Future Republicans of America

This is the Blogging site for the Future Republicans of America magazine. We welcome comments from all over the political spectrum.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Fred Thompson Not the Energizer Bunny

By Ronald Kessler

The knock on Fred Thompson is that he is not exactly the Energizer Bunny.

Republican operatives were amazed at the contrast between the 1994 Senate campaigns run by Thompson and Bill Frist, both from Tennessee. Frist ran a tightly organized, business-like effort. Thompson’s effort was amateurish, and he was not inclined to push himself to hold fundraisers.

In deploying volunteers to call voters, Frist’s campaign used computerized lists of telephone numbers. They had been pre-selected based on clues that the voters might be inclined to listen to a pitch for Frist. When making calls, volunteers read from a carefully prepared script.

In contrast, the Thompson campaign gave workers pages torn from local telephone books. The campaign told workers to try the numbers and did not supply them with specifics on what to say when they called. Because of the lack of organization, volunteers flocked to Frist’s campaign.

If Thompson makes it to the White House, it will likely be as disorganized an operation as Bill Clinton’s White House was. However, Thompson recently told a close friend that he honestly does not know if he wants to run. Near the end of his first term as senator, he made a similar statement to supporters and ultimately decided against running for a second term.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has garnered more endorsements from members of Congress than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat. While endorsements do not translate directly into votes, they do help encourage state leaders to jump on one bandwagon or another.

In the latest poll by ccAdvertising, which conducts private polls for members of Congress, 9.96 percent of those who said they intend to vote in a Republican caucus or primary in California, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York or South Carolina said they will vote for Romney. That compares with 3.1 percent in January when the poll was taken in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

“If I were on the Romney team, I would be pleased by the progression that I am seeing,” Gabriel S. Joseph III, president of ccAdvertising, tells me. “You have money in the bank, and you are making progress. People like to go with winners or those that they think will be.”

In the ccAdvertising poll, Rudy Giuliani leads with 24.67 percent. Next is John McCain with 18.21 percent, then Newt Gingrich with 10.08 percent.

What is most interesting, Joseph says, is that 28.95 percent of those polled say they have no preference, indicating the race is wide open. That means a candidate like Romney with little name recognition has a good chance of climbing in the polls as he gets his message out.

“Politics is a form of marketing,” Joseph said. “Sometimes just mentioning someone’s name gets people interested. The way you sell a Lexus automobile is you mention Lexus, Lexus. People will say, ‘I’ve heard a lot about Mitt Romney.’ You ask them, ‘What have you heard?’ They’ll say, ‘I’m not sure, but I’ve heard a lot about him.’ So at this point I think this is what the polls are measuring.”

Making the Secret Service Happy

Most political operatives believe the presidential nominees will be decided next February by a few of the 20 states that so far have opted for early primaries. What that means for candidates is anybody’s guess.

“This primary season is turning into the most challenging Rubik’s Cube that we’ve faced in our lifetime,” says Ben Ginsberg, Romney’s counsel who previously was counsel to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004.

But the Secret Service knows exactly what early primaries mean: potentially fewer candidates to protect down the road. So far, based on the public record, the Secret Service counts 15 potential candidates

By law, the Secret Service provides protection of major presidential and vice presidential candidates and their spouses. The secretary of Homeland Security determines who are the major candidates after consulting with an advisory committee consisting of the speaker and minority leader of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and one additional member selected by the other members of the committee.

The secretary of Homeland Security decides when to begin protection of candidates. Protection of spouses begins 120 days before the general election.

The Secret Service is already asking most of its 3,000 agents for their preferences on types of candidate protection assignments. For example, agents can ask to join a general protection shift, operations and logistics, or transportation details.

If only two candidates emerge from the primaries, the Secret Service will save tens of millions of dollars.

2 Comments:

At 1:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred Thompson was a throwaway candidate in the 1994 election. He was not supposed to win. Thompson drove around in a pickup truck and flannel shirt and preached the "gospel according to ole Fred" and look what happened. He won by the largest margins in state history. By comparison, when Frist left office, his popularity within the state of Tennessee had dropped. When Thompson left office, he was as popular as ever in the state. People are ready for a change. We don't need another Bush type candidate. Romney has organization, but has yet to inspire much of anybody outside of those who have been in his camp from the beginning. Of course the campaigns so far have the most endorsements, look how early this has started when compared to normal. People on the right are sick and tired of the same old politicians who govern to their constituency. There are rumors of people getting ready to jump ship in more than just Governor Romney's campaign.
Personally, I like Romney and believe he is a good and decent man, but before Thompson expressed interest, I was not dedicated to anybody because there didn't seem to be a candidate that I could either agree with, or one that was not trying to pander to the base just so he could be elected. The conservative base, in my opinion, has grown quite tired of the elites, and candidates by birthrite, whose lives have been focused on being elected President of the United States. Attacking Thompson only alienates those who are looking for fresh ideas, but still inclined to vote for a Republican because you make them feel as if you are insulting their intelligence by promoting an elitist agenda.
Organization doesn't mean a thing if you lack a coherent vision, and right now, Governor Romney has no vision. He's competent, but not inspiring. I hope that he proves to me that he has what it takes to lead, not just govern. Right now, Governor Romney is a pre-packaged, generic politician who keeps tripping over himself, like two familiar opposing party candidates who were the nominees in the 2000 election. The difference between Romney and President Bush so far is that Bush had the ability to connect to the working class southern base of the party. Romney might be able to charm the party officials, but has failed so far to sway any of the people that he has to sway to get elected. Those who aren't as well off as the big name backers. The people.
We won't win the election in 2008 without rural America. Governor Romney has not yet figured out how to connect. It's not about money, television ads, or endorsements of GOP bigwigs. It's about vision. Fred Thompson inspires common people, and Governor Romney has yet to do that.
And by questioning the opinion of the common people by comparing how their candidacy is run, instead of trying to appeal to them, you only alienate yourself and your candidate even more.

 
At 1:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, when I went back and read your post again. I noticed some inaccuracies that some of Thompson's supporters take very seriously:

1. Thompson was not at the end of his first term. He was elected in 1994, and again elected in 1996, which was due to Al Gore's position as Vice President. This is not the one that will get too many up in arms.

2. Thompson didn't just decide not to run one day. You fail to mention, what is common knowledge to those familiar with him, that his daughter's death was the primary factor. We don't like to use this as a political tool, but when you bring up the fact that he didn't run for re-election in 2002 and use it to your own political editor's license, then you are being dishonest. Are you familiar with the pain that losing a child causes? He finished his term and chose not to seek another one. You appear as a shill for your golden boy when you bring this up. It took me two readings to catch it, so it almost worked.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home