The Fred writes at Townhall about the goals of his convention speech and his ideas of how the American voter gains their impressions of the candidates through all the rhetoric. His goal in the speech (and the current column) was to point out the long history of McCain's service to his country, not only in the military but also in the Senate, and how that record contrasts with that of his opponent.
"Put simply: Others talked about reaching across the aisle and reconciling differences; John McCain did it. Others went along with pork barrel spending and getting the political benefit from it; John McCain fought it. Others wanted to declare defeat and cut and run in the central front of the war on terrorism; John McCain fought for a strategy that would ensure victory. Others gave lip service to reform; John McCain actually made it happen."
Fred points out the concerns Americans have regarding the judicial process, and how only McCain would appoint judges that adhere to their historical role rather than engineer wide reaching social changes by judicial fiat. I really, really hope I will be blogging about Attorney General Fred Thompson next year.
Showing posts with label Politics - Republican Candidates for President. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics - Republican Candidates for President. Show all posts
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Friday, September 05, 2008
McCain Speech - Call to Serve
Fantastic finish last night.
"I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else’s. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency; for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again. I wasn’t my own man anymore. I was my country’s.
I’m not running for president because I think I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God.
If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you’re disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our Armed Forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier. Because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself."
While I've had my doubts about the man, as well as many, many disagreements, I could not agree more with these words. Wow.
"I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else’s. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency; for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again. I wasn’t my own man anymore. I was my country’s.
I’m not running for president because I think I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God.
If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you’re disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our Armed Forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier. Because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself."
While I've had my doubts about the man, as well as many, many disagreements, I could not agree more with these words. Wow.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
McCain on the Economy
Ross Kaminsky over at Human Events covers a McCain appearance in Denver where the Republican candidate explores the differences between him and his opponent on economic policies, and took some questions from the crowd.
"Throughout this stop on the campaign trail, Senator McCain made direct comparisons between his positions and those of Senator Obama. He pointed out several significant differences, starting with Obama wanting to hamper small business “by imposing a ‘pay or play’ health mandate on small business. This adds $12,000 to the cost of employing anyone with a family. This means new jobs will not be created. It means existing employees will have their wages cut to pay for this mandate.”
Moving on to taxes, McCain used a line voters are likely to hear frequently over the next four months: “If you believe you should pay more taxes, I am the wrong candidate for you. Senator Obama is your man….Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won’t. I will cut them where I can….When you raise taxes in a bad economy you eliminate jobs. I’m not going to let that happen.”
McCain also pointed out differences on trade, noting that 25% of all American jobs are linked to exports, and that a number of competitive swing states such as Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have almost 5 million such jobs. The candidate also swung at Congress over spending and earmarks such as the $100 million requested by Senator Obama in 2007 alone.
McCain also talked about expanding nuclear energy, calling for 45 new nuclear plants and the need to speed the development and deployment of clean coal technologies, noting 80% of Colorado's energy needs are met by America's most prodigious energy source. McCain then answered questions on the needs of veterans, healthcare, the question of security versus privacy rights, immigration, and Social Security, showing a deft handling of often difficult questions and an ability to think on his feet. McCain also renewed his calls to meet his opponent in just such a setting, playing to his obvious strengths in such a town hall setting.
If Mac can keep it close during the summer months, my guess is it will be anyone's game come November.
"Throughout this stop on the campaign trail, Senator McCain made direct comparisons between his positions and those of Senator Obama. He pointed out several significant differences, starting with Obama wanting to hamper small business “by imposing a ‘pay or play’ health mandate on small business. This adds $12,000 to the cost of employing anyone with a family. This means new jobs will not be created. It means existing employees will have their wages cut to pay for this mandate.”
Moving on to taxes, McCain used a line voters are likely to hear frequently over the next four months: “If you believe you should pay more taxes, I am the wrong candidate for you. Senator Obama is your man….Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won’t. I will cut them where I can….When you raise taxes in a bad economy you eliminate jobs. I’m not going to let that happen.”
McCain also pointed out differences on trade, noting that 25% of all American jobs are linked to exports, and that a number of competitive swing states such as Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have almost 5 million such jobs. The candidate also swung at Congress over spending and earmarks such as the $100 million requested by Senator Obama in 2007 alone.
McCain also talked about expanding nuclear energy, calling for 45 new nuclear plants and the need to speed the development and deployment of clean coal technologies, noting 80% of Colorado's energy needs are met by America's most prodigious energy source. McCain then answered questions on the needs of veterans, healthcare, the question of security versus privacy rights, immigration, and Social Security, showing a deft handling of often difficult questions and an ability to think on his feet. McCain also renewed his calls to meet his opponent in just such a setting, playing to his obvious strengths in such a town hall setting.
If Mac can keep it close during the summer months, my guess is it will be anyone's game come November.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
McCain's Record & ACU Ratings
Randall Hoven at The American Thinker examines the McCain record inlight of the widely touted 82 career American Conservative Union rating for the Senator. What is particularly interesting to me is that I was thinking about the same issue myself over the weekend. In short, an 82 rating is not all that good - solid conservatives are usually in the 90s.
"It puts Senator McCain in 39th place among senators serving in 2006, the latest year for which the ACU has its ratings posted online. For that most recent year in particular, McCain scored only 65, putting him in 47th place for that year. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), for example, scored 64 and 75, respectively, in 2006."
Any Republican comparable to Ben Nelson is pushing the envelope for liberalism. McCain has gotten far more libeal the longer he has served in the Senate - his pre 1998 rating is 88, while it is a 74 since that point.
Hoven analyzes each vote where McCain differed from the ACU position from 1998 through 2006 (48 votes), and finds that many of these votes (16, or 1/3) were quite close - the swing of even a pair of senators might have altered their outcome. The major issues of disagreement were taxes (15 votes alone), the environment (5), campaign finance reform (10) and lately immigration (3, all from 2006).
In ranking all the Senate Republicans since 1998, McCain score rates him on the far left wing of the party, with only four Northeastern Republican Senators with lower scores (Chaffee, Collins, Snowe, and Spector). Obviously, McCain is from reliably conservative Arizona, and his peer from that state, John Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, so one has to wonder who he is actually representing - himself? It obviously isn't his constituents.
Hoven repeats a line regarding McCain that is quite telling - "As someone remarked, McCain is like a baseball player who gets all his hits after two outs and no one on base, and all his outs with men in scoring position."
"It puts Senator McCain in 39th place among senators serving in 2006, the latest year for which the ACU has its ratings posted online. For that most recent year in particular, McCain scored only 65, putting him in 47th place for that year. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), for example, scored 64 and 75, respectively, in 2006."
Any Republican comparable to Ben Nelson is pushing the envelope for liberalism. McCain has gotten far more libeal the longer he has served in the Senate - his pre 1998 rating is 88, while it is a 74 since that point.
Hoven analyzes each vote where McCain differed from the ACU position from 1998 through 2006 (48 votes), and finds that many of these votes (16, or 1/3) were quite close - the swing of even a pair of senators might have altered their outcome. The major issues of disagreement were taxes (15 votes alone), the environment (5), campaign finance reform (10) and lately immigration (3, all from 2006).
In ranking all the Senate Republicans since 1998, McCain score rates him on the far left wing of the party, with only four Northeastern Republican Senators with lower scores (Chaffee, Collins, Snowe, and Spector). Obviously, McCain is from reliably conservative Arizona, and his peer from that state, John Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, so one has to wonder who he is actually representing - himself? It obviously isn't his constituents.
Hoven repeats a line regarding McCain that is quite telling - "As someone remarked, McCain is like a baseball player who gets all his hits after two outs and no one on base, and all his outs with men in scoring position."
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Republican Nomination
Earlier this week, my preferred candidate, Fred Thompson withdrew from the presidential race. He had been almost every conservative blogger's favorite (with a few notable exceptions) even before announcing. Thompson's late entry (compared to others running) and anti-establishment stance, which put him in an early hole with the media establishment (from which he never recovered, and in fact, hit pieces on him have still been appearing all week), inspired a great deal of enthusiasm online and among many conservative activists. His detailed policy papers and formidable debate performances also served the conservative cause well, forcing the other, more moderate candidate's policies on several issues to the right in response.
As I've posted last week, my next choices are Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney, who I would rate as about equal, but substantially less appealing. The current front-runner and media darling, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee are even less appealing, representing far more centrist and populist impulses. McCain owes his status primarily to independent voters from open primary states; Huckabee is supported almost entirely by fundamentalist values voters.
