Wednesday, May 30, 2007
|
|
He's In!
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
9:01 AM
|
Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard, journalism’s go-to guy for all things Fred!, flatly declares, “Fred Thompson is running for the Republican presidential nomination.” In case you’re keeping score at home or want to begin making your financial plans now, Fred will commence accepting contributions on June 4.
As an avowed Romney supporter, I acknowledge that while this makes Mitt’s road a tougher one, it is great news for our party and for our country. The stronger our field, the more likely we are to produce a battle hardened candidate who can prevail against the Democratic nominee.
Besides, I think the immediate loser from Fred’s entry is Tommy Thompson. I’m convinced that whatever support Tommy has received in the polls to date has been a direct result of people confusing him with that other Thompson that they’ve heard so many good things about. Fred’s entry might drive Tommy below Ron Paul.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.
|
|
|
I love how some of these political pundit pushers say Ron paul doesn't have a chance to win, yet most of these so called polls don't even have the guts to place his name on the poll. I would again say the BIG polls thus far would be MSNBC and FOX whom both tried to avoid stating who the clear winner was...Ron Paul of course. When one attempts to silence another, then he is most certainly a threat to the one trying to do all of the silencing. Ron Paul has just shown that he stands up for what is best for the United States and her peoples. As a texan, he has never let us down. :) |
|
|
When you keep voting for the same old neocon club, then you keep on getting the same neocon club in power as a result. BIG Government and NO sovereign country= North American Union. Gee, you would think thid Fred Thompson wasn't a social elitist or a member of the CFR social club. But this man is both. Again I will reiterate, "When you keep on doing the same things, You keep on getting the same results. |
|
|
There is a Thompson love fest because he just entered and it is honeymoon time for his supporters. Don't worry, the campaign will touch down soon enough. He is not my man either, but I like him and am willing to give him a little time with his people. People get carried away sometimes about their prospects during the honeymoon phase, so expect a little going overboard. |
|
|
I don't get the Fred Thompson love fest. What has he done in office or out to qualify him to be the President? He was a big supporter of McCain-Feingold, and all you conservatives bash Romney for not being conservative enough??? |
|
Jeffry says: "Now that Valerie Plame's employment records have been de-classified, it's been confirmed that she WAS a covert agent at the time of her outing by Scooter Libby. Fred Thompson was one of Libby's most vocal backers."
Nice try, Jeffry. Richard Armitage was the guy who leaked Plame's name. And Fitzgerald knew this beforehand, but still went after Libby. You should know this, if you read the newspapers (which are no friends to the Republicans). Besides which, if Plame was covert, why was her husband writing a column for the New York Times that could be easily traced back to her? Don't they have some responsibility for being so stupid (or so partisan)?
Jeffry, are you also concerned about all the leaks that the New York Times and other media organs have revealed concerning the TSP program, the SWIFT program (which no one has alleged is illegal) or the recent CIA plan to destabilize Iran (which I am sure you don't want us to do, even though we should be acting to replace the bloodthirsty, American hating, Jewish hating, gay hating, woman abusing, Islamic fundamentalists who are looking to get nukes)?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Fred Thompson is doing a good thing by backing Libby. |
|
There is an intangible 'likeability' factor in running for President that Thompson has in bushels. Guiliani has it too but he's not a conservative and there's that weird thing he does with his eyes. McCain is a grumpy old man. Mitt is too slick, too polished.
Thompson has a great speaking voice and a certain country charm. He's sure to get off some zingers in debates. |
|
Now that Valerie Plame's employment records have been de-classified, it's been confirmed that she WAS a covert agent at the time of her outing by Scooter Libby. Fred Thompson was one of Libby's most vocal backers. I don't know about the rest of the "patriots" on this list, but I find the acts of traitors to be reprehensible, and outing a covert CIA agent is an act of treason. By making excuses justifying Libby's outrageous behavior, and donating money for his defense, Thompson disqualifies himself for any public office that requires an oath to act in the best interests of his country, rather than his politics.
