One Ad Does Not A Debate Make

Color me skeptical that the purchase of a thirty-second ad spot during tomorrow’s GOP primary debate in New Hampshire is going to be the “shrewd move” that Ed thinks it’ll be.  The time for clever-but-evasive gimmickry as efficacious campaign strategy has passed.  Two months ago FDT would have overshadowed a GOP debate with this sort of thing (like he did with that video backhanding Michael Moore).  Now the likely reaction will be, “So what?  He wasn’t at the debate.  That’s all that matters.”

If the Thompson proto-campaign were a pro wrestling match, the protagonists would still be circling each other waiting to hook up five minutes after the bell, and the crowd would be chanting “BORING!  BORING!”  Enough, already. 

To borrow another analogy, let’s see more strip and less tease.  That’s why, as far as Fred is concerned, Thursday and thereafter will matter far more than his cameo tomorrow night.

UPDATE: Yes, I saw Ed’s follow-up post.  I heartily agree that these so-called “debates” are little more than the political equivalent of “reality TV”.  My dissent from the “shrewd move” argument has nothing to do with the debasement of political discourse by the moronification of popular culture, and everything to do with the galloping staleness of “Ready Freddie’s” distended coyness.

To employ still another aphorism, one can only take so much foreplay before consummation capability begins to wane.  Whether the latter includes the donning of a chicken head with antlers is irrelevant.

2 Responses to “One Ad Does Not A Debate Make”

You can subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post. You can also reply to this post directly in your weblog, and take advantage of the TrackBack URI to record your reply in this post.

  1. zong qua says:

    Well, make up your mind. In your previous blog you are complain about the primary election cycle beginning to early. Then in this blog entry, you complain about a candidate who waits to enter the campaign. Your just a lot of hot air.

  2. JASmius says:

    The two issues are not the same, zong. One can argue that the presidential nomination process is getting way too long and still criticize a candidate for waiting too long to get into it. To borrow a quote from legendary Seahawks coach Chuck Knox, “You have to play the hand you’re dealt.”

    That being said, if Fred Thompson was simply entering the race tomorrow with no elaborate, fan-dancing build-up, I think he’d have gotten a lot less heat than spending the last six months teasing it. That tactic worked for a while, but he dangled himself out there too long, and any advantage he would have gained from jumping in two months ago has largely dissipated since then.

    Why he’s getting criticized for it is because the whole gambit makes FDT look indecisive and vaccillating rather than bold and decisive. Since he has no executive experience as it is, that raises inevitable doubts in the minds of GOP primary voters that won’t arise for long time execs like Romney and Giuliani. It’s the same reason why governors have always done better in presidential politics than senators.

    Maybe Fred will get in and blow our doors off. His challenge now is that he pretty much has to after this six month buildup. If he doesn’t, he may as well have not bothered at all.

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>