Fred’s answers and the way he spoke . . . it was refreshing and gives me a lot more hope.
"We Ents don't say anything unless it is worth taking a looonnng tiiiime tooo saaaay."
Posted on 11/10/2007 9:58:59 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
In September, I posted another vanity (linked below) in which I observed that the historical trends in this election favored Fred Thompson. Since then, his RCP average has dropped from about 22% to 16-17%. In the more volatile Rasmussen daily tracking poll, he has also dropped to 16%, about a 10 point drop from his post announcement high. In light of the above poll numbers, is it time for me to issue a mea culpa? No. This is not at all inconsistent with the hypothesis of my previous post.
Neither of the successful insurgent candidates in modern times, Reagan or Goldwater, has remained the frontrunner continuously. Reagan actually lost the mantle twice, both times in Iowa, when Gerald Ford upset him narrowly in 1976 and George H.W. Bush did the same in 1980. Goldwater was the underdog until he won the California primary. An insurgent candidacy cannot by definition be waged by a frontrunner. So Fred's poll numbers should not depress any of his supporters. In fact they ought to be a cause for quiet optimism. He remains in second place where he has been for the entire race. The Mainstream Media has bitten is tail trying to destroy him, much as it did Reagan. This has been beneficial in three ways that are not readily apparent. First, among fairminded GOP primary voters who are undecided (and overwhelmingly conservative), the attacks will be perceived as "over the top". Undecided voters in the GOP will not be sure who the elite establishment candidate is (I think it is Giuliani, principally, but an argument can be made that both Romney and McCain are default choices, in the event Giuliani implodes). They will be sure, however, who the establishment candidate is not. It is NOT Fred Thompson. Their contempt for Fred is not only a badge of honor for him, but in my opinion a magnet for votes among disaffected GOP conservatives, of whom there are many on Immigration, government spending and political correctness, among other issues.
Second, the barrage against Fred reflects a not very subtle anti-Southern bias in the elite. They despise the south in general and Fred's signature principle, Federalism, in particular. It stands in the way of their plans, which have been underway without interruption since Reagan left office in 1988, to concentrate power in Washington, D.C. This anti southern bias also plays into Thompson's hands, because it contains all the ingredients for a backlash among southern GOP primary voters. This backlash is magnified in importance because the South (having voted Republican so faithfully over the years) is apportioned relatively more delegates than its population would call for. Fred, as the only major southern candidate, would be the natural beneficiary of regional pride. His regional advantage will, in my opinion, be magnified by the not so subtle anti-southern bigotry of the elites.
Finally, the elites, and their MSM allies, are to be thanked for lowering expectations for Fred. They are basically telling GOP primary voters that it is over, he cannot win, etc. When he does better than expected, as I predict he will in every primary/caucus, it will cause a thunderclap in which he will be perceived as the victor, even if he does not place first in them all. Ironically, in lowering expectations, they are not damaging him among those of us who detest the elites and the MSM but they doing yeoman's work for the Thompson campaign. The free publicity Fred is virtually guaranteed to get after "exceeding expectations" could not be purchased with all of Romney's millions.
Just as a postscript, let me say something about insurgent candidates in general and Fred Thompson in particular. Insurgent candidates are uncomfortable and ineffective in the role of the frontrunner. Reagan was never comfortable in the role. Good, principled candidates are at their best on the offensive. Fred Thompson is no different. In his first election in Tennessee, he was at his best when he came from 20 points down to defeat a strong Democrat Congressman and to reclaim Al Gore's seat for the Republicans.
A frontrunner's campaign can be successful, but I do not believe it will be so this year. In any event, Fred Thompson is not the candidate to run such a campaign. His principles and honesty would be major impediments to such a "safe" strategy. However, in the particular circumstances the country and the Party find itself in in 2008, Fred Thompson is in exactly the position he needs to be to claim the GOP nomination. The times have indeed met the man.
Previous post:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1900662/posts
You would let “one comment” by a candidate turn you off of the most conservative candidate that we have offered to us? WOW! I am a a loss for words.
I agree. It's like he is paying no attention to conventional wisdom on how to run a campaign. Instead I see him addressing one issue at a time, laying out a STRONG conservative position and then moving on to the next issue.
By the time the primaries begin he will have established unparalelled positions among the GOP candidates on all major issues. These positions are well thoughout and deep.
This could be quite the interesting election season.
Fred’s answers and the way he spoke . . . it was refreshing and gives me a lot more hope.
