GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Back in 2005, a very interesting dynamic occurred whenever one of the many highly-traversed sites on the conservative blogosphere hosted a presidential straw poll of potential Republican presidential contenders for 2008. In almost every case, Sen. George Allen bested nearly every other contender, with Rudy Giuliani usually either statistically tied with the former Virginia senator or a very close second. This led many pundits in the days before Allen’s Senate loss to conclude that Sen. Allen was the major sleeper candidate in the race and possibly even the most likely of the candidates to garner the nomination. Such a view shouldn’t have been surprising; if there was a candidate in the race who matched Ronald Reagan on the issues, it was George Allen, with his belief in economic freedom, his foreign policy hawkishness, and a social conservatism tempered by the Gipper’s leave-me-alone libertarian streak that many Republicans have seemingly abandoned.
2008 didn’t turn out to be Allen’s year, but the same perfect storm that could have made Allen formidable may just hit the race for the GOP nod with a vengeance if former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson decides to throw his hat in the presidential ring. Like Allen, Thompson brings to the table the position papers that would make Reagan crack a smile. But Thompson also exudes a Cheney-style gravitas that is complimented by a charm and warmth that the vice president has always lacked. As such, a Thompson run could prove very dangerous to the other candidates in the field and could shake up the entire topography of the race on the GOP side.
The boys over at RedState have posted a video of an interview with Sen. Thompson in which the former senator fleshes out some of his positions on the issues. Thompson’s articulation of a conservatism that we haven’t seen since the ‘94 revolution is refreshing after so many years of watching the GOP establishment pervert and contort conservatism into some sort of hybrid between ’60s Rockefeller Republicanism and the big government conservatism of continental European Christian Democrats. Thompson is pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, but he responds to questions on these issues in a pithy and straightforward manner, demonstrating that he has no plans to wear these positions on his sleeve in order to squeeze a few more votes out of southern Ohio. He talks a lot about federalism and believes that things like abortion laws and civil unions should be decided in the states and through the political process. He wants to finish the job in Iraq and seal the borders, but also admits that mistakes were made in the war and that it’s unfeasible to send 12 million people home. He is able to be simultaneously a social conservative and a libertarian, a man of principle and a pragmatist, something that very few can pull off, and talks policy in a very real-world, common-sense manner, allowing him to diffuse those positions that conservatives would normally find problematic. He also has just a touch of populism, which is evident from his reasoning behind his vote for McCain-Feingold, but again, so did Reagan.
In my analyses of the GOP field, I’ve often stated that the problem each of the candidates not named Rudy Giuliani faces is the inability to consolidate enough first-choice votes to actually win primaries. Rudy’s ability to consolidate around 35 percent of Republicans behind him in every poll may not seem like much in raw terms, but in a multi-candidate field where no candidate is able to even come close to those first-choice numbers, Rudy has the potential to win big. If Sen. Thompson were able to amass a comparable number of first-choice supporters upon entering the race, the dynamics of the race would change overnight, and many candidates who are now considered potential threats to Rudy would basically be knocked out of the race to make way for a battle of the behemoths.
March 16th, 2007 at 6:30 am
Funny I was the first to mention FT weeks ago and no-one responded.
Way too soon to put him up with the likes of Rudy IMO.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Grass-roots effort has been nothing short of amazing.
http://www.draftfredthompson.com
http://www.fred08.com
March 16th, 2007 at 8:24 am
One should read the piece above with great care, particularly the final paragraph. Such a close reading indicates to me that many, if not most, Republicans who do not support Rudy, have psychologically conceded him the nomination vis-a-vis the current field, and are looking for a “white knight” to “save them”. This dynamic may or may not include the supporters of John McCain. It may include only those in the Republican Base, heretofore thought to be the majority of the Party, who disdain McCain for his perceived Conservative apostasy and will not vote for Rudy because of his soi disant “liberal social positions”.
