David Corn

The Fred shall rise again?

Well, he tried. At the GOP presidential debate in South Carolina, Fred Thompson, the lackadaisical former senator, finally got off the couch. His past debate performances-- like much of his campaign--have been a series of nothing burgers. He's acted the curmudgeon, grumbling about this or that and making a not very good fifth (sixth, seventh, eighth....) impression. But last night, when the opportunity arrived, he pounced--and lit into Mike Huckabee. Reading from notes--or a script--Thompson called the former Arkansas governor a "Christian leader" but (gasp!) a liberal when it comes to economic policies, foreign policy, and immigration policy. In one of the few instances of Thompson displaying any passion, he was bashing Huckabee, who deflected the blast with an aw-shucks response. It was as if some campaign aide had finally attached electrodes to his backside so Thompson, for at least 90 seconds, could show some pep. (I could imagine the cheers at Thompson HQ: "He's alive, he's alive!")

South Carolina is truly Thompson's last stand. But he's up against his old Senate pal John McCain, who's resurgent, and Huckabee, who plays well to the social conservatives of the Palmetto State. South Carolina was McCain's Waterloo in 2000, but as a national-security-first Republican maybe this time around he can win over the Republicans who did not fancy him as a maverick eight years ago. And Huckabee can grab those religious rightwingers who still recall that McCain dissed Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the religious right during the 2000 campaign. That does not leave much space for Thompson, a son of the South.

Thompson's flopping performance (so far) has been one of the surprises of the 2008 campaign. Remember the conventional wisdom that he got into the race too late? Well, maybe he entered the contest too early. He was much better as an almost-candidate than as an actual candidate. The consensus explanation for his lack of success (so far) is that he's been a lazy and lousy candidate who has not shown any flash or zeal. That's certainly true. But I have another theory.

Thompson has spent more of his years as a Hollywood actor than as a politician. And as an actor, he's been quite lucky. People keep developing roles that suit him, but each one is essentially the same role. We need a gruff White House chief of staff. Let's get Thompson. We need a gruff district attorney. Let's get Thompson. We need a gruff president. Let's get Thompson. We need a gruff admiral. Let's get Thompson. We need a gruff CIA director. Let's get Thompson. We need a gruff senator. Let's get Thompson. Or in the case of his first movie, Marie, we need Thompson. Let's get Thompson.

Fred Thompson has not had to stretch his acting chops much. He has basically had to hit his mark, read his lines, and be himself. He's done that well, and he's made millions of dollars. But he never developed range or flexibility as an actor. He could do gruff--and perhaps laconic--but not a lot more.

So there he was early last year, pursuing his acting career, when people started telling him they had another part for him: presidential candidate. He jumped into the race believing that, once more, he could play himself and wow the crowds. But this script demanded more of Thompson. He might have (for some) looked the part--though it does seem he's aged six years in six months--but he did not possess the skills needed to connect with the audience, I mean voters, who were expecting more than a gruff former prosecutor/admiral/CIA director/chief of staff. He's been mailing in his performance and receiving the predictable reviews. The debate last night was not quite a career-reviving moment, even if it did show Thompson had a dollop of spunk left in him.

In recent weeks, my one-liner take on Thompson has been this: if you want your cranky uncle to be president, Thompson is your candidate. Last night didn't change that review. Thompson still has to prove to Republican voters there's more to Fred Thompson than just Fred Thompson.