On Chris Matthews Show, columnist Parker asserted Thompson "ahead of the game" because of high name recognition -- but many haven't heard of him
SUMMARY: Columnist Kathleen Parker asserted on The Chris Matthews Show that Fred Thompson "didn't have to come in early" to the presidential race because "[h]e already has that name recognition, so he's way ahead of the game. All these other people have had to spend millions of dollars to get their names known." But recent polling indicates that roughly a third of the American public have not heard of Thompson -- a figure higher than that of other leading presidential candidates.
On the September 9 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, while discussing actor and former Sen. Fred Thompson's (R-TN) September 5 announcement of his presidential candidacy, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker asserted that Thompson "didn't have to come in early. He already has that name recognition so he's way ahead of the game. All these other people have had to spend millions of dollars to get their names known." Host Chris Matthews responded: "Good point." But recent polling indicates that roughly a third of the American public have not heard of Thompson -- more than had not heard of the other leading presidential candidates from both major parties.
A Pew Center for the People & the Press poll conducted August 1-18 found that 35 percent of respondents had "never heard of" Thompson. By contrast, 2 percent of respondents reported that they never heard of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), 11 percent never heard of former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), 8 percent never heard of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), 12 percent never heard of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), 13 percent never heard of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), and 29 percent never heard of former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA).
A Gallup poll conducted August 13-16 found that 37 percent had "never heard of" Thompson, while 8 percent never heard of Edwards, 6 percent never heard of Giuliani, 9 percent never heard of McCain, 9 percent never heard of Obama, and 26 percent never heard of Romney. (Results for "never heard of" Clinton were not displayed, but responses for the other possible answers added up to 100 percent.)
A more recent August 23-25 Gallup survey asked respondents to rate candidates "where 0 is the coldest score, 100 is the warmest." Regarding Thompson, 31 percent of respondents reported the response: "Never heard of/No opinion." By contrast, 0 percent of respondents said they had "never heard of" or had "no opinion" about Clinton, 5 percent said this about Edwards, 4 percent said this about Giuliani, 6 percent said this about McCain, 5 percent said this about Obama, and 20 percent said this about Romney.
Parker cited Thompson's "name recognition" after Matthews noted that both Thompson and former president Ronald Reagan were "late entries" into the presidential race and were radio personalities at the time. As Media Matters for America documented, Thompson's commentaries for ABC Radio Networks repeatedly advanced conservative misinformation on a variety of issues.
From the September 9 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: But here's the other connection we stumbled on just this week. They were both late entries. A lot of people have questioned whether Thompson was smart to take his sweet time getting into this race, which let him hold onto his Paul Harvey radio gig, but look at NBC's Douglas Kiker covering another actor who was worried about getting in too early back in 1979.
[begin video clip]
REAGAN [video clip]: This is Ronald Reagan. I'm on the air each weekday with my commentary on domestic, political, and social issues and world affairs as well. Join me, won't you?
KIKER: There's a good reason why Reagan has not announced yet: It would cost him money. Big money. As an official candidate, Reagan would lose the income he receives from more than 500 radio stations which carry his daily commentaries, and the huge income he earns on the lecture circuit.
REAGAN [video clip]: Thank you.
REAGAN: Well, yeah, that's the difference between me and the other my particular activity and the activity of most of the other candidates that if I'm a candidate -- and it was true the last time -- then I have no earnings during that period.
KIKER: Reagan is also worried about peaking too soon.
REAGAN: I just don't think the people are ready yet to be revved up, and I think that the candidates are going to stay on too long. Pretty soon, what are they -- what's there going to be talked about in October of 1980?
[end video clip]
MATTHEWS: God, is he good. And, Kathleen, he's totally honest. He says, "I'm not going to give up the radio gig 'cause I like the money." What an honest answer.
PARKER: Well, he's a practical man. You know, and that's important --
MATTHEWS: These other guys come up with some reason: "Oh, I have commitments I have to meet under the law," you know.