For more on this story, see:
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/05/why_do_you_supp.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/30/plame_covert/index.html?source=rss |
|
|
If Fred Thompson can electrify an audience of several thousand or more, he will be the front runner within a week. But if he is simply another respectable after-dinner speaker at the Rotary Club, and conducts a decent interview (which is all I have seen thus far), what press he gets will be dismal, and the opposition research will be pitiless. The GOP needs a superstar who can run over the press. It has one, maybe two. Whether it has three remains to be seen. Let the Games begin. |
|
To heck with Thompson and his Hollywood values!!
|
|
"Nobody is where I want them on all the issues, especially on immigration. Even Fred's comments the other day were wishy-washy."
I realize YOU wish his comments were "wishy-washy" but that doesn't make it so.
Fred said this: "No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to put on this legislative pig it won’t look any better."
His opinion was to scrap it(Amnesty bill) and seal the border first.
|
|
I do not find executive experience to be sufficient alone, or a be all and end all, but HIGHLY desirable. (I can't say "necessary" because there's always Lincoln.) But in Thompson's case, in particular, I sure wish he had some because of the lackluster way he he seemed to run the campaign finance investigations.
Romney, on the other hand, has loads, and he has a remarkable, proven talent for putting brainy teams together to accomplish difficult tasks. He's done it time after time. As much as I supported W. in the war, he managed to bungle the occupation badly for a good 18 months or so. I'm ready for proven competence. Really, really ready. The war needs to go to the smartest guy in the room. The State Department, the CIA, and other bureaucracies wear presidents down. I want someone in there likely to remain in the driver's seat. We need a manager of men to prevail in the kind of war we're in.
Don't you see some of this born out by their two campaigns? Romney is running a remarkable and efficient campaign. He got there the firstest with the mostest. He's raised zillions and has slowly but steadily climed in several early-state polls. Meanwhile Thompson still has no real structure in place.
I find Thompson a more attractive candidate than most of the others, and if he beats Romney I'm inclined to back him instead. But I don't see him as so compelling a candidate as to erase Romney's support sufficiently to best Giuliani. Romney's campaign is just too strong and too well-financed.
Nobody is where I want them on all the issues, especially on immigration. Even Fred's comments the other day were wishy-washy. His criticism of the Senate bill centered on the voter's lack of trust in the Senate, and the Senate's lack of credulity, rather than on the substance of the bill and the assumptions on which it was based.
|
|
|
There won't be any recurrence issue -- he HAS cancer -- it is not curable, but it is manageable. This is just one thing that will keep him from winning the nomination. I'll be curious to see how his religious conservative support holds up when his personal life is scrutinized. He is not exactly the pointman on "abstinence only" sex-ed. |
|
|
I second Joe's desire for an actual explanation of the term Rockefeller Republican seeing as how Gabby has used it to describe several of the potential nominees. |
|
Now that Lost is in hiatus, we need something to occupy our time this summer. Please tell us what is a "Rockefeller Republican." I want all the details of this conspiracy, especially if the Rothchilds (a/k/a "The JEWS"), the Pope, and the Queen of England are involved.
Any additional facts you can supply on the Diego Garcia controversy will get you bonus points. |
|
|
I wonder if he'll even make a serious effort in this campaign, you know, actually working hard to try and get elected. My money says no. |
|
|
I've been waiting. His articles weekly, radio broadcasts he just hits the issues square on the head. He's already addressed the Campaign finance snafu as a "mistake", and if that is the worst that they can find on him...well that's not that bad. The guy is pretty solid. |
|
I am very happy to see Fred is in the fight. I am a conservative. My prayers and my money will go to Fred's camapign, not to the Republican Party. I have learned that the Republican party does not represent me or any other conservative. Sadly, I have learned that GW is not a conservative, no matter which way you paint him.
I believe that the Comgress is totally out to lunch working only on there reelctions.
LETS MAKE REELECTION UNNECCESSARY FOR ALL IN CONGRESS.
It is becoming self evident that they will sell all of us out for a vote.
SIX years and OUT! No more full-time Professional Politicans and no more full-time Professional Political Families. After 6 years none of then, Democrats or Republicans, can be trusted to do the right then for our country.
Don Ruane.