If one were to parse the final paragraph above, one would see that Rudy is considered to be a “behemoth” who “has the potential to win big”, while every other current candidate “faces is the inability to consolidate enough first-choice votes to actually win primaries”. Thus, if a “behemoth” not now in the race, such as Arthur Branch, uh sorry, Fred Thompson were to leap in, then “the dynamics of the race would change overnight, and many candidates who are now considered potential threats to Rudy would basically be knocked out of the race to make way for a battle of the behemoths”. That is, of course if Thespian Fred, who had a decidedly undistinguished 8+ years in the Senate, “were able to amass a comparable number of first-choice supporters upon entering the race”.
Well, mes amis, rarely have I seen such La-La-Land wishful thinking from a supposedly serious political commentator. The reason I see fit to comment at all is that it indicates to me that, apart from the MSM and the Beltway Punditocracy themselves, those in the “Republican Base” out there who bought into the Beltway Punditocracy’s “Rudy can’t win in the Republican primaries”, are essentially on the verge of giving up. Their only hope now is that someone will swoop in off the television screen to “save” them. My Gawd!
Now, I don’t believe this for an instant. I think the nomination is probably now Rudy’s “to lose”, but I do think it is way too early to reach any final conclusions, and Rudy should still campaign very smartly, as he is doing. Moreover, I think that the real “Republican Base” are very much smarter and more self-aware that the author above gives them credit for being. In my view, the actual flesh-and-blood Republican Base never bought into the Beltway’s own wishful thinking about what they would do, and they are in fact the ones now fueling Rudy’s poll numbers. I do hope, however, that in the piece above we are witnessing the beginning of a trend among Rudy’s opponents.
My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!
PS: Don’t forget that it was Fred Thompson who, as Republican Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, in July of 1973, asked Alexander Butterfield the qustion that elicited the response that revealed the taping system in the Nixon White House.
The exchange:
Thompson: “Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?”
Butterfield: “I was aware of listening devices, yes sir.”
March 16th, 2007 at 9:16 am
I looked at a YouTube video of Thompson on Redstate yesterday, and I have to say that I was not impressed. This guy reminds me of Cheney. As much as I like Cheney, he has been a significant drag on the ticket.
At this time, I would not even consider him a viable VP choice.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:48 am
We just posted a snip from this commentary on the Fred Thompson 2008 blog.
Conservatives are more than ready for Fred and he should know it.
http://fredthompson2008-blogger.blogspot.com/
March 16th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Nothing personal, this guy just doesn’t impress me. And besides, how old is he??? We need somebody younger than that to revitalize conservatism.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Look at this. Some amazing Tenn. support for Fred:
“More momentum for a possible Fred Thompson run in ‘08…” http://political-buzz.com/?p=102
March 16th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I know that according to David B., Luther, and TM, “all roads lead to Rudy.”
But there’s a lot of evidence that refutes pretty much of what they claim the polls are saying. Take the CBS/NYT poll that blogged about earlier in the week. If you read the whole thing, or actually, the first page, where it asks “Are you satisfied with the candidates running for the Republican nomination?” (Among Republican Primary voters) Fifty seven per cent (57%) are not and they “want more choices.” It goes on to say “Conservative primary voters are likely to want more choices than moderates, and 62% of white evangelical primary voters want more coices.”http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/MAR07A-REPS.pdf
Fred Thompson is a lot more than an actor. He brought down a corrupt Democratic governor in Tennessee, and he led the investigation on China’s influence in the Clinton White House. Can he be elected? I don’t know, it’s a real crowded field.
But to claim that the “Real Republican Base” is lined up behind Rudy is wishful thinking. Criticize white evangelical voters as being zealots or moralists, but there’s no getting around the fact that they are motivated to vote and they are key to any Republican winning in 2008, unless that candidate feels that the only way to win is be a RINO.
March 16th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Gary:
All right, I’ll see your CBS/NYT Poll and raise you a WSJ/NBC News poll, but you’ll have to read past the first page. As reported in Human Events on line, today, 16 March 2007:
“These seers now detect unhappiness with the GOP aspirants. They cite a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in which 26% of Republican primary voters were dissatisfied with Giuliani, McCain, and former Massachusetts governor Willard Mitt Romney, among others. However, 56% called these choices satisfactory. This mirrors the 57%of conservative Republicans who preferred Giuliani, versus 31% for McCain.”
