Toodles Fred

Fred Thompson pulls out of the Republican Presidential race.

My one serious Republican friend at Carleton will be devastated.

Day In, Day Out

Michelle Cottle has an important observation on Fred Thompson:

With only three weeks to go until the caucuses, is it really possible that Thompson is going to at last get serious about the race and exert some sort of effort? I've always gotten the sense that ol' Fred likes to think of himself as a clutch player, the type of fella who doesn't need to work up a sweat in the early going then comes to life in the last few minutes of the game to carry the day. You saw this in his 1994 Senate run, where, in the closing months, Thompson perked up, hunkered down, and scored a major victory after getting his butt whooped for most of the race.

I suppose Thompson could still be plotting something similar in this election. But do we really want a president who thinks of himself as a swoop-in-at-the-last-second kind of guy? The presidency isn't really a "clutch" kind of job. Yes, you need someone who responds well under pressure, a strong leader who doesn't freak out in a crisis or buckle during intense negotiations. But you also need someone who can perform over the long haul, who can handle the daily grind and grinding anxiety of the job.

This is important, and the media needs to incorporate Cottle's words into the broader narrative of the hypothetical "Thompson surge." It matters because the media needs to take note of this if/when Thompson begins his last-minute push. I would not be surprised if Thompson at least makes a strong move back to the top in the waning days of the campaign. After all, the Republican electorate does not seem happy with it's choices, and Thompson's original rationale as a candidate was precisely to be the savior for conservative voters who had nowhere else to go.

But Thompson shouldn't be given bygones on his previously lackluster effort when covering this surge. It'd be one thing if had been chugging along diligently up to this point, and was regaining votes as Republicans decided to give him a fresh look. That's essentially what happened with Huckabee, and his move to the top of the pack was properly framed. It'd be easy to use that template all over again with Thompson. Easy, but wrong. Huckabee overcame lack of name recognition, but that won't be a problem if he's the leader of the free world. Unlike Huckabee, Thompson's prior mediocre polling is intricately connected with the type of President he'd make. Thompson will have to work hard every single day, day in and day out, if he's President. His lack of commitment to going through the grind is the sort of thing voters have a right to be reminded of, even if he's willing to buckle down in the clutch.

Alright With Me

I'm a bit behind the ball on this one, but I wanted to point to Fred Thompson's response to grumblings from the religious right that he is insufficiently religious:

Thompson dismissed those comments, saying "I'm OK with the Lord, and the Lord is OK with me as far as I can tell."

I note this because I think it's a good answer, particularly given the political forces must be pushing Thompson in a much more aggressive direction. After all, Thompson was originally recruited into the race as the Christian conservative candidate -- a niche he hasn't done a good job filling. Yet, Thompson resisted the temptation to engage in the classic warrior-for-Christ type language that seems so common in the GOP, in favor of a much more relaxed, low-key answer. I appreciate that.

Of course, it's probably politically foolish. But I've noticed that about the Republican field -- any time they do something I like, it invariably is the sort of thing that will hurt them in the primary.

Got the Joneses

Conservative Catholic law professor Stephen Bainbridge castigates Mitt Romney for accepting the endorsements of two major figures affiliated with Bob Jones University: Chancellor Dr. Bob Jones III, and Robert R. Taylor, dean of the university's college of arts and sciences. BJU has a notorious history of religious and racial bigotry, long refusing to admit Black students (and then for awhile restricting admission solely to married Blacks), then fighting to keep up a prohibition on interracial dating. Meanwhile, BJU leaders have called both Catholicism and Mormonism "cults." So, Bainbridge says, while "[t]urning down these endorsements would have been tough" given their pull in the South Carolina GOP, "All in all, I'd have a lot more respect for Romney if he had told the folks from Bob Jones where to shove their endorsements."

Of course, it speaks volumes that an extremist entity such as this could wield so much influence in a major primary. And Romney's affiliation with this group is not something that should be forgotten. As Andrew Sullivan writes:

I had a conniption about Bush's catering to BJU bigotry in 2000 and then swiftly forgot about it. I didn't see it as the harbinger that it was: of a GOP rooted in religious prejudice, racial fears, and sexual panic. I've learned my lesson.

Shouldn't someone press Romney on this? Contrast Romney's pandering to Fred Thompson's campaign, which dismissed the radical anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church (which tried to argue that Thompson "saw eye to eye" with them on the issue) "a radical fringe group, looking to draw attention to themselves." Westboro is probably a bit further out of the mainstream than is BJU -- but only by a step or two.

Backhanded Compliment

Michelle Cottle on Fred Thompson's debate performance:

I tend to agree with the post-game analysis that Big Fred looked considerably less senile in the last half of last night's proceedings than in the first.

Unfortunately, Cottle proceeds, the debate was so dull few people probably even lasted into the second half.

Oh well. At least Thompson can still charm the ladies.

Fall Out Boy

Neil links to a chart showing head-to-head Missouri polling numbers for a few Presidential candidates: Clinton, Edwards, and Obama for the D's, and Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney for the Elephant. Klein picks up on how Edwards beats all three by wider margins than either of the other two candidates.

But what intrigues me is how far behind Romney is compared to Thompson. Against Clinton and Obama, he's a eight points further behind compared to Thompson, against Edwards that jumps to 14.

I had always assumed that Romney's weakness compared to Giuliani (and perhaps McCain) in early head-to-head match-ups was name recognition: he was essentially "generic Republican," and generic Republicans are not doing so hot right now. But I can't think that Thompson has that much greater name ID (even with Law & Order), and yet he's got far better match-up numbers than Romney does. This would imply that there are some voters who do know Romney and are simply less likely to vote for him than they are other Republican candidates (rather than a simple name ID problem). This, to put it mildly, is not good news for either the Romney campaign or the Republican Party for whom he still strikes me as the most likely nominee.

