Fred! 101

Fred! 101

Much of the GOP seems to be astir with excitement over the assumed entry of Fred! Thompson into the Primary Race to be the GOP nominee for president. Since so many of you have asked about my view of Fred!, here's summary of thoughts:

1. Reagan Reincarnated

In most news and analysis pieces, the name "Fred Thompson" is closely associate with some reference to Reagan - either that he is the closest thing to Reagan in the current Primary run or that the conservative base of the GOP thinks that he is. I have to admit, this is a curious development on 2 counts:

1. Reagan wasn't "Reagan": From what I see and read, I think folks don't remember who Reagan was. Reagan was an amazing communicator and extremely strong, principled leader who got most big things right (Tax Cuts, Limited Government, Strong rhetoric to empower Communist dissidents and Military power to pursue and ensure peace). Now notice, John F. Kennedy was most of these things as well. Reagan was not the right-wing, social crusader the base of the GOP seems to want to remember him to be. He popularized the term, 'Born Again Christian" in mainstream culture, but he simply wasn't a leader of religious conservatives.
   

This isn't to say that Reagan wasn't socially and religiously conservative (private accounts of his personal friends and family certainly seem to unanimously hold that he held a very deep and very active personal faith in and relationship with Jesus Christ). It is to say that his primary objective was to reduce the size, impact and overrule of the Federal Government over the States and individuals. Pursuing "evangelical" policy through legislative or judicial fiat would have run counter to everything Reagan stood for. His lack of a stand on "evangelical" issues is most clearly seen in an old "Justice Department" memo from his administration. It calls for judicial nominees who demonstrate a solid record of:

* "disposition towards `less government rather than more"'

* "appreciation for the role of the free market in our society"

* "refusal to create new constitutional rights for the individual" and

* "respect for traditional values"

Notice, there's nothing here about Roe vs. Wade, Faith Based Initiatives or Homosexual Marriage. Reagan simply didn't want to get the government involved in the issues many social conservatives care about today. In this sense, my perception is that Ronald Reagan wasn't the "Reagan" of current nostalgia. Right or wrong. Good or bad.

2. Reagan or "Reagan": I haven't run across any news articles, opinion pieces or blogs highlighting Fred! Thompson's publicly proclaimed statements of faith. I'm sure he has made some in his day, but I'm not convinced he wears this sort of thing "on his sleeve". Similarly, I'm not overwhelmed by stories of his use of considerable stardom to campaign for Marriage Amendments, raise money for anti-abortion causes or build really large churches. Again, time may bring more of these to the fore, but experience says that if this sort of evangelical-political activism is a major vector of energy in his life, someone would have picked up on it by now. Thus, I'm not sure Fred! will measure up to the idyllic "Reagan" so many in the evangelical camp seem to worship (pun intended).

That being said, it does indeed seem Thompson is rather like the historical Reagan. In a Senate vote to establish a "Good Samaritan" law which would reduce Tort lawsuits, Fred! was the lone dissenter in a 99-1 vote. On paper, this vote is VERY non-conservative. But in his defense, why did Thompson do such a "stupid" thing? Federalism. Quoting Thompson:

I thought not, but even some of my conservative colleagues (as well as writers) get caught up in the desire to federalize an issue if they could help a "good guy" or stick it to a "bad guy." This may be a desirable goal in the abstract but I don't think our Founding Fathers had this in mind. Adhering to basic principles that have served our country well is much too important.

When Fred! enters the race, there will be much ballyhooed rhetoric about "The Next Reagan" - after all, he is an actor. What more proof do we need? Once folks get to know him, much of the right will face a cognitive crisis; Fred! isn't the "Reagan" they conjure in imagination. Of course, other than Huckabee and Brownback (both hopelessly out of the real race), who in the GOP field is? But research may show Fred! to be the Reagan seen through the clearer lens of history. Will that be enough?

2. Known Unknowns

Political prognostication is fun - and dangerous. Not dangerous in the way securing a Baghdad neighborhood from state-sponsored terrorists is dangerous. Not dangerous in the way of a pastor confronting adultery in the head of the Deacon Board. But dangerous in the sense that one may leave the house without an umbrella on what turns out to be a rainy day - uncomfortable, but not life threatening.

In this game of political prognostication, we may be well served to curb our risks through some basic analysis of the things we know we don't know enough about yet to truly support Fred! with wholehearted verve - what Sec. Rumsfeld would have called the "Known Unknowns".

1. Skeletons: Fred! has never been before the x-rays of a Presidential campaign. This has been known to fell lesser men in the past.

2. Passion: Running for the Presidency is a grueling marathon run as if it were a sprint. The faint-hearted don't survive. Voters are exhausted from the coverage, but isn't it good we make sure the winner actually wanted, really - really wanted it? I think the position and responsibility at least deserve a bit of passion. I'm not sure candidates know if they burn enough for it until faced with month 6 of the campaign.

3. Leadership: We know Fred can communicate. We know he can legislate. We don't know if he can lead. Rudy, he's America's Mayor. Mitt, he's built HUGE business, turned around the Olympics and restored fiscal sanity to Tax'n'spendville, MA. Fred!? We just don't know. Watching the campaign structure, discipline, clarity and execution will tell us a lot.

