The Candidates
So I have been having this internal debate regarding Fred Thompson’s entry into the race. And unfortunately, I am so 2008 obsessed that I have lost some sleep over it (my wife is recommending that I seek psychiatric attention as a result).
My initial reaction to hearing that FDT was considering entering the race was the same as Dave’s (yes, the eerie mind-meld continues), which is that Thompson is the one “red-meat”, “red state” Republican who can “get the band back together”- meaning that he could regroup the Bush coalition that swept us to victory in 2004.
Longtime readers know of my belief that there are likely only two Republicans who are not DOA upon nomination in the general election: Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.
However, Thompson’s inherent decency, charisma, and star appeal could have the potential to draw Independents and perhaps enough moderate Dems to pull out a 280-286 electoral vote win and keep the Red State/Blue State template alive for one more round. There’s just something about FDT that oozes common sense and solid conservative governance, much like Ronald Reagan over 25 years ago.
I recently had a discussion who someone was very plugged into the 2004 campaign in a day-to-day capacity. Now I’m not claiming I had coffee with Karl Rove, but this person is someone whose experience in a presidential campaign causes me to give his opinion weight.
This fellow laughed out loud at my assertion of Thompson’s viability in the general. He told me that he believes that myself and many other Republicans simply do not understand the damage that has been done to “Brand GOP” in the past 2.5 years.
Simply put, the GOP needs a complete rebranding in order to stand a chance in 2008. He is not a Romney fan by any means, but in all seriousness stated that if the GOP is going to concede 2008 by nominating someone with little appeal to Independents and moderate Dems, we might as well nominate Mitt so we can at least look good while going down in flames.
“But what about Thompson’s Reaganesque qualities?” I asked.
He told me to think about the environment in which Ronald Reagan won in 1980. Reagan won in a +20 GOP environment against a President that many viewed as a complete incompetent. George W. Bush’s legacy is this generation’s Jimmy Carter, and 2008 will likely find the GOP at nearly the same disadvantage as the Dems were in 1980, he contends.
Friend of Race 4 2008 Jennifer Rubin has concerns regarding FDT as well:
Fred Thompson is an odd choice to be the savior of the Republican Party at this moment in history. He offers no executive experience which would appeal both to party regulars and voters at large who are disenchanted with the display of incompetence not seen since the Carter administration. He cannot boast of a record of legislative achievement and was by all accounts a less than energetic senator. He provides no differentiation from John McCain on campaign finance reform a chief complaint of the conservative blogosphere. As a conventional conservative from a Red state he lacks the cross over appeal of either McCain or Giuliani.
When closely examined, however, these advantages may quickly disappear should he enter the race. He will need to take positions, confirm or distance his support of the McCain-Feingold bill, and face the same scrutiny of his personal history and public record like his opponents. Soon enough we’ll hear about his “bachelor days” in Washington and his lax work habits in the Senate. As he enters the race he will find it difficult to stay above the fray or feign indifference to political victory. In short, he will become like any other candidate imperfect, tiresome at times and somewhat predictable.
Lacking obvious faults and sporting a pleasing personality may be enough to rise above the second tier candidates and one or two of the first tier ones. However, at some point he will have to demonstrate he is actually better than all the others. The least defective personality or least controversial candidate rarely wins. If they did, his fellow Tennessean Lamar Alexander might be president. Voters may complain about candidates’ faults and often tell pollsters they would like some mythical “other choice.” Yet given a choice between a flawed, but highly qualified candidate who has been a participant and combatant in the public arena during the tough battles of the last few years and someone living a comparatively easy life as a TV and radio personality, it is not clear the latter will prevail.
Giuliani, McCain and Romney may have their flaws but they also have accomplishments and have spent time and energy trying to shape their party and the country over the last decade. Taming crime in New York, fighting for military reform and forcing a democratic vote on gay marriage are not small things. They are the stuff of committed and tenacious politicians. They did not take the easy road and did not coast when others toiled. Whether they have outlived their welcome in the meantime is what the next year will show. Conservative commentators and bloggers who mock Barack Obama as an empty slate, short on accomplishments and experience will have to decide whether Thompson is indeed the best the party can do.
I would be interested in reading our commenters cases for or against FDT.
April 12th, 2007 at 9:30 am
I am completely against nominating FDT. I agree with the assertion that he would have little cross-over appeal. My dad worked over 20 years in the Senate — as a chief of staff to one senator and a legislative director to another — and as a staffer on the judiciary — and he also says that Thompson was lazy and had very little legislative accomplishments, and my dad has no idea why there is so much hype about him, other then to distract conservatives who are panicking because they can’t find a candidate they support.
April 12th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Kavon,
I completely agree. Nominating a traditional, southern Republican would be a disaster for the GOP.
