Sure enough, the major topic on CNBC, in nearly every interview involving politics, was the guest's opinion of Fred Thompson's performance in the Tuesday afternoon economics "debate" in Michigan.
The various CNBC anchors continued poke fun of Thompson, and bait guests with questions, clearly hoping they would judge Thompson to have failed to provide satisfactory responses.
How the network felt that two clearly leftist interrogators, Chris Matthews, former aide to Tip O'Neill, and Maria Bartiromo, would fairly handle a slate of Republican candidates for President is beyond me.
Wouldn't it have made much more sense to have people like Larry Kudlow, John Rutledge, and/or Brian Wesbury moderate the debate?
The two of them practically bludgeoned any candidate who did not agree with their pre-conceived notion that America is nearly in, if not already in, a recession. Having chosen an economically mis-managed and depressed state in which to have the debate, the two then baited the candidates to challenge the public-at-large's misconception about our country's economic health.
As this post, on my companion business blog, notes, I'm sorry to say Mitt Romney caved and declared a national economic emergency over one state- Michigan.
Thompson, however, got it right. He noted, if a bit obliquely, that economic opportunity does not mean a guaranteed job in your current locale.
But perhaps the best news regarding the debate was delivered by a pollster who appeared on Larry Kudlow's program following the debate. Despite Larry's hectoring about economic issues, the pollster, whose name I wish I could now recall, but cannot, said something to the effect of,
'Look, Larry, those are valid economic questions. But most Americans are not economists. They simply don't think that way. They aren't politicians, either. They just don't sit there and say, "hey, here's an economic problem- let's see which candidate has a viable program or plan to solve it."
Instead, they just vote for the person who they feel can be trusted to behave in a way that is similar to their own values and preferences.'
Which is pretty much what I wrote in this post last month. And this is why I believe Thompson has real potential among voters. Like Reagan, he's sensible, mature, and straight-shooting.
That said, on the basis of their economic-related statements, and focus on Hillary's weaknesses, I'd be okay with either Giuliani or Romney winning the Republican nomination as well.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Fred Thompson & The Debate
As I write this, I am listening to the left-leaning anchors on CNBC, particularly Carlos Quintillana, poke fun of Fred Thompson.
The line I've heard most often today- perhaps 5 times already- is something like,
'You know, it's been 11 years since Thompson's been in a debate. Does he still have it? Can he still hold his own?'
Give me a break!
The guy is a successful actor. He's used to presenting himself as needed. The liberals used to delight in poking fun of that two-term President, Ronald Reagan, too.
Yep. Both times that he beat their best candidate.
I find it odd that liberals are given credibility for having anything of value to say about Thompson.
Just a few minutes ago, when Erin Burnett repeated another oft-heard Thompson knock,
'I've heard he has a reputation for being lazy,'
Quintanilla replied something like,
'I don't know, maybe because he's an actor?' and then mumbled some follow-on comment.
My guess is that the CNBC personality was in high school when Thompson was in the Senate representing Tennessee. I doubt Quintanilla even knows much about Thompson's background.
Between some conservative political pundits demanding that Thompson essentially produce a new, fresh plan and solution for every national ill, and liberal political pundits joking that he can't actually speak, it seems these professional observers have set quite the high bar for this candidate.
In total, these observers may constitute 40 votes come November, 2008.
My guess, coming about 90 minutes prior to the Dearborn Republican Presidential candidates' debate, is that Thompson will hold his own, and then some. He's been to the big games, played on the national political and legislative stage for years.
That said, it should be an interesting discussion. Hopefully, in toto, these candidates- Giuliani, Thompson, Romney- will provide the American voting public with attractive, optimistic, credible tax and spending policies which will provide stark contrast to the gloom and tax agendas of Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.
The line I've heard most often today- perhaps 5 times already- is something like,
'You know, it's been 11 years since Thompson's been in a debate. Does he still have it? Can he still hold his own?'
Give me a break!
The guy is a successful actor. He's used to presenting himself as needed. The liberals used to delight in poking fun of that two-term President, Ronald Reagan, too.
Yep. Both times that he beat their best candidate.
I find it odd that liberals are given credibility for having anything of value to say about Thompson.
Just a few minutes ago, when Erin Burnett repeated another oft-heard Thompson knock,
'I've heard he has a reputation for being lazy,'
Quintanilla replied something like,
'I don't know, maybe because he's an actor?' and then mumbled some follow-on comment.