Steven Stark has an interesting piece at RCP concerning Thompson, given the state of the race, and he has an interesting historical parallel - the election of 1920, when a dark horse candidate emerged from the convention to not only take the nomination but the presidency - Warren G. Harding.
"If McCain loses in Florida, the Republicans may well be headed to a deadlocked race and convention. And history teaches us that the likeliest candidate to emerge in that scenario is someone like Warren G. Harding: the prototypical, less-than-stellar candidate to which conventions turn when the going gets rough. This year's Harding? Believe it or not (are you sitting down?), despite the fact that he's withdrawn from the race, is Fred Thompson."
Harding ran quite poorly in 1920 - the leading candidates were a California senator, the governor of Illinois, and a retired Army General, Leonard Wood. However, none of them received the majority of delegates, and Harding had two distinct advatanges - he looked presidential, and he hadn't generated any significant antagonisms from the various party candidates or their supporting interests. This year, Fred Dalton Thompson also fits this mold. As Stark points out, Huckabee and Guiliani aren't likely to be the nominee unless they can get a delegate majority, which appears impossible at this point. McCain is strongly opposed by the both the party establishment and conservatives, and Romney is (for whatever reason) intensely disliked by the other candidates, despite strong support in some quarters, such as National Review and columnist/blogger/talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, leading it questionable that he could gather any support at the convention either.
That leads us to a brokered convention, and the emrgence of a consensus candidate, like 1920, that is everyone's second choice - Fred. Cross your fingers.
As I've posted last week, my next choices are Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney, who I would rate as about equal, but substantially less appealing. The current front-runner and media darling, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee are even less appealing, representing far more centrist and populist impulses. McCain owes his status primarily to independent voters from open primary states; Huckabee is supported almost entirely by fundamentalist values voters.
Steven Stark has an interesting piece at RCP concerning Thompson, given the state of the race, and he has an interesting historical parallel - the election of 1920, when a dark horse candidate emerged from the convention to not only take the nomination but the presidency - Warren G. Harding.
"If McCain loses in Florida, the Republicans may well be headed to a deadlocked race and convention. And history teaches us that the likeliest candidate to emerge in that scenario is someone like Warren G. Harding: the prototypical, less-than-stellar candidate to which conventions turn when the going gets rough. This year's Harding? Believe it or not (are you sitting down?), despite the fact that he's withdrawn from the race, is Fred Thompson."
Harding ran quite poorly in 1920 - the leading candidates were a California senator, the governor of Illinois, and a retired Army General, Leonard Wood. However, none of them received the majority of delegates, and Harding had two distinct advatanges - he looked presidential, and he hadn't generated any significant antagonisms from the various party candidates or their supporting interests. This year, Fred Dalton Thompson also fits this mold. As Stark points out, Huckabee and Guiliani aren't likely to be the nominee unless they can get a delegate majority, which appears impossible at this point. McCain is strongly opposed by the both the party establishment and conservatives, and Romney is (for whatever reason) intensely disliked by the other candidates, despite strong support in some quarters, such as National Review and columnist/blogger/talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, leading it questionable that he could gather any support at the convention either.
That leads us to a brokered convention, and the emrgence of a consensus candidate, like 1920, that is everyone's second choice - Fred. Cross your fingers.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Republican Delegates Counts
RCP is tracking the delegate counts for the presidential nominations. Through Saturday, Romney leads with 59, Huckabee has 40, McCain 36, Fred 5, Ron Paul 4, and Guiliani one, which goes to show you how far we have to go in the primary/nomination process. 1,191 delegates are needed to gain the party's nomination.
The real interesting thing is how the different states decide their delegate counts -the next big state up, Florida on Jan. 29th, is a winner take all state and has 57 delegates, half its normal allotment due to the party penalty (that may or may not end up being imposed at the convention) for moving up its primary date. (Maine votes today for its 21 delegates). Thus, the winner in Florida is likely to take the lead in the delgate count and should get a big boost in momentum for the 22 state bonanza on Feb. 5th. Another factor is that this is the first "closed" primary - only registered Republicans will be able to vote. Current polling in FL has John McCain with a very slight lead (23-20%) over Rudy, who has oriented his entire campaign on the state. Romney and Huckabee are right behind in the high teens, with Fred trailing just under double digits.
Other winner take all states having primaries on the 5th, and their delegate counts -New York (101), Missouri (58), Arizona (53), New Jersey (52), Utah (36), Connecticut (30), Montana (25) and Delaware (18). You have to figure NY and NJ in the Rudy camp, AZ for Mac, and Utah and Conn. for Romney. There are another 700 delegates available in the other states on the 5th as well, which are likely to be split up at least between four candidates. There are a little over a thousand delegates available after Super Tuesday as well.
The real interesting thing is how the different states decide their delegate counts -the next big state up, Florida on Jan. 29th, is a winner take all state and has 57 delegates, half its normal allotment due to the party penalty (that may or may not end up being imposed at the convention) for moving up its primary date. (Maine votes today for its 21 delegates). Thus, the winner in Florida is likely to take the lead in the delgate count and should get a big boost in momentum for the 22 state bonanza on Feb. 5th. Another factor is that this is the first "closed" primary - only registered Republicans will be able to vote. Current polling in FL has John McCain with a very slight lead (23-20%) over Rudy, who has oriented his entire campaign on the state. Romney and Huckabee are right behind in the high teens, with Fred trailing just under double digits.
Other winner take all states having primaries on the 5th, and their delegate counts -New York (101), Missouri (58), Arizona (53), New Jersey (52), Utah (36), Connecticut (30), Montana (25) and Delaware (18). You have to figure NY and NJ in the Rudy camp, AZ for Mac, and Utah and Conn. for Romney. There are another 700 delegates available in the other states on the 5th as well, which are likely to be split up at least between four candidates. There are a little over a thousand delegates available after Super Tuesday as well.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Early Results, Thoughts on Presidential Race
I've been meaning to comment a bit on the Presidential race, which has been an interesting see-saw, with first one candidate then another appearing to be the front runner for each party.
On the Democratic side, I am a bit undecided about the race, since the only candidate I had any respect for (Bill Richardson) is pretty much out of it and could be a likely Veep for whichever of the other candidates eventually wins out. None of the leading Democrats running have any significant experience, with only Hillary having served more than one Senate term. Of course, she hangs her hat on 8 years as First Lady, but she had no real official policy making or advisory position in the administration, with the lone exception of Healthcare Reform, which was a bad idea that went no where, and on which she apparently feels strongly enough to emphasize again in her candidacy. As several pundits have pointed out, being someone's wife (even in a close relationship, which I tend to believe isn't the case with the Clintons) doesn't automatically allow the spouse to presume the husband's professional role.
As far as Obama and Edwards go, both are not only even more ridiculously underqualified than Hillary, they both appear to be woefully ignorant of even the basic tenets of sound economic policy. Don't even get me started on their foreign policy views, I want to keep this short.
On the other side of the aisle, we have several candidates that appear to have the requisite experience to lead the nation, but almost all of them have some flaws. While I generally vote Republican, I don't always, and there are a couple of these candidates for which I would have to seriously question casting a ballot.
Governor Mike Huckabee has executive experience, and appears to be a good pro-life Christian gentleman, but has some very odd policy positions for a Republican - he's anti-free trade, raised taxes in his state considerably, and is almost Carteresque in his foreign policy views. Yet he won Iowa and is running pretty well nationally.
My grade for him is an F.
John McCain has a wealth of experience in the Senate, has voted to control spending, is a genuine (rather than make-believe) war hero, and has the type of foreign policy and miltary experience that makes him an attractive candidate - however, there is that Freedom of Speech thing, the judges deal, the immigration issue, the fact he has voted against tax cuts and several other issues that make me question whether or not you can call him a Republican - indeed, there has been talk that he might switch parties at some points in the past - perhaps even as John Kerry's running mate. While not as bad as Huck, he definitely leaves alot to be desired, grading him a C- only for taking a principaled stand on the war, which is the definitive national issue. Many fellow bloggers dislike him even more than I. McCain is the current front runner right now with a win in New Hampshire, running well in Michigan, South Carolina and nationally.
