First, let me preface this piece by reminding everyone that I have no animus towards Fred Thompson. To the contrary, I think Thompson is a product of the pre-Bush conservatism of the 1990s, i.e., unhyphenated conservatism, before the word came to be redefined by social meddlers and various strains of idealists. Further, Thompson’s refusal to genuflect to those who think presidential candidates should be papable by embracing instead of disavowing his wild past makes a freedom-loving guy like me smile faster than you can say, “Barry Goldwater.” I certainly hope all of that softens the coming blow w/r/t Fred’s supporters on the site.
As R4’08er MattC reported today, Fred Thompson’s fundraising numbers have thus far failed to impress. Fred’s three-million-dollar June says a lot more about the state of the GOP, conservatism, and the country than it does about Fred Thompson though. More specifically, Thompson’s fundraising woes demonstrate that Cocoon Conservatives are totally misreading the vacuum that exists in the race for 2008.
By, “Cocoon Conservatives,” I mean the sort of conservatives who think that 2004 was the beginning of a permanent Republican majority, that all the polls are wrong, and that 2006 happened because Republicans didn’t support Bush enough, weren’t socially conservative enough, etc. These conservatives refuse to recognize that the Bush Coalition — a motley crew of social meddlers at home and idealistic interventionalists abroad, all united under the flag of an evangelical president — is obsolete, busted, and, like the most recent comparable coalition, the one assembled by President McKinley over a century ago, will probably fail to return for yet another 100 years. Those in the cocoon fail to realize that 2004 was a lagging indicator, not a primer of elections to come, that 2006 was the revenge of the independents, and that Republicans are facing such an uphill climb in 2008 due to disaffected folks in the center, not because the red states need sufficient red meat.
What does all of this have to do with Thompson? Prior to Thompson’s release of his fundraising numbers, there was a conventional wisdom starting to develop on the conservative blogosphere that the reason Republican fundraising numbers this year pale in comparison to Democratic numbers is that conservatives are holding tight their purse strings. Conservatives, so went the narrative, were not about to donate one red-state red cent to Rudy McRomney, and would instead hold on to their culturally conservative millions until a True Conservative entered the race. At that point, the floodgates would open, the band would get back together, and a revived Red State Coalition would propel Republicans into office yet one more time.
Well, we now know just how much the red-state holdouts are worth. The single-issue types, the ones who we Republicans are supposed to perpetually coddle, lest they (gasp!) sit on their hands and refuse to donate or volunteer are apparently the equivalent of a McDonald’s value meal in presidential fundraising terms. Contrast these meager funds with the tens of millions of dollars in Clinton’s and Obama’s coffers and the whole scenario becomes laughable. So the single-issue types are going to go golfing if we nominate Rudy? Let them. They could apparently all fit quite comfortably into one moderately sized minivan.
Conservatives living in the cocoon will eventually have to wake up and realize that maybe, just maybe, the GOP isn’t suffering because we’ve forgotten the lessons of 2004. Instead, Republicans need to re-learn the lessons of 2006 and run a campaign based on connecting with disaffected independents. It is they, and not any sort of Rovian base voter, who will decide the race for 2008.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:07 am
DaveG,
Am I understanding you correctly when you say that because Fred raised $3 million in fundraising, that the voting power of conservatives not currently jubilant w/r/t Rudy McRomney is therefore worth very little?
If so, you’re making two gross errors in your assumptions:
1. Everyone who was holding back is now behind Fred, and all they could come up with was $3 million.
2. Disappointing fundraising is equivalent to disappointing voting power.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:35 am
I disagree with the last sentence. Bush, Petraeus, the armed forces of the US, the Iraqis and God will decide the race for 2008. If they can all get their act together and bring stability to Iraq, the Republicans win. If they cannot, or if the Democrats make us get out prematurely, or if we are still in Iraq and wondering how to stabilize it and how to get out of there come election time, the Republicans lose. I am not a McCain supporter for president but I admire him for one thing- he would rather win this war and lose his campaign than lose this war. If you think we can somehow spin our way out of a bad situation in Iraq come election time, you are out of your mind. We all need to do whatever we can to win this thing, because if we don’t this country is in deep trouble from the Democrats and the terrorists.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:40 am
What does being “papable” mean?
