Some commenters at today's follow-up post on Fred Thompson took umbrage with my skepticism toward some elements of his budding campaign. Make that skepticism also of the thinking of some of his campaign's supporters, of whom there are not an inconsequential number locally.
Let me explain it to those with their undies askew. Every other top tier candidate has been scrutinized. Even a cursory examination of the MSM and the blogosphere allows the interested reader to quickly identify the drawbacks facing each of the "Big Three." Rudy Giuliani is a social liberal, with a messy personal life, and a comparatively undisciplined and inexperienced campaign organization. John McCain suffers from profound mistrust of his candidacy within the conservative base, rubbed painfully raw in recent weeks by the immigration issue. Mitt Romney has to cope with the "flip-flopper" charge and the Mormon issue.
It's good that we know these things about all three men. I agree completely with Charles Krauthammer's assessment in his recent column, run in yesterday's Seattle Times:
The presidential primary season is essentially a prolonged intraparty dialogue....
The purpose of the endless presidential primary is to force the dialogue and, for all its haphazard meanderings and maddening trivialities, it does.
Part of that dialogue Krauthammer speaks to includes weighing the pros and cons of each candidate, as each party should rightly do. Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson each have different potential strengths as nominees. But, they each have their own drawbacks that are worthy of examination as well to ensure the Republican nominee is as strong as possible. Democrats are going through the same exercise.
Since the "Big Three" have already gone through a good portion of the vetting process, it seems only fair Thompson should too. Yet it's been difficult to find much in the way of sober reflection on his candidacy, in contrast to the glowing enthusiasm from some conservatives. Thus, my posts discussing Thompson to better stimulate the discourse given that apparent void.
At the post in question, commenter "Coyote" at #6 raises an objection. He thinks my take on Thompson is "biased" because I prefer Romney. In reality, there's a lot I actually like about Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson, but for the reasons noted above think they all need appropriate scrutiny. Coyote also laments I'm not covering why the other candidates can't "close the deal." Isn't that already self-evident based on the state of the race? Furthermore, will any candidate of either party "close the deal" until next year anyway? What's the value of a post on the obvious?
All this doesn't mean I'm offering "constant dismissals" of Thompson. I'm simply raising the kind of questions that all candidates deserve to face as we determine whether or not they're the best choice to be the nominee. As Cliff at #24 in the original post commented in response to such complaints about questioning Thompson:
If, indeed, it was an attempt to "tear Thompson down", then Thompson mine [sic] as well be torn down now, because if he can't take such mild questions as these, he'll be completely and utterly destroyed by the Hillary/Obama/Edwards machine.
Exactly.
Yet, whether its commenters here or Erick Erickson over at RedState, some Fred enthusiasts seem to have trouble coping with the natural scrutiny that every major Presidential candidate has to deal with. They shouldn't. It's healthy.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 12, 2007 09:45 PM | Email ThisI am not a wholehearted support of Fred Thompson, and I'll tell you why: IMO, Thompson is spending way too much time "exploring" the possibility of running. He needs to get into the race or get out of the way. Otherwise, he'll do the same thing to the 2008 election that Ross Perot did to the 1992 election and Ralph Nader did to the 2000 election: pull enough votes away from Republican candidates to tip the scales for a Dem victory or at least to confound the election process. Thanks to Perot, we go Clinton. Thanks to Nader, we got an election-day fiasco.
I am not supportive of any of the current candidates because they represent everything that is wrong with politicians. They are the "old guard." They represent what is wrong about our government and I don't trust them to be anything different that what we already have.
McCain is a traitor; I don't care what he did 40 years ago. Maybe Giuliani could do a good job, but his stance on certain issues leaves me cold. Who the hell is Romney, and why should I care? The gay marriage issue took root in his state on his watch. What did he do then?
If Thompson runs, I think he'll take the lead and win. If he continues to stand by the snack table and refuse to dance, he will certainly lose. It looks like he is indecisive. And that is precisely what we do not want our President to be.
politico.com has gone a pretty good job of trashing Thompson in the name of good journalism.
So, you Thompson lovers out there, get used to it. Eric threw a couple of soft shots out there, but you guys must have a glass jaw to get shattered so easily.
BTW, I won't let anyone close the deal for me till around the first of the year and Thompson is floating in stratosphere for me right now. I like him.
Posted by: swatter on June 13, 2007 07:29 AMMcCain is toast, and Romney just doesn't seem to be connecting with anyone. Thompson is getting enough publicity to keep the race from being stale. Think about it - aren't you already tired of the Clinton/Obama/Edwards race?
Posted by: janet s on June 13, 2007 08:03 AMHo Hum... call me when any of it is actually relevant.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 13, 2007 08:16 AMEven though there are numerous candidates, I will be surprised if it doesn't boil down to voting for the lesser of two evils. Bush now has a mountain of political debt that has caused perhaps irreversable damage to the R's that will take time to reverse by almost anyone. The D's have not proven much of anything either and the general mood of the country at this point is hold your nose before voting.