Mitt Romney has not only government executive experience, but private sector experience as well. He is also proposing many of the right things on economic policy, social issues, and immigration - but on all those issues, his position has "evolved" since beginning his career in the political process. Simply put, I have to doubt the veracity of those beliefs, and I also have to question whether or not we want to have a wealthy candidate giving at least the appearance of trying to buy an election with his vast personal fortune. While he cut taxes, he raised regulatory and licensing fees in Massachussets, and his commitment to the 2nd Amendment is questionable to say the least. While probably better than McCain in general, and definitely better than Huckabee, I have to barely pass him with a C+.
Romnye finished second in both Iowa and NH, and is running nose to nose with Mac in Michigan.
This leads us to Mayor Rudy Guiliani, which I strongly considered early in the race, and whom I have heard speak personally at one of those odd business seminars that they stage on occaisson. I liked what I heard, then did some research. There is a lot to like about the Mayor, particularly on the economic front, and he has a strong law and order reputation. You have to also make the case he would make a strong foreign policy stand. Some of his social views are questionable, but those aren't factors I consider strongly. However, he does have some troubling issues, starting with (again) the 2nd Amendment, and you have to wonder about how strong his commitment to stopping illegal immigration really would turn out to be if elected. He passes with a B- due to getting the biggest issues (war/foreign policy & the economy) right, but mostly blowing it on much of the rest, particulary 2A. Rudy's been pretty invisible in the early states with the idea of focusing on Florida next week.
Then we have the best of the bunch, someone that I have supported from day one (and even before he announced) - Fred Thompson. On issues, he is pretty spectacular, giving us detailed (and excellent) policy positions on foreign policy, rebuilding the military, illegal immigration, tax policy, spending, entitlement reform, judges, and the 2nd Amendment, issues on which he is almost always spot on. The one minor weakness is his orignal support for McCain-Feingold, which he has since labelled as a well-intentioned mistake, which I can readily accept in exchange. His support for tax reform, an optional Flat Tax and cut in the corporate tax rates (along with a host of other tax proposals) is simply outstanding economic policy. Another important philosophical tenet of Fred's is his support for Federalism and the Constitutional rights of states and their citizens to decide some issues for themselves, reigning in the reach of the national government, which is simply icing on the cake in my view.
I have to grade Fred the only A of the mainstream candidates, (although I would give Congressman Duncan Hunter a solid Honorable mention grade of B) and I will openly state I've given him more of my hard earned dollars than any candidate in my entire life. I generally have given $10-15 contributions in the past. While not be any means a wealthy person, I've contributed far over that to Fred in both single contributions and in sum total hit a figure well into three digits.
Can he win? I don't know, he put a lot of effort into Iowa garnering third there, and has picked South Carolina as his next big effort and raised over $1 million to campaign strongly there. The last Rasmussen poll showed him 4th behind McCain, Huckabee and Romney but moving up four points into a statistical tie for 2nd at 16%, evidently drawing support from Huckabee, who dropped five points from the previous poll. Michigan votes today with McCain and Romney neck and neck, I'm not sure what Huckabee's strategy is, while the Mayor's has long been to focus on Florida to stop the other candidates' momentum, generate his own and move on to Super Tuesday.
If nothing else, it will prove to be an intersting race on both sides.
On the Democratic side, I am a bit undecided about the race, since the only candidate I had any respect for (Bill Richardson) is pretty much out of it and could be a likely Veep for whichever of the other candidates eventually wins out. None of the leading Democrats running have any significant experience, with only Hillary having served more than one Senate term. Of course, she hangs her hat on 8 years as First Lady, but she had no real official policy making or advisory position in the administration, with the lone exception of Healthcare Reform, which was a bad idea that went no where, and on which she apparently feels strongly enough to emphasize again in her candidacy. As several pundits have pointed out, being someone's wife (even in a close relationship, which I tend to believe isn't the case with the Clintons) doesn't automatically allow the spouse to presume the husband's professional role.
As far as Obama and Edwards go, both are not only even more ridiculously underqualified than Hillary, they both appear to be woefully ignorant of even the basic tenets of sound economic policy. Don't even get me started on their foreign policy views, I want to keep this short.
On the other side of the aisle, we have several candidates that appear to have the requisite experience to lead the nation, but almost all of them have some flaws. While I generally vote Republican, I don't always, and there are a couple of these candidates for which I would have to seriously question casting a ballot.
Governor Mike Huckabee has executive experience, and appears to be a good pro-life Christian gentleman, but has some very odd policy positions for a Republican - he's anti-free trade, raised taxes in his state considerably, and is almost Carteresque in his foreign policy views. Yet he won Iowa and is running pretty well nationally.
My grade for him is an F.
John McCain has a wealth of experience in the Senate, has voted to control spending, is a genuine (rather than make-believe) war hero, and has the type of foreign policy and miltary experience that makes him an attractive candidate - however, there is that Freedom of Speech thing, the judges deal, the immigration issue, the fact he has voted against tax cuts and several other issues that make me question whether or not you can call him a Republican - indeed, there has been talk that he might switch parties at some points in the past - perhaps even as John Kerry's running mate. While not as bad as Huck, he definitely leaves alot to be desired, grading him a C- only for taking a principaled stand on the war, which is the definitive national issue. Many fellow bloggers dislike him even more than I. McCain is the current front runner right now with a win in New Hampshire, running well in Michigan, South Carolina and nationally.
Mitt Romney has not only government executive experience, but private sector experience as well. He is also proposing many of the right things on economic policy, social issues, and immigration - but on all those issues, his position has "evolved" since beginning his career in the political process. Simply put, I have to doubt the veracity of those beliefs, and I also have to question whether or not we want to have a wealthy candidate giving at least the appearance of trying to buy an election with his vast personal fortune. While he cut taxes, he raised regulatory and licensing fees in Massachussets, and his commitment to the 2nd Amendment is questionable to say the least. While probably better than McCain in general, and definitely better than Huckabee, I have to barely pass him with a C+.
Romnye finished second in both Iowa and NH, and is running nose to nose with Mac in Michigan.
This leads us to Mayor Rudy Guiliani, which I strongly considered early in the race, and whom I have heard speak personally at one of those odd business seminars that they stage on occaisson. I liked what I heard, then did some research. There is a lot to like about the Mayor, particularly on the economic front, and he has a strong law and order reputation. You have to also make the case he would make a strong foreign policy stand. Some of his social views are questionable, but those aren't factors I consider strongly. However, he does have some troubling issues, starting with (again) the 2nd Amendment, and you have to wonder about how strong his commitment to stopping illegal immigration really would turn out to be if elected. He passes with a B- due to getting the biggest issues (war/foreign policy & the economy) right, but mostly blowing it on much of the rest, particulary 2A. Rudy's been pretty invisible in the early states with the idea of focusing on Florida next week.
Then we have the best of the bunch, someone that I have supported from day one (and even before he announced) - Fred Thompson. On issues, he is pretty spectacular, giving us detailed (and excellent) policy positions on foreign policy, rebuilding the military, illegal immigration, tax policy, spending, entitlement reform, judges, and the 2nd Amendment, issues on which he is almost always spot on. The one minor weakness is his orignal support for McCain-Feingold, which he has since labelled as a well-intentioned mistake, which I can readily accept in exchange. His support for tax reform, an optional Flat Tax and cut in the corporate tax rates (along with a host of other tax proposals) is simply outstanding economic policy. Another important philosophical tenet of Fred's is his support for Federalism and the Constitutional rights of states and their citizens to decide some issues for themselves, reigning in the reach of the national government, which is simply icing on the cake in my view.
I have to grade Fred the only A of the mainstream candidates, (although I would give Congressman Duncan Hunter a solid Honorable mention grade of B) and I will openly state I've given him more of my hard earned dollars than any candidate in my entire life. I generally have given $10-15 contributions in the past. While not be any means a wealthy person, I've contributed far over that to Fred in both single contributions and in sum total hit a figure well into three digits.
Can he win? I don't know, he put a lot of effort into Iowa garnering third there, and has picked South Carolina as his next big effort and raised over $1 million to campaign strongly there. The last Rasmussen poll showed him 4th behind McCain, Huckabee and Romney but moving up four points into a statistical tie for 2nd at 16%, evidently drawing support from Huckabee, who dropped five points from the previous poll. Michigan votes today with McCain and Romney neck and neck, I'm not sure what Huckabee's strategy is, while the Mayor's has long been to focus on Florida to stop the other candidates' momentum, generate his own and move on to Super Tuesday.
