Considering that DC is the only place carried by George McGovern in '72, I'd say that 3% translates into widespread support in the rest of the country, i.e. The Real World. :cool:

Reality has nothing to do with day-to-day operations here inside the Beltway.

Website
 

The new Official Website is www.imwithfred.com -You can email info about the campaign to friends, sign up as a volunteer or send a contribution from this site.

Very encouraging to see him slide into 2nd place before even announcing! :lifter

I just read this thread for the first time -- TR, sorry I missed your question a couple of months ago.

People, this guy has just about no chance of winning. You cannot win without money, and anyone who thinks differently is just dreaming.

While I'm not going to disagree with the need for money, I will disagree with the conclusion. Who is to say that he won't earn money? It might be a little on the pipedream side - but it is possible he will tap into the VERY unsettled GOP donors and get a fairly hefty bankroll. Not to mention he hasn't been burning cash for the last two quarters like Guiliani, McCain and Romney - and I'm not even talking about the Dem side.

Plus - having money isn't all its cracked up to be. Romney KILLED in the money game last quarter raising $23million primary-only dollars - this doesn't count ANY general fundraising dollars. By all accounts he beat Hillary in primary dollars as well as any GOP contender (Hillary won't disclose her division of primary vs. general dollars totaling $26million which likely means Romney beat her in pure primary dollars). McCain came in second in the GOP fundraising with $12.5 million. However, Romney despite all the dollars he raises can't manage to get his name in American households. His highest standing this month in a national poll comes in the USA Today poll at 13%. In May, Newsweek had him at 20% and Guilaini at 70%. This despite the fact that he is already running commericals in major markets. Romney's camp would die to have Thompson's immediate name recognition.

Now, whether this spells longterm anything for Thompson...? Who knows. But Thompson certainly isn't dead in the water because he doesn't have dollars right now. He's got momentum and he's stealing major thunder from Romney, and the rest of the guys with dollars. Romney's camp (of which I am a member of the national fundraising team) are not thrilled about Thompson's timing because it is coming on the heals of the end of the second fundraising quarter end (June 30th). Thompson will not be making any formal announcements until after July 1st to avoid having to announce anything about fundraising until after this deadline. I can tell you that donors have locked up their wallets though - its a fact. They aren't happy with the field and they are waiting to see what is in the wings - Thompson or otherwise. People are also more concerned with their summer vacation plans then contributing to campaigns.

Now - I would agree for certain that you can't win without money. However, you also can't win without name recognition, reputation and hard-core following. None of our current GOP contenders have all of those elements so in my mind, it is still an open field.

Just my $.02 about my contributions. In case anyone is curious about my allegiences since it does appear I am sitting in two camps - I am. I think Romney and Thompson would make a fantastic ticket as they'd bolster each other in strengths and weaknesses. I'm very undecided (and frankly don't really care) who gets the nod, I just like the ticket.

RL, what's to prevent him from getting/having money? Were still 17 months out. Have all the large donors been tapped out already?

While you can be tapped out in regards to one candidate during the primary season you can donate to all of them - in other words - Fred can still get money from everybody who has already donated to every other GOP (or Democrat) contender. I'm tapped out with Romney for the primary season, but I can donate (and have donated) to Thompson. It's just a matter of getting into their pocketbooks.

You don't raise huge amounts of money or build a campaign organization overnight. Viable presidential candidates cannot be mass produced. And you can't wait to declare your candidacy until there is a crisis in the party.

I'll be in New Hampshire in about an hour. Maybe I'll have something to report after my trip . . .

I've heard (and the polls seem to suggest) that New Hampshire is the one state besides Utah and Massachusetts that has heard of Mitt Romney. I'll be curious to get your take when you return. I know he's been pumping some serious cash that direction.

If nothing else, maybe Thompson will energize the party and allow for some very open, honest debate and a lot less of the pandering to the PC politics - and in my mind, that's a good thing.

Hey come on man. Where is that can do spirit? Ya gotta believe it to achieve it! LOL. I am actually a huge fan of Fred's.

He is the only one I see running that I would donate money to, and I already have.

In fact, I am not sure that I would even bother to vote for sell-outs and RINOs McCain or Giuliani, or newly discovered conservative Romney, who is a lifetime hunter and NRA Life member, who supports an assault weapons ban. These guys have too many issues, character flaws, and wrong positions, not to mention poll-driven opinions. Their positions on the issues I care about are not that far from Hillary's and Obama's.