PARKER: Well --
DAVID GREGORY (NBC News chief White House correspondent): Yeah, right.
PARKER: Well, of course, as far as Thompson goes, he didn't have to come in early. He already has that name recognition, so he's way ahead of the game. All these other people have had to spend millions of dollars to get their names known.
MATTHEWS: Good point. We're going to come back and talk about Romney.
Where'd they find a population sample that two percent never heard of Hillary? Romney not sitting too pretty either.
Parker started as a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, so she would write about state politics fairly often.
During the governor's race of 2002, Parker wrote a column about an interview she had with Janet Reno, who was running against Bill McBride in the Democratic primary to take on Jeb! [sic - if you lived in FL at the time, you'd get this joke] Bush.
The column was a muddled mess, like most of Parker's writing, but one point especially struck me - she complained that Reno was "boring," because she wanted to talk about policies like education and health care for kids. Parker said she couldn't keep her eyes open during the interview, because it was all about what Reno would actually DO as governor.
After reading the column, I knew that Parker had both the intellectual shallowness and the completely lack of curiosity about policy that would make her a great TV pundit. She is perfect for Matthews's dopey show: like so many of his guests (and the host himself) she has no idea what she's talking about, but that doesn't stop her from running off at the mouth.
She sounds like the poster child for the modern media.
The Oregonian prints her colums from time to time; and they are always a waste of tree pulp.
Regarding Fred Thompson...heard today that he told a reporter his campaign signature would be "social security reform." When asked how his policy would differ from Bush on that issue, he said he wasn't familiar with Bush's plan (!)
That's good news, actually. This issue is D.O.A. for most voters, and it's political suicide for the Repubs to even mention it. That third rail is still very much hooked up to the power plant, thank goodness.
- A more recent August 23-25 Gallup survey asked respondents to rate candidates "where 0 is the coldest score, 100 is the warmest." - mmfa
Brian Levy was careful to avoid stating the fact that while Hillary has high name recognition...it works against her. She leads the pack with 44% who are "totally cold" about her as a presidential candidate.
- But recent polling indicates that roughly a third of the American public have not heard of Thompson - mmfa
An Aug/2007 Pew poll found "About two-thirds of all voters who can rate them have favorable impressions of Thompson". It breaks down the favorable rating this way:
90% - Republicans
42% - Democrats
65% - Independents
Brian Levy throws out a red herring with this thread by citing all the national numbers for Thompsons name recognition. Right now the only one that counts is his standing among republicans...because he's currently not running for president...he's seeking the republican nomination to run for president.
Now on the other hand, Hillary is already nationally known and here are a few of the analysis of her by Pew researchers:
- Obama and John Edwards have higher overall favorability ratings than Clinton...Each of these candidates also has far greater political crossover appeal than does Clinton -
- Clinton also draws by far the lowest rating from voters from the opposing party of any of the candidates tested...But Clinton has greater appeal among Democratic voters than either Obama or Edwards -
- Sen. Hillary Clinton is by far the most popular presidential candidate among her own party's voters, but has among the lowest overall favorable ratings of the leading candidates -
- Overall, 55% of voters who offer an opinion of Clinton express a favorable view of her, while 45% have unfavorable opinion....While Clinton is less popular overall than other presidential contenders, she is more intensely popular with her own base -
Thompson has plenty of time to outline his positions and attempt to sway republican voters to send him into the fray for president. If he can't...it won't be from lack of name recognition...it will be because of his politics.
You can always count on Wesley to not really read the topic and then spout off stuff from a poll that is not even be related.
Parker said that Thompson didn't have to enter the race early because he's "ahead of the game" because of name recognition. MMFA points out that this isn't true because his name recognition is lower than that of the other candidates.
How is MMFA throwing out a "red herring" with this? Parker is not telling the truth here, she's simply giving undue praise to Thompson and MMFA called her on it.
