic. He comes off to me as the most genuine, even more than Obama. I think Obama’s knighting by the media convinced him that he was worthy of being the next POTUS. In otherwords, all the fawning went to his head. I don’t get that with Fred Thompson. The pressure from conservatives to get into the race and all the praise didn’t go to his head. I don’t think he looks at himself as some kind of savior like Obama does. And isn’t that what we conservatives want in a president? Someone who believes in self reliance and personal responsibility when it comes to most domestic issues. The president is not meant to be your savior in anything except national security, right?
1:31 pm
Yes, the media rules are unfair. Like is unfair. Iran and North Korea and China are all unfair. We hire a president to prevail in a world where, sadly, people don’t roll over every time you write a syllogism or quote a Founder for them.
We choose a president who can win unfair games because all the games are unfair.
I’m not saying that we have to forever accept life’s unfairness. I hope for a better world. But we don’t get from this world to that world effortlessly. It’s not as easy as announcing that you won’t play by the old rules.
1:46 pm
[...] Rick Moran: Our gatekeepers are, if nothing else, consistent in their criticism of Thompson’s commitment to running for president. Ever since the first weeks of the campaign when the press woke up to the fact that Thompson was going to run the campaign his way and not the way that everyone (including the press) expected him to run it, the conventional wisdom developed that it didn’t matter what Thompson was saying or what he believed. What mattered is that he failed to meet the arbitrary standards set by the media denoting what might be termed “the cup of desire†test. Thompson refused to drink deep draughts and has been skewered for it. [...]
1:51 pm
Mr. Moran,
Just a nit, but for clarity you may wish to check on singular and plural forms of criterion/criteria and phenomenon/phenomena. For this reader, your text would flow better without the Latin 1 errors.
A fine analysis worth passing around.
Thanks,
fmisch
2:13 pm
[...] Right Wing Nuthouse: “It’s too late for Thompson to change the minds of the press regarding the importance of having an overweening ambition to be president. Collectively, it appears they have decided that this is an extremely relevant and serious criteria by which to judge a candidate’s worthiness for high office. Somehow, a candidate’s thoughtfulness, integrity, instincts, temperament, and views on the issues have become secondary to an artificial measurement of the heat given off from how much fire is in his belly.” [...]
2:32 pm
[...] Right Wing Nut House, Flopping Aces, Wake up America, Stop The ACLU, The Carpetbagger Report, NewsBusters.org, Blue Crab Boulevard, The Sundries Shack, Memeorandum has more. [...]
2:37 pm
To be fair to the press, it’s probably a bit much to expect anything but superficiality from the sort of people who’re attracted to the business of providing inexpensive, entertaining filler to go between the ads in the first place.
3:23 pm
I’m not sure what to make of Thompson’s comments. On the one hand, it’d be nice to know that a candidate for the toughest and most important job in the world at least has his/her heart in it. On the other, it is a virtue to have motivations that aren’t based in a primal thirst for power.
But saying “not particularly interested” might make contributors to his campaign wonder why they are sending him their money. I think that Fred could have made the point better by phrasing the response differently. (this would bring up another knock on Thompson; he isn’t a talented communicator). Maybe that’s the takeaway.
6:13 pm
What I’d like to know is how the heck does Thompson get invited to a Fox News roundtable being held in New Hampshire Jan 6th, but Ron Paul, who is polling ahead of Thompson isn’t invited.
http://isupportronpaul.blogspot.com/
6:19 pm
Senator Thompson has released a video message to the people of Iowa about why he should be Commander-in-Chief. The link is below.
http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2007/video-freds-message-to-iowa-voters
9:03 pm
Shallowest criteria in the last 35 years? Really? So what did you think of Peggy Noonan writing last week that John Edwards’s pre-show hairdo time disqualified him from the presidency?
11:14 pm
Low Flame In Fred Thompson’s Belly?...
The GOP White House hopeful says he’s “not particularly interested in running for president” and tha…
7:13 am
I get quite a kick out of the Thompson fans who insist that others accept Fred’s redefinition of how campaigns should be conducted.
To me the person being elected president should be able to show that he or she can operate in our political environment and articulate a message that doesn’t need to be explained by handlers.
7:14 am
For those who continue to draw parallels with Reagan I’d recommend the following article by Reagan’s daughter:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/82384
10:21 am
Fred Thompson is most definitely not “lazy” as has been suggested. He seems to be a very thoughtful man who measures what he says very carefully. This is the kind of person we need as President. We should not want someone who substitutes emotion for sound policy or someone who falls back on the latest talking points to formulate their policy positions.