3. Unfair Concerns?

There are a few concerns starting to float around the web about early indicators of the Thompson campaign's soft underbelly.

1. Adrift: There was a piece of reporting from "Campaign" Carl Cameron of Fox News about folks leaving the campaign due to disorganization. Fair? The campaign manager is responsible for providing daily discipline, not the candidate. The candidate is responsible to make sure the manager is doing his/her job. Thompson just ousted the informal manager and is bringing in two folks with considerable experience. Time will tell if this is a failure or a pass on the "Leadership" test outlined above.

2. Non-Launch: When the "testing the waters" committee was announce, all news sources reported a July 4th (or close to it) announcement of candidacy. Several folks I know associated with the campaign also acknowledged that this was their expectation. July has now come and mostly gone - with no announcement. Some see this as a another sign of a mismanaged campaign. Fair? I'm not sure we'll really know.

This could be a very troubling sign of mismanagement.

It could be a troubling sign of low cash in-take. Obama and Clinton were all aglow in early July media spotlights for raising record sums of cash. If Thompson announced then, the time clock would have started ticking for his mandated disclosure of donations. Another bad sign?

Of course, the launch delay could also have been a brilliant move to keep Newt out of the race. Rasmussen Reports has uncovered a very serious block of GOP voters who haven't sided with any candidate yet. Similarly, a July announcement would have spiked favorable media coverage heading into the distraction of Summer. Voters won't focus on politics again until late August and September. September is when Newt was considering throwing his hat in the ring. Thus, a delayed Fred! Event, focuses media attention and spotlights on Thompson right when another vote stealer might enter an already crowded and uncertain race.

3. Lazy: A few folks have commented that Fred is lazy. Fair? Frankly, who cares. Do we want someone trying to micromanage the executive (think Carter)? Do we want someone who is completely captivated by their own political brilliance (think Clinton). Or do we want a leader with the passion to whether storms and the leadership to pick good appointees and hold them accountable? Heck, do that and set the right direction - let the appointees work all night (think Reagan).

4. Things to Watch:

I suggest there are some early indicators to watch for in determining the strength of Thompson's candidacy:

1. Voting Record: The easiest buffet of research for and against Thompson will come from his voting record - and rest assured, most of the media will gladly feed on easy, cheap buffets. Will the record reflect Reagan? Will Thompson be able to defend "questionable" votes? There WILL be some. Senate bills are too big. There's always some compromised being reached in nearly every vote. Thompson faces some real challenges here - he did support McCain's Campaign Finance Law (recently found to be at least partially unConstitutional this year by the Supreme Court).

2. Campaign Leadership: Will the Thompson campaign emerge from the Summer with clarity, vision, disciplined execution? One early indicator is to see what seasoned veterans are jumping on board. At present, he only has about 30 staff, so it’s a bit early to find out. Then, watch Thompson the candidate for a month or two. Is the message sharp? Does he stick to it? Does the campaign effectively clarify the "research" which will emerge against the Thompson as Reagan meme?

3. Passion: Does Fred! consistently convey that he wants the job of President MORE as he campaigns longer or does he seem weary, distracted and "carried along" by the momentum of a campaign machine? The early campaign will be a LOT of retail politics and townhall meetings. If meeting with voters and hearing their passions and receiving indication of their faith via donations doesn't stir a candidate's passion, he needs to drop the charade before people get hurt.

4. Donations: Like it or not, politics is a money game. Fred! is the only serious contender in the race who hasn't had to report donations to date. The Dems seem poised for another impressive quarter. Romney and Rudy are impressive in their fund raising by any other standard, but way below the Dems. Conventional wisdom says that much of the GOP's money is being held back to assess the likely winners. This means the big $'s may not pour into the GOP until late Q3 - Q4. But the Thompson campaign will need to perform well when compared to the numbers of Rudy and Mitt in Q2 and Q3. If not, the smart money won't come his way when it starts entering the race. If he does well here, it is very likely Fred! could exponentially attract more donors come Q4.

5. Policy: Mitt and Rudy are both starting to outline policy agendas far earlier than would normally happen. If this continues, Thompson will have to do so in Sept and Oct. Does he? Are they substantive? Are the attractive? Can they withstand the heat of battle with Congress? September is shaping up to be the perfect storm of Iraq debate. All declared candidates for the GOP nomination had better be prepared to speak into this debate with clarity, conviction and beyond platitude.

For those of you who desire to scratch a bit deeper, below are some sites which offer a raw look at his voting record - someone needs to really comb these for what the Bills actually did, not just how their titles read. Otherwise, these raw repositories of data are pretty useless:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/t000457/

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

http://vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=22003

Here are two articles addressing a few of the known challenges Thompson will face explaining his past positions on a few issues - far fewer than Rudy or Mitt, but some that could be troubling nonetheless:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/5/91957.shtml

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2007/06/28/should_conservatives_look_at_thompson%e2%80%99s_record_or_his_rhetoric

On Principle,
CBass