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
And you don’t have to make stuff up. So all you can come up with is one name? How does one surround himself with one guy? And you name Howard Baker, whom Ronald Reagan thoght highly enough of to name as his chief of staff.
BTW, if I were in a locker room, I wouldn’t have used the more gentle term “hind end,” LOL. You’ve been attacking Fred Thompson unrelentlessly for months in this forum. Just like a man is treated like a gentleman, a woman will treated like a lady when she starts acting like one. So please don’t try that Hillary Clinton “I’m a victim” act on me.
No, no no! Thank you! I insist!
Truly, Bull Market, I'm equally gratified to find that I'm not the only FReeper who thinks a lot of Republicans made distasteful exhibitions of themselves during the sad Schiavo thing.
“Is Fred really an “insurgent candidate”? He started out late, so he’s not an established candidate, but is he really anti-establishment in any deeper way?”
Fred Declared in September 2007. Reagan declared in November 1979. Why does the date of the announcement have anything to do with whether the candidate is an insurgent? If you read the post carefully, you will see that Fred, as Goldwater and Reagan before him was first and foremost a federalist. This is a salient theme of their candidacies. The establishment is concentrated in Washington (the government) and New York (the hub of the MSM), principally. Its principle objective is power, and its principle method of arrogating that power to itself is to concentrate power in the central government. Federalism and those who are serious about it are in direct counterpoise with the establishment and its goals. I though that was clear wnough in my post, but you must have missed it.
“Did Fred make any of the populist appeals that you identify him with today, during his earlier career? Did he really show much concern about immigration when he was in the Senate?”
Yes. Fred has been a federalist and a populist since his Senate days. He was on the losing end of several 99-1 votes because of his belief that the federal government was encroaching on a state function under the Constitution. My post does not focus on specific issue, but since you brought it up...Immigration was not as much of a hot button issue when Fred was in the Senate, but he has never been for, or tolerated sanctuary cities like his two principal opponents. He is very credible on this issue IMHO.
“Has there really been a “barrage” against Fred? He’s the new boy trying to break in between candidates who’ve been at it for a year. Consequently, he doesn’t always come off as well as they do, but what evidence do you have that he gets more criticism than the other candidates?”
If you need proof that there has been a barrage against Fred , just google him and lazy or Gucci and golf cart or trophy wife. Look at some of the hit piece columns by alleged conservatives at AMSPEC blog and NRO. I haven’t got time to find them for you. I suspect you know where they are.
“And is Fred really the kind of regional candidate you make him out to be?”
Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said Fred was a regional candidate. I said he would benefit from regional pride as the only major southern candidate, in the same way Giuliani benefits from regional pride in being from the Northeast.
What I did say is that this benefits would be magnified by some of the not so subtle anti-southern bigotry that has been directed his way. If you want an example, look at Ann Coulter’s column in which she takes a swipe at him “Fred Sawyer and Huckabee Finn”. And I have heard several MSM pundits speculate that, after Bush, the country is not about to elect another President with a southern accent.
“Can you expect him to be your own property and blame others when they don’t vote for him? “Vote Southern” is a slogan that won’t travel well.”
Show me where in the post I blamed anybody for not voting for him. If you think being a the only major southern candidate, in a party whose base is in the south, is a disability, then you are seriously deluded. If I were Fred, I would be delighted that my chief competition for the Florida primary on January 29 is going to be a couple of Gungrabbers from Massachusetts and New York. I don’t care what the early polls show. The comparison ads have not even been run yet. There is no way Thompson is going to lose Florida to those two.
He was on the most-watched Sunday morning talk show just last Sunday for almost the entire hour. It's merely anecdotal, but my mom (who's depressed about the election and doesn't think any of our candidates can beat the 'toons) decided to support him after seeing the interview.
“You’ve been attacking Fred Thompson unrelentlessly for months in this forum. Just like a man is treated like a gentleman, a woman will treated like a lady when she starts acting like one. So please don’t try that Hillary Clinton “I’m a victim” act on me.”
PWNED!
“He isn’t your typical pandering flip flopping politician. He’s a statesman. A rarity today.”
That is what sets him apart. He is doing it not because he lusts for the power, but he thinks it is his duty. If he didn’t succeed, he would accept that as providential too. I remember that quote from the movie, “Gods and Generals”, attributed to Jackson, “Duty is ours; consequences are God’s” Fred is about doing his duty and leaving the rest to God.
