If An Abortion Rights Lobbyist Job Falls In The Vicinity Of Fred Thompson…
…do any social conservatives hear it? The answer to that age-old philosophical riddle appears to be “not many”:
The sound of silence tells an interesting tale when it comes to Fred Thompson. A week after reports emerged suggesting that the former Tennessee senator once lobbied for an abortion rights group, few leaders of the GOP’s conservative wing have expressed concern.
In fact, the fallout in conservative circles has largely been confined to defending Thompson and attacking the Los Angeles Times, which broke the story. And this comes, as reported by The Politico’s Mike Allen, as Thompson has dropped his flat denial of the charge and now instead says he can’t remember.
The muted reaction illuminates a larger point: just how hungry many on the right are for a Thompson candidacy and their inclination to overlook evidence that the soon-to-be candidate may be something less than a true believer.
My readers may think that I am out to get Thompson because I have brought this story up before. That simply isn’t true. My stated position on Thompson is my true position: the jury is still out. It bothers me, though, that those who consider Giuliani unsuitable because he is honest about his position on abortion are so willing to be deceived by Romney and Thompson regarding their politically convenient changes of heart.
The debates on the Republican side have focused far too much on abortion thus far – but Thompson was not in the race. When the abortion question comes up at the next debate, things may get a wee bit more interesting…
He can’t remember, WHAT A LAME ASS EXCUSE, I’m sorry but thats pathatic. If he’s the nominee I am bolting the party, thjey deserve to lose, what record does Thompson have that would deserve him of the nomination. What a clown.
Yes, it’s a problem. And he’s making it worse. My limited support so far has been based on his ability to energize the base, but that seems to be fading as well. Let’s face it, no Republican Presidential candidate stands a chance in 2008, unless he can motivate an extremely apathetic base.
I may have called it right when I compared him to Dean.
All hail President Hillary.
The Republican candidates might have a better shot at motivating the base if they weren’t such incredible tools. That said, an interesting question that I think needs some discussion: what sort of candidate WOULD motivate the base? What qualities do they want that they can’t find in the current crop? That is, if Giuliani and McCain aren’t good enough, what precisely is wrong with Tancredo, Brownback, or Huckabee?
(Note: While I think Tancredo, Brownback, and especially Huckabee are essentially thugs, their politics seem more or less in line with the supposedly apathetic base.)
Two things come to mind:
1) the knee-jerk reaction to blame the media for reporting the story
2) Mort Sahl’s observation about the country after JFK was elected but before he was inaugurated: “like a pregnant girl trying to fall in love” — overlooking Thompson’s lobbying, Giuliani’s marriages, Bernark Kerik, etc., and all of the other things which would be venal sins if practiced by a Democrat, all in the hope of finding someone (anyone!) who could plausibly win the election –
Observing how the Republicans are behaving while trying to select a candidate for President I am reminded of the behavior of the Democrats when Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry were selected.
One minute in the mind of a SoCon…
LALALALALALALALA… I heart Fred! LALALALALALA…
…
…
…
Anyway, it’s not just the fact that Rudy is blatantly pro-choice that bothers me, it’s the 2nd Amendment position too.
About Fred: as far as I can tell, it happened once (if at all, see inconsistencies in the story…), and if that’s the only thing that comes out about Fred, then you know what, I’m not going to make perfect the enemy of good.
Well, I think to motivate the base, you’re going to have to convince them that a) you hold conservative values, and perhaps more importantly b) can excite them about your agenda.
The second part requires a little bit of charisma and dynamism, but mostly requires having a specific agenda based on more than just the typical tired Republican lines, strong defense, small government, border security……zzzzzzz….see, I even bored myself writing this.
The Republican base has lost faith in their elected officials. They don’t believe that the Democrats are substantially worse on defense. After all, the Republicans managed to screw things up in Iraq while in control of all three branches of government, and with a military that is overwhelmingly conservative. They also don’t believe the Republicans mean it when they say small government. They don’t believe it when the Republicans talk about border security. About the only promise Republicans have been able to keep lately is lower taxes. And that’s not enough by itself to run on.
Someone’s going to have to have concrete examples of what they want to do. Statements of specifics, rather than statements of policy. In other words, as I’ve said before, “ideas”. Further, they’re going to have to find like-minded Republican candidates that they can campaign with and for who will come out publicly in favor of these specifics.
Of course, any time you’re specific, you also run the risk of ticking people off, or of participating in a debate that you’re not ready for. It’s high risk, but also high payoff.
I think Giuliani has made some progress here with his 12 commitments, but he needs to go further. Thompson has not made much progress here at all, but does have more charisma and (at least initially) appears to be more dynamic than Rudy. Many have stated that they don’t believe that Thompson will be able to keep it up for the long haul, and they may be right. The last two speeches/interviews I’ve heard from Thompson, I didn’t see any of that energy in him. It could be he’s already weary of the campaign and attacks.
However, if I were Rudy, I would be very worried. If the person whose campaign you were most worried about has imploded, and yet you still only lead an unannounced candidate by 6.9 points, that’s a sign of trouble.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html
peter and too many steves, you’re both correct.
Ryan, Huckabee and others, for a variety of reasons, have not been able to get their message out. They haven’t been able to get the funds. Let’s face it, a lot of early campaign contributions come from name recognition. And they don’t have the names. That means they have to try even harder to be seen and heard. That’s an uphill battle for any Republican given a mainstream media that really isn’t interested in Republican candidates unless they’re “mavericks” or “frontrunners”.