My guess is that the CNBC personality was in high school when Thompson was in the Senate representing Tennessee. I doubt Quintanilla even knows much about Thompson's background.
Between some conservative political pundits demanding that Thompson essentially produce a new, fresh plan and solution for every national ill, and liberal political pundits joking that he can't actually speak, it seems these professional observers have set quite the high bar for this candidate.
In total, these observers may constitute 40 votes come November, 2008.
My guess, coming about 90 minutes prior to the Dearborn Republican Presidential candidates' debate, is that Thompson will hold his own, and then some. He's been to the big games, played on the national political and legislative stage for years.
That said, it should be an interesting discussion. Hopefully, in toto, these candidates- Giuliani, Thompson, Romney- will provide the American voting public with attractive, optimistic, credible tax and spending policies which will provide stark contrast to the gloom and tax agendas of Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.
More Out of Touch Ramblings from Peggy Noonan
This Friday's Wall Street Journal column by Peggy Noonan, one-time Reagan speech writer, may have hit a new low for being out of touch with reality.
She lauded Chris Dodd and Joe Biden for having good sense and a grasp of complex issues. She boosted Obama for his 'thoughtful look.'
Oh my God! What in the world has gotten into Noonan?
These are not "good" candidates. Dodd and Biden are relatively minor, attention-seeking, long-in-the-tooth Senators of the Dole and McCain model. They run on the same "it's my turn, dammit!" platform.
Being a longtime insider, I don't think Noonan can really see this anymore.
The Democratic party doesn't have a 'really good' candidate. They have various damaged candidates scrambling after a soon-to-be-vacant Oval Office with no incumbent running.
The good news, though, is that if one of them gets in, it's a fair bet that they will only enjoy at most two years of Congressional majority, before the whole gang gets carried away with spending, liberal legislation, etc., and get the Republicans back in control of the House and Senate.
She lauded Chris Dodd and Joe Biden for having good sense and a grasp of complex issues. She boosted Obama for his 'thoughtful look.'
Oh my God! What in the world has gotten into Noonan?
These are not "good" candidates. Dodd and Biden are relatively minor, attention-seeking, long-in-the-tooth Senators of the Dole and McCain model. They run on the same "it's my turn, dammit!" platform.
Being a longtime insider, I don't think Noonan can really see this anymore.
The Democratic party doesn't have a 'really good' candidate. They have various damaged candidates scrambling after a soon-to-be-vacant Oval Office with no incumbent running.
The good news, though, is that if one of them gets in, it's a fair bet that they will only enjoy at most two years of Congressional majority, before the whole gang gets carried away with spending, liberal legislation, etc., and get the Republicans back in control of the House and Senate.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Campaign 2008: Hillary, Fund Raising and the Web
The other day, I was discussing Presidential candidates with a quasi-liberal friend. The conversation began when I mentioned having watched President Bush's recent address involving vetoing the SCHIPP bill. I'll have a separate post on that.
However, in the course of the address, Bush demonstrated very nuanced knowledge of the tax code and economics, as he explained why his hosts, who file as a SubChapter S corporation, represent a large class of taxpayers who file as individuals with small businesses.
As I discussed the liberal media's distortions and omissions in regard to Bush's record and intellect, I opined that perhaps the new wrinkle coming in the 2008 campaign will be the declining role of money.
Even my friend welcomed this.
My reasoning is as follows. More than four years ago, the internet has become the primary medium for video content distribution of political messages. It's free, controllable, and takes little money to even produce content.
Fred Thompson, a front-running Republican candidate, did not even bother to run his announcement speech on network air time. Instead, he appeared on Jay Leno's show, then ran the announcement speech on his website. I would guess it's on YouTube by now, as well.
Does it still matter that Hillary is ahead on fund raising? When I read the hand-wringing reports that Republican candidates are being out-raised and outspent by Democrats like Obama Bim Baden and Hillary, I wonder if this is the blind spot of the 2008 campaign.
After all, is big, old media really going to report on its own demise? Not likely.
Where will you hear of this shift of substantial resources and effort to the web for content and message distribution?
Not on the networks, I'd bet. And just maybe on cable news.
No, this may be a totally stealth transformation of Presidential campaign operations.
In a way, it would be just desserts for all the campaign finance 'reform' hoopla to which we've been subjected for 30 years.
I'm not saying having money to spend is inconsequential. In a tight race between two similarly-qualified and supported candidates, network and cable air time might indeed give an edge to the better-financed candidate. Even if just for street money, to get out the vote.
