A few comments in this weekend's post on Fred Thompson exemplified one of reasons for my skepticism about his campaign. Some Thompson enthusiasts come close to becoming the right wing version of the netroots, blindly extolling their candidate and the power of "the Internets" to secure victory.
Let's be candid about that thinking. As noted in an update to that weekend post, George Will lays out some searing, even harsh, criticism of the bubble that might be Fred Thompson. Thematically he may be on target, he might not. Only time will tell.
But we don't need time to tell us Thompson isn't the only candidate harnessing the power of the Internet and technology to improve his lot. John McCain is gathering supporters via the Internet for a Virtual Call Day fundraising boost. Rudy Giuliani until recently employed one of the most respected Republican Internet gurus around, Patrick Ruffini. Ruffini himself just highlighted a profile of Mitt Romney's Internet team:
The "Sign Up America Day" after the 2nd GOP debate discussed in the clip had quite a haul:
- Total Number Of New Romney Supporters Signed Up: Over 30,000- Percent Of New Supporters Who Signed Up On The Web Site: 60%
- Number Of Call Day Events: 90 Call Day Events In 22 States
- MittRomney.com received more traffic on May 16 than ever before, as measured by daily unique visitors and by page views
- Total Number Of Debate Watch House Parties: 953
That's obviously part of a strategy that integrates technology into voter contacts and outreach. It also adds some perspective to these solid but not outstanding numbers from Thompson's campaign out of the gate:
29,463 registered supporters$352,323.00 in donations
3,360 contributors
Now no doubt Thompson's campaign will do some exciting things with technology. They're already capturing a level of data from supporters that indicates as such. But it's not as if they hold a monopoly on innovation. See the Five Brothers Blog, which recently landed a front page profile in the Washington Post. Using articulate family surrogates to interact with supporters online and as force multipliers for grassroots activity could be highly effective.
The good thing for Thompson is the round of natural media buzz that occurs when a candidate throws their hat into the ring is paying off, putting the icing on the cake of an excellent little run in recent weeks. The run, by the way, has vaulted him into second in the RealClearPolitics national polling average.
That's a credit to Thompson and his budding team. But now like every other major candidate he'll be subjected to the grinder of opposition research and media digging that inevitably takes some of the luster off a campaign. After a month or so of that and the chance to perform on the campaign trail we'll have a truer idea of the state of Thompson's campaign.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 12, 2007 07:54 AM | Email ThisDo you think it's possible people are going to support Thompson NOT for his on-line campaign, the media buzz, his celebrity or any of the other things being tossed out?
Maybe people are going to support him simply because he's the best alternative to the lousy slate of candidates we're currently stuck with.
Posted by: jimg on June 12, 2007 08:24 AMMy biggest problem with Romney is he looks too pretty. I don't do pretty. I like grizzled like McCain and Thompson, or chiseled like Giuliani. But, I am getting over it.
George Will is hardly, or I should say, he is due to retire. I don't read his opinions anymore. I think the world has passed him by.
Thompson does best with sitdowns and in a conversational format. I don't think he would do good in these "debate" formats because he is deeper than one-liners and needs time to setup his points.
I like the whole bunch, but am disappointed in McCain and Giuliani skipping the Iowa straw polls because they are losing. If you enter the game, you play by the rules. The rules say Iowa straw poll.
Posted by: swatter on June 12, 2007 08:32 AMFor f**k's sake, why are so many Republicans out to just tear each other down? Do you want to actually win some elections, or just beat each other up?
Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2007 08:52 AMThat George Will piece was hammered by Ramesh Ponnuru over on NRO's Corner.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGMxN2NiMmE3MmU3NzJiNWRiYTg2NzE3OGEyYTgzOTg=
Among other things Ponnuru says: "Will goes on to comment on Thompson's "reputation for a less-than-strenuous approach to public life." At this point, repeating that Thompson is lazy, without going into the charge, is symptomatic of journalistic laziness"
It would seem to me that you should be more interested in WHY the other candidates just can't seem to "close the deal." Where is THAT story from you?
Rudy can't close it. Romney can't close it (heck he can't even get out of single digits beyond the margin of error). McCain is dropping like a rock.
Thus far the other candidates are just background noise.
You seem highly critical of Thompson's meteoric rise yet oddly uncritical of the other candidates to get the job done.
What's up with that? A little objectivity might hide your biases a little more.
Yip Yip
Posted by: Coyote on June 12, 2007 09:10 AMAfter all, swatter tells us "I don't do pretty."
(p.s. I could charitably be described as "grizzled". Maybe I oughta run!?!)
:)
Posted by: Rey Smith on June 12, 2007 09:42 AMSafe to say that the IS in the McCain sentence can be shifted to WAS. As for the Thompson drive, I think he's running a pretty steady blitz in about every venue possible. Like you, I think we'll see soon enough who the real deals are and who the hype burners are.
