Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
I’m with Fred?
Posted by: Dale Franks on Monday, August 27, 2007

I dunno if Fred Thompson's campaign is living up to the initial hype. It seems that the campaign fired Communications Director Linda Rozett, and replaced her with Tom Collamore, who was the first director of Thompson's exploratory committee...and who was fired last month from that post.

I don't get it. As far as I can tell, the Thompson campaign has more or less squandered a lot of the initial goodwill that it had initially, and signs of turmoil in the campaign team don't make it easy to get it back.

Dean Barnett comments
Here’s my big concern about Fred: I’m very worried about entrusting the most complex CEO job in the world to someone or anyone who’s never run anything bigger than a six person law firm. Thompson has no executive experience, and it shows in the way he’s run his campaign. The indecision, the lack of direction, the organizational incoherence – these are hallmarks of a rookie CEO. Anyone who’s ever run anything knows what I’m talking about. You get better at it as you go along, and there’s a pretty steep learning curve.

Unfortunately for Fred, POTUS isn’t an entry level CEO position. Nor for that matter is running a campaign for the presidency. If you look at the campaigns that have functioned relatively smoothly to date, all of the principals have executive experience. Mitt Romney was a governor and ran numerous large companies. Rudy Giuliani ran the world’s most complex city. Mike Huckabee ran Arkansas. Hillary Clinton has been running the Clinton family’s vast criminal enterprise for decades. (I kid, I kid.)

The poorly run campaigns, on the other hand, all have principals who have never run anything more complex than a Fantasy Football League. Barack Obama’s campaign has more money than Croesus, yet constantly struggles. John Edwards can’t get his personal life to square with his political message, nor can he get his yappy partner to stick a sock in it.
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that any of this indicates, one way or another, how effective a president Thompson might be. But if the campaign is in consistent turmoil, I am pretty sure that we probably won't get a chance to find out.

So far, I'm not impressed by any of the declared GOP candidates. I did think well of Fred Thompson in terms of policy, especially relative to the declared contenders. But he does have a lot of ground to catch up on, and it doesn't seem he's figured out how to do it yet.

UPDATE: An email respondent notifies me of the following errors in the material I quote above:
Rozett was fired, and Collamore was the first director, but…
* Collamore was the first director of Friends of Fred Thompson, but that is a ‘testing-the-waters’ committee, which is substantively different than an exploratory committee in legally important ways.

* Tom Collamore was not fired.

* Tom Collamore has not replaced Linda Rozett on the Thompson team. Collamore took a Sr. VP role at the Chamber of Commerce, where Rozett had previously worked.
So, there you go.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Fred who? Is there another GOP candidate?

Crikey - WTF? Talk about wasting momentum and good will. Weren’t we supposed to get a 4th of July present?
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Yeah. I have to agree with meagain.

My interest with Fred has come and gone.

Duncan Hunter is my guy at this point.

Call me when Fred decides if he’s fishing or cutting bait.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Fred is teetering on being a flash in the pan and fading into obscurity. I’m wondering if he is delaying a declaration so that he won’t have to spend as much money on an active campaign, but with all that Barnett notes it’s a moot point.

And Lizzie Edwards’ big mouth just make her hypocrite husband look hen-pecked.
 
Written By: Joab
URL: http://
Thompson blew it with me when his camp reported (in the last week or so according to NRO) that he would not support the Federal Marriage Amendment but, get this, would support an amendment to restrict the impostion of one state’s marriage law on another. That is, first of all, an argument that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) should be turned into a Constitutional amendment. Next, it’s the old "federalism" gag, with the twist that Thompson would propose a restriction on the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, something less likely to pass than the Federal Marriage Amendment because it sets an even broader precedent.

So here it is: Is the meaning of marriage a national issue or not?

Because it won’t stop with "gay marriage." "Federalism" in this case means a state can allow polygamy, group marriages, etc.

This is a root cultural issue, in which the Western culture is under siege by postmodernism via "critical legal theorists."

Marriage is at the foundation of the moral foundation of Western and American society. You either get that or you don’t.

 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
But then, neither did Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, run anything larger than their plantations, and mostly they ran them into the ground.

How well have our past few presidents, with all their experience, performed?
 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://
Evidently Mr. McPhillips doesn’t understand Federalism, the purported basis of our government.
 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://
Fred has apparently decided. He’ll announce he’s running September 4th.