If nothing else, it will prove to be an intersting race on both sides.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Fred's Tax Reform Plan
The Wall Street Journal examines Fred's tax reform plan announced Sunday on Fox, which is simply outstanding.
Fred's plan is to:
Eliminate the Alternative Minimum tax and the Estate tax.
Lower the Corporate tax rates to no higher than 27% from the current 35%.
Make the Bush tax cuts permanent, permanently extend small business expensing
and update and simplify depreciation schedules.
All this and here's the kicker -
As well as introduce the option for taxpayers to pay their taxes at a flat rate of either 10% (for single earners earning under $50,000, or $100,000 for a couple) or 25% for those earning more than those figures, while eliminating most deductions, or stay with the current system. Some 20 mostly European nations have Flat Tax rates of between 13 and 25 percent. TOUCHDOWN!
"Mr. Thompson's plan is based on one introduced by GOP Representatives Paul Ryan and Jeb Hensarling that is in any case not designed to lose revenue. It is intended to allow federal receipts to grow at the rate of the economy, which would leave them at some 18% or 19% of GDP--roughly their average of recent decades. When critics object to revenue losses, they are really saying that the tax share of GDP should be allowed to rise to 20% and higher, which is where we are headed if the Bush tax rates expire."
The Club for Growth's Pat Toomey had this to say:
“While other candidates have adopted pieces of this plan, Thompson goes a step further by offering a specific corporate tax reduction and offering taxpayers the option of a simple tax plan,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “His plan is based on the fundamental fact that lower rates and simpler rules across the board promote economic freedom and enhance economic growth. This is the kind of plan economic conservatives can rally around.”
I'm really looking forward to the results of the Republican debate tonight.
So far Fred has announced an immigration reform plan, this new tax reform plan, Social Security reform, has a plan to expand the military and fight the global war on Islamic fundamentalism, come out strongly for an individual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and denounced government run healthcare, among other critical issues.
Fred's plan is to:
Eliminate the Alternative Minimum tax and the Estate tax.
Lower the Corporate tax rates to no higher than 27% from the current 35%.
Make the Bush tax cuts permanent, permanently extend small business expensing
and update and simplify depreciation schedules.
All this and here's the kicker -
As well as introduce the option for taxpayers to pay their taxes at a flat rate of either 10% (for single earners earning under $50,000, or $100,000 for a couple) or 25% for those earning more than those figures, while eliminating most deductions, or stay with the current system. Some 20 mostly European nations have Flat Tax rates of between 13 and 25 percent. TOUCHDOWN!
"Mr. Thompson's plan is based on one introduced by GOP Representatives Paul Ryan and Jeb Hensarling that is in any case not designed to lose revenue. It is intended to allow federal receipts to grow at the rate of the economy, which would leave them at some 18% or 19% of GDP--roughly their average of recent decades. When critics object to revenue losses, they are really saying that the tax share of GDP should be allowed to rise to 20% and higher, which is where we are headed if the Bush tax rates expire."
The Club for Growth's Pat Toomey had this to say:
“While other candidates have adopted pieces of this plan, Thompson goes a step further by offering a specific corporate tax reduction and offering taxpayers the option of a simple tax plan,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “His plan is based on the fundamental fact that lower rates and simpler rules across the board promote economic freedom and enhance economic growth. This is the kind of plan economic conservatives can rally around.”
I'm really looking forward to the results of the Republican debate tonight.
So far Fred has announced an immigration reform plan, this new tax reform plan, Social Security reform, has a plan to expand the military and fight the global war on Islamic fundamentalism, come out strongly for an individual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and denounced government run healthcare, among other critical issues.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Thompson Breaking "the Rules"
Jay Cost at RCP has an interesting take on the Thompson campaign and speculates a bit on Fred's strategy. In a two part article, Cost lays out what he believes is the Thompson campaign strategy, and its strengths and weaknesses. Much of the issue that many pundits have with Fred is that he is more or less ignoring the conventional wisdom on how to conduct his campaign.
"I think that the confusion over the Thompson campaign is that what works about it is very similar to what does not work. So, at first inspection, the lines are blurry - and you can't quite tell if this campaign is genius or disastrous. Upon closer inspection, I think that there are some lines to distinguish - and we can make some sense about this very peculiar presidential campaign."
Cost divides the campaign into two sectors, which he calls the "perpetual" campaign, where the chattering classes, pundits and beltway insiders set the tone and the agenda, and the "real" campaign, where the voters make their decisions. Ths issue is that these insiders believe the perpetual campaign is more important than the real one, whereas it is only a means to get noticed and a spot at the table for when the real deciding is done by the voters.
The issue with the chattering classes (media) have with Thompson is that he isn't playing their game the way they think he ought to - he's ignoring their rules, and running the way he wants to instead.
"In the perpetual campaign - you are supposed to campaign non-stop. You are supposed to remember all of the minutiae of your campaign schedule. You are supposed to know the details of symbolic events that happened over a year ago. You are supposed to know the specifics of local political issues so you can pander to the residents. Those are the rules. Thompson isn't following them."
However, Fred remains a viable candidate - despite what the pundits think. This is possible, in Jay's view because the pundit's rules aren't real rules, but imaginary ones, and that Thompson might just be the kind of trailblazer to challenge these preconcieved notions. It benefits him in two ways.
"First, breaking the rules has earned him notice. This is ironic, as most candidates follow the rules of the perpetual campaign for precisely this reason. They do a lot of stump speeches to get on the evening news. They do the Sunday morning show circuit. They take any opportunity to appear on Hardball that they can get. And so on. But not Thompson. So, is the media ignoring him? Hardly! Instead, his rule breaking has earned him more attention. My favorite example of this so far was Thompson's declaration of his candidacy. The fact that he announced his candidacy on Jay Leno was taken as rule breaking. But consider the net result. Thompson announced on Leno - and got the Leno audience. And then the next day, all the talking heads did was talk about Thompson! Far from being punished, Thompson was rewarded for his defiance.
But much more importantl, I think Thompson has assessed that breaking these rules could win him support. People outside the Beltway, whose daily lives are not regimented by the news cycle, appreciate that the perpetual campaign has reached a point of asininity. Accordingly, a candidate could win supporters over in the real campaign by claiming that he ignored all of these rules, which essentially mandate twenty-two months of nonstop campaigning. This is a twist on running against Washington. It is running against the Washington press corps."
Cost goes on further to say that this appears to be a calculated risk that Thompson is willing to take, particulary running as a Republican, whose base is often suspicious of the media elite anyway. However, he points out that in order to break the rules, you have to be nearly perfect - and some of Fred's appearances haven't been terribly exciting, at least to many observers. If you combine the rule breaking with mistakes, you just might alienate many of those whose support you are seeking, but Cost also states that the campaign is still in its very early stages, that Fred appears to be gaining some traction and momentum, and that the jury is still out.
Nice analysis, and I have to agree with almost all of it.
"I think that the confusion over the Thompson campaign is that what works about it is very similar to what does not work. So, at first inspection, the lines are blurry - and you can't quite tell if this campaign is genius or disastrous. Upon closer inspection, I think that there are some lines to distinguish - and we can make some sense about this very peculiar presidential campaign."
Cost divides the campaign into two sectors, which he calls the "perpetual" campaign, where the chattering classes, pundits and beltway insiders set the tone and the agenda, and the "real" campaign, where the voters make their decisions. Ths issue is that these insiders believe the perpetual campaign is more important than the real one, whereas it is only a means to get noticed and a spot at the table for when the real deciding is done by the voters.
The issue with the chattering classes (media) have with Thompson is that he isn't playing their game the way they think he ought to - he's ignoring their rules, and running the way he wants to instead.
"In the perpetual campaign - you are supposed to campaign non-stop. You are supposed to remember all of the minutiae of your campaign schedule. You are supposed to know the details of symbolic events that happened over a year ago. You are supposed to know the specifics of local political issues so you can pander to the residents. Those are the rules. Thompson isn't following them."
However, Fred remains a viable candidate - despite what the pundits think. This is possible, in Jay's view because the pundit's rules aren't real rules, but imaginary ones, and that Thompson might just be the kind of trailblazer to challenge these preconcieved notions. It benefits him in two ways.
