'Just an Actor' Drumbeat Begins Against Fred Thompson

Change font size:  A |  A

I have been waiting for the MSM to start the drumbeat against Fred Thompson that they so often and so boringly used (and still do) against Ronald Reagan; the refrain of "He's just an actor." Now, Rebecca Sinderbrand of the New York Observer has used the general theme for her latest piece, The Mysterious Appeal of Fred Thompson. Subtitled "Actor, Senator, presidential candidate... but what G.O.P. gap is he filling?", Sinderbrand makes liberal use of Thompson's "roles" as a foil for his seriousness as a candidate and seems to be saying that the only reason anyone is considering him is because he looks the part as a result of his "camera presence."

Sinderbrand's entire piece is dismissive and shallow in its approach to the Senator with constant allusions to his being an actor playing a role and treats the Senator as if his candidacy is an effort at bait and switch, or at the very least a silly proposition. Throughout, Sinderbrand constantly mentions the acting aspect of the Senator's life as if that is all there is to him just like they have always done with Reagan.

The "just an actor" accusation, though, doesn't ring true in Thompson's case because his acting was a late in life career move, not one that he pursued his whole life as other professional actors have done. This fact makes Thompson quite unlike Ronald Reagan who's political career, not the acting career, was the later in life pursuit.

After a brief, somewhat perplexing, and vaguely insulting discussion of the loss of Thompson's daughter in 2001, Sinderbrand launches into her attempt to belittle Senator Thompson by calling him a "mid-level actor".

But it doesn’t quite explain the mystery of how and why the 64-year-old mid-level actor suddenly finds himself a news cycle or two away from joining the top tier of Republican Presidential candidates.

Mid-level? What does that even mean? Thompson acted when he felt like taking a role. His livelihood didn't hinge on an acting career. He didn't haunt Hollywood casting offices lucky to get those "mid-level" jobs making his life as an actor somewhat pathetic. His acting is a side light, a hobby. So, what legitimacy does "mid-level actor" hold for an assessment of the man? Nothing is the answer to that question, nothing other than giving Sinderbrand an opportunity to jab at him or belittle his acting career.

Sinderbrand undermines Thompson as much as she can with several well turned phrases. He is "a man whose screen presence is ubiquitous", his "acting roles have played like slickly produced Presidential auditions", but is a man who has "ideological squishiness". All geared to make him seem a facade, unreal, and unbelievable. Sinderbrand feels that his appeal "certainly, is cosmetic".

So why Fred Thompson, and why now? Part of it, certainly, is cosmetic: Mr. Thompson’s craggy visage, comforting demeanor and, of course, considerable camera presence have inspired comparisons to Ronald Reagan from even the most level-headed G.O.P. operatives.

He just looks the part? Is there nothing to the man?

I think that Sinderbrand "misunderestimates" and too easily rejects the appeal of a Thompson candidacy. Even in the places where Thompson drifts from the most stark Conservative ideology, he presents himself as a man who honestly believes -- and has never drifted from -- his principles. Unlike all three of the top tier GOP candidates, Thompson is what he is. Guiliani has drifted back and forth on both abortion and the 2nd Amendment, McCain has drifted on... well, just about everything, and Romney has gone back and forth on the 2nd Amendment and Gay marriage. Thompson, on the other hand has done none of this sort of vote grabbing pandering to date. He seems to honestly believe in his positions and he is an articulate, powerful and even tempered speaker on top of that.

At the end of her piece, Sinderbrand tries to assail Thompson's policy positions under the rubric of "Back to Reality", as if this "reality" will bring him down, or as if it is a deviation from his "cosmetic" appeal. And she also tries desperately to hang Thompson with what she feels is the Bush millstone as well as attempting to link Thompson to the faux Libby scandal.

At a time when most G.O.P. Presidential hopefuls are putting as much distance as they can between themselves and the Bush administration, Mr. Thompson has made a point of fund-raising for Scooter Libby’s defense fund.

After a run down of some of his positions, Sinderbrand categorizes his overall history as "ideological squishiness" that might be a "problem". But her list of his "squishiness" is not very alarming, really. Sinderbrand does make one valid point, however.

But still. Mr. Thompson is a candidate without an exploratory committee, a campaign war chest or a full-time staff. Apart from a few close friends, Mr. Thompson has, as yet, no real inner circle and no coterie of trusted advisors guiding his campaign.

This is, indeed, a problem for a Thompson run and one he'd better address in short order. A "draft" candidacy only takes you so far. To win you need an organization. And this is another area where he is "no Ronald Reagan". Reagan spent 10 years creating a grass roots organization to support his run for the presidency. Reagan ran with very strong numbers against Ford before the 1980 run against Carter, so he was no sudden candidate in any sense of the word. Reagan had a strong bid in support as well as organization.

So far, Thompson has only the well wishes of dissatisfied Conservatives. If he is serious, he'd better shake a leg and get a move on!

She ends her piece with a jab at Thompson being a cut rate Reagan and uses her last words to solidify the "just an actor" theme.

“Fred Thompson—well, he’s not Ronald Reagan,” said Mr. Keene. “But he’s done enough, and is well enough liked. He’s a fallback.”

The perfect role.

In the final analysis of her piece, Sinderbrand so out of hand rejects the legitimacy of a Thompson run for the White House that she has allowed the dismissal of him as a viable candidate to color her view making this piece just plain bad analysis.

But then again, Sinderbrand is just a journalist. And we all know how seriously to take them.