All systems go for Team Thompson
That candidacy becomes closer to becoming a reality.
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
'T is not at all unbecoming.
Fred Thompson has moved closer to the moment he announces his candidacy for the Republican Presidential nomination, albeit in a less-than-obvious way. Tom Collamore has resignedfrom Friends of Fred Thompson.
This is not at all a case of anyone asserting that the campaign "is better of without that bum Collamore," which the CNN piece would seem to require. Tom Collamore is anything but a bum.
Collamore served the Reagan administration as special assistant to Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige and was staff secretary to Vice President George H.W. Bush in 1985. He was a member of Bush's presidential transition team in 1988, eventually being named assistant secretary of commerce in 1989.
Reagan Administration bona fides impress me, and when Collamore joined the Thompson Friends, Collamore left his post as a vice president of public affairs at Altria, still better known to the world by its erstwhile name: Phillip Morris Co.
But before the Mitt and Rudy supporters take heart that there is early trouble in the Thompson campaign, read below the fold. There is not.
Read More…
From the CNN piece:
Collamore is a GOP campaign veteran who was tasked with assembling a Thompson campaign operation. His experience dating back to the Reagan-Bush years was touted by Thompson allies as a sign the former senator was serious about joining the race and building a top flight organization.
His resignation means that the campaign operation is almost assembled. Call this, touted by some blogger as a sign the former senator now has a top flight organization almost in place, and is almost ready to go forward.
Several GOP sources familiar with the decision — and the additions to the Thompson staff — acknowledged differences between Collamore and Thompson’s wife, Jeri, on structure and staffing.
“It was not hostile by any means, but she is very involved and there were clear differences,” one source close to the situation told CNN.
“She is running the operation,” said a senior GOP source who is close to Collamore.
It sounds plausible.
As Acting Campaign Manager, Tom Collamore has done his work, and Jeri Thompson can add to it and shape it to fit the campaign as it eventually will roll out.
From Townhall.com, on this matter:
"The Friends of Fred Thompson have made a number of changes as they prepare to enter the next phase, adding new experience and political strength to the organization," [Thompson spokeswoman Linda] Rozett said.
The campaign announced that it has signed veteran RNC strategist Randy Enright and former Energy Secretary and U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham to replace Collamore. Enright will run the political operation, and Spence Abraham will do… well, his title has not yet been set. It sounds like it could be a Mel Martinez/Mike Duncan type of setup.
Well, it is almost morning in Nashville.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Today's the day, kids! — Comments (11) »
All systems go for Team Thompson 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The AP version linked to by Drudge had a peculiar headline I thought: "Thompson Shakes Up Staff." Seems a bit agendacized to me.
The story itself appears to be just the facts. But they had to get their headline in I guess.
Look, clearly this Thompson campaign was not like the other campaigns. The candidate had not long ago decided that he was definitely going to run and started assembling a campaign team right off the bat. He assembled high quality people to SET THE STAGE for a possible campaign.
No one can look at Fred Thompson's current position in the polls as a NON-CANDIDATE and say that Collamore has not done a superb job setting the stage for a Thompson campaign.
Collamore is handing the baton off, in a way, to people who are campaign operators. And right now, the Thompson relay's first leg is already in the lead. The campaign folks can only hope to do as good a job running the campaign as Collamore did in setting them up.
...I think we all know that "Altria/Philip Morris" was going to be a drag on Fred. Collamore probably knew this, too. He'll be more useful to Fred in a non-official capacity from now thru the primaries, and quite possibly election day.
Sounds like he was hired to do a specific job, and it's done, anyway.
I'm not sure what Spence Abraham's talents all are, but he did get himself elected between Democrat Senators in Michigan.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
"the former senator now has a top flight organization almost in place, and is almost ready to go forward."
His campaign has been "almost" ready for a while now. Hopefully, this is a sign that the floundering we've seen over the last two weeks is "almost" over. I think the next head to roll will be Mark "Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period" Corallo. Getting rid of a staff that advised a I-don't-remember-checking-that-box strategy is a good thing... Well, we'll have to wait and see if it's the staff or the candidate that's been disingenuous.
--
"He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella."
- Baker on FDT, Nixon tapes, 1973
For a testing of the waters of the sort that was exactly that, it hsa proceeded nicely.
I'm as impatient as anyone, but they have the people in place. The ALMOST is waiting for the finishing touches. Remember, this entire thing is not playing out in the headlines or even in the blogs. We don't get progress reports and lists of hires for the various aspects of the campaign. We all know only that it is being done. This shakeup is some public evidence of this.
That's "floundering" with an "l" as in thrashing about wildly and clumsily; e.g. first he denied lobbying for the group, then he couldn't remember, then he tried to say he was lawyering not lobbying, then he demanded billing recorders, then he tried to spin his previous statements.
