Posted on 08/31/2007 10:20:33 AM PDT by Josh Painter
There has been no end to the speculation about why Fred Thompson has waited to officially announce that he will be a candidate for the Republican nomination for President in 2008. Many have opined that it all has to do with contract obligations to NBC for the "Law & Order" series in which he was a cast member. Sounds reasonable, but it's wrong.
Backers of some of former Sen. Thompson's opponents are saying that Fred picked September 6 over Sept. 5 so he could avoid the GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire. They say that Fred is "afraid" of facing his rivals, especially ____________________ (enter the name of your guy here). Not only wrong, but ridiculously so. If FDT is so fearful of that early September debate, then why will he participate in the one later that month (September 27 ) and all the GOP debates thereafter?
The common sense answer is that Fred's campaign hasn't been ready for him to enter the fray until now. The organization's inner circle has been shuffled to get the right people into the right positions, and state and local troops are still in the process of being organized. In addition, Fred has not been actively participating in politics since he left the Senate five years ago. He's a bit rusty, and FDT has been getting himself up to speed on all of the relevant issues and honing his debating skills. This answer makes a lot of sense and has some truth in it, but it still doesn't explain the chosen date. Why September 6, and not the 5th or the 4th?
The answer can be found in the arcane rules of the Federal Election Commission. By waiting until September 6 to formally declare his candidacy, Thompson won't have to disclose any campaign cash donations to Friends of Fred until January 31. By that date some important GOP preliminaries will be over and done with, including the caucuses in Iowa and Nevada, as well as primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida, the latter a state that Team Thompson has has identified as one of its most important targets.
We've seen what happened with Thompson's earlier disclosure that he raised $3.5 Million in his testing-the-waters campaign's first 26 days. Significantly, that amount is more than ten times greater than what Rudy Giuliani managed to raise in the first month of his campaign's exploratory phase, and it's more than all of the lower-tier GOP candidates were able to raise added together. And it was done without the benefit of using a direct mail campaign or phone trees. Only Mitt Romney raised more money in his first month, but he had the added advantage of being able to write his campaign a personal check for $850,000. Not only did Fred raise more than most of his opponents, he spent less, paying out only a bit over $625,000 from the haul.
But we heard none of this from the liberal media. All we heard from them was that the $3.5 Million Friends of Fred raised "failed to meet expectations." It's become a key part of their anti-Fred mantra. All because some of Fred's backers had mentioned a fundraising target of $5 Million.
And while Thompson was being dissed for raising "only" $3.5 Million, Democrat activists from the DNC down to the most obscure leftist blog were gleefully cheering on internet gadfly and liberal activist Lane Hudson, who filed a bogus complaint against Fred's organization with the Federal Election Commission. The Left, always wanting to have it both ways, ridiculed Fred for not raising enough money, but filed a complaint charging that he raised too much. It is more than significant to note here that one of the first hires by Fred's budding political group was no less of an expert on campaign law than Michael Toner, a former chairman of the FEC. Among his duties is giving Team Thompson advice on just what it can and cannot legally do during the testing-the-waters phase of the campaign. Smart. Very smart.
So perhaps now you can understand why Friends of Fred picked September 6, 2007, of all days, to make Fred's official announcement. It's the earliest possible date which allows Fred to get in the race, yet not have to disclose how much he raised in donations until the end of January. Having been burned by the media and the opposition, who turned his fundraising success story into a sad tale of disappointment, they are following the "Won't get fooled again" strategy.
Again, smart. Very smart.
Or even Paul it seems...
Doinky isn't a word, unless it is neologism that means something not to the liking of Clara Lou.
If Freddy isn't Unready, then please set me straight. What has be been ready for? His Senate career? Campaign organization? Fundraising? Debates? Fred admirers must multiply explanations and excuses for each fresh example of Fred being unready. Like Occam, I have one explanation for it all-- Fred Thompson lacks executive ability.
II think that I can accurately encapsulate Thompson supporters' opinion of you and your demands this way: Take a flying leap through a rolling donut.
Take a nap then.
Go ahead and put fencing around it and make it a cage match. Last survivor wins. Six men enter, one man leaves.
Seriously, a debate like that, especially with only a moderator who doesn’t ask questions, would be good for the country.
Scythian wrote: “To be honest, I’m sick and tired of hearing about Fred Thompson and he isn’t even running yet, when he announces I’m going to yawn, give me a break, enough already ...”
All right, whoever is holding the gun to Scythian’s head forcing him or her to read and post in this thread, needs to stop it right now! Put down the gun, and slowly back away from Scythian’s computer...
