Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson Unleashes PAC 2.0 to Send 20K to Tedisco

On Friday morning, Fred Thompson sent out an e-mail to his 2008 presidential list through his PAC telling people to go directly to donate to Jim Tedisco.

Our fundraising total for the now 80K for NY-20 campaign stood at around $28,000 when the e-mail went out. Since then, over $23,000 has come in, bringing the public total to over $51,000 at this writing. It's prudent to assume that about $20,000 of this came in through Fred's e-mail list.

This is a very smart use of a PAC's list that too few Republicans leadership PAC take up. Effectively, Thompson has maxed out x4 to Tedisco's campaign, not by circumventing the legal $5,000 limit on PAC contributions, but by directing his donors to give directly to Tedisco.

Every cycle, the Congressional committees lean on their members to write checks to the committees and targeted races. And PACs are pressed to write $5,000 checks. That's the Old Way. The New Way is to aggregate contributions over and above the $5,000 from your supporters, $25 or $50 at a time, thus amplifying your influence. To anyone whose responsible for generating more money from PAC and campaign committees, have you considered allowing these PACs to count indirect contributions from grassroots donors toward their goals -- a far more leveragable source of resources for battleground Republican campaigns?

If you ran in 2008, don't just send Tedisco a $5,000 check. Help him find 500 -- or 5,000 -- new donors from your campaign e-mail list. Fred has shown the way here. Who will follow?

Disclosure: My company designed the Tedisco fundraising widget and is helping the campaign with online fundraising.

ASK NOT WHAT YOU CAN SPEND FOR YOUR COUNTRY

Photobucket

I am no economist but in reviewing the assessments and suggestions of those who are major economists, there seem to be some very valid suggestions, at least from what a layman like me can understand.

Despite my own lackof economic expertise, I do know the basic fundamentals of the economy and I believe my understanding of those fundamentals is what can sometimes create some confusion when reviewing the advice of so called financial experts and leading economic government officials.

All the suggestions offered by them are based on spending.

Spending is what grows our economy. The more we consume and spend, the more that is produced. The more that is produced increases the need to employ more people to meet those production needs. By employing more people we are empowering others to spend more and from there the cycle continues in an ever growing circumference of increased wealth.

Sounds pretty simple.

Yet other factors help to complicate things and break the seemingly simple and free flow of this cycle. Things such as unexpected shortages of materials, import and export troubles, natural disasters which influence the chain of events, and many more all factor in the process.

While understanding this, what is responsible for the current economic crisis? Has there been some sort of natural disaster that has depleted a particular basic and essential resource that our economic cycle relies on? Has there been a total collapse of certain industries which have thrown the cycle off with an inordinate amount of unemployment and consumption which further deteriorates the supply and demand cycle.?

To a certain, small extent events like that have taken place but not in some kind of all consuming way. There have been droughts effecting crops and downturns in some markets that have produced layoffs. But none have been to the extent which has, for example made wheat crops extinct or stopped cars from being made. So what’s the problem?

Well in my unprofessional economic opinion the problem is rooted in something that government financial experts are not discussing. In fact, in my opinion, most solutions being initiated by government officials, past, present and future, are the problem. They are trying to put icing on a cake before they baked it. They all promote spending. In tune with the laws of supply and demand, spending is good. However; the focus on spending has been accentuated and promoted so much and for so long that it has brought about a couple of misguided generations that have taken that advice too far. As a society we have become accustomed to spending more than we have and responsibly should.

The predatory promotional practices that financial markets undertake ,in an attempt to make more money of their own, is a big part of the current economic crisis. It is a crisis brought about by the chickens coming home to roost and the bill coming forward to be paid. We have taken the advice of Republican and democrat leaders and we have spent. The government has even taken their own advice and spends.

The government has even spent money in order to give us money to spend with. They call it an economic stimulus. The problem though is that The government doesn’t really have enough money to do that.

1.-They have their own, our own, deficit, and…….

2.- The money they gave us back in this so called stimulus package was ours, so maybe they should have taken less from us in the first place.

