Monday, April 09, 2007
|
|
How Much Time Does Fred(!) Have?
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
9:45 AM
|
|
Professor Reynolds and the Wall Street Journal’s Chris Cooper (free link, so no lecture on the need to subscribe today) are asking how long Fred Thompson can wait before entering the presidential race and still have a shot. Cooper identifies the financial pitfalls of Thompson’s dithering and thinks his “delay is costly.” Glenn thinks that Fred! has plenty of time, suspecting that in this, the era of Al Gore’s internet, “you can go from zero to sixty faster than in the past.”
Not that anyone asked my opinion, but I agree with Glenn. I’ll even go one step further – even in the pre-internet dark ages, it was possible to go from “zero to sixty” pretty darn quickly.
In 1992, Ross Perot threw his strait-jacket into the general election ring and quickly ascended, albeit momentarily, to the top of the polls. There were a couple of reasons for this. First, the initial version of Perot presented the American public with a combination of audacity, insanity and stupidity that a lot of people found simply irresistible. (It pains me to recall that members of my own family thought his idea of holding national plebiscites to create laws on really important things was a revolutionary stroke of brilliance.) It’s important to note that Perot was besting Clinton and Bush 41 before he had spent any of his billions on the campaign. Free media triggered his ascent.
The far more relevant matter is that Perot, surely inadvertently, timed his entrance perfectly. He jumped into the race at a moment when the American public was profoundly dissatisfied with its presidential options. It’s not hard to imagine the same thing happening with Thompson this time around. If a loon like Perot could hit the top of the charts because the public didn’t like the existing field, imagine what a solid and skilled candidate like Thompson could accomplish.
I HAPPEN TO THINK that the Republican top tier is an impressive group. Everyone knows I’m a Romney guy, and I would enthusiastically support Giuliani if he got the nomination.
But as Rudy pointed out last week, this is the first primary season held with the blogosphere in full flight, treating each and every news cycle as do-or-die. It’s apparent that all of the candidates will have an untold amount of stumbles between now and Iowa. Just last week, all the members of the Republican top tier made unforced errors.
It’s not only conceivable, but perhaps quite likely, that the Republican electorate will become extremely dissatisfied with its slate of candidates over the next several months. Judging by my Inbox, a lot of people already feel that way. If the dissatisfaction increases, the guy riding in on a white steed to save the day and who hasn’t spent the past year embarrassing himself on the trail might look pretty damn attractive.
So, how much time does Fred have to enter the race? Plenty.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.
|
|
Dean, this is a very good assessment. In fact, Fred is already speaking to the blogs and even posted on Red State. You should see if he'll post here. Fred knows that the blogs report and shape opinion. He's right there making sure he's reporting and shaping our opinion of him.
Go Fred! |
|
Dean has it right. Good analysis.
If you visit one of Thompson's volunteer websites--they quickly get you in the data base and let you know volunteering opportunities, how to get bumperstickers, where Fred is speaking--and most importantl--have you lined up for the fund raising effort to come. For a guy not running--he has a pretty impressive organization already. In head to heads he does not beat Obama (yet) but is already topping Hillary.
I have to keep reminding myself that the conventions are not this summer, that the election is not next fall. Dean is exactly right that Giuliani, McCain and Romney all took hits on unforced errors (Hillary is also showing the wear and tear already). Why would Romney want to impose that on himself when he can put together an organization, reach out to high ranking GOP members, and basically position himself for a big roll out? |
|
|
I never have been particularly impressed by the "unsatisfied" voter nonsense. What candidate exists that doesn't, on some level or on a number of occasions, dissatisfy us? If not, there'd be no need for the "new and improved" versions of so many products. This kind of candidacy is bound to fall flat on its face, because the sentiment it relies to boost itself--dissatisfaction--is bound to affect the new-and-improved candidate as well...in time. It's like the guy/girl who is always looking for his or her real love...and ends up divorcing five-ten times each time he or she finds it anew. |
|
I want Fred to run, but he does have to be careful about being popular because he is the new flavor of the month. He still has to resonate a year from now. I think he will, but only time will tell.
And, Jimbo, I love the "Soul Mate" analogy. Good Stuff! |
|
|
I'm not sure I even care who comes in to save us from Romney, Giuliani & McCain. I just hope someone does. "Not McRomliani in 2008!" |
|
|
The more time that goes by means the harder it will be to raise 100 million dollars and the more firm commitments from politicians will have gone to the other candidates. There are still some on the sidelines- but that won't last forever. I say he jumps in within the next two weeks.. |
|
The amazing thing about enthusiasm is that there are many ways to catch it.
For instance, an Obama, Clinton, Edwards nomination will be sure to motivate me with a whole lot of enthusiasm.
|
|
Waiting to come in as the white knight is good for Thompson . . .
but bad for us.