I might change my mind later, but as of right now, I would not bother to vote for anyone but Thompson or Gingrich, who as we all know, is unelectable.

I think that at this point in the 1992 election, A guy named Bill Clinton was relatively unknown and had little or no money. He managed to do okay.

TR

TR -- I am on Blackberry and can't verify now (my plane just returned to Dulles due to mechanical problems), but I am fairly certain that Clinton had raised a ton of money by the same point in the cycle. Also, people are now raising money earlier and earlier, so a late start is even worse now.

Let's face it. We are all screwed. Get ready to bend over for Hillary.

Maybe I'm Pollyanna - but I flat refuse to believe that she's a done deal. I think the anti-Hillary sentiment runs too high to get her elected or even get her the Dem nomination. That - and she's sooo shrill and boring, she doesn't have an ounce of her "husband's" charisma. I think she's going to get the Tsongas/Brown or Dean treatment and fall in the polls as we get closer to game time. I don't think she has staying power - there is too much baggage and exposive material there.

Past year's fundraising
 

I did some quick research and in April 2003 here is what was reported:

John Edwards raised $7.4 million
John Kerry raised $7.0 million
Dick Gephardt raised $3.5 million
Joe Lieberman raised $3.0 million
Howard Dean raised $2.6 million
Bob Graham raised $1.1 million
Dennis Kucinich and Carol Moseley Braun raised less than $1 million each

GWB was incumbent so I didn't look at his numbers.

I'm no analyst, but I'd say the times have changed dramatically if the front-runner at this point in the game raised $2.6m, and the eventual nominee raised $7m and now we're looking at numbers three times this amount. Hillary reported over $20m and Romney $23m in the same quarter this year. Clearly this is a different ballgame, but I still contend we don't know how that is all going to play out. I think it means people aren't thrilled with the current state of politics and so they are willing to ante up - but that doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't be willing to give up more money for another candidate they liked on either side of the aisle.

This is interesting.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...la-home-center

What is even more interesting than the facts and percentages in the article, are the results of the online poll. Fred is a landslide winner in that poll.

In that same online poll, Kucinich gets 18.8% to Hillary's 2.0%. While I wish Hillary only had 2.0% support...

Although it frightens all that is good out of me that anyone gives Kucinich 18%. Only in LA.

This is even more interesting.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ential_primary

Not even in the race yet and he has caught Rudy from behind without lifting a finger. Unless he falls flat on his face or does something stupid it is looking like a Thompson/Clinton showdown in '08. That is a fight I look forward to and one that Rudy, Mitt or John wouldn't likely win.

i'm with fred
 

just donated. first ever political contribution.

Meeee too. I chuckle everytime I think of it, matter of fact. As I've said before...he'll wipe the floor with Clinton.

Makes you feel good, doesn't it? :D It was mine as well.

Actually it does make me feel good. And since I put it on my Cabela's Visa card, I get points towards getting some free hunting stuff too!

If for some reason Hillary... or anyone of the other candidates that I really wouldn't want to see become CINC, does get elected I want to at least be able to say that I participated fully in the process this time around.

TR had it right. Got to either get involved or STFU.

Just got invited to a Giuliani fundraiser today. :D :munchin

You could take your guns and turn them in there, since hizzonner does not seem to believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals.

TR

The skeletons (and the wolves) appear to be out of the closet, I saw nothing here that would deter me.

I am sure that reps of the other candidates will soon be participating in the night of the long knives.

I want to see Fred in a debate with the others.

TR

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4470.html

Rivals try to deflate F. Thompson campaign
By: Kenneth P. Vogel
Jun 13, 2007 06:07 AM EST

Can Fred Thompson resist being cast as a lawyer and a lobbyist?

Fred Thompson has had a relatively easy ride as he has flirted with a bid for the Republican presidential nomination. His strategists have found traction promoting him as the heir to Ronald Reagan -- and a conservative alternative to the top tier of the GOP field.

But the ride is starting to get a bit bumpy.

Opponents and their researchers have begun working -- mostly behind the scenes -- to highlight perceived soft spots in his conservative bona fides.

