I don't really buy into conspiracy theories, I believe secrets are too hard to keep. But I do believe in complicated political strategy, especially after reading the book "Boy Genius: Karl Rove, The Architect Of George W. Bush's Remarkable Political Triumphs ." This book tells of the political trickery that Karl Rove (and others) have used to become successful.
Over the last few weeks I have come to believe that a complicated political strategy has been in place to help Senator John McCain win the GOP nomination for President. Remember 2004, when rumors ran wild that the GOP made promises to McCain to keep him on the side of President Bush. Do you remember? Right after turning down the Kerry campaign, McCain began touring with Bush; advocating President Bush's war policy. The promise being that McCain would be heir apparent for the nomination in 2008. But, how can the GOP elite in Washington keep such a promise when the voters really decide the nominee through the state primaries and caucuses?
Understand something, us NASCAR fans watch race strategy every weekend. The same way, Rich Hendrick puts more cars in the race to help Jeff Gordon or Jimmy Johnson win the Championship I have come to wonder if someone didn't convince Thompson and Giuliani run to take votes from the other candidates. At the end of the day, Thompson (and his attack campaign) took enough votes away from Huckabee in SC to help McCain. At the end of the day, Giuliani took enough votes away from Romney to help McCain in Florida. Look at the campaigns of these two men. The were strongest before the voters got to know their record. After campaigning modestly in Iowa, Thompson came straight to South Carolina and ran his entire campaign on attacks on Governor Huckabee. After campaigining modestly in Iowa, Giuliani headed straight to Florida. Not being in Florida, I don't know if he attacked Romney the same way Thompson attacked Huckabee; but the results were the same.
This seems far fetched, doesn't it? But if you read the book, "Boy Genius" you will learn about the state wide races in TX where Karl Rove used this very tactic. Have a third candidate run as the attack dog for the "approved" candidate. Then the "right" guy comes across unharmed while the other two candidates battle it out. The "decoy" candidates are usually rewarded with a position in the winner's administration.
Take a look at this trickery and then add to that the establishment endorsements that McCain has gained in the past few weeks. McCain has been endorsed by many many in the elite, even Republicans that wouldn't have been seen with McCain this past summer.
What really amazes me about McCain's momentum is how conservatives are supporting him after all the disappointments McCain has fostered over the past 6-8 years. How quickly we forget. Our representatives in Washington count on this short term memory every time they let us down and vote against our wishes. (big spending, amnesty, etc.) Maybe we should change the Republican mascot - we sure don't have memories like elephants.
Showing posts with label fred thompson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fred thompson. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
SCGOP Debate - Jan 10, 2008 - Part Three
Someone needs to call Fred Thompson on his hypocrisy / double standard. Thompson tried to attack Huckabee by saying that early in his campaign Huckabee (supposedly) said he wouldn't sign a no tax pledge - saying Huckabee thought it was risky. (it must have been real early because Huckabee has supported the FairTax since May 2007)
Senator Thompson, back in July; when he almost started his campaign the first time, wouldn't sign a tax pledge either. (Fred still doesn't support the FairTax.) He made an exploratory trip from SC to NH starting with a SCGOP fundraiser in Columbia. While on that trip, Thompson was asked to sign Grover Norquist's no tax pledge (which Huckabee had already signed) but he wouldn't. I still don't know that Thompson has signed that no new tax pledge - if he has - he was late to the game. For the longest time when Thompson was asked about taxes he gave his standard answer, "look at my record."
Senator Thompson, I've looked at your record and according to Gun Owners of America you've voted anti-gun 13 times. (http://www.gunowners.org/) In crafting the language of McCain - Feingold you supported restrictions on free speech. (The Supreme Court has ruled that language un-Constitutional). While making millions as a Washington lobbyist you lobbied for a pro-abortion group. (So much for being a Washington outsider.) You claim to be a Federalist but you supported "No Child Left Behind". In the spin room tonight you claimed that the other candidates are "changing" on the issues. Senator, if you aren't changing on your positions; you are either not conservative or not telling the truth. Which is it Senator?
Senator Thompson, back in July; when he almost started his campaign the first time, wouldn't sign a tax pledge either. (Fred still doesn't support the FairTax.) He made an exploratory trip from SC to NH starting with a SCGOP fundraiser in Columbia. While on that trip, Thompson was asked to sign Grover Norquist's no tax pledge (which Huckabee had already signed) but he wouldn't. I still don't know that Thompson has signed that no new tax pledge - if he has - he was late to the game. For the longest time when Thompson was asked about taxes he gave his standard answer, "look at my record."
