Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
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
Senior Moment - Most sorry!!
I don't know how well known it is yet, but there's an effort under way for a Fred Thompson money-bomb on 11/21 similar to the one just carried out by Paul Bots. I have to wonder what kind of numbers Fred's supporters can pull out...
Yes, but are there enough winner-take-all states for Rudy to get a majority of delegates? If not, I would expect that many of the other candidates would rather give their delegates to Romney than Rudy, so I'm not sure divide-and-conquer is going to be ultimately successful even if it does net him a plurality.
If the media is less relevant today then it was 30 years ago. How do you explain Reagan’s landslide victories in 1980 and 1984? How do you explain Dubya`s small victory margins in 2000 and 2004?
I disagree with you. I think the media is just as relevant today as it was 30 years ago, however, in different ways. The media is definitely more left of center than it was 30 years ago. The government is bigger and the welfare state is larger. The Democratic Party is more liberal than its ever been. The Republican Party is more liberal than its been in 30 years. What we need is perspective.
I think the difference today compared to 30 years ago, is the approach Reagan took to politics. Fred can’t compete with the personal appeal of Reagan, but he can appeal to people in the spirit of what Reagan believed America stood for. Those are traditional values, beliefs and principles. Thats what Fred believes in. He just needs to better communicate his agenda to the people.
Right now, the field of candidates is crowded with liberals, wafflers and half-baked conservatives. Thats where Fred has the upper hand. He needs to drive his message home, again and again and again. Let voters know who you are and what you stand for. Be relentless and never let up. With Rooty Toot leading the pack, Fred has the opportunity to take control and win. We shall see.
It’s probably a good idea to have SOME idea what you are talking about before commenting on a candidate.
FRed Thompson voted 100% pro-life in the Senate. He voted against cloning and fetal stem cell research.
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
* Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
He spent his time in the Senate trying to cut waste, taxes, and regulations.
His was the only vote against mandatory Federal seat belt laws, mandatory blood alcohol levels, a federal law banning guns in schools, and an amendment to a teacher liability protection bill which Thompson spoke against on Federalism grounds.
He was the lone holdout against the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, a measure limiting the tort liability of Good Samaritans.
When Thompson was on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he expressed strong federalism concerns with “regulatory takings” legislation that would have undermined local land use planning. The bill was sponsored by then-Committee Chair Hatch and supported by most Republicans. Thompson’s willingness to discuss the bill’s federalism implications in a serious way, in the face of uniform support for the bill from the so-called property rights movement, seemed to reflect heartfelt beliefs.
“Washington overreaches, and by doing so ends up not doing well the basics people really care about.”-FDT
*****
Thank you for the link to Reagan’s executive order on federalism. Here is some additional detail that brings us ‘round full-circle: in 1998, the ‘toon signed an executive order that overturned the Reagan federalism order that you cited. In response, Fred Thompson introduced the Federalism Enforcement Act of 1998, which was designed to counteract the ‘toon and restore Reagan’s original executive order. Below is an excerpt of his remarks introducing his bill:
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Federalism Enforcement Act, a bill to promote the principles of federalism and to restore the proper respect for State and local governments and the communities they serve. I am pleased that Senators Nickles, Craig, Thurmond, and Hutchinson have joined me as cosponsors of this legislation.
-snip-
Our Founding Fathers had grave concerns about the tendency of a central government to aggrandize itself and thus encroach on State sovereignty, and ultimately, individual liberty. Federalism is our chief bulwark against Federal encroachment and individual liberty. Our Founders also knew that keeping decision making powers closer to home led to more accountable and effective government. Their federalist vision is clearly reflected in the 10th amendment, which states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The legislation I am introducing today requires agencies to respect this vision of federalism when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It will preserve the division of responsibilities between the States and the Federal Government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution and established in Executive order by President Ronald Reagan.
