Last night's post on Fred Thompson evoked a couple comments rejecting the notion that staff turnover stories for his campaign are bad. I disagree, strongly, and believe news today bears out the concern.
The issue is not the staff departures themselves or the negligible impact of related individual press stories, but rather what they say about Fred Thompson the manager and the competency of the organization he's putting together. Given the magnitude and complexity of the campaigns being run in this cycle, such performance at the head of each campaign is an instructive insight into the type of White House a candidate may well run.
Ramesh Ponnuru at the Corner summarizes the problem:
Disarray in Reagan's campaign in 1980 didn't hurt him because he had served two successful terms as governor of a big state. Indeed, the staff changes were evidence of his executive ability. But when you haven't run anything before and you can't seem to run your campaign, either, it begins to raise the question of whether you should be president.
The point isn't simply that staff is leaving. It's that the staff is leaving in a steady drip-drip fashion over time, exuding an aura of instability and indecisiveness that is not becoming of a major Presidential candidate. The problem growing more acute with the latest departure, reported at the Fox Update '08 blog that annoyingly does not provide a permalink for the blog post in question so their "Fred's Follies" post dated 9/5 is no longer online. Here's some relevant text from the original:
The original Fredheads are no longer angry or frustrated; most have been fired already or given up. The remaining originals say they will quit, "as soon as the check clears to Jim Mills' account."Mills, a long-time Capitol Hill producer for FOX News, was told he was being let go on Friday. A little over a month earlier, Mills was personally recruited and hired as spokesman by Fred and Jeri Thompson at their dinner table.
...
There are more major resignations of founding Fredheads now looming over the way the "new media strategy" was supplanted by a "corporate" and "predictable" aproach [sic]. They are also protesting the way so many people have been treated by the candidate and spouse.
As one insider said of Mills' departure, "he was recruited and hired by the candidate and his wife and they did not have the guts to let him go themselves. They have wrecked his life and it's totally wrong."Mills has become the biggest victim, but there are literally a dozen people who also left successful careers in Washington and elsewhere who now find themselves out of work -- and many are suspicious that they were misled.
Alienating your original, core staff in the span of months is not a good sign. There are serious rumors even another departure is imminent. The callousness of hiring someone away from a stable job for a campaign position then forcing them out shortly thereafter is appalling.
Such posts mean accepting a position you know will underpay you for the work you perform while demanding grueling hours. It's jarring to see so many senior staffers make that commitment (for what they no doubt expected to be a long campaign) only to exit shortly thereafter. You take those jobs because you have a serious passion for a cause that compels you. Thus, it's shocking to see so many staffers who have so quickly turned around and exited the building.
Just ask Mike Seely about passion. His famous musings on working for Senator Cantwell reveal a crew whose motivating fire turned out to be desperately wanting Slade Gorton out of office. For my own part, I would have damn near charged a machine-gun nest for Slade when I was on his staff. Not a few colleagues (and Gorton staff alumni) would likewise go to the mat for that lovable, brilliant dork of a Senator and boss. In contrast, one gets the impression that on Team Thompson someone is going to pull a Milton from Office Space and set Thompson HQ on fire on the way out the door some day.
Campaigns with these sorts of gratuitous management and staff problems make mistakes. Lots of them. Even good campaigns - and candidates - screw up once in a while. Does anyone think Republicans can mount anything short of a highly effective campaign and hope to win against Hillary, Inc.?
To prove the point, Thompson's press has been dreadful today on the cusp of his announcement and initial swing. Rush Limbaugh is questioning the Leno over the NH debate decision. Fox's Carl Cameron had yet another negative story on Thompson. The Washington Times hit him pretty hard on immigration. Marc Ambinder even found the Thompson camp's rebuttal to that story didn't hold much water. Plus, an influential group of social conservatives thought to be leaning toward Thompson is now holding back with concerns (see here and here).
It all had the so-far-uncommitted Mary Katharine Ham questioning the Thompson campaign mightily in a post titled "Wrong Said Fred?" This even before Thompson was set upon in New Hampshire with the state GOP taking a direct shot to start the debate and the candidates teeing off on him too, though mostly with a mix of jest and respectfulness, in response to the first question out of the gate.