Senator Thompson, I've looked at your record and according to Gun Owners of America you've voted anti-gun 13 times. (http://www.gunowners.org/) In crafting the language of McCain - Feingold you supported restrictions on free speech. (The Supreme Court has ruled that language un-Constitutional). While making millions as a Washington lobbyist you lobbied for a pro-abortion group. (So much for being a Washington outsider.) You claim to be a Federalist but you supported "No Child Left Behind". In the spin room tonight you claimed that the other candidates are "changing" on the issues. Senator, if you aren't changing on your positions; you are either not conservative or not telling the truth. Which is it Senator?
SC GOP Debate - Jan. 10, 2008 - Part One
Fred took his shots at Huckabee tonight!
It was sad to see Fred at the end of the stage asking, "can I answer that... can I address that?" Thompson insisted he wanted to talk about the Reagan coalition. But when Fox News gave him the opportunity he attacked Huckabee with the usual Club for Growth Bull $^!t. (Thompson's SC Press Secretary, Josh Gross, runs the Club for Growth's SC office) I wonder if Thompson has any positions or ideas of his own, every word I've heard from Thompson's mouth came right from a paid consultant or Republican special interest group.
I'd like to encourage grassroots social conservatives to show up for this battle for their party and movement. We've stood by and allowed the Wall Street Republicans run our party for 10 years, look where that got us in 2006. Democrats have sold out to MoveOn.org and the Republican elites have sold out to Wall Street and their paid consultants. I know several of these consultants and most would do about anything to get a pay check playing the political game. Let's face it, most aren't employable in industry; and other than the long hours on election night "it's not bad work." Most consultants aren't even behind their own candidates.
Fred did say something that social conservatives should pay attention to - something indicative of how he thinks. Thompson, when talking about he Reagan coalition, mentioned the fiscal and defense coalitions but didn't mention the social or second amendment conservatives. He certainly didn't mention the cross over Democrats that helped President Reagan get elected. If Thompson is the conservative he claims to be how could he overlook the evangelicals and pro-gun Republicans in his comments. (Because he's written them out of "his" coalition) My friends, Governor Huckabee is the only candidate in the race that can honestly build a winning general election campaign with coalitions of pro-life, pro-family, pro-2A, pro-defense, fiscal and social conservatives in the Republican and Democratic Party. I've talked with several Democrats that see Governor Huckabee as someone they could support in the general election.
Thompson took another cheap shot at Huckabee in talking about the NEA. I don't know why Thompson has a problem with getting an endorsement from a teachers union. The union may tend to be liberal but not all teachers are. (especially in SC) Huckabee understands that the only way to change those opinions is to have an open and honest dialogue about education. Huckabee is the only Republican to even engage the NEA - not that they shouldn't endorse Huckabee, but the NEA had no choice but to endorse him for the Republican nomination. Huckabee understands that the President needs to represent all Americans; not just those that he agrees with. Thompson claims that the NEA endorsed Huckabee because (Thompson claims) Huckabee is against school vouchers. (not true) In contrast the leadership (and money) of South Carolinians for Responsible Government and Conservatives in Action is working for Thompson for the simple reason he does support vouchers. SCRG & CIA is willing to overlook Thompson's record on McCain-Feingold, No Child Left Behind, gun control, and working as an abortion lobbyist; because Thompson promises to support Federal legislation for school vouchers. These priorities seem a little backwards to me. They are not acting responsibly nor conservatively - but with big money supporters - they sure are profitable. It's ironic, that in crafting McCain-Feingold, Thompson claims he wanted to reform campaign finance; but Thompson has 527 groups (with paid employees) working full time on his campaign staff in SC. (Conservatives in Action)
In conclusion, I wonder if anyone is really paying attention to Thompson. At the end of the day Thompson is unelectable. Even the participants of the Frank Luntz Focus group, who said Thompson won the debate; said it's too little to late and that Fred doesn't stand a chance of winning. Thompson isn't able to raise money. (These days, Huckabee is raising more than Thompson) Thompson isn't polling well, anywhere. Thompson is considered an after thought by the media. The turn out at Thompson events is a fraction of that of serious candidates. I think Fred should go back home to Virginia (not Tennessee) so he catch up on his sleep. It's obvious he's lacking sleep, he probably hasn't been able to take his morning and afternoon naps for a week or ten days.
You know folks - Fred was the last candidate in the race but the first to go negative against the other candidates. Why is that? Because he has no real record and no real message. When he was a Senator in Washington, what legislation did he introduce that reduced taxes, secured the borders, or reduced the size of government?