As for the investigation on China’s influence in the Clinton White House, I can’t top that one. That was such a smashing success. Break a leg, Fred!
March 16th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I agree with much of Gary’s commentary, though I must take issue with this line:
“Criticize white evangelical voters as being zealots or moralists, but there’s no getting around the fact that they are motivated to vote and they are key to any Republican winning in 2008, unless that candidate feels that the only way to win is be a RINO.”
I take issue with it for two reasons. First, it creates a false choice, indicating that in order to be a Republican, one must either be a “moralist” or a “RINO.” I would guess that most Republicans are neither. The number of Republicans who are true RINOs, such as the Snowes and Chafees, probably only constitute about 10 percent of the party. Similarly, the number of Republicans who actually do think the purpose of government is to enforce a sectarian moral code on society by prohibiting contraception, criminalizing consensual acts between adults, etc, is likely also around 10 percent. The other 80 percent of Republicans, are, like me, neither, and equally disgusted by both.
Second, I don’t think that white evangelicals are the key to 2008 at all. They voted sufficiently Republican in 2006 and yet we still lost the country. All of the data suggests that the fallout took place in areas where there are more secular types and fewer evangelicals (up north, out west), and that the voters who defected were indies and moderates, not conservatives or Republicans. If anything, the political center is “in” again in 2008, and unaffiliated voters hold the keys to the country.
March 16th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I should note to all who’ve commented that I certainly did not intend the original post to be an endorsement of an FDT run. I’m a Rudy guy. But I have to call it as I see it, and I’ve long seen an opening for another behemoth in the field due to the substantial number of undecideds in many polls, as well as the ability of protest candidates like Gingrich to consolidate significant support among the faithful in the GOP Bloggers polls.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
The GOP lost a lot of Catholic support in 2006. Also Democrats cut the GOP advantage among Church attenders in half. Democrats did only slightly better among the non-church attenders in 2006.
The marriage gap also ended.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
The data that I analyzed back in November showed that evangelical Protestants voted GOP by 70-28 percent in 2006, which was similar to 2004, while the GOP lost big among mainline Protestants. Also, you are correct that Democrats made big inroads among Catholics, but Catholics are at least as diverse as Protestants when it comes to beliefs and values. You have your orthodox Catholics who are comparable to evangelical Protestants, and your secular Catholics who are comparable to mainline Protestants. My guess is that the Catholics the GOP lost weren’t Santorum-style folks.
So all of your data points are indeed correct, but you know how the adage goes about figures. It would be easy for a less reputable fellow to take those data points and say, “See? The GOP needs to conflate politics and religion even MORE to win again!” And that just wouldn’t be correct. Especially considering that these “churchgoers” that the GOP lost in 2006 were likely those who aren’t fundamentalists. And given that the floor fell out from under the GOP in every region BUT the south and the plains states, and given that suburbanites abandoned the GOP in droves, and given that high-profile races where social issues were at issue went to the Democrats (stem cells in Missouri, Santorum in Pennsylvania), it would be very hard to make the case that Republicans lost in 2006 for not being socially conservative enough.
Not saying you’re implying that; just preemptively refuting any such inference.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I think that Econ Grad Student has a vary important and very overlooked point: The Catholic identification with Rudy. These are the quintessential “Reagan Democrats”.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Of course, with respect to the religious right vote, an analysis of the percentage by which they voted Republican in 2006 is far from complete. The question is whether they showed up to vote in increasing or decreasing numbers. And the evidence seems to be that given the corruption issues with the GOP-controlled Congress and the ineffectiveness of the Bush Administration that many of them stayed home and could not be motivated to support the Republican cause.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
There were more ‘no votes’ for Amendment 2 in Missouri than votes for Talent. Also there weren’t any important differences on socil issues between Santorum and Casey.
Social issues weren’t the main issue in 2006 elections. Blaming the GOP defeat in 2006 on being too “socially conservative” seems odd since the GOP position was the same as in 2004, 2002 and 2000.