Or do I want to know?
July 31st, 2007 at 12:52 am
I agree with much of this analysis, DaveG. That 3 million number does indeed say more about the GOP generally, then it does about Thompson in particular. It’s what I’d call a “seismic” indicator. And it, along with other indicators, convinces of one thing: it will be all but impossible for any GOP candidate to win in 08′. I was always aware it’d be difficult, but I’m now near to throwing in the towel. I simply do not see a Republican candidate capable of generating the level of enthusiasm Obama, Edwards, or even (gasp) Hillary can muster.
Romney might have been able to accomplish it, but he may well have been gelded by the relentless attacks. Rudy could have managed it, but his attempts to declare a truce with evangelicals have proved futile. Thompson might have managed it, but he inevitably stopped being Fred!, and has become just another politician. McCain had a pathway, but he’d rather lose an election then a war, and well, he’s already lost one war (immigration), and things aren’t looking rosy on the other two fronts either.
Romney’s money could potentially buy parity with the Democratic candidate, but without enthusiasm (which Romney needs to start generating en masse, and soon), even parity will mean a lose in 08′. And Giuliani, who has the most blue state appeal, finds that he’s most appealing in blue states we’ll never win anyway (California, Washington, Oregon, New York), and least appealing in blue states that are within our grasp (Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania).
So while many of Thompson’s detractors are likely to be celebrating his poor showing, these numbers are no cause for celebration for anyone who values conservatism. Because when Fred!, the Fredmeister, messiah and demi-god rolled into one, can’t find two nickels to rub together, we seem more likely to be fending off Michael Bloomberg for a respectable second place showing, then getting anywhere near Pennsylvania avenue.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:08 am
DaveG, you are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters at Race 4 2008. Keep up the great work. I wish I could write so eloquently.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:10 am
His campaign is lost already, so it’s not much of a sacrifice for the “maverick” to speak his mind. I’ll bet you a shiny quarter that McCain will never ever in a million years become POTUS.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:14 am
^^McCain will never be President, but he could very well be the nominee. Kerry was doing just as bad as McCain, remember him?
July 31st, 2007 at 1:23 am
The base won’t be enough to win the general, but they will still have a great deal of influence in the primaries.
Hillary will be the nominee. Rudy beat Hillary in 2 recent polls by 3 and 6, and this is at a time when Bush is at his most unpopular, Iraq is unpopular, the media is fiercely anti-Bush, the GOP is split and demoralized, party ID is low, the dems win a generic ballot by 20+ pts, etc…
This is a downtime for the GOP no doubt about it, but things are not as bleak as they appear.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:47 am
2 questions:
1)Which would be more of a surprise? Hillary losing the nomination or Rudy winning the nomination?
2)Can anyone think of a party’s nominee who would be more of a “shock to the system” than Rudy would be in 2008? Perhaps Goldwater in 1964, but I can’t think of a nominee in quite some time who would be more of a change from what the “establishment” of the party represents than Rudy.
Just off the top of my head:
Pro Choice
Anti Gun
Pro Gay
Pro Immigration
Catholic
Northeasterner
Urban
Not tied in to the GOP Establishment in Congress or the Beltway at all, no family legacy
No experience at the state or federal level
Not part of the evangelicals/religious right
Interested in winning or at least competing in Blue States
No real base of support, in the country or in Congress.
I mean at least Bush has southern Senators and Congressmen like Sessions, Lott, Cornyn, Frist, McConnell and guys in the house like Delay, Blunt, etc… he could count on. Can anyone really imagine Rudy as the leader of the GOP? I can picture him as President but not really as the head of the Republican Party. I can’t really see him showing up at all these places in Alabama or Texas or Georgia or South Carolina or wherever with guys like Sessions or Chambliss or whoever and stumping and turning them oput like Bush did in 2002 and 2004. Fred is the only guy I can see doing that. Maybe Rudy thinks he could have Newt or Fred or someone as VP and they’d play that role while he’d focus on killing terrorists and taxes and the really big stuff.