It was sad to see Fred at the end of the stage asking, "can I answer that... can I address that?" Thompson insisted he wanted to talk about the Reagan coalition. But when Fox News gave him the opportunity he attacked Huckabee with the usual Club for Growth Bull $^!t. (Thompson's SC Press Secretary, Josh Gross, runs the Club for Growth's SC office) I wonder if Thompson has any positions or ideas of his own, every word I've heard from Thompson's mouth came right from a paid consultant or Republican special interest group.
I'd like to encourage grassroots social conservatives to show up for this battle for their party and movement. We've stood by and allowed the Wall Street Republicans run our party for 10 years, look where that got us in 2006. Democrats have sold out to MoveOn.org and the Republican elites have sold out to Wall Street and their paid consultants. I know several of these consultants and most would do about anything to get a pay check playing the political game. Let's face it, most aren't employable in industry; and other than the long hours on election night "it's not bad work." Most consultants aren't even behind their own candidates.
Fred did say something that social conservatives should pay attention to - something indicative of how he thinks. Thompson, when talking about he Reagan coalition, mentioned the fiscal and defense coalitions but didn't mention the social or second amendment conservatives. He certainly didn't mention the cross over Democrats that helped President Reagan get elected. If Thompson is the conservative he claims to be how could he overlook the evangelicals and pro-gun Republicans in his comments. (Because he's written them out of "his" coalition) My friends, Governor Huckabee is the only candidate in the race that can honestly build a winning general election campaign with coalitions of pro-life, pro-family, pro-2A, pro-defense, fiscal and social conservatives in the Republican and Democratic Party. I've talked with several Democrats that see Governor Huckabee as someone they could support in the general election.
Thompson took another cheap shot at Huckabee in talking about the NEA. I don't know why Thompson has a problem with getting an endorsement from a teachers union. The union may tend to be liberal but not all teachers are. (especially in SC) Huckabee understands that the only way to change those opinions is to have an open and honest dialogue about education. Huckabee is the only Republican to even engage the NEA - not that they shouldn't endorse Huckabee, but the NEA had no choice but to endorse him for the Republican nomination. Huckabee understands that the President needs to represent all Americans; not just those that he agrees with. Thompson claims that the NEA endorsed Huckabee because (Thompson claims) Huckabee is against school vouchers. (not true) In contrast the leadership (and money) of South Carolinians for Responsible Government and Conservatives in Action is working for Thompson for the simple reason he does support vouchers. SCRG & CIA is willing to overlook Thompson's record on McCain-Feingold, No Child Left Behind, gun control, and working as an abortion lobbyist; because Thompson promises to support Federal legislation for school vouchers. These priorities seem a little backwards to me. They are not acting responsibly nor conservatively - but with big money supporters - they sure are profitable. It's ironic, that in crafting McCain-Feingold, Thompson claims he wanted to reform campaign finance; but Thompson has 527 groups (with paid employees) working full time on his campaign staff in SC. (Conservatives in Action)
In conclusion, I wonder if anyone is really paying attention to Thompson. At the end of the day Thompson is unelectable. Even the participants of the Frank Luntz Focus group, who said Thompson won the debate; said it's too little to late and that Fred doesn't stand a chance of winning. Thompson isn't able to raise money. (These days, Huckabee is raising more than Thompson) Thompson isn't polling well, anywhere. Thompson is considered an after thought by the media. The turn out at Thompson events is a fraction of that of serious candidates. I think Fred should go back home to Virginia (not Tennessee) so he catch up on his sleep. It's obvious he's lacking sleep, he probably hasn't been able to take his morning and afternoon naps for a week or ten days.
You know folks - Fred was the last candidate in the race but the first to go negative against the other candidates. Why is that? Because he has no real record and no real message. When he was a Senator in Washington, what legislation did he introduce that reduced taxes, secured the borders, or reduced the size of government?
Monday, December 31, 2007
The Wisdom of the Republican Party Elite
Early in 2007, as many in the Republican Party elites were picking sides in the 2008 Presidential race; some sided with Mitt Romney because...
1) Romney was considered an alternative to the more socailly liberal Mayor from NYC, Rudy Giuliani. Romney would make a good alternative to Giuliani in winning the Republican nomination.
2) With Romney's wealth, he would have the financial means to subsidize his own campaign. With Republican's struggling to raise money, Romney's wealth would reduce the fundraising burden of his supporters. Unlike Democrats, Republicans don't traditionally like raising money ten dollars at a time.