Most of us political hacks tend to live in this conservative Internet bubble. We only need to turn on CNN or look as some of the recent polling to realize how bad the GOP brand has become. I was watching CNN yesterday in a local diner, and they were promoting a backward Bush countdown clock.
The GOP needs a serious rebranding campaign or we will see historic losses in 2008.
April 12th, 2007 at 9:52 am
I’m going to start off this by reposting something I said in an earlier thread.
When I look at the president’s we’ve had, and I think about what distinguishes the good ones from the great ones, the average from the disastrous, I think it’s inevitably the case that, presidents who have something unique to offer to the office are the most successful. Whatever one might think of Romney’s sincerity or his conservatism, he’s clearly a rare commodity. There simply aren’t batches of people with his success at turning around such a disparate collection of situations. Or with such experience and success assembling teams, and hammering out workable solutions. You’d want a president Romney, because there are things he brings to the office, that you can’t entirely make up for by hiring good advisors (and anyway, the hiring of good advisros presumes that you have, like a Romney, a particular ability to assemble teams). The same can be said about Giuliani’s leadership, and disaster management skills, and McCain’s war and foreign policy experience. It’s up the voters (that’s us) to decide which unique, and probably irreplaceable, qualities are most important to us. But when we’re talking about people like Bush II, and Fred Thompson, there’s simply nothing that they bring to the equation that couldn’t be found, either in other candidates, or in able advisors. Bush I’s depth of experience in foreign policy and war was literally unmatched. Nothing could have replaced what he offered to the office. And he was, despite some conservative moaning at the time, a “great” president. Reagan had a unique ability to communicate the basic desires of the American people, and reflect their hopes and fears. No amount of advisors could have replaced his ability to instill optimism. Ford had nothing of consequence, and was a fairly insignificant president. Nixon, for all his great flaws, had a preternatural ability to navigate political landscapes, combined with admirable foreign policy skills. Eisenhower had been a wartime general. Even as we look at the Democratic candidates, we see these differences reflected. Carter had nothing of significance to offer and was a disastrous president. But LBJ, JFK, and Clinton all had unique experiences and skills and all three were varying degrees of (even from a conservative perspective), “ok”. It’s not enough for Fred to be basically conservative, basically a nice guy, basically intelligent, and basically persuasive. At least it shouldn’t be.
As for counting to 270, the answer is a little less clear for me. One of the largest reasons I’ve supported Romney, is because I’ve believed him to be the only candidate capable of both holding together the long-term Republican coalition we’ve built over the last 2 decades, and nonetheless appealing to various other segments of the population, something necessary to win elections (through his outsider status, his experience, his work on cross-over issues like health care, his blue state identification). In short, he seemed to be the only candidate who could thread the overall needle, in terms of both short term and long term health of conservatism and the GOP. Fred Thompson clearly questions that dynamic. I have little doubt that Fred Thompson can perform the first function: hold together the GOP coalition. In fact, I suspect he’d even be more successful at that then Romney. But for the latter function, while I like his chances better then a Brownback, I nonetheless suspect that he comes up lacking. He has no unique experience which independents will latch onto. No long record of competence- something which can often trump ideology. No experience particularly relevant to the job at hand. No cultural connection to voters outside of the South (rememeber Reagan’s great strength was that he was both conservative, and culturally able to connect with blue state voters due to his “Hollywood” image). The most that one can say for his candidacy, is that he’s an outsider- something which is bound to be helpful in such a political environment. But beyond that, Thompson would be relying entirely on his charisma to distinguish him from other red state, sure-fire losers. And he’s just not that charismatic. Pehaps no one is. And put into a race against an equally or exceedingly charismatic Democrat in Obama or Edwards, and he has virtually nothing to recommend him to independents or moderate Democrats. In short, Thompson would likely perform better then any beyond the big 3, and would likely win against Hillary, but doesn’t have the type of qualities that should indicate general “electability”.
April 12th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Agree. We gain nothing by catering to the traditional GOP voter and nothing else. An FDT nomination would be a losing cause.
The last paragraph of that article sums it up best - McCain, Giuliani and Romney have accomplishments, money, and the desire. One of these should be our nominee, whether we like them 100% or not.
April 12th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Ditto with everyone above regarding Thompson. Thanks Billy Valentine for the
inside info on Thompson’s work ethic. I also agree that the republicans are
running behind in the electoral college race and unless the party nominates
someone with national appeal we can forget 2008. I happen to think that person
is Rudy, but I know it is not Thompson ( his unfortunate health problem will
also be a neagtive for voters ).
April 12th, 2007 at 10:43 am
(disclosure: I am a committed “romneybot”)
excellent post Kavon. I have thought all along that the Base is suffering from the “grass is greener…” syndrom. Thompson has no resume and he simply lacks the strength, longevity, and appeal to win the general. I think any of the top three could go the distance but Thompson no because he is simply just another southern republican with little appeal to the middle and little to offer.
