Recently, bloggers have been comparing the movement to draft Fred Thompson to the Wesley Clark boomlet in '04. For instance, TNR's Jason Zengerle writes that "the highpoint of his campaign will be the day he gets in the race, because once he's a serious candidate--and not just the fevered daydream of a dissatisfied base--voters will realize he's not all that."
The comparison is amusing because I've always thought of Thompson as the equivalent of the popular generals that have run for president over the years (ie Winfield Scott or Dwight Eisenhower). The actual person who's running is largely irrelevant; the candidacy is based on the biography and the persona. However, TV has made it difficult to impossible for inexperienced candidates like Clark to succeed.
In this case, Thompson has more experience than Clark did, as Matthew Yglesias points out. Nonetheless, the idea of Thompson is bound to be more exciting than the man himself.
Update 6/6 8:57 PM: On the last point, here's Jennifer Rubin in the New York Observer:
Mr. Thompson will enter the race as the focus of many conservatives’ fixation to find an unblemished candidate. On the one hand, he seems to please many conservatives: no offense offered on social issues, sound foreign policy and soothing to the ears. However, it’s not clear that Mr. Thompson has either the experience or the ideas to rescue the G.O.P. from its current plight.
His “elder statesman” screen persona obscures the fact he is the most inexperienced of the major G.O.P. contenders, with seven dimly remembered years as U.S. Senator, no area of expertise, no executive experience and no major legislative achievements bearing his name.
Nor is it apparent—not yet, at least—that he is offering any original ideas to qualify him as the “change” candidate that Republican voters could sorely use.
Comments