Dan Balz's Take
Too Soon to Write Off Thompson
Despite the hype, Fred Thompson's campaign will not rise and fall based on his performance tonight. (Getty).
DEARBORN, Mich. -- Could Fred Thompson's candidacy end by sunset? You might think that from all the hype and commentary surrounding today's Republican debate. Rarely has there been so much focus on one individual as there is today on the hulking actor who was the last to enter the GOP race.
Thompson has gone from savior to chump in a few short months -- or so it seems from the shifting storyline surrounding his candidacy. When he first raised his head last spring, he was anointed as the next Reagan, a ruggedly handsome, made-for-the-cameras conservative who would restore the appeal of a Republican Party reeling from its midterm losses and the damage inflicted during George W. Bush's presidency.
Today he's become the hapless candidate who can't light a fire with an audience with a blowtorch. He stumbles, he can't remember facts, he speaks in platitudes, he leaves audiences underwhelmed. From being the guy who some people thought could throw the best punch at the Democrats, he has become a walking punch line of his own. Pity.
I'm reminded of what Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour used to tell his staff when he was chairman of the Republican National Committee: things are never as good or as bad as they seem at the time. That's a useful reminder heading into today's CNBC debate -- and probably heading out of it. The truth is, for all of Thompson's problems -- and no one should underestimate them -- this is a Republican field in which each of the candidates is challenged in some way.
Months ago, a savvy veteran of Republican presidential campaigns was surveying the field of candidates (this was before Thompson seemed likely to enter). His conclusion was interesting. He said that if you looked at John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani only through the prism of their strengths and weaknesses, you would conclude that none could win the nomination. Yet, he said, one of them would win it.
Add Thompson into that mix and the same conclusion holds today. Seemingly, Romney can't win because of his flip flops and perhaps because of resistance to his Mormon religion in the South. Giuliani can't win because, for all the credit he gets for his performance on and after 9/11, he's still just too out of step on social issues for the rank-and-file to accept. McCain can't win because he's at odds with the base on immigration, saddled with Iraq and perhaps too old. Thompson can't win because he's a lackluster candidate without much to say.
Bill Lacy, who is Thompson's campaign manager, said this morning that today's debate will be one of just many forums and events over the next few months -- not a make-or-break moment for his candidate.
Lacy, who also managed Thompson's 1994 Senate race, said two things about his candidate. First, that he never expected Thompson to suddenly galvanize voters once he became a candidate. Second, that Republican voters see something in Thompson that the media is missing.
"We went through this in '94 to a certain degree when early on the news media basically wrote Fred off," he said. "A large part of it has to do with the image that people thought he would project is really not Fred."
What he meant was that the Fred Thompson of "The Hunt for Red October" is not the Fred Thompson running for president, but that the Thompson on the campaign trail is connecting better than critics suggest. He bases that in part on Thompson's showing in the new Iowa Poll, which shows him in second place behind Romney.
"We fundamentally understand here that we're still going through some growing pains as a campaign," he said. "We have an outstanding candidate. I think he's going to wear very well with conservative Republicans over time."
Lacy said the challenge for Thompson is not to rise to the top of the pack in the next 30 days, but to be seen as a credible challenger for the nomination at the time the Republican campaign reaches South Carolina in January. That means surviving contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan in strong enough shape to be taken seriously by South Carolinians.
"I would never accept the notion that we have to win, we have to have a strong enough performance so that we meet that threshold voters are looking for," he said. "South Carolina Republicans have to believe that we can still win."
Some strategists would say that may not be realistic -- that three losses before South Carolina would cripple Thompson's or anyone else's candidacy. But given the state of the GOP race, every candidate right now other than Romney anticipates losing early and still winning the nomination.
So look past today's debate in Dearborn. There will be much else coming to keep the Republican race interesting.
--Dan Balz
Posted at 1:15 PM ET on Oct 9, 2007
| Category:
Dan Balz's Take
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Posted by: aldo07 | October 11, 2007 6:25 PM
I live in Memphis, TN. A few years ago, when I visited Thompson's Senate office in DC to talk about an issue, his staff person told me, "He doesn't care what constituents think. He's done with politics."
As far as I'm concerned, he's done with politics.
Posted by: edward1 | October 11, 2007 5:56 PM
the only reason thompson looked good is because the bar has been set quite low by the pack
Posted by: listats | October 11, 2007 7:32 AM
I think that is the Beatles that you are thinking of.
Thompson's performance was pretty inconclusive. It did not give anyone a reason to vote against but it did not really give anyone a reason to vote for him either.
But, he had been getting such bad press and expectations were so low for him that he won a victory when he came out and did not drool on himself.
But I think voters need to see and hear more specific things from Thompson before he is considered a top tier candidate polls notwithstanding.
A stentorian voice and a dsitinguished appearance can only get you so far. If those where the qualifications, John Edwards would be the clear Democratic frontrunner.