The loss was due to GOP incompetence and Iraq. Those problems aren’t solved by supporting abortion or civil unions.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Santorum blew it by stabbing Toomey in the back and supporting the Spector.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
“Also there weren’t any important differences on socil issues between Santorum and Casey.”
There was a difference of degree and of emphasis. Santorum ran as a very proactive social conservative who seemingly prioritized social issues above most others and who seemed to want to use government to change the culture. Casey put a much lower priority on his own social views, otherwise, he would never have been able to run as a Democrat. Most Americans don’t want the government to try and change the culture one way or the other. Santorum was symbolic of a type of bossy conservatism that the voters rejected in 2006.
“Blaming the GOP defeat in 2006 on being too “socially conservative” seems odd since the GOP position was the same as in 2004, 2002 and 2000.”
But the GOP didn’t really have a working majority until after 2004, and it was then that we began to see things like the Schiavo situation take place, as well as the prohibition of Internet gambling and other nifty nanny state initiatives that are “for our own good.” We’ll never know to what extent voters rejected the GOP because of overreach on social issues and to what extent that rejection was due to Iraq, corruption, or incompetence, but I believe that all played a role and I think support for that argument comes from the fact that our losses were so much more dire in the northeast and Great Lakes states than in the south and plains states. Do the south and the plains states LIKE corruption and incompetence? Of course not. The only thing that I can see that would have soured the northeast, et al, MORE than the rest of the country toward the GOP are the social issues.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Perhaps the South remained loyal only because of social issues while for the rest of the nation those issues aren’t important. I’ve seen some research that social issues are only electorally decisive in the cultural South.
Generally the heaviest loses of GOP candidates were among moderates in the Northeast/Midwest. Many of the Democrats who won in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Illinois and Ohio ran as social conservatives/moderates.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
DaveG…I like the way you approach issues.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
There is a lot of talk about placating the social conservatives. That strategy yields shaky 51% wins for the Presidency.
You know who else contributes to GOP victories? Millions of more secular, more metro, more libertarian voters, who are economic conservatives and national security conservatives. Many of these people grumble about the nanny-state social conservatism the GOP has been tied to. Some of them stay home and don’t vote. Having lived my whole life in big cities, I know many of these people. Then there are people like my mom, whom the rest of my family can’t convince to vote GOP, because she hates what she sees as the bigotedness of social conservatives. And this is a lady who goes to church every Sunday.
I think it’s THESE people who in part are giving Rudy his huge numbers– they’re sick of being left out of the political process. The whole libertarianism contingent. I know Rudy polls strongest among self-identified conservatives, but I believe many of these people DO identify as conservatives– just not social conservatives.
Food for thought.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
David B,
True, the Huckabee style of compassionate conservative is a very risky move for the GOP. But telling the religious right to sit on their thumbs for the next 8 years is guaranteed to lose in a whole new and painful way.
Social conservatism and economic/smallgov conservatism need not be mutually exclusive.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
What you have with Rudy is a guy who’s going to get so-cons most of what they want in judicial appointments, and not act on other social issues. While not alienating the middle, and bringing into the GOP libertarianish types who have NOT had a candidate–EVER. Socons may be upset they might not have a pure socon once. THESE types have been holding their noses FOREVER. Get it? That’s the non-mutually-exclusive solution.
P.S. What you also have with Rudy is a Churchillian scorched-earth policy on the war. If other candidates can match the same position, they lack the ability to convince the electorate to go along with such a policy. Rudy can. He can also use the same charm to slash government bureaucracy as he did in uber-liberal NYC and as no President EVER has. An opportunity for a FDR of the right.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Looking at the Fred Thompson video and then this interview by Romney last night on Larry King Live,
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/
I really think Romney shows a lot more poise and presidential aura + warmth. I am impressed at first glance by Fred Thompson’s record and like him a lot better than Giuliani, but I’m not sure he has the necessary charisma to make it all the way.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
My take on a Fred Thompson entry?
1. Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter, et al are done.
