Fred Thompson's Big Soothe

email this story
read comments (45)
post a comment

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson "isn't a moral authority on anything, he just plays one on television. He isn't famous for anything he ever did in politics. These days he is just someone else in America famous for being famous, even as a supporting actor," N.Y. Daily News columnist Mike Lupica wrote today.

I didn't watch last night's Republican candidates debate, but as I read Lupica's article I realized with some embarassment that for the flimsiest of reasons I feel slightly more comfortable with Thompson as a Republican presidential candidate (even though he hasn't announced) than I am with Rudy Giuliani, John McCain or Mitt Romney.

As lame as it sounds, I feel less rattled about Thompson than the other guys. If, that is, a Republican candidate was absolutely fated to win the '08 Presidential election (which almost certainly won't happen...right?) and I had to choose the least problematic contender.

There's something about Thompson that's vaguely soothing. That deep baritone voice and easy-going County Sheriff speaking style that made him a favorite on Law and Order, and which provided steady acting work in films like Marie, A True Story (in which he played himself), Die Hard II, Cape Fear, In The Line of Fire and The Hunt for Red October. It's dopey, but this is my honest gut reaction.

"Maybe it was inevitable that somebody would try to run straight from a long-running series all the way to the White House," Lupica notes. "Or maybe Thompson thinks he's ready to lead the free world because he plays President Ulysses S. Grant in the current television adaptation of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.

"This all started a half-century ago when we had a President, Jack Kennedy, who looked and lived and carried himself like a Hollywood leading man. Then 20 years later came Ronald Reagan, who went from acting to governor of California and finally to the White House. Now there are people who have urged Martin Sheen to run for some kind of office because his heart seemed to be in the right place on The West Wing and he did a good job delivering Aaron Sorkin's speeches."

Brooklyn desk<< previous | next >>Limits of torture porn

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 6, 2007 at 3:57 AM

comment #1

Rich S. says ...

From the article: "You want to know how the clown line between what is real news and what is fake news blurs more by the day in this country?"

Oh, I dunno, by letting a sports columnist take a shot at political punditry?

Posted by Rich S. at June 6, 2007 5:03 AM

comment #2

Noel Murray says ...

I have no opinion about Lupica's opinons, but I'm not sure where this idea developed that "a sports writer" or "a movie critic" shouldn't be tackling politics. I can understand the complaints about celebrity activists, since many of them seem facile in their approach. But a professional writers are (presumably) capable of articulating their opinions well, and if they have something to say about politics, why not let them say it, and then judge the content of what they write, and not the nature of their "day job."

I mean, who *is* properly "credentialed" to write about politics?

Posted by Noel Murray at June 6, 2007 5:11 AM

comment #3

Rich S. says ...

Who is properly "credentialed" to be a politician?

The whole point of Lupica's article is that we can't take Thompson seriously just because he is a soothing presence on TV. But, of course, as Lupica points out, Thompson has been elected senator twice and is very familiar with the corridors of power.

The same could apply to Lupica. Has he spent years covering the political beat and learning the ins and outs of governance and political deals? Or do we lend him additional credence because he appears on TV a lot?

Posted by Rich S. at June 6, 2007 5:18 AM

comment #4

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

So what are the things that John Edwards, Barack Obama, or even Hillary Clinton are famous for doing in politics? At least McCain is famous for a (bad) piece of legislation with his name attached. Giuliani and Romney have executive experience and discernable track records as such. The idea that a former prosecutor and senator is somehow underqualified because he's been on TV the last few years is pretty risible given this field.

Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau at June 6, 2007 5:27 AM

comment #5

MarkVH says ...

Jeff, man, you totally forgot DAYS OF THUNDER. For this, Thompson already has my vote.

Posted by MarkVH at June 6, 2007 6:43 AM

comment #6

chicbn872 says ...

What do you mean by "least problematic contender" Jeff? Are you saying that the Dem nominee has a better shot at beating Mr. Thompson or that you actually don't have a problem with Mr. Thompson's politics?

If it is the second option, I may have a small stroke.