I can already envision some of the attacks the media could use on him. Obviously I think he would be an ok President but do we really want a President who has little to no experience running any organization? I think we will have suffered through 8 years of having an incompetent President by then. (In 2000 I campaigned on the streets of Seattle for Bush)
Honestly I think the only thing going for Thompson is the GOP’s yearning to get to other side of the hill.
April 12th, 2007 at 10:51 am
MC, I agree completely with what you wrote. Thompson is simply the candidate that the “None of our candidates are conservative!” crowd likes right now, without knowing a lick about the guy. The fact that he has stuck around longer than other flavor-of-the-month candidates is disconcerting to say the least, and says more about perception of the current field than any strengths Thompson has. Because those are few.
April 12th, 2007 at 10:54 am
I’m at work right now, so might not be able to respond til tonight.
I posted this first part this morning, the rest I just wrote:
Here are some of my personal observations:
Republius makes a good observation about Karen Hughes.
Secondly, I have never said that Thompson had the executive experience of Romney or Guiliani. That is their advantage. But I do resent people’s comments that Fred was lazy or unremarkable, when that was not the case. For example, people saying that Thompson left the Senate because he wanted to go back to acting, or didn’t really care. As I have pointed out, he was going through a traumatic experience in the loss of a child, and I think it is inaccurate for those who say he is lazy to comment on this without any knowledge of the situation. For those bent on electing a governor, we have elected governors the last sixteen years, and it has not paid off in our favor. We have also seen them enlarging the government, something Thompson’s record clearly shows that he is against. A lot of people are ready for a change. Not to compare Thompson to historical figures, but Thomas Jefferson was a thinker, not an executor when he was elected, as was Madison, Monroe, Lincoln, etc. I can only think of one candidate that has been elected from a local office, like mayor, in the history of the United States.
Third, Thompson appeals to blue-collar conservatives, something the other top candidates have not been able to do yet, and that’s a reason that nobody has really run away with this, and that the Thompson candidacy has come from nowhere to running high up in the polls in one month, without even declaring himself a candidate. Romney has raised a lot of money, but where is it coming from?
One of the brilliant strategies of the Bush campaign was that he was able to align himself as the candidate for the everyday American. Mayor Guiliani has been able to do this somewhat, and that standing comes from his experience as mayor of New York during the terrorist attacks. Governor Romney’s campaign has been impressive in its structure and organization. I do believe he is a good man, but he doesn’t has yet to come across as a man of the people. He is from an elite class with a family history in politics. Thompson worked his way up from a blue collar background. He paid his way through college, and law school. He became successful on his own merits, without the advantage of his family. These factors endear him to the Reagan-Democrats, as they can view him as one who understands what it is like to come from the ordinary life of America to realize the American Dream. I am one of those who can look to him as an inspiration because like him, I don’t come from wealth, I worked my way through college to earn majors in political science and psychology without any help. Though I don’t like it being a political topic, I lost a child also. He has an understanding of what I went through, although death knows no class or standing. People like me have lost their faith in career politicians. I wouldn’t be here talking about this now, if a Thompson campaign hadn’t inspired me to get off my butt, because the other candidates were doing little to reassure me that it wasn’t going to be business as usual for the politicians. Thompson’s campaign showed me that someone not from the political establishment could still be a factor, not to mention the ultimate elitist having a shot at being the Democrats pick.
I realize that a lot of you have invested your time and interest into the campaigns of your candidates. I ask you to look at things from an outsiders perspective, from the one of the people who don’t spend hours thinking about politics. Maybe you’re right to think that you are better informed to the understanding of todays government, and what would best qualify a candidate, but if you look look at it from the perspective of an outsider objectively, I think you can understand why there is support for a Thompson insurgency.
Here some more:
Thoompson has made his repututation for fighting against corruptance of both parties. He is not part of any elite class. He is the only candidate that can appeal to “Bruce Springsteen” (yes, Springsteen is liberal, but you get the idea) and “Cormac McCarthy” republicans. Those who are on the outside of the inner circle. Those who work in factories, service stations. He has been there. Romney has not. He understands the values of our working class backgrounds. The last thing the “grassroots” wants is another policy wonk. Bush ran on that appeal, but ultimately was from an elite standing who did not ever experience what its like to work up from the bottom. The Bush administration has been a failure when it comes to foreign policy, to the eyes of the public.
Bush has also been a big government Republican. Romney and Guiliani are the two that most represent this in the campaign, or at least they have done NOTHING to seperate themselves from it. Thompson, in his views and public policy, has ALWAYS fought against government spending and more government.