The GOP would be much better off if we pick the survivor of a bruising, probing campaign, than someone who's acclaimed the nominee by getting in the race at the last minute. The sooner Thompson enters the better. People who want him to stay out are people who are too emotionally invested in who the GOP niminates. They're rooting for him like they root for a football team. |
|
Some Conservatives are starting to stink to high Heaven particularly those who consider themselves "True" Conservatives yet would still vote for someone who is for gay unions at the very least and has come out recently and said that he would USE PUBLIC TAX MONEY to pay for abortions (CNN 4/2/07). It's funny also that the media focused on Romney's MINOR blurb about hunting and not paying attention to what Rudy said. Who do you think that the MSM is more scared of? To have every news outlet that the Liberal MSM has ever created to make a stink about hunting (NOT 2ND AMMENDMENT RIGHTS WHICH ROMNEY IS FIRMLY FOR) as opposed to something even more important about abortions and making it a public (you and me) responsibility? More on this in a minute.
You "Conservatives" need to wake up. I don't care if Rudy is "at least" being up front about his positions. They are the wrong positions. If he isn't going to change his views and side on Conservative priciples AT THE LEAST then he's not worth it.
Now people are starting to harp on an actor who was once a Senator for a short time. Just because he saved the day on TV, it's still TV and not the real world. Do you think that Hollywood would be any different in dealing with Fred Thompson as Mitt Romney in Massachusetts? Hollywood has made their pick and conservatives are ready to jump ship on a guy who's proven himself and moved in the Conservative direction for a "non-executive" actor? You people are beginning to make me sick from your smell.
The last part about some of you "conservatives" is that if you don't like Mitt Romney it's not really about him, it's about his religion and you know it. If it weren't then you wouldn't have to keep explaining that you "don't have a problem with mormonism."
Now back to the MSM and what they know about "conservatives" right now when it comes to Mitt Romney. They know that you - ALL OF YOU - Conservatives are having problems. Your off-balance and there are so many variables to it. They know that you have a religion problem, an issues problem on getting on the same page, a whose electable problem, and a morals and values problem. They are playing you like fiddles and you're eating it up. They're putting stories out there knowing that you'll eat your own at their hands.
Mitt Romney says something about being a life long hunter and Mike "Hack"abee goes out on NATIONAL TV (CBS LIBERAL MSM CENTRAL) and has a problem with Romney talking about hunting yet says that Rudy's at least "honest" about his abortion stance and public funding of them. I don't care what "Hack"abee said about opposing that stance. He still feels that Rudy's a better person to be the Republican party nominee than someone whose made the change in my (a True Conservatives) position.
I'm tired of the bigot riddled Liberal MSM comments about religion when it comes to Romney and I'm even more tired of bigoted "True" Conservatives eating their "BS" up and regurgitating it back to us giving them credibility and eating away at people who's backgrounds both personal and professional truly serves our needs as Americans.
I'm tired of it and any conservative who is a true conservative truly believes in AMERICA and the traditional values that this country was built on should go out and fight against this.
|
|
In the latest head to head Ras Poll Fred is losing to Edwards by 14 points (50-36 as I recall). That is slightly worse than McCain and a little better than Romney (before the money figures were released).
The truth is that the polls at this point are primarily driven by the coverage that the MSM give the various candidates. There is no campaign going to offset the MSM's favoring the Dems.
Fred does well among Reps but poorly among Indies. Recently Fred has been getting some positive press but nothing like the sympathy factor that Edwards is reaping. |
|
|
I wonder how many conservs here real George Wills' column on Tenn. Thompson? If so, what did they think about Wills' points? I am not going to repeat the column but I often wonder how we conservs never seem to get the candidate we need. One thing is of course we have been blessed by Ronaldus Magnus and we will never get another one of him. I empathasize with the purist conservs, and especially the good post above but I also know I want to win. No one puts any conserv agenda into power or impactful legislation unless one wins. We shall see by Feb. 5 if we want to lose by nominating someone other than the 4 people Dean mentioned above, Rudy,Fred, Newt or Mitt. One of these guys will be the GOP nominee and after the gnashing of teeth by the purists, you have our GOP choice by the primary voters or you have Hil , BO, Edwards, or Richardson. While conservs rant about never voting for another GOP who doesn;t resemble RR, would any conserv actually be fool enough to allow this nation to fall into the hands of the DemMoveoners and their candidate?? If so, forget power for another 45 years. |
|
|
Fred is receiving lots of conservative media attention--Red state blooging,NRO writing, radio gigs--I think the plan is for Fred to be Sen. McCain's VP. McCain becomes acceptable to the base with Fred by his side. |
|
|
McCain and Thompson would butt heads too often to be an effective team. |
|
|
I don't dislike the other candidates, they all have their pro's and con's. But Fred sees to have more pro's than con's - and he seems to carry the aura of "electability" moreso than the other candidates. Like another post said, it doesn't matter what our candidate's agenda is, if he doesn't get elected then it doesn't even get considered... |
|
I started one of those Fred sites and will work to get him elected - if he runs. Mitt and Rudy are playing to conservatives, not actually conservatives. McCain burned the base. All three have standing right now because they support our presence in Iraq. I see no other reason they are being considered.