3) For the elites, Romney is a comfortable candidate. His Mormon faith would give him appeal to the Main Street social conservatives while his investment banking experience would appeal to the Wall Street Republicans.
4) During the 2006 Campaign season, Romney's PAC financially supported hundreds of candidates (and local parties) in key states, while the Governor himself spent days and days campaigning for many of these same candidates.
With the Iowa caucuses just days away - we are beginning to see the wisdom in their reasoning because Romney is able to use his wealth to pay for creative (half truth) attack ads against Mike Huckabee. (I don't know how lying is justified by his faith but that's another posting)
1) Giuliani is not even in the running in Iowa and the early primary states. (btw - neither is Fred Thompson)
2) Romney has invested over $20 million dollars of his own money in his campaign. As he's lost ground in the polls to Mike Huckabee, he's been able to use much of his campaign wealth for attack ads claiming Mike Huckabee is really a liberal. Huckabee, with limited resources is under pressure to respond.
3) If not for Mike Huckabee, Romney would be the socially conservative candidate. The faith community, desparate for a pro-life, pro-family candidate would forgive Romney the inconsistencies in his record. Because of his financial position many social conservatives "have" forgiven him. (Bob Jones III, Paul Weyrick, Gary Bauer) For "Wall Street Support" Romney is splitting the vote with former NY City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Except for Pat Robertson, Giuliani would tend to have the support of those Republicans that are fiscal conservatives but don't care for the social conservative wing of the party.
4) This blogger contends that Romney is still buying support. Why would Tom Tancredo, the anti-immigration champion, endorse Romney after dropping from the race. After all, Romney had illegals mowing his yard and "was for" the McCain-Kennedy amnesty plan before he was "against it". (Must be something in the water in MA.) Could Tancredo, who is considering a run for U.S.Senate for Colorado, be influenced by future fundraising promises? How much money could the Romney family contribute to such a race? Or the how much money could be raised by the Mormon church? Worst case, Tancredo could end up with a cabinet position in a Romney administration.
So caucus goers, primary voters, and Huckabee supporters are thinking, "what's my point?"
To make my point, readers need to understand two things:
1) Our conservative ideals and Republican Party doesn't belong to an elite few; but to all of us. (This is validated by the grassroots effort to right our party after the 2006 election results. a.k.a. The McCain Kennedy Amnesty revolt)
2) The elites have forgotten (or don't want us to realize) that elections are won not by bank account totals but by counting votes on election night. Republicans win when they are consistently conversative and defend these values by winning over actual voters. One on one grassroots campaigning is still the best way to win over voters. Any one of us has more credibility with our friends and neighbors than a TV talking head, a TV ad, or a negative direct mail piece. But, we need to be willing to put "it" on the line to be successful. We need to engage in the conversations. Remember, people are more swayed by the depth of conviction than the heighth of logic. (How else can one explain the Ron Paul effect?) To be successful, you need to be equipped with the real facts - not Romney's, Thompson's, Club for Growth, or Ron Paul's version. Research the issues and Huckabee's positions on the issues. Equip yourself to defend the Governor against the negative attacks. (Separate blog coming on special interests and professional political consultants) Volunteer to make phone calls, phone banks are up and running all over the place. Write letters to the editor. E-mail your friends and neighbors. Remind them that the upcoming caucuses and primaries are important. It's time we change directions in this country and we can do that through participation - remember 90% of Americans don't vote in primaries and 60% don't vote in general elections. Apathy is our biggest challenge.
In closing, everyone needs to get involved. Contact your friends and family and talk about the Governor's optimistic campaign for America. Contribute financially to the Governor's campaign.
P.S. - I heard a funny rumor tonight. The local Romney campaign leadership is suggesting that a Romney/Huckabee ticket will be coming out of the Republican Convention this summer. Why would they be saying this to Huckabee supporters three days before the caucuses and only weeks before the SC Primary? If you believe what Romney is saying in his ads - Huckabee would be a liability to his adminstration. Of course, I've heard that Huckabee is the VP favorite of McCain supporters and even Ron Paul supporters. What I don't understand is how the other candidates "hate" Huckabee in the primaries but would be happy with him as their VP in the general election. Then again, in the case of Romney; maybe they are conceding defeat in saying Romney will be happy to be VP on Huckabee's ticket.
1) Romney was considered an alternative to the more socailly liberal Mayor from NYC, Rudy Giuliani. Romney would make a good alternative to Giuliani in winning the Republican nomination.