One day of wretched press aside, both Jonathan Martin and Jim Geraghty picked up on the fact the totality of the news, including potential follow-ups, around Jim Mills's departure are not a good thing for Fred Thompson. That's a story that may have legs for sometime if people talk, which it sounds like they may.
All that being said, the focus for now will be on Thompson's performance on the trail. His team still has reasonably high hopes. And others like former White House hand Peter Wehner note Thompson has a great opportunity to impact and move the race. True. Speaking of which, Thompson's official campaign website with his announcement video is now live and the ad trying to drive people to it is also running:
That's all well and good. It will be immensely interesting to see how Thompson does on the trail, what he says, and how he does or does not move the GOP debate. Regardless of that, however, the carnage of his staff turnover is not a pleasant site and a highly uncomfortable vision into the workings of his potential White House staff. Thompson the conservative commentator people like, deservedly. Thompson the potential President and Chief Executive may not wear so well.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 05, 2007 11:32 PM | Email ThisWith that said, Cantwell has won two elections despite what her staff thinks of her and despite being what appears to be a general all around beeyotch to work for.
So using your example it looks like staffing problems, which per my posts and comments that you're referring to, amount to very, very little.
Candidates win or lose based on the amount of enthusiasm they generate with voters. Not with how well they fundraise or whether they leave smiley faces on staff memos.
The problem with the people who were in his organization at the early set is that they were only able to get him so far, then they had to go. This is what is known as natural. And anyone who says otherwise needs to put a hole in their head with a Browning .50 cal.
Posted by: Sakaki on September 6, 2007 04:14 AMI like what some of the others say, as does dinesh with Clinton and Obama, but in real life, what has any done?
One of the biggest concerns I have for the Rs is that they haven't put all their conservative eggs in the Thompson basket. If they have and he disappoints, it will be devastating. I am taking the position of wait-and-see. It would be marvelous if he took off, in my opinion, but I am personally not putting all my eggs in his basket.
Posted by: swatter on September 6, 2007 08:22 AMEven better, he's not a complete liar like Hillary or Edwards, and not a screaming socialist like Obama.
But then, I'm voting for Ron Paul....
Posted by: John Galt on September 6, 2007 08:30 AMGiuliani- prosecutor and mayor of large metro city and decreased crime on his watch- city of 5 million.
Romney- saved the Olympics and very successful businessman.
Thompson or any of the others don't have anything close to this- this includes the biggest lie in history that is Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: swatter on September 6, 2007 09:25 AMHe wants to abolish the majority of the federal government. No one on the left or middle would vote for him, period.
Stop pretending. It only makes you look stupid.
Posted by: pudge on September 6, 2007 09:42 AM33 percent of the TV poll!
The other pro war candidates do not appeal to americans right now,the last election proved that.
The R's are going to be like Ricky Nelson showing up at madison square's garden party.
You Need to remove the blinders from your eyes and the bucket strapped around your chin.
The pro war platform will go down this time.
All the Toby Keith songs in the world wont stand a chance .
Face it pudge, Hillary is going to run on the GW platform and tell America we need to save a whale salmon and frog .
The R's are going to trot out Derf Con 5 and the corporate gouge and get slaughtered.
Hillary is Going to be the next President.
We might as well start heading for our High Rises Downtown and prepare for the life of as GW lemmings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson
Posted by: John Galt on September 6, 2007 10:06 AMFirst, that "TV poll" was not remotely scientific. I ignore it because it has no actual validity. It was a text messaging vote. It was a self-selected sample. It has no more validity than a web poll.
Second, in an ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC poll of NH voters after the 1996 debate, do you know who won? Alan Keyes. Yet he only won 3 percent of the actual vote in that state. Which is about where Paul is in the actual polls today. Sound familiar?
It is not about me having blinders. You are the one who thinks people will vote only based on the war. They will not. Even if the Dem candidates had drastically different positions from Paul on the war -- which they do not, so why would people vote for him over the Democrat? -- they would not vote for Paul because of all of his other views.
This country does not vote, and never has voted, on single issues. Not for President, not ever. And Paul won't be the one to change that.