Those two points alone raise doubts about the soundness of the “spending solution” given to all of our problems. Yet, those in charge still offer it as the most sound solution to our problems. They even go a step further and ask people not save any of the monies given out in stimulus packages. Although I do not have a problem with spending ........ll you have to do is tag along with me at clothing or shoe store to realize that......., I do have problem with spending money that we don’t have. And there in lies the problem. The promoting of spending practices has created generations of spenders.

These spenders don’t even use real money. They use plastic. We all use plastic. In some instances you can’t even pay for a good or service without credit. This has led to our getting accustomed with living on borrowed money,……. plastic,……..fake money.

For decades now, the government has encouraged this practice. Government policies have encouraged borrowers and lenders to enter into deals that neither really caould afford. The greatest example of this was the Homeownership Initiative that was created under the Clinton administration. It forced lenders to make a significant number of loans available to unqualified borrowers, borrowers who could not pay these loans back. The practice was so popular that it helped to create the banking crisis that ushered in the current crisis.

The promoted “spending” solutions that have dominated our problem solving efforts with the economy are in and of itself part of the problem. Americans need to get back to an economy that is based on sound fiscal policies. That statement brings into play many suggested economic theories and actions but when I write “sound fiscal policies” I am not making reference to some deep epistemology of mankind or the ontology of finances. Nor am I debating the importance of the Keynesian school of thought. I am simply saying that society…..our citizens need to begin living within their means.

If one is not sure if they have enough money to put food on their plate, they should not be buying cell phones and using it to send out text messages asking if they can borrow money for dinner. I mean I am sure AT&T or T-Mobile appreciate the fee that your purchase and contracts will cost you but you will they be pleased with the bill collector that they have to employ to get their money.

My point is, we have gotten away from living within our means. We have become accustomed with living life on borrowed money. This practice has brought us to where we are today. And truth be told, there is no end in site. I believe that we are about to enter a very tough transitional time that will last for many years. It is a time that will have us getting familiar with living within our means.

Doing so will mean less spending. Less spending will lead to less employment, and so on and so on. But this does not mean that the sky will fall and the economy will ultimately implode. It means that we will endure a difficult adjustment period but once we have become reacquainted with real money, sound personal financial habits and living within our means, the economy will eventually stabilize and growth will again be seen.

I am not alone in this thinking.

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson has recently made a video addressing this same issue. In it, he takes a tongue-in-cheek approach to our current “spending solutions”.

Take a moment to view it. You’ll get a kick out of it. It left me wondering where the Fred Thompson, that we see in this video, was when he ran for the G.O.P.’s presidential nomination?

 

 

punchline-politics21

Post Election Toast

The Election Is Over, The Results Are Known.

The Will of the People Has Been Clearly Shown.

So Let All Get Together And Let Bitterness Pass

I'll Hug Your Elephant, And You Kiss My Ass.

RNC Chair Race: Fighting for the Future of the Republican Party

With Democrats winning large majorities in the House and Senate, it's difficult to see new Republican leadership emerging from Congress in the next couple years.   House and Senate Republicans will be playing defense and managing the losses, with little opportunity to move the ball forward on any of the Right's agenda. 

If the Right is to begin rebuilding, leadership will have to come from the outside. That is good.

We are at an inflection point for the Right; a moment in history when the Republican Party is undefined and listless, capable of being either renewed or captured.  The opportunity to mobilize around new leadership is the opportunity to re-take the Republican Party from the entrenched, atrophied Republican establishment.

The next opportunity is the RNC Chairman race in January of 2009.  It will be decided by fewer than 200 Committee members, but there is precent for the blogosphere to have a profound impact on leadership races.  We could do it in the RNC Chair race, too.

There are a great many candidates (and more ever day, it seems; Marc Ambinder reports that Jim Nussle is in and Newt Gingrich is interested).  However, the RNC Chair covers a wide variety of roles - from fundraising to operational management to communication; strategy and tactics - and it's not at all apparent that any of the candidates could possibly excel at every role.  Some are interesting, but others seem like minor functionaries looking to be elevated to a bigger fiefdom. 

That may be fine when the RNC Chair is just a support role to the Republican President or Congressional leadership.  But the RNC Chair will be in a unique position of Party and movement leadership in years ahead.   The Party will need both the tacticion and the strategist.  And the most important role of the RNC Chair may well be that of visionary leader.

