Tuesday, July 10, 2007
|
|
Fred's Flattery Will Get Him Everywhere
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
4:26 PM
|
|
Soren Dayton unlocks some of that Fred! magic:
All the enthusiasm was for Fred Thompson. Probably a quarter of the delegates were walking around with Thompson stickers. The news stories and the videos only partly capture the energy in the room for him.While his speech was a little bit of a let down on content the positioning was fantastic. I was struck by the "you" language that was coming out him."I’m here to thank you", "I’m here to help you." It was clear that Thompson is trying to channel the party base and the conservative movement. And it is clear that the party base, at least at the Young Republican convention, wanted it.
In general, Thompson’s strategy seems right now to be the empty vessel. To connect with the party faithful . It felt like he was "one of us." He wasn’t pushing issues or policy positions. In the very brief interview with me and Liz Mair, he again spoke in principles, not specifics. But they were principles that we could rally around.
That channels what Thompson himself blogged about on Pajamas:
Whether or not the Internet can elect any particular candidate in any particular race, it’s clear that all of you and our many friends across the blogosphere and the Web are part of a true information revolution.That’s why so much of my effort has been focused on talking to Americans through this medium. By empowering individuals and building communities, the Internet provides a way of going around the inside-the-beltway crowd to reach people in numbers unheard of not that long ago.
How much of the 50%+ Thompson is getting in blog straw polls, factoring out Ron Paul, is due to stuff like this -- flattering the blogosphere, making it about "you?" I'd bet more than a few points. And by all appearances, the feeling is genuine. FDT is very closely acquainted with the power of television, but when it comes to making major announcements, he goes to the blogosphere first. He doesn't have to do that.
I don't think anyone should decide who to vote for based on choice of medium, but I like it all the same. The base is dispirited. It feels like what it thought were its friends have tramped over it. And it needs someone to believe in again. In that kind of environment, a little flattery goes a long way.
Contrary to what some may believe, I'm not a sycophant for candidates who tell me what I want to hear. A candidate should speak his mind, and lead, not follow, in bold directions. But I do want candidates who are all that -- and listen. And paying attention to the blogosphere is a good way of listening, because bloggers are usually the ones waving Republicans off of untenable political ground. I can't help but wonder if we'd had leadership with its ear a little closer to the ground, we would have avoided extra-curricular boondoggles like Medicare Part D and the Senate immigration bill. Knowing what's going on in the three-ring media circus and being able to respond effectively might be a desirable quality for the next POTUS, and not just for stylistic reasons. Engaging the grassroots is not a bad message. The most pathetic part of this whole Ron Paul insanity is just not the Paul supporters themselves, but the fact that candidates with dozens of times the actual support can't seem to match him. It's as if they're not even trying to create evangelists online. It's as if all they want us to do is vote for them, and nothing more. Now, don't get me wrong. Voting is important. But doesn't fervency count for a lot in a volatile primary situation? Someone who's given you $100 online, votes for you in every straw poll, and emails "Hunt for Red November" graphics to their lists, is not someone who will be peeled off just because someone else wins Iowa.
A candidate's openness to encouraging that kind of support, and his body language towards the grassroots, counts for a lot.
|
|
|
He does seem to listen. I just hope he runs! |
|
Soren Dayton Said: "The news stories and the videos only partly capture the energy in the room for him.While his speech was a little bit of a let down on content the positioning was fantastic."
and
"In general, Thompson’s strategy seems right now to be the empty vessel. "
Sounds like Fred Thompson and Barack Obama are right and left leaning bookend with nothing between them. |
|
|
|
Is going to stay in this until SOMEONE offers him VP....that is all he is hoping for.
And the Dems will destroy him even as a VP with his alternating stances and statements on every issue under the sun. |
|
|
On the other hand is EVERYTHING Flipper-Romney is not! By that I mean a Conservative...a REAL conservative for years and years. Not months. |
|
Fred brings Mary Maitlin and Jeri Khen. Other candidates bring a solid organization and a policy speech.
And Fred gets the most absurd hype in the echo chamber of the blogsphere. He's essentially Cheney's pick, and he sells clicks and talk.
He's no friend of traditional conservatives. His track record is a wishy-washy, mish-mash of poor leadership.
And friendly media loves Fred. They either ignore or attack our other candidates like Duncan Hunter, who has fought in Congress for traditional conservative principles while Fred ran away to go act.
Mark Levin goaded powerline into silence when they stated the glaring fact that Thompson is the most unprincipled candidate available. You can't vote for a war and then you can turn your back on oversight and seeing it won.
Thompson could have fought for more troops on the ground or provided any solid leadership. He didn't. He left to act and lobby.
Even now, his friend Lamar Alexander, doesn't want to see the surge work. He just adds more layers of uncertainty. And where is Fred-on hannity, with empty rhetoric?
Romney is light years ahead of Thompson in the leadership department. No way could Fred ever successfully lead a blue state. He would never come out with his conservative principles. Hell he could even fight against the tax-grab of 1998, 1999, and 2000 followed by his unprecedent spend spree.