Thompson has been a warrior against corruption, in Tennessee and during his public office. The reason he originally supported McCain-Fiengold was that he saw that. He now says it was a mistake, and can still be manipulated. When he left, he was extremely frustrated by how the party was turning into the thing that they had fought to bring down in 1994. Whatever your views, you have to realize that the 2006 elections were a direct result of a party that had gone corrupt. Delay, Cunningham, Foley…. CORRUPTION IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC. Guiliani was a great mayor, but has been accused of corruption by the left. Thompson has very little, if any, skeletons in his political or personal closet.
As a person, although it’s not fair, Rudy’s personal life leaves some questions about how trustworthy he is as a man. I would support Guiliani on a ticket, but he HAS to prove to me that I can trust him. Its been reported that Romney has used campaign money to go after other candidates already through his websites (I’m skeptical, but I would like to see something to erase this skepticism). I’m not naive enough to think that there won’t be dirty politics involved with any candidate, or that Thompson won’t go after others, but by twisting around numbers to give false impressions this early in a campaign gives that accusation some credence.
To the public (although I’m not up on every candidates background), McCain is the only other candidate to candidate who has some appeal to the “folks”. Unfair it may be, but this is why Thompson supporters have come from nowhere and are so loyal to them. He represents something that the other candidates haven’t. Integrity, intelligence, and a human being, as opposed to a robot. Romney’s problem is that he’s so smooth he appears to be slick. He has yet to appeal to everyday working people. To win support of the people, he has got to show that he understands the problems of the EVERYDAY person. He has to show that he has struggled, not just been handed everything on a silver platter. Thompson was successful in the private sector, but not like Romney. The difference is that Fred Dalton Thompson has worked for EVERYTHING he has accomplished. He started at the bottom, payed his own way through college, turned down a scholarship to attend Vanderbilt Law School. He knows what its like to work to pay the bills, with nothing to fall back on.
April 12th, 2007 at 10:56 am
And can we be honest for a sec? As far as FDT goes, dude’s ugly. He never smiles! And those jowls…. they’d give me nightmares….
(I’m just joking around - don’t get all serious now and attack me for this!)
April 12th, 2007 at 11:02 am
[...] Kavon over at Race 4 2008 got me back to this little project I have of comparing general election matchups for various GOP candidates. [...]
April 12th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I could repost my arguments against FDT from last night, but I won’t bore you. FDT has many positives, but he has many negatives as well, and they haven’t been discussed yet. The biggest is his connection to (responsibility for?) the Savings and Loan crisis.
I have nothing against the guy personally, and I still think he’s better than any Democrat in the field. But (surprise!) I would sooner support Guiliani, with his strong record of achievement, over a politician who doesn’t have any apparent vision, executive accomplishment, or fire in the belly. On the last point, why doesn’t he just jump in and declare? His hanging back contributes to the image that he’s lazy, waiting for a coronation rather than plowing the field himself.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Oh, and one more thing. I would beg FDT to not pull out the overalls and red truck in his quest for nomination. It would really alienate Northern Conservatives, let alone northern independents. If he can win without such symbols, he would make a much stronger candidate in the general.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:19 am
I agree with everyone here (except Thompson-supporting Tommy) about FDT in the general. Jennifer Rubin’s points are good, but the bottom line that most GOPers have not accepted is that the GOP is in the toilet and only a miracle individual can save its chances in 2008: Rudy.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:21 am
David B, I find myself agreeing with you: most GOPers have not accepted that only Rudy can save the GOP in 2008. The GOP is the party of optimism, and we do not depend on any single individual to “save” us. A single election is less important than the health of the movement. See: Barry Goldwater.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:22 am
I still predict FDT enters the race, takes a chunk out of Rudy, but splits the anti-Rudy vote with the other candidates. Rudy stays on top. Romney, McCain, Brownback et al won’t be able to get any traction. (Newt was only dreaming.) It’ll be Rudy vs. FDT. After a very hard look at FDT’s negatives and his performance head-to-head against Hillary and Obama, vs. Rudy’s, the consensus will be Rudy. Won’t be a hard choice– most GOPers and Americans have a real love for the guy deep down.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Very good post, Kavon.
This echoes a lot of my own thoughts regarding FDT. I continue to believe, as you do, that only McCain and Giuliani have a shot to be become President in 2008. Republican support across the broad is at it’s lowest levels in more than 20 years and Reagan to GHWB was the only when a two term President’s party was able to succeed him. These are much, much more unfavorable conditions.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Oh and check this out too.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I was somewhat surprised to see Fred Thompson opposes medical savings accounts.
Does anyone know the basis of Thompson’s opposition to medical/heath savings accounts, which have been advocated by the Bush administration?
April 12th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Argo, you have a link? One thing I love about “liberal” Rudy is that he stands for individual choice/accounts/vouchers in just about every area possible.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
[...] Kavon over at Race 4 2008 got me back to this little project I have of comparing general election matchups for various GOP candidates. [...]