"First, breaking the rules has earned him notice. This is ironic, as most candidates follow the rules of the perpetual campaign for precisely this reason. They do a lot of stump speeches to get on the evening news. They do the Sunday morning show circuit. They take any opportunity to appear on Hardball that they can get. And so on. But not Thompson. So, is the media ignoring him? Hardly! Instead, his rule breaking has earned him more attention. My favorite example of this so far was Thompson's declaration of his candidacy. The fact that he announced his candidacy on Jay Leno was taken as rule breaking. But consider the net result. Thompson announced on Leno - and got the Leno audience. And then the next day, all the talking heads did was talk about Thompson! Far from being punished, Thompson was rewarded for his defiance.
But much more importantl, I think Thompson has assessed that breaking these rules could win him support. People outside the Beltway, whose daily lives are not regimented by the news cycle, appreciate that the perpetual campaign has reached a point of asininity. Accordingly, a candidate could win supporters over in the real campaign by claiming that he ignored all of these rules, which essentially mandate twenty-two months of nonstop campaigning. This is a twist on running against Washington. It is running against the Washington press corps."
Cost goes on further to say that this appears to be a calculated risk that Thompson is willing to take, particulary running as a Republican, whose base is often suspicious of the media elite anyway. However, he points out that in order to break the rules, you have to be nearly perfect - and some of Fred's appearances haven't been terribly exciting, at least to many observers. If you combine the rule breaking with mistakes, you just might alienate many of those whose support you are seeking, but Cost also states that the campaign is still in its very early stages, that Fred appears to be gaining some traction and momentum, and that the jury is still out.
Nice analysis, and I have to agree with almost all of it.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Republican Debate
Byron York at NRO has a good rundown of the Republican debate yesterday in Michigan. I watched much of it myself, although not every minute. It was the most notable debate so far due to the presence of Fred Thompson (yes, I'm a supporter). It was Fred's first debate, and the general consensus around the blogs and MSM appears to be that he did pretty well after a slow start. The debate was focused almost squarely on economic issues, so there was not a great deal of disagreement on the Republican mantra of lower taxes, free trade, spending restraint and a moderate regulatory environment, although with some exceptions from the fringe guys.
Moderator Chris Matthews went after Fred on a couple of times, and Fred showed that he couldn't be pushed around. Matthews pressed him to name Candian PM Steve Harper, which he did, and then Matthews spouted off on Thompson's answer about whether the govenrment should intevene in the case of an auto strike - Thompson said no, paused a bit to gather his thoughts for a more thorough response and delivered that the economy and national security consideration should be given to such a situation, but that it should not really involve government outside those parameters. Matthews voiced his opinion Fred should have stopped at "no" and Thompson countered by stating "that's your opinion, Christopher", which I thought was an excellent counter to Matthews' bluster.
Rudy and Mitt went after each other's respective records on taxing and budget issues, and there were several mentions and critiques of Hillary Clinton. John Henke of QandO fame is Fred's online outreach guy and live blogged the event here. Ed Morrissey also has reaction at CQ here.
I thought Fred did very well myself, along with Rudy and John McCain. I thought it was interesting how Fred responded to a Social Security question. When asked what he would do to fix the entitlement issue, he responded that he would change the growth in payments for younger workers (not anyone in retirement or near it) to be indexed to the inflation rate rather than the wage rate (which would lower benefit payments) but also form personal accounts for these younger workers, which is a trade off I would heartily endorse with enthusiasm. It was one of the more detailed responses from any of the candidates on any issue, but I expect someone or another to try to beat him up with it, but I'm pretty sure given his performance that he will be able to handle it pretty deftly.
Moderator Chris Matthews went after Fred on a couple of times, and Fred showed that he couldn't be pushed around. Matthews pressed him to name Candian PM Steve Harper, which he did, and then Matthews spouted off on Thompson's answer about whether the govenrment should intevene in the case of an auto strike - Thompson said no, paused a bit to gather his thoughts for a more thorough response and delivered that the economy and national security consideration should be given to such a situation, but that it should not really involve government outside those parameters. Matthews voiced his opinion Fred should have stopped at "no" and Thompson countered by stating "that's your opinion, Christopher", which I thought was an excellent counter to Matthews' bluster.
Rudy and Mitt went after each other's respective records on taxing and budget issues, and there were several mentions and critiques of Hillary Clinton. John Henke of QandO fame is Fred's online outreach guy and live blogged the event here. Ed Morrissey also has reaction at CQ here.
I thought Fred did very well myself, along with Rudy and John McCain. I thought it was interesting how Fred responded to a Social Security question. When asked what he would do to fix the entitlement issue, he responded that he would change the growth in payments for younger workers (not anyone in retirement or near it) to be indexed to the inflation rate rather than the wage rate (which would lower benefit payments) but also form personal accounts for these younger workers, which is a trade off I would heartily endorse with enthusiasm. It was one of the more detailed responses from any of the candidates on any issue, but I expect someone or another to try to beat him up with it, but I'm pretty sure given his performance that he will be able to handle it pretty deftly.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Why Fred Wins
The American Thinker has an interesting piece by J. Peter Mulhern on why he believes Fred Thompson will not only win the Republican nomination, but also the Presidency, and his analysis mirrors mine to a large degree. He first relates the usual MSM dribble about Thompson - lazy, no fire, tired, no executive experience, inconsistent, etc.
"Of course, conventional wisdom rarely gets anything right. When it does, it's only by accident. In this case conventional wisdom is not just wrong but comically so. Thompson will win the Republican nomination for two reasons. First, he's a very impressive candidate. Second, there's no realistic alternative. He will win the general election for the same two reasons."
Mulhern then goes on to relate the various shortcomings of the other candidates in detail.
McCain? While he's long been a media darling, he's effectively been ostracized by his own party's base due to the twin issues of campaign finance reform and illegal immigration. While I am a big fan of McCain's unswerving devotion to the troops and their misison, and deeply appreciate his sacrifices during his time in uniform, John never had any realistic chance of winning the nomination.
Romney? The only places he is polling ahead of the front runners are places the front runners haven't really spent any time or money on, which will change dramatically over the next couple of months. Romney's hope has been that the early states give him enough momentum to gain ground nationally. However, his penchant for MBA style lectures gives him a communication gap to the average voter and his flexible, inconsistent positions on the issues lead voters to distrust his motives.
The Mayor? Conventional wisdom (again) believes the Republicans can win only by swallowing hard and reaching out to moderates, which is pretty much hogwash, as Mulhern puts it:
"This argument is a hardy perennial of conventional commentary, and it is utterly inane. You can't win by appealing to people who won't vote for you under any imaginable circumstances at the cost of alienating your core supporters. Trading a perfectly good cow for a handful of beans only makes sense in fairy tales."
Mulhern points out a significant distinction between Republican and Democratic parties is that R's fight back when traditional social institutions are threatened by vandalizing extremists, while Dems hand over spray paint to the vandals. He goes on to relate that Rudy had his chance to reach out to the base at the very beginning of the campaign, and he blew it. He would have had to admit the Roe v. Wade was a badly decided case, but he didn't. As a result, millions of values voters will likely stay home if Rudy is the nominee.
But wouldn't Rudy be a strong leader on the war on terror? Mulhern doesn't think so, and I tend to agree. He has mouthed some platitudes, but doesn't seem to understand the strategic situation and connected the dots leading back to Tehran.
"When Rudy mentions Iran at all he gives no hint that he understands that, one way or another, the road to victory leads through Tehran. He says, as does George W. Bush, that Iran can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Like the President, he never says how we are going to stop Iran from getting them. Giuliani has very little foreign policy experience and he seems to be in thrall to the same establishment groupthink on the subject that has largely paralyzed the Bush administration. Giuliani was level-headed on September 11. That doesn't make him a latter-day Patton, or LeMay."
Mulhern then goes on to list the things that make Fred a different candidate. He doesn't pander to special interests, as his response to some local questions in Florida illustrate. Fred simply said that he preferred local repsonses to local issues in reponse to the Shiavo case, and believed that the nation couldn't afford to restrict itself from domestic energy supplies in response to a question about drilling for oil in the Everglades. Political consultant Dick Morris (who's never met an interst group he didn't try to curry) was aghast, but it sounds to me like a man with some strong principles.
The response to the charge Fred hasn't run anything is that the President isn't supposed to run the nation, just one branch of the government, and his strong commitment to Federalism shows that he is outside the mainstream politicians that believe the solution to every problem runs right through DC and the Federal money trough.
