Liasson noted Thompson's "pickup truck" but failed to mention it was a campaign prop
On the July 8 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, during a discussion of the 2008 presidential race, National Public Radio national correspondent Mara Liasson asserted that former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) "could definitely" run for president as a populist candidate. Liasson added that "that's how he ran before" and said he could wear "his plaid shirt and get into the pickup truck again" -- referring to the red truck he drove during his 1994 and 1996 Senate races. However, Liasson did not mention that Thompson's truck was nothing more than a campaign prop leased by his staff for the purpose of winning over Tennessee voters, as Media Matters for America has noted.
Indeed, a March 18 article in The (Nashville) Tennessean described Tom Ingram, who worked on Thompson's campaign, as "the political mastermind who had a hand in revamping Thompson's image by putting him behind the wheel of the truck." The Tennessean reported that "on Aug. 5, 1994" -- just three months prior to a special election for the Senate seat Al Gore had vacated following his election as vice president -- "Senate candidate Fred Thompson parked his black Lincoln Continental and started driving" the truck. The article further reported that the truck was leased by the campaign. While Thompson purchased the truck after the campaign, the Tennessean article quoted Thompson as saying, through a spokesman, that he doesn't drive it, and that it is "parked in my mother's driveway in Franklin, with expired U.S. Senate license plates on it, looking a little forlorn, but I have not had the heart to sell her."
Liasson's comment came after Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol asserted that, in a hypothetical 2008 presidential election match-up between Thompson and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), "Thompson will be the more populist candidate."
As Media Matters has documented, some media figures have cited the pickup truck while characterizing Thompson as an "anti-Washington populist." However, there is substantial evidence undermining that image of Thompson. For instance, prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, Thompson spent 18 years as a Washington lobbyist, during which he reportedly represented a company facing billions of dollars in asbestos claims. An article in the April 30 edition of New York Magazine reported that "[c]ritics point out that Thompson's aw-shucks, shit-kicker populism is more than a little bit phony" because "he spent eighteen years as a registered Washington lobbyist, doing the bidding of such high-powered clients as General Electric and Westinghouse, pushing for the passage of the deregulatory legislation that led to the savings-and-loan crisis of the eighties."
From the July 8 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
HUME: There's a poll from Rasmussen this week, Rasmussen Reports poll, which shows that the leading candidate among the Republicans is Fred -- and that ain't Tommy Thompson, folks, that's Fred Thompson -- and he, by some statistically insignificant margin, is now ahead of all the rest of the field. Bill, does that show strength or weakness in the Republican field? Some would say it shows weakness when the guy who hasn't declared is leading.
KRISTOL: I think it's a strong field, and, look, the Democrats will have more money, and they can be the party of the rich, the plutocrats, Hollywood, Beverly Hills.
[crosstalk]
Actually, Fred Thompson against Hillary Clinton, Fred Thompson will be the more populist candidate.
LIASSON: Oh he could, definitely. Look -- and that's how he -- that's how he ran before. Put on red -- his flannel shirt, or whatever it is, his plaid shirt and get into the pickup truck again.
Look, there's no doubt the Democrats are more energized and they're happier with their field. I mean, they are energized, optimistic, and happy with their choices. Republicans are just the opposite. They're demoralized and pessimistic about 2008. That doesn't mean they're going to lose.
you could perhaps forgive this as just failing to mention it, except for the fact she's buying into kristol's "more populist candidate" spin. the same garbage as 2000: good ol cowboy boot wearin, salt of the earth g. w. bush.
She's buying into it AND selling it back to us.
She might buy krystol's BS but she isn't going to sell it here. I'd put krystol and dumb-azz hume "in country" so fast it would make their heads hurt. Put them within 15 feet of an IED explosion and then I'd be ready to listen to those two losers. I think their "stay the course" line would change. F'em both.
I wonder how much more "milage" he could get if he drove his grandfathers model A. I trust thompson about as far as I can throw his truck. Next it wil be: does he pray in a knealing position or sitting up. The right does not even know what prayer really is.