Posted by chicbn872 at June 6, 2007 6:57 AM

comment #7

AH says ...

This, to me, is a moot argument. Thompson is not going to win the primary because he comes across as too Hollywood (there go the evangelicals and the middle of the country), has said that he will not travel as much as the other candidates, and has not raised enough money.

Since he just announced his candidacy, this is the honeymoon phase. It'll pass and we'll be back to the current front-runners.

Posted by AH at June 6, 2007 7:13 AM

comment #8

iamanerd says ...

Lupica, if you are a sports buff, is not the best authority on anything with a touch of importance. Most of his columns and appearances excel at only at hyperbole and being over emotional about everything.

Posted by iamanerd at June 6, 2007 7:19 AM

comment #9

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

A straight-talkin' prosecutor from Tennessee is too Hollywood to win the evangelical vote? As opposed to what, the straight-talking prosecutor from New York who currently leads the field? Funny how many Dems are suddenly experts on who the evangelicals will never stand for....

Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau at June 6, 2007 7:56 AM

comment #10

T. S. Idiot says ...

I like Thompson, though I'm a lifelong Demo who has never voted for a Republican for any office, even dogcatcher or prom queen. But Fred could never get the nomination. Not only is his age a factor, but Americans will never elect another bald president. Wells is, unfortunately, in the mainstream with his folicly-challenged phobia.

Posted by T. S. Idiot at June 6, 2007 8:07 AM

comment #11

MASON says ...

Thompson was an undistinguished senator who quit politics because he didn't like how demanding it was on his time. Great. That's what this country needs -- another lazy Prez. Good example for the kids.

Posted by MASON at June 6, 2007 8:26 AM

comment #12

christian says ...

and his cigar tokin' comeback to michael moore was pathetic.

Posted by christian at June 6, 2007 8:49 AM

comment #13

SpinDozer says ...

Thompson has 2 big problems (electability-wise). One, he's starting to look like an old man; the cruel might say feeble (older than say 2nd term Reagan). Second, its hard to believe he would do well confronting adversity (ironic considering his considerable appeal on TV & the big screen) as a candidate. His passion is distinctly lacking. He looks and acts like a guy who has been pushed/persueded to run than I guy who had to run.

Posted by SpinDozer at June 6, 2007 9:24 AM

comment #14

LYTrules says ...

Funny how many Dems are suddenly experts on who the evangelicals will never stand for....

Jim Dobson -- arguably the top evangelical busybody in the nation now that Falwell's gone -- said that he doesn't consider Thompson a Christian.

Posted by LYTrules at June 6, 2007 9:48 AM

comment #15

SaveFarris says ...

If you don't count the time spent on the Presidential campaign trail (and therefore not working at your day job), Thompson has more experience in the Senate than Barack Obama & John Edwards COMBINED.

Posted by SaveFarris at June 6, 2007 9:58 AM

comment #16

jeffmcm says ...

Thompson isn't a straight-talking prosecutor from Tennessee - he hasn't been one for at least a decade. He's an actor who lives in New York.

SaveFarris, that's incorrect. Thompson was Senator for 8 years, Edwards was in for 6, Obama has thus far been in for 3.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 6, 2007 10:59 AM

comment #17

Craig Kennedy says ...

The problem is that people like Wells feel better about Thompson just because of surface things. He could be a fine human being and an excellent candidate for president, but Wells even admits he has no idea. He likes the soothing baritone voice.

The issue is maybe more pronounced with Thompson because he's a trained actor, but it's the same with all of them. The delivery is more important than the message.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at June 6, 2007 11:11 AM

comment #18

christian says ...

and that's how jeff reflects those red staters.

Posted by christian at June 6, 2007 11:30 AM

comment #19

MASON says ...

Evangelicals ain't gonna stomach Thompson's young wife. Like Scarborough said -- she looks like she "works the pole."

Posted by MASON at June 6, 2007 12:16 PM

comment #20

Josh Massey says ...

You think if it's Fred vs. Hillary, a single Evangelical is going to vote Clinton? And trust me, they won't just stay away from the polls en masse.

