Liberal writer Garance Franke-Ruta sparks a discussion of Republican Fred Thompson's sex appeal:
Last Friday at a dinner party the conversation turned to Fred Thompson, and whether or not he is actually sexy. The guests were primarily political reporters, including one who'd just come back from following Thompson on the campaign trail, where, the reporter insisted, older women seemed to really dig the 65-year-old actor and former Senator.
Perhaps because she’s not an older woman in Iowa or New Hampshire, Ms. Franke-Ruta is not impressed:
At best, Thompson is what we women refer to as tall. (I'll give him that.) . . . I think there's got to be some kind of objective standards brought into play here. "Sexy for Iowa politics" or "sexy for a 65-year-old man" just are not the same thing as "sexy."
James Joyner offers some thoughts on the subject:
It seems to me that there are two theories along these lines, one plausible and the other not. The latter is the Dan Quayle Theory: that women will vote for a man simply because he's handsome (for a politician). That's rather silly, if not downright insulting. On the other hand, women may be more inclined to vote for men that make them feel safe. That is, they're looking to vote for an idealized version of a father figure rather than a dreamboat. The type, the "Man's man," is attractive to male voters, too, under the "Guy I'd Like to Have a Beer With" formula of presidential selection.
In this context, Thompson may indeed be, if not sexy, quite attractive. He's, as even Garance concedes, very tall. He's also got the deepest voice of any of the major contenders. And he manages to affect the "Regular Guy" persona that people seem comfortable with better than most.
The electoral appeal of the "Regular Guy" is frequently overlooked by political pundits, even if this factor arguably has determined the outcome of every presidential election of the past three decades.
Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 largely on his "Regular Guy" appeal, but then was trumped in 1980 by Ronald Reagan, perhaps the archetypical "Regular Guy." In 1988, Democrat Michael Dukakis was woefully lacking the "Regular Guy" factor, but in 1992, Bill Clinton had lots of it. George W. Bush rode his "Regular Guy" charms to election and re-election over a couple of stuffy Democrats, Al Gore and John Kerry.
For 2008, in the "Regular Guy" battle among Democrats, I'd give Barack Obama the edge over John Edwards (although Hillary Rodham Clinton deserves credit for tryin' hard). And, yes, among Republicans, Thompson does seem to have the best "Regular Guy" factor. If you want a sexy Republican, movie-star handsome Mitt Romney is the obvious choice. (Please, no angry comments from lovestruck Ron Paul supporters.)
People who take politics seriously are prone to bemoan the superficiality that has crept into the electoral process in the television age, ever since the telegenic John F. Kennedy won his TV debate with Richard Nixon in 1960. It probably can't be helped, although one can't help but feel pity for candidates who think they're waging a battle of ideas, only to discover they're just Bachelor No. 2 on "The Dating Game."
-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times
Comments (11)
Ron Paul in 2008. Substance over style for those who still care about their country. Thanks.
Posted by Judge | September 21, 2007 1:00 PM
Fred was and perhaps is still a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. This is an organization that clearly has internationalist corporatist leanings.
This fact for a growing number of voters in the Republican Party disqualifies a candidate for President of The United States.
CFR members do not take their marching orders from the Constitution, they lean more to international government and dissolving national sovereignty.
Ron Paul on the other hand does take his oath of office seriously and will truly defend the Constitution and protect our National Sovereignty.
Posted by libertyman | September 21, 2007 2:17 PM
After reading the above "Fishwrap" entry, I did an informal poll of the 23 women in my office (ethnicities: black, brown, white and red, ages: 24 to 49, education levels: A.Arts to M.Sci., Industry: Design engineering) as to whether or not Folksy Fred is sexy. The most common reaction was "ewwwwwww" followed by a smattering of responses along the lines of "you've got to be kidding." Sorry Fred, not a one found you in the least bit sexy, but not to be worried, "America's Adulterer" and "More-war John" fared even worse.
Posted by Lucita de la Luz | September 21, 2007 2:57 PM
This has to be one of the dumbest things for the media to focus on regarding politics, especially in these rough times. It's really sad that many Americans will vote for someone just because "they're tall and they have great hair".
Oh, and keep talking trash about Ron Paul and his supporters, it helps him even more. Gosh, I must be crazy for wanting an end to the war in Iraq and erosion of our liberties. I don't care if Ron Paul is handsome or not. Your days are numbered
Posted by Ian | September 21, 2007 3:23 PM
That naysaying crap about the Council on Foreign Relations is ridiculous. What good would a "think tank" be if everybody involved had the same values and beliefs. Fred Thompson's membership on that council certainly does not disqualify his candidacy except for the wackiest of politicos such as the Ron Paul supporters.
Posted by compugor | September 21, 2007 4:52 PM
To Compugor - You might do a little research on the CFR and its pervasive influence since the 1920's and its current roster of elites.
If you think the CFR is merely a "think tank" then you probably believe the Corleone family is in the olive oil business.
Since 1921, the CFR has steered the U.S. into the United Nations (and the Korean war), NATO, GATT, the WTO, NAFDA and, more recently, the North American Union (drafted by the CFR and on schedule for 2010).
As David Rockefeller writes in his Memoirs, the CFR's agenda is, and has always been a one world government and he is proud of it. You can read it for yourself. Rockefeller is on the board of the CFR and his father, John D. Rockefeller, was one of its founders. It is an insidious organization that seeks to undermine U.S. sovereignty. Thus far, it has succeeded.
Ron Paul is not the only non-CFR member; Kuchinich, Huckabee and Gravel are not members. It is likely they were not invited. But other top people are members: George Bush I,II, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, General Petraeus, Dick Cheney (who was also a CFR director), Chris Wallace, Anderson Cooper, George Stephanopolous and about 1,000 more elites.
I believe any candidate who is a member should be disqualified. How can a CFR member also defend the Constitution? Not possible.
Posted by zenpiper | September 21, 2007 6:25 PM
"If you want a sexy Republican, movie-star handsome Mitt Romney is the obvious choice. (Please, no angry comments from lovestruck Ron Paul supporters.)"
Very funny. The MittWit looks like Herman Munster crossed with a used-car salesman. About as smart, too.
Dead-in-the-Head-Fred is as about as regular as a Metamucil commerical.
Sure, Dr. Paul is no GQ model, but tell me, What does sex appeal have to do with the Presidency? (Fill in Bill Clinton jokes here).
What it comes down to is not telegenics or photogenics, but having the right answers and having leadership. Only Dr. Paul fits that bill.
"The Revolution will NOT be televised!" RP08
Posted by Tannim | September 22, 2007 1:05 AM
A regular guy isn't qualified to be president of anything.
In this day and especially in the mess we as a nation are in, an exceptional person is what's needed to take the helm.
We currently have an average guy driving the ship and I'm thinking we might want to set our goals a bit higher.
Posted by Stephen | September 22, 2007 6:31 PM
Please check the membership list of the CFR. Bill Clinton, George Bush, among many more recongnizable names appear as members. There are both Democrats and Republican. It does not disqualify Fred Thompson as far as I am concerned. Ron Paul and his supportors better start realizing that his isolationist beliefs will not work in this present world. They are living in fantacyland.
Posted by LINDA | September 24, 2007 12:23 PM
Is this what passes for political discussion nowadays? This is a discussion I wouldn't even have with a 4-year old. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
Posted by Thomas Wilkinson | September 24, 2007 10:33 PM
If this is what some women are voting on (looks alone instead of substance), then perhaps their voting rights should be repealed. Evil can always disguise itself as "cute."
Posted by ted | September 25, 2007 10:50 PM