"We Ents don't say anything unless it is worth taking a looonnng tiiiime tooo saaaay."
“I am interested in informed opinion, not media driven vanity.”
If you don’t want to read my posts, by all means do not. If you can refute them with some objective facts, which you fail to deliver here, by all means do so. Otherwise, you may wish to return to the Mitt threads and continue your delusions that he is going to be the nominee.
Didn't bash the other pubbies, but he did the establishment elites.
I liked it.
I don't feel one way or the other about Fred and never claimed to have any special knowledge about his record.
I do know that Fred did some lobbying for a "family planning" or "abortion-rights" group, and that's something that probably should be explained.
I did see Ellery's post to me about Fred's Federalism Enforcement Act and thanked him for the information on this thread.
But nobody turns out boiler plate proclamations and rhetoric about the Constitution than Robert Byrd, and he never pushed his chair away from the table when the pork was being served, so some skepticism about that sort of proclamations and declamations is natural.
You made insinuations without a shred of proof.
Fred has one of the best spending/fiscal restraint/Federalist records around.
For those interested, here is some of Fred`s Senate votes that clearly show why he was/is a fiscal cosnervative:
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT: Passage of the joint resolution to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget by the year 2002 or two years after ratification by the states. Rejected 65-35, March 2, 1995. Fred supported the amendment.
LINE-ITEM VETO: Passage of the bill to provide the president with the ability to veto individual line items in an appropriations bill, targeted tax breaks in a revenue bill, or new entitlement spending. Approved 69-29, March 23, 1995. Fred supported the bill.
TAX CUTS: Gramm amendment to the budget resolution to provide tax cuts similar to those provided by the House, including a $500-per child credit, a reduction in the capital gains tax rate, an expansion of IRAs, and the elimination of the marriage penalty in the tax code. Rejected 31-69, May 23, 1995. Fred supported the amendment.
BALANCED BUDGET ACT. Passage of the bill to balance the budget over seven years, by reducing projected spending by $894 billion and cutting taxes by $245 billion. Approved 52-47, November 17, 1995. Fred supported the bill.
TAX LIMITATION: SConRes 57 (CQ Senate Vote 128), FY 1997 Budget Resolution. Exon (D-NE) motion to table (kill) the Kyl (R-AZ) amendment to express the sense of the Senate that fundamental tax reform should be accompanied by a constitutional amendment to require a supermajority of Congress to approve a tax increase. Motion agreed to 59-41, May 22, 1996. Fred opposed the Exon motion.
SOCIAL SECURITY TAX DEDUCTION: SConRes 57 (CQ Senate Vote 140), FY 1997 Budget Resolution. Ashcroft (R-MO) amendment to allow a tax deduction for the Social Security payroll tax and to offset the costs by decreasing discretionary and mandatory spending. Rejected 43-57, May 22, 1996. Fred supported the Ashcroft amendment.
MAINTAINING BUDGETARY FIREWALLS: SConRes 57 (CQ Senate Vote 147), FY 1997 Budget Resolution. Domenici (R-NM) motion to table (kill) the Bumpers (D-AR) amendment to abolish the “firewall” between defense and domestic discretionary spending. The “firewall” provides an essential defense against liberals’ attempts to shift funds from defense accounts to non-defense domestic discretionary accounts. Motion agreed to 57-41, May 23, 1996. Fred supported the Domenici motion.
TAX CUTS: SConRes 57 (CQ Senate Vote 151), FY 1997 Budget Resolution. Domenici (R-NM) motion to table (kill) the Feingold (D-WI) amendment to eliminate the $122 billion provided for tax cuts over six years. Motion agreed to 57-43, May 23, 1996. Fred supported the Domenici motion.
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT. SJRes1 (roll call vote 24). Balanced-Budget Constitutional Amendment. Passage of the joint resolution to propose a constitutional amendment to balance the budget by the year 2002 or two years after ratification by three-fourths of the states, whichever is later. Three-fifths of the entire House and Senate would be required to approve deficit spending or an increase in the public debt limit. A simple majority could waive the requirement in times of war or when the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent national security threat. Rejected 66-34, March 4, 1997. (A two-thirds majority vote of those present and voting is required to pass a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.) Fred supported the amendment.
FUTURE DEFICIT SPENDING PROHIBITION. SConRes27, FY 1998 Budget Resolution (roll call vote 83). Ashcroft (R-MO) motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Lautenberg (D-NJ) point of order against his amendment to require a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress for passage of any legislation that increases the deficit after FY 2002. Motion rejected 41-58, May 22, 1997. A three-fifths majority vote (60) of the total Senate is required to waive the Budget Act. (Subsequently, the chair upheld the Lautenberg point of order and the amendment was defeated.) Fred supported the motion.