Fred can BRING me back into the Republican fold. A Hillary, Obama or Edwards candidacy can only FORCE me back to republican party. |
|
In today's world of 24 hour coverage, there's not a politician or candidate out there that won't make a slip of the tongue. Thompson is smart to wait to the last minute. The problem is, even when he comes in, I suspect he will have to point to some part of his background that qualifies him for president. Unfortunately for him, he has never accomplished anything except to vote correcty on some issues (not including McCain/Feingold). To my knowledge, he's never solved a problem for America. At least, Giuliani can claim credit for turning around NYC. And McCain, over the years, has offered legislation, albeit misdirected -- much of it-- to attempt to fix problems. Thompson it seems was bored by being "only" a senator.
On the other hand, you have Romney who has turned around numerous organizations, and conducted himself commendably. He is smart, articulate, and personable. He's a problem solver. He has a career of finding ways to solve problems. He's made some mistakes I'm sure. But at least he's been pro-active.
Fred is a "stand on the side-lines, and wait" kind of guy. That's what he did in the Senate. That's what he's doing in this race. It's smart, as a tactic. But it's a disservice to the process. We deserve to hear his solutions, and to see him actually on the stump. Not in a role as an actor. If he's ever president, there will be no second takes. |
|
|
Either Fred Thompson is the candidate or the Republicans lose. Thompson is the only candidate who creates an air of excitement, is a conservative and (something that has been sadly lacking)has the ability to communicate....Can you picture Thompson next to Hillary in a debate? Hillary loses on appearance alone. |
|
How many of our principles do we conservatives have to ignore before we don't have any principles left?
With this current administration we have no satisfactory action to the illegal alien problem or securing our borders, in six years. Social security solvency has not been touched. Wasteful govt spending hasn't been curbed.
So what do you want to add to that list with McCain or Giuliani?
I hate to use a phrase from the Dem's, but conservatism is dying a death of 1000 cuts! |
|
The fact is...if Obama weren't stealing Mrs Clintons donor money even she wouldn't be IN just yet. It is still early! Her original plan was to let the 'other' candidates beat each other up, let their 'slip-ups' be disected in the media and come to the rescue sometime during the summer.
The money factor is not as important as the media would have you believe either. In fact take a CLOSE look at the stories this past week and you'll see only a couple of candidates have raised large sums for the primary run. Most of what is being reported is for the general election.
Thompson will do just fine when he announces and, NOT because he is the 'flavor of the month' but moreso because he is the only TRUE & HONEST Conservative (with the credentials to prove it) who has a chance of winning the whole thing!
Think of it like this. Every day he allows the Net to attract supporters he saves money that others are already using so the $100 million figure comes down with each passing day. Mitt Romney is already running TV and Radio ads in NH & MASSACHUSETTS!!!
Ask yourself this. If Romney has to spend $$ in a state he governor of AND its next door neighbor, what does that say about his campaign? He knows if he doesn't carry one or both (NH is 1st after all) its OVER for him, and there is no guarentee he will carry either one. Trust me. There are a lot of MA Republicans like myself who KNOW more about Romney than he would care for us to spread around.
The Moderates will take their time deciding anyway. Traditionally they don't even start paying attention to any of this stuff until after summer has passed, so don't think Fred, won't be in fine shape there either.
My money is on the Conservative, and this time the "Thompson Democrats" (moderates) will flock to the cause because the Democrat Party is in disarray and listing too far left for most people.
How do you spell STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
& GET BORDER SECURITY?
I spell them...Fred Dalton Thompson!
Support Fred Thompson
For President 2008
Visit http://draftfredthompson.com/index.php
|
|
Fred Thompson's poll numbers are pretty good considering he hasn't actively entered the race for the Presidency yet.
He'd do a fine job, and perhaps he'd put the Liberals on the run as well. Imagine that. Liberals running for something other than the Presidency.
I don't usually get excited about a Presidential race, other than hoping for a common sense Republican victory, but this time---okay, I liked Ronald Reagan also---I'm all for the man in the DA's chair, fiction or not. We need another RR, and Fred Thompson was formed from a similar mold. Go, Fred, go! Perhaps we need some teflon to get him out of the mold and into the Presidential race.
I think the debates would be a smash hit on the networks. They won't know what hit them. |
|
|
|