Alien Love

Sexy, sexy Fred Thompson.

See also Garance, Michelle Cottle, and Gail Collins. And of course all-time classic Belle Waring:

First of all, are women voters, taken as a whole, really so much like retarded kittens in our motivations? And secondly, doesn’t Fred Thompson pretty much look like a basset hound who’s just taken a really satisfying shit in your hall closet? Finally, even if we restrict our field of play to Republicans who have played prosecutors in the later seasons of Law and Order, I would much, much rather have sex with Angie Harmon, even though I’m not gay.

Indeed, oddly enough, it appears the only people really buying into the "Fred Thompson is uber-sex-man" meme are....heterosexual men. Take that for what you will.

Due Process for Bin Laden

You won't hear me complaining: I can't think of a better contrast between the rule of law America represents and the theocratic despotism Bin Laden wishes to install than to hold a massive, public trial explicating all his crimes. And now I have a major Presidential contender backing me up: Fred Thompson.

Steve Benen gets snarky on all the right-wing pundits who called for Howard Dean's head when he said the same thing in 2004. And perhaps he's right. But credit where credit is due: this is not likely to be a popular position amongst the right-wing base, and I'm not sure I see an angle for Thompson taking it. Which means I give him credit for taking the right position whilst in the line of political fire.

Not too much credit, mind you:

Later, a Thompson spokesman explained that Thompson meant "the same rules ought to apply to him as to everyone at Guantanamo Bay, and there ought to be due process thru a special military court or commission."

"For anyone to suggest that we shouldn't squeeze out every last bit of intelligence information has absolutely no understanding how to fight a long term global war on terrorism," spokesman Todd Harris said. "It would be very dangerous for the long-term security of our country to not try to milk bin Laden for every ounce of information he has."

I'm especially concerned that "milk", in this context, is fraught with implications. And the "rules" we apply to other Guantanamo detainees aren't exactly that much to shout at. But hopefully, some reforms will be pushed through, and even saying the words "due process" next to "Bin Laden" is a step up from most Republicans. It's not like I disagree that high-value intelligent assets like Bin Laden require different sort of treatment than a common-criminal--I just don't think that these differences justify chucking all of the rule of law out a ninth story window. And, in some small way, perhaps Thompson doesn't either. So, minor kudos all the same (or perhaps my expectations are too low?).

Run By An Idiot, For An Idiot

I want to laugh at the Fred Thompson campaign. I really should be able to. Thompson is, by all accounts, lazy and an intellectual light-weight. And his supporters, more often than not, also seem to be lazy and intellectual light-weights. It's would be a funny combination. But I can't laugh, because eight years ago that very combination drove a candidate to victory. Hubris and all that.

But even still, sometimes I can't contain myself. Let's take this "critique" of Barack Obama's candidacy by Black Five. In between a lot (no, I mean a lot) of senseless babbling, he gives three main reasons for why Obama is teh suck. The first is that he's inexperienced. Now, this is a spectacularly dumb claim, as Obama has more electoral office experience than Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Edwards, and Clinton, but it's a common mistake, so we'll let it slide. The second and third are the ones that truly blow my mind. They are that the Columbia/Harvard educated, first Black President of the Harvard law Review, described by Lawrence Tribe as one of the two brightest students he's every taught, is not intelligent, and that the bring-down-the-house "Audacity of Hope" orator is not a good public speaker. Now, I'm as much a fan as anybody of the "slam one's opponents where they're strongest" line of political strategy, to prevent them from building a narrative, but seriously, this is what you've got? Obama is a babbling moron? I guess the problem is credibility. I'm listening to a blogger complain about Obama's lack of intelligence while saying he'll "probably support Fred Thompson just because he sounds like a President should sound...." (and, as an added bonus, he does "actually like the policies he has been talking up"!), which is the mark of someone who really is putting intelligence in the "one" priority spot, and claim that Obama isn't sufficiently eloquent while being a White guy writing phrases like "before you accuse me of hating on light-skinned brothers...."

Meanwhile, Garance Franke-Ruta talked with a prominent Iowa Republican on why he was supporting Thompson. He offered up a comparison to Clinton:

"Can you imagine what debates are going to be like with great big Andrew Jackson-looking Fred and Hillary on her stubby little legs, stamping her feet?" Thompson, if elected, would be the tallest president ever. Republicans are not just looking for the usual John Wayne-type signifiers as they go about selecting a candidate, but thinking about who can best loom over Hillary Clinton and make her look like a shrill, small, silly little woman. Thompson's booming voice will make her "sound like Madame Defarge."

As Kevin Drum notes, Clinton would likely "eviscerate" Thompson in a debate, and watching that happen is the best reason he can think of for supporting Clinton as the nominee. But it amazes me just how much Thompson's support is based on him being tall and strong-looking. Speaking of which, Black Five also trots out the old "nobody would be talking about Obama if he wasn't Black" argument. In addition to referring back to Cass Sunstein's takedown of that point (would anybody have talked about Bush if his last name wasn't Bush?), Thompson is a particularly bad foil for this point, because nobody would be talking about him at all if he wasn't on the cast of Law & Order.

Thompson is the ultimate Potemkin candidate, and the way his supporters embarrass themselves while talking about him just makes his candidacy that much more ridiculous. Voters are not going to make the same mistake three Presidential elections in a row.