2. So is Newt, and unfortunately his negatives are so bad he is toast in a general election.
3. Rudy has critically wounded McCain, Thompson’s entry would slay him.
4. There will be a Thompson vs. Mitt contest among the social conservatives. The winner will probably be Thompson.
5. Rudy and Thompson battle it out for the nomination. They run as a ticket. I think Rudy stays on top.
March 16th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Glad you’ve got it all figured out. I guess we can close the blog, huh?
March 16th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Meltrom, thanks for the link. That was a great interview Romney had with King.
March 16th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
David B,
I really like your take on Rudy and the reasoning behind his high poll numbers. I myself am a social conservative but have SO many libertarian friends who always plug their nose and vote GOP. Rudy gives all of those people a true reason to vote Republican, as well he should. I am a Rudy fan, certainly not because of his views on abortion and gay marriage, but because he is a leader and I know that 1. He will appoint strict constructionist judges and 2. As President, he really can’t win the culture wars anyway. Those battles are won and lost in the courts.
But Giuliani reignites the fire under Libertarian, economic/national security conservatives everywhere and brings a whole new generation into play for the Republican party. I’m 23, and one of the ONLY social conservatives I know. The majority of my friends consider themselves to be “conservative” but care about two things: 1. Money and 2. National Defense/Security. They could give a hoot about abortion and many are in agreement with gay rights. Rudy Giuliani is their candidate, and the candidate of millions of dis-enfranchised GOP voters around the country just like them. In short, I agree with you.
March 16th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Great analysis DaveG
I agree with every word.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Geoff,
What makes you think Rudy will appoint judges who will overturn RvW?
March 17th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Murphy,
I never said Rudy would appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. But, I take the Mayor at his word and believe he will appoint strict constructionist judges who interpret the Constitution and dont legislate from the bench. He has said thats what he would do on several occassions. And I’m sorry, though I would like to see it done, Roe v Wade will never be over turned, at least in my life time. Even if there were 9 John Roberts on the court, which there never will be, I dont see the court over turning it in my life time. So, just because I or someone talks about strict constructionist judges, doesn’t mean that those individuals would overturn Roe v. Wade.
March 17th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Roe v Wade will never be over turned, at least in my life time. Even if there were 9 John Roberts on the court…
What makes you think it will never be overturned, even with 9 judges who would want to overturn it? This sounds to me like a declaration of all social battles to be dead and lost, something I see no rationale for other than dismissing one of Rudy’s core weaknesses in the primary.
March 17th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
The over turning of Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with one of, at least what you perceive to be,
Rudy’s “weaknesess”. If Roe v. Wade is over turned, I would be happy. But the country at large is in
favor of abortion, if not wholsale but as an option to protect the life of the mother, and in cases of rape
and incest. Roe. v. Wade has nothing to do with Rudy, or Romney, or McCain etc. etc. Abortion is
not even close to being one of the most important issues of the day.
March 17th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Geoff,
But the country at large is in favor of abortion, if not wholsale but as an option to protect the life of the mother, and in cases of rape and incest.
Those three clauses (life, rape, incest) represent about 5% of abortions. The other 1+ million of children are killed for reasons of convenience (an issue you think is not even close to important). And a majority of the country is NOT in favor of abortion on demand. If Americans understood what the overturning of RvW actually meant in terms of consequences, it would be popularly supported. This election may just make that case to them.
March 17th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
one thing about overturning roe v wade that no one seems to bring up is that conservatives seem to think that if the court does reverse it, and that is a huge if, all that means is that liberals will now be energized to restore it, much like conservatives have been energized the past 30 yeras to reverse it.
With Scalia approaching 71, he’s not going to be around forever.
I don’t see it being overturned with anything short of a 7-2 or at the least 6-3 majority so conservatives need another two solid Justices and that’s assuming Roberts and Alito would overturn it-no given in my view. Roberts and Alito were both rather clear on the issue of precedent. Even Jan Greenburg in either her book or some interview I saw predicted that neither Roberts nor Alito would be a vote to overturn Roe and she’s interviewd both and just wrote the definitive book on their nominations.