Founder and Director of " Voter Imposed Term Limits ".
|
|
|
I'd say more, but I'm engaged to endure one of my favorite activities--The Dentist. |
|
|
What "fear and dread" are you referring to? There is fear and dread where there is accusation and agitated discussion and I am just not seeing that in these posts. I am an avid Mitt supporter, but am glad to include Thompson in the mix. The deeper the bench, the more contingencies we have. I am all for shotgunning the nomination with conservatives. There is a good chance one of them will stick (hopefully my guy). May the best man win. |
|
|
We will begin to see alot of inferences (in the guise of questions) by Professor Hewitt about cancer recurrence. |
|
A lack of "executive" experience hardly matters when all three of Thompson's general election opponents lack the same. And if you think executive experience is the be all and end all, when thompson's the nominee, why don't you write in LA governor Edith Bunker Blanco as your candidate. She's got executive experience.
And how do you surmise that Thompson will have no campaign structure? He has people from the last three Republican administrations lining up to support him. Others will be poached from existing campaigns ala Marsha Blackburn.
Lots of fear and dread from the Romney camp is on display in this thread.
Bob Beckel: "Fred Thompson is the Left's worst nightmare." |
|
|
Thompson/Perdue '08. Sounds like a winner. |
|
|
You go, Joe! There are some divisions that can never be healed, nor should they be. GO SOX, BOO Stankees! |
|
|
should never have run, either, as he's not that pretty to look at. |
|
Panthercreek writes:
Just imagine Fred on the same debate stage as Hillary. No contest.
---------------------------------------------------
I made that comment back on Jan. 30, 2006. For people to say that he doesn't have a chance, I'll simply say that Thompson's a true conservative, he's right on the issues, he's the most charismatic man in the race, he's got tons of personality & he's a skilled debater.
No other candidate matches that skillset. |
|
Thompson is a true conservative and most consistent of all the top tier candidate:
Rudy = Rockefeller Republican, social liberal
McCain = Sellout & backstabber on too many important issue
Romney = Flip flopper on too many issues
Thompson is an excellent speaker with down home charm. He is the only candidate on the Republican side who can win the vote of huge numbers of blue collar Reagan Democrats.
Just imagine Fred on the same debate stage as Hillary. No contest.
|
|
|
No executive experience. No campaign structure when that ship sailed long ago. At best he can spoil and throw it to Rudy. |
|
Could you find a less appealing picture of Fred Thompson? He looks like he ate a little bit too much at the steakhouse.
It sounds peevish to dwell on appearance (which this blog would never do) but if his appeal is strictly on the basis that he sounds "tough" on NRO and Paul Harvey fill-ins, we don't have much else to talk about.
DU
http://www.themechanicaleye.com |
|
My guess: Dean isn't picking on Paul because he considers him or his ideas any threat. He's picking on him because it's horribly embarrassing to Dean to be in the same party.
Whether Dean should be that embarrassed is a different question.
While we're all fantasizing here (that _is_ what we're doing, now isn't it?) I'd like a candidate with Thompson's stage presence, Mitt's intelligence and management skills, Paul's domestic policy views, McCain's foreign policy views, Giuliani's situational awareness, and no voting record or unusual religious affiliation to bog him down.
Fate having a wicked sense of humor, I expect we'll end up with a candidate that combines Paul's stage presence, McCain's intelligence and management skills, Giuliani's domestic policy views, and Mitt's baggage.
|
|
Border security is about survival. It is not optional. The alternative is even more expensive. Most of the cost of the new Bush entitlement programs don't start until 2009 and threaten to bankrupt our social programs even before we try to absorb another 40-50 million new poor people. Whatever it costs, we need to do it. National sovereignty is what we fight wars and stage revolutions over. It is how we preserve who we are. Wars are expensive too but we fight them because the alternative is worse. Same here. This is a mess that didn't have to happen but it did and Bush was a major reason why. If it destroys the GOP, so be it.