And Thompson will have to neutralize questions on the campaign trail and in the media about his centrist votes in the Senate, his stances on litmus test conservative issues including abortion and -- perhaps most significantly -- his work as a lawyer and lobbyist.

Thompson's biggest challenge will likely be cementing his image as a conservative country lawyer fixin' to shake up Washington -- before his opponents brand him as an influence peddler and trial lawyer.

Here are the roles into which opponents will likely try to cast Thompson and the ways in which he may seek to inoculate himself:

Tricky clientele

-- Lobbyist: Thompson made nearly $1.3 million over about two decades of lobbying both before and after his eight-year Senate stint, according to government documents and media accounts from his successful run for the Senate in 1994.

Though Thompson won in a landslide, that was in a watershed Republican year and before the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal helped Democrats effectively wield the culture-of-corruption theme against Republicans.

Some of Thompson's clients could prove tricky to explain, from a British reinsurance company facing billions of dollars in asbestos claims to deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

If Thompson formally enters the race next month, as his aides have signaled, his campaign will likely try to minimize his lobbying.

Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo called the list "incredibly old news and incredibly stale news" and stressed that lobbying was but a small part of Thompson's legal practice.

"He had a law practice for over 30 years and he had about half a dozen lobbying clients," Corallo said.

Trial lawyers are bogeymen?

-- Trial lawyer: Before Thompson won his Senate seat, published reports said his private law practice handled personal injury cases and defended people accused of white-collar crimes. And in the Senate, he opposed some legislation intended to rein in escalating jury verdicts and attorneys' fees.

Trial lawyers are bogeymen for some conservative groups, which consider them Exhibit A for a legal system that rewards greed over industriousness.

But Thompson appears likely to tout the public service aspects of his legal career, including stints as an assistant U.S. attorney and Watergate congressional counsel, as well as a case in which he uncovered a payoff scheme that landed a Tennessee governor in prison.

"This is a guy who was an incredibly accomplished attorney," Corallo said.

As for the Senate record, Corallo pointed out that Thompson supported some tort reform measures.

He voted against others because he felt they infringed on states' rights, Corallo said, asserting, "He was consistent in voting against measures that provided the federal government powers that the federal government shouldn't have. … People understand that."

Backed McCain-Feingold

-- Campaign finance reformer: Thompson was among the leading Republican backers of the sweeping package of campaign finance reforms commonly known as McCain-Feingold.

Since it passed into law in 2002, conservative activists have derided it as an infringement on their free speech and have held a grudge against its GOP sponsor, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whose presidential campaign has struggled to win over conservatives.

Expect conservative groups and rivals to emphasize Thompson's support for the bill, even calling it "McCain-Feingold-Thompson."

In recent months, Thompson has worked to give himself cover on the issue, asserting that the law didn't work as intended and suggesting the fairly drastic step of removing contribution limits entirely.

"The conservatives who have spoken with Fred have been satisfied with his position as it stands," Corallo said, though he added campaign finance should not "be at the top of the priority list when you're talking about challenges America is facing."

Centrist or conservative?

-- Centrist senator: Though the influential American Conservative Union scored Thompson's Senate career voting record at 86 percent, some of the votes on which he strayed from the GOP fold could prove problematic for ardent partisans.

For instance, he backed a 1998 bill that would have established a temporary farm worker program and a 1996 bill to increase the minimum wage. And he voted against one of the two impeachment charges brought against President Clinton in 1999.

Thompson will defend each vote individually, Corallo said, but will argue he approached all decisions from a conservative, federalist position.

As for immigration, Thompson has come out strongly against the pending overhaul legislation, which McCain is spearheading.

On impeachment, Corallo said Thompson carefully studied the evidence before splitting his votes, "and he stands by it."

Pro-choice?

-- Abortion-rights supporter: Every time Thompson got the chance in the Senate, he voted with those who oppose abortion rights. But the social conservatives for whom abortion is a litmus test scrutinize every bit of a politician's record -- and Thompson's provides some fodder for opponents to question the depth of his opposition to abortion rights.

On candidate surveys in 1994 and 1996, he answered that he favored abortion always being legal in the first trimester of pregnancy and opposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution "protecting the sanctity of human life."

According to the Nashville Tennessean, Thompson included a handwritten clarification with the latter response, reading, "I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people."

After Thompson again intimated, during a Fox News appearance this month, that he'd oppose criminalizing abortion, conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote that Thompson "came close to alarming his pro-life constituency."