And the Republicans will have a much better chance with ANYONE BUT Ron Paul, who disagrees with a huge majority of Republicans on foreign policy, and disagrees with a huge majority of the rest of the country on everything else.
Paul is, by far, the worst potential general election candidate for the Republicans.
Posted by: pudge on September 6, 2007 10:14 AMWe get it already. You don't care for Fred Thompson and you support somebody else.
Give it a rest.
Posted by: jimg on September 6, 2007 10:17 AMI wonder if the people who quit did so because they did not know if he was going to run and wanted more of a sure thing.
Posted by: Carl on September 6, 2007 11:32 AMPlease, stop being completely irrational. Please.
You were arguing for why Paul has a chance, while none of the others do. When I criticized your claim that Paul has a chance, you went and tried to show the rest have no chance.
Aside from the fact that you did nothing to show the rest have no chance -- which I will get to in a moment -- you did not even attempt to show Paul has a chance. Let's assume you're right, that "The Neo Cons derf Con 5 and the corporate gouge platform WILL NOT WIN ANYMORE PERIOD." I don't even know what most of that means, but let's assume it is right, whatever it means.
It doesn't show that Paul has a BETTER chance. He doesn't. Paul would get a MINORITY of conservative/Republican voters, and NONE of the rest of the voters. Most of the rest of the field would get at least half the conservative/Republicans, and probably get over 40 percent. Paul won't even get that.
As to saying the rest have no chance, that their platform, whatever you think it is, "WILL NOT WIN ANYMORE PERIOD," you provided not a single shred of evidence to back up that claim. You tried, of course. You said, "So the last elction was lost by the R's because of their position on all of the issues then." Except that this is a complete misrepresentation of the 2006 election, which was lost because of three things: the war in Iraq, the perception of misdeeds by the GOP, and the GOP not living up to its platform, which caused many conservative and Republican voters to stay home, or vote Democrat, in protest.
Only "the war in Iraq" supports your claim that the people have any problem with the GOP platform, and since even antiwar Democrat Brian Baird is right now supporting the current GOP platform on Iraq, it's impossible to say what views the electorate will have on Iraq a year from now. The rest of why the GOP lost in 2006 either has nothing to do with the platform, or was because the GOP did not follow its own platform.
So: wanna try again?
Posted by: pudge on September 6, 2007 02:01 PMSo: try again? Try to actually show Paul would be better than the rest. Anything at all to back that up?
And no, Ron Paul cannot unite conservatives. He offends too many people with his various views. He does not work well with others, and that's important, as we saw with Bush, who sometimes also doesn't work well with others.
The best chance of uniting belongs to Romney, quite clearly. He is socially conservative enough to offend very few, yet also won't offend those who are more socially liberal, and he has a very strong fiscal conservative background.
McCain has by far the best chance of actually having a fiscally conservative administration, but, of course, he is a very divisive figure. But if you care most about fiscal conservatism, Paul is nowhere close to McCain, because even though Paul would cut a lot more if he could get away with it ... he wouldn't be able to get away with it. McCain could actually work with Congress to push his agenda, and Paul couldn't. McCain has the best record in our lifetime, bar none, for fighting against pork and for lowering spending, and his ability to work with the Senate makes him the clear choice if that's your main issue.
It's funny/sad to me that the clearly best candidate on the two main issues to Republicans -- the economy, and foreign policy -- who is also very conservative on most social issues, is hated by so many Republicans. But he really screwed up with that comprehensive immigration reform, not to mention stem cells, global warming, campaign finance reform, and a few others.
All that said, right now my favorite candidate is Fred. I like them all, including Paul, but he's the best of the bunch. Although Huckabee is tiring on me ... his snipey little digs at the other candidates are getting very old, and that combined with his "big-government conservatism" really turn me off. Too bad, because he's a likable fellow and good candidate otherwise.
Posted by: pudge on September 6, 2007 04:23 PMLinda douglass writes.
At the heart of Thompson's views is his belief in federalism and his conviction that most decisions should be left to the states. He told FOX News' "Hannity and Colmes" in May, "I believe, generally speaking, that the federal government ought to concentrate on the enumerated powers" -- that is, powers laid out in the Constitution such as imposing taxes, printing money and providing for national defense. In the Senate, he voted consistently to limit the federal government's reach.