Thompson has a long record of cutting taxes and the size and reach of federal government. In addition, the first measure Thompson introduced when he was elected to the Senate is below. I believe it's meaningful that Thompson was saying the same things about fiscal responsibilities and tough choices back then as he's saying now.
TERM LIMITS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today, I, along with Senator Ashcroft, will introduce a joint resolution to impose term limits on Members of Congress. This legislation will limit Members of the Senate to two terms and it will limit Members of the House to three terms. The time has come to pass this legislation. It is needed and it has the overwhelming support of the American people. In fact, never has there been an idea so popular that has received so little attention by the U.S. Congress. It is because term limits does not have to do with spending other people's tax money or regulating other people's lives as is the case with most legislation coming out of Congress. This provision, term limits, hits much closer to home. It calls for sacrifice or at least adjustment in the lives of ourselves. At least, with regard to those in Congress who see the Congress as a permanent career. It is time that the Congress put aside the personal interest that individual Members might have and respond to the will of the people, the good of the country, as well as the good of Congress as an institution.
Because term limits is not about punishing Congress or denigrating the institution of Congress, although it has come to the point where many in our society would love to do so. On the contrary. Term limits would strengthen and elevate Congress in the eyes of the American people at a time when it is most needed. Today people feel alienated from their Government and have concluded that Congress does not have the will to deal with the tough challenges that face this country in the future. And who can disagree with that notion. Yesterday we passed out of the Judiciary Committee a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I have concluded, as I think most others have, that passage of a balanced budget amendment is absolutely necessary if we are going to avoid bankrupting the next generation. The reason is that Congress doesn't have the political will to do what we all know is necessary. Therefore, we must resort to the straitjacket of a balanced budget amendment. It is a reflection upon us and upon our current system that such a straitjacket is needed. But constitutional amendments with regard to specific matters cannot indefinitely save us from ourselves. We must start developing the will that is necessary to face tough issues. To me that means that we must have more people coming into the system who view service in the U.S. Congress not as a permanent career but as an interruption to a career. I believe that term limits would more likely produce individuals who would take on the tough challenges, since their careers would not be at stake every time they did so. It would also draw them into the system and encourage more citizens to run for office since they would not automatically face the difficult uphill struggle of running against a well-entrenched, well-financed incumbent.
There have been many Members who have served much longer than the limitations of this legislation would allow. A case can be made for the proposition that up until recently our current system has served us pretty well. There is no need to argue that point. However, different times and different circumstances require different measures. As the Federal Government has grown there has been a proliferation of special interest groups each with their demand on the Treasury and each holding a carrot and a stick for every Member of Congress. The carrot is political and financial support. And the stick is mobilizing of their forces in order to try to end a Member's career. So every time a Member takes a tough stand for the benefit of those yet unborn, who do not have votes, his career is on the line. For a Member whose entire future is based upon indefinite continued service, these forces are too often overwhelming. So we now have a $5 trillion debt and a deficit that will start to skyrocket again in 1998. Apparently, we have decided to let our children and grandchildren make the tough choices. That's not being responsible. Surely, we are better than that. We owe it to them to take the measures necessary to give us the best chance of putting ourselves in the position to deal with such problems. That is why we need term limits and I urge my colleagues support. (Congressional Record, Jan. 19, 1995)
Fred will participate in seven debates and as the article pointed out, Fred's fund-raising was better than the others in the Testing the Waters phase.
BTW, I know you are so anxious to hear Fred in as many debates as possible, but don't you think that for all the candidates, seven is enough?
What are you talking about? He is complying with the law. He is also complying with the spirit of it, by keeping his campaign shorter and less expensive than others. That is directly in line with the principle of lessening the influence of money on elections.
It is one of the reasons, I left the "party" and vote for Republicans as the lessor of two evils a decade ago. It is quite a liberating experience. I also, only, donate directly to the individual candidate, whom I support. Have already sent two donations to Fred.
By the way, thanks for your service.
How about this one. Unless Algore jumps in Fred is the LAST ONE to announce. After all of these LONG months of listening to all of the other candidates to the point of boredom we now have a new and fresh candidate (Fred). Who is a true "down home" Pro America Conservative that wants to leave this country free and prosperous for his two young children.
If Edwards is the nomminee that would be the Perfect bumper sticker!
Ping for your opinion :)
I prefer it this way. “All campaigning, all the time” isn’t good. It seems some of the candidates announced their intent to run immediately following the formal announcement of the winner of the last election.
Re#96 Yep. Now though, with Labor Day having passed, people will start paying attention...
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.