Fred Thompson: Breaking Fake Rules
By haystack Posted in Archived — Comments (39) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So I come across this piece over at Real Clear Politics, which tries to sort out this whole "Thompson doesn't dazzle and therefore must go NOW" business, and I get to the money quote:
If you have the intelligence to see which rules are real and which are fake, the respectfulness to follow the real rules, and the guts to break the fake rules - you can get ahead in this world. In fact, people will love you for breaking the fake rules.
I must admit up front that this follows a Bob Dylan reference about breaking fake rules in the 60's on the construction of songs, and I would add talking Bob Dylan and Fred Thompson in the same column just "feels" wrong, but the analogy sticks well just the same.
A lot of people seem worried that whatever political wisdom I do have might be fraying at the ends because I am perfectly content with Thompson's commitment to doing just whatever the heck he wants to as he goes about running for President. Even as they suggest they actually "like" Thompson, they abandon him for, what seems to me at least, trivial reasons. I fully accept that different people need different types of inspiration, but really now...with all this fuss about needing a change in Washington do we REALLY insist on there being no change in how one actually winds up there?
I have a great deal of respect for the analysts and the pundits. In fact, I even appreciate the critics (though follies such as trophy wives and marriage attempts seem a bit unrelated to the matter of policy and principle) because they force us to look at all angles and aspects of he (or she) who would be President. Having said that, however, do these guys really think they speak for all of us...or that only THEY understand this game? Further, since when did they get to call all the shots?
In quoting from an earlier Dick Morris rant (who by the way has LONG sought to whack Fred at every turn), RCP lists a couple things about the Thompson campaign that these so-called "experts" consider symptoms of the campaign's terminal illness:
He skipped and is skipping the first two debates of his presidential candidacy and said he was looking forward to attending the Oct. 14 New Hampshire debate -- the one that was cancelled weeks ago;
He is taking this week off from presidential campaigning;
He does not know enough about the details of the Terry Schiavo case to comment.;
He is also unfamiliar with the proposal to lower soaring insurance premiums Floridians must pay for home storm coverage since the hurricanes
Now, each of these have been addressed, and there are many others. The bigger question us dolts out here who actually "work" for a living might ask is this: Who cares? How many of us who will donate to a campaign or support any of these candidates knows any more than Thompson (or anyone else for that matter) about Florida insurance premiums [unless, of course we actually LIVE in Florida]? Same with the Schiavo case - do a "Jay Walking" episode and see how many people even know who she was. Yeah yeah..."but haystack, he's running for President! He MUST have answers to EVERY issue on any given day in any of a number of possible environments and scenarios!"
Ok. Look. Presidents must be sharp. They must be informed. They must be articulate, and they must have a grasp on the issues that affect America. Agreed. They must also be the leader of a team, and as such must have the right people around them to make sure they (and he) knows all angles of an issue before any action is taken. That means getting to the people, and determining the best approach to the problem at hand. They certainly don't need the media to take on these responsibilities; America's best interests are NOT directly equivalent to those of the media.
Again, from RCP:
The media is the arbiter of the perpetual campaign. This is for good reason. Candidates like to keep the cost of the perpetual campaign low. The media offers advertisement to them - through news coverage, talk shows, debates, and so forth - that costs candidates no money. But, as nothing in life is free, the candidates pay a price. Everything they say and do is analyzed and categorized by the talking heads. So, the heads set the rules of the perpetual campaign. They tell us who does well and who does poorly, and why.
According to the heads, Thompson has done poorly because he is not doing what he is supposed to be doing. He is breaking too many of the rules.
Arbiters of the perpetual campaign indeed.
It is suggested there are two types of campaigns. "On the one hand, there is the perpetual campaign - which is reducible to each party's attempts to win the daily news cycle. On the other hand, there is what I have been calling the real campaign. This is the quest for votes during the few weeks before Election Day."