Posted by: danielhancock | October 10, 2007 11:59 AM
To quote Simon & Garfunkle, Fred Thompson is a real "nowhere man".
Posted by: RLFortinNH | October 10, 2007 6:35 AM
So you think Bush is hell?
What kind of fury do you think a thrice-scorned woman will wreak upon America?
Posted by: eli_silas317 | October 9, 2007 6:07 PM
Too Soon to Write Off Thompson?
Not soon enough. Thompson is an empty suit. He is not too bright either... One would think that Americans would be tired of Presidents with the intellectual acumen of a turnip...
Posted by: Gatsby1 | October 9, 2007 4:27 PM
kelletim wrote,
The mirage of a 'unified nation' exists only in the minds of middle class white suburbanites and rednecks.
====================================
As opposed to what? urban ghetto dwellers???
The "middle class white suburbanites and rednecks" constitutes a very likely majority of people in this country.
The attitude reflected in the quoted statement is why a segment of the population will never assimilate into the American fabric. But of course it will always be "whitey's fault" not their own inability to coalesce into society.
Posted by: algibbs | October 9, 2007 4:23 PM
What if this entire discussion is a moot point? What if we have yet ANOTHER "questionable" electoral outcome? What would be the response of the American people? How much hoodwinking and bamboozling will the "public" tolerate? HRC voted in FAVOR of the AUMF resolution in October 2002. What's the substantive difference between and among ALL candidates from BOTH parties?....NONE! I am talking about SUBSTANTIVE differences, NOT window-dressing differences on wedge "issues". American politics is a joke!
Posted by: donato.sam | October 9, 2007 4:17 PM
fkpaxson: America does not need any 'rebirth of patriotism and honor' - it needs to reevaluate these values that seem to make its populace the unwitting dolts ready to believe the lies of Bush and others.
No one is 'pulling this nation together' because it's a nation of pluralistic beliefs. The mirage of a 'unified nation' exists only in the minds of middle class white suburbanites and rednecks.
Posted by: kelletim | October 9, 2007 4:09 PM
fkpaxson wrote,
I know many Republicans and conservatives that will stay home if Rudy Giuliani is the candidate.
==========================
I might agree with the comment...Except..Remember who will be the likely Democrat candidate. There is a sizable percentage of the population that would vote for a billy goat if it ran against Hilliary. I am one of them !!
This country can not afford a Hilliary presidency , especially with a Democrat controlled congress.
I have trouble believing that Republicans would sit at home and allow Hilliary to be elected. I , and many other Americans , will perhaps hold my nose and pull the lever for whomever opposes Hilliary.
Posted by: algibbs | October 9, 2007 4:08 PM
A candidate who self-finances his campaign (Mitt Romney) is not beholden to special interests the way all other candidates are.
I'd prefer a candidate who is not parroting the ACLU, NAM, NEA, NRA, AARP, etc. agenda, and who could really control the Federal budget. None of the other candidates (except Mitt) has run a lemonade stand.
Posted by: bot1 | October 9, 2007 4:03 PM
Former Senator Fred Thompson is the only candidate that gets it. He makes decisions based on principles. Principles don't change. You have to stand for something and not change who you are based on the polls. That is what Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have done and all of the Democrats do it. Give me a leader that will stand by his principles anyday versus someone that stands for everything.
I know many Republicans and conservatives that will stay home if Rudy Giuliani is the candidate. He does not represent our values as conservatives, and never will. Millionaire Willard "Mitt" Romney is a Republican-in-name-only (RINO ) that simply has everything else and nothing to do. "I guess I'll just try to buy the presidency". The White House isn't for sale! Conservatives will simply stay home and the Democrats will pick up additional seats in the House and probably get the 60 seats in the Senate they need to completely destroy our Country. Nice picture huh?
However, I think Fred can bring America back together, if that's even possible. America needs a rebirth of patriotism and honor. Republicans also need a rebirth. President Reagan was our last rebirth and he can never be duplicated. Fred Thompson will bring his own down-to-earth common sense to this country.. A little of the good old days of faith, federalism and family would do well for this country. If a conservative runs as a conservative, he will win!
Think of it this way: Eight years of another Clinton White House? Now if that is not a sufficient enough reason to pull together as a nation, and fight this socialist liberal takeover of our government, what is?
Folks, we are in for the fight of our lives, just as our young men and women are fighting for our freedoms in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must fight for our nation right here and now! I truly believe Fred Thompson is the one man who can pull this nation back together! Rudy Giuliani will just tear us apart.
Posted by: fkpaxson | October 9, 2007 3:43 PM
Ron Paul is everything that Giuliani, Romney and McCain aren't - intelligent, honest, and has integrity.
And his support base is growing rapidly.
The Ron Paul R3v0lution is happening.
