Third Rail Blog

As I have been looking around at news stories, I have been seeing a lot of references to a "new attack piece" at Third Rail Radio "including a few things the media never talks about." After seeing it for about the third time, I decided to take a look. The article is poor, but let's deal with it.

All of this fervor on the right concerning Thompson’s late to the game campaign feels a little like déjà vu. Remember about this time four years ago, during another campaign and within another party? Yes I’m speaking of former General Wesley Clark’s late entry into the 2004 Democratic primary.

So we start with a lame comparison of FDT to Wesley Clark. The problem with this comparison is a) FDT is not THAT late and b) FDT already has far more support than Clark ever had and is actually leading in some polls.

Yet, when it came time to file papers with the Federal Election Commission to officially enter the race, he held off on until after the September 5th New Hampshire Fox News Debate. One might surmise from this maneuver that Thompson’s camp realized he would not live up to expectations in the debate. Rather than disappoint Republicans, he could continue to garner free exposure from the syndicated airings of Law and Order, since the episodes in which he appears would be pulled as soon as he filed with the FEC.

A more rational interpretation is that he got better coverage by being on Leno and the debates add nothing to the discourse. I doubt that any additional reruns of Law and Order are particularly helpful at this point in the game.

By the end of the fundraising quarter, Thompson had only reported 3.5 million in campaign contributions, which is roughly the same amount his opponent, fellow Republican Congressman Ron Paul, raised in the same period of time.

This is the first demonstration of a lack of homework performed, so let's get it right. First, Fred began taking contributions at the beginning of June. In less than one month, FDT raised $3.4M. In the second quarter, Paul raised about $2.4M in primary funds according to the Washington Post. SO, there are two problems with the Third Rail "attack piece". Fred raised significantly more than Ron Paul in the second quarter and the "same period" is three months for Paul compared to less than one month for Fred.

Next up are the polls:

Thompson does not poll highly in early primary states where former Governor Mitt Romney has a sizeable lead, nor does he do well against top tier Democrats nationally and in the South, which could hamper further fundraising. These money concerns, coupled with his disregard of prepared speeches, his wife’s meddling with his campaign staff, and the lack of a real platform should hurt his campaign. It has not, yet. This is due to the immense amount of red meat he throws to the base of the Republican right on issues like same-sex marriage, immigration, gun rights, right to life, and intelligent design. These are issues, which as the basis of a campaign like Representative Tom Tancredo’s, can turn an outspoken candidate into a lightning rod - marginalized and therefore ineligible to be on the ticket in 2008.

Where to start. Polls: Fred is behind Romney in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan (where Romney is putting all of his effort). But not in South Carolina, Florida, California and New Jersey. I have not seen any data regarding the south, but I doubt that FDT actually has any problems there. His deficit behind the Democrats nationally is 9 points or less according to Real Clear Politics, which is not particularly too large (we are, after all, 14 months from the election). It is also interesting the mention of throwing "immense amount of red meat", when one of his criticisms is that he does not throw enough. Let's let the voters decide, shall we? Does Fred have a "real platform"? I think he does. Visit his Principles section for a his positions. Is it as detailed as it will be? No. Does it let you know where he stands? Yes.

He has a long and sordid past, dating back to his position as co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in its investigation of President Nixon. He admits he leaked information to the Nixon White House during the height of the investigation, tipping off Nixon's attorney that the committee was aware of the president's secret tapping device, and would be making the information public.

"Sordid". Wow--that is a loaded term. I don't know every detail of the Watergate hearings, but I don't think that giving the President's group a heads-up on what to expect to hear does not seem that "sordid" to me. It is not like Nixon's folk were going to be able to do anything about it. And that is the only example of a "long and sordid past". So onto his Senate career.

[Thompson] spent eight years in the senate, failing to author or sponsor a single piece of legislation.

Doesn't bother me any. How about you?

And he served this odd eight-year term as a U.S. senator because two years into his second term, he resigned to pursue his career as a supporting actor.

This is probably the line that made me want to address this article. Fred, as almost everyone knows, served 8 years because his first term was a two year replacement term for Al Gore. He served a complete 6 year re-elected term and then retired. Fundamental facts that reading a bio on someone's web site would solve. If you will not do fundamental fact checking, why do you think we will believe anything else that you write?

There are several other misstatements, but I will go to probably the only item that is worth talking about--Fred's Iraq commercial for Citizens United Foundation.

In the ad, Thompson performed a 30-second sales job on the Iraq war for the Bush administration, speaking of a Saddam with nuclear weapons and making an analogy between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, subtly insinuating a connection between the two. This ad is largely responsible for the public misconception that still prevails today: Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001. In the ad, Thompson says

“. . . And when people ask What has Saddam done to us? I ask

What had the 9/11 hijackers done to us – before 9/11? ”

The answer to Fred’s question is simple: the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the simultaneous bombs in 1998 at the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the Cole bombing in 2000.

You can see the ad on the Third Rail Blog site, if you want. First, it does not insinuate any connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. I guess that is an opinion, but I certainly don't see it. Second, the commentary that "This ad is largely responsible for the public misconception that ... Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001" is blatantly wrong. The reason for that has far more to do with media coverage and its insinuation that the Bush administration believed that. I don't even think I ever saw this commercial before this morning. Third, the answer to Fred's question is incorrect. While Al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks, Fred was specifically talking about the 9/11 hijackers and not their leaders.

OK. I've vented enough.