The Reagan order on federalism had it right. It directed Federal departments and agencies to refrain from imposing one-size-fits-all regulation on the States. It held that the laws passed by Congress were not presumed to preempt State law unless done so explicitly. It required agencies to assess the impact of agency action on federalism. But the people running the executive branch today, from the top on down, do not seem to feel the Reagan order applies to them. They made this abundantly clear when they tried to revoke it with Clinton Executive Order 13083.
In May, President Clinton quietly signed Executive Order 13083, which by its terms claims to promote federalism. Ironically, this order that is supposed to promote better communication between Federal and local government was issued in secret-without even talking to State and local officials at all. Worse still, the order would seriously undermine federalism and effectively turn the 10th amendment on its head. The Reagan Executive Order 12612 promoted the 10th amendment and set a clear presumption against Federal meddling in local affairs. The new Clinton order would create, but not be limited to, nine new policy justifications for Federal meddling. The list is so ambiguous that it would give Federal bureaucrats free rein to trample on local matters. The new Clinton order also would revoke President Clinton’s own 1993 Executive Order 12875 that directed Federal agencies not to impose unfunded mandates on the States.
Understandably, State and local officials were deeply offended by the Clinton order and the White House snub in drafting it. On July 17, the major groups representing State and local officials sent a remarkable letter to the President, urging him to withdraw the order and to restore the Reagan federalism order and the 1993 unfunded mandates order. On July 22, several of my colleagues and I supported State and local officials by sponsoring a resolution calling on President Clinton to repeal his new order. That resolution passed the Senate unanimously. The House also has voiced opposition to the Clinton order. Congressman McIntosh held a hearing, and joined with six of his colleagues to introduce a bill nullifying Executive Order 13083.
The White House had a chance to extinguish the firestorm of protest from Governors, State legislators, mayors, county executives, and other local officials around the country by permanently revoking Executive Order 13083. Instead, the White House chose to preserve some wiggle room by `suspending’ the order on August 5, leading some to ask if that action is permanent or just an effort to delay the order until the opposition dies down. If the President can admit that he made a mistake in signing his federalism order, he should permanently revoke it, plain and simple.
Unfortunately, the White House has yet to correct its insult to State and local officials and the communities they serve. Instead of revoking the Clinton order, the administration is preparing for belated consultations with State and local government representatives. This effort at damage control does not hide the fact that the Clinton order is an open invitation for Federal interference in local affairs, and in the administration’s eyes, it is still on the table.
In light of this threat to the tenth amendment principle of a limited Federal Government, Congress must stand ready to act. The Federalism Enforcement Act is necessary to ensure that the current administration exercises some restraint when regulating in areas that affect our States and communities, and respects the principles of State sovereignty and limited Federal Government on which our Nation was founded.
-snip-
78 posted on 10/30/2007 12:45:20 AM EDT by ellery
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Not nationally, but we need to see Fred finish strong or win in Iowa. Romney's the frontrunner there, so he's the short-term target, while Giuliani is the longer term target.
You're right that he needs to drive his points home, but he needs to do it less nationally at the moment than he does in IA, SC, and FL. The punditry can drone on about overloaded this and early that, but these early states are going to play a huge factor in the momentum of this race. Particularly if there's an upset situation where Thompson beats Romney or even does a close second.
Since they've completely written him off in a foolish public manner, they've actually helped Fred quite a bit in that regard. Any showing at all in the early primary states will give Fred a bump now. But we need better than that. I think we can get it too. Ras has Fred down 6 in IA and he's just started running ads. To put that another way, Romney's been running ads for months and is only up by 6 points on Fred, who hadn't run a single ad at the time that poll was taken.
BTW, I think Bush's relatively weak numbers show more that he's was a weak candidate than anything else. I can't speak to the relevancy of the media though.
My general approach to posting on FR has been guided by How to post a thread and other interesting facts, part II. (Welcome Newbies), paying particular attention for the section entitled,Vanities and General Interest.
But hey, some vanities are just so terrific that they should be posted in news/activism.
If you’ll keep me informed about when a website is set up, I will put the URL on one of the FRed Pings. :)
And we should care about this why? :p
But hey, some vanities are just so terrific that they should be posted in news/activism.
Hey, that's the spirit! I'm glad we're all on the same page on this. :)
“How do you explain Reagan’s landslide victories in 1980 and 1984? How do you explain Dubya`s small victory margins in 2000 and 2004?”
As to Dubya’s small victories, I think you answered the question yourself. The GOP is a far more liberal, and Dubya was a big government, anti-federalist candidate. He was in no way a conservative populist, as I would argue Reagan was.
Reagan’s landslides were the result of a number of factors, but I would argue that his fidelity to populist/federalist themes and issues was a key to his victory in 1980 (and his near miss in 1976: Remember, in 1976, he revived his candidacy with a populist issue, the Panama Canal giveaway.) I believe that the Immigration issue is going to serve as Fred’s Panama Canal issue, a way to galvanize popular support and to distinguish him from the field. His federalism is a broader principle that he alone shares with his ideological forebears, Reagan and Goldwater. This will further distinguish him from the GOP field.
In short, the MSM was hostile to bothReagan and Bush 43. Reagan was a superior candidate with a superior message. I really believe that had the MSM been as dominant in 2000 and 2004 as it was in 1980, Bush would have been defeated. He just wasn’t that good a candidate and his platform with no child left behind, prescription drug benefits, etc was too liberal to excite the base. Just my opinion.
I am as happy as you are when Fred delivers a punch to Huckabee for his rotten record in Arkansas or takes off after Rudy for his liberalism. I don’t think he is failing to communicate it, though. I think the time is just becoming ripe for such communication. The Iowa caucus will in all likelihood be decided in the last 2 weeks. The efforts up to now are relatively much less important than what will happen next month.
AM read bump
Did you really just dredge up the Schiavo case, and blame his drop in the polls on that statement?
Sounds like you need a vacation from politics for a bit.
Wow
You are obviously to blinded by your fixation on the Schiavo case to realize that, as far as presidential politics go, it's not even a blip on the radar screen.
I know that some people would like it to be an influential and decisive issue, but it just isn't.
My point was, in order to be successful, whoever the candidate is, they must get their message out to the people. Whether it be 1980, 2000 or 2008, the media plays a significant role in communicating the good, the bad and the ugly. Since most of the media is more leftwing than rightwing, that means conservatives have to work harder to reach the people. Reagan was routinely slammed by the media, yet he was able to work within a hostile system with a great deal of success. Its a fine line to walk and not all Republicans are up to the challenge.
Granted, the media hasn't been altogether fair to Fred. Some of that is Fred`s fault and it can't be ignored. Sometimes candidates need to play ball with the media, even when they don't want to. This is evident in the GOP`s 2008 primary process. The media are major manipulators of political messages. Never let them get the upper hand. The more a candidate like Fred can counter the media's efforts first hand, the better off he'll be.
I very nearly left FR because it was so nasty here for anyone who didn't want Bush (either one) to order the national guard intervene.
Luckily, some of us hijacked a thread and used it as sort of a behind the lines hang out and avoid the rash of insults and disparaging remarks about our character and morality. Scouting parties would go to one of the Schaivo threads and give us reports from the front lines.
It was really something else.
Respect is a reciprocal thing.
Disdain and bitterness to not engender respect from others.
Thank you for posting that link. That was an awesome interview. I do wish the cameraman had better control of the camera but Fred’s answers and the way he spoke . . . it was refreshing and gives me a lot more hope.
You analysis seems only to reflect your personal feelings, and your sense of the National mood. You may have some experience with Thompson’s media appearances, but do you know of his personal appearances on the campaign trail? In my experience, from what I have seen, the man is not competitive with the other top tier men.
I am interested in informed opinion, not media driven vanity.
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.