Is Fred Thompson too LAZY to get nominated?

[NYCGirl]

http://www.slate.com/id/2167411/nav/tap1/

From John Dickerson:

Thompson's outsider strategy also gives his opponents an opportunity. One of the biggest (and longstanding) knocks against the former senator is that he doesn't have the heart for the race or the job. In short: He's lazy. A campaign that relies on pithy lines and the Internet feeds the lounge-chair image. It looks like he's trying to elevate laziness into a virtue. Several of Thompson's rivals, who know him from his time in Washington, elaborate on that theme. He wasn't known for his hard work in the Senate. Exhibit A, they say, was the 1997 campaign-finance hearings he chaired, which he started with a bang by promising grand disclosures but ended in a fizzle without uncovering much.

Fair or not, the laziness rap against Thompson is like the rap that former presidential hopeful Sen. George Allen isn't a genius. Or that John McCain is a hothead. It's an unresolved issue waiting for its moment to become a crisis for the campaign. Thompson's spokesman, Mark Corallo, brushes off critics with a line Ronald Reagan used when belittling what he considered his opponent's hysterical distortions: "There they go again."

The laziness charge can be deadly because however much voters like the notion of no-sweat solutions, they also want to be sure that their president is up at night worrying about terrorist attacks so they don't have to. They also like to know they're getting their money's worth from their public officials. After the early-to-bed Bush administration, this may be truer than ever.

The other problem with being a lazy candidate is that laziness makes you think you can wing it. This may explain Thompson's much-discussed (by Republicans anyway) lackluster performance at the California Lincoln Club in May. He tore up his speech and just ad-libbed. The lack of direction showed, at least as far as influential conservative columnist Robert Novak was concerned. Because Thompson's candidacy benefits so much from his performance abilities, like Barack Obama on the Democratic side, he pays a bigger price than other candidates if he doesn't consistently excite party activists each time he gets on stage.

ENTIRE ARTICLE AT LINK

[Tejanocrat]

1. Yes, but he will cost Rudy McRomney a few extra bucks in the primary so I'm cool with Fred

[bunkerbuster1]

2. Yeah, we'd never elect a lazy bum who'd take three-hour lunches

and basically did fuck-all in his last elected position, right?

[Warpy]

3. It's Reagan, all over again

because nobody ever accused Reagan of industriousness.

Laziness has nothing to do with it. One thing we know about the GOP is that the bar is set very low. As long as he doesn't take his tongue out and stomp on it during the debates, he'll be seen as being capable of playing Reagan for four years.

Remember, Stupid got votes because he promised to duplicate Reagan: reckless tax cuts and a "hands off" administrative policy, meaning he'd be the figurehead and his cabinet and staff would do all the work. Thompson is being packaged as a duplicate.

I fully expect him to get the nod. The GOP loves symbol and surface charm and yawns at policy.

[unpossibles]

4. probably not. He is a crook

but that won't matter.

[shain from kane]

5. Probably spends a lot of time in the bed with the wife. Some people call it lazy; I call it getting

it done.

[NYCGirl]

6. His laziness was documented BEFORE this particular wife. NT

[predfan]

7. The country can't afford lazy.........

we've had 6 1/2 years of it, i.e. being a figurehead and let someone else make decisions and look where it's gotten us. We've got to have a thinker and doer next time, for our grandchildren's sake.

[BootinUp]

8. For the repukes to decide...

personal opinion, their standards are pretty low.

[AndyTiedye]

9. He's as Lazy As…

[Blueberry_raspberry]

11. My thought exactly. Bush is lazy. Look what lazy gets you. nt

[PATRICK]

10. Basic impossibilities

Can't get anywhere without the permission of big donors/kingmakers AND the Bush administration. Permission takes many forms but edssentially one might assume there is no such thing as running seriously for the GOP nomination without an invitation, Ron Paul more proof than exception.

With Romney still a disappontment despite having the smooth move support of the Bush clan via Jeb, an alternative who promises to be a an aging figurehead(and idiotic Libby loyalist) is a possibility. I doubt they will lift a finger to help Thompson until it comes time to spin their web around him and insert neocons and holdovers into his cabinet. Knowing some of the Bush people plans for succession in case of his timely demise in office would figure very large were they have to settle on him.

The only problem is, that same lack of energy or real star quality would schlub up his bloom as a better candidate than the schmucks currently tanking themselves. This also opens up, whether boom or bust for Thompson, the way for a real conservative revolt by Gingrich which definitely would not have a chance because of his outs with the dynasty more than ideological disagreements. It all spells big trouble both for the GOP and Bushistas if the mere fumbling about among discredited boobs spoils the slick process already in place to anoint the appearance of something knew and the reality of a figurehead crony.

I assume they stayed away from Thompson in the first place because his dull disengagement works both ways. In the state of absolute power they will not leave room for accident, choice or novelty or democracy. If Thompson can be bent into another secret Bush protege as the waters are tested they might carefully allow a real primary "contest". Otherwise they need not do too much to tank him since any big money or other support he gets is subject to enormous pressure from the current power establishment. Those wanting a free alternative to Bush(which the GOP simply cannot face up to at all) won't find much dynamism and those following Bush wishes will desert him on command.

In my book it still is Romney with a prominent neocon as Veep and that person or some other Cabinet eminence will run the country further into its deepening grave. One of many many open secrets thanks to the blinkered media is that Romney is the "Bush" candidate, the one most likely to be an empty suit stooge even if McCain or Ghoulie are sincere about bending over backwards to please the Royals. That glaringly obvious issue is as little discussed as anything involving Bush in a declarative sentence during the GOP debates. The GOP primary voters can be a slight nuisance especially in crossover party states, but ironically fewer will be willing to crossover except to make Ron Paul a thorny embarassment to the coronation team.

Whenever one gets critical of the Dems or weighs potential candidatesone must see how the differences are so extreme. The press treats the GOP as offering some sort of choice and competition borrowing from the realities of the Democratic Party(which it disparages as calculating and influenced) and its primary process(imperfect as it is). Nothing could be further from the truth, but being that far from the truth is the position of US corporate media today.

[mitchum]

12. FRED THOMPSON is not just lazy; he's DYING

[Thrill]

13. Considering who the GOP is running

Yes Fred will be the nominee