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/fred_fixes_a_date
 
Written By: JohnS
URL: http://
Evidently Mr. McPhillips doesn’t understand Federalism, the purported basis of our government. - sharp
Yeah, but that’s ok, because he "gets" something I don’t:
"Marriage is at the foundation of the moral foundation of Western and American society. You either get that or you don’t." - McPhillips
So I wonder how that works with a better than 50% divorce rate in American society?

And I vaguely recall from high school history that Western civilization started with the Greeks and 300 Spartans or something?
 
Written By: mw
URL: http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/
I think Hagel is waiting to step on Fred’s announcement. Maybe he’ll announce the day after.
 
Written By: mw
URL: http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/
He sure is a patient guy, that Fred Thompson!
McPhillips: Because it won’t stop with "gay marriage." "Federalism" in this case means a state can allow polygamy, group marriages, etc
Last time I looked the “gay marriage” was about TO consenting adults, how did that become polygamy?
McPhillips: Marriage is at the foundation of the moral foundation of Western and American society. You either get that or you don’t.
In that case anybody that supports a Federal Marriage Amendment without including a ban on ALL divorces is a plain hypocrite!
 
Written By: Jon Herstad
URL: http://idioten.blogspot.com
Sharpshooter writes:
Evidently Mr. McPhillips doesn’t understand Federalism, the purported basis of our government.
I understand federalism very well. Federalism (i.e., dual sovereignty) is the reason the marriage issue would require a Constitutional amendment in the first place, as opposed to a law like DOMA, which is likely to be overturned precisely because it violates the "full faith and credit" aspect of federalism, the aspect that allows an essential accomodation between the laws of the different states.

mw writes about my comment that marriage is at the foundation of the moral foundation of Western and American society:
So I wonder how that works with a better than 50% divorce rate in American society?
Divorce is destructive of the perpetuity of marriage and I don’t think that anyone is denying the consequent destructive impact that has on society. "Gay marriage" changes the very meaning of marriage, and your reasoning is something like, "well we’ve cut off the leg, what’s the big deal about cutting out the heart."

Jon Herstad writes, one would hope in jest:
In that case anybody that supports a Federal Marriage Amendment without including a ban on ALL divorces is a plain hypocrite!
But if not in jest, then plainly ridiculous.

Herstad also wrote:
Last time I looked the “gay marriage” was about T[W]O consenting adults, how did that become polygamy?
Did someone slip something into federalism that says the states must stay with two persons per marriage?

That brings us back to why this is a national issue and a cultural issue.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
The foundation of the foundation?

Seriously, what two guys do in the privacy of their own home doesn’t bother me at all, nor am I bothered by what two hot chicks do in public... ;)

"I support Gay Marriage, but only if both chicks are hot."

"I support Gay Marriage. They have every right to be as unhappy as straight couples..."

Ok, I’m done with the jokes.

I’m not sure I like Fred’s "Reversal of Full Faith and Credit" stance on gay marriage.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"Gay marriage" changes the very meaning of marriage, and your reasoning is something like, "well we’ve cut off the leg, what’s the big deal about cutting out the heart."
Sure it changes the very meaning... It either adds two letters - "wo" - or removes the same two letters.

Assuming you define marriage as being between "a man and a woman".

Seriously, I don’t understand the terror people feel about gay marriage. You think the feds will send a homo to your door, and proclaim him to be your new husband/wife/life partner?

Granted, I dunno if I favor CALLING it "marriage", but two adults who love each other should be able to enjoy the same benifits that married couples do - if only for the "next of kin" issue for medical reasons.

What the hell ever happened to "Judge not, lest ye be judged"?
Did someone slip something into federalism that says the states must stay with two persons per marriage?
I dunno... When did they add in that states had to stick with one man/one woman per marriage?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Scott Jacobs writes:
The foundation of the foundation?
The foundation of the moral foundation of Western and American society. It makes virtuous the natural complementary relationship between a man and a woman, which is the basis of the natural family. It implies the equality of husband and wife (i.e., the husband doesn’t have multiple wives). It likewise establishes the importance of individuals. It accords with natural law.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Scott Jacobs writes:
Seriously, I don’t understand the terror people feel about gay marriage. You think the feds will send a homo to your door, and proclaim him to be your new husband/wife/life partner?
Like I said in my original post, you either get this or you don’t.