FDT has yet to present a candid statement of his past lobbying career or the evolution of his views regarding abortion or campaign finance. I hope this has been due to a weak staff. If the candidate himself thinks that he can win the nomination without speaking straight, then this staff change will be the beginning of the end of his fledgling campaign. If that's the case, the eventual "foundering" of FDT's campaign would be a good thing for the GOP because the last sort of Presidential nominee we need in the wake of Jack Abramoff is a lobbyist who refuses to speak straight to the American people.
--
"He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella."
- Baker on FDT, Nixon tapes, 1973
outfit that's notriously pro-abort was handled sloppily by the campaign but clarified and resolved quickly, shown to be insignificant. That is not foundering. Supporters of Romney and Rudy are reaching on that one.
At this point FDT is on the record as lobbying to allow health clinics that receive federal funds to advocate abortion as an option for their patients, then denying it, then demanding billing records, and since the billing records have been produced I haven't heard anything from his campaign except that they're moving the announcement date back 6 weeks and people are being fired and quiting left and right. That's thrashing about widely and clumsily like a fish out of water. He's floundering.
There's no way the GOP should send a campaign like that out to fight the Dems. It would be like throwing him to the wolves. And if FDT can't handle US electoral politics, there's no way he can handle Al Qaede. FDT has got to get his act together.
--
"He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella."
- Baker on FDT, Nixon tapes, 1973
never be resolved.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Not to rant but this is critical to me and is the main source of my skepticism about FDT. I have yet to hear an adequately explanation from anyone but would be grateful for one.
What really irks me is that FDT still hasn't told the truth. In '91 he was pro-choice. He believed that abortion should be an open option for women and that they should be informed about their options. He had no problem lobbying for the pro-abortion group because he agreed with them. When he was lobbying White House staffers, he could honestly look them in the eye and argue with conviction that the abortion gage rule should be relaxed because that's what he believed in his heart.
Why can't he do the same thing with us?! Why can't he be just as honest with GOP primary voters?!
If the truth is that he's changed his mind, why can't he say so? It wouldn't bother me at all to hear him say: "Like Goldwater and other conservatives, I was once pro-choice. And like many Americans, I've seen the light (or a sonogram) and changed my position. I've repented, and now I'm glad to be fighting for the winning side." What would be wrong with that?
Of course, now he's dug his heels in so far with lines like "I've always been pro-life" and "I don't remember checking that box" that I don't know how he can pull out of it. I think his best bet is to take advantage of staff changes, blame his apparent evasiveness and deceptiveness on the former staff of the nascent campaign, and come out with a statement clarifying his evolving stance on abortion once and for all.
Oh, and if he's made up his mind to run for President, he may want to muster up the courage to actually run instead of acting all dodgy. This ever increasing delay in initiating his candidacy only reinforces his appearance of being evasive and afraid of scrutiny.
--
"He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella."
- Baker on FDT, Nixon tapes, 1973
Words that some said 16 years ago are one thing. A 100% pro-life voting record in 8 years in the Senate speaks for itself. It's weird that people are calling him pro-choice.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
He was always for legal abortion in the first trimester, and open about his opinion all through his time in the Senate. However, the question of abortion in the first trimester was never put to a vote. His voting record on abortion is only 100% if you ignore his effort to stifle the pro-life movement and gage National Right to Life when he helped author McCain-Feingold. Look at his whole political record, don't just pick and choose. He's been in politics around Washington for 30 years. He was always openly pro-choice in the first trimester... until he decided to run for President.
--
"He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella."
- Baker on FDT, Nixon tapes, 1973
You are correct that Fred's "100% Pro-Life voting record" is overhyped since the votes were all issues on the margins of the life-abortion debate (partial birth, availability at military bases, etc.)
However, Fred has always said that Row v. Wade was bad a decision. Always. This is a step that Rudy cannot reach, even now, and Fred has held the position for YEARS.
Is this merely an incremental improvement over Mitt or Rudy? Yes, but it is, but as we engineers like to say it is "directionally correct" and as we lawyers like to say it is a "material" difference.
In the interests of full disclosure, I am supporting Fred, although I am fully willing to pull the lever for whomever the Republican nominee is in November 2008.
I find it hard to understand why people have such a hard time admitting that Fred's aggregate record throughout his public life is more socially conservative than either Mitt or Rudy. I don't doubt that Mitt molded his statements somewhat when running in MA, and that Fred had no such external pressures. As a side bar, I almost find Rudy more reassuring than Mitt because Rudy's opinions exhibit less "variance" than Mitt's have over the years.
Bottom Line: Fred is not as pro-life was many, and I can easily create a definition of pro-life that Fred would fail to satisfy. Nonetheless, his record of public statements is closer to what pro-life voters want to see than either Rudy or Mitt. People can yelp and scream about Fred not being a tried and true pro-lifer. They can also try to argue that the differences between Fred and Mitt/Rudy aren't significant enough. Nonetheless, the differences do exist exist and nothing said in 2007 is going to change them.
