Fred Thompson's First Republican Debate

Posted by Damozel |  I was a bit bemused to find an article recounting Nixon's poor opinion of Thompson at The Raw Story and Wonkette since we heard about it and commented on it a couple of months back, but then I realized:  Of course!  The debate!  His debut!

So anyway, in re the Nixon burn, is it a good thing or a bad thing to be thought "dumb as hell" by the late "elder statesman" Richard M. Nixon?  Or to be "apparently" "closely associated" with the plans of Nixon & Co. to extricate themselves from the seething mess that was Watergate?  You be the judge!  In any event, that was a long time ago and in the Seventies (which might as well have been another country) and PSST!  Republican voters!  Fred Thompson is not really a kindly yet stern yet wise yet crusty yet charming old D.A.!  He just plays one on TV.

BUT WAS HE REAGAN-ESQUE?  Not that any of the above will matter to Thompson fans, since they're all apparently aching to elect another smiling, not too aggressively intelligent Hollywood actor to play the part of the paternal, indulgent-yet-strict Big Daddy they're all craving who will spank the baddies and put them in permanent time-out and save money the family's money by cutting corners on a few unnecessary charities (cf. Jane Austen) so all the good children get a bigger allowance. You know, someone just like Reagan (meaning the version of him they remember or have heard about on TV)

And speaking of Reagan, Chris Cillizza at The Washington Post thought debate debutante Thompson did pretty well.

He seemed to relax considerably as the debate continued, and by the end was even able to parry a canned one-liner from Romney about the similarities between this debate and "Law & Order" (huge cast and Thompson shows up at the end -- heyoooo!) with a dagger of his own: "And to think I thought I was going to be the best actor on the stage."

Which is both witty and also tends to remind people of one of the ways that Thompson is just like Reagan.  Though mark this:

Thompson also passed what could have been a terrible moment; asked the name of the prime minister of Canada, the former senator responded immediately and correctly: "Harper". 
(The Fix)

Well, how about that?  He's not only an actor but also a former senator (remember?)  Furthermore, he also knows the name of the prime minister of Canada!  Maybe he isn't as much like Reagan as he'd have voters believe, eh?  Eh? 

But setting aside Thompson's perhaps unexpected knowledge of the name of Canada's Prime Minister and his Romney-wilting zinger, how did it go? 

BUSH'S ADVISER KNOWS REPUBLICANS.  WaPo's Peter Baker and former Bush adviser Dan Bartlett were evidently gossiping about the debate, and Bartlett gave this "brutal assessment": 

Fred D. Thompson is the campaign's "biggest dud," Mitt Romney has "a real problem in the South" because of his religion, Mike Huckabee's last name is too hick, and John McCain could pull a repeat of his 2000 performance by winning New Hampshire yet losing the battle(The Washington Post).

And the candidate who most disappointed Bartlett?  Fred Thompson.

"The biggest liability was whether he had the fire in the belly to run for office in the first place and be president. So what does he do? He waits four months, fires a bunch of staff, has a big staff turnover, has a lot of backbiting, comes out with his big campaign launch, and gives a very incoherent and not very concise stump speech for why he's running."  (The Washington Post).

Bartlett thinks Romney has a well run campaign and excellent strategy, but that his perceived "flip-flopping" (a word I'd personally like to see retired) will hurt him on the issues, because you know how GOPpers hate a flip-flop, and going after him for that is more socially acceptable than their just coming right out and saying that they're uncomfortable with the whole Mormon thing.  Bartlett:  "[T]he Mormon issue is a real problem in the South; it's a real problem in other parts of the country. But people are not going to say it. People are not going to step out and say, 'I have a problem with Romney because he's Mormon.' What they're going to say is he's a flip-flopper."" (The Washington Post). 

Bartlett has a soft spot for McCain and thinks Huckabee is the best Republican candidate (word), so...shame about the name, huh? ""He's got the obvious problems -- being from Hope, Arkansas, and, quite frankly, having the last name 'Huckabee.' I hate to be so light about it, but it is, it's an issue. Politics can be fickle like that. I mean, you're trying to get somebody's attention for the first time. . . . Huckabee? You've got to be kidding me! Hope, Arkansas? Here we go again.""  (The Washington Post). Yeah, like the name "Bush" doesn't have any down side or Texas any detractors.  Or is that exactly what he means?  Anyway, I like the name "Huckabee."  Huckabee Huckabee Huckabee Huckabee! 

Anyway, Bartlett thinks Giuliani has "the best message.  He thinks that the party----"terrified about losing the presidency after losing Congress"---will go for Rudy or McCain as a "pragmatic" choice.  Evidently he hasn't heard that there soon will be no "pragmatic" Republican voters; they're all so fed up with the Bush brand of "compassionate conservatism" (a phrase he had the gall to use) that they're all either jumping ship or desperately contemplating it. 

BASHING HILLARY. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza seems to have found the debate just one big Hillary Clinton bash-fest. Which, Cillizza says, means "Republicans believe two things: First, that Clinton is almost certainly to be the Democratic nominee, and second, that she represents their best chance to retain the White House in 2008." (The Fix)

Of course, there is another possibility: that they are as rattled by the prospect of facing her in an election as they probably kind of are and that they're trying to get voters equally rattled.  I consider that the spat between Sean Hannity and Focus on the Family's James Dobson lends some credence to this interpretation.

