A lot has occurred since my post after the New Hampshire primaries on January 9th.
Mitt Romney has evened things up with his Michigan win. The Democratic race is still wide open.
On the Republican side, Fred Thompson withdrew from the nomination race. While I personally like Thompson and agree with many of his positions, I didn't really think he could win. His debate performances were too slow and lackluster, until the very end.
Next up, I believe, will be Giuliani. He's running way behind McCain and Romney in Florida, the avowed opening of his serious campaign. Say what you will about his campaign strategy or qualifications, he just doesn't seem to be likely to get traction now.
I'd guess Hickabee is next. He isn't really running in Florida, and he's got nearly zero organization and funding for Super Tuesday.
So it's going to be down to McCain and Romney very soon.
On the Democratic side, Dennis 'the menace' (yes, that really was his old nickname) Kucinich finally pulled the plug. Gone, too, are Dodd and Biden.
After his third place in South Carolina, his home state, Edwards should be dropping out soon. The brawl that is now the Democratic race doesn't really have room for a third pugilist.
So the highly-probable match-ups for November are now clearing appearing. Candidates will now more likely be evaluated for their ability to win against known opponents, as well as their positions and records.
Showing posts with label Fred Thompson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fred Thompson. Show all posts
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Post- "Debate" On Fred Thompson
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Has Peggy Noonan Been In Politics Too Long?
Over the past week, many pundits, including the inestimable Peggy Noonan, have weighed in on Fred Thompson's candidacy.
Larry Kudlow, editorial writers on the Wall Street Journal staff, and Noonan all decry Thompson's lack of 'new positions.'
To a person, they express something like the following:
'Nice try, Fred. Sure, you're folksy and charming. You have great visibility and name/face recognition from your films and Law & Order role. But do you have anything new to say? Any new, untaken positions to add to the Republican Presidential race? Being charming and folksy just won't cut it. You might shove McCain out, finally, and elbow past Romney. But why are you doing this? Finally, do you have the money and ground troops to actually win primaries?'
Honestly, when I read this sort of thing in Noonan's latest columns, I sighed to myself and wondered whether she's been in the political wars so long she's no longer capable of identifying with the average conservative voter.
True, Ronald Reagan had new ideas when we ran, and won, in 1980. And, now, Thompson's appeal, in part, is a return to Reagan's values and orientations.
What Noonan, Kudlow, and others, miss, in my opinion, is Thompson's character. Apparently, Bill Clinton was so effective at brainwashing Americans that Presidential character doesn't matter that even these conservative, Republican pundits have forgotten the concept.
I have not.
What I see in Thompson is the character I want in the Oval Office when the unexpected occurs. It's an often-overlooked fact that what a President focuses on in his/her campaign is rarely what s/he actually finds is the salient issue and crisis of her/his term in office.
For example, our current President ran primarily on domestic issues in 2000, but the salient issue of his two terms has been foreign-sourced terrorism's attack on our country, throughout the world.
Further, as a conservative friend reminded me yesterday at my health club, the President can only suggest and offer legislative expressions of his/her platform. Congress must pass it. Thus, the candidate's own agenda does not necessarily become his/her actual focus in office.
That said, two of my conservative friends agreed with me- the professional pundits seem to have forgotten that who says what is important in Presidential campaigns.
Thompson has been crystal clear from the beginning, as has Newt Gingrich, that if certain issues and positions are not appropriately handled or represented by the current crop of Republican candidates, then he will run. And he has decided to do so. Is that so hard for Peggy Noonan and Larry Kudlow to grasp?
Giuliani is suspect on two aspects of his candidacy. First, he's a social liberal among conservatives. No question. Are we getting the latest genetic product of the old Rockefeller wing of the party? Probably so. Second, why is he running? I don't hear Noonan screaming about Giuliani's reasons for wanting to be President, but they are, if anything, more suspect than Thompson's. I would venture that Rudy wants to be President as the crowning feather in his public service cap. Sure, he has good intentions, and is a desirable candidate on many bases. But he wants this. Really wants it.
Romney even more so. For Mitt, it is a sort of grand coronation to conclude his logical, Hooverish progression from successful private businessman, public servant for at the Salt Lake City Games, and governor of a blue state. Plus, to attain the office his father could not.