April 12th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Only have a second. So wait for my responses at night. But our friend over at cbn which Jason was talking about the other night (ie: thompson and chaffee) has posted an update that might show why Thompson is a force:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/136223.aspx
April 12th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Actually, he’s just being fair, which wasn’t what was going on the other night when he was misquoted here.
When I have time, I’ll respond.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
…meaning, he was just admitting that Thompson’s got a serious base and that it was unfair to use that quote out of context.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
For gosh sakes! FDT opposes HSA’s (health savings accounts)? I admit that this is an issue that is probably nearer to my heart than almost anyone else out there… But Romney’s opposition to HSA’s are the single biggest policy position of his that prevents me from supporting him. Do we really need another GOP contender that opposes liberty and responsibility in our healthcare system?
April 12th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
And for anyone who thinks I’m exaggerating about how bad a state the GOP is in, click here.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
ROMNEY is against HSA’s? What the hell? Is Rudy the only real conservative in the race?
April 12th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Yes. Romneycare specifically excluded HSA plan’s from satisfying the legal requirement of health insurance under the law.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Fred Thompson is the ONLY choice for this country’s future…log onto draftfredthompson to find out more and true facts about FDT…i dare you…rudy is a liberal in republican clothing and romney cannot be trusted to know when or if he hunted!
please…check your facts before you make a judgment…
April 12th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Kavon, just because the plan was enacted that way doesn’t mean Romney opposes HSAs. It only means that he wasn’t able to get that provision past the MA legislature.
“In Massachusetts, Romney spearheaded implementation of a so-called individual mandate, which requires people to purchase health insurance or face financial penalties. He said that model “will work for the nation,” as could initiatives under way in other states. He also advocates health savings accounts, transparency in pricing and “bringing market dynamics” to health care.”
source: http://www.healthdecisions.org/Government/News/default.aspx?doc_id=113160
Just because you want something to be true doesn’t make it true.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Here is a presentation he made to AHIP which specifically supports HSAs (this presentation was made in 2006).
http://www.healthdecisions.org/HSA/News/default.aspx?doc_id=71147
See slide 9.
Again, Kavon, please verify what you have been told is not simply propaganda before passing it on.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
So what’s your point JF? Romneycare is Mitt’s baby. He is responsible for it. The law in Mass excludes HSA’s from qualifying as acceptable coverage.
Toe-may-toe or Toe-mah-toe, the results of Mitt’s actions are the same.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Kavon, your position is the socialist position. Rather than enacting reform, you would preserve a regime in which FREE (taxpayer provided) healthcare is given to the free-rider uninsured who show up at emergency rooms. Romney’s program is infinitely preferable to the status quo. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, for you will end up with nothing at all.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Mitt enacts policy which in which the government requires every citizen to have insurance under the penalty of law and I’m the socialist? That’s rich…
April 12th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Kavon, you can ignore reality, but that doesn’t mean we have to. The underlying principle of Romney’s program is to eliminate free riders. How does he do this? He forces people who can afford insurance, but choose not to purchase it, to purchase a program through the private market. This is not government-provided insurance, it’s a mandate to purchase private insurance. This eliminates universal healthcare, otherwise known as showing up to the emergency room without insurance.
You clearly don’t have much interest in learning the facts. But it’s not helpful to fabricate untruths. You said Romney opposed HSAs, which is demonstrably false at best, and a lie at worst. He didn’t enact HSAs. But he never opposed them.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
A few thoughts.
First, I don’t see how anyone, other than those who know him well personally, can know enough about what kind of candidate Fred Thompson would be unless he gets in the race and is vetted and challenged and exposed to the pressures of the stump. So I am against the concept thrown out by so many supporters of other GOP candidates that Thompson should not get in the race at all. Both he and Speaker Gingrich ought to get in, I think. And it would be nice to hear some opinions about this topic from those who have yet to align behind a specific candidate. Of course those who support someone else think Fred Thompson and Gingrich should not run. The idea that we can determine the best GOP nominee before conducting a full-scale campaign is horribly misguided, I think.
Second, while I agree that executive experience is a plus in a presidential candidate, I don’t think it is a prerequisite. The ability to have a vision, prioritize, delegate, and surround oneself with great staff and managers is what we need. Our nation’s first MBA president has been a horrible chief executive because he has surrounded himself with sycophants and reportedly ridicules those on his staff with points of view different than his own. In addition, those who insist a lack of executive experience is a deal breaker fail to see the rather obvious reality that a Democrat could easily be elected president in 2008 - and none of their leading candidates (Clinton, Edwards, or Obama) have executive experience. Not too distant presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and George H.W. Bush all had little executive experience. So eliminating Fred Thompson and Gingrich on the basis of executive experience seems like a mistake to me, and more of a tactical canard from opponents.
