When Instapundit is right, he’s right:
[Fred] Thompson is running the kind of campaign — substantive, policy-laden, not based on gimmicks or sound-bites — that pundits and journalists say they want, but he’s getting no credit for it from the people who claim that’s what they want.
Thompson is a guy who has laid out detailed positions on all sorts of issues. He never gets dinged for misrepresenting facts in debates. And I like the fact that he’s not consumed by ambition. That’s exactly the sort of person we should want as president.
But our moronic news media, which pretends to disdain overambitious candidates and to care about policies — doesn’t really care about substance. For them, it’s all about the horse race, the gimmicks, and the pizzazz. Big Media editors are every bit as superficial as you voters, if not more so.
Remember when the oh-so-substantive editors of the L.A. Times swooned about how “handsome” John Edwards was, and how “Lincolnesque” Kerry was — compared to the “lumpish” Cheney, and Bush with his “patented smirk”? We were told that none of this should matter . . . “But you know it does.” Remember how the critical issue in the 2005 mayoral race — the one thing that L.A. Times columnists and reporters couldn’t stop talking about — was whether the incumbent was too “dull”?
This is the sort of deep, substantive commitment to the issues that matters to these giants of the political commentariat.
And so, when a guy like Thompson comes along, who is serious and substantive — but maybe a little dull — they focus on the dullness. If he seems not to be driven by a lifelong hunger for power, they’ll distort his honest and engaging quotes on the subject to make him sound like he doesn’t care.
These people are full of it. The next time they tell you they care about the issues and matters of substance, remind them how they treated Fred Thompson. They won’t show any shame. But that doesn’t mean you can’t show them that you know better.