Yes, Fred Thompson, humble type everyman. I guess that means Jerry Seinfeld really can be superman.
Than the red truck and shirt on the actorman
Boy, I screwed that up. Sorry good people. I'm stepping away from the computer now.
were you doing bong hits for MMFA?
jasper, you are such an unruly lad. Alas, you'll have to ask Jeter about the bong hits as he is the expert. But I will avoid writing limericks when I am sleepy and in primitive brain function. No smart remarks.
Will Liasson tell about Fred's actions for Nixon. He was a mole somewhere in the investigating/justice groups, who kept Nixon informed of things that he wasn't legally supposed to know about.
Sort of like the way AG keeps bush from falling on his sword everytime he breaks, stomps, ignors or mis-interprets the law? Let's not even begin with the 4th branch of the gov. VP DICK!
This article describes Thompson's role for the Nixon White House in Watergate. The best part? Nixon describing Thompson as "dumb as hell." :D
That's what I like about Hillary. She is much more genuine than Fred Thompson. Maybe she will make a commercial wearing an apron and baking cookies in the kitchen.
Leather, what is that suppose to mean? Does thompson like to wear aprons? I don't care for hillary's message, but she's in the race.
she already said she doesn't stay home and bake cookies. and really, you are living proof of the observation that you guys can turn anything about a republican into "yeah, but the clintons.....". broken record.
Why is MMFA only picking on Mara Liasson?
Juan Williams the Liberal was on this panel. He should have interrupted Liasson and demanded that she come clean and disclose that the red truck was merely a prop.
I think all politicians who have used props, be they bibles, shotguns, aircraft carriers, dogs, children, husbands that were President, etc should be outed as frauds immediately!
This use of props in politics is a travesty. MMFA has come to our rescue! The American people, stupid as they are, aren't able to discern for themselves when the wool is being pulled over their eyes.
This post was written between bong hits ;-)
Fox kind of presents Mara as a liberal as well -- her being from NPR is usually equated by most Fox viewers as equivalent to membership in the Comintern.
Neither Juan nor Mara are very good liberals IMO. They often just sit there and leave conservative misinformation unchallenged. I think Fox "liberals" are contractually obligated to be spayed or neutered prior to working for Fox by observing their docile behavior.
Open_Mind,
Don't be too hard on Juan. The guy does attempt to get his viewpoint heard while being tag teamed by Hume & Kristol. He often looks frustrated, can't say that I blame him. Mara adds very little to the discussions, usually walking a tightrope in order to appear fair & balanced & hoping I suppose, to escape the wrath of H & K. Wallace meanwhile cracks jokes implying that Juan is unfairly trying to monopolize the panel discussion.
I do agree that Fox seems to employ only the most "docile" of Liberals-- with the exception being Neal Gabler who appears weekly on Fox News Watch [Sat 6:30pm]
williams usually gets accused of hogging the airtime by chris wallace. i've heard it myself. and the point would be that here's another guy being touted as the populist pickup driving candidate, when it's a false image. just like there was a false image of bush painted in 2000 as homespun and competent, and gore a habitual liar. i don't really see why anyone should have a problem with this false image being pointed out.
This use of props in politics is a travesty. MMFA has come to our rescue! The American people, stupid as they are, aren't able to discern for themselves when the wool is being pulled over their eyes.
Not enough rescue apparently. We need ten MMFA's to do the job properly. How else do you explain that 41% of the people think there is a connection between Saddam and 911? And 25% think we found WMD's in Iraq?
I didn't fault Mara that much. She said he got into the truck. She didn't say he actually drove it in the campaign, as he successfully implied.
Middleleft,
If you ask folks to pick out Iraq on a map many can't do it. If you ask people to name their own Senators or Representatives, they've no clue. Should we blame that on the media?
Sometimes it's just pure ignorance or indifference that is to blame.