Posted by: BillT on June 12, 2007 10:08 AMHillary v. Romney. They said Hillary was "babealicious" at the last debate. So, Romney on substance.
Posted by: swatter on June 12, 2007 10:44 AMDo you think it's possible people are going to support Thompson NOT for his on-line campaign, the media buzz, his celebrity or any of the other things being tossed out?
Maybe people are going to support him simply because he's the best alternative to the lousy slate of candidates we're currently stuck with.
]
Exactly why I am watching him, the rest are rich spoiled children with no connection any reality either I nor anyone I know deals with.
No, I haven't decided on him yet, but I am watching him closely and I am far from alone from what I hear.
Amnesty support is the big killer at the moment although God knows there are many more the current crop of lusers are pushing.
Posted by: fox3 on June 12, 2007 10:52 AMWhile I like Fred and have basically thrown my hat in with him, I think Rudy can be very strong and Romney is not intollarable. However ALL of them are better than the current Democrats.
I just think that Eric is all to transparent in his constant dismissals of Thompson.
You know in his first Senate bid he was being accused of not working very hard. Then he got ramped up in his red pick up truck and layed the smack down on a very formidable opponent at the time. That whole "laziness" canard is just that, a canard, until he shows that he is lazzy.
Until now he has merely shown that he can win a hard fought Senate seat. Hold that seat. Be a solid Republican Senator, be a state prosecutor and generate a LOT of buzz about a Presidential campaign without spending a DIME.
Nothing to dismiss there. Unless you are looking for canards.
yip yip
Posted by: Coyote on June 12, 2007 11:08 AMLike Eric's and Will's efforts to tear Thompson down?
Yeah. I know what you mean.
Posted by: Hinton on June 12, 2007 11:32 AMOne thing you need to understand is that the grass-roots of the Republican Party is conservative and with out the grass-roots support no candidate stands a chance. Candidates need to have those grass-roots people out doorbelling, putting up signs, participating in parades, writing letters to the editor, working gotv phone banks and most importantly voting on Election Day. The key to getting the grass-roots motivated to do the above mentioned is to have a candidate that espouses their values and is believable in other words someone they can trust. So far Fred Thompson is the only top tier candidate that has expressed his conservative principals in a plain spoken believable manor.
Since January I have had the opportunity to be with several different groups and when the 08 Presidential subject would come up most people would just kind of hang their head and wait for someone to say something, when I would mention Fred Thompson people would perk up and get excited. You see they just don?t care for the other candidates because they don?t fully believe what they are saying, but Fred Thompson is different he is believable, and I think that is why you are seeing the support for him.
We put up www.washingtonforfred08.com on April 4, 2007 as of this morning there have been nearly 50,000 hits on the website , I only mention this to show you that there is a great deal of interest in Fred Thompson which tells me people just aren?t sold on the other candidates.
One final though, those of us that consider ourselves to be Republicans need to go out and work hard for the candidate of our choice but once the nomination has been made we need to unify behind that candidate as I am sure we will all agree that we have already had to many Clinton years.
Now if McCain were to run for President of Mexico, I'd vote for him (absentee, in King County) as often as possible.
Posted by: Rey Smith on June 12, 2007 11:56 AMSee Coyote's response above for a reasoned and reasonable reply to Eric, as opposed to ERNurse's, which was mere ad hominem attack.
I am fighting for civility here, and I am perfectly willing to be uncivil to get it. ;-)
Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2007 12:10 PMI wanted to clarify something with all of you... isn't Fred Thompson a member of the CFR and the AEI? I am confused -- why do so many people want to back a candidate that is advocating the North American Union, of all things?
Am I missing something?
Thanks!
Kacey
Posted by: Kacey Hartford on June 12, 2007 01:40 PM
For the same reason I back candidates who are for the rule of Ktulu the Sea Deamon, just to piss you off.
That, and because neither the North American Union, nor Ktulu, the Sea Deamon exist.
Yeah. I know what you mean.
Are you actually dumb enough to believe this?
Here's two things you should know:
1. Saying Eric was trying to "tear Thompson down" is the same thing as Max Cleland screaming that we "questioned his patriotism" when we challenged his votes on Homeland Security, i.e. a non-existent red-herring.
2. If, indeed, it was an attempt to "tear Thompson down", then Thompson mine as well be torn down now, because if he can't take such mild questions as these, he'll be completely and utterly destroyed by the Hillary/Obama/Edwards machine.
Posted by: Cliff on June 12, 2007 02:21 PMSounded almost exactly like what Kacey just wrote.
Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2007 02:47 PMTom: ???
Posted by: Kacey H. on June 12, 2007 04:41 PMConservatives need to examine the "bus" and figure out where it's going before hopping on.