2) With Romney's wealth, he would have the financial means to subsidize his own campaign. With Republican's struggling to raise money, Romney's wealth would reduce the fundraising burden of his supporters. Unlike Democrats, Republicans don't traditionally like raising money ten dollars at a time.
3) For the elites, Romney is a comfortable candidate. His Mormon faith would give him appeal to the Main Street social conservatives while his investment banking experience would appeal to the Wall Street Republicans.
4) During the 2006 Campaign season, Romney's PAC financially supported hundreds of candidates (and local parties) in key states, while the Governor himself spent days and days campaigning for many of these same candidates.
With the Iowa caucuses just days away - we are beginning to see the wisdom in their reasoning because Romney is able to use his wealth to pay for creative (half truth) attack ads against Mike Huckabee. (I don't know how lying is justified by his faith but that's another posting)
1) Giuliani is not even in the running in Iowa and the early primary states. (btw - neither is Fred Thompson)
2) Romney has invested over $20 million dollars of his own money in his campaign. As he's lost ground in the polls to Mike Huckabee, he's been able to use much of his campaign wealth for attack ads claiming Mike Huckabee is really a liberal. Huckabee, with limited resources is under pressure to respond.
3) If not for Mike Huckabee, Romney would be the socially conservative candidate. The faith community, desparate for a pro-life, pro-family candidate would forgive Romney the inconsistencies in his record. Because of his financial position many social conservatives "have" forgiven him. (Bob Jones III, Paul Weyrick, Gary Bauer) For "Wall Street Support" Romney is splitting the vote with former NY City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Except for Pat Robertson, Giuliani would tend to have the support of those Republicans that are fiscal conservatives but don't care for the social conservative wing of the party.
4) This blogger contends that Romney is still buying support. Why would Tom Tancredo, the anti-immigration champion, endorse Romney after dropping from the race. After all, Romney had illegals mowing his yard and "was for" the McCain-Kennedy amnesty plan before he was "against it". (Must be something in the water in MA.) Could Tancredo, who is considering a run for U.S.Senate for Colorado, be influenced by future fundraising promises? How much money could the Romney family contribute to such a race? Or the how much money could be raised by the Mormon church? Worst case, Tancredo could end up with a cabinet position in a Romney administration.
So caucus goers, primary voters, and Huckabee supporters are thinking, "what's my point?"
To make my point, readers need to understand two things:
1) Our conservative ideals and Republican Party doesn't belong to an elite few; but to all of us. (This is validated by the grassroots effort to right our party after the 2006 election results. a.k.a. The McCain Kennedy Amnesty revolt)
2) The elites have forgotten (or don't want us to realize) that elections are won not by bank account totals but by counting votes on election night. Republicans win when they are consistently conversative and defend these values by winning over actual voters. One on one grassroots campaigning is still the best way to win over voters. Any one of us has more credibility with our friends and neighbors than a TV talking head, a TV ad, or a negative direct mail piece. But, we need to be willing to put "it" on the line to be successful. We need to engage in the conversations. Remember, people are more swayed by the depth of conviction than the heighth of logic. (How else can one explain the Ron Paul effect?) To be successful, you need to be equipped with the real facts - not Romney's, Thompson's, Club for Growth, or Ron Paul's version. Research the issues and Huckabee's positions on the issues. Equip yourself to defend the Governor against the negative attacks. (Separate blog coming on special interests and professional political consultants) Volunteer to make phone calls, phone banks are up and running all over the place. Write letters to the editor. E-mail your friends and neighbors. Remind them that the upcoming caucuses and primaries are important. It's time we change directions in this country and we can do that through participation - remember 90% of Americans don't vote in primaries and 60% don't vote in general elections. Apathy is our biggest challenge.
In closing, everyone needs to get involved. Contact your friends and family and talk about the Governor's optimistic campaign for America. Contribute financially to the Governor's campaign.
P.S. - I heard a funny rumor tonight. The local Romney campaign leadership is suggesting that a Romney/Huckabee ticket will be coming out of the Republican Convention this summer. Why would they be saying this to Huckabee supporters three days before the caucuses and only weeks before the SC Primary? If you believe what Romney is saying in his ads - Huckabee would be a liability to his adminstration. Of course, I've heard that Huckabee is the VP favorite of McCain supporters and even Ron Paul supporters. What I don't understand is how the other candidates "hate" Huckabee in the primaries but would be happy with him as their VP in the general election. Then again, in the case of Romney; maybe they are conceding defeat in saying Romney will be happy to be VP on Huckabee's ticket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)