Posted on 01/27/2008 12:52:25 PM PST by County Agent Hank Kimball
The charge against Thompson, who entered the campaign last September when polls showed him a favorite among Republican voters, was repeated so often it became a cliché. Like most clichés it tells us more about the people who used it than about the state of affairs it was supposed to describe. His campaign lacked "energy." He didn't get out enough on the campaign trail, and, when he did, he didn't hold enough events. His speaking style was too low-key, and his speeches were too long, and more often than not his "performance" in televised debates was lackluster. He just didn't have the fire in the belly.
Fire in the belly: For those of us who suffer from acid reflux, this is a phrase full of meaning. In the world of politics, however, the meaning is vaguer. William Safire's New Political Dictionary defines "fire in the belly" as "an unquenchable thirst for power or glory; the burning drive to win a race or achieve a goal." It's bad, apparently, not having fire in the belly. The premise seems to be that vein-popping ambition, unrestrained avidity, is a necessary if not sufficient quality for someone who wants to hold the highest political position in a democratic country. Thompson himself seemed puzzled by the phrase and the premise underlying it. He was asked about it at a town hall meeting in Burlington, Iowa, in late December.
"Nowadays, it's all about fire in the belly," he said, with a touch of sarcasm. "I'm not sure in the world we live in today it's a terribly good thing that a president has too much fire in his belly."
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Agreed.
There seems to be no room for statesmen anymore.
Only room for pandering power hungry media pimps
The time isn’t right for a statesman. Things haven’t gotten bad enough. This is the time for a Neville Chamberlin.
When the time is right, a statesman will appear.
Too much fire in the belly is what gets the world in the dilemma it now finds itself.
In 2000, had the verdict gone against George W. Bush, he would have expressed regret, and walked away from the contest. Alas, that option is apparently no longer available to any of the candidates. Either you get in it to win it, by whatever means that succeed, regardless of consequences, or you are mercilessly flung to the side. By Al Gore’s persistence in trying for the big prize, even as it slipped from his grasp, the way was staged for becoming ever more avaricious in the pursuit. Coveting became an end in itself, not the execution of the office.
Unfortunately the skill set that makes one pursue the goal with such monomaniacal determination, is not the same as the skill set needed to govern wisely and well.
Fred would have governed well, had be been given the opportunity. We shall now never know.
Now more true than ever: Nice guys finish last. If they are even allowed to stay in the race.
Imperial Rome had a more level playing field in its selection of a Caesar.
It is nearly impossible for any candidate to generate interest under such circumstances.
The sermon today was from John 11 - the raising of Lazarus - and the emphasis was on the fact that Christ tarried two days after receiving the message that his friend was sick.The point of the sermon was that we are bombarded by the "critical" and tempted by it to be distracted from the important. And that is the same sermon that Fred Thompson preached in his behavior during this campaign.
I agree that we are only too likely to look back in rue on the fact that Senator Thompson's normality was too good for the process which selected our candidate.
But then, the candidates allow journalists to set the terms of that process. And journalism is dedicated to the task of telling you something - anything, be it never so irrelevant or superficial - which you don't yet know.
The Market for Conservative-Based News
Dear Fred,
You are sorely missed.
I hope that a Republican wins in November and nominates you for the first Supreme Court vacancy.
Fred’s “lack of energy” was always one of his most appealing characteristics (to me, anyway). The most “activist” presidents in history have produced the most disastrous outcomes, most corrosive of the constitutional constraints on the leviathan national state.
For example, “Don’t just do something, stand there!” would be better advice than the current ludicrous “economic booster shot” package that will no doubt be rushed through in the next few weeks.
For example, the lack of formal declarations of war for any US conflict since WWII. Korea was a bad precedent which has become a worse habit.
Clearly the voting public in the Republican primary disagrees, and of course the Democrats are hopelessly activist by ideological nature. Sceptics can only fall back on H.L. Mencken’s defintion: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard,” and patiently wait for them to get tired of what comes at them “good and hard” as a result of their choices.