McCain is, quite simply, cut from the old Bob "It's My Turn" Dole cloth. He's been a wheeling-dealing, hacked up Senator long enough. By God, it's payback time for his years in the Hanoi Hilton.
Sorry, John, but that's not how it works.
Of all the Republican candidates, I personally find Thompson to be the most convincing, trustworthy, and credible. He'll decide among policy options using values I respect, often share, and trust. If the policies were devised by someone else, so be it.
Am I so unusual in recalling that it's the President's character, values and orientation which ultimately matter? What tests s/he will face are rarely known in advance. S/he can't control Congress- even his/her own party's leaders in those chambers. The only thing we elect, at the end of the day, is a President's values and capability to exercise power in a manner which is consistent with what s/he expressed during the campaign.
I'll discuss Thompson's one glaring weakness- executive experience- in another post.
Larry Kudlow, editorial writers on the Wall Street Journal staff, and Noonan all decry Thompson's lack of 'new positions.'
To a person, they express something like the following:
'Nice try, Fred. Sure, you're folksy and charming. You have great visibility and name/face recognition from your films and Law & Order role. But do you have anything new to say? Any new, untaken positions to add to the Republican Presidential race? Being charming and folksy just won't cut it. You might shove McCain out, finally, and elbow past Romney. But why are you doing this? Finally, do you have the money and ground troops to actually win primaries?'
Honestly, when I read this sort of thing in Noonan's latest columns, I sighed to myself and wondered whether she's been in the political wars so long she's no longer capable of identifying with the average conservative voter.
True, Ronald Reagan had new ideas when we ran, and won, in 1980. And, now, Thompson's appeal, in part, is a return to Reagan's values and orientations.
What Noonan, Kudlow, and others, miss, in my opinion, is Thompson's character. Apparently, Bill Clinton was so effective at brainwashing Americans that Presidential character doesn't matter that even these conservative, Republican pundits have forgotten the concept.
I have not.
What I see in Thompson is the character I want in the Oval Office when the unexpected occurs. It's an often-overlooked fact that what a President focuses on in his/her campaign is rarely what s/he actually finds is the salient issue and crisis of her/his term in office.
For example, our current President ran primarily on domestic issues in 2000, but the salient issue of his two terms has been foreign-sourced terrorism's attack on our country, throughout the world.
Further, as a conservative friend reminded me yesterday at my health club, the President can only suggest and offer legislative expressions of his/her platform. Congress must pass it. Thus, the candidate's own agenda does not necessarily become his/her actual focus in office.
That said, two of my conservative friends agreed with me- the professional pundits seem to have forgotten that who says what is important in Presidential campaigns.
Thompson has been crystal clear from the beginning, as has Newt Gingrich, that if certain issues and positions are not appropriately handled or represented by the current crop of Republican candidates, then he will run. And he has decided to do so. Is that so hard for Peggy Noonan and Larry Kudlow to grasp?
Giuliani is suspect on two aspects of his candidacy. First, he's a social liberal among conservatives. No question. Are we getting the latest genetic product of the old Rockefeller wing of the party? Probably so. Second, why is he running? I don't hear Noonan screaming about Giuliani's reasons for wanting to be President, but they are, if anything, more suspect than Thompson's. I would venture that Rudy wants to be President as the crowning feather in his public service cap. Sure, he has good intentions, and is a desirable candidate on many bases. But he wants this. Really wants it.
Romney even more so. For Mitt, it is a sort of grand coronation to conclude his logical, Hooverish progression from successful private businessman, public servant for at the Salt Lake City Games, and governor of a blue state. Plus, to attain the office his father could not.
McCain is, quite simply, cut from the old Bob "It's My Turn" Dole cloth. He's been a wheeling-dealing, hacked up Senator long enough. By God, it's payback time for his years in the Hanoi Hilton.
Sorry, John, but that's not how it works.
Of all the Republican candidates, I personally find Thompson to be the most convincing, trustworthy, and credible. He'll decide among policy options using values I respect, often share, and trust. If the policies were devised by someone else, so be it.