Interesting....
I may have to reconsider...
He is taking a position that I like.
I will have to see how many more issues we can agree on,But I am going to have to reconsider hiim.
Travis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 6, 2007 08:22 PMWhat makes you think fiscal conservatives are not "brought in" to the party? I've seen no evidence of that. Social moderates and social conservatives stayed away a lot more than fiscal conservatives in 2006.
And no, people will not flock to stop the war. More delusion. If that were true, why did the Democrats fail in 2004, and succeed in 2006 only by going after "corruption" issues?
I still don't know what "Derf" is. It does not matter how many times you explain it, I'll never get it: so anything you say that uses that term won't be responded to.
As to Fred, however: more delusion. How is he in any way a "fanatic"? Do you know anything about that word, or anything about religion? And what in the world makes you think he is a "spend and spender"? Have you listened to ANYTHING he has said?
It's like you say things for the sake of saying them, without any actual reason. You then backtracked, but ... he has been a staunch federalist forever. Where have you been, that you make such broad attacks on Fred, attacking without knowing this basic thing about him, that is so important to you?
As to "Iran," the funny/tragic thing is that the anti-war people are doing exactly what they accuse the pro-war people of doing: using fear of the unknown to score political points. Yawn.
Travis: tell me one thing about the Patriot Act you dislike. Lots of people complain about it, but it is rare I find someone who can give specifics. Can you?
Posted by: pudge on September 7, 2007 08:49 AMSo you admit you were drawing broad conclusions about Fred based on no real information. And you're wrong about the soundbites anyway; he has talked a lot about federalism in his soundbites. You were just completely ignorant and spouting off about it as though you knew something.
As to the Patriot Act, I asked for specifics. You provided not a single one! Not one claim about one part of the Act being wrong. Why bother mentioning it at all, if you can't provide what I asked for? You make handwaving gestures at power grabs and dictatorships that do not exist in the real world.
You're also wrong about "the neocons" not wanting checks and balances. And I don't know who you are referring to anyway, because though I know of some neocons in Congress, I know of none in the executive branch, which you appear to be talking about. They are all long gone. Cheney and Bush aren't neocons, by any stretch of the imagination. Neither was Rumsfeld. Cheney and Rummy are classic conservatives, and Bush is like his dad, sortof a Rockefeller conservative. Wolfowitz was neoconservative. He was the most prominent person I know of in the Bush administration who was.
Anyway, the few neocons who were around had no problem with checks and balances. Even if you include Cheney and Rummy: Rummy was nothing but entirely forthcoming and available with the Congress, and Cheney has never failed to follow oversight law. Yes, really. That includes the Energy Task Force and the more recent flap regarding the National Archives (in which there is a myth going around that Cheney or his office claimed he was not in the executive branch: that never happened).
The Task Force case is regarding a law passed by Congress in the 70s, that explicitly exempts such committees that are made up entirely of government officials, which the Energy Task Force was. Industry and activist people had one or two meetings with the Task Force, but were not members, had no votes, did not come to regular meetings, and did not otherwise act as de facto members. Therefore the Task Force was exempt, and Cheney followed the law.
The National Archives thing is even stupider: Bush said the Executive Order that required turning over documents to the National Archives exempted Cheney, so *therefore it does.* There was no law here, just an executive order which has no force of law. And if Bush says his orders do not apply to Cheney, that supercedes everything else, because that exemption is, too, an executive order: less formal, but just as much meaning and force.
So please, no whining about "checks and balances," because proper checks and balances do not exist outside of the law. If you can't point to specific laws being violated, then your complaints are invalid.
Also, I have no idea who this "Derf" person is you keep referring to. No one named "Derf" is running for President.
Posted by: pudge on September 7, 2007 02:02 PMDerf Will change positions again between now and 2008.
I suspect Derf will pander to the far right .
He looks good with a pitchfork,he can play the part..
"I know of none in the executive branch"
C'mon Pudge Rove was a died in the wool NEO CON.
Bushius want's to have full control of our government.
You are drinking too much neo conservative Kool aide pudge.
You came on these threads and write long drawn out spews of delusional diatribe in defense of neo cons.