Perhaps Rudy could rejuvenate the party in the NE but who are going to be his top guys in Congress? Arlen Specter and Peter King? That’s not exactly a broad base of support. There’s barely any Republicans in those states as it is. I mean, who in Congress today would be considered a “Rudy Republican”? There’s plenty of Clinton Dems, Bush Repubs, even Thompson Repubs(pretty much the same thing), but who would be considered a Rudy-backer? A few at most.
To compare, try to imagine the democrats nominating someone who was pro-life, pro gun, anti Gay, anti Immigration and as distant from the national Dem Party. It’s unfathomable. Are there even any dems who fit that profile and are comparable to Rudy? I can’t think of 1 democrat of any stature. Reid and Casey are pro-life, but they’ve never been considered or even mentioned on a National level Has any pro-life dem ever even ran for President? I can’t think of one.
As much as his poll numbers and fundraising are going well, I still find it just about impossible that he’d emerge as the nominee.
It would change the party in ways that I don’t think people have really thought about. And who knows what the consequences could be?
That said, it would be fun to watch, and he’s an exciting politician. He’d relish going against the left, the media, whoever, and would definitely shake things up not only in the party but in Washington as well.
We’ll see what happens.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:06 am
jim what candidate do you support anyway?
July 31st, 2007 at 3:22 am
I want Rudy to win, but don’t think he will. As I said above, I just think he has too much to overcome. The ironic thing is if he had pulled a Romney and turned pro-life in say 2002 or 2003, he’d probably be way better off. Also, if you google and look at the NYT, he was pro life/anti Roe in his 1st campaign back in 1989. Then he discovered that he had no shot at winning if he kept that up so he switched. If he had been pro life from the beginning or even a convert, I think he’d be in a much better position.
I still think Fred will win although the longer he stays out, I may have to rethink. If he gets in in September, he’ll be ok. If it gets to October and he’s still playing footsie with Sean Hannity and talking about the flies and the cows and the pigs and waters, I may have to rethink that.
Fred’s my 2nd choice and then I guess McCain and Romney are pretty much a toss-up.
Any of them are preferable to Hillary.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:36 am
Wow, Jim. Now that’s someone I could get behind. Principles are not just school administrators, are they?
July 31st, 2007 at 5:13 am
Why is having a southern accent a prerequisite to some for gaining the Republican nomination? Everyday I see people bring up the fact that Rudy and Romney are from the Northeast, as if that were some sort of sin against conservatism. I’m curious as to why so many people feel this way.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:28 am
No one is coming directly out of a TV show and into a presidential campaign. It simply is not happening.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:20 am
Rudy Giuliani raised only $258,660 in his campaign’s first month. Fred Thompson raised over then times that amount, and it is considered a flop. What’s wrong with this picture?
John McCain raised $1,130,351 in his campaign’s first month. Fred Thompson raised nearly three times that amount, and it is considered a flop. Get your anti-Fred spin right here at Race 4 2008, folks!
Mitt Romney loaned his campaign $850,000 from his personal fortune in his campaign’s first month, but that’s okay.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:11 am
Sturm – can’t look at the situation in a vaccuum. At this point in time Thompson is supposed to be the savior that everybody is flocking to because all the other candidates are unacceptable. The money shows that myth is clearly not the case.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:25 am
Fred just needs to get in the race. Once he does that, cash will flow.
http://political-buzz.com/
July 31st, 2007 at 8:26 am
Can a Thompson supporter please tell me his appeal?
Here are things that will not count-
-Drives a red pick-up (which is a joke anyway)
-Has a southern accent
-Is from the south
-Is a real conservative (who aside from his “principles” has no problem lobbying for abortion, so long as the checks are large enough)
-Is under 90 years old
-Isn’t Catholic
-Isn’t Mormon
-Will continue the GOP’s death sentence strategy of appealing to mythological “base” voters in the south and interior west.
Did I miss anything?