Posted by: Michelle on June 12, 2007 09:16 PMMike Badnarik (2004 presidential candidate) teaches you about the neocons you are in love with...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9yUaChj5zw&mode=related&search=
When you want to come back down to planet Earth, and join the Republican party again, let me know and we'll continue this conversation.
Posted by: Kacey H on June 12, 2007 09:18 PMJust a bit of fun... don't take it personally. One good jab deserves another ;-)
Posted by: Kacey H on June 12, 2007 10:45 PMAnd no, the NAU is not real. Just because the Libertarian Party candidate says so, doesn't make it so. There is, in fact, no factual basis for your claim. If you would like to present actual evidence from the groups you are slandering that shows them supporting the NAU, do so. Otherwise, perhaps you should retract the defamatory claim.
And no, Michelle, the SPP is not the NAU by another name. The mythical NAU is an actual new nation. One nation, one currency, one government. The SPP is nothing of the sort. It would not, in any way, take away any U.S. sovereignty.
Now, I am not saying I think the SPP is a great thing. I don't know. But it is not what we are told by Kacey that the NAU is. It is not a government. It is not a treaty. It's not a law. It's merely a way for the three countries to have increased dialogue and cooperation on economic and security matters.
Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2007 10:48 PMRobert Pastor, a vice chairman of the CFR task force that produced the report Building a North American Union, has suggested that a common currency might be called the "amero", which would be similar in concept to the euro, the common currency of the EU.[3] Another possible name could be the North American Dollar (NAD).
Posted by: Michelle on June 13, 2007 12:50 AMMy point is that I am deeply concerned that Fred Thompson is a member of the CFR. If you are able to provide substantial evidence that all of the people mentioned below are incorrect, I would be most grateful. In fact, it would help me to sleep better at night. Thank you.
"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England ... (and) ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established."--- Professor of History Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University, in his book "Tragedy and Hope".
"[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change it's perceptions." --- (Member CFR) Henry Kissinger, World Affairs Council Press Conference, Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel, April 19th 1994
"So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order." --- (Member CFR) Henry Kissinger, in address before the General Assembly of the United Nations, October 1975)
"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis mine], that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government." --- (Member CFR) Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto-determination practiced in past centuries" --- (CFR member) David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991
"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." --- (CFR member) David Rockefeller of Standard Oil, Chase Manhattan and the Council on Foreign Relations, from his Memoirs in 2002.
"The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault." --- CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs.
"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent." --- Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets
The SPP is pushed by Bush, but just because the sponsors of the mythical, pipe-dream NAU applaud the SPP doesn't mean SPP == NAU. In fact, of course, the NAU sponsors said the SPP does not go far enough to reach their dream. The SPP does nothing at all in regards to U.S. sovereignty. The SPP does nothing toward a common currency. I could simply repeat my claims, none of which have been refuted by anyone, if you like.
Kacey: now back up your claim about the AEI. Still waiting on that. And what ARE you concerned about in re the NAU, which has no reasonable chance of occurring, and which is completely distinct from the SPP?
Quoting individuals who happen to be members of the CFR is boring. By the same standard, I could say I am concerned that Michelle is a member of the Republican Party, because of things said by Republicans David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger. Now, of course, the CFR is pushing something they call the North American Union. But the CFR's version of the NAU says nothing about open borders, nothing about a common currency. So what, exactly, is your concern with the NAU?
Posted by: pudge on June 13, 2007 10:08 AMThat said, I would say two things back to nay sayers. To describe Fred as lazy because he doesn't fit the typical candidate mold, is not a convincing argument. It misunderstands who Fred is as a politician. The supporting evidence is not very suggestive, either. Reagan was described as lazy because he liked to delegate. I'm glad he did.
Second, he's critized as focusing on internet campaigning too much. I'd say other candidate focus on traditional campaigning too much. ( Traditional campaigning is good, necessary, required...but it's not the sum total any more. ) Fred has proven that he can use the internet to take at least a small issue in front of conservatives and whack it out of the park on a moments notice. ( The Moore smackdown. ) This is especially effective in the primary season when a greater percentage of likely primary voters get their news online than by watching the local or network news ( which more or less ignores conservative politics ). I think that Fred, through his online postings at NRO and elsewhere, did a better job of conveying his principles and values than the other candidates have. I've read several articles from Fred, but haven't seen any from the others except Guiliani.
In any case, may the best candidate win.
Posted by: aodhan Hoffman on June 13, 2007 04:07 PMMay you lose all of your freedoms and your identity as an individual. Seek, and you shall find.
"Be not fond of the dull smoke-colored light from hell."
- Tibetan Book of the Dead
Keep on truckin'!
Who keeps you honest?
Do not bear false witness.
And don't just tell people they are FOS.
Posted by: keeppudgehonest on June 16, 2007 10:30 PM