TAX CUT/SPENDING FREEZE. SConRes27, FY 1998 Budget Resolution (roll call vote 90). Domenici (R-NM) motion to table (kill) the Grams (R-MN) amendment to require the $220 billion Congressional Budget Office revenue windfall be applied to deficit reduction and tax relief, and to freeze non-defense discretionary spending. Motion agreed to 73-27, May 23, 1997. Fred opposed the motion to table.
NANNY STATE TAX CUTS. S949, FY 1998 Budget Reconciliation (roll call vote 139). Gramm (R-TX) amendment to eliminate the requirement that the $500-per-child tax credit be invested in a tuition program or education individual retirement account, and let parents make their own decisions on how to use the tax credit. Rejected 46-54, June 27, 1997. Fred supported the amendment.
INFLATION INDEXING. S949, FY 1998 Budget Reconciliation (roll call vote 159). Allard (R-CO) amendment to require that capital gains be indexed for inflation. Rejected 41-57, June 27, 1997. Fred supported the amendment.
TAX CUTS. SconRes86 (roll call vote 55). McCain (R-AZ) motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Lautenberg (D-NJ) point of order against the Coverdell (R-GA) amendment. Coverdell’s amendment would reduce cut taxes by $195.5 billion over five years by raising the income thresholds for the 15 percent and 28 percent tax brackets. Motion rejected 38-62: R 38-17, April 01, 1998. A three-fifths majority vote (60) of the total Senate is required to waive the Budget Act. (Subsequently, the chair upheld the point of order, and the amendment fell.) Fred supported the motion to waive the point of order.
SOCIAL SECURITY PERSONAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS. SconRes 86 (roll call vote 56). Roth (R-DE) amendment to express the sense of the Senate that the Senate Finance Committee should in 1998 report legislation that would dedicate the federal budget surplus to the establishment of Social Security “personal retirement accounts.” Adopted 51-49, April 01, 1998. Fred supported the amendment.
TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT - Passage, H.J.Res. 37 (Roll Call Vote No. 90). April 15, 1999 - Passage of the joint resolution to propose a constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds majority vote of the House and Senate to pass any legislation that increases federal revenues by more than a “de minimis,” or insignificant, amount. The exact definition of “de minimis” would be left to Congress. The resolution was rejected 229-199, 15 Apr. 1999. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (286 in this case) is required to pass a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. Fred supported the resolution.
TAX CUT PACKAGE - Passage, HR 2488 (Roll Call Vote No. 333). Passage of the bill to reduce federal taxes by $792 billion over 10 years. The measure would reduce individual income tax rates by 10 percent over a 10-year period, contingent upon annual progress in reducing interest on the nation’s debt. It would reduce the “marriage penalty” by increasing the standard deduction for married couples to double that for singles; cut the capital gains tax rate for individuals from 20 percent to 15 percent for property held for more than one year; gradually lower the corporate capital gains tax rate from 35 percent to 30 percent by 2005; reduce the estate and gift tax rates until they are completely eliminated in 2009; accelerate the phase-in of a 100 percent deduction for health insurance premiums for the self-employed, and allow all taxpayers to deduct health care and long-term care insurance if employers pay 50 percent or less of the premium; increase the annual contribution limit for Education Savings Accounts from $500 to $2,000 and permit tax-free withdrawals to pay for public and private elementary and secondary tuition and expenses. Bill passed 223-208, 22 July 1999. Fred supported the bill.
TAX CUTS, S.Con.Res. 101 (Roll Call Vote No. 68) The Senate defeated an amendment deleting all tax cuts in the Congressional Budget Resolution. The vote was 44-56, 7 Apr. 2000. Fred opposed the amendment.
FISCAL 2001 BUDGET RESOLUTION - Adoption, H.Con.Res. 290 (Roll Call Vote No. 79) The Senate adopted a five-year budget plan that includes $147.1 billion in tax cuts. The vote was 51-45, 7 Apr. 2000. Fred supported this budget.
GAS TAX SUSPENSION - Cloture, S. 2285 (Roll Call Vote No. 80) The Senate failed to limit debate on a bill that would suspend the 4.3 ¢/gallon federal gas tax surcharge from April 15 through Jan. 1, 2001. If the national average gas price reached $2/gallon, the remaining 14.1 ¢/gallon federal tax would also be suspended. The vote was 43-56, with 60 votes needed, 11 Apr. 2000. Fred supports efforts to lower the gas tax.
MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX - Cloture, HR 6 (Roll Call Vote No. 82) The Senate failed to limit debate on an amendment that would essentially eliminate the federal tax penalty on married couples. The vote was 53-45, with 60 votes needed, 13 Apr. 2000. Fred supported this effort to lessen the marriage penalty.
ESTATE TAX REPEAL. HR 8 (Roll Call Vote No. 180) The Senate voted down an amendment that would have maintained the “death” tax while easing its effect in some cases. The vote was 46-53, 13 July 2000. Fred supported the amendment.
GAS TAX SUSPENSION, HR 8 (Roll Call Vote No. 183) The Senate voted no to suspend the entire federal gas tax of 18.4 ¢/gallon for 150 days. The vote was 40-59, 13 July 2000. Fred supported the suspension.
TAXATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS, HR 8 (Roll Call Vote No. 188) The Senate voted to reduce the percentage of Social Security benefits that are taxable from 85 percent to 50 percent, which was the level up until 1993. The vote was 58-41, 13 July 2000. Fred supported the reduction.
ESTATE TAX REPEAL - Passage, HR 8 (Roll Call Vote No. 197) The Senate vote to phase out the “death” tax by 2010. The vote was 59-39, 14 July 2000. Fred supported the bill.
2001 INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS. S. 420 (Roll Call Vote No. 21 ) Sessions (R-AL) motion to protect individual retirement accounts from limitations imposed during bankruptcy proceedings. The bill was defeated (61-37) Fred supported this bill.
2001 BUDGET RESOLUTION CAPPING SPENDING. H. Con. Res. 83 (Roll Call Vote No. 98 ) Adoption of the final version of the Budget Resolution, calling for approximately $1.35 trillion in tax cuts through fiscal 2011, including a $100 billion stimulus package. “Discretionary” spending was capped at $661.3 billion. The bill was passed (53-47) Fred supported this bill.
2001 CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATE REDUCTION. HR 1836 (Roll Call Vote No. 115 ) Gregg (R-NH) motion to allow consideration of his amendment to the tax cut bill. His amendment would provide for a temporary reduction in the maximum capital gains rate from 20 percent to 15 percent, to stimulate the economy. The bill was defeated (47-51) Fred supported this bill.
2001 TAX CUT BILL HR 1836 (Roll Call Vote No. 170 ) Adoption of the final version of the tax cut bill, reducing taxes by $1.35 trillion through 2010 through income tax rate cuts, relief of the “marriage penalty,” a phase-out of the federal estate tax, doubling the child tax credit, and providing incentives. The bill was defeated (58-33) Fred supported this bill.
CAPS ON GOVERNMENT SPENDING. HR 4775 (Roll Call 133) The motion would extend for five years caps on federal spending and establish other procedural controls on federal spending. ACU supported this budget discipline measure, which failed on a 49-49 vote (60 votes were required) on 5 June 2002. The bill was defeated (49-49) Fred supported this bill.
DEATH TAX REPEAL PERMANENT. HR 8 (Roll Call 151) The motion would make the repeal of the estate or death tax passed in 2001 permanent. ACU supported this effort, which received a 54-44 vote majority on 12 June 2002, but Senate rules require 60 votes under the Budget Act. The bill was defeated (54-44) Fred supported this bill.
*****
- While in the Senate, Fred Thompson waged total war against government waste and fraud. Just one of many glowing reports from Citizens Against Government Waste:
CAGW PRAISES THOMPSON REPORT ON FEDERAL MISMANAGEMENT
Key excerpt: “Once again, Chairman Thompson deserves great credit for exposing the pervasive problems in the federal government,” CAGW President Tom Schatz said. “As CAGW has documented repeatedly, many federal agencies and programs are duplicative, unaccountable, nontransparent, get poor results, lose money, are mismanaged, and outdated. These problems have persisted for decades, and as this report indicates, are growing worse and require rapid action.”