I don’t want to overemphasize the place that "gay marriage" takes in the general deterioration of Western culture. It is not the beginning of that process, nor will it be the end. It is, however, pivotal. Stanley Kurtz has written about this extensively at NRO, with particular attention to the Swedish model.

More:
What the hell ever happened to "Judge not, lest ye be judged"?
Are you suggesting that great societies can abandon their cultural standards for the "anything goes" model and survive? Great societies are never destroyed from without. They commit suicide.

More still:
When did they add in that states had to stick with one man/one woman per marriage?
You repeated my question, and then left out my answer. It is a national issue precisely because it was never deemed necessary to address it because it was an impregnable cultural standard. Polygamy was addressed vis a vis Utah when Utah became a state, and that’s about the extent to which an issue of this sort has previously come up.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Are you suggesting that great societies can abandon their cultural standards for the "anything goes" model and survive? Great societies are never destroyed from without. They commit suicide.
I wasn’t aware that two dudes gettin’ it on in a gay marriage was harmful to you.

Oh, wait, it isn’t? Then why should you give a crap?

Explain to me, in exacting detail, how gay marriage ruins Western Society. And don’t hand me this "moral" bull crap. No one thing can ever ruin a society. If you think gay marriage is the linch pin, the keystone, to the whole works, I’d love to see your reaction to socialized healthcare...

Your morals are not my morals, nor are they McQ’s morals, nor Erb’s morals.

There may be many points of intersection between them (well, not with Erb’s, but he’s insane), but your values aren’t my values. To assume that ONLY your interpretation of what is right and proper is, well, right, isn’t just the very highth of arrogance, but just plain wrong.

Gay marriage won’t unmake society.

Hell, letting gays marry would drive the islamofacists God Damn Insane, which is almost enough reason to allow it if you ask me.

So again, explain to me why gay marriage would be the ruination of society. Don’t use "moral" in your explanation, or any synonym for "moral". If you use "you either get it, or you don’t", then you’re too retarded to explain your position. No worthwhile position is defended only with moral arguments or proclimations that those who disagree are too stupid to understand.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
That brings us back to why this is a national issue and a cultural issue.
It is a cultural issue, but it is not a national issue. The mere fact that most people are against murder does not mean that there should be a national murder statute concerning it, or that all states should at all times be compelled to honor the extradition of persons convicted or wanted in one state of or for murder, if the circumstances of the case make the conviction or trial drastically contrary to due process in the state where the fugitive is residing, or to that state’s judicial notice of equity.

The fact you think it is a national issue speaks to me that you have a flawed understanding of federalism.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Your morals are not my morals, nor are they McQ’s morals, nor Erb’s morals.
Insert obligatory Erb joke and rimshot here. TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Insert obligatory Erb joke and rimshot here.
heh. I got my little shot in, but yeah... There were so many possible comments, I knew I’d never get them all...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Hell, letting gays marry would drive the islamofacists God Damn Insane, which is almost enough reason to allow it if you ask me.
1) That’s a good point. 2) Fred Phelps head might explode, a BIG plus.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Much like my father adopted the "MacNamara" policy ("Whatever MacNamara thinks, I think the oposite, because he’s never been right in his life"), and I have the "Chertof Policy" ("there’s no immedeate threat my ass..."), anything that drives Phelps insane is automatically a good idea.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
McPhillips:
“Did someone slip something into federalism that says the states must stay with two persons per marriage?”
No of course not, the fact is that every so often gay marriage is discussed somebody start mentioning polygamy. And my point is simply that’s ridicules and has nothing to do with the subject at all.

With regard to divorces it’s simply so funny to see people trying to tell that divorce is soooo bad, but not bad enough to a government intervention. But “gay marriage” on the other hand is soooo much more bad we obviously need the government to intervene— completely lack of consistency lol!
 
Written By: Jon Herstad
URL: http://idioten.blogspot.com
With regard to divorces it’s simply so funny to see people trying to tell that divorce is soooo bad, but not bad enough to a government intervention.
Lots of things are really bad, but in and of themselves should have no government intervention, whether at a national, state, or more local level. It’s called freedom.
But “gay marriage” on the other hand is soooo much more bad we obviously need the government to intervene— completely lack of consistency lol!
The national government intervening where it has no constitutional authority to act—ie, marriage—is so bad we should have either a law or an amendment to expressly prevent it...

