Thompson- A Candidate of Substance
Posted 50 weeks 5 days ago byI admire John McCain and should Fred Thompson (whom I support)lose in SC and be ushered out of the race I will support the Arizona Senator. However, I think it is a shame Thompson has been so dinged by the national media, because in most respects, he really has the largest vision of any GOP candidate running as this piece from the American Thinker ably articulates (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...).
Thompson is the only candidate talking about the massive issue of Social Security and entitlements, which I firmly believe after the proliferation of WMD, really is the greatest long term threat to the United States and its position in the world. He speaks a certain truth that just doesn't seem to be heard by many, because, I fear (though I am willing to be proven wrong), that people don't want to really think about the truth and how to really deal with the largest of issues. People are conditioned to hear "sound bites" and candidates that actually "talk" or, as the article states, engage in Socratic dialog are tuned out because it makes one "think" rather than feel. This is the problem with our contemporary politics, its more about emotion than real rationality. This is true on both sides of the aisle and it does all a grand disservice.
We all say we want to talk issues, but when someone does, he lags in the polls, I suspect that will only engender further and further control of the political process by "professionals", because the truth is, "truth" doesn't sell.
Thoughts
Thompson, serious and a man of few words
Submitted on January 20th, 2008 by jojokitomaI too liked Thompson, but bottom line "if the media ignores you, you can't win."
Honestly, the news media has chosen our candidates.
Ask yourself, how Duncan Hunter, whom everone on the debate chose to follow his example and use his answers, and who had a viable solution to every problem, including social security and medicare, was subsequently totally ignored by the press after the debate?
The news media is without doubt the ruination of this nation.
Changing the Process
Submitted on January 18th, 2008 by GregRLawsonMy suspicion is it will take a major event, probably not a good event, to mobilize public opinion behind substantial and substantive changes and a candidate (hopefully a leader) who will be honest without being a pandering fear (or for that matter a pandering hope) monger.
The people have to care about ideas again and until that happens, the corrupting proccess will never cease because, as I mentioned in my first posting, "truth" is not desired.
This may be the ultimate challenge for modern democracy, if not modern life at large. The ancients (not to sound too Straussian) may have been more right than we about understanding what it means to be responsible.
No, no it doesn't...
Submitted on January 18th, 2008 by Joel... and if you watched the debate the other night, it's clear how corrupting that process is.
So how does it get changed?
Horse Racey
Submitted on January 18th, 2008 by GregRLawsonI would agree that the system of the day demands that and Fred's decision is likely (barring a surprise in the South) to have cost him. However, a fundamental question that should be resolved is whether this is the "right" way to conduct an election?
Also, the media pushed itself into the race. After all, the Democrat race is truly groundbreaking by having an African American who can win the Presidency vs. a woman who can do the same. Obviously, this is a tremendous accomplishment that should put such racial and gender based divisions squarely behind us.
Yet, instead of letting the arguments of the two candidates (of whose merits I won't debate) take center stage, we are now in the middle of a battle over racial issues and the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. vs Lyndon Johnson. I think the media is enforcing that conceptualization because it is emotive, not because it is clarifying. Irrespective of the outcome, does that narrative teach us anything about how to resolve the challenges facing the country?
Not to get all horse-racey
Submitted on January 18th, 2008 by Joel...but the MSM model you're talking about is the model right now. As such, Fred had two choices:
* Go with it.
* Do something marvelously transformational.
He obviously didn't do the former. And it might be that he was attempting the latter -- a return to old-school front-porch campaigning that hasn't been successful on the national scene for about 100 years. But if that's the case, it didn't work.
It's the presidency, after all. You've got to do a little more than get your name on the ballot and have the right positions.*
* This post in no way concedes he has the right positions.
Bow and Scrape
Submitted on January 18th, 2008 by RayHJenkinsThompson's only sin as I see it is he didn't - and still doesn't - kneel at the alter of the press. He didn't play their games and is not willing to do so - even at the expense of coverage.
For me, that speaks volumes. McCain is the MSM's favorite Republican, Huckabee is the idiot cousin we love (and joke about), Romney has now adopted a populist government give-a-way approach to begging for votes and Rudy- wait, is he still in this?
Thompson has not and will not debase himself or sacrifice his integrity to bottom-feed for votes or coverage.
It has cost him. And because voters are so used to the MSM-model, it will cost us all - for a very long time.
Substance vs. Perception
Submitted on January 18th, 2008 by GregRLawsonI believe Fred ran a campaign that is (obviously )non-traditional. That non-traditional aspect turned off the media which lives and dies by the easily reportable snippets of info that come through sound bites and programmed speeches.
I don't think the media "has" to to make a case for someone to be running and I admit Fred stumbled early in connecting with voters. However, there is an unseemly obsession on the part of the media with the "horse race" that automatically assumes that if you have anything less than a superhumanly frenetic campaign you must be "lazy" and not wanting it enough. That prism through which campaigns are viewed clouds the willingness of the media to engage on a deeper level.
Anyone who flys around over the nation and makes multiple stops (even if its not 5-10 a day) is fairly aggressive by what most would consider "normal." Fred has done that.
Substance versus style
Submitted on January 18th, 2008 by JoelGreg: Do you think it's really the substance, or the fact that Thompson is seen (by the press, at least) as a bit of a lazy campaigner?
If he's not working that hard to make his case, why should the media?