Posted by Josh Massey at June 6, 2007 12:32 PM

comment #21

T. S. Idiot says ...

I've changed my mind. I've just found photos of Mrs. Fred. We need a first lady who looks like that.

Posted by T. S. Idiot at June 6, 2007 12:38 PM

comment #22

nemo says ...

That picture of Thompson at the top of this post must either be really old, or else they really worked him over with the makeup and lighting.

Thompson is 64, about to turn 65 (same age as Paul McCartney). But any recent photo of Fred makes him look more like 85. His 39-year-old trophy wife doesn't just look like his daughter standing next to him -- she looks like his granddaughter.

Posted by nemo at June 6, 2007 1:08 PM

comment #23

christian says ...

well, after all the right wing attacks on kerry's wife...release the kracken!

Posted by christian at June 6, 2007 1:48 PM

comment #24

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"and his cigar tokin' comeback to michael moore was pathetic"

Um, I daresay its intended audience feels differently.

Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau at June 6, 2007 2:00 PM

comment #25

Lloyd Dobler says ...

uh hate to break this to everyone but Thompson is the Rep. nominee already. He's got the backing of the EV crowd and many social conservatives which are the deciding force of the rep party. He also has a ton of the Bush followers jumping onto his ship.

Add the fact that even a hardcore lefty liberal like Jeff finds him "ok" and the right are going to toss aside the other canidates who are pretty much all jokes.

Hmm Fred's competition

Romney--he's a freakin Morman
Guiliani--uh pro gay and abortion rights..yeahhh like that will ever happen
McCain--the guy most righty reps hate.

Thompson is a shoo-in barring a Macaca/Dean type screwup. He's second in polling and he hasn't even entered yet.

The scary thing is that unless Edwards or Obama get the nom. Thompson will beat Hillary in 08.

Posted by Lloyd Dobler at June 6, 2007 2:21 PM

comment #26

christian says ...

"Um, I daresay its intended audience feels differently."

well, it's intended audience thinks rush limbaugh and ann coulter are witty intellectuals and that the planet is 6000 years old but that doesn't change the reality.

and thompson is in no way the nominee. i mean, didn't bush say that the republican party doesn't share the values of hollywood at the rnc in 2004?

Posted by christian at June 6, 2007 2:25 PM

comment #27

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"No, no, Jimmy Stewart for governor, Ronald Reagan for best friend." --Jack Warner

Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau at June 6, 2007 2:43 PM

comment #28

BurmaShave says ...

My question is, when Eastwood warns him that his life is in danger, will he cancel the campaign trip to California? Malkovich is still out there.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 6, 2007 3:03 PM

comment #29

Lloyd Dobler says ...

It is scary how clueless some people are about republican politics. Thompson is about as Hollywood as Ronald Reagan and the RNC certainly didn't care for that guys values.

The Reps want a true blue conservative who is male, white, and christian. They also want a guy who will do want they want and can sucker liberals and moderates into believing he is above politics and will do the right thing for the country. See Fred Thompson

Posted by Lloyd Dobler at June 6, 2007 3:05 PM

comment #30

George Prager says ...

None of it matters. What matters is what matters.

Posted by George Prager at June 6, 2007 4:02 PM

comment #31

christian says ...

it's chinatown, jake.

Posted by christian at June 6, 2007 4:04 PM

comment #32

Nate West says ...

If his hair were just a touch curlier, Thompson would bear a striking resemblance to P. T. Barnum. I smell biopic.

Posted by Nate West at June 6, 2007 6:48 PM

comment #33

Heli0tr0pe says ...

"Soothing"? The guy is revolting. Read up on some of the things he's said, especially re: global warming. A real right-wing yahoo idiot. Don't drink the Kool-Aid from this asshole!

Posted by Heli0tr0pe at June 6, 2007 7:14 PM

comment #34

christian says ...

if he makes it to a debate with a dem, he'll be torn apart for the phony hollywood elite he is. america is not going to buy the right's attempt to marginalize intelligence anymore. i hope.