I am fully aware of the China/debt problem. It is not a one-sided issue. They could cause us great discomfort but the cost to them would be a collapsed economy. They just aren't that big an economy and are very fragile. People always underestimate the resiliency of our economy. At worse, I see us heading into another period of stagflation. The government can never pay down this debt. All they can do is cheapen the debt by printing the money to pay it off and that will extinguish much innovation and entreprenuerial effort in our economy. Thank your George Bush. You're not only a lousy Republican, you're not even a good Democrat. |
|
Fred has already waited too long. His polls are dropping, his rivals are entrenched, and there are no good staff available. Besides, with every Democrat now leading every GOoPer, why work that hard for a year and a half to be jobless again?
I still think he'll stay out. |
|
Here's the champion flip flopper of all times, and it is not Mitt Romney.
Bill Richardson on Meet the Press this Sunday stated he is a Red Sox fan and a Yankee fan.
There is only one word to describe it:
Blasphemy! |
|
I am not defending those Ron Paul "supporters," many of which could care less about the GOP and conservative issues and are just supporting him as a wedge candidate (a rather futile effort when he is polling at less than 1%).
What I am saying is in your jihad for border security you might also consider fiscal sanity. Our security is based on three legs: military defense, border security (ports, aircraft, and land borders), and fiscal strength. Right now our military is overly taxed and too small for its missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, you have rightly focused on problems with the border, and we are jeopardizing our fiscal power by incurring debt (largely under control by China). |
|
Hey the Democrats are doing the best to find their next Carter; allow us our nostalgia.
Besides, ugly men get all the really hot babes. The silky pony/metrosexual thing is SO 20th Century.
Finally, he's been in Washington long enough to know how it works but not long enough to become it. He can also, as with MF, admit a mistake.
Compared to what we have now, that's damn near Washingtonian... |
|
No disrespect intended to Mr. Romney but Thompson's candidacy is a serious blow to him. Fred's more solid on the issues, especially on immigration reform & he won't have to defend against past positions that've changed.
Follow this link for more of my take on this development:
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/2007/05/30/fred-thompsons-big-step/
|
|
Why haven't I heard anything about him on the internet?
Although I understand he is a smoker; that can't be good... |
|
Thompson voted for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform act restricting our speech. Didn’t conservatives see this bill as unconstitutional? He said in early 2007 that this bill didn’t work as expected and he’d favor another approach.
I'm baffled too.
I’d like to hear him explain what his intentions are specifically before considering him. |
|
this makes it more difficult for McCain; see we like McCain on the war but nothing else. Sen. Thompson helps those of us, like me, supporting McCain because he is so strong on the war, but are dubious of everything else McCain wants to do and stands for. I'm glad to see the Sen. in the race and I for one will be sending money to him.
Peace and Blessings to all and GO RED SOX! |
|
|
Honestly, as a guy who has long followed politics quite closely, I have rarely been more baffled by any trend than this spontaneous outpouring for Fred Thompson. The guy was a middling Senator; he is ugly as sin; he is a fair speaker; he is better known for being on a television show (though he is not the main character); and he has cancer. Yet he is being sold as some sort of savior figure! It seems to me that Thompson is likely a disaster for Republicans for 2 reasons: 1) he will lose to the Dems; and 2) he represents this urge to find the next Reagan -- there is no next Reagan, any more than there is a next Lincoln, Truman, or, for that matter, Hoover. Republicans need to look forward. At least when Bush ran in 2000 he was attempting to rebrand the party. I am sure his voters are disappointed that his rebranding has been as the incompetent party, but such is life. |
|
As a McCain man myself, my hope is that Thompson's entry dulls Romney's gains, and leaves McCain stronger, not weaker. But that probably won't happen.
I like Mitt, but don't see him as a strong war-time president. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong on that. Fred brings more assurance, but I'm not convinced he has deep convictions about the spread of freedom, or the willingness to persevere with Petraeus. Again, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. And I do like Fred, although I think his past romances might spell *some* trouble with the GOP base, and make for easy fodder for the Dem opposition.
All in all, I think he survives. Women really like this guy. I'm not sure why that it, but I'll take it. And Thompson says mostly the right things. It's disappointing to see him distance himself from Sen. McCain's controversial policies, some of which he supported. But Thompson can pull people from the other side into his camp; that's something I don't see many of the other GOP contenders doing, not even my guy McCain.