I was once working a 12 hr shift, and I still know very little about terry schiavo. Not everyone has the same focus in life...
Doesn’t mean we don’t care.
Sound question -- there are a lot of federalism pretenders out there. The answer is, yes, he was -- it's one of the main reasons I am supporting him.
Here are just some quick examples of his work on federalism in the senate (I didn’t even get into the many votes he made on federalist grounds, and the many times he argued for federalism on the Senate floor):
To start, the National Conference of State Legislatures singled out Thompson as its champion of federalism in 2000:
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.
-snip of complimentary quote about Fred just for brevity’s sake-
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.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/030201_thompson_press.htm
-Thompson introduced S.2445 (9/8/98), the Federalism Enforcement Act of 1998: A bill to provide that the formulation and implementation of policies by Federal departments and agencies shall follow the principles of federalism, and for other purposes.
-He sponsored S. 1214, the Federalism Accountability Act of 1999: A bill to ensure the liberties of the people by promoting federalism, to protect the reserved powers of the States, to impose accountability for Federal preemption of State and local laws, and for other purposes.
-As chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee, he led a three-part hearing on the Federalism Accountability Act — the first part was “The State of Federalism;” the second was “Federalism and Crime Control;” and the third was on the proposed bill itself. Here’s the link: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_senate_hearings&docid=f:59454.wais
-He co-sponsored S 1629, the Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996 (104th CONGRESS, 2d Session): To protect the rights of the States and the people from abuse by the Federal Government; to strengthen the partnership and the intergovernmental relationship between State and Federal Governments; to restrain Federal agencies from exceeding their authority; to enforce the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution; and for other purposes.
-Closely related to federalism, Thompson introduced S.2068 on 5/12/1998, A bill to clarify the application of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, and for other purposes. This bill was intended to enforce the unfunded mandate act passed in 1995.
Major Bingo here Papasmurf. I don't agree with Fred on everything but weedoggies is he TYPE of man I want as POTUS....oozing with honesty, integrity, courage and just plain ol likeability.
This is all about the ebb and flow of primary politics and the all important, momentum, or as Bush41 use to say --- "BIG MO" . Political momentum can rise up and evaporate in no time.
Obviously, Fred has experienced a dip in the polls. While Fred likes to say, he's playing by his rules and not rules made up by others. His cautious dealings with the media have opened the flood gates of excessive criticism and rapid ridicule. Fred still needs to get his message out, off setting commentary from the talking heads as much as possible. So far, Fred seems hesitant to meet that challenge head on, thus adding to his diminishing bottom line.
While Reagan routinely went over the heads of the media and talked directly to the people. Reagan also realized it wasn't in his best interest to distance himself too much from major sources of free communication. Political propaganda is critical in winning. Truth in advertising aside. The media has the ability to spread a politicians message far and wide. However, its up to the candidate to mold that message.
IOW. No matter how much we conservatives may hate the media, they do serve a purpose. Especially in politics. Fred should take his cue from Reagan and not the current occupant of the White House.
This remains a wide open race. Rooty`s divide and conquer strategy is working, so far. Rooty still holds the lead, but its tenuous at best, with 65%-75% of the GOP opposing his candidacy. Fred is still in an advantageous position, holding down 2nd place in most polls. There is plenty of time left for him to shift gears and regain momentum. IMO, Fred remains the best candidate available. He's the most reliable and viable conservative running. So far, Republicans aren't sold on Fred, leaving his job far from finished.
I mention the fact that he just got into the race recently because I think that accounts for some of the things you say. If he'd been there all along observers would have gotten used to him and he'd be getting the same treatment as the other candidates. But not every newcomer is an insurgent.
Also, I don't recall him being a great advocate for federalism during his Senate years. I'll have to do some research before I can say that for sure, but I have to wonder how much of his federalist image has to do with opposing national-level socially conservative Republican policies on abortion, stem-cells, gay marriage, tort reform and other issues and how much has to do with liberal social programs. Fred the Federalist may not be what you expect.
Also, the idea that a party that prevails in the South deserves or needs a Southern leader looks mistaken. Democrats controlled the Northern cities for generations but for the past forty years when they got into the White House it was with a Southerner. That was a way of winning over swing voters. If their base prevailed we'd have had Presidents Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry. Clinton and Carter won for the Democrats because they didn't represent the party's liberal base. In the same way, nominating a Southerner would probably hurt the Republicans in key swing states.