Another strong point for Thompson is that he understands the strategic situation far more thoroughly than any of the other candidates. Iran has pretty much been at war with the US since the hostages were taken almost forty years ago. Fred would not have let the Iranian president into the country to speak at Columbia University. He also noted that General Petraeus testimony pretty clearly linked Iran to those groups killing American troops in Iraq and that this should clearly have far more serious consequences to the Iranians than has been the case to this point in time.
Another point in Thompson's favor is his communication skills. He speaks calmly and sensibly about large important issues, such as reforming the tax code and overhauling social security, but doesn't come across as some crazed radical. This is worth its weight in gold to the commonplace voter seeking a candidate they can trust with their security and our collective future.
"Political strategists aren't known for consensus, but they all agree that the public loathes passionate and polarized politics. Attacking Hillary with self-righteous zeal like St. George all set to slay the dragon would be a tactical mistake. The best way for a Republican to beat Hillary is to talk to the American people calmly, simply and sensibly, and let her be the poster child for all the bitterness and anger of the last decade. Fred is just the man to do that.
After a recent Thompson speech in Iowa a member of the audience called out: "Kill the terrorists, secure the border, and give me back my freedom." Thompson replied "you just summed up my whole speech." No other candidate could have carried off that quip because no other candidate is capable of delivering a convincing speech focused on those powerful themes."
Exactly.
"Of course, conventional wisdom rarely gets anything right. When it does, it's only by accident. In this case conventional wisdom is not just wrong but comically so. Thompson will win the Republican nomination for two reasons. First, he's a very impressive candidate. Second, there's no realistic alternative. He will win the general election for the same two reasons."
Mulhern then goes on to relate the various shortcomings of the other candidates in detail.
McCain? While he's long been a media darling, he's effectively been ostracized by his own party's base due to the twin issues of campaign finance reform and illegal immigration. While I am a big fan of McCain's unswerving devotion to the troops and their misison, and deeply appreciate his sacrifices during his time in uniform, John never had any realistic chance of winning the nomination.
Romney? The only places he is polling ahead of the front runners are places the front runners haven't really spent any time or money on, which will change dramatically over the next couple of months. Romney's hope has been that the early states give him enough momentum to gain ground nationally. However, his penchant for MBA style lectures gives him a communication gap to the average voter and his flexible, inconsistent positions on the issues lead voters to distrust his motives.
The Mayor? Conventional wisdom (again) believes the Republicans can win only by swallowing hard and reaching out to moderates, which is pretty much hogwash, as Mulhern puts it:
"This argument is a hardy perennial of conventional commentary, and it is utterly inane. You can't win by appealing to people who won't vote for you under any imaginable circumstances at the cost of alienating your core supporters. Trading a perfectly good cow for a handful of beans only makes sense in fairy tales."
Mulhern points out a significant distinction between Republican and Democratic parties is that R's fight back when traditional social institutions are threatened by vandalizing extremists, while Dems hand over spray paint to the vandals. He goes on to relate that Rudy had his chance to reach out to the base at the very beginning of the campaign, and he blew it. He would have had to admit the Roe v. Wade was a badly decided case, but he didn't. As a result, millions of values voters will likely stay home if Rudy is the nominee.
But wouldn't Rudy be a strong leader on the war on terror? Mulhern doesn't think so, and I tend to agree. He has mouthed some platitudes, but doesn't seem to understand the strategic situation and connected the dots leading back to Tehran.
"When Rudy mentions Iran at all he gives no hint that he understands that, one way or another, the road to victory leads through Tehran. He says, as does George W. Bush, that Iran can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Like the President, he never says how we are going to stop Iran from getting them. Giuliani has very little foreign policy experience and he seems to be in thrall to the same establishment groupthink on the subject that has largely paralyzed the Bush administration. Giuliani was level-headed on September 11. That doesn't make him a latter-day Patton, or LeMay."
Mulhern then goes on to list the things that make Fred a different candidate. He doesn't pander to special interests, as his response to some local questions in Florida illustrate. Fred simply said that he preferred local repsonses to local issues in reponse to the Shiavo case, and believed that the nation couldn't afford to restrict itself from domestic energy supplies in response to a question about drilling for oil in the Everglades. Political consultant Dick Morris (who's never met an interst group he didn't try to curry) was aghast, but it sounds to me like a man with some strong principles.
The response to the charge Fred hasn't run anything is that the President isn't supposed to run the nation, just one branch of the government, and his strong commitment to Federalism shows that he is outside the mainstream politicians that believe the solution to every problem runs right through DC and the Federal money trough.
Another strong point for Thompson is that he understands the strategic situation far more thoroughly than any of the other candidates. Iran has pretty much been at war with the US since the hostages were taken almost forty years ago. Fred would not have let the Iranian president into the country to speak at Columbia University. He also noted that General Petraeus testimony pretty clearly linked Iran to those groups killing American troops in Iraq and that this should clearly have far more serious consequences to the Iranians than has been the case to this point in time.
Another point in Thompson's favor is his communication skills. He speaks calmly and sensibly about large important issues, such as reforming the tax code and overhauling social security, but doesn't come across as some crazed radical. This is worth its weight in gold to the commonplace voter seeking a candidate they can trust with their security and our collective future.
"Political strategists aren't known for consensus, but they all agree that the public loathes passionate and polarized politics. Attacking Hillary with self-righteous zeal like St. George all set to slay the dragon would be a tactical mistake. The best way for a Republican to beat Hillary is to talk to the American people calmly, simply and sensibly, and let her be the poster child for all the bitterness and anger of the last decade. Fred is just the man to do that.
After a recent Thompson speech in Iowa a member of the audience called out: "Kill the terrorists, secure the border, and give me back my freedom." Thompson replied "you just summed up my whole speech." No other candidate could have carried off that quip because no other candidate is capable of delivering a convincing speech focused on those powerful themes."
Exactly.
Republican Polling
Most polls of the presidential primary races show Hillary Clinton leading big among the Democrats, and Rudy Guiliani among the Republicans. The RCP Septemeber average of 4 or 5 different polls shows Clinton up 18 points over Barak Obama, and Rudy up 5 over Fred Thompson. See their numbers here.
One poll, the Rasmussen, shows a bit different results, however. It has Fred Thompson up two points, and has a slightly different methodology. Rasmussen screens for Likely Republican Primary voters, while the other polls generally simply survey adults. I would have to think Rasmussen is therefore a great deal more accurate as a result. While the Gallup poll, for instance, has Rudy up 8 points, when they examine the numbers from likely primary voters, his lead shrinks to three points. As Rasmussen puts it:
"It gets even more interesting when Gallup combines their last four surveys and takes a look at the more informed voters. Gallup says “Indeed, among Republicans who have an opinion of the four leading candidates -- less than half the party base -- the ballot looks very different, with Thompson at 33% support, Giuliani at 26%, Romney at 15%, and McCain at 10%.”
Those Gallup numbers are very similar to the Rasmussen numbers. Not only does Gallup’s sample of informed voters show Thompson ahead of Giuliani, they also match Rasmussen by showing Romney ahead of McCain.
Why does Gallup’s sample of informed voters look so much like the Rasmussen sample of Likely Voters? Because those more informed voters are precisely the kind of people who show up and vote in a primary."
Of course, Thomspon is perceived as the leading conservative in the race, and primary voters tend to be a bit more conservative than the average voter. Thus, most observers are overlooking Thompson's strength with the party base, and the poll numbers generally overstate Rudy's support. I'd also note that there is still a great deal of undecideds out there looking for a candidate to step up - and I beleive it will be Fred.
One poll, the Rasmussen, shows a bit different results, however. It has Fred Thompson up two points, and has a slightly different methodology. Rasmussen screens for Likely Republican Primary voters, while the other polls generally simply survey adults. I would have to think Rasmussen is therefore a great deal more accurate as a result. While the Gallup poll, for instance, has Rudy up 8 points, when they examine the numbers from likely primary voters, his lead shrinks to three points. As Rasmussen puts it:
"It gets even more interesting when Gallup combines their last four surveys and takes a look at the more informed voters. Gallup says “Indeed, among Republicans who have an opinion of the four leading candidates -- less than half the party base -- the ballot looks very different, with Thompson at 33% support, Giuliani at 26%, Romney at 15%, and McCain at 10%.”