If we can't get a McCain-Gilmore ticket -- and I still hope we can -- I'd probably be OK with a Thompson-Gilmore ticket. |
|
You want Dean to urge Mitt to run for VP?
Last time I checked its up to the nominee.
I can see it now. A huge campaign run by Hewitt and other Mitt promoters. You must pick Mitt! Its the only way we can beat Hillary!
Well it will be up to Fred. And he will NOT pick Mitt. Too much baggage. Ever see any of the YOuTube stuff on Mitt? |
|
|
He is smart to get in now. I think that we have a good field of candidates--a deep bench. That is what I have always hoped for. Hopefully we will be able to get good numbers of conservatives invested in the process. As soon as Gingrich decides to fish or cut bait, I think we are off. (It might be too late for him already.) I am confident that we can get a candidate we all can be proud of. |
|
Perfect match.
And the one thing Romney switching to VP does is guarantee that he will be president.
Think it over:
Thompson brings charm, wit, genuiness, and popular conservatism with a message that can reach across to the Reagan Democrats. Fred is the natural leader for Conservatives (other than Newt), but unlike the others, he does have a broad appeal.
By switching to VP, Romney gets to concentrate on attacking Hillary/Obama, and showing how good a conservative he is. All the "Multiple Choice Mitt" and "Mormon Issues" stuff simply fades away because VP's don't have that kind of scrutiny thrown at them.
Fred brings the "Face" and federalism, conservative populism philosophy, Mitt brings the bucks and organization. Fred is the orator, Mitt is the organizer. Fred is the Ideas, Mitt is the Applications.
Thompson/Romney would clean up as a pair in the primaries and steamroll everyone, including Giuliani.
Worst case: they lose in 08. And given the press, Soros and the war and the bumbling idiot we have in the White House now, thats not an impossibility. Blame goes to Fred. Mitt is free of blame, and has washed away all the negatives that are holding him back now. No more questions about his faith, nor his fidelity to conservatism. And he has the Thompson and his own campaign staff to gather for a run in 2012, and the field will be completely cleared for him.
Middle Case: They win, and Mitt gets 8 years as a "Dick Cheney" style VP - a truly executive style VP. There would be nobody in his way and he would own the presidential spot in 2016. Even more effective than above scenario of a loss, the years as VP serve to demolish any and all questions about his true conservatism, position changes, and Mormonism. this sets him up with a united GOP behind him for his run.
Best Case (for Romney): Swtich to VP and be part of a Landslide. Thompson/Romney sweep into office. In 4 years they get all the "Big Rocks" moved, and Fred, wanting to spend time with his young children and his wife (or, God forbid, for health), makes the decision Cincinnatus made, and retires to his home to be a father and radio commentator. This leaves Mitt Romney as THE presidential candidate in 2012, coming off a successful presidency, and as above, he doesn't have to deal with questions about "multiple choice mitt", or his conservative bona fides, or Mormonism. And he has the whole of the campaign team and GOP behind him.
Dean: Urge Mitt to stop now, and go as Fred's VP. It guarantees him the presidency after a delay, and gains him a place of honor as a man who placed Conservatism above his own ambitions, which will result in the ultimate fulfillment of those ambitions.
|
|
|
If his cult of blog-commenters would change the text of their "cut-and-paste" campaigning. It's like the pink noise between stations on the radio. I can't even stand listening to my all-time favorite song over and over and over again. You guys are like those homeless kids who set up tables of Lyndon LaRouche handouts and try to corral people walking by. No one listens to dirty and rude kids. |
|
|
Ron Paul is out. The guy had no chance from the start. He is no threat to anyone. So why are you picking on him? His message on fiscal sanity and his voting and track record in Congress are good things--not bad. George Bush's biggest legacy is making the GOP the party of big government. The GOP congress threw in some corruption and pork to make things even more fun. Why don't you criticize that. |
|
Anything is better than the loser front runners we got now..INCLUDING ROMNEY!!