It seems to me Thompson never had a chance at winning the perpetual campaign - he wasn't in it from the beginning, and as any outsider will tell you (in any bloodsport), last guy in bleeds first. Fine. If you believe the numbers, Fred's got good reason to believe he'll be in the game when the real campaign is in full throttle...the "real" campaign - you know - when real people cast real votes? Yeah, that one:
Fred Thompson hasn't dazzled many political professionals with his early stump appearances, yet when it comes to building a base of small campaign donors he's showing the potential to keep pace with better-funded rivals.
Thompson, 65, a former Tennessee senator who's running for the Republican nomination as a Ronald Reagan-style populist, tapped 74,217 individuals for an average gift of $125 between July 1 and Sept. 30, the first fundraising quarter of his presidential bid.
That's more than double the contributors Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani signed up during their first reporting periods. If Thompson keeps adding donors at this clip, he may be competitive in early primaries even though he trails Giuliani and Romney in cash raised.
The smart guys may not be dazzled, but more than a few of the rest of us are doing just fine thank you very much.
Fred is the perfect candidate for sticking a thumb in their collective eyes
...awesome
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
[We have laminated IDs and everything. Be seeing you! - Moe Lane]
How you could vote for a complete sell out of our sovereignty. Any member of the CFR should not be allowed to run. The funny thing is the so called Top Tier candidates, including Fred Thompson, are all members. If you don't know what the CFR is, you might want to Google it.
Up early this morning, aren't you? I always appreciate coming to RS and finding a diary from you--it's a nice way to start the day. And it helps that the diaries are often about my favorite topic these days! ;-)
and thank you for the kind words-I appreciate the support and encouragement.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
The annointed front-runners have spent months talking tough on illegal immigration but when one wades through all the rhetoric it is very difficult to find much in the way of specific policy recommendations or a cohesive over-arching philosophy or strategy for dealing with the problem. It has just been a lot of eloquent but empty hot air. John McCain would be the exception but the base has rejected his approach. The rest have talked tough but delivered no substance.
Fred Thompson who has only been in the race for a few short weeks has managed to lay out a specific and believeable policy that is acceptable to the base and looks like it has a good chance of succeeding. In my opinion Fred now owns (along with Hunter and Tancredo but they really no longer count) the immigration issue which is shaping up as a very hot issue for the race.
Fred needs to keep right on going by laying out specific principles and policies on a few more key issues that the American people think are important. The others can bicker with each other but if Fred keeps delivering substance on important issues he will gain the support of the base.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
It is long past time for us as a people to have our country returned to us. A serious series of real spending reductions is way over due. It is not enough to just hold the line! A real series of cuts is now in order, return all of the un-constitutional powers assumed by the federal government and return it to the state and local levels. I truly hope that the Republican nominee has the intestinal fortitude to enact real change, by rewarding those who work hard and play by the rules as opposed to our current system of rewarding those who do nothing. There are enough of us who feel this way to enact these changes. We are entitled to the rights given us by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Currently the vast majority of endeavors our government funds are wholly un-constitutional and should be returned to the people at the state and local level, i.e. farm subsidies, education, labor, health and welfare and the like. People will stand up and do the right thing if the power is returned to them. There is a world of opportunity for all who will simply get out there and try to find it, it is out there.
While I would love to believe that: "There are enough of us who feel this way to enact these changes." I simply can't. If even Reagan couldn't get rid of even the Nat'l Endowment for the Arts, for goodness sake, there is no hope to eliminate major "wholly un-constitutional" programs.
A completely "conservative" president and congress might impose a population-plus-inflation brake on the more egregiously failing government programs, and at least partially "privatize" or "personalize" solutions to health care and entitlement crises, and get re-elected. But there is no way the current electorate would put up with a firm implementation of the Tenth Amendment. Ain't gonna happen.
That's the real reason He-who-shall-not-be-named, even with Code Pink on his side, doesn't poll above 2%. The shrimpers are just not that big a special interest.
I hear you, but if there is a will there will eventually be a way. I have started with the education of my own children. Egalitarianism will not work and my kids have been informed and believe this to be truth. The only egalitarianism that is possible, is a broad based ideology based on the Bill of Rights, and I only hope that more Americans can circumvent the education that has been dribbled out in the public school system. Furthermore any kind of a reduction even in the most miniscule amount would be a step in the right direction.