Third, I think it is arguable that being able to communicate - in-person and over television and radio, to the nation and world - is a more important trait for a modern president to possess going in than previous executive experience. And in this respect, Fred Thompson excels.
Fourth, I disagree with all of those in this thread who imply that the way to succeed in 2008 is for Republicans to act more like Democrats. What Republicans need, in my view, is a conservative nominee of strength and principle and charisma who will attract the so-called Reagan Democrats and Independents back into the fold on our terms, not theirs. What we don’t need - and unfortunately have now - is one major party that espouses big government while the other major party espouses bigger government, or one major party that espouses more federal spending while the other major party espouses a lot more federal spending. President Reagan called for a Republican Party of bright hues rather than pale pastels. Moving toward the mushy middle is a strategy of pale pastels and would be a terrible mistake.
Finally, I think the purveyors of gossip that Fred Thompson has a poor work ethic and is a masquerading liberal because he flirted with McCain style campaign finance reform are simply serving as stalking horses for other candidates. Nobody who knows Thompson’s current schedule - up at 4:30 a.m. to tape the Paul Harvey commentary followed by a commute to New York City to film “Law and Order” while working in meetings to determine if he will run for president - thinks he lacks vigor. And the latest comment he has made about campaign finance, which I could not agree more with, is that perhaps we should eliminate all donation restrictions and require instantaneous reporting of all contributions on the Internet - which could not be a more conservative position on the issue. Even with his previous support of McCain-Feingold, Thompson has a lifetime rating of 86 from the American Conservative Union based on his Senate voting record. So the claim that he is some kind of closet liberal strains credulity.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Kavon, I am a huge believer that our healthcare system is a disaster, that Republicans need to have a bold plan in this respect, and that Health Savings Accounts are the way to go.
Where have you found that Fred Thompson opposes Health Savings Accounts? What is the Thompson prescription for what ails our healthcare system?
April 12th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
In response to Kavon’s #25: If generic Republican goes up against generic Dem we are sunk! Fortunately it doesn’t work that way
April 12th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Kavon:
I think your initial assessment of FDT (even I’ve stopped referring to him as “Arthur Branch”) is essentially well-taken, though from my point of view it falls short on a few particulars. I think FDT’s “common-sense” appeal is mostly a veneer, which he sustains very well owing to his acting experience. For many reasons not worth going into here, however, I don’t think he would ultimately stand up to the scrutiny of a Presidential campaign. That said, of course he would ultimately do well among the GOP Base in a race against any Democrat, though in my judgment, not well enough to win the general election.
The absolute best FDT could do would be to replicate the George-Bush Red State-Blue State divide and eke out a small victory in the Electoral College, and I don’t think he could even do that particularly not if Hillary could carry, say, Arkansas, Ohio (which is almost certainly lost to anyone but Rudy), Iowa, and New Mexico, to say nothing of Colorado. Not only would FDT lose in my judgment, but in so losing, he would keep the GOP in the thrall of its Social-Conservative Wing. As none other than Jesse Jackson used to say, a party, like a bird, can’t fly with only one wing.
Most importantly, however, I think your insider/interlocutor has hit the proverbial nail right square on the head. Without a virtually complete re-branding, the GOP will go down to an historic defeat in 2008. George Bush is indeed our Jimmy Carter! In my judgment, Rudy is the only potential Republican candidate on the scene today who can accomplish the necessary re-branding. McCain is too old, and he would alienate too many disparate quarries of the GOP (moi inclusif), having little or nothing to do with the soi-disant “social issues”. As for Romney, well, I can’t even bear to think about that one. Suffice it to say here that he would stand up even less well than would FDT to the scrutiny of a Presidential campaign.
I have supported Rudy from the beginning, and continue to do so, for many reasons other than his hero status deriving from 9/11. I know him well. I litigated many times against the civil side of his U.S. Attorney’s office in New York in the 1980’s. I kept a pied-a-terre in New York all through his mayoralty in the 1990’s (and still do). If someone had asked me on 10 September 2001, if I wanted Rudy to be President, I would have said: “Yes, absolutely, but unfortunately, he has no chance!” It seems almost as though divine providence visited upon Rudy the plague of (non-lethal) prostate cancer in 2000 to keep him out of the Senate and ready him for his rendezvous with destiny on 9/11!
Rudy stands poised, not merely to win a Presidential Election, but to accomplish an historic, watershed re-alignment in American Politics. Only Rudy can carry the GOP flag into places like California, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, et al. and win converts to the New Brand, based on a National Security/Fiscal Restraint/Tax Reform/Libertarian oriented conservatism. At the same time, we would certainly not abandon the social conservative wing. I for one would certainly not want to abandon this wing because, though I do not count myself among their number, their basic outlook is also my basic outlook.