Thompson will point to support from leading anti-abortion groups to neutralize this line of attack. He was endorsed by National Right to Life in both of his Senate campaigns and has a 100 percent voting record from the group, Corallo pointed out, asserting: "That's what counts. How did he act?"

David Mark contributed to this report.

LOL, I didn't say I plan to attend. But I do find it noteworthy that I have not received anything at all from Thompson -- that simply confirms that he has a ton of catching up to do.

I would like to see Thompson get into the race and make a go of it. But you guys are terribly naive when it comes to politics. Being a great candidate is not sufficient to win an election. Once he gets in, everyone will start attacking him, the media will start digging and picking at him, and he won't have the financial wherewithal to deliver his message. I won't say he has no chance at all, but I do think you guys are dreaming. He is a real long shot.

Thanks for the article, TR -- that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Remember that Romney started as a complete unknown. So I wouldn't scoff at what his money has done for him -- he's bought a lot of name recognition and he still has a ton of cash on hand. But to be clear, raising lots of money is NOT sufficient to win. But it absolutely is necessary and Thompson has no chance if he can't raise a lot of money. Kind of like going to war without much ammo, if you will.

Complete unknown is stretching it a little. In 1994 he ran a very credible race for Kennedy's Senate seat in MA. He did what no one in years has forced him to do - he made Kennedy campaign. Though Kennedy still won with a 17 point margin, I believe that was one of the closest races in Kennedy's reign of terror.

He also bailed out the 2002 SLC Olympics.

Not to mention being Governor of MA.

He does have a ton of cash on hand, but at last report - he'd burned through half of it with what he's done in Iowa and NH - and that's a lot of money.

I still contend you can't buy the instant name recognition Thompson has starting out. Money didn't do it for Perot.

I am willing to bet that Romney's name recognition was less than 10% nationwide when he started his campaign. I guess I exaggerated a little, but I am a lawyer so you should expect some of that. ;)

In case anyone missed it, here is Fred Thompson on Jay Leno, last night.

I particularly like his responses to 3 of the questions asked him by Leno....

1) "Would you like the job of President of the United States."

2) "Fred's own definition of term limits."

3) "Joe Liberman's idea about Iran and how Fred would handle it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIb_6PN-72c


R.L.,

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a wager to you. I say that come next summer, in St. Paul Minnesota, Fred Thompson will get the GOP nod for POTUS.

No avatar switching, like we do with our Hockey teams. No sir. How's about something "substantial", Like maybe....a nice bottle of Chivas Regal to the winner. :D

You game ???? :munchin

I'm not sure I've seen many polls that indicate his name recognition is much more than 10% nationwide now - after spending millions and years on the campaign trail (he's been accused of prepping for this since 2002). I like the guy, much more than Guiliani and I'm putting myself out there for him in a lot of ways - but I think he's case in point that money and getting started YEARS in advance isn't all it is cracked up to be.

Sure, but I don't drink much scotch. How about this: If Thompson is the nominee, I send you a bottle of the standard 12-year old Chivas Regal. If he's not the nominee, you send me a bottle of Gentleman Jack. I believe the prices are about the same.

Are we on?

You have a deal, Sir.

{{{{E-shake}}}} :D


Edit to add....how's about spelling lesson's for me, so's I can spell the right type of drink I'm wagering for.

Chivas...Chivas....Chivas....D'oh, D'oh, D'oh....

Since I've already put money on Fred... Good luck, Sdiver! :lifter

Probably not a good idea to bring the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine into the room with you. One hell of a hatchet job profile of him in there! Much more interesting was the profile of James Webb.

Sdiver, good luck. I have to pull for the guy who likes the shee-VASSSS.:D

WOW. :munchin That's some serious love. I take comfort in the fact that there is at least one 527 group ready to go for Hillary. I'll rest easier now.

I just went to his web site to see whether to get on board with him or not. Maybe I'm just not very bright, or maybe I don't spend enough time on the Internet, but I had a very difficult time finding any meaningful information. In fact, as a former professional political consultant, let me go ahead and say that the site BLOWS.

I don't think this guy has a snowball's chance unless he's raised a lot more money than seems likely.