Prominent social conservative Dr. James Dobson appeared with Fox News host Sean Hannity to discuss his support for a pro-life, third-party presidential candidate if both eventual Democratic and Republican nominees support abortion rights. Hannity warned that an endorsement of such a candidate from Dobson, who heads the evangelical group Focus on the Family, could spell disaster for the goals of the pro-life movement.

"If in fact you were to mount a third-party challenge and support a third-party candidate, the result would be a 'landslide victory for Hillary Clinton,'" said Hannity, citing a recent Rasmussen poll that found Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani would lose to Clinton by 16 points if a more conservative pro-life alternative entered the race. Hannity to Dobson: Support Rudy or face Hillary 'landslide' (The Raw Story) 

Meanwhile---this is a digression, I know--- it appears that Hillary is having a little trouble of her own on the campaign trail, having got into a "spat" with what Ana Marie Cox at TIME calls a "would-be supporter" over Hillary's vote to declare Iran a sponsor of terrorism----a would-be supporter she evidently ended up calling a "plant," "saying of the question, "somebody obviously sent it to you."" As Cox says, the vote was controversial: "she's been dinged on it by Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Edwards, and Obama (and Gravel!) -- because it could be interpreted as a step towards allowing Bush to start a war with Iran; hence the parallel made by the questioner to her Iraq vote.".(Swampland)) 

WONKETTE CRUELLY LIVEBLOGS THE DEBATE.  For mordant commentary on the debate (including some telling swipes at moderator Chris Matthews), complete with what my mother calls "vile language"---and some of it is pretty over the top--- you will find Wonkette's liveblog here (thread one) and here (thread two) and here(thread 3).  It's really very cruel.  I'm so ashamed for avidly reading it all and giggling out loud at the bits of it I understood.  It's all so like the sort of thing the sort of sardonic adolescent you only see on TV might say if such a one were to watch the Republican debates (which would never happen)...and yet there's this visceral feeling that some Pareene's brattish observations are dead on. 

Or am I just rationalizing?  Anyway, Joe Gandelman has a round-up of some of the other liveblogging debates.

SPEAKING OF GANDELMAN. At The Moderate Voice, Joe Gandelman rounds up some of the first reactions to the Thompson debut (Fred Thompson's Debate Reviews:  A Flop Not a Smash)

Gandelman:

But did he live up to the advance billing? Was he another Ronald Reagan? Or did he flop? Fizzle? Help himself? Shoot himself in the foot or where the sun don’t shine? Was his performance the other kind of b.o.?

The reviews are trickling in and they’re mixed — but they’re likely to keep him in play as a viable alternative to Republicans who cannot stomach the idea of a Rudy Giuliani or a Mitt Romney or (far less likely) a Ron Paul at the head of the elephant ticket....

[W]hat can you conclude...?

1. Thompson didn’t impress people as another Ronald Reagan but that’s not a surprise: there never will be another Ronald Reagan, a man shaped by his times and his personal experiences. (That should be a statement Reagan’s fans and critics both accept…)

2. The danger for Thompson was that he has not been in a real debate for a while. Being on YouTube smoking a cigar and answering Michael Moore is not a debate. He could have bombed, big-time. He did not.

3. Being the alternative to Giuliani and Romney is not a bad place to be. Political history is filled with examples of nominees who were not the original, early front-runners but seemed to pick up steam and support as the primary season unfolded.

4. So far, at least, Thompson seems to have SURVIVED the debate as a remaining option for Republicans. His campaign has not realized it’s early potential; but it’s not a sinking enterprise as is Senator John McCain’s. As Bartlett notes, McCain could win some primaries but it’s unlikely he’ll emerge the nominee.

5. Bartlett’s reaction doesn’t portend well for Thompson. If this is the perception of other GOPers identified with the political elite that now runs the Republican Party — the Bush faction — then the hunt may be on in coming weeks for alternatives to Giuliani and Romney if the Thompson option looks unrealistic.

RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTS

Republican Reaction to Dismal Poll Numbers: Reviving Reaganism? [Updated]   
Friday Funny: Joel Achenbach on Fred Thompson
Fred Thompson Confirms.   

 LINKED

• At Debate, GOP Hopefuls Again Focus on Clinton (The Fix)
• Middle Class Express: And Iran, Iran So Far Away..(Swampland).
• Nixon on tape:   Fred Thompson is 'dumb as hell' (The Raw Story)
• From Former Bush Aide, A Candid Assessment Of the GOP Candidates (The Washington Post)
• Fred Thompson’s Debate Reviews: Not A Flop Not A Smash (The Moderate Voice)
• Liveblogging Hollywood Fred's Big Day (Wonkette) 
• Meet Débutante Fred: Liveblogging the GOP Debate 1 (Wonkette)
• Aren't These Guys Supposed To Know About Money? Liveblogging Dearborn, Part II (Wonkette)
• Republicans Bravely Stand Up For Global Corporations, Against American Workers  3 (Wonkette)
•  

Comments

[Repack Rider]

I see suits. Empty ones. You would think that the vacuums within would collapse the suits, but somehow they stay upright.

God, what a crop of morons!

[Damozel]

I don't want to be unkind, but sometimes it does seem that way....