Reagan’s Michael Deavers Endorses Thompson

Sunday Telegraph ^ | Tim Shipman

[dirtboy]

I've seen plenty of data on that immigration caucus. There are a lot of ways you can rearrange those numbers to make a case other than what you want to show.

Hardly. Immigration caucus members were about 42 percent of the House, and composed 33 percent of the lost seats. Very simple math.

But you prove my point: "in most of the races, there were issues other than conservatism."

Mostly ethics in the case of many pubbies tied to Abramoff, such as Hayworth. Mainly stupidity on the part of Santorum (plus the Dems ran a pro-lifer).

Exactly. And so it will be nationally in 2008. Terrorism, not other issues, will be front and center.

All issues will be relevant.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Notice the huge step up in the number of hit pieces and major news outlets doing stories this week. I think the buzz is that he’s announcing on the 4th.

I hope so, anyway. I hope he calls you too. Getting your take on things from the inside during the campaign would be awesome! :)

[LS]

That Leno appearance is the key indicator. You don’t go on a show like that to say, “I’m not running.”

[dljordan]

Ok, so are you a member of GlockTalk, Arfcom or the HighRoad? :}

[garv]

The Burns, Talent, and Allen losses have nothing to do with sticking to with conservative principles. Burns was caught up in the Abramhoff scandal, Allen had a double-digit lead until macaca, Barr labs, the accusations of using the word that must never be uttered, etc. and Talent lost by 1% after winning by 1% previously. There was also a libertarian in the race that took 2% and Talent had lost a statewide race before. It's not like he was a five time incumbent who had won with solid majorities.

Santorum got his clock cleaned in a blue state by a purported pro-life, pro-gun Democrat who was the son of a sainted former governor. Trying to pin these losses on conservatism is ludicrous.

[DennisR]

Actually, this makes me want to vote for Fred even more. We have what - 15 people? - running around the country for a year-and-a-half before the election. Spouting their ideals, virtues, and so forth. And here’s a guy who knows it is much ado about nothing. No one is going to remember in two weeks what these guys are saying today. So why waste your time and money? They are typical politicians - wasting money that does not belong to them doing things that do not need to be done. Fully divorced from reality.

If Fred runs, Fred will get my vote.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

If he decides to go on there and play possum again, he’s going to lose some support. I think he’s savvy enough to know that he can’t be coy much longer.

[dpwiener]

you have to start VERY early, and the window for Fred is only going to be open for about another month.

Sorry, but you sound like a general who's still fighting the last war. Technology changes, communication changes, and conditions are different. My opinion (and I've also been involved in campaigns) is that Fred could easily wait till August before officially announcing, and there are many reasons why the positives of waiting that long would probably outweigh the negatives.

You are correct to the extent that Fred has to begin laying the groundwork early, but he appears to be doing that. You have to work out your plans, begin lining up supporters and endorsements, increase your visibility, and enhance your positive image in the media.

Fred is getting millions of dollars worth of earned media and free publicity and grassroots buzz without spending a dime. His movies and TV show and radio commentaries give him good name recognition and huge face recognition. Later on, when he officially enters and begins actively campaigning, that enormous face recognition will fuse with the name recognition for tens of millions of voters, and he'll shoot upwards in the polls.

The reality is that winning campaigns are built around personalities, not issues. Issues are the background, an important foundation, but they aren't what ultimately drive the voters. Obama is overtaking Hillary because of his personality and image, not because of issues and in spite of his inexperience. Giuliani is doing surprisingly well among conservatives because he comes across as likeable and a strong leader. Thompson has the gruff, honest, homespun personality which resonates among independents and moderate Democrats, even if they don't agree with him on a lot of issues.

In this era of viral marketing and the Internet, Fred is well positioned to take the Republican nomination by storm, even if he fails to observe the standard time-lines and "windows of opportunity".

[By the way, I am not a supporter of Fred, just an interested observer.]

[Politicalmom]

Conservatives aren’t Paul Harvey’s biggest audience. He leans left most of the time. Lots of older listeners.

[LS]

I have said repeatedly that the next campaign will not be about issues---especially not abortion---nearly as much as personalities, specifically the personality of someone perceived as a "fighter" on our side.