So, who actually embodies the Republican Party ideals best?  I've previously suggested Fred Thompson would be an ideal fit as an RNC General Chairman - a communicator who gets the ideals, the policy and the message - while leaving the role of RNC Chair to the administrative manager.

It looks other people are thinking the same thing.  According to DC Examiner...

Republicans desperate to rebuild their party are looking for a new leader, and former Sen. Fred Thompson may seek the job. Thompson, a Tennessee conservative and former actor, is mulling a run for chairman of the Republican National Committee.

The American Spectator's Quin Hilyer says "there is more detail to the story"...

First, note the distinction between "General Chairman" and "Chairman." The potential Thompson run envisions a two-tiered system like the one that worked under Reagan with Paul Laxalt as General Chairman (but that didn't work so well recently with Mel Martinez as General Chairman). The General Chairman usually provides overall direction and philosophical moorings, and acts as the public face of the party doing media and speeches, etc., and also is available probably for big-money phone calls and events -- but the Chairman, with an Executive Director under him, is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the RNC. Think Chairman of the Board vs. CEO, perhaps.

Quin also says Katon Dawson "knows how to get things done politically."   In light of the contention that Dawson is close to SC Governor Mark Sanford, that seems like a potential pairing [Fred Thompson as General Chair; Katon Dawson as Chair] that could appeal strongly to the limited government/leave us alone vision for the Republican Party. 

Hilyer's source says that Fred Thompson and his team are "looking at the lay of the land. If there is an indication of a wellspring of support, he will get in quickly."

If the grassroots Right wants to have an impact on the Republican Party, this is their chance to do it.

The Next RNC Chairman

What if the next RNC Chairman breaks the mold?

UPDATEThere's been some misunderstanding about this.  What I'm suggesting here is an actual division of the responsibilities of the Chairman.  Instead of consolidating a lot of unrelated roles under one Chairman, we should consider more specialization within those roles.  One role for strategy, one role for tactics.

I previously suggested Mitt Romney might be a good RNC Chairman - not because he would be a transformational leader for the Right, but because he would be a tremendous CEO to help make it possible for a transformational leader to emerge.  I think that's very possible.   Kos' suggestion for RNC Chair - Mike Huckabee - would be great for Democrats (it would mean Republicans have ceded the entire argument about the role of government), but it would destroy the Right's coalition and turn the Republican Party into the Christian Democratic Party.

There are other choices, as well, and some of them may well be good at some of the roles - fundraising, operations, management - but none of them are inspirational.  They are CEO's.  When the Party's basic problem is a lack of vision and enthusiasm, that's a problem. 

There are two absolute priorities for the next Republican Party Chairman.

  • Vision for the Republican Party: The Republican Party is at an inflection point.  It can go in a few different directions, some of them better than others.  The RNC must be led by a person who has a clear, powerful and relevant vision for the Republican Party.
  • Movement Leadership: The next RNC Chairman must be a credible Communicator who can unite the Party around his vision.

In essence, the next Republican Party Chairman must be a rallying figure.  The transactional, bureaucratic roles the RNC Chairman fufills are important, but they are lesser roles.  The Republican Party needs a visionary leader far more than it needs an attentive steward.

If John McCain loses the 2008 election, Republicans should ask themselves the question: Who do you want to make the GOP response to Barack Obama's first State of the Union Address?

For that role, who would be better than Fred Thompson?

  • Fred Thompson's record gives him credibility.  He has not sacrificed his integrity over the last 8 yeas, as so many Republicans have.  People believe him when he talks about limited government and federalism, and when he criticizes the social engineering and big government policies of Democrats.
  • Fred Thompson has not succumbed to the Republican echo chamber that perverted the ideas, ideals and messages of the Right (now or in his Senate days).
  • Fred Thompson is one of the best communicators on the Right.  His 1995 Republican response to President Clinton's State of the Union address was considered devastating and powerful, and while the years he spent living and working outside of politics had an effect on him during the '07-'08 campaign, Thompson ended up performing exceptionally well in the debates and at the Republican National Convention. 
  • Fred Thompson isn't just good at reading the talking points.  He's a genuine intellectual - a policy wonk - who understands and talks about issues and ideas in a powerful, resonant manner.
  • Fred Thompson has grasped the importance of the internet.