Finally, it's obvious that Coulter is needling Huckabee and Thompson. And somebody (maybe not her) got the idea of Huck and Tom from Huckabee's last name. But do you really think she wouldn't abuse Rudy or Mitt or McCain in the same way if she had issues with them?
I do not “make stuff up”, SR. Unfortunately, the Rockefeller Republicans have roosted in Republican administrations for over 50 years. Even RR made a mistake now and then.
I do not attack Fred Thompson. I think we all should have all the information there is about the man who may be president. This time above all others because so much is at stake in our future. The WOT, the economy, our sovereignty. It is our responsibility as good citizens to elect the very best there is, and to examine every past record before casting our vote.
I don’t believe I’ve behaved in other than a ladylike manner on Free Republic. Can you site one instance that I did? I certainly do not consider myself a victim in any way, either.
You link me to Hillary Clinton? LOL! Of any personal attacks from Fredheads, and there have been many, I am very forgiving, even of that one. :)
Fred just went up with paid advertising. The early ads Romney ran will do him no good in the long run. It is like firing at the enemy when he is ten miles off. You make a lot of noise, but you don’t hit anything.
The difference between Fred and Reagan is that the MSM is much less relevant now than in 1976-80, made so by its increasingly strident leftward drift and by the internet. I think Fred has effectively used the media, but the media was nearly universally hostile to Reagan the candidate. He ran against it as much as he used it. When he became President, he gained the bully pulpit and could use it in a much more unfettered fashion. But when he was a candidate, he was savaged, perhaps worse than Fred.
As far as the Republicans not being sold on Fred yet, I submit that that is because there has not been a campaign yet. His ads just went up. If he was at 35% in the polls, I would still say they were not sold on him until the campaign had been waged. That said, his positioning just back of Giuliani, and the fact that this is a non-incumbent nomination fight, gives him the distinct edge IMHO. Time will tell.
Thanks for the information. I wasn’t aware of that.
Glad it was helpful. I can relate to your skepticism on the issue, with people like Giuliani running around claiming he can use federalism as an excuse to infringe upon our God-given and Constitutionally guaranteed RKBA! Ugh.
I have heard her praising Romney and even Rudy on Mark Levin as “conservatives who could trick liberals in blue states into voting for them”!! She attacked Fred Thompson, saying he did not understand the Constitution, because he only voted to convict and remove Clinton on one of the two impeachment counts. The Great One called her out on it, saying he had spoken to all of them and of all the candidates, Thompson had the clearest and best grasp of the Constitution, that he could discuss it with great insight and that he nearly always came to the right conclusion. That is high, high praise from Mark Levin, who is a constitutional scholar almost without peer.
...who are you and why should I care about your political opinions?I don't think his opinions would be any more valid that he had announced a brilliant pedigree or any less persuasive if Brices Crossroads were not a certified conservative.
. . . Free Republic should evaluate ideas on their own merits.
That's what Free Republic is all about. We become FReepers when we realize the FR is where we are able to air our own opinions, and return the courtesy of others who give our ideas consideration by read - or at least scanning - their postings and articles with an open mind.We are not "entitled to the truth" - we are only entitled to our own opinions. And we are entitled to spend money to try to attract favorable attention to our opinions. The Internet generally, and FR in particular, allows us to economically publish our opinions worldwide. 'Course FR edits out expressions of opinion which it does not consider to appeal to its target audience, but if you can live with their decisions regarding that, you just can't beat it.
If you require "information" from "objective" sources, FR isn't the place for that. But if you want to look for opinions which make sense to you whether or not they are thoughts of which Pinch Sultzberger would approve, reading FR makes sense. IMHO.
So you were disappointed about FT comments concerning Schiavo. I suspect you will find that most of us do not have 24/7 to keep up with all issues in all 50 states - we do keep up with those that are important to us as individuals. My children will decide what is to become of me should this occur - not any government entity. Perhaps this one very, very slim issue is of more importance to you for some reason. I do not see that FT’s initial response was indicative of a position. So since this is obviously important to you, please share with us exactly what you would like a Constitutional Amendment to say that would cover all life/death issues.
I was surprised when my mom told me she actually donated to Fred’s campaign! I knew she liked him, but I nearly fell off my chair when she told me...lol
It was newenglandredneck who mentioned that, not I, in post 67.
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.