Those Gallup numbers are very similar to the Rasmussen numbers. Not only does Gallup’s sample of informed voters show Thompson ahead of Giuliani, they also match Rasmussen by showing Romney ahead of McCain.
Why does Gallup’s sample of informed voters look so much like the Rasmussen sample of Likely Voters? Because those more informed voters are precisely the kind of people who show up and vote in a primary."
Of course, Thomspon is perceived as the leading conservative in the race, and primary voters tend to be a bit more conservative than the average voter. Thus, most observers are overlooking Thompson's strength with the party base, and the poll numbers generally overstate Rudy's support. I'd also note that there is still a great deal of undecideds out there looking for a candidate to step up - and I beleive it will be Fred.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Reagan and Fred Thompson
Long time Reagan foreign policy advisor Richard Allen compares Reagan and Fred Thompson at NRO - and believes the similarities outweigh the differences. In fact, he believes Thompson to have more foreign policy experience than did Reagan when he ran in the 1980 election, given Fred's role on the International Security Advisory Board and his work with the American Enterprise Institute.
"Reagan clearly set the gold standard for modern conservatives; one only needs to watch the Republican candidates lay claim to positions “identical to Ronald Reagan’s,” appeal to his presidency as a model and strive to appear as friendly and outgoing, able to work effectively with everyone to understand this Republican “fact of life.” I have known Thompson for many years, have met and spent time with him since, and conclude that he’s the genuine article. He also has in his wife, Jeri, as did Reagan in Nancy, a well-informed and capable partner. There will likely never be another Reagan in our times, but in my own experience, lawyer-senator-actor Fred Thompson may well be providing the closest approximation for 2008, and that’s not an unworthy or invidious comparison."
With every Republican in the race trying to adopt the Reaganesque mantle, it's interesting to see what someone who worked for Reagan and knew him well thinks. Of course, Fred's acting career evokes the comparison, but Allen also notes both men's communication skills and also notes the parallels in their evolving positions on the abortion issue, positions that evolved through their own personal convictions, not changed for electoral purposes at the 11th hour to gain votes.
"Reagan clearly set the gold standard for modern conservatives; one only needs to watch the Republican candidates lay claim to positions “identical to Ronald Reagan’s,” appeal to his presidency as a model and strive to appear as friendly and outgoing, able to work effectively with everyone to understand this Republican “fact of life.” I have known Thompson for many years, have met and spent time with him since, and conclude that he’s the genuine article. He also has in his wife, Jeri, as did Reagan in Nancy, a well-informed and capable partner. There will likely never be another Reagan in our times, but in my own experience, lawyer-senator-actor Fred Thompson may well be providing the closest approximation for 2008, and that’s not an unworthy or invidious comparison."
With every Republican in the race trying to adopt the Reaganesque mantle, it's interesting to see what someone who worked for Reagan and knew him well thinks. Of course, Fred's acting career evokes the comparison, but Allen also notes both men's communication skills and also notes the parallels in their evolving positions on the abortion issue, positions that evolved through their own personal convictions, not changed for electoral purposes at the 11th hour to gain votes.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Fred Video Announcement
Fred first announced on Leno last night, and now has a new video announcement on his web site, click the link above. Some first thoughts:
Fred is a strong Federalist, and makes no apologies for it, and in fact criticizes the growth of the federal bureaucracy, and mentions the report his Senate committee released critical of gevernment in 2001, and potential remedies. He also has a healthy respect for private property and the free market, and the role of the US for good around the world.
He also mentions his observations of the two judicial camps and prefers the one that believes the Constitution shouldn't be altered from the bench. He also makes an often ignored point - that Iraq and Afghanistan are two fronts on a much wider conflict, one in which the enemy has the potential to threaten American citizens and American interests worldwide.
Fred is a strong Federalist, and makes no apologies for it, and in fact criticizes the growth of the federal bureaucracy, and mentions the report his Senate committee released critical of gevernment in 2001, and potential remedies. He also has a healthy respect for private property and the free market, and the role of the US for good around the world.
He also mentions his observations of the two judicial camps and prefers the one that believes the Constitution shouldn't be altered from the bench. He also makes an often ignored point - that Iraq and Afghanistan are two fronts on a much wider conflict, one in which the enemy has the potential to threaten American citizens and American interests worldwide.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Fred's IN
Fred has "announced" that he will be announcing on September 6th.
"On September 6, 2007, Fred Thompson will be announcing his intention to run for President of the United States with a webcast available to millions at www.imwithfred.com. The launch of the video will be followed by a five-day campaign tour through Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. On the evening of the 6th, there will also be a National House Party, during which there will be a conference call with Fred."
Word also has it that he will be appearing on Leno, perhaps even on the 5th.
More tomorrow, also see what Ed Morrissey has to say here, and see some pretty stupid comments from a number of unbelievers. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but Ed sure does attract a crowd at his place. I personally think Fred's going to make a big splash in the MSM when it happens, and that a lot of non-politcal types will absorb a positive impression of Fred.
Added link to FoxNews on the story.
"On September 6, 2007, Fred Thompson will be announcing his intention to run for President of the United States with a webcast available to millions at www.imwithfred.com. The launch of the video will be followed by a five-day campaign tour through Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. On the evening of the 6th, there will also be a National House Party, during which there will be a conference call with Fred."
Word also has it that he will be appearing on Leno, perhaps even on the 5th.
More tomorrow, also see what Ed Morrissey has to say here, and see some pretty stupid comments from a number of unbelievers. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but Ed sure does attract a crowd at his place. I personally think Fred's going to make a big splash in the MSM when it happens, and that a lot of non-politcal types will absorb a positive impression of Fred.
Added link to FoxNews on the story.
Fred Thompson Interview at CQ
Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters interviewed Fred Thompson at the Minnesota State Fair for his radio show, and has posted the transcript. While they only had time for a couple of questions, I thought this one was a good indicator of why I support this candidate.
"EM: Well, speaking of that (The global war and the US role in the world) Senator, you’ve got a lot of commentary about your sober, realistic tone that you took in Indianapolis, yesterday or the day before, is that the type of campaign you want to bring to people to hear some tough truths to prepare us for the battles ahead?
FT: Well, let’s just say that the rah-rah stuff has its time and place and I’m not above a little of that from time to time but that’s not why I am where I am right now. Life is too short, the difficulties facing our country are too serious, not to tell the truth about what we’re going to have to do as a nation. It’s sober in a way but it’s optimistic in a way. It’s not optimistic not because of the world we see around us but because we think we can do something about it, that we can do better. That’s the source of my optimism. And I’m not going to shy away from the facts; I’m not going gear myself to try to get a party applause line every second or third sentence I make. Republicans and well as the rest of the American people need to come together on the fact that we have some tough choices ahead of us and the one thing that is not sustainable is our current path with regard to our attitude toward global conflicts and with regard to our attitude toward our economic future, current trends and our attitude with regard of what it’s going to take to do better; and that’s unity of the American people."
Ed goes on to relate (in reponse to a question from a commenter) how well people responded to Fred and how much he appeared to like talking with people at the event.
"I was impressed with his warmth and sincerity, both with me and with the crowd. I talked a bit about this during my show that day, but the crowd clearly sensed his approachability and his geniality. He did not strike me as someone going through the motions, but as a man who genuinely enjoys interacting with people, even the press."
I am eagerly awaiting the announcement, which will hopefully occur right after the holiday.
"EM: Well, speaking of that (The global war and the US role in the world) Senator, you’ve got a lot of commentary about your sober, realistic tone that you took in Indianapolis, yesterday or the day before, is that the type of campaign you want to bring to people to hear some tough truths to prepare us for the battles ahead?
FT: Well, let’s just say that the rah-rah stuff has its time and place and I’m not above a little of that from time to time but that’s not why I am where I am right now. Life is too short, the difficulties facing our country are too serious, not to tell the truth about what we’re going to have to do as a nation. It’s sober in a way but it’s optimistic in a way. It’s not optimistic not because of the world we see around us but because we think we can do something about it, that we can do better. That’s the source of my optimism. And I’m not going to shy away from the facts; I’m not going gear myself to try to get a party applause line every second or third sentence I make. Republicans and well as the rest of the American people need to come together on the fact that we have some tough choices ahead of us and the one thing that is not sustainable is our current path with regard to our attitude toward global conflicts and with regard to our attitude toward our economic future, current trends and our attitude with regard of what it’s going to take to do better; and that’s unity of the American people."
Ed goes on to relate (in reponse to a question from a commenter) how well people responded to Fred and how much he appeared to like talking with people at the event.
"I was impressed with his warmth and sincerity, both with me and with the crowd. I talked a bit about this during my show that day, but the crowd clearly sensed his approachability and his geniality. He did not strike me as someone going through the motions, but as a man who genuinely enjoys interacting with people, even the press."
I am eagerly awaiting the announcement, which will hopefully occur right after the holiday.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Fred's Campaign Plans
Fred is interviewed by David Broder at the Washington Post, and plainly states that his campaign will attempt to address issues that establishment politicians would never dare. The entitlement mess, tax policy and the way the Pentagon procures its equipment are all high on the list.
"the former senator from Tennessee said that when he joins the battle next month, he "will take some risks that others are not willing to take, in terms of forcing a dialogue on our entitlement situation, our military situation and what it's going to cost" to ensure the nation's future."
Fred points to the two volume report on government that his Senate Government Affairs committee authored in 2001, and recent GAO reports that raise stark questions about the sustainability of our current entitlement programs.
"Nobody in Congress or on either side in the presidential race wants to deal with it," Thompson said. "So we just rock along and try to maintain the status quo. Republicans say keep the tax cuts; Democrats say keep the entitlements. And we become a less unified country in the process, with a tax code that has become an unholy mess, and all we do is tinker around the edges."
Thompson readily concedes that he does not know "where all those chips are going to fall" when he starts challenging members of various interest groups to look beyond their individual agendas and weigh the sacrifices that could ensure a better future for their children.
But these issues -- national security and the fiscal crisis of an aging society with runaway heath-care costs -- "are worth a portion of a man's life. If I can't get elected talking that way, I probably don't deserve to be elected."
Thompson says he feels "free to do it" his own way, and that freedom may just be enough to shake up the presidential race."
It will be a tough road to hoe, but change in Washington is desperately needed, and it's my belief Fred is just the guy to do it. I just hope my fellow citizens come to realize it as well.
"the former senator from Tennessee said that when he joins the battle next month, he "will take some risks that others are not willing to take, in terms of forcing a dialogue on our entitlement situation, our military situation and what it's going to cost" to ensure the nation's future."
Fred points to the two volume report on government that his Senate Government Affairs committee authored in 2001, and recent GAO reports that raise stark questions about the sustainability of our current entitlement programs.
"Nobody in Congress or on either side in the presidential race wants to deal with it," Thompson said. "So we just rock along and try to maintain the status quo. Republicans say keep the tax cuts; Democrats say keep the entitlements. And we become a less unified country in the process, with a tax code that has become an unholy mess, and all we do is tinker around the edges."
Thompson readily concedes that he does not know "where all those chips are going to fall" when he starts challenging members of various interest groups to look beyond their individual agendas and weigh the sacrifices that could ensure a better future for their children.
But these issues -- national security and the fiscal crisis of an aging society with runaway heath-care costs -- "are worth a portion of a man's life. If I can't get elected talking that way, I probably don't deserve to be elected."
Thompson says he feels "free to do it" his own way, and that freedom may just be enough to shake up the presidential race."
It will be a tough road to hoe, but change in Washington is desperately needed, and it's my belief Fred is just the guy to do it. I just hope my fellow citizens come to realize it as well.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Terry Supports Thompson
via one of our favorite Local Yokels, Leavenworth Street reports that our own personal Congress critter, Mr. Lee Terry himself, has announced he is supporting the Thompson campaign (or non-campaign, as it were).
Knock me over with a feather, I am simply too stunned. Either Terry is more of a small government conservative than meets the eye or this could be the deathknell of the Fred campaign - hopefully the former rather than the latter.
Or, just maybe, could it be that somebody on Terry's staff has been reading all those emails I've been sending him - or God forbid, someone's blog ?!
Knock me over with a feather, I am simply too stunned. Either Terry is more of a small government conservative than meets the eye or this could be the deathknell of the Fred campaign - hopefully the former rather than the latter.
Or, just maybe, could it be that somebody on Terry's staff has been reading all those emails I've been sending him - or God forbid, someone's blog ?!
Fred's Fund Raising Numbers
via Patrick Ruffini's excellent site.
Patrick (a Rudy supporter) seems to believe (as I do) that $3.4 million for 25 days is a pretty good number. John Henke of QandO (Thompson's online consultant) pointed out that this number exceeds all the other Republican campaigns except Romney at the same point (the first month of fund raising) - not announced, but with an exploratory or organizational committee formed.
Patrick also points out that over 3/4 of million dollars (23%, from about 7500 individual donors) of Fred's fund raising donations came from online sources, which is also pretty impressive. Another item of note is that these numbers came without any events, direct mail or phone calls. I'd say it's a pretty amazing number given those facts. The committee only spent just under $700k leaving Fred with about $2.7 million in funds.
I would also note (like Fred) that the campaign traditionally has started around Labor Day. This year's crop seems to believe that starting early would help them.
Patrick (a Rudy supporter) seems to believe (as I do) that $3.4 million for 25 days is a pretty good number. John Henke of QandO (Thompson's online consultant) pointed out that this number exceeds all the other Republican campaigns except Romney at the same point (the first month of fund raising) - not announced, but with an exploratory or organizational committee formed.
Patrick also points out that over 3/4 of million dollars (23%, from about 7500 individual donors) of Fred's fund raising donations came from online sources, which is also pretty impressive. Another item of note is that these numbers came without any events, direct mail or phone calls. I'd say it's a pretty amazing number given those facts. The committee only spent just under $700k leaving Fred with about $2.7 million in funds.
I would also note (like Fred) that the campaign traditionally has started around Labor Day. This year's crop seems to believe that starting early would help them.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Former GAO Man takes on myth of Fred Being "Lazy"
It's been a while since I found something interesting about my preferrred candidate for President, Fred! (I mean truly interesting, rather than some goof ball attempt by the opposition to damage his credibility) but I think I found it today.
Jeff Nelligan, former Government Accountability Office official, speaks to his experience with then Senator Thompson, and his account contrasts pretty starkly with the description of his service often characterized in the media.
"Thompson was the guy who knew all these arcane, and while other members were dancing around getting headlines on the issue of the day, Thompson was grinding it out in Committee; I know, I had to attend those hearings and they were full of minutiae.In fact, of the many Members I’ve dealt with in my primo roll as the number-one Hill hack, Thompson was one of the two or three who always impressed me as immersed in details, the guy who took on these arcane and non-headline issues, and pursued them doggedly. Another, coincidentally enough, was Senator Joe Lieberman, ranking on the Committee and a genuine friend of Thompson’s."
Not sure if I recall correctly, but a while back one notable right wing blogger (I think it was Captain Ed over at CQ) went over the last Congressional session Fred had served in and found him involved in (sponsoring, co-sponsoring, amending, etc) over 100 pending bills in the Senate. That's lazy? Hardly seems possible to be involved in over 100 pieces of legislation in a single session and be described that way, but when you are more focused on actually accomplishing something substantial rather than playing up to the Beltway media, and you are a R to boot, then I guess the facts don't matter much.
Jeff Nelligan, former Government Accountability Office official, speaks to his experience with then Senator Thompson, and his account contrasts pretty starkly with the description of his service often characterized in the media.
"Thompson was the guy who knew all these arcane, and while other members were dancing around getting headlines on the issue of the day, Thompson was grinding it out in Committee; I know, I had to attend those hearings and they were full of minutiae.In fact, of the many Members I’ve dealt with in my primo roll as the number-one Hill hack, Thompson was one of the two or three who always impressed me as immersed in details, the guy who took on these arcane and non-headline issues, and pursued them doggedly. Another, coincidentally enough, was Senator Joe Lieberman, ranking on the Committee and a genuine friend of Thompson’s."
Not sure if I recall correctly, but a while back one notable right wing blogger (I think it was Captain Ed over at CQ) went over the last Congressional session Fred had served in and found him involved in (sponsoring, co-sponsoring, amending, etc) over 100 pending bills in the Senate. That's lazy? Hardly seems possible to be involved in over 100 pieces of legislation in a single session and be described that way, but when you are more focused on actually accomplishing something substantial rather than playing up to the Beltway media, and you are a R to boot, then I guess the facts don't matter much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