I would put it this way, which is similar to the way FDT explained it himself back in the 90s: FDT was a pro-choice federalist. Granted, he was in some ways a stronger federalist than Rudy and willing to accept more restrictions on abortion than either Rudy or Mitt. But he was not as he claims now "always pro-life." He's running as someone he isn't: a life-long conservative savior of the GOP. He was always a moderate.
Now, I don't mind someone changing political labels and moving to the party's wings to court the base in the primary. That's normal. But offer some explanation the way Mitt and countless other politicians have at this phase of the game. Don't just deny your previous record; explain why and how you've changed. For example, he stuck his neck out and went against the trend in his party to defend a woman's right to choose in the first trimester at debates when he ran for Senate. He risked his election, it was that important to him. Why is it not important to him any more?
--
"He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella."
- Baker on FDT, Nixon tapes, 1973
about seeing ultra-sound images of his two young kids in the womb, and how that has made him think differently about the issue. I put this is in the same category as Mitt's awakening as a result of the stem cell debate. Believeable? Yes. Convenient? yes.
However, I prefer Fred's 1994 views to Mitt's 1994 views and to Rudy's 2007 views.
I don't think it is dishonest or misleading to use the pro-life label to mean that Row v Wade should be overturned.
I also think it is fair for people/candidates to define pro-life differently. However, neither Mitt nor Rudy is in a strong position to make any hay out of this, so it is unlikely to be an issue.
as the catalyst of his conversion would be a step in the right direction. But I'm still not clear as to how he's converted or what his current views are.
I agree that Republicans have a lot of different views on abortion, and we can all gage which candidate we're more comfortable with. I also agree that abortion won't be a major issue in the primary, though there are candidates (Huck), potential candidates (Newt), and non-candidates (James Dobson, et. al.) who will try to make hey out of this.
I believe integrity and candor were the import issues affecting GOP performance in '06 and will be again in '08. Abarmoff and the congressional record of earmarking for special interest lobbyist made GOP candidates look bad in '06 and with the immigration debacle fresh on folks mind, it could happen again in '08. People feel like politicians are trying to give them the runaround. FDT is already at a disadvantage due to some previous career choices (he lobbied). By not speaking straight and evading scrutiny by delaying the initiation of his campaign, he is appearing to lack candor and is calling into question his integrity. If he doesn't address these issues, they could hurt him in the primary and could destroy him in the general.
--
"He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella."
- Baker on FDT, Nixon tapes, 1973
Borderline slanderous? Yes. And that goes for a lot of the other #%@#@! the various bots around here have been throwing around. The Giuliani crowd is particularly bad about it. I think they feel the heat from Thompson and think they need to go into smear mode. They don't realize that all of the stuff they're spewing has been seen before and anyone who was going to be swayed by it has already been so. The rest are just tiring of seeing the same blather over and over again. Now they're just resorting to unsubstantiated insults like "Thompson's lazy" or other such stupidity.
I'd be willing to vote for just about any of the GOP candidates, except Giuliani, so I'm not just defending Thompson. No social liberals for me, though.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
is part of my point. No one defends FDT. They just attack his detractors. If there's no defense for his record or the way he's conducting his campaign, that does not bode well for his viability.
I would be happy to support the guy if someone could explain to me his evolving stance on abortion and why his campaign is so evasive about it... and the campaign finance issue, and his lobbying career, and every other reminder they get that FDT was a moderate Republican in the mold of McCain and not some quintessential conservative.
--
"He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella."
- Baker on FDT, Nixon tapes, 1973
Since FDT has not announced yet, why can't you and others pour a tall glass of STFU, and deal with your issues when he decides to announce?....Ever imagine or think that when/if he does enter he will address all of the various concerns out there?...
I guess my point like Haystacks....extoll the good in your choice, tell me why you think such things...don't rip on person that you haven't heard everything from....it gets tiring.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
But I could just as easily ask you why you endorse a candidate that hasn't announced yet and "that you haven't heard everything from," because that also gets tiring. If people can be expected to throw their hat in the ring with FDT before he even announces than I think those of us who are more skeptical have a right to scrutinize him without being told to STFU. That just stifles the debate.
--
"He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella."
- Baker on FDT, Nixon tapes, 1973
because FDT strikes a chord with me. I actually like the way he is going about it...NOT pandering to anyone, doing it his way. Period. He, for me, has HIS plan, and I'm quite sure he doesn't give a rats butt if others think his approach is wrong. I like That.
There is only one canidate I have ripped, and it Ron Paul...reasons are obvious. When and if FDT gets in, I really can't wait til he does get put through the grinder...I think he will handle all the questions...until then, it just seems silly.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
AFC, so my apologies if it came across that I was referring to you.
