New Blog: stevenwhite.wordpress.com

The Dueling Drawls of Edwards and Thompson

Via Christopher Orr, Peter Mulhern explains his case for Fred Thompson:

Consider that Fred's calm, sensible demeanor permits him to say things that would terrify many ordinary voters coming from someone who seemed less steady. Thompson can say radical things and nobody turns a hair. If any other candidate talked about overhauling social security and the tax code while we fight a global war of which Iraq and Afghanistan are mere outcroppings, a substantial part of the electorate would faint dead away. Try to wrap your mind around the reality that coming off like an old coot having a conversation as he whittles next to the pot-bellied stove down at the country store is an excellent way to attract most American voters.

He is, in other words, the John Edwards for the Republican Party. "Gosh, that's pretty radical stuff, but man do you sound pleasant saying it!" Orr suggests this means Thompson is "[t]oo dull to seem crazy," but it's not exactly dullness, really. It's a seeming lack of pretension. The Edwards Drawl makes leftist semi-populism sound like down home goodness, and the Thompson Drawl makes big business conservatism sound like mom and pop.

The Christian Right's Fred Thompson Conundrum

Remember how James Dobson declared Fred Thompson was not quite the the Great Hope that burns in his conservative Christian breast (pretty much Dobson's actual wording)? Well, apparently Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy group), told David Brody just how much he disagrees:

I’ve received phone calls and emails from Southern Baptists about Senator Thompson. They are all furious at Doctor Dobson. They just feel that first of all there was a mischaracterizing of his positions...do I wish that he attended church every Sunday? As a Baptist pastor, of course I do. But does that make him a person of unbelief? That’s harsh and unwarranted...I think Southern Baptists have an ethical issue in which they need to deal. They may face a situation where they have a choice of three candidates. One they agree with 95% of the time, one they agree with 80 percent of the time and one they agree with 10% of the time. It may come to pass that they’re faced with a choice.

This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it shows that Dobson is not a monolithic force in the Christian Right, although he's certainly one of its most powerful players (arguably -- and I tend to agree -- the most powerful player). But, secondly, it's clear that Land matters too, and his quite kind words for Thompson lend him back at least some of the credibility Dobson's harsh email might have destroyed. I'm still not convinced Thompson is going to be the official Christian Right candidate this time, but Land's defense gives him at least a fighting chance if that's something he really wants.

The Lord Hath Spoken!

Or at least sent an e-mail. Apparently James Dobson wrote:

Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail? He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent "want to." And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!

TPM called Focus on the Family and they confirmed the email is Dobson's. Fred Thompson, Saviour of the Christian Right, might be a little weak in that area it turns out. Marc Ambinder thinks it's a good sign for Mike Huckabee: "Consider Dobson's dilemma. He's not going to support who he can't sell as a Christian crusader. But he wants -- he needs a seat at the table of power...So Dobson would be wise to find the best pick of the potential vice presidential lot."

It will be telling to see whether Dobson follows that path. Which is more important to him, influence or ideology? It's easy to say ideology, but for the past few years ideology and power haven't been conflicting ideals in Dobson's world. When it comes down to, say, Rudy Giuliani having the potential to be the most powerful person in the country and Hillary Clinton posing a real threat to that prospect, what does Dobson do with his dilemma? Endorse Huckabee and hope he can at least have an ear in the vice president, or go for goal and do everything in his power to play to Giuliani's power-hungry side to get a golden throne at the table, personal disagreements aside?

Enter Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson is getting a nice post-announcement bump and Rudy Giuliani appears to be slipping somewhat (relatedly, it appears voters don't view Giuliani has better able to handle terrorism, although his tough talking, I-was-there-on-9/11 thing is at least making them view him as a stronger leader, etc.). As Yglesias puts it:

It looks to me like the much-anticipated moment when the Republican primary electorate discovers that Rudy Giuliani doesn't hate gay people and doesn't hate immigrants and they hate people who don't hate gay people or immigrants (indeed, he may even be soft on gay immigrants) has arrived.

But I wonder how well Fred Thompson can really pick up the social conservative slack. The AP reports he "isn't a regular churchgoer and doesn't plan to speak about his religion on the stump":

`I attend church when I'm in Tennessee. I'm in McLean right now,'' he said referring to the Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., where he lives. ``I don't attend regularly when I'm up there.''

Thompson said he usually attends church when visiting his mother in Tennessee and isn't a member of any church in the Washington area.

Doesn't sound like a Christian Right dream candidate to me, but it's clear those people are pretty desperate right now and might even be able to settles for less than what they claim. Because, for some reason, Mike Huckabee just isn't as exciting enough for them.