It IS enough to just hold the line. The problem is, everybody seems to want to go for the politically impossible rather than the politically difficult. IMHO, that willingness to go for the difficult rather than the impossible was the key to Reagan's success. He knew the difference between the two.
Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."
Well said. But difficult and impossible change. Reagsn, facing a Democrat-controlled House (with almost no reasonable expectation at that time of gaining control), knew that repealing programs was impossible.
A Thompson Administration - even if faces a Democrat Congress will know that the majorities are thin and that it would take very little in the way of swing to switch them over. And what is impossible in a Republican Congress would change.
I think that some program repeal proposals would be good to make even if they are impossible. That gives a starting point on your end that makes holding the line more likely. It's also a matter of energy expended. Should you fight a Democrat Congress to get the NEA eliminated? Probably not. Is it worth the fight to eliminate something big like market distorting farm subsidies? Maybe.
We don't need to shun the "impossible" - sometimes it has political value even where it fails. What we do need to do is make sure we don't defeat the good in search of the perfect (for an object lesson on that, see the debate on ENDA - where many gay interest groups are opposing the measure because it does not include protection for transgender individuals).
Great article from Real Clear and they hit the nail on the head. In addition to the stellar illegal immigration proposal, Fred is talking smart about "obsessions with Hilary" and the need to go back to what made the Republican party great. A Reagan like focus on national security and putting the $ back in the hands of the voters. I think Rudy is feeling the heat, did anyone notice he has said nothing about immigration the last two days?
Republicans will need 85% (Like in 04) voter turnout in order to get this done in 08. We need someone who will unite the party and get them enthusiastic again. With Rudy, we are going down the same slippery slope that we did in 04, losing our identity. The more we embrace Rudy, the more we will likely turn away even more voters. He's not going to be conservative fiscally enough, and we know about his social issues. As for the security, which we are all being trained to believe he is the strongest at, this from the Village Voice today, (found at http://www.villagevoice.com:80/news/0743,barrett,78158,6.html)
"Though Giuliani has been presenting himself on the campaign trail as the person who can best safeguard America, he told the commission (9-11 commission): 'The only thing to protect you against terrorism is to find out about a plot in advance.' And thus far, he has presented no plausible evidence to suggest that he'd be better than anyone else running for president at doing that."
This article suggest Rudy is telling a different story on the stump about his ability to protect us than he did in front of the commission. Anyone who allows for sanctuary cities, can never be allowed to be branded as our greatest hope for security.
To win in 08, the South must be carried 100% and we need to have a chance in Florida and Ohio (like GWB). Fred can do all of this.
Haystack! Great job getting this article up. BTW- with all the talk of Rudy's endorsers, I'll remind you that there can be only one endorser who was the previous "great hope" of the GOP for 08. If not for some ridiculous slang usage, George Allen is in this race. If he supports Fred, we all should.
President that we love them and want them to do well, but they were not going to build their economy by sending all their people up here!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You used to advise the Clintons, why in the world should we listen to a single word you say?
and should not be allowed anywhere near the White House.
Ever.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
"I can say - not as a patriotic bromide...that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and...the only moral country in the history of the world. - Ayn Rand
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Anyone have a link to listen to this? BTW- Why don't we promote Laura more than Coulter? Laura is such a dream. Love her.
If she did, I can tell you she would blow everyone else out of the water save for maybe Rush. We promote Laura, but the extenet of conservative talk, we promote Rush. When Laura can sell books like Sweet Annie, she can have Ann's status.
Chuck Norris does not vote for president of the United States. He gives the voting machine a swift roundhouse kick and Mike Huckabee wins. Token Black guy of the VRWC.
Fred is doing it his way - Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!
MILITARY VETERANS LOVE THIS!!
Except, it ISN'T full speed ahead. Fred's not running for Prez, he's moseying. (if that's how it's spelled)
I LIKE IT!!!
I will be stealing that for a future post title...