Thompson spent more time fighting for McCain-Feingold then for fiscal sanity. That alone disqualifies Thompson from the moniker of "true conservative" because it impacts gun rights, abortion, taxes, and everything that free speech from normal people can impact.
|
|
All the polls show the public considers Romney as "conservative" as any other candidate. There are no alternating stances. That only comes from Republicans that can't find anything good to talk about their invented "true conservative" like Fred Thompson.
Romney lead, fixed, or vetoed more in one week than Fred Thompson has talked about in a decade.
Romney has never worke for a liberal lobbyist, instead he vetoed their abortion bills, Plan B Bills, Embryonic Stem Cell bills, to receive a 100% pro-life rating from Massachusettes Citizens for life.
Thompson doesn't even get close to Duncan Hunter.
|
|
I wonder if the bloggers haven't unlocked some of that Fred Thompson (FT) money.
I'm sorry. I don't want a politician to "connect" with me. I want him to *represent* me.
I just don't think FT can do that. He seems to be just another McCain-style double-talker. Someone who's speech was nothing but lame platitudes, so he doesn't have to promise anything to anyone.
How much was FT's 50% prior to "Factoring Out" Ron Paul? 25%? 30% I'm not even going on a Ron Paul tear here, I'm just marveling at the stories people tell themselves when they want desparately to believe something that isn't true.
|
|
It doesn't concern me that Mitt Romney endorses a man like Mayor Rocky Anderson. What concerns me is that Mitt Romney, if elected President, could endorse a man like that:
On March 20, 2007 Rocky Anderson appeared on the O'Reilly Factor with host Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly asked Anderson about his public speech on impeachment of the Bush Administration. O'Reilly called the call for impeachment "kooky" as well as calling Anderson "foolish" and "a kook".
There's more, watch these:
http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_125005047.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuFe9_BCvXY&NR=1
|
|
Nice post. I think this is a major theme to be developed: open vs. closed communication strategies by the candidates. Read the Long Tail by Chris Anderson for a great treatment of the revolutionary implications of info scarcity vs. abundance.
As I elaborate on a post at the link below, I believe the candidate that best leverages the Internet--and more specifically, the blogosphere--has a major leg up. I think undecided voters who care enough to vote will want to seek credible information about candidates, not have it spoonfed to them. The written word forces you to take a position, and many written positions should produce a sense of coherence in the normal reader, or it will trigger their BS meter. I believe this experience can be decisive when they head to the ballot box. I appreciate other commenter perspectives (or we could just rant some more).
http://www.adeolumen.com/index.cfm?commentID=193 |
|
|
I agree that thing with Rocky Anderson was a mistake. Rocky Anderson is a kook nut job. If I were Mitt, I would go out and say, "I am completely ashamed that I ever endorsed Rocky Anderson. That was not my finest hour, but I intend to learn from it and not make the same mistake twice." He should take the heat that is due him, then move on. I'm sure most politicians have an endorsement or two that they wish they hadn't made. Oh, well. You live and you learn. |
|
|
I would not call Romney or Thompson a true conservative. They both are more mainstream Republicans at this point. They both have evolved on issues. Fred might have a more conservative image as a Southerner but he is no conservative. Maybe a clone of Frist would be closer to the truth. |
|
Also keep in mind that at the heart of the Thompson candidacy is the Baker machine which has had a lot of power over the years in the Party. Baker, Lamar Alexander, Frist, and Thompson are part of that machine. The machine has a lot of experience in Presidential campaigns.
This is no grass roots draft it is a well orchestrated attempt to replace Frist's failed bid with Thompson's.
TN also produced Gore. |
|
Fred Thompson said he could not re-call being a lobbyist for the pro-choice groups, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, and added he “does not remember” ever having been pro-choice! The only problem is, Fred Thompson forgot what he said in this televised debate about being pro-choice.
Click Here
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/thompson-flip-flops-on-abortion
|
|
Insincere flattery is among the easiest deceptions to identify - and then reject. Thompson is "acting" like a presidential contender, complete with all those down-homey purty soundin' words of his, like "... that dog won't hunt" (as if he invented the phrase all by his genu-ine doggone country boy self).
What a crock!
Thompson is conservative, sort of, but it's not as if he's got any fire in the belly, or ever paid a price for his stands on anything .... he reminds me of Ronald Reagan as much as Hillary Clinton reminds me of Martha Washington.
Ruffini's posts seem to be mostly insider baseball stuff, especially on the techy-nerd front. That little bitty narrowly-focused group that pines for professional pandering is not going to be the kingmaker in 2008. They may be flattered by Thompson's attention now, in the way that that goofy-looking girl with the buck teeth and drooping bobby sox, who's the vice president of the chess club, gets all excited at having the captain of the football team actually acknowledge her presence in the hallway in order to win her vote for Prom King. But hey, that's just one vote.