If there are people out there that still believe that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11, & that Iraq had WMD, it simply means they aren't doing enough reading or listening on their own. There are more than enough news outlets out there that could provide them with the truth.
I don't blame the media as much as I do individuals that show no inclination to seek out all the information that is available.
Why aren't we in the streets over what this administration is doing to our country? Why aren't we outraged at a congress that doesn't STOP this failed bush administration? We don't have to take this, protest!!
Come on Media matters, I'm cooling off here, put me in the game.
Um, wasn't it Lamar Alexander wore the red flannel shirt?
Meanwhile, its all image, image, image? If Thompson rents a truck, he's a populist? Whatever.
Yes it is very important for me to know what is a "prop" or not. Props could determine my vote in the next election. In the up coming election baked cookies, watermelons, bongs and bibles could be props. We must get to the bottom of this "prop" thing. I was told once in the Air Force "props" are a good thing, just don't walk into one of them. Therefore in this election ALL props must be identified.
they let you fly? and on top of it you vote too. you're the reason bush got elected.
WRONG! I voted for Kerry because a billionaire with a wife like his would have been much more fun to watch than Junior Bush. This administration is one of the most boring in history. I long for the days of the "scandal a week" Bill Clinton era. Bill was my hero that is why I will be voting for his wife....I want him back in the white house just to watch the fun and games.
Yeah because there have been no scandals from the Bush administation. Your capacity for self delusion is astonishing
This Bush administration could not pull off a good scandal if it tried, bunch of losers. I want blue dresses, cattle futures trades, fake billing records, travel office firings, Juanita Broderick story's, dead men found in parks, live women in the oval office. Come on man.
damn, you're boring.
He's right you are a boring ignorant worthless troll. Go back to your bridge you dont even try to further discussion.
Yeah, Tweak, you want tabloid stuff. Can you not understand the current messes?
Don't keep us in suspense...did you walk into one or not?
Even more concerning are the candidates who are "propped up" so they can be pawns for mega-corporation domination.
Mary, might I find a bottle of "Heinz" ketchup in your refrigerator? Oh...naughty, naughty.
Yeah, you're right. If Kerry got elected, he would be a puppet for his wife and the Heinz takeover of the whole world. Never mind that she has no position in the company. You're a genius.
How utterly pathetic. The Republican front runner isn't even running.
And what is up with that insipid line that Kristol uncorked about Dems being the party of Hollywood?
Yeh, what's up with that? I thought he was going to come out on the 4th of July?
Maybe he has to sandblast the pick up to make it look more worn and "regular guy-like."
Yeah, no doubt fancy Fred is catching up on TiVoed episodes of Queer Eye to see how Carson stresses those new denim jeans to make them look well worn. You know, so Fred can come across as more 'authentic.'
The polar bear carcass on the roof and the "I don't brake for Libruls" bumper sticker oughta help, too.
KRISTOL: I think it's a strong field, and, look, the Democrats will have more money, and they can be the party of the rich, the plutocrats, Hollywood, Beverly Hills.
Yes, the Democrats, the party of the rich. Oh Billy, the insight you have is worth many, many cents.Chirping about the truck AGAIN!? LOL
If I were you I wouldn't be taking any vacations to Tennessee anytime soon as you're telling those people they voted for a truck...Those folks have a sense of humor but, you could wind up with a broken jaw very easily.
As I told you before, that "prop" sits in his mothers driveway right now, today...don't you people understand anything at all??
AND Republicans are anything BUT demoralized or pessimistic...they are a-n-g-r-y. Something mental midgets couldn't predict I guess but, you folks keep it up as Darwin's Nominees can only postpone the inevitable.
winghunter, after reading your post, I'm starting to question whether I do understand anything at all. Broken jaws, Darwin, all pretty incomprehensible.
I guess the only part that didn't go completely over my head is that a prop becomes genuine if parked in the driveway of ones mother.
WTF???
Republicans are angry and desperate. As is evidenced by the willingness of Republicans, after decades of marginalizing the left as angry, to adopt anger as a virtue
The truck-prop is indeed a metaphor for Thompson: Not running and --if or when it does run-- will most likely sputter and stall.