Indeed, however, social conservatives themselves are already flocking to Rudy’s banner. He consistently wins in polling subsets such as “self-described conservatives” and “White Born-Again Evangelicals”. This demonstrates, in my view, the maturity, perception, and awareness of these people in deciding for whom they will cast their vote, and deserves a respect that the MSM is unwilling to accord them. My reading of the internals and cross-tabs of a wide variety of polls is that the only polling sub-set(s) who are significantly opposed to Rudy are determined one-issue voters. If the GOP disports itself to gin up a candidacy, whether for FDT or anyone else, so as to cater to a perceived “Base” that includes principally determined one-issue votes, then the Party will richly deserve the permanent minority status into which such an action would cast them. Indeed, it would not surprise me at all to see the party actually break apart in the medium to long term.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Republius,
No, I was reacting to another commenter’s statement that FDT opposed HSA’s. If he didn’t or does not that would lift a huge weight off my mind about him.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
David B:
I find you to be rather hilarious and just a little hypocritical. Out of one side of your mouth you constantly call us “romneybots” and then out of the other side you start calling Rudy a “miracle candidate” who can “save” us. You really need to lay off the cool-aid. At least we “romneybots” are somewhat rational in our support of our candidate instead having to do with a personality cult.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
On FDT and HSA’s, from ontheissues.org:
*Voted NO on medical savings accounts. (Apr 1996)
Now, I’m not sure what the bill was in 1996, and I’m not even sure what the debate was in 1996. So take that for what it’s worth. Just wanted to throw that out there to give people more to chew on.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Having read every post above, I can only say that the comments dismissing Fred Thompson appear to be based on hearsay at best, but primarily on rumor. Get yourselves informed, people, before you have to cast a real ballot.
I baptized a couple of great young people into our church last year, and they are growing very well, spiritually. I’m not ready to let them teach a Sunday School class. Such is the situation with Rudy and especially with Romney. They’ve made some good professions of the conservative faith, but I want to see them produce more fruit before I am willing to put them in charge of the country. Their conversions seem genuine, but so far the sins of their liberalism have not yet been sufficiently renounced. In fact, Rudy had a good chance to get back on the wagon last week, and chose otherwise.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
JF,
Well stated. notion that because someone has failed to enact a particular policy, they oppose that policy defies logic. Frankly, it’s difficult for me to begin a response to that sort of mentality. Romney supports HSA’s. He’s said so on numerous occasions. He supports eliminating mandates on insurers. He’s said so on numerous occasions. The Massachusetts health care plan excluded the former and limited the latter as a means of political compromise in a state with a 90% Democratic legislature. You can certainly accuse Romney of not fighting hard enough for more conservative reforms (though I’ve had discussions with the players involved, and I think this would be a woeful mischaracterization). But no reasonable interpretation of his actions or statements can lead to the conclusion that he opposes HSA’s.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Pastor Dan, what would you have Romney do to prove himself? Personally intervene in a Planned Parenthood clinic to stop an abortion with his own hands?
April 12th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I’m the other Gary. I think Kavon is exactly right about the state of the GOP.
What it will take to win the primary, but more importantly, the general will be based largely on outside factors. That’s usually been the case before. As many variables as there are right now, I also think there’s some absolutes that we can count on:
1) At some time the GOP candidate is going to have to address the Iraq war, and what he would do. If it’s not too late, and we haven’t lost 5000 soldiers, this will count the most. The military policy of our country has got to be fixed. If we’ve buried 5000 soldiers by then, I think it’s over for the GOP.
2) Immigration will have to be addressed, and this will also probably require a change from the current policy. No amnesty, but not a massive round up either. Maybe a series of small round ups.
3) Since this campaign is unlike any other in a long, long time, a candidate will have to take the pulse of the country and work it. I believe that executive experience counts for a lot, but after Bush, Rumsfield, and others, will the country still think that? Might we want someone who seems a little new to the game? A fresh, fresh start?
4) I’m a Tennessean, so I like Thompson. He’s had a life beyond politics and government. In person, he’s charismatic. He’s likable. Will that be enough? Probably not to a lot of conservatives, but the times they are a changin’. By the time the primary rolls around, I think a lot of talk will go beyond the usual conservative talking points. It took a while for the Democrats after Reagan to come up with Clinton. Hopefully, it won’t take the GOP that long. Is the GOP’s values more important than winning a campaign? If we believe they are, then we may be betting that a Democrat government will fail, and the Republicans can win it back in 8 years. I wouldn’t bet on that.
April 12th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
JF - I think that is a great question to pose. Do we ask to much of our candidates? When is enough going to be enough for some people?
In the case of Romney, he can pledge to serve as a Pro-Life President. Then people will say that is not enough. So he pledges (this is to make a point, not real) to overturn Roe v. Wade as President. But people think that is not enough. So he goes and kidnaps an abortion doctor. When will enough be enough.