Only Dan Balz hasn't noticed.
Posted by: varange | October 9, 2007 3:33 PM
It's not too soon to write off any Republican presidential candidate as not having a chance next year. The facts of the matter are that Bush is a failed, deeply unpopular Republican president. For him to be followed by another Republican president would be like Nixon being followed by en elected Ford or Carter being followed by another Democratic president. Unpopular presidents in a two party system are almost always followed by presidents of the opposite party because that failed president turns away the support of the middle swing voters that are essential to winning elections. Bush and the Iraq war have totally moved the swing voters to the left, and very few of those independent voters will be voting Republican next year. Just look how Bush and Iraq effected the last election. Thompson may have a chance for the Republican nomination, but he has no chance of being elected President next year, nor does any other Republican. But I'm sure the media can pretend that the Republicans somehow have a fighting chance when they in fact do not. The Democrats have already outraised the Republicans by $100 million dollars to date. Not a single incumbent Democrat lost in 2006. Bush, the GOP, and Iraq are still deeply unpopular with the majority of the American electorate. The writing is on the wall for the election of 2008.
Posted by: errinfamilia | October 9, 2007 3:28 PM
The thing is it does not matter if Thompson (or Giuliani or Romney or McCain) gets the nomination because in this case Hillary will win the general elections.
The GOP has only one chance of winning: when they nominate Ron Paul. Only Ron Paul is able to beat Hillary in a general election.
Posted by: rasmus_leslau | October 9, 2007 3:26 PM
Fred Thompson is an "empty suit." Intellectually, he couldn't start a fire using a blow torch. He will prove me correct at tonight's (so called) debate. Fred Thompson is *NOT* the GOP nominee let alone our next president.
Posted by: furtdw | October 9, 2007 3:24 PM
Zukermand: check out this article in today's Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/09/many_warming_unexpectedly_to_clinton/
This article is reporting on the same Clinton phenomena as when she ran for US Senate from NY. When folks finally set aside their media/GOP inspired animosity towards the Senator, they suddenly discover; "damn, she knows what she's talking about."
The same thing happened in the very conservative portions of upstate NY once voters got to know her. But don't tell the Washington Post, it obviously has a vested interest in maintaining the "she's unelectable, divisive, blah, blah, blah" angle to the GOP Talking Points
Posted by: YankeeClipper | October 9, 2007 3:18 PM
Zukermand: check out this article in today's Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/09/many_warming_unexpectedly_to_clinton/
This article is reporting on the same Clinton phenomena as when she ran for US Senate from NY. When folks finally set aside their media/GOP inspired animosity towards the Senator, they suddenly discover; "damn, she knows what she's talking about."
The same thing happened in the very conservative portions of upstate NY once voters got to know her. But don't tell the Washington Post, it obviously has a vested interest in maintaining the "she's unelectable, divisive, blah, blah, blah" angle to the GOP Talking Points
Posted by: YankeeClipper | October 9, 2007 3:18 PM
Jeb and Dumberya were the Boobsie twins in 2000 (when Jeb and State Secretary Kathryn Harris became more notorious than popular to millions in the Country watching the farcical election night). Yes, Jeb is still popular in Florida among the same type constituency as that of Dumberya who described his at a black tie function televised on C-span a couple of years ago as he looked about the room: Some call these in attendance the haves and have-mores, I call them my constituency.
Posted by: Janus55 | October 9, 2007 3:12 PM
Mr Balz is correct, that it is too soon to write off Thompson. By Thanksgiving, Christmas at the latest, it will no longer be too soon.
Posted by: bsimon | October 9, 2007 3:10 PM
Not Sure about "Too Soon to Write Off Thompson"
I've yet to hear anything utter out of Fred Thompson's mouth, does he expect to get elected based on "Law & Order" or the persona of being a television entertainer! Oh well we'll see what comes out tonight .... I bet there's nothing in between.
Do you believe candidate Fred Thompson will fall out of the Republican top tier?
-----> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=668
.
Posted by: PollM | October 9, 2007 3:07 PM
It seems to me that Jeb Bush is what the GOP needs. Popular Southern Governor, good on all the social issues, what's not to like? Oh right, that dynasty thing. Too bad for Jeb .
Posted by: rdklingus | October 9, 2007 2:51 PM
Mr Balz,
Where are the quotes from Iowan republican doubters of Mr Thompson? You know, the "unscientific", "not representative", ill informed ones that form the basis of a piece exploring the concern over Mr Thompson's electability. I thought that was a treatment not reserved for Sen Clinton alone. Perhaps I am mistaken.
Posted by: zukermand | October 9, 2007 1:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Tengo la nacecidad de manifestarme con respecto a la pasibilidad del NOBEL al Sr. GORE pues sería el único que podría cambiar la confianza en USA muy a mi pesar con la senadora-Creo que sería el nuevo presidente-