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_06052001b
-He also ferreted out and brought to light federal abuses of power:
- He doggedly held the line on taxes; as one example, he was one of only 36 congress members and only 9 senators to receive the coveted “Taxpayers’ Friend” award from the National Taxpayers Union:
CITIZEN GROUP SALUTES “TAXPAYERS’ FRIENDS” IN CONGRESS: JUST 36 LAWMAKERS RECEIVE AWARDS FOR SCORES ON NTU’S 2002 RATING
Key excerpt: “Not all Members of Congress fought day in and day out during 2002 for the principle of limited government that is the cornerstone of our country’s greatness,” said NTU President John Berthoud. “Fortunately, at least 36 allies in Congress demonstrated an unwavering commitment to taxpayers. We are proud to honor this fiscal ‘coalition of the willing.’”
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=113&org_name=NTU
- He has been a tireless champion of federalism/states’ rights:
THOMPSON EARNS “RESTORING THE BALANCE” AWARD FROM NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES
Key excerpt: WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, has been selected to receive the 2000 “Restoring the Balance Award,” presented by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). The award, given annually to national policymakers committed to federalism and its impact on issues involving state legislators, was presented to Thompson last night at the NCSL’s Leader to Leader Dinner in Washington.
Thompson’s dedication to the principles of federalism and sound government policy has resulted in the Committee’s advancement of the Federalism Accountability Act, and Senate passage of the Regulatory Right to Know Act, the Federal Financial Information Assistance Management Improvement Act, the Truth in Regulating Act, and revision of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
If find it funny that you did not answer my question, when and where did you see Fred campaign IN PERSON, and how would you compare him to the other top tier, WHOM YOU HAVE ALSO MET IN PERSON?
Please be careful not to place words in my posts. I have stated that Mitt is the best chance to stop Giuliani, who at this time is leading in the polls. I have never once stated that Mitt will be the nominee. For that, we will have to see how this process plays out.
Let me get this straight, are of the delusion that if Fred or Mitt is somehow in the title of a posted article, then comment is prohibited by other members of FR, who might have something relevant to contribute? Perhaps you should have the Admin Moderator clarify your misunderstanding.
I know not who you are ‘Masked-Man’...but that is one great article!
Mitt is going to win everywhere. LOL People are in love with him. After $50 million, he is at 11% in Rasmussen. He leads in states, 2 months before the votes, where he has been running advertising unopposed for the better part of a year. Come back in about a month, after the comparison ads of him slamming Reagan and conservatives have run, when people start deciding and let’s see where he is. He can join the “Howard Dean Club” (”I was way ahead in Iowa in November. If only it had stayed that way, I would have won.”)
Well, it ain’t gonna stay that way. The real campaign is just getting underway.
Thanks. Mission Impossible (post #128) disagrees, but he has been slurping the Mitt Koolaid, methinks.
Wait a minute. Are you saying I brought all this kool-aid for nothing? /s
:)
There is no persuasive reason to believe that trend will end. They are fighting for the same core demographic.
He's trashing him soundly, too.
This just isn’t true. Fred isn’t a niche candidate competing for the wackjob Christian right, which is a mere sliver of the Republican electorate, even in Iowa. He is pitching his campaign to the “commonsense conservatives,” IOW the great silent majority of the GOP. His campaign model isn’t to line up special interest groups to win access to the grass roots. It has been to develop his own grass roots among conservatives who aren’t closely affiliated with any element of the Republican fringe.
This model may work, or it may not, but today’s poll numbers don’t signify much either way. Every time I hear some Romney partisan braying about how Mitt is destined to win Iowa, I am reminded of a track meet I watched with my 5 year old son. He was sure that the runner in the outside lane was going to win because he started ahead of the others. He couldn’t be persuaded that his apparent lead was illusory because the outside lanes are longer than the inside ones.
At the moment the competitors in the GOP race are still in the starting blocks. There is no meaningful sense in which anyone is ahead. Most of the voters who will decide the contest haven’t begun to think about it. When they do, they are extremely unlikely to opt for a liberal New Yorker, a Massachusetts chameleon opportunist, an Arizona maverick, or an Arkansas huckster Fred aptly described as a “pro-life liberal.”
Nobody is ahead until the gun goes off, but the smart money bets on the best runner. Aside from Thompson, every candidate is vulnerable to devastating comparison ads. Fred is the only plausible candidate in the field. Mitt, like his father before him, is destined for disappointment.
Fred Thompson is having a free ride because of hundreds of millions of dollars in Face and Name recognition purchased by a screen career. Mitt has to do it the old fashioned way.
Let everyone notice for the record that Brices is predicting that the Fred campaign, (or his 501 surrogates) is going to run the negative mitthit ads targeting Mitt’s past statements on Ronald Reagan. Of course, this may be Fred's hail Mary only chance, but it is a fantasy because...
You guys don’t have the money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.