You have a knee jerk,mostly Jerk, reaction to all comments neo con.
You are trying to say that Neo cons don't want full control,and then you say there are no neo cons there at all.
Horse Hockey Pudge.
I thought you here by gave up on me threads ago.
You just cant resist standing up for those neo con dorks.
For starters, I do not like the PATRIOT act because not one congressman or senator read it before voting in favor of it. Secondly it is unconstitutional, it transfers powers to the executive branch that it is not specically authorized in the constitution.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 7, 2007 10:16 PMWhat's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
It is nice to have a president that can do his own acting,but I need someone who can do their own thinking.
I assume you are talking about Fred, the only actor in the field. No one who knows anything about Fred Thompson thinks he doesn't "do his own thinking." Try again.
Derf is going to be caught flip flopping on issues so many times it will be hard to keep track.
Sorry, I have no idea who this "Derf" person is you keep referring to.
Posted by: pudge on September 7, 2007 11:54 PMFirst, I asked, not Publicbulldog.
Second, your first criticism has nothing to do with the bill itself. While is a valid criticism of Congress and the legislative process, it is entirely beside the point of my question.
Third, your actual answer is almost nonresponsive. HOW is it unconstitutional? WHAT power does it transfer to the executive that is unconstitutional? Be specific. I cannot begin to care about inspecific criticisms. Don't bother saying "it's obvious" or "if you don't know that's your problem." You made the assertion that the Patriot Act is bad: please back it up.
Posted by: pudge on September 7, 2007 11:58 PMThe neo con era is over.
Derf will not win.
Derf will be caught flip flopping for the benifit of the far right.
Derf wants boots on the ground anywhere where there is radical islamic guy on a video ..or DVD... OR VHS..OR BETA... Quisp and Quake ARE FIGHTING ! lets get boots on the ground.
Derf is just dying to say Were going to derf con 5.
Derf wants to cater democracy.
Def wants to Bullet the blue sky...and fix social security....LOL.
Derf wants to spend and spend and spend and spend,and give tax cuts to ...the rich...so the poor can pay for America to spend and spend and spend and spend and spend.
What does he care he is gonna die before the bills he rings up gets paid.
Mommy I am scared there is an old man with a pitchfork under the bed.
Mommy He says His name is Derf,and
He keeps saying we are going to Derf con 5.
Mommy what is a radical islamic.
Mommy what does a damn towel head mean.
Mommy are we having soylent green for dinner again tommorrow.
Mommy I think Derf needs a new diaper.
Mommy am I too young to be drafted by Derf.
Mommy can we go for a ride on the bridge again that was fun.
Mommy why is my school so high up in that building.
Mommy ..mommy...mommy I am Scared Mommy.
MOMMY!
Its OK son I voted for a neo con.
The world will be safe, there is no old man with a pitchfork named Derf under your bed,be a good little boy and go to sleep...if you go to sleep like a good little boy I will take you for another bus ride on another bridge tommorrow.
I will meet you in the lobby after you get off the elevator from school,so go to bed.
OK mommy Good Night.
Good night Derf.
Regarding "neocon": You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Also, I played hockey. I am from Massachusetts. I know hockey. And the only call it "standing on your head" when the shots are HARD to defend. So no, I have not been standing on my head.
I have no idea why you think this "Derf" person is running for President or why I should care, so I am ignoring the rest of your post, since none of it has anything to do with anything. Just insane rambling, I guess.
Posted by: pudge on September 8, 2007 07:42 AMWhy is it that you NEVER even ATTEMPTED to back up your main point, that Ron Paul would do better than any of the other Republicans?
You didn't even TRY to back it up. Instead you said the others don't have a chance. Fine, but that doesn't mean Paul has a BETTER chance.
Why did you not even TRY to back it up?
Posted by: pudge on September 8, 2007 11:15 AMSaying you think he has a better grasp of the issues is irrelevant, since the people with the best grasp of the issues usually do NOT win the nomination or the presidency. Clinton and Gore and Kerry and Bush were all clearly outshined in "grasp" of the issues by, respectively, Dole and Bradley and Biden and McCain.
And of course, who YOU like th ebest has nothing at all to do with who will have the best chance.