Republicans don't just need a manager.  Republicans need a communicator and a visionary.  That's Fred Thompson.

So, what if the Republican Party split the role within the RNC, tasking one of the potential candidates with the Management role, while Fred  Thompson took the Leadership role?  If there is any figure on our present stage who can credibly and powerfully take on Democratic leadership, it is Fred Thompson.

The progressives and netroots did not take over the Democratic Party by nominating Howard Dean for Presidential; they did it by putting Howard Dean in charge of the Democratic Party.  If Republicans want to take back the Republican Party, then we may need to draft Fred Thompson again.

UPDATE

Journalist Quin Hillyer, responded to an email on the subject (analytically, not as an advocate)

A little history is in order here. There have been a number of times in the past 40 years when the "chairmanship" of the RNC was split up into two roles, with a public face as sort of chairman of the board (in this case, usually called "General Chairman") and a nuts and bolts, organizational, hard-driving guy as plain old "Chairman."

Under Ronald Reagan, if I remember correctly, Paul Laxalt served as General Chairman, and it worked quite well.

The General Chairman not only does a lot of TV interviews and speeches but also provides overall direction. But he usually isn't hands-on -- and the regular "Chairman" doesn't have to be a shrinking violet either. The Chairman can also do public appearances, and he would do most of the fundraising, too. A Katon Dawson could have a ton of room to operate as Chairman even with a "General Chairman" technically above him on the organizational chart.

But to have somebody with Thompson's star power able to make big speeches, call a few of the biggest donors (without having to make a regular habit out of it), and provide some good links to conservative senators, etc., could be a huge advantage.  It's certainly an idea worth exploring.

 

Fred Thompson speaks

Sarah Palin must define herself or be defined

Fred Thompson points out the essential inequality in coverage of the verbal slips of each Vice Presidential candidate...

Governor Palin’s every comment was scrutinized... [...] Never mind that her counterpart, the 30-year-Washington-veteran Joe Biden, apparently is unaware that America relies upon coal for a lot of it’s electricity or that he recently referred to a top level U.S. official’s visit to Iran that never happened. That’s just Joe being Joe – protected by the sheer number of his gaffes and the fact that he is Barack Obama’s running mate.

Thompson is correct.  Unknowns are at a disadvantage, because their flaws are shiny and new - and those flaws are often their introduction to the vast majority of Americans.  But who is to blame for this? 

  • The campaigns, which spend their time pushing trivia and cliches.
  • The media, which spend their time covering the puerility, rather than policy.
  • The public, which consistently rewards campaigns and media for this behavior.

I suspect this is a chicken/egg problem.

Sen. Thompson says Gov. Palin compares well when it comes to "courage and political will".  I think that remains to be seen, as both Rob Bluey and I have discussed in the past.  I hope she will demonstrate a national governing philosophy and priorities that justify his estimation.  I'm afraid we haven't seen that, yet.  

As long as Sarah Palin remains a largely unknown political quantity, she will be unable to rise above the trivialities on which the media, the campaigns and the public will focus.  Sarah Palin (and the McCain campaign) can change that, but it will require a bold campaign of self-definition - a core issue (ethics, rather than energy, I suspect) and a substantial, sophisticated, yet clear, reform agenda.

The Return of Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson announces the launch of Fred PAC.   I'm very glad to see that.   What I really want to see in Republicans right now is framework-changing rhetoric - a politician who thinks and talks in fundamentally different ways.  Ideals like these are exactly right.

  • The role of the federal government is limited to the powers given to it in our Constitution, and the bigger the government gets, the less competent it is to run our lives, and we must have leaders who understand that the market works best when it regulated and legislated least.
  • A dollar belongs in the pocket of the person who earns it unless the government has a compelling reason why it can use it better
  • We don’t spend money we don’t have or borrow money that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back, and we must have leaders who understand this and will listen to the will of the people.