Let's go Fred!!! |
|
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/05/the_real_size_of_the_debt.php
Whoever wins this thing is going to have to make some tough decisions. The debt is out of control when you take into consideration the outlays needed for Social Security and Medicare. Obama is talking about univeral health care, but he can't even pay for George Bush's senior prescription drug assistance with these numbers. You know the Dems are going to start cutting defense, but that is a fraction of the budget and the elephant in the room remains entitlements. |
|
|
by the exquisite sensitivity of the Ron Paul caravan. Sorry - it's not my fault he's at 0% and falling. |
|
|
He has to get on top of the amnesty issue if he is going to run strong. Romney is already there. If the bill goes through while Fred stood by, he is through. If the bill fails while Fred stood by, he is at a serious disadvantage to Romney. Critical moment for Fred. You have to drive the events not merely hope that events work out in a manner convenient to your schedule. Step up Fred! Tell Paul Harvey to take the summer off and start hammering on the amnesty bill. |
|
Great news!
It will be Thompson/Pawlenty '08. Mark my words. |
|
I was smart to order those Fred Thompson 2008 bumperstickers.
I agree with Dean, strengthening the field helps the GOP. I like Fred Thompson a lot. If he can parlay this entry and show he can win the general, he will be the GOP candidate. He would make an awesome VP too, but Fred wants the big dog job.
And as for Ron Paul--Dean did you pick on the weakest kid at school? Paul is dogmatic and not a serious presidential candidate, but he is no crank. The GOP could afford to listen to him on keeping government small and reducing spending. I don't agree with Paul on foriegn policy, but his general fiscal principals are sound. It does not do the GOP any good to marginalize its own. George Bush could have used a lot more small "l" libertarianism in his leadership philosophy. |
|
I imagine Fred is in for the Presidency or nothing at all, as he should be. He has a successful acting career, why be VP? Besides, I think he will top Romney in the polls shortly after entering. (And I'm not even a supporter yet, of either candidate)
I agree with another blogger that having Newt and Fred both enter the race would be the best way for conservatism to get real exposure. We need more than one articulate and engaging conservative in the race, so that there will be a genuine competition to BETTER articulate conservative ideals to the primary voters. This will be good for the party and the nation, and is, in my opinion, the only hope for a strong republican showing in 2008. |
|
Another columnist/journalist discerns Fred's intentions? Whoopdedoo! Fred Thompson will be running when he ANNOUNCES he is running.
This is a non-story, unimportant. Who doesn't think FT will run at this point? Yeesh. |
|
|
Fred Thompson/Jodi Rell ticket. We have to purge the Ted Kennedy lap poodles in the republican party. Get rid of McConnell and Trent Lott. Sold us out on immigration with their tooth fairy 24 hours approval for illegals, gang member renunciation, affidavit from anyone to prove residency, instate tuition for illegal denied to military dependents, and outright amnesty and anarchy. Fred Thompson could pick up alot of democrats with a tough talk on taking care of citizen and legal immigrant workers first, about racism against non-Spanish speaking immigrants (anti-Asian jealousy), the burden on schools, medicaid, and the welfare system. Someone has to talk sense. Why would we legalize Illegal Irish when the Irish economy is the best in the world? Because we can't run background checks in Ireland on the illegals. The Russian mob in California and M13 -- just promise to be good. Stop this madness. Tell Bush he has lost the faith of hardworking and lawabiding taxpayers. |
|
Right now I'm a Romney partisan. I think Fred entering the race is fantastic. The conversations between Rudy, Fred, and Mitt will raise the bar for the democrats.
Regarding combinations, however, I just can't see a ticket with Rudy and Mitt in any combination as they are both NE types. Conventional wisdom would tell you that you need balance - i.e. Johnson for Kennedy - that sort of thing.
I could, however, see a Mitt and Fred ticket in any combination or a Rudy and Fred ticket (assuming one of them could temper their ego to be in the VP slot - probably a hard thing for someone with aspirations to be President.) |
|
|
I admit I am a solid Fred fan who pines for a Fred-Mitt ticket. We need Mitt's ideas but boy we need Fred's ability to bring people in. |
|
|
I like your point about the strong field. I also think that when you compare the top tier of Republican candidates against their Democrat counterparts, the Democrats pale relative to experience, positions and likability. |
|
|
will he take his graceful exit while he can? |
|
|
|