Thompson Moseys Up To The White House Lawn...
heh
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
up to the White House instead of rushing to knock down anyone who dares get in his/her way on the road to POWER.
Well, if Fred moseys his way to the White House, I'll admit that the joke was on me!
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
If you look where Fred has already gotten to in the polling (second place, not far behind Rudi: first place with socons: almost tied with Rudi on electability) and also that right now the conservatives are split three ways (more or less), I would think that once some of the other candidates (McCain and Huckabee - unless he really catches on) drop out Rudi will fall out of the lead.
I think Fred's battle plan has been to establish himself as the conservative candidate and then wait for the other conservatives (who are not running as strongly as him) to drop out. Their supporters then likely migrate to Fred because of shared values.
As to the general election, alas Rudi and Romney are the two candidates who would give us the biggest problem in winning. Rudi is too leftist for socons and would split the party vote, as would Romney because of the Mormom issue. Fred is basically the only top tier candidate our whole base can get behind. And this election is VERY winnable for us.
Consider.
The Dems look poised to nominate a candidate who is loathed by pretty much all conservatives (and the nutty left isn't too enamored of her either). Their candidate will actually help us turn our base out.
On the other side, there are no compelling issues to drive up Dem turnout. Can't run against Bush, he's leaving. Can't really run against Iraq, Hillary has already come out pretty hawkish on it. She also can't run as a reforming outsider, given her reputation and history.
I'm sort of expecting a Fred-Rudi ticket, which would be a nightmare scenario for the Dems. Fred is able to hold the Bush states and Rudi puts states like NY and PA into play.
Trying each day to spread the Gospel
mitt has problems but mormonism isn't a significant one
Fred is the true blue conservative and he will win
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I don't know what Fred's battle plan is. I'm sure it would surprise some of his detractors to find out he even has one. So far, I think that whatever it is, it's on track.
The only quibble I'd make with you is that i don't think Rudy would accept the VP slot. I believe Fred will pick a non-candidate, although I'd personally like to see Romney in spot #2. I think they would complement each other.
I agree that Hillary is "The Great Uniter" of Republicans, but I think the Democrats will figure that out and not nominate her. Considering that we're talking about the party that nominated McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry, there is really no telling what they night do in the end. Sometimes they seem to have a death wish, or maybe just a wish by the few competent Democrats to distance themselves from a disastrous election loss.
This is interesting:
"http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/seven_things_to_know_about_the_clintons/"
Thanks gamecock.
When I referred to Mormonism as a problem, I was viewing the fact that conservative Christian denominations view Mormonism as a cult. This will (no matter what some "Christian leaders" say) cause a problem with the socons (I am one and I know my church views LDS as a cult).
Trying each day to spread the Gospel
most protestants at the time considered Catholics not to be Christians. Mitt can and is winning over evagelicals as they get to know his values and compare the lack of same with non-cult baptized belivers. I am a lifelong southern baptist. Baptists often would note how well behaved were mormon children and regularly voted for jews.
but he will lose to Fred
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Fred was reminded of Rudy and Mitt's executive experience.
Fred: "Managers are important. Leadership is more important. Managers are who leaders hire!"
classic
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Yea it's a great line; however, I read something on RCP I think about Fred's campaign staffers not only leaving, but having some pretty harsh things to say about him. I would like these issues to be addressed. That and the fact that people in NH are dropping Fred like flies. I am extremely disappointed in these developments. At the same time, they WILL NOT take away 1 oz. from my support for Fred to be our next president. He's the right guy, at the right time, for the right job. Thats all that needs to be said in my opinion.
Christopher C.
By the way, when was he on Nightline??? I hope that interview will find its way to youtube sometime soon.
Christopher C.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
come from those disgruntled "professional" political pundits and media "experts" who are outraged that a candidate doesn't bother to listen to them. And it must be even more frustrating to them that his numbers continue to be pretty good. One can take a quiet satisfaction in all of this--I've been questioning the authority of the "experts" on all different subjects my entire thinking life. For me, Fred is the perfect candidate for sticking a thumb in their collective eyes--it's a big part of his charm that he does it with class, intelligence and principle.