I supported (and worked for) Fred Thompson precisely because of the way he talked about and thought about government.  Not in the weak, vapid, play-the-Democrats-game manner that most Republicans do, but as somebody who would refocus public attention on the costs and problems of government.   e.g...

September, 2007:

"We've been spending increasing amounts of federal money for decades, with increasing rules, increasing mandates, increasing regulations," Thompson said. "It's not working." [...]  "It's your responsibility," he said. "If you don't like what's going on, don't get in your car and drive by your school board and maybe drive by the capitol and get on an airplane and fly to Washington and say, 'I don't like the way the school down the street is being run.'"

March, 2007:

"Washington overreaches, and by doing so ends up not doing well the basics people really care about." Think Katrina and Walter Reed.

Fred PAC appears to be focused on exactly that sort of thing.  Federalism, limited government, free markets.   It's going to take quite some time and a great deal of effort to build the coalition and popular energy for our story, but those are the unifying ideals that can revitalize the Republican Party.

Fred Thompson Leads the Way on GOP Core Values

In his post titled Clear Out the Dead Wood, Eric Earling writes about

...cheering the electoral confrontation of Republican Members of Congress currently doing more harm than good to the conservative cause

This prompted a comment by Just A Grunt, excerpted here:

We need to start developing a short list of what we consider to be conservative values. It can be 5 -10 items, think Newt Gingrichs' Contract With America. Then we need a champion. As long as our voices continue to be all across the spectrum with no solutions offered we also will be a part of the problem rather then the solution.

This speaks to the following posts I've made since The Next Right was implemented:

On the last topic, when Fred Thompson addressed the PA State GOP last Friday (read the entire Townhall.com transcript here), he thankfully addressed the Core Value topic succinctly, elegantly and eloquently:

  • Strength
  • Freedom
  • Prosperity

In my post on Strategic Planning, I wrote:

Once we understand why we exist, then it becomes child's play to hang critical success factors, goals and objectives onto that framework. It’s also fun to examine our core values. What beliefs drive us to succeed in the face of insurmountable odds, small budgets, scarce resources, long hours and high risks? You can light up a whole room with the positive energy generated by a good strat planning session.

Here are seven Critical Success Factors which I elicited from Fred's key core principles, and from the input provided by several contributors to this website.  These CSF's represent the things that absolutely have to be done in order for our party and our country to be successful:

  1. Our people must be free

  2. Our citizens must have the right to equality and opportunity

  3. Our government’s power must be decentralized

  4. Our economy must be based on a Free Market

  5. Our foreign policy must be centered on trade with other nations

  6. Our nation has always been, and must always will be defended

  7. Our leadership must govern with integrity and accountability

This list, once it's refined, validated and agreed upon, can then be used to propagate specific goals and objectives of which we can clearly measure success, failure, or "needs more work" status. 

I reiterate that Fred Thompson would be an outstanding Executive Champion for the grassroots activism we are hoping to help propagate via The Next Right and its distinguished blogging network. 

ACTION ITEM:  Contact Fred Thompson and request he act as our Executive Sponsor for GOP grassroots change

ASSIGNED TO:  Sean Hackbarth [apologies to Sean for earlier typo!] and Jon Henke

PRIORITY:  High

STATUS:  Open

Since it's well documented this weekend that the Democrats have dropped the ball on their core values of Equality and Helping the Less Fortunate and kicked it over to our team, let's see if our team actually has the will to pick the ball up and play. 

Don't Commit Web Suicide

Promoted. There's nothing that annoys me more as online political professional than politicians who refuse to continue the conversation with supporters after the campaign. Many of the former Republicans have hundreds of thousands of supporters they could mobilize for John McCain... or even keep themselves relevant and build a base for future runs or their activities in Congress. And yet most just don't. Only Huckabee is doing this well on the Republican side. -Patrick

As Hillary Clinton preps to concede that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the nomination, I wonder about the future of her online presence.  Will her website continue to project her political activity -- positions, whereabouts, and calls to action?

Or, will she commit web suicide like so many viable major federal candidates before her?

You may ask why we should care about Clinton's online presence.  We should care because once she's a loser, she will join the cast of dozens of Republicans who lost in '06, and that will lose in '08, and we should learn from her mistakes.

Syndicate content