Pandering is pandering. Thompson is a serial panderer who has never actually managed anything - not even a local dog-catcher department - in his life. That's why he's reduced to pandering - like Hillary Clinton - because his governing/proven leadership resume would fit on one side of a gumwrapper.
|
|
is that they worked together during the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. I understand they developed a friendly working relationship leading to endorsing each other in the SLC and Massachusetts campaigns. I would bet that all of the issues that they worked on were about the Olympic enterprise, where they had the same agenda, to hold a successful Olympics, and that national politics was not something that came up.
Now these issues have come up. Since Anderson has been trying to impeach Bush, Romney has distanced himself from Anderson. Since Romney's presidential run. I've read several articles indicating that Rocky is quite outspoken about his disapproval with Romney about his stance on the war among other issues.
I read so much about many of the Candidates where it seems that people are willfully trying to "spin" something out of a candidates history that with further investigation or consideration, usually is hardly the evidence against the candidate that it is purported to be.
|
|
You're all being played for chumps. I don't get it--everyone is swooning over an old, over the hill actor (sound familiar?) and unlike another old, over the hill actor who shall remain nameless, Thompson is yanking everyone's chain and getting away with it! He's acting like a coquettish Scarlett O'Hara, batting his eyes and waggling his fan about as though trying to decide which of her brain boyfriends is going to be honored in her to the barbecue. We should be honored just to bask in Fred's presence! Isn't that enough????? I mean, gee, he sounds sooooooo presidential, right until he starts squirming about actually deciding to run.
Psssst! Fred will finally reach a decision on for President on Jaunary 20, 2009 just as President-elect Hillary Clinton is about to be sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts. Hey, it could happen! |
|
... as much as mine ... so is Fred Thompson more like the coquetish Scarlett deciding amongst multiple gentleman callers, or is he more like the insincere Skip, Captain of the high school football team, who toys with the little people in his quest for Prom King votes .... hmmmm, I'll decide as soon as Fred decides if he's gonna run for President!
Actually, this extended pre-courtship ritual sure seems like a convenient way for him to figure out just how much heat he is going have to take IF he actually decides to run. However, I am fairly certain that the very minor flow of unflattering revelations about Thompson we see now is less than the tip of the iceberg should he actually deign to daintily climb into the ring with a proven back-alley knife-fighter like Rudy Giuliani. In that respect, I really wish Thompson would go ahead and run, so that Rudy gets his well-deserved "gimme" exhibition card, letting him whomp the pretender, as a warmup for his November 12-rounder with Her Thighness. |
|
I want to win next year. To win the GOP needs a candidate who can hold onto the Catholic and Protestant voters who put Bush over the top in Missouri and Ohio and Iowa. All the conservative Bishops who questioned Kerry on abortion will be joined by a chorus of liberal ones against Guiliani. Rudy can't win the Catholic vote and thus can't win the White House. I think Romney will have similar difficulties holding the Catholic vote. Fred has the best shot of holding onto the Catholic and Protestant vote especially if he pairs up with a guy like Rick Santorum. Additionally, Thompson's more low key religiosity may also help him with some of the 20% of the electorate that's not Christian.
No candidate is talking in much specifics at this point in the campaign so it's hard to fault Fred for being platitudinous. I think that Fred is comfortable enough in his own skin that he would be okay having some pretty bright and ambitious people around him (Fred hasn't made some of the questionable personnel choices that Rudy has). I suspect that Newt Gingrich will be brought into Fred's fold sometime this year. Newt knows he can't win the election, but he wants to be a player. The GOP could use his intellectual energy but not on a ticket more as a domestic policy czar (which is what Newt seems to be really running for anyway). Fred would be able to keep Newt grounded when he starts off on some of his wilder flights of fancy.
|
|
FRED THOMPSON for his stellar performance as a non-candidate. Look, say the snotty things you want about Hillary Clinton, but at least she has fire in her belly and the desire to run. The same can't be said about Fat Old Baldy, Fred Thompson. All he does is strut around looking oh so presidential. I don't like his middle aged Hamlet routine either: To Run or Not to Run! That is the question! (But do you have an answer for us Fred?)
Look, everyone should just wake up and realize that Fred is playing you for a sucker. why doesn't Fred just call his agent and get back on Law and Order in time for next season and call it a day. I'm just trying to be helpful. |
|
The reason there's no "fervency" behind Thompson or Rudy McRomney is because they're all one and the same. If Fred Thompson gets elected, there will be no substantial change. He's as establishment as W, Billary, Edward, Kerry, etc. He's a member of the war party. How can you get fervent about maintaining the status quo? Boring. Ron Paul is old school and exciting. He get's people thinking, talking, and eventually agreeing.
If he stays in the debates, watch out! The only votes Fred will get are form the cowardly, dogmatic, uthinking readership of Townhall.com and ilk.
GO RON!!!!! |
|
what do you like about the current GOP candidates? What are the things that really attract you to the candidate?
Do you like Fred Thompson and why...
Do you like Rudy Guliani and why...
Do you like Mitt Romney and why...
I am trying to be objective and determine for myself who I would like to support. |
|
|
|