Posted by: KS on June 13, 2007 12:36 PMNow you are taking pot shots at those who are supporting Thompson? Nice.
I'm sorry but I have been around and involved with politics long enough so as not to have a "glass jaw." It is one thing to be critical, yet another thing to make things up to be critical about.
The Politico piece today does a great job of pointing out Thompson's weaknesses yet also covers how those weaknesses are overcome. You on the other hand like to cherry pick canards and yet conveniently ignore the answers to those canards.
Are we to assume that you are ignorant enough to know the responses to some of the canards you constantly hype? I may be wrong, but something tells me that you are not that ignorant and your ommission was purposeful.
George Will's arguments were pretty dog goned weak and have been dealt with in other places and seem to stand without merit. Yet again you cite them as if they are relevant and that the Thompson folks have not considered them. As if they woke up yesterday morning and said "oops... golly... the lazy argument... guess we have never heard that one..."
Puhlease.
He won a Senate seat that had been a Democrat seat in Tennessee against a popular Tennessee Democrat. No matter how you slice it that takes... well... WORK.
Of course it remains to be seen whether or not he has the organizational skills to make a presidential campaign happen. Duh. No one is arguing THAT. However if you are going to try to pin that canard on Thompson then the same applies for each and every candidate.
Instead, again, you cherry pick and omit.
There are always hundreds of "ifs" with regard to presidential campaigns. However if you are to maintain any level of credibility on your assesment of this Republican field you need to be more honest about what "ifs" you chose to hang your hat on.
Of course the MSM is going to start delving into Thompsonn. Just like everyone else. However does that mean that in our discussions we swallow hook line and sinker every question the MSM is to bring up? After all they did such a good job at uncovering the illegal voting here in Washington State didn't they?
Why don't we all just start playing along with the MSM and accept their canard that only the looney right wing folks believe that there was some elections hanky panky going on in this state?
No Eric, it is your selectivness and passive aggressive way of presenting such selective weaknesses that I take umbrage with. It is the way you present Thompson's "percieved" negatives in a vacuum with regard to the other candidates.
The weaknesses and the positives of all the candidates need to be taken into account in the context of all candidates. You seem to forget that. Or as I mention above, purposely left the context out.
The weakness of Thompson's "percieved" laziness is not known as of yet and won't be known until sometime in the future. You attempt to say that Thompson is not viable NOW becaue you THINK he will be lazy in the future. Weak.
Let's just all assume the Democrats are going to win on '08 anyway so let's decide not to support any Republican candidates at all. Simple extension of your logic of applying "perceptions" hat cannot be proven right or wrong until all is said and done.
Now if you were taking apart various policy positions or appointments of campaign staff and such then that would be one thing. But you are not.
Here you have a candidate that some folks are getting excited about and you find it necassary to slap a wet blanket on that candidate and those who support him. Hmm... Guess what? I have not been really excited about Romney and have actually been critical of him at times. However I understand the reality of the situation if he suddenly catches fire. Does that mean I deny the fire? Does it mean that I don't take his positives into context with his negatives?
No.
Yet that is exactly what you are doing passively with the Thompson crowd.
Is he perfect? No. Do I think that as a supporter I will be dissappointed from time to time? Yes.
Are any of our candidates perfect? No. Do I extend any and all imperfections into some grand scheme of "percieved" weakness that somehow disqualifies my friends from supporting them? No.
But then again I could just go along with the MSM and assume all is lost and that Romney will never overcome his flip flopping, pro-gay marriage positions and his Mormon faith. Or assume that Rudy will never overcome his pro-abortion position, his estrangement with his son, his cross dressing and shacking up with homosexuals. Or assume any and all weakness will doom all of our candidates.
It is the lead you have set if applied across the board.
Yip Yip
Also sorry for the typos. Again... one of the hazards of trying to get through a though quickly before I move on to other things in life.
Also, also sorry if the post comes off as kurt (sp?). Due to the constraints of time (see above) I was trying to be direct and to the point
I'm not quite sure what to make of your response. You claim reasonable questions posed about Thompson's campaign are "canards" somehow unworthy of being discussed. You also seem to claim I'm eager to just follow what the MSM says on the issue. When has that ever been my MO?
You seem fixated on refuting the "lazy" accusation, which is the topic I spent the least amount of time on of any of the issues discussed. I think it's the least relevant given that it's the easiest one for Thompson to prove or disprove himself on the campaign trail. And frankly, that issue in Will's column was almost an after thought. His bigger point was that he didn't see Thompson as having the experience or developed policy thinking necessary for the candidacy. Thompson will have a chance to address that too, but you never acknowledged that was his point.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You've got some ideas about my thinking and what does and doesn't motivate me to post that simply aren't true.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 14, 2007 06:50 AMConsider the fact that Thompson voted against impeachment for the dope from Hope...
Posted by: juandos on June 14, 2007 08:13 AM