Am I so unusual in recalling that it's the President's character, values and orientation which ultimately matter? What tests s/he will face are rarely known in advance. S/he can't control Congress- even his/her own party's leaders in those chambers. The only thing we elect, at the end of the day, is a President's values and capability to exercise power in a manner which is consistent with what s/he expressed during the campaign.
I'll discuss Thompson's one glaring weakness- executive experience- in another post.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Fred Thompson's Entry Into The Presidential Campaign
At long last, it is going to be official this week. Fred Thompson is declaring his entry into the Presidential race.
I heard a wide variety of views concerning Thompson's campaign on Larry Kudlow's CNBC program this afternoon. For the most part, Kudlow led his guests to dismiss Thompson's candidacy.
Maybe it's just me, but I think this is an example of how pundits can miss the essence of a candidate's appeal.
Among Thompson's sins were: a too-late entry; all the 'good positions' are already taken on key issues; Giuliani and Romney's numbers are already too high, and stable; he looks fickle.
How about this for an opinion? Thompson's entry brings a more natural, experienced, friendly, genuine face to some classically appealing conservative positions. In the new internet/YouTube age, along with compressed primary schedules, nobody really knows what will and won't work in a Presidential campaign.
It doesn't entirely surprise me that these commentators, with Kudlow at their head, dissed Thompson as a minor figure. They seem to discount the essence of the candidate's character and experience, preferring to reduce everything to poll numbers and position papers.
If you go to YouTube and search on "Fred Thompson," you'll see a fair collection of recent interviews featuring the new Presidential candidate.
As much as I like Romney, and would vote for either him or Giuliani, at this point, I'd still prefer Thompson to both of them. His genuineness, rich and varied career, and obvious passion and honesty for his positions seems, in my mind, to distinguish him from his competition.
I've written my own ideas for Thompson's campaign here, this past May. His strengths are clearly his Senate experience, honesty, and basic genuineness when he expresses his views. You don't get that whiff of a focus-group- or poll-based response.
My guess is that Thompson's greatest weakness is whether he has sufficient time to get fieldworkers going to get him into enough primaries, and represented in the field, to have a decent chance. Then again, his acting work gives him near-instant name and face recognition, unlike, say, Ron Paul.
I'm excited about Thompson's entry, and expect to write more about it in weeks to come.
I heard a wide variety of views concerning Thompson's campaign on Larry Kudlow's CNBC program this afternoon. For the most part, Kudlow led his guests to dismiss Thompson's candidacy.
Maybe it's just me, but I think this is an example of how pundits can miss the essence of a candidate's appeal.
Among Thompson's sins were: a too-late entry; all the 'good positions' are already taken on key issues; Giuliani and Romney's numbers are already too high, and stable; he looks fickle.
How about this for an opinion? Thompson's entry brings a more natural, experienced, friendly, genuine face to some classically appealing conservative positions. In the new internet/YouTube age, along with compressed primary schedules, nobody really knows what will and won't work in a Presidential campaign.
It doesn't entirely surprise me that these commentators, with Kudlow at their head, dissed Thompson as a minor figure. They seem to discount the essence of the candidate's character and experience, preferring to reduce everything to poll numbers and position papers.
If you go to YouTube and search on "Fred Thompson," you'll see a fair collection of recent interviews featuring the new Presidential candidate.
As much as I like Romney, and would vote for either him or Giuliani, at this point, I'd still prefer Thompson to both of them. His genuineness, rich and varied career, and obvious passion and honesty for his positions seems, in my mind, to distinguish him from his competition.
I've written my own ideas for Thompson's campaign here, this past May. His strengths are clearly his Senate experience, honesty, and basic genuineness when he expresses his views. You don't get that whiff of a focus-group- or poll-based response.
My guess is that Thompson's greatest weakness is whether he has sufficient time to get fieldworkers going to get him into enough primaries, and represented in the field, to have a decent chance. Then again, his acting work gives him near-instant name and face recognition, unlike, say, Ron Paul.
I'm excited about Thompson's entry, and expect to write more about it in weeks to come.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Presidential Candidate Videos
Fred Thompson evidently received a letter from Michael Moore, inviting him to a debate. I didn't catch the opening act, but apparently Fred castigated Moore for visiting Cuba to make a one-sided video/film about the economically-wrecked island's great health care system.
Here is Fred's response, on YouTube.