So, to hold out all hope and vote for a guy just because of one decision that even in the unlikely event it is overturned, will most likely be re-overturned as soon as the dems/liberals get the chance isn’t a smart move.
Most likely, the undue burden standard of Casey will simply be watered down and any state regulations short of outright pre-viability bans will be upheld. In my view, this is probably the best that can be expected now. I see no reason why Rudy would appoint judges less likely to follow in that course than Romney or McCain.
Personally, abortion isn’t the top issue for me so I can understand how serious pro-lifers may disagree, but I’m just speaking as to what the evidence shows me thus far.
Most important to me as far as the Court goes right now are War issues, Federalism and Criminal Law. I have as much confidence in Rudy on those issues as I don any one else, if not more.
Also, if you look Judges who are good on the above three, they tend to be good on issues like abortion as well.
Also, if history has taught us anything, it’s that who the President is relaly doesn’t matter when it comes to the Court. Reagan gave us O’Connor and Kennedy, Nixon gave us Blackmun and Powell, Bush gave us Souter, Kennedy put White up. One never really knows. Even as good as Roberts and Alito appear to be, it’s early. Both Kennedy and Souter voted with Rehnquist and Scalia something like 90% of the time their first couple of terms. Go back and look at the statistics, it’s all there. I remember after Souter joined the Rust v Sullivan decision, the liberals were crying in the streets that Roe was dead. So much for that.
No matter who the next GOP President is, if there’s a vacancy in the next term, the short list will most likely be the same. Names like Sykes, Brown, McConnell, Clement, Williams, and others will be considered no matter who the President is.
If anything, Rudy being perceived as a moderate may help him to get someone more conservative confirmed rather than a Romney who will be seen as having a hard core social agenda that the dems will be more likely to oppose. After all, both Romney and McCain have called for the reversal of Roe, something even Bush has never done. It’s going to be a lot harder for them to get that 5th vote confirmed with their statements than it would be for Rudy, who would likely be given the benefit of the doubt and even some dems would say “he’s pro-choice”.
Also, a Romney or McCain presidency could make it more likely that a Stevens or Ginsburg, or even a Kennedy, Souter or Breyer try to outlast their 1st term and hope that a dem wins in 2012. Having a moderate like Rudy may make them feel more comfortable that some hard core culture warrior isn’t in office. If Romney or McCain win and the libs on the bench just stay on until 2012, then it won’t matter how pro life they are.
All in all, there’s plenty more to oppose Rudy on than Judges. He won’t make the pick by himself. The GOP caucus in the Senate and on the SJC will have big input. The DOJ and OLC will have big input. The Federalist Society and other groups will have input. The conservative pundits at Nat’l Review, the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal and the blogs will have input. Rudy is not stupid. He knows that a lot of conservatives are cold to him and that giving them a solid SC nominee is necessary to hold their support, if only to ensure he’d be renominated in 2012 and not face a primary challenge like Bush did from Buchanan in 1992.
Unfortunately this is one of thsoe things that will never be proven unless it happens and there’s really no way to know in advance. That said, I’m not too concerned over the SC picks Rudy would make. Any President will learn from the reaction to the Miers mess and he’ll know that he can’t go off the reservation on that one.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:16 am
Sen. Thompson would be wise to wait awhile before jumping in. If he enters the race tomorrow he will be yet another candidate splitting the rightwing of the party and will do an excellent job of helping Giuliani into the nomination and then into the loneliest presidency since President Tyler got dumped by his own party.
If he’s going to be president, he’ll have to wait for the time to ripen. If Gov. Romney fails to consolidate conservatives and it appears that a Giuliani nomination is inevitable, Thompson might be able to play the White Knight role and swoop in at the last minute.
As a standard candidate though, he’s going to hurt conservatives more than help them.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Fred Thompson is as old as dirt! His hair is falling out, his skin looks like someone blew 20 packs worth of cigarette smoke on it. If this is the Republicans idea of a formidable candidate, we should start considering suicide. Come on guys if you think this clown could win a general election your crazy!