...or an amendment to authorize it.

The full faith an credit clause can no more authorize the national government to effect nationwide recognition of gay marriage than it could force free states to adopt de facto slave codes—another instance of a radical minority of states trying to insist on having things all their way throughout the nation.

We don’t have much in the way of the rule of law or counter-majoritarian protections of liberty—or for that matter, protections from an unduly influential minority—without a government at every level which is restrained by the organic law.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Herstad writes:
No of course not, the fact is that every so often gay marriage is discussed somebody start mentioning polygamy. And my point is simply that’s ridicules and has nothing to do with the subject at all.
You haven’t been following the literature and the developments on this issue. Polygamy and polyandry are logical extensions of the logic of "gay marriage," and the proponents of "gay marriage" have themselves said so. This is not breaking news.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Scott Jacobs writes, among a flurry of similar sentences:
I wasn’t aware that two dudes gettin’ it on in a gay marriage was harmful to you.

Oh, wait, it isn’t? Then why should you give a crap?
This reminds me of the old saying: "I don’t know who discovered water, but I know it wasn’t fish."

Being immersed in a culture of universal values doesn’t by its nature cause us to inquire "why" about all of those values.

Marriage means something, or it doesn’t mean anything.

But "gay marriage" is not simply an attack on the meaning of marriage, it is an attack on meaning itself. It is a postmodern fantasy.

Marriage is a fundamental social institution; tampering with it and it’s meaning is like tampering with the genetic code of society.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Perkins writes:
It is a cultural issue, but it is not a national issue. The mere fact that most people are against murder does not mean that there should be a national murder statute concerning it,
You’ve answered your own objection that "it is not a national issue." It "not a national issue," per se, but it is a universal value at the core of Western and American culture. That’s why a state-level challenge to the universal value that inheres at the core of Western society requires a national settlement, where marriage is defined for the entire country. States can then have their own marriage laws in that context, as they always have.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Perkins writes:
The fact you think it is a national issue speaks to me that you have a flawed understanding of federalism.
No, the fact that I believe that the meaning of marriage is a national issue does not mean that I have a flawed understanding of federalism.

Federalism, or dual sovereignty, is the allocation in the Constitution of powers between the states and the national government. The powers of the national government are enumerated; the powers of the state governments are not enumerated.

The Federal Marriage Amendment would amend the Constitution (which is the allocator of powers) to give marriage a national meaning — one man, one woman — after which the states would make their marriage laws in that context, as they always have.

A similar provision in the Constitution guarantees to the states "a republican form of government."
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Oh, so I haven’t been following the literature on the subject? Is that the Bible or the Koran we are talking about? Or NRO? And I guess this literature you are referring to is based on solid scientific empiric studies like creationism?

And who are these “proponents of "gay marriage"”, and is that all of us?
 
Written By: Jon Herstad
URL: http://idioten.blogspot.com
Herstad writes:
Oh, so I haven’t been following the literature on the subject? Is that the Bible or the Koran we are talking about? Or NRO? And I guess this literature you are referring to is based on solid scientific empiric studies like creationism?
Beyond Gay Marriage by Stanley Kurtz. That’s from 2003, and documents the situation to that point. Since then the "gay marriage" advocates in the U.S. have laid their cards on the table, and they’re exactly what Kurtz anticpates.

Hit the print icon for a more readable version.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
But "gay marriage" is not simply an attack on the meaning of marriage, it is an attack on meaning itself. It is a postmodern fantasy.
Sure, within the confines of your skull, i.e. it may be an attack on your world-view. But let’s talk about the world outside your head, out here in the real world as it is. Massachusetts has been been churning out legally married gay couples for years now. There are now thousands and thousands of them. I’m having a great deal of difficulty detecting the predicted harm to my heterosexual marriage, or that of anyone I know, or to the institution of marriage in respect to individuals or society itself. I see no harm at all, whatsoever, to anyone or anything. So could you point it out to me?

And you don’t have to defend the thoughts in your head to me. I understand your premises and I understand your logic, it’s just that out here in the real world I see no evidence that your premises or your logic are valid. So please, point to it. Because "tampering with the genetic code of society" is as "tampering with the genetic code of society" does.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: peter jackson
URL: www.liberalcapitalist.com
So could you point it out to me?
Well, you still have John Kerry... But I guess that isn’t exactly the fault of teh gheys...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider