The reaction to that Saturday night speech by Fred Thompson is intriguing. It sounds like there was some “buzz around the office” that Thompson and his associates were thinking of announcing something that evening, but that idea was ultimately rejected.

Jonathan Martin writes that Thompson’s address was a “a sober-verging-on-somber talk,” and summarizes:

There are three major challenges, Thompson said, and none are being given appropriate attention or sufficient commitment. National security (“our country’s in danger; it’s going to be that way for a long time to come”), the economy (“we are doing steady damage to our economy, that if we don’t do things better it’s going to result in economic disaster for future generations”) and the polarization, cynicism and incompetence gripping the capital (“in order to have leadership you got to have somebody who’s going to follow; our people follow, but they don’t have any confidence in what’s being said or who’s saying it”).

But is this “sober and serious” tone really anything new? Let’s check out Thompson’s first major speech of his not-quite-campaign, in Orange County, California. On the national mood, he said:

Because Americans are expressing a lot of concern these days about the direction their country is going, there is some concern that maybe we’re slipping away like all the great powers have. We’re hearing a bit of that old malaise talk we used to hear all about. Part of it is Iraq, certainly. Part of it is the economy, believe it or not. The wonderful economy and economic news you continue to hear, the greatest story never told as some people call it, yet people are talking about the threats of globalization and the disparity of income. And my friends I really believe that some people’s proposals as to how we should react to these things are much more dangerous than the problems that are perceived in and of themselves.

Back then, Thompson was making similar comments about national security:

We have inherited a world that is watching the attempted marriage between radical Islamic fundamentalism and nuclear technology. We live in a world where 40 countries have fissile materials sufficient to make a nuclear weapon, and the bad guys are trying their best to get their hands on it. And we live in a country with porous borders and porous ports, and it doesn’t take a genius to put all that together and see the problem that we’ve got in this country. And I think people are going to demand that we address that first. I don’t think the 12 million illegal aliens that are here are as much a concern as the next 12 million and the next 12 million on infinitum.

Also:

George Tenet just came out with a book, and a lot of people are of course concentrating on the who shot John and who did what to whom, and they’re probably right, I haven’t read it, it’s probably just another attempt to answer critics and place blame on somebody else, but I did see this. It’s something we need to pay attention to, he’s been there. It says there’s no question on my mind that Al Qaeda is already here, they’re intent, patient, and intend to put a mushroom cloud over an American city no matter how long it takes. That’s the kind of world we’re going to wake up to after Iraq is way in our rear view mirror.

Thompson had discussed the issue of entitlement reform, which David Broder wrote extensively about a few weeks back, and I, too, had thought was an unveiling of a new theme:

But we’re not producing enough young people in the workforce to pay for the retirement plans that we have in this country, to pay for our Social Security and Medicare obligations. It’s simply a matter of demographics. And if we continue on the present pace before too long, it will sap all the revenues of the government, and our government will be nothing more than a transfer agent, transferring wealth from one generation to the next. And the taxes necessary to fill that gap are going to be so backbreaking and astronomical that young people trying to start out, buy that first home and pay their mortgage, that it will absolutely ruin our economy.

And on the theme of cynicism, division, lack of confidence in leadership, etc:

Now, most of the folks in Washington, all of the folks know about it, it’s not a matter of lack of expertise, lack of knowledge, it’s a matter of lack of will. And for the professional politician there is nothing more dangerous than uncertainty and possibly doing something that somebody doesn’t like. And it never occurred to any of them to explain to people the necessity to do something for the country might work. They operate on the basis that this generation is too greedy to do anything for the next generation, and the next generation after that. I think that’s the exact opposite of the truth. I think if a credible case is made to the American people that mom and dad and grandmom and granddad will be more than happy to make the adjustments necessary to protect their kids and their grandkids in the next generation, if they’re just given a chance.

Over at the Spectator, Jen Rubin writes, “Once a candidate, [Thompson] will be directly facing others who have both diagnosed and offered solutions to what ills the country. The latter is generally what wins over voters — a vision of how to make things better. That is what turns a “downer”(one audience member quoted by Martin) speech into a message of optimism and determination.” While it’s still early for specifics on Thompson’s part, I note that in that Orange County speech, he addressed whether the problems facing the country should seem “depressing”, and suggested the only real solution is to build a public mandate that both parties are afraid to ignore:

The problems we have should not depress us, they are in our control. Obviously when you’ve got close numbers you’re going to need a certain amount of bipartisanship to get things done. You need that anyway. It is sorely lacking. We do have some good people who are willing to do that, not enough, but willing to do that. But we need to understand the basis for bipartisanship. It doesn’t come with additional photo-ops or additional nice statements that always happen with a new Congress and a new President before they can get in mutual corners and pull out the knives, it happens with the American people. That’s the only thing that will derive the political leaders in Congress to do the right thing, because they’ll be afraid not to because the people will be on the other side.
I am hopeful that after this next election, the good people, the people who are reform-minded and change-minded in the good way, and the next President of the United States can go to the American people and just say this, in effect: We’ve got a new situation on our hands now, and we’re living in a new era. We’re going to be tested in many ways, may even be under attack, maybe for a long time. But it’s time to be honest with ourselves, we need to do some things better, and we need to do some things differently. Here’s what we need to do, and here’s why we need to do it. Now that you’ve been called upon, and you understand I know that you’ll respond for the sake of your nation and the next generation, because you always have. And when we get the response that I think we’ll get from the American people from that it’ll shake the capital and you’ll have your bipartisanship.

In the past couple weeks, as Thompson has focused almost exclusively on fundraising, low-profile radio interviews, and appearances at Sean Hannity’s concerts, the conventional wisdom on him curdled after a couple months of good buzz. He went from the next Reagan to a lazy lightweight who wasn’t that interested in the job or the work needed to win it, with, rumor had it, a pushy wife and ever-changing not-quite-campaign staff.

The speeches suggest that large chunks of the negative buzz are overhyped. A lazy or unambitious man doesn’t spend a lot of time talking about entitlement reform. We’re seeing a theme emerge: “Get Serious.” Fred Thompson’s the guy who isn’t going to waste anybody’s time blowing sunshine up your… well, you know where. He sees big threats on the horizon, and he’s sounding the alarm, like Paul Revere. No vague and soothing “audacity of hope.” Nevermind complaining about “two Americas,” Thompson wants to make sure no nuclear bomb goes off in either one of ‘em. For all his background as a lobbyist and inside-the-beltway lawyer, Thompson seems likely to denounce business as usual – he doesn’t seem above using a barnyard epithet to respond to Don Young declaring in a pork right, “it’s my money! It’s my money!”

I wouldn’t have recommended the Thompson not-quite-campaign being as quiet as he has been for the past month or two. But his critics and rivals shouldn’t fool themselves – the ingredients are there for a very competitive bid for the nomination.