Also featured in today's Wall Street Journal was this funny, mock job interview by Bill Richardson as a Presidential candidate.
Apparently, Hillary did one on finding a theme song for her campaign, with an allegedly humorous reference to her inability to sing. I won't bother posting that link, as I am not planning to view it. My stomach's a little tender for that kind of abuse.
Here is Fred's response, on YouTube.
Also featured in today's Wall Street Journal was this funny, mock job interview by Bill Richardson as a Presidential candidate.
Apparently, Hillary did one on finding a theme song for her campaign, with an allegedly humorous reference to her inability to sing. I won't bother posting that link, as I am not planning to view it. My stomach's a little tender for that kind of abuse.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
If I Managed Fred Thompson's Presidential Campaign....
My business partner and I were discussing the changed face of Presidential campaigning in the current era this past weekend.
I mentioned the YouTube video developed by an Obama supporter which was targeted at Hillary Clinton. My post about it, from March, may be found here. This seminal event demonstrates that quite a bit of television commercial-like publicity can be had for essentially no money.
Thus, we turned to Fred Thompson. What if he were to run, but with too little time left to raise the sort of money that other leading candidates have raised? Could he still have a chance? How would he do it?
Well, we know from old third-party candidacies such as John Anderson and Ross Perot that having fieldworkers to get such a candidate on the ballot in each state are necessary.
As to mass media campaigns, we believe that a political candidate can now essentially emulate the direct-to-consumer approaches that I have predicted will soon occur for video programming producers, over on my other blog, The Reasoned Sceptic, which is linked to this one.
To wit, we would have Thompson post videos on his website conveying his message on the various topics which he felt were important. Second, we'd have him produced in a town hall sort of environment, answering questions from an audience, and maximizing his thoughtful, sensible, folksy appeal.
Finally, to throw down the gauntlet to the posed and overly-prepped candidates, we'd film Thompson strolling down major streets in various large and small American cities, stopping people to chat with them and engage in discussions. He'd obviously be exposed to unrehearsed questions and comments, which would tend to make the more stultifyingly pompous candidates have to consider doing the same.
We'd post all of these videos on YouTube and various other free video sites across the internet, thus avoiding the need for expensive purchases of advertising slots on network or cable television. Does anyone still think you can't get good coverage directly on the internet with videos?
Just like every other quadrennial campaign, this one has some new wrinkles to which many candidates will probably not well adapt. Last time, it was grassroots, web-based fund raising and website usage. Perhaps this year's change is the rise of spontaneous, free political message videos on the internet.
I mentioned the YouTube video developed by an Obama supporter which was targeted at Hillary Clinton. My post about it, from March, may be found here. This seminal event demonstrates that quite a bit of television commercial-like publicity can be had for essentially no money.
Thus, we turned to Fred Thompson. What if he were to run, but with too little time left to raise the sort of money that other leading candidates have raised? Could he still have a chance? How would he do it?
Well, we know from old third-party candidacies such as John Anderson and Ross Perot that having fieldworkers to get such a candidate on the ballot in each state are necessary.
As to mass media campaigns, we believe that a political candidate can now essentially emulate the direct-to-consumer approaches that I have predicted will soon occur for video programming producers, over on my other blog, The Reasoned Sceptic, which is linked to this one.
To wit, we would have Thompson post videos on his website conveying his message on the various topics which he felt were important. Second, we'd have him produced in a town hall sort of environment, answering questions from an audience, and maximizing his thoughtful, sensible, folksy appeal.
Finally, to throw down the gauntlet to the posed and overly-prepped candidates, we'd film Thompson strolling down major streets in various large and small American cities, stopping people to chat with them and engage in discussions. He'd obviously be exposed to unrehearsed questions and comments, which would tend to make the more stultifyingly pompous candidates have to consider doing the same.
We'd post all of these videos on YouTube and various other free video sites across the internet, thus avoiding the need for expensive purchases of advertising slots on network or cable television. Does anyone still think you can't get good coverage directly on the internet with videos?
Just like every other quadrennial campaign, this one has some new wrinkles to which many candidates will probably not well adapt. Last time, it was grassroots, web-based fund raising and website usage. Perhaps this year's change is the rise of spontaneous, free political message videos on the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