Again, so cynical. Fred Thompson, a phony Hollywoodian, is now the best hope for the Repubs.
I would hate to see the news cycle on a Dem riding a fake truck. There would be interviews with the restorers, cataloging each rebuilt part (Hillary Uses a Retooled Carburator!) and vox populi on who do you believe more, Hillary or her truck.
If there is to be "reporting," wouldn't it be fun to have a field day with a fake truck driving, Hollywood living, trophy wife having dude? That's type of guy doesn't sound too "grown up," as pundits like to characterise the Repubs.
They're last "Hollywoodian" turned out pretty good...I'm not a republican or that big on Thompson (or any candidates from either party) but he's better than anything the dems have to offer at this point, and isn't a "trophy wife" better than a girl on the side? Or in Clinton's case girls? From a party whose two leading candidates who's policies are both esentialy socialism light I think he'd be a better option than any dem on the ticket.
Much like CT-born, Yale-grad Bush's Crawford "ranch", big belt buckle and cowboy hat, "props" like a rented truck or a trophy arm-candy wife don't bother right-wingers. They get-off, and are fixated-on, the surface stuff. Like haircuts, for instance.
Yes, all us right-wingers love "W" and voted for him....well, except me. My point is that just because Thompson is an actor doesn't mean he'd be a bad president (see: Reagan, Ronald) and that most (if not all)politicians pander to different groups so pointing out that Thompson's driving a pickup might be pandering is like pointing out that the sky is blue.
I didn't say that politicians don't pander. I said right-wingers get-off on props and superficialities. There's a difference.
Try to keep up.
"Props" are part of pandering moron. They're used to more closely identify one to their voters.
Again, Einstein, I said right-wingers fixate on props and superficialities. I can't make it any plainer that for you, sorry.
And I pointed out that the use of props is just another form of pandering which both parties use. And apparently, props work, you do remember 2000 and 2004 right? And please tell me you don't think Dems don't use props
http://www.needlenose.com/images/Kerry_Gun.jpg
http://www.masslive.com/images/weblogs/election/kerry-sox03.jpg
http://www.bangitout.com/uploads/73clinton_yarmulke.jpg
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/crowley-pelosi-533.jpg
Children as props....classy.
http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/Family/images/raw/bill-sax.gif
http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/Family/images/horse.gif
So as you can see, dems also use props. Now, to those of us who understand the concept of using props in attamept to relate to your base or just seem similar to more people you probably don't care. However if you like to generalize one group the way you do cons and hold them to a differnent standard then I'm sure you'll still have a problem with Thompson's using a truck to try to seem more middle class.
OMG! A politician allegedly pandering for a vote! I for one, am shocked.
Signed, Hillary's southern accent and "plantation line"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-JWN6LZHjM
Your post makes no sense in the context of this thread. Pundits aren't advancing Hillary's narrative, whatever it is. They are advancing FT by using his stupid prop truck ,as if buying an old pickup truck that you don't really drive except the last mile to your engagement says anything, except to the easily fooled.
WOW! So, you're not the brightest bulb in the box are ya'. My point is, and see if you can stay with me here, is that pandering to their voting base is part of the job description for politicians. Pretty much everyone does it. I'm not saying Thompson doesn't, in fact I'm sure he does but it's common practice. By posting some examples of of the "great hope" of the dems in 2008 I'm simply pointing out that libs pander just like cons, and I'm making fun of hillary a little which is always fun.
Julia's point was that the media -in this case, Liasson- is helping to advance Thompson's pandering by not telling the audience the truck is really a rented campaign prop.
When you can't even see what's in front of you, you're not qualified to judge anyone else's brightness.
"My point is, and see if you can stay with me here, is that pandering to their voting base is part of the job description for politicians." --ss
So the question is why are these supposed journalists wholeheartedly taking part in spreading that obvious pandering in the case of FT, but almost universally deriding it in the case of HRC?