Posted by christian at June 6, 2007 7:26 PM

comment #35

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"if he makes it to a debate with a dem, he'll be torn apart for the phony hollywood elite he is"

Christian, I'd be happy to to see him take that chance with a genuine man of the people like John "I was not in charge of my own haircut" Edwards. I have a feeling Thompson has more experience dismantling popinjay defense attorneys pretending to be jes' folks than you give him credit for.

Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau at June 7, 2007 5:25 AM

comment #36

Dave Polands Gut says ...

Lupica should stick to sports which he knows almost nothing about and writing stupid kids books.

Posted by Dave Polands Gut at June 7, 2007 6:49 AM

comment #37

christian says ...

except john edwards never claimed he was a communist, and unlike thompson who spent his days avoiding work, edwards has given back to others. but that's why he's not republican.

Posted by christian at June 7, 2007 6:57 AM

comment #38

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Christian, I have no idea what you're talking about (who said anything about Communists?) In any case, your world is so cartoonish I think I'm done trying to discuss reality in it.

Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau at June 7, 2007 7:19 AM

comment #39

christian says ...

the right wing attack on edwards for an expensive haircut while they feast daily on crab, caviar and champagne in their elite hovels is my point about "communists" - it's a classic rightie bait and switch -- if somebody on the left makes money, they're labeled a hypocrite.

but since my world is so cartoonish, please remind how much of a great president george bush is and bring me back to "reality"...

Posted by christian at June 7, 2007 8:40 AM

comment #40

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Please tell me they wear top hats and monocles, too.

Too funny. Yeah, I'm sure Barefoot Bill Clinton or Granny Pelosi has never been let inside those restaurants. Not champions of the proletariat like them.

Now off to Costco to buy crab legs and champagne, if I can avoid the bearded, bomb-throwing anarchists and the robbers in striped jerseys and eye masks.

Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau at June 7, 2007 8:53 AM

comment #41

Heli0tr0pe says ...

Christian, haven't you learned by now? No matter how rich a conservative might be, it is physically impossible for that conservative to be a member of "the Elite." Only liberals qualify for that.

Remember: even if a conservative was educated at Yale (Bush), is a filthy rich businessman (Cheney), or is part of the Oiligarchy (Bush, Cheney, etc. etc.), they are NOT part of the dreaded "Elite." They're jus' regler dumbass God-fearin' folks lahk you and me, by golly!

However, if a liberal has $10 more than you or me...goddamn Elitist!!!

Posted by Heli0tr0pe at June 7, 2007 11:45 AM

comment #42

Heli0tr0pe says ...

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [9/11], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country." -- Arkansas Republican Party chairman Dennis Milligan, who stands "150 percent" behind George W. Bush on Iraq.

Kinda reminds me of the unlamented Don Rumsfeld, who said recently that he "would run Iraq the way Saddam ran it." Hmm...

REPUBLICANS. ARE. STUPID.

Posted by Heli0tr0pe at June 7, 2007 1:41 PM

comment #43

christian says ...

if thompson does make it to a debate, all a dem has to say is, "isn't it ironic that an actor in a show called LAW AND ORDER thinks lying to a republican prosecutor to obstruct justice and being found guilty by a jury is cause for a presidential pardon?"

Posted by christian at June 8, 2007 11:11 AM

comment #44

BurmaShave says ...

Christian:

1) Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was (Armitage) before he started pursuing the indictment. There was clearly some personal vendetta involved. He may be a Republican, but he was certainly gunning for Cheney and Rove. Witness his tenacity going after Daley. He fancies himself some kind of Robin Hood.

2) Libby didn't lie, he misspoke (discrepancies in the accounts he gave to several grand juries over a protracted period of time). He got his dates and times mixed up. On the list of crimes by this administration, very small.

3) Accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. He would be pardoned from jail time, but all other consequences, such as his likely disbarment, remain.

I doubt any of this will come up though in a debate. I have a feeling the Dem nominee will just keep repeating "lobbyist, lobbyist, lobbyist"

Posted by BurmaShave at June 9, 2007 12:47 AM

comment #45