Redstate

By Brad Smith Posted in Archived — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Why did Fred Thompson's campaign fair so poorly? A few quick thoughts:

1. Getting in late mattered - a lot. Thompson's answer on Leno the night he declared his candidacy - "I don't think many people are going to say, 'I like the guy, but he got in too late'" - was funny and sharp and besides the point. The late start cost Thompson valuable time in fundraising; in ironing out kinks in campaign staff and message, and in getting commitments not just from the campaign professionals, but also from party activists and leaders. My guy in this race is Mitt Romney, but Thompson certainly has appeal to libertarian-oriented conservatives. But by the time Thompson entered the race, I had been committed to Romney - financially, and as a member of his Advisory Committee on the Constitution and Courts - for more than six months. I'm not saying I would have chosen Thompson over Romney (I think Romney has assets as a candidate that Fred did not) - I am saying that by waiting so long, Thompson was never even in the ballgame for my support. How many other people, whether local opinion leaders or Washington players far, far more influential than me, were similarly locked up long before Fred came 'round?

2. The theory of the campaign was wrong. The Thompson theory was that Republicans were miserable with their candidates and just waiting for someone else to come along who would be a "full spectrum" conservative. Certainly we read this in the press, and see it in the polls. But it is a misreading of those polls. Republicans have an amazingly strong slate of candidates this year: one of the most successful big-city mayors in American history, nationally reknowned for his leadership after 9/11; an impressive war hero and one of the most influential members of the Senate over nearly two decades; the incredibly successful businessman turned successful politician, so perfect as a candidate that his biggest weakness is a refusal by many to believe he can be taht good and be real; a pure libertarian; an impressive legislator chairing the House Armed Services Committee in time of war; the wildly successful former governor of Wisconsin, known for his pathbreaking work in welfare reform; a tax cutting former Governor of Virginia who led his party to historic majorities in the state legislature; the hard-working, sincere, pro-life Kansan with an unusual progressive streak; the folksy, successful governor of Arkansas. It was a great list. What the polls were showing in sayng Republicans were "dissatisfied" with their choices was a) an echo of the media from casual political observers not at all focused on the campaign; and b) a frustrating perception (incorrect in my view) that the Republicans aree likely to lose the 2008 election no matter whom they nominate.

Even by late summer, it was not clear at all that Romney voters are dissatisfied with Romney, or McCain voters with McCain, or Giuliani voters with Giuliani. And as voters became more aware of the previously unknown Huckabee, obviously many took a tremendous shine to him. And it is overlooked that, "Law and Order" or not, Thompson was not well known as a political figure. He was not in the position of a Reagan, who simply had to announce to be assured of substantial support.

Those who initially advised Thompson seemed to think the nomination would just fall into Thompson's lap. This was a terrible misreading of the GOP nomination race.

3. The Message was confused. The Thompson message during the "exploratory" phase seemed to focus on social conservatives. The idea, apparently, was that pro-life voters were unhappy with the three front-runners: Rudy was openly pro-choice, even if respectful to the pro-life community; McCain was pro-life, but had often taken a seeming joy in sticking a finger in the eye of the pro-life community, playing them as foils in cosseting up to the pro-choice media; Romney was pro-life and had the long-time Counsel to National Right to Life advising him, but many pro-lifers and other social conservatives just didn't trust that his conversion was real.

Not until relatively late in the day did the Thompson campaign really begin to emphasize limited government. That might have been message truly missing from this campaign - the other GOP candidates support tax cuts and are against earmarking and "wasteful" spending, but none have laid out a cohesive, positive, limited government message. By the time Thompson began to stress such a message, it was too late.

4. Skipping the Iowa straw poll was a big mistake. In a campaign that made an extraordinary number of tactical errors, this one, in retrospect at least - stands out. If he had declared in July and gone into Iowa, Fred probably could have picked up an easy second place and prevented Huckamania from ever developing, while establishing himself as the new alternative. The theory seems to have been that going into Iowa and finishing behind Romney in the straw poll would have broken the aura of mystery, that Republicans were just waiting for Fred. But as noted, that calculus was wrong. And if the fear was that Fred couldn't beat Romney in the straw poll, that should have told the strategists something about the fundamental weakness of their slow paced, "draft Fred" strategy.

5. Fred gave early credence to the "lazy" charge. The "lazy" charge is in most respects unfair. I don't think anybody accomplishes what Fred Thompson has accomplished in life, in multiple fields of endeavor, by being lazy. But it is a charge, and it has at least a kernal of truth in the fact that Fred is not a 24/7 campaigner. After declaring in early September, Fred almost seemed to go into hibernation. Perhaps his strategists overestimated his name recognition and the demand for his candidacy. Probably he should have immediately stormed the country for two weeks, to truly introduce himself as Fred the politicians, and put the "lazy" rumors to rest. Instead, his languid pace in the weeks after declaring reinforced the charge.

6. The strategists overestimated their candidate. Look, I like Fred. I really do. But Fred's political career has not been a barnburner. From the moment Fred won his Senate seat in 1994, he was discussed as a future presidential candidate. Yet, during eight years in the Senate, with what major legislation or event is he associated? Almost none. He was a prime mover in the McCain-Feingold bill, so much so that it was sometimes called "McCain-Feingold-Thompson." The problem is, most conservatives consider it one of the worst pieces of legislation of the last century. Is there anything else on which Thompson stood out? In his high-profile investigation of the 1996 campaign practices, he was outmaneuvered by Democrats at nearly every turn, and whatever that investigation was supposed to accomplish, it pretty clearly did not do. Did Fred ever establish himself as a major conservative spokesman? No.

Fred Thompson is a good, unifying conservative who would make an excellent VP choice for Romney, McCain, or Giuliani. But leaving aside some of the praise coming to him here on RedState, he was not a combination of Coolidge, Goldwater, and Reagan, each of whom were well-known national political leaders before running for president.

The Republicans are left with 4 major contenders, each of whom is attractive is his own way. I urge FredHeads to support Romney, whose views match-up with Fred's more than any of the other three.

Finally, remember that becoming president is really hard. Everything has to work. Reagan failed in 1968 and again in 1976. If you think none of the remainder can stack up to Fred, you should recognize that all have something to offer. And win or lose this fall, there will be another election in 2012.