In Rudy’s case, we know he has liberal views on aborition (personally), so he says it’s not his job to do it. What next he has to send Kerik into an abortion doctor’s office before we believe them?
It’s like with Don Iums - everyone said he had to apologize. But once he did, it wasn’t enough. Then people wanted he suspended. So he was suspended, but it was enough. Now they want him fired. (This was not support for Imus, just making a comparison).
When are we just going to take candidates for the word and trust them rather than play a game of “gotcha”? Remember, we are all on the same side here.
April 12th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
For the record, I haven’t made a decision on FDT one way or the other. I need to see way more data before doing so.
I will say for the record that there are not enough Republicans left anymore to run a base campaign. Unless we can find a way to reach out to non-Republicans, we will lose in 2008. Can FDT do that? I don’t know yet, but my initial thought was that he could.
April 12th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
In 1996, Fred Thompson joined his fellow Senate Republicans in a straight party line vote; voting NO on an amendment that would strike medical savings savings accounts from the legislation on which they were working.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00072
Ontheissues.org really needs to get their facts in order.
“Voted NO on medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996)”
“Vote to block a plan which would allow tax-deductible medical savings accounts.”
April 12th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Thanks for looking that up, Argo. Appreciated!
April 12th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
First, I am sorry to hear Kavon is losing sleep. And yet I find this to be more evidence that a Vulcan-style mind-meld is taking place, as I too suffered from a strange case of insomnia a couple of nights ago, and, while this wasn’t specifically related to 2008, I did have dreams about the candidates when I finally passed out. This is the sort of thing that would get me beaten up in high school.
Regarding FDT, I believe he is electable, and probably more electable than most, though not all, of the field. While FDT and Bush are fellow southerners, the two are not the same person, and would not be limited to the same voters. FDT is a small-government conservative who is more committed to fiscal conservatism than the president, and who is also more of a federalist and a states’ rights guy than Bush. Additionally, FDT is a solid social conservative, but doesn’t really talk about it unless asked. This is similar to the formula by which conservatives get elected in the midwest (see Thompson, Tommy and Pawlenty, Tim) and the southwest (see McCain, John).
FDT’s conservatism plus his southernness would keep the south solid. The plains states and mountain west aren’t going anywhere either. If you assume that FDT gets out a few more votes in the southwest and the midwest due to all the aforementioned reasons as well as his gravitas and communication skills, you’ve basically got all the Bush states in the GOP column plus a few close states from 2004, like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, which Bush lost by 1 and 2 pts, respectively. Add those two states to the Bush states and the GOP ticket garners 317 electoral votes.
I think those who analogize Bush and FDT are mistaken. The corruption/incompetence/wedge-issues trio that brought the GOP down in ‘06 doesn’t really apply to FDT. He’s more like the 1990s version of McCain with a southern accent. McCain back then was quite conservative and was a Phil Gramm Republican. That’s why I actually supported McCain in 2000 during the primaries, as did Bill Kristol and Michael Reagan. That’s the formula that plays in the midwest. Add Pawlenty to the ticket and Michigan and Minnesota could flip as well.
Thompson will have to prove himself, but if he is what I think he is — a small government Republican with an understated social conservatism, a penchant for clean government, and one who projects gravitas and is rhetorically skilled, then he will be a candidate who will make waves not only in the primaries, but in the general as well. Bush couldn’t win in 2008. But just because a guy has a southern accent doesn’t mean he’s Bush.
April 12th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Let’s be real here. McCain hangs out with Ted Kennedy to much which will turn ALOT of people off entirely.
Guliani was looking good until the New York Fire Dept refused to back him and said Ground Zero turned into a “Scoop and Dump” Operation, that will follow Rudy all the way to the debates!! Which he will lose on that alone because you know the Liberals will make alot of hay on that one.
Mitt Romney is a Mormon, there goes the Christian vote all day long!! And what percentage of the Country is Christian? 60-70%?
And the rest we never even hear a peep out of.
Fred Thompson has what it takes to be President. Sure his cancer issue will come up, but Guliani had Prostate Cancer, McCain had Skin Cancer, shoot they all seem to have Cancer. So this Cancer issue shouldnt even be an issue. Besides Fred’s Cancer is in remission and his Dr’s said having Diabetes would be worse than the kind of Cancer he had.
Fred Thompson believes in everything we all do. He is Pro-Defense, Pro-Gun, Pro-Life, he served in the Watergate hearings, he has been in and out of Politics for a long time. He has Name recognition that the others dont. He means what he say’s and say’s what he means. He is no-nonsense. And frankly he is the most Reaganesque candidate we have seen in a long time. And Republicans are starving for another Reagan.
I just dont see the other guys winning this election.
Dont get me