July 31st, 2007 at 8:28 am
I still agree that Summer 07 fundraising #s for Thomson are less important, but my points about him^^^ remain.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:04 am
“I mean at least Bush has southern Senators and Congressmen like Sessions, Lott, Cornyn, Frist, McConnell and guys in the house like Delay, Blunt, etc… he could count on. ”
Are we talking about the same Bush? Let’s start with Lott. Ever since W and Co. threw him off the raft in 2002 after the Strom Thurmond flap, he’s taken several vacations from the reservation. Cornyn – How about his opposition to Bush in his mis-guided quest for “comprehensive” immigration reform? That’s a pretty big break! Frist? With friends like the impotent Frist, who needs enemies? Delay? You mean Former Congressman Delay? Blunt? Ok. But that’s one for five! And come September we’re going to see more defections on the war – bank on it – at least for a gradual withdrawal and could we all just be honest here? That might be a blessing in disguise for our ’08 prospects.
To say that a president Giuliani, or president Not Giuliani (R-Anywhere) would have less support in congress than someone sporting a 28 % approval rating isn’t true.
AdamPSU,
“Why is having a southern accent a prerequisite to some for gaining the Republican nomination? Everyday I see people bring up the fact that Rudy and Romney are from the Northeast, as if that were some sort of sin against conservatism. I’m curious as to why so many people feel this way.”
Two reasons: (1) – The national GOP is now basically a Southern and Western party. And the Southern part is very parochial. I agree with you. It’s just stupid. But it IS true, otherwise Thompson wouldn’t be where he is in the polls, despite little actual work involved in his drive to secure the nomination – at least compared to Rudy and McCain and Romney. And (2) – The GOP got used to being in the majority for 12 years and got too picky. They’re not satisfied with half a loaf or even 2/3 of a loaf. Look at what the Club for Growth did to Linc Chafee in Rhode Island. I don’t care if Chafee voted with the Democrats 70 percent of the time at all. A Republican senator from Rhode Island is like a gift from the gods. And besides, it’s a hell of a lot better than the new guy (Whitehouse) who will vote in lockstep with the Democrats nearly all of the time. The Democrats, say what you will about them, especially Slippery Schumer have at least been pragmatic. Jon Tester of MT and Jim Webb of VA are not exactly the hard left types that typify the present-day Democrats and are at least mooderate are some issues, but the Dems were only too happy to run candidates that could win in those Red States. Club for Growth should have left Chafee alone in RI and the Republicans need to stop alienating the center like they don’t count.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:07 am
Dave G -
Absolutely outstanding analysis. We do have to connect to those disenfranchised Republicans the cocoon Republicans wanted out of the GOP.
These people not only don’t donate but they don’t work campaigns. Call them up for help and they are always too busy to do anything but yap at how everyone is not a ‘true’ conservative. Personally I am hoping for a watershed election where they lose their seat at the table along with Rove. The GOP cannot exist as the party of the socons. I am a lifelong Republican who has no desire to have them being in charge because we will continue to lose election.
Once again, thank you for a well written article on the GOP and where it stands.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:16 am
Jim:
No experience at the Federal level????????????????????
he was only the 3rd highest ranking member in the Justice Department under that guy who was President in the 80′s.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:18 am
Jim:
You can’t see Rudy stumping in the South but you can see Fred??? another LOL
Rudy has campaigned in the South for the last 4 years.
Fred has not even campaigned for himself, what makes you think he will for someone else??? L O L
July 31st, 2007 at 9:45 am
DaveG,
Great analysis, the real power comes from the middle. The right will gain power, by finding common ground with the middle.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:48 pm
DaveG,
This is very good analysis. I agree with essentially all of it. I will offer a nitpicky correction, however. The hyphenated conservatism to which you refer did begin in the 1990′s and it was during that decade that it supplanted the original conservative movement that gave rise to Goldwater and Reagan. The nomination (without thought or examination) of G.W. Bush was the culmination–not the beginning. By the way, like you, I do not consider Thompson to be a part of this; I hope that he can resist the pressures that will be put on him to become “hyphenated.” Again, I’m being knitpicky but it is important to keep cause and effect in proper order. Your analysis is right on target.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:53 pm
“Papable” is a term used to refer to Roman Catholics who are eligible to serve as Bishop of Rome. The crack that I was making, of course, is that some conservatives now seem to think that any presidential candidate whose personal life would disqualify him from the Papacy should also be excluded from the American presidency.