Thanks for the ping c_I_c. Great post! Thanks for posting this outstanding article by Andrew Ferguson, Agent Hank.
Seconding PGalt’s comment...excellent post. Thanks CiC.
Hank
BTTT
In more modern post-Jacksonian times, campaigning IS a talent and a job. John Kennedy blanketed Wisconsin, a primary state he didn't even need, just to CRUSH the opposition: he sent out members of his family to every little town.
And people DO expect more from a candidate than Fred gave. When you to to a "meet and greet," people want to get their "two cents" in. They feel slighted when someone leaves a fundraiser after 20 minutes, as well they should. It tells me, "If you won't listen to me as a candidate, why should you listen to me as my president?"
What the article DIDN'T explain was that Fred never, ever had a decent organization and that was his fault too. In November, he had about 15 people in his "must win" state of SC. That won't get it done: Kennedy had more people just in his FAMILY in Wisconsin, for, again, a nuthin' state. This tells us about the candidate: if he won't get organized for a campaign, how could he possibly organize for war, or for a long, drawn-out confrontation with the Soviets as Ike or Reagan did?
In more modern post-Jacksonian times, campaigning IS a talent and a job. John Kennedy blanketed Wisconsin, a primary state he didn't even need, just to CRUSH the opposition: he sent out members of his family to every little town.
And people DO expect more from a candidate than Fred gave. When you to to a "meet and greet," people want to get their "two cents" in. They feel slighted when someone leaves a fundraiser after 20 minutes, as well they should. It tells me, "If you won't listen to me as a candidate, why should you listen to me as my president?"
What the article DIDN'T explain was that Fred never, ever had a decent organization and that was his fault too. In November, he had about 15 people in his "must win" state of SC. That won't get it done: Kennedy had more people just in his FAMILY in Wisconsin, for, again, a nuthin' state. This tells us about the candidate: if he won't get organized for a campaign, how could he possibly organize for war, or for a long, drawn-out confrontation with the Soviets as Ike or Reagan did?
By the way, cIc, one way you CONTROL the media is by "making" news constantly. Look at how Rudy held the news cycle for about a week with his NY Times anti-"General Betray Us" ad. Nothing stopped Fred from doing that. Look at how Mitt controlled the cycle for a week with his religion speech. These don't just happen: they are planned and/or quick decisions made by an aggressive staff---which, again, Fred didn't have because HE WAITED TOO LONG.
I think you're right.But that only raises the question as to whether the need for the qualities of a political campaigner in a POTUS is good for the country . . . and what conceivable reforms could pass constitutional muster which would change our campaigns back to more dignified affairs. Probably, abolition of primaries - which are actually within the purview of the parties themselves.
Just try selling a return to the “smoke filled rooms” to the electorate. Don’t think that has a hope in hell. At least with primaries, people feel like they have a voice.
At least with primaries, people feel like they have a voice.
Yes, I know - but do they really? I don't get a say in the Iowa caucus and I don't get a say in the New Hampshire primary or the South Carolina primary. And those traditionally (the last, anyway) are pretty nearly dispositive of the nomination.New Hampshire and Iowa have worked to promote rulings in the Democratic and the Republican parties punishing other states which have early primaries - and MI and FL have moved their primaries earlier than those rules allow. It all illustrates the fact that the people in the various states arbitrarily have different voices in the nomination process.
Besides, there is no principled way of conducting an election among more than two candidates. How do you know that the candidate who places first is acceptable to more people than the candidate who places second - or even third - is? It is a mess. I didn't say I knew of a magic solution, but IMHO the matter merits serious study.
I feel like I have a voice. If the other guys drop out before I vote, then my view is that they didn't have the stamina, gumption, money, or whatever and I wouldn't want one of them as the candidate in the general in that case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.