by Andrew Malcolm
When a candidate shows a maniacal drive to become president, spanning too many years of boring Lincoln or Jefferson Day dinners, demeaning pleas for money from rich people, darkened motels in distant cities, long nights of conspiratorial strategy meetings over stained boxes of cold pizza and lonely airplane flights across this vast land, plus compiling many millions of dollars, the American media tends to question such drive.
On the other hand, when a candidate shows a curious indifference, thinks longer than others about launching a campaign, moves and talks slowly and doesn't act like they've just finished their sixth cup of coffee in an hour, the American media tends to question such drive. Or lack of it.
The Los Angeles Times' Joe Mathews has come upon an old quote from a 2003 interview in the Nashville Bar Journal about running for the presidency. "I was never really willing to pay the price that I knew had to be paid," said the newly-retired politician. "I would really have to strain hard to come up with something I wanted to say ten times a day for the next year of my life when I knew that talking about the really important stuff would not get me anywhere. You have to have a great desire to be President, and I never had the desire to do that."
(Thompson photo by Chuck Kennedy/MCT)
That was, of course, Fred Thompson more than four years ago. Note the past tense in that last sentence of the quote. This is today and Thompson says things have changed. For one thing he's got two young children, and in his unofficial candidacy announcement on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" he said he worried about the future for those children in a time of terrorism.
In his website announcement speech a few hours later and on the road in Iowa, Thompson elaborated: "Earlier this year when I thought about whether I should enter this race, I kept coming back to 2 questions. First, what kind of country are our children and grandchildren going to grow up in and second, how many people have the opportunity to do something about it?"
His laconic, slow-talking style seems unlikely to change. Indeed, standing there in the middle of the debate stage the other night in between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani pecking at each other over the line-item veto, and towering over them both, the lugubrious Thompson seemed downright refreshing in his silence.
The fire-in-the-belly questions will likely continue for some time, until professional observers see the kind of long days and long nights of work that characterize traditional campaigns. People seem to forget similar kinds of questions were asked about George W. Bush in 1999-2000 and Ronald Reagan before that when they would take days off from the trail.
But who knows? Maybe there's a niche audience of voters for someone who at least up until four years ago doesn't seem to have been conniving and plotting a presidential run for the White House since first sighting it from his baby-stroller on a tourist trip?
Andrew Malcolm writes for Top of the Ticket, the L.A. Times' political blog.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Great stuff!!! Just what we need to lead this country! A tired, bland, grouchy, old fart. How inspiring! For this, the Republicans waited gleefully for months and months. It's alarming to think that one of the 10 Republican clods could become President. Ain't that scary?
Posted by: GW | October 13, 2007 9:32 AM
Game, set, match.
Posted by: bill r. | October 13, 2007 9:34 AM
His "Trophy Wife" will run the country.
Posted by: Raving Loon | October 13, 2007 9:52 AM
"I would really have to strain hard to come up with something I wanted to say ten times a day for the next year of my life when I knew that talking about the really important stuff would not get me anywhere."
Doesn't that quote say it all?
dan
Posted by: dan | October 13, 2007 9:55 AM
Well, he survived the 1st debate, and in my opinion, all in all, he didn’t do a bad job, he didn’t set the world on fire either, but he didn’t do too bad…
I sincerely hope it wasn’t a performance, I like Fred Thompson, but we don’t need him to play the character of POTUS, we need him to BE the POTUS, and all that office encompasses, and there is no ‘Take 2′, this is the real deal and you either get em fired up and hit your marks every time or you run a very high risk of losing support…
Thompson almost lost MY support before he ever got started, the ‘testing the waters’ thing and the procrastination turned me off but I stuck it out and have held onto at least some hope…
I am still not against Fred Thompson, but I am seriously not convinced that he is the best candidate yet, he may possibly be the most electable at this time, but not THE BEST, and that habit he has of addressing topics in a broad nature, painting with broad strokes is, for me at least, damn near a deal breaker, I am a very blunt person, I don’t beat around the bush, I get to the point in a hurry and I have no use for, nor do I care to be around people that are crybabies and excuse makers, (Ron Paul) or people that won’t take a solid stance on the issues, people that use generalities in an attempt to get a point across aren’t getting their point across, generalities tend to bring ideas into play but blunt, direct, to the point, and sincere speaking gets the POINT across, speaking from the heart, with fire in your eyes, THAT gets the point across…
From my own blog story found here: http://texasfred.net/archives/615
I am still not convinced that FDT is the man for the job, I had hoped he was but I don't see any FIRE in the guy...
I really like your blog setup, sweet...
http://TexasFred.net/
Posted by: TexasFred | October 13, 2007 9:57 AM
Maybe he's the long lost son of the Slowskis?