But while we're on the subject of "defense for his record," I believe that this article does a pretty good job of going over it. Please try to ignore the fact that it appears on the "Blogs for Fred Thompson" web site - I didn't start there, that just happened to be near the top of a Google search.
Now my problem with your particular line of postings is that you keep saying that he hasn't "told the truth". What makes you say that? Are you accusing him of lying? Do you have proof of that? I've seen nothing that disproves anything that he's stated, except the terribly overblown 3.3 hours of consulting/lobbying face-time with some unidentified person. And, by the way, no one can provide a scintilla of evidence that he discussed anything more than baseball scores during that time. That your definition of what "pro-life" is doesn't mesh with his doesn't make him a liar. It simply demonstrates a difference of opinion.
On the subject of abortion, I am 100% OK with Thompson's Senatorial record - it speaks for itself. And, by the way, your extension of McCain-Feingold to claim he was trying to "stifle" the pro-life movement is nothing more than an enormous leap of logic with absolutely nothing to back it. Frankly, his explanation for his original support for CFR and his subsequent backing away matches my personal stance dead on (there's too much money being thrown around in campaign contributions and it leads to wrong motivations for candidates, but the way CFR has been implemented simply hasn't achieved the desired result, so it probably shouldn't have happened).
And as I've stated before in other threads, quote me a law that says lobbying is illegal. Ain't there.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
That's more like it. If his campaign adopts the position of this article, they'll be moving in the right direction. Note that the article doesn't claim he's always been pro-life. It seems to say that he used to be a "libertarian, Federalist," which I suppose is a more palatable wording than "pro-choice federalist." But it still doesn't explain how or why his position on abortion has evolved. Also, it seems to say that now he remembers checking the box saying that “Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy” and that this is consistent with his current views? I'm still confused here. Most self-identifying pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception and abortion should be illegal from that moment on. I understand that he doesn't want the federal government to outlaw abortion. Does he also not want the states to outlaw abortion in the first trimester? I know that was his position in the past. Is it still his position? Is he still a "libertarian, Federalist" or is he now what GOP primary voters usually refer to as "pro-life"?
Also, the article claims FDT's rating from National Right to Life is 100%. I don't understand why they keep saying that. His rating is 77%. You can look up his rating on NRL's website. NRL was adamantly opposed to McCain-Feingold. When I say McCain-Feingold "stifled" the pro-life movement, I'm using NRL's logic, not my own. But I do agree with them.
The article still doesn't address the fact that FDT tried to persuade the Bush 41 White House to ease the abortion gage rule. They're still floundering around making denials and excuses: he didn't talk to Sununu; there only seem to be records; he doesn't remember; it happened a long time ago. The fact of the matter is that there ARE records. "I don't remember checking that box" does not buy you a free ride. FDT's running for President of the United States, and he's been involved in Washington politics both privately and publicly for 30 years. Lobbying is not illegal (though after Abramoff, it will be a political liability next year). But I want to know how FDT attempted to impacted our government during all of his political career in both the private (lobbyist) and public (Senator) sectors.
What I mean by saying that FDT still hasn't told the truth is that he's been telling people that he's always been pro-life. Saying that he was a "libertarian, Federalist" is closer to the truth. However, I also believe that in the '90s he had some personal political convictions that he wouldn't compromise for a paycheck as a lobbyist. I believe he wanted the abortion gage rule relaxed, and he agreed with the position of his client. The alternative is to believe that his principles on abortion (or in general) can be bought and sold, which obviously isn't a good thing. I don't necessarily want to call a politician and trial-lawyer a flat out lier, but FDT has definitely not been candid.
--
"He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella."
- Baker on FDT, Nixon tapes, 1973
and taking note...stay by the phone, they are probably calling for your advice any minute...
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
is that he gets to skip all of those stupid Youtube questions which get "filtered" by CNN.
If I were running for President I'd skip any debates on pro-Democratic press outlets. I'm sure my advisors would be frustrated, but I'd do it anyway.
In my opinion, Romney is worlds ahead of Fred on that respect. Fred's speeches have been rambling and lackluster in my opinion - not exactly the "charisma" I've been hearing about. He isn't all that articulate either. Where are all the "retail politiking" skills I've been hearing about. Newt and Romney are the best on the GOP side.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
a Romney/Gingrich ticket would be inevitable.
Charisma isn't about the slickest presentation. In terms of Fred not being articulate, I think he does the best job at making conservatism sound like common sense. Fred can sell something without looking like he is trying to sell something. That is one trait Mitt does NOT have.
I think Fred might have the right idea, instead of a seal in the conga line waiting for the fish, he is doing his own thing. Who needs a drive by fish when you are a real conservative, the base knows.
Sounds like a gear change coming soon ...