The fact that Fred CAN do that doesn't mean he will. I'm hoping, and I've volunteered to work for his campaign. But, no one has contacted me yet. And no, technology still does not overcome walking the streets, and the "millions" you think he has gotten in "free publicity" is a narrowly targeted group that isn't going to amount to a great deal down the line.

If he announces on May 4, he'll have time. Much past that, no.

[Chena]

"Clark Judge, a White House speechwriter for Mr Reagan, said: “Fred Thompson, like Ronald Reagan, is a man of tremendous substance. There is a sense in the party that none of the candidates is quite ‘it’.”"

Exactly.

[dpwiener]

But, no one has contacted me yet. And no, technology still does not overcome walking the streets, and the "millions" you think he has gotten in "free publicity" is a narrowly targeted group that isn't going to amount to a great deal down the line.

Well, we obviously have some disagreements on strategy. A Presidential campaign, unlike a local campaign, has to be primarily waged in the media. A candidate can't "walk the streets" throughout the entire country; it's far too big. When he does walk the streets, the news coverage of his walking and talking is far more important than the relative handful of people he actually meets.

If anything, the Internet and blogs are the modern day equivalent of walking the streets. When Fred Thompson blogs on RedState or posts ABC News commentaries, it gives people a personal feel for him that somewhat takes the place of the old-fashioned hand-shaking.

Presidential campaigning never used to start in earnest this early. The schedule keeps moving up because contenders are trying to break out of the pack or establish insurmountable leads. That's why Giuliani and McCain and Romney are raising and spending tens of millions of dollars this early. McCain wanted to keep his early lead in the polls (he failed). Giuliani wants to establish an aura of inevitability (he hasn't succeeded so far). Romney is trying to establish name recognition and move up in the polls (he's not getting much traction).

Fred Thompson broke out of the pack (Hunter, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, Paul, Brownback, etc.) just by mentioning that he might be interested in the nomination and wasn't ruling out a campaign. So far he's accomplished everything that Romney has been trying so desperately to do, without spending a dime compared to Romney's millions. McCain is treading water and spending millions trying not to sink. Giuliani is fighting the perception that he may have peaked, while the mere prospect of Thompson's entry has denied Giuliani a lock on the nomination which he was hoping for.

I don't see how things could be going better for Fred than they are at the moment. Nor do I see how an official announcement of candidacy at this point would improve his position.

[Mensius]

If he announces on May 4, he'll have time. Much past that, no

I am beginning to have a feeling that this will be the battle of Tennessee. I think Fred is laying foundations all the while getting concise, topical messages out. OTOH, Gore looks like he is laying foundation as well while getting his message out.

Serious question:
Why can Gore legitimately come in late and Fred cannot? Moonbat variance?

[xsmommy]

do you not credit Fred Thompson with the political savvy to know when the time is right? do freepers honestly believe that WE KNOW BETTER than these political figures? seriously, i trust that fred knows the score, he knows which primaries are when, and he knows what he needs and how to go about running.

[SE Mom]

Since I’m not privy to behind the scenes discussions- I’m not inclined to speculate too much about the reasons for waiting. However, he does have some pretty politically savvy folks talking with him...starting with his wife:) I expect they know all the things you’ve mentioned...and I agree that he’s waited long enough to have the desired effect...I’m thinking sometime in May.

[Politicalmom]

It would be nice for him to throw his supporters a bone to keep our spirits up, though. :)

[rfp1234]

Time for Baker & Meese to follow suit.

[SE Mom]

Well-here’s a bone- though not the kind you’re talking about.

From Mark Levin, (one of THE best commentators out there)
http://levin.nationalreview.com/

Run, Fred, Run

I see a lot to like about Fred Thompson, and it appears I’m not alone.

Some have defended John McCain and Rudy Guiliani by asking us to ignore or downplay aspects of their records. Some have said that conservatives ought not seek perfection in a candidate. Should we apply the same “standards” to Thompson’s record? No, in his case, they ignore nothing and demand perfection. And the truth is, he holds up quite well. Thompson needs to get into this race.

[ellery]

Have you seen the almost daily articles Thompson has been publishing about a wide variety of important issues? Or heard his radio commentary? Or his speeches to various groups? He is out there campaigning, and working very hard to further common-sense, conservative ideas.

[Politicalmom]

Useless effort. Banned. :/