Posted by: lochnessmonster | October 13, 2007 10:07 AM
Let’s be honest, does Hillary Clinton really want to run against Law and Order’s District Attorney Arthur Branch? The once actor, once senator, once lawyer and once blue collar worker Fred Thompson has now turned into a presidential candidate. Thompson could now be the Republicans’ savior in the 2008 election. After announcing his candidacy for president a little more than a month ago, Thompson has gained popularity quickly. Many may think this is because of his “celebrity” status or his “trophy” wife; however, I have a different theory. If Thompson wins the primary and becomes the Republican representative for the 2008 election, he will win based on his strong beliefs on issues that matter to America. All you have to do is look at Thompson’s voting background from when he was senator to see that his morals and values are similar with those of the people of America. You can look at websites such as OnTheIssues.org to find information about most candidates in America. This is one of many places to find the resources you need to decide why you support a specific candidate.
Thompson supports President Bush’s tax cuts, abortion bans, the invasion of Iraq, the protection of gun rights and he opposes any type of amnesty for illegal aliens. Thompson does not flip-flop like many of the other presidential candidates, Democrat or Republican. America needs someone who will be true to his word and who is going to fight for our freedom no matter what it takes. Only time will tell if Thompson can help Republicans get back to the Reagan days where the Grand Old Party was the way to go. Thompson participated in his first GOP debate on Tuesday, and, according to Fox News, held his own after taking attacks from his opponents early on. As I watched the debate on MSNBC, I heard candidate after candidate remind me how ridiculous most of Hillary Clinton’s propositions are. I started to think about my future, what it would be like if Hillary Clinton were elected President of the United States. I started to feel a little sick and thought about which country would be best to move to if she were elected. The best answer I could come up with was any country where she was not in charge. If elected, Clinton would ruin everything the Bush administration has built up during the past two terms. The economy would be absolutely destroyed, taxes would skyrocket, homeland security would basically be abolished and people would be burning American flags in the streets of our communities.
Thompson will not let eight years be thrown down the drain, and will fight to make this country a better place rather than deceiving the public and making phony promises.
There are many Republican candidates I would vote for and Thompson is at the top of my list. He is a real American and a real conservative Republican who has shown honesty and integrity throughout his political career. I look forward to watching Thompson in future debates as he was a little raw in this first one. On the other hand, maybe he was just real and not as scripted as all the other candidates. You be the judge.
Posted by: Alan Srout | October 13, 2007 11:47 AM
Ok, so now laziness, procrastination, and an unwillingness to explain one's position except in vague generalities have become virtues and make someone worthy of the presidential offfice.
Unbelievable.
I want someone who doesn't look and act senile to be POTUS.
Posted by: bethtopaz | October 13, 2007 12:52 PM
Thompson is a sick, tired old man. I don't even think he's healthy enough to make it through a campaign.
Fred your better off staying home with that hot little trophy wife of yours.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | October 13, 2007 1:04 PM
Fred is the only one of the top four Repubs who is not a "dem"
Posted by: Bill | October 13, 2007 3:56 PM
Fred has my vote and my money. I would much rather have a President who hasn't always dreamed of being so. I would much rather support a man who based on the current state of the nation and world has decided that HE could and would SERVE his country. If you prefer the practiced and polished republian candidates, thats certainly your right. If you like Hillary to lead this country, God help you.
Posted by: Mike | October 13, 2007 6:51 PM
Fred Thompson is running to be Romney's VP.
Posted by: Old Mill | October 13, 2007 7:13 PM
I am an independent and I do not agree with many of Thompson's ideas, but I will say he at least considered the alternatives before he acted. Maybe he is one of the better choices for the Republican side. We need to get the Rep.'s and Dem's thoughtfully working together for this country and need to get rid of the shoot from the hip extremeists on both sides.
Posted by: DCB | October 13, 2007 8:01 PM
I would much rather support a man who based on the current state of the nation and world has decided that HE could and would SERVE his country.
Posted by: Mike | October 13, 2007 6:51 PM
A noble pursuit IF he brought something to the table which he doesn't. Seems like a good dude though.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2007 4:40 AM
Grandpa Fred Slowski.
Ahhhh....me time.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | October 14, 2007 5:05 PM
I don't see how Thompson is in anyway preferential to Romney and Giuliani by remainng laconic. The man has no platform. Zilch. It seems a lot of people are just willing to fill in the blanks for him, often to be surprised after the fact.
I heard all of this talk about Thompson being the savior for social conservatives and of how he was going to be the breath-through candidate--only to hear him say the he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment and if a state rewrote marriage away from the traditional form that has existed on every society on earth time immemorium, "So be it." This is a man who doesn't thing a border fence is necessary, voted against increasing fines on employers who hired illegal aliens, and who voted against creating a voluntary system whereby employers could verify the legality of their would-be-hires. A man (*ahem* former trial lawyer) who opposes tort reform.
I don't get the support. Frankly, I see Thompson as a light-weight who would rather talk about applepie than the issues facing our nation. Thompson says he wants to be President because he can bring about change. As to which changes he has in mind, I guess we're supposed to guess...*rolls eyes*
Posted by: CMartel2 | October 15, 2007 1:55 AM