I’ve heard Huckabee speak a couple times, and he may very well get my vote in the primary. If he still has a campaign by then. Not that it will matter. He’s not going to win my state. Or any states, most likely.
steves: This isn’t anything like when Gore was nominated. I’ll give you the other two, but Gore was a sitting vice president. He was pretty much a shoo-in from the start.
Chris: I want to spend more time on this because I think it’s a valuable discussion and I would really like to understand what’s going on here. It seems to me that the way you have it laid out, the current crop of candidates mostly falls into two camps.
Camp charisma: Rudy, McCain, Fred Thompson, Romney.
Camp conservative: Brownback, Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter
There’s also Tommy Thompson and Ron Paul (camp crazy? I like Paul), but never mind them. There’s no one who falls into both camps, according to your analysis. But who would? Are there any major politicians who can do both? The closest, of course, is Hagel, but he’s too far away from orthodoxy on Iraq to gain any real traction. Gingrich might be fine, I suppose, but fundamentally there just aren’t a lot of major players who are both conservative and charismatic (and in a reasonable position to run for president, thus disqualifying genuinely good folks like Sarah Palin and Michael Steele).
I think there are a lot of important questions worth asking at this point. A couple:
1. Is it still possible at this point to be both conservative and charismatic? I mentioned Steele and Palin (and Bobby Jindal comes to mind too), but neither of them are orthodox conservatives. Hagel, again, IS an orthodox conservative who happens to oppose the war, which seems to count him out. So, if conservative is defined as pro-war, anti-immigration, pro-life, etc (forgive the shorthands here – you know what I mean), is it possible to be all those things and NOT look like you’re either crazy or pandering? The media get a lot of flack here, but it’s simply the case that supporting the war and opposing abortion are pretty far outside the mainstream of the country. How else are the media supposed to react to a candidate who takes those positions?
2. Which is more important: charisma or conservatism? It seems like the GOP base has so far opted for charisma, given that Rudy (who isn’t particularly conservative AT ALL) is the leader of the pack. Is that the right choice?
Ryan: I note that “camp chrisma” also falls into “camp frontrunner” which I think answers your question #2… and no, it’s not the right choice, but it’s really the only choice… you have to be charismatic to get noticed by national primary day.
Of course, it’s my opinion that if we’re going to have a national primary day, nobody will get a majority of the delegates to the convention and we’ll have to have a real convention… which could open the door for someone to come in and save the day on the 5th ballot or so.
Ryan,
The problem is that there are three camps:
1) Conservative
2) Charisma
3) Can excite the base with their agenda.
Obviously there’s overlap.
No one falls into all three camps.
Rudy comes close. I actually wouldn’t put Rudy in the charisma camp, he leaves me lukewarm. But he’s close. His 12 commitments are a good start on the agenda, but he needs to go further.
McCain’s big problem is that he’s lost the charisma and energy that he had in 2000.
Thompson: Is he a true conservative? The jury’s still out on that. Does he have a specific plan? At this point, no, but he’s given hints as to one. He’ll have to be a lot more specific. But, if he can convince the base that he’s a true conservative, then he can get away with a little less on the agenda specifics because he has the charisma.
Romney: Romney has the charisma. He doesn’t have a plan. He has some problems with his credentials, but no worse than any of the above three. He has an additional problem of geography though. It’s a tough sell to a conservative that a Massachusetts governor will be conservative (whether he is or not). Conservatives in general trust very little that comes out of Massachusetts. Is that good? No, of course not. But it’s foolish to deny the truth.
The other 4, some have charisma, some don’t. Their problems are that without being in the frontrunner camp, they have to do something spectacular to get some notice by the media. Without media attention, they’re going nowhere. They need to do something bold. They need a specific plan yesterday. And even that’s not enough. Huckabee supports the Fair Tax, I think. He needs to make that part of his standard stump speech. The others also need something bold and radical like that. Just like a specific plan, bold and radical are very high risk. But very high payoff.
Which is the most important? It depends on the times. In 2000 and 2004, we elected a man with some charisma, that really didn’t have much in the way of conservative credentials, and didn’t have much of a plan. The country was at least 50-50 then, with probably a slight lean to the conservative side. And the Democrats produced a couple of the worst candidates in recent memory. So, charisma trumped. Certainly charisma won in 1992 and 1996.
For the general election, charisma is always important. And charisma might be enough for a Democrat in 2008, but it won’t be enough for a Republican. I think that for a Republican to have any chance of success in the general election, they’re going to have to have at least decent marks in all three categories. For a second tier or third tier candidate (and I include Romney in the second tier) to have any shot at the nomination, he’s going to have to start showing good marks in all three, soon. And he needs to excel in two of them.
Right now, no one fits that bill. As I said, Rudy comes close. He has issues with social conservatives, but he likes Alito and Roberts as judges and says he would use those as models. That trumps whatever other problems he might have in that regard, in my opinion, but I’m only one voter.
Thompson could fit the bill, possibly. The jury is still out.
McCain? No.
Everybody else has question marks.
The only category that you’re stuck with the grade you start with is “conservative”. Charisma can be improved. It takes energy. It takes passion. Show me you have that, and I don’t care if you look like Steve Forbes. Having a plan is also something that can be worked out.
Ryan,
I think I answered both your questions, but I admit I didn’t do it directly. Sorry for the “politician” type answer.
1) It is possible to be in all camps without pandering. As I said, the only category that is relatively immutable is your “conservative grade”
2) Which is more important? For the Republicans this time, I think all three. And that’s a big big big problem for Republicans.
I will say here what I say at hotair when one of these Fred? stories comes up:
Look! Breasts!
Ronius Paulius can win. No other GOP candidate can. Plain and simple. Why does this site prevent anyone from using the man’s name? He isn’t spam.