It's like you grabbed the Pew poll they used to show that a large number of people don't know who he is, took random tidbits about Thompson, even more about Clinton for some reason, then posted them in this thread in an apparent attempt to "disprove" the article. Too bad you can't challenge that he's behind the game on name recognition, exactly as MMFA points out. Remember: they are pointing out Parker's lie, that's what the article is all about.
Here's some fun with numbers for you. If he has 2/3 approval from those that know him and only 69% do know him then that means only 46% of the people in the poll actually have a favorable rating of him, oops.
The red herring worked...Thompson's name recognition in "national polling" has little to do with his bid for the republican nomination.
Continuing the red herring...Levy cites Hillary's high name recognition...without showing that her high name recognition also elicits high negative responses.
Simple, thinly veiled political hackery...the republican presidential nominee...whoever that turns out to be...will have no problem with name recognition in the general election.
All in all...a pretty shallow piece of journalism...but what the heck...it's politics for the unthinking legions.
"Thompson has plenty of time to outline his positions and attempt to sway republican voters to send him into the fray for president. If he can't...it won't be from lack of name recognition...it will be because of his politics."
"Thompson's name recognition in "national polling" has little to do with his bid for the republican nomination."
They why aren't you pouncing on Parker for saying that IT DOES? Seems to me that the real beef should lie with her, since she's the one on national TV who's citing name recognition this early in the game. Her view is at odds with yours, but you'd rather play a game of petty semantics with Levy.
You're absolutely correct...Parker's statement is just as lame as Levy's response.
They both deserve a pounce.
Christ Matthews, and his guest as well, seems to have lost contact with reality. Not one of my Republican friends think that Thompson is a suitable candidate for the Republican party. Most think he is far too lazy, that he is totally out of touch, that his personal life (multiple wives and his treatment of them) is a problem for him, and that he is a johnny come lately who thinks he can slide into first place. I doubt that Thompson will even campaign vigorously he is so lazy. Also Thompson's personal life makes the other candidates seem particularly angelic. His marital history is not all that great for the morality/values crowd of Republicans. To read a history of his marriage break-ups is like listening to some soap opera. AND to top that off, his present YOUNG wife and her lack of chaste costumes have begun to irritate some Republicans like me who are a bit older.
That's more good news. But people go nuts when they see him, so he still scares me.
Mari2rose, I couldn't agree more. The thought of Thompson running and giving the Republicans their "Ronald Regan" moment has failed miserably. He carries so much excess baggage that's it's not funny. According to his first wife when initially filing for divorce sited "cruel and inhumane treatment" of course she took it back but this along with the "young wife (devil wears prada)" does not help. It's seem that Thompson cannot stay away from the ladies. Of course since it's women not men that Thompson "can't stay away from" that should make it easier for Republicans to dismiss this as "youthful indiscretions" however with the current candidate offerings, their definition of "family values" seems to again lacking in Republican candidates.
Thompson failed when revealing Watergate secrets based not on principal but party line. Republicans again fail to appoint a "leader" instead relying on the "best case scenario" an ageing actor.
And all the Republicans can seem to talk about is Hillary. Again, when you house is not made of glass, watch throwing stones, your house will surely fall.
I don't know. I'm still worried about him. I remember 1980. So does Alterman, apparently:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/eric_alterman/2007/06/worrying_about_fred_thompson.html
How about today's story that he helped out Libya post Pan-Am Lockerbie bombing? Or at least, helped out the lawyers that were representing the guys accused of carrying out the bombing. Why does Thompson hate America so much?
Magnolia, I don't think Thompson hates America - he just loves the image of himself as president. He wants another part to play, just as Reagan did when his B-movie career tanked and he could no longer score with fresh young Hollywood starlets. The two really are much alike. But perhaps America in 2008 will be different from America in 1980. The "hippie backlash" has played out, the disaster of Republican misrule makes Jimmy Carter's shortcomings pale in comparison, and the people are fed up, don't want more of the same and are in no mood to get fooled again.
The question I would ask is: "Why does Dick Cheney hate America so much?" He does, you know. For years he's been trying to destroy it.
District Attorney Arthur Branch?