I am not asking for proof, just argument, just reason. And all you've offered is the war (which won't give him any advantage), the "issues" (which don't make a candidate), and "I like him better" (which is irrelevant).
Shrug.
Posted by: pudge on September 8, 2007 02:39 PMThe campaign, however, insists the support is real. The day after the first Republican debate on May 3, the campaign Website had 706,000 visitors and, according to Benton, Paul has the most successful YouTube channel of any candidate. He is also the most requested Republican on Eventful.com, a site where users request candidates visit their city. Even more striking, Benton says since that May 3 debate, the number of donors to the campaign has increased fourfold.
"I wouldn't call it a grassroots effort, I'd call it a grassfire effort. It's growing by leaps and bounds," said Benton. "We couldn't even manage it if we tried."
Web sites popping up in support of Paul encourage users to network through sites like MySpace, to vote in online polls, to donate money and to join local Paul 2008 groups.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on September 8, 2007 04:23 PMFirst, you admit that it is a very bad thing that our politicians did not read the bill, but then dismiss this as some seperate problem with the system. It is not a problem with the system, it is a problem with the politicians being elected. Ron Paul and a few politicians like him will out of principle not vote for legislation like the Patriot act if not given a chance to read it. Vote for people like him and the system will change. Dismiss it as a system problem and you will get more of the same.
I did imply that the patriot act was bad yes. I feel any law that has to pass through congress without any members reading it as a knee jerk reaction to a terrorist act is bound to be bad. The patriot act did not disappoint. Many parts have already been challenged and found unconstitutional.
But it sounds like you need more specifics. How about taking a look at this page, It contrasts the bill of rights with the Patriot act.
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html
And even if you want to sit and argue the constitutionality, you can not deny that it gives the federal government and executive branch more power. I do not trust government with the power it had before the act and see it as more of a danger than i do any terrorists threats. Note this is not saying that I distrust Bush, i am saying I distrust the concentration of power in an office that will be held by many more people in my lifetime.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 8, 2007 09:11 PMRon Paul and a few politicians like him will out of principle not vote for legislation like the Patriot act if not given a chance to read it.
Fine, but that has nothing to do with what the law actually says. You said you are against what the law actually says. And I asked for specifics.
I did imply that the patriot act was bad yes.
And I am asking you to say why.
But it sounds like you need more specifics.
Not at all. I need ANY specifics. You've supplied none.
How about taking a look at this page
No, I will not. The point here is finding out if YOU know anything that is wrong with the Patriot Act. Do you?
And even if you want to sit and argue the constitutionality, you can not deny that it gives the federal government and executive branch more power.
In what way? Specifics! You've not given a single specific of any kind. You keep making claims and refusing to back it up.
Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2007 12:17 AM1 do you think the act us constitutional?
2 do you think the act gives the executive branch more power?
3. do you think the act violates civil liberties?
if we disagree anywhere specifically then i will in my own writing tell you how you are wrong.
Travis
I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.
Ronald Reagan
You made a claim. I just asked you to back it up. You wouldn't do it.
Shrug.
Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2007 11:57 PM1. unconstitutitional (proven in court)
2. gives the executive branch more power.
3. violates civil liberties.
4. was voted on without a single congressman reading it.
I will expand on any of these if you disagree with any of them. I am not going to write volumes on them all however because I have better things to do, but if you would be so kind as to just tell me which part you disagree with I will expand on it for you.
Posted by: Pudge on September 10, 2007 05:39 AMAnd no, you didn't back it up. As you are a libertarian, you well know that just because a court says something doesn't make it true. Come on. And you didn't cite any examples of that.
You've also didn't cite any examples of the executive branch getting more power, or of violating civil liberties.
And your thing about people not reading it has nothing to do with the text of the bill, and is therefore irrelevant to my question.
It's not about me disagreeing, it's about you refusing to back up your claims.
Posted by: pudge on September 10, 2007 09:20 AMAgain, please tell me which of the 4 parts you disagree with and I would be happy to back up my position.
Posted by: Travis on September 10, 2007 05:22 PMTravis, you have it backward, too: I don't agree or disagree with something BEFORE it is backed up, but AFTER.
Posted by: pudge on September 10, 2007 09:26 PM