As far as I can see no one actually spoke negatively about Clinton, they simply pointed out that Thompson is viewed as more populist.
You must have slept through it then.
A little late to the party. This particular bit of wingnut-spun, Hillary-bashing had the wingnuts in an orgasmic state weeks ago. It was your basic Hannity & Co.-driven spin cycle, filled with the predictable right-wing deceptions and lies.
OK, so Hillary wasn't pandering because someone pointed it out earlier? Or does it only count when cons play to the audience? My only point is that it's not a big deal because it's politics. I just think it's funny that someone will dismiss hillary's pandering as pundit "spin" but somehow thinks Thompson is being completely dishonest. At the very least you should hold them to the same standard. For example, I could care less whather hillary plays to the crowd or whether thompson tries to identify himself more with his base. It's simply one tactic of politicians.
Of course these props are nothing new. Every candidate wants to be folksy, just one of the people. In the early 1800s, the candidates all wanted to have been born in log cabins, a sign of humble beginnings. It's silly, really, but it does fool some of the people some of the time.
Thank you! Pandering in politics is nothing new and not isolated to any one party. It's good to see that someone else sees that this is a non-issue
It would be a non-issue, if the media was consistent in their treatment of... ah, never mind, I don't think one more explanation is going to penetrate.
Yeah, HBl. This guy didn't get the point the 1st thru 7th time, so he's not gonna get it no matter how many people try to elucidate things for him.
I don't see it as a non-issue. It's a smokescreen for some politicians in order to fool the people into believing they are voting for someone else. Bush and his faux ranch spring to mind.
Thompson, having been a lobbyist most of his adult life, now wants to drive around in a pickup like a bubba. The problem is the policies that Bush (and Thompson) adhere to, which is corporate elitism at the expense of all those bubbas out there. It's tragic, really.
A poster by the moniker, Shaw
Couldn't understand our collective guffaw
When the press advances narratives
For only one party's imperative
They're not doing their jobs at all
And when we hear the same ridicule in the same volume and for the same amount of time in the MSM for the Thompson fake pickup and big-time Washington lobbying and Bush's Prairie Chicken "Ranch" (and the rest of the long-as-your-arm list of examples of Republican phoniness) as we have heard about Edwards' haircut and mansion, Hillary's accent , Al Gore's power bill, Kerry's gun, Dukakis in a tank, etc., THEN we'll quit squawking about it. Then it will be the media doing its job, sort of, by pointing out equal amounts of pandering. Now, if it could only be taught to pay more attention to more important matters than the routine politicking and pandering that all candidates do, then maybe it would have learned to truly do its real job and leave that other stuff to the snarky political gossip columns and the tabloids. Remember, this is MEDIA Matters, not a critique of politics in general, but how the media covers it. To say that Thompson's faux populism is given a pass in the media is not to say that Democrats don't pander or that Thompson is the only panderer. I fail to see why that's so hard to grasp.
I think this criticism might be a little over the top (not that Liasson doesn't deserve a lot of criticism!), but her statement "Put on red -- his flannel shirt, or whatever it is, his plaid shirt and get into the pickup truck again" does seem to imply that that whole populist thing about Fred Thompson is indeed a put on.
Eh, I could go either way on this one, but maybe MMs efforts would be better spent on more important statements.
Recently, the liberal media has not even attempted to hide their overt bias.
Just take a look at these two headlines recently. Keep in mind that these are not editorials: “Will her Face Determine His Future?” (Discussing that Thompson's wife is pretty and therefore assuming she is a trophy wife).
And my all-time favorite, “Thompson lacks substance, But still wows Young Republicans” By Brendan Farrington.
The fact that MMFA only discusses conservative bias makes MMFA itself lose all clout when analyzing bias.
Good lord, man, this is a partisan site. MMfA does not claim to be anything but a partisan organization dedicated to exposing conservative misinformation. And on that note, is your blog devoid of clout because you are a partisan attack dog?