I am willing to change my mind if given sufficient reason to do so. :munchin

Try this RL Fred Thompson facts

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...012/COMMENTARY

Thompson's political potential
David N. Bossie
July 8, 2007

As former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson gets ready to enter the race for president, observers marvel at how an unannounced candidate, five years out of politics, has managed to climb from nowhere to the top of several national polls.

But the reason for Mr. Thompson's meteoric rise is as plain as day: Man and moment are meeting, as has so regularly occurred in the history of this great nation. When challenges mount, these United States seem to produce the right person for the right job. Fred Thompson is that person, for the challenges that America and the free world face in the years to come.

As more and more mainstream conservative voters recognize that truth, Mr. Thompson's support grows and grows.

First, on substance, Mr. Thompson is the best and most uniquely suited among the Republican candidates for president in 2008 to re-assemble the winning Reagan coalition of social, economic, and foreign-policy conservatives. Why? Because Mr. Thompson marries the right principles, the right core beliefs, with an almost unparalleled ability to communicate those principles in direct and understandable terms. Moreover, Mr. Thompson's record shows the is a legitimate, good-government conservative, with a 35-year record to prove it.

After distinguished service as an assistant U.S. Attorney, Mr. Thompson first went to the U.S. Senate as a top staffer. Without ever selling out to the liberal media or the congressional Democratic lynch mob during the Watergate investigation, Mr. Thompson as lead counsel stood up in a dignified way for honest government. After that, he went on to help uncover massive corruption by the Tennessee's Democratic governor, which landed that governor in jail.

In 1994, against huge odds, Mr. Thompson ran for and won one of Tennessee's Senate seats by a huge margin, against a popular Democratic congressman. His vote-getting ability — he earned 60 percent of the vote in that race, and an even higher percentage two years later — is exactly what may be necessary in a year that the Republican Party is rightly worried about being able to keep leftists like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama out of the White House.

At least equally important is that Mr. Thompson's Senate record proves his mainstream conservative bona fides. On abortion, Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America repeatedly gave him scores of zero while the National Right To Life gave him a 100 percent. On tax issues, conservative groups such as Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union and the National Tax Limitation Committee consistently rated Mr. Thompson in the high 80s and 90s. He consistently earned high marks from the Chamber of Commerce, small-business groups, the American Conservative Union, the American Land Rights Association, and Citizens Against Government Waste.

On military issues, he earned perfect 100 ratings from the Non-Commissioned Officers Association and the Military Officers Association of America.

Unlike the other front-runners, Fred Thompson need not pander, flip-flop or re-invent himself. Conservative voters know Fred Thompson is undeniably one of them, just by listening to him. When they hear candidates waffle, they hear Mr. Thompson talk straight. When others are vague, Mr. Thompson is direct. What voters hear from him, straight and direct, is solid conservatism — unvarnished, unapologetic and, most importantly, full of common sense.

For eight years, Sen. Thompson was a crusader for our Founding Fathers' vision of a limited government. Call him old-fashioned, but he consistently took positions in the Senate on the grounds of federalism, that some issues can be better decided by the states without federal interference.

Mr. Thompson is a friend of the National Rifle Association and he has always stood firm on protecting the Second Amendment right to bear arms. He opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants and supports protecting our borders and enforcing current laws first.

In both word and in action he has been a stalwart fighter for solidly conservative judges. He personally shepherded Chief Justice John Roberts through the minefield that is the Senate confirmation process.

Yet while Mr. Thompson is strongly conservative in word and deed, he is moderate and reassuring in bearing. When New York's Sen. Hillary Clinton unleashes the Clinton attack machine against him — and she will — those tactics will fail. Mr. Thompson will rise above the stale negative politics of the 1990s. Americans immediately know Mr. Thompson is a man they can trust, and people of good will sense in him a firm and abiding character.

I have worked in the conservative vineyards for more than two decades. I have seen sham conservatives and ambitious hucksters come and go. I know how to tell the real thing. Fred Thompson is the real thing: a leader, a conservative, a man of honor and — of utmost importance in facing the combination of Mrs. Clinton and a leftist media — a communicator and, absolutely, a winner.

Fred Thompson is the man who can unite the Republican Party and the conservative movement, and lead both, together, to victory in 2008.

David N. Bossie is the president of Citizens United and the former chief investigator for the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

TR--Sir, thanks for posting this article.

I am guessing He knows how to play the game. I hope He can "bring it on home."

:lifter

Holly