But I don't believe, and neither does my Democratic friend, that money can elect a bad candidate. And she doesn't even believe Hillary will win the general election, if nominated.
So suppose Obama is too green, Hillary fractures somewhere on the campaign trail. Could just money really elect John Edwards over Giuliani or Thompson?
Or even elect Hillary, if she begins to break down in the home stretch?
No, I think we may be seeing a major turning point in the democratizing of Presidential elections, without any notice from the major media. Ubiquitous computers and high-speed access allows anyone to search and find information, videos, messages, from all the candidates. On their own time, without media filtering.
If the 2004 election woke everyone up to Howard Dean's internet-based fundraising, perhaps the 2008 election will awaken the professional political campaign managers and handlers to their weakening influence.
If message distribution and consumption heads for the individual-oriented, wild west of the internet, will managed campaigns ever recover their ability to control, shape and disseminate all aspects of their candidate's utterances? Won't the omnipresent oppositions digital camcorder on the campaign trail give each candidate raw footage of each opponent?
Imagine the video messages that could fly between the two party's candidates a year from now, as each edits and presents the other's video appearances on various websites and YouTube.
The last place you may look for live campaign 'news' may be the networks. Or, as my friend opined, perhaps they will basically be reduced to covering the internet campaign duels between the competing websites.
Honestly, I think I can hardly wait for that day. The demise of the political pundits, the campaign managers, and network anchors. And the rise of individual voters to simply surf, view, and decide on their own, without so many filters.
However, in the course of the address, Bush demonstrated very nuanced knowledge of the tax code and economics, as he explained why his hosts, who file as a SubChapter S corporation, represent a large class of taxpayers who file as individuals with small businesses.
As I discussed the liberal media's distortions and omissions in regard to Bush's record and intellect, I opined that perhaps the new wrinkle coming in the 2008 campaign will be the declining role of money.
Even my friend welcomed this.
My reasoning is as follows. More than four years ago, the internet has become the primary medium for video content distribution of political messages. It's free, controllable, and takes little money to even produce content.
Fred Thompson, a front-running Republican candidate, did not even bother to run his announcement speech on network air time. Instead, he appeared on Jay Leno's show, then ran the announcement speech on his website. I would guess it's on YouTube by now, as well.
Does it still matter that Hillary is ahead on fund raising? When I read the hand-wringing reports that Republican candidates are being out-raised and outspent by Democrats like Obama Bim Baden and Hillary, I wonder if this is the blind spot of the 2008 campaign.
After all, is big, old media really going to report on its own demise? Not likely.
Where will you hear of this shift of substantial resources and effort to the web for content and message distribution?
Not on the networks, I'd bet. And just maybe on cable news.
No, this may be a totally stealth transformation of Presidential campaign operations.
In a way, it would be just desserts for all the campaign finance 'reform' hoopla to which we've been subjected for 30 years.
I'm not saying having money to spend is inconsequential. In a tight race between two similarly-qualified and supported candidates, network and cable air time might indeed give an edge to the better-financed candidate. Even if just for street money, to get out the vote.
But I don't believe, and neither does my Democratic friend, that money can elect a bad candidate. And she doesn't even believe Hillary will win the general election, if nominated.
So suppose Obama is too green, Hillary fractures somewhere on the campaign trail. Could just money really elect John Edwards over Giuliani or Thompson?
Or even elect Hillary, if she begins to break down in the home stretch?
No, I think we may be seeing a major turning point in the democratizing of Presidential elections, without any notice from the major media. Ubiquitous computers and high-speed access allows anyone to search and find information, videos, messages, from all the candidates. On their own time, without media filtering.
If the 2004 election woke everyone up to Howard Dean's internet-based fundraising, perhaps the 2008 election will awaken the professional political campaign managers and handlers to their weakening influence.
If message distribution and consumption heads for the individual-oriented, wild west of the internet, will managed campaigns ever recover their ability to control, shape and disseminate all aspects of their candidate's utterances? Won't the omnipresent oppositions digital camcorder on the campaign trail give each candidate raw footage of each opponent?
Imagine the video messages that could fly between the two party's candidates a year from now, as each edits and presents the other's video appearances on various websites and YouTube.
The last place you may look for live campaign 'news' may be the networks. Or, as my friend opined, perhaps they will basically be reduced to covering the internet campaign duels between the competing websites.
Honestly, I think I can hardly wait for that day. The demise of the political pundits, the campaign managers, and network anchors. And the rise of individual voters to simply surf, view, and decide on their own, without so many filters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