Ways in Which Fred Thompson Annoys Me

So Fred Thompson is in the race and he's running to the right. His Jay Leno appearance -- you know, in place of actually debating -- reminded me of the degree to which he's a lot like George Bush: He's a slow-talking Southerner who really vastly overrates the infallibility of the United States. But people like Dennis Byrne love that kind of crap. Byrne writes:

As Fred Thompson proclaimed his presidential candidacy on NBC's "Tonight Show," the most telling moment came when he sparked wild cheering as he spoke this truth: America has laid down more of its blood and treasure in the cause of freedom than all other countries combined.

[...]

Thompson has enunciated a truth: Without us, other free nations are unwilling or unable to take the leadership in the worldwide struggle for freedom. While others will shrink from this reality, painting the sentiment as xenophobia, chauvinism, bellicose, blah and blah, the reaction on Leno's show reflects or plays on the deep feeling among Americans of just pride and earned obligation. An America withdrawing from Iraq and relinquishing its power to others less determined to preserve liberty is not an America we know. Nor is it the America we should become. This is an understanding that has been stewing underneath as the useless and negative chattering goes on in Washington and the "elite" media.

Thompson's message is an antidote to the nightly newscasts, in which the sole measure of the Iraq war's success or failure has become the number of American GIs killed. We would never have gotten beyond the Bataan death march if that were how we measured progress in World War II. Thompson's vision is what is required of an effective leader in a national crisis.

Sure, this is a hackish and anti-intellectual argument, but it's going to get at least some traction in the press. At the moment I don't think Fred Thompson has any real chance at actually becoming the next president, but it's not impossible -- which, frankly, is kind of scary, pretty much to the same degree as Rudy Giuliani winning the office.

As a side note, Thompson made a weird claim on Leno. He said he won "two elections by a 20 point margin in a state President Clinton won twice." That state? Tennessee, which voted for George Bush by a margin of 14% in 2004. In other words, while the state isn't homogeneously Republican (it has a popular centrist Democrat named Phil Bredesen as governor), claiming he can win Tennessee for the GOP isn't exactly a very adventurous claim on Thompson's part.

Fred Thompson Then and Now

Via Marc Ambinder, we have two sides of Fred Thompson, who no one remembers was also sort of considering a presidential run back in 1998:

Fred Thompson Then

Taking a jab at such career campaigners as former Gov. Lamar Alexander and Vice President Al Gore, Thompson responded to a question about a possible presidential candidacy by saying, ''Contrary to popular belief, I don't think you have to run for president for 15 years. Or four years.'' He said he would wait until later this year or early 1999 before making a decision about whether to run. He asked rhetorically whether it was more important to accomplish some important things in the Senate that he feels need to be accomplished ''or spend two months in Iowa talking about abortion.''

Fred Thompson Now

Heading off to Iowa to spend two three and a half months talking about abortion.

Cross-posted at TAPPED.

Fred Thompson is a Very Manly Guy

And Michael M. Rosen is a very hackish writer. His op-ed in yesterday's Politico is mind-numbing in its sheer pseudo-serious inanity. Read it and learn why:

Conservatives should like Thompson for his manliness

In his book on manliness, a topic on which he's widely recognized as the national expert, Harvard's Harvey Mansfield wrote that "a manly man asserts himself so that he and the justice he demands are not overlooked." This textured understanding of masculinity -- i.e., that men (in the true sense of the term) act, but act for justice and on principle -- can aptly be used to understand the phenomenon that is potential Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson. The former senator from Tennessee conveys a certain seriousness of purpose married to an authentic and thoughtful expression of principle that has rapidly become appealing to many conservatives.

Thompson is actually an intellectual heavyweight

Contrary to his depiction in the media as a slacker, Thompson's contributions to the American Enterprise Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations and the State Department's International Security Advisory Board attest to his intellectual heft. His stints as a talk-radio guest host and a sometime columnist for National Review Online showcase the thoughtful, conservative ideas he's been percolating for decades. The senator's recent commentary covers everything from gun control to Hamas to the Libby prosecution to the "flying imams." Thompson appears to be a man of thought and action; his "principled manliness" transcends mere machismo.

But the other GOP contenders are all pretty manly dudes too

Without question, Big Fred faces challenges on many fronts. The recent reshuffling of his (pre-)campaign staff will only exacerbate his already late start in the contest; meanwhile, his principal competitors -- all of whom are both principled and masculine in their own ways -- haven't yet begun to counterattack.

Interestingly, back in December 2005, Rosen seemed smitten with Mitt Romney. I guess the former governor just wasn't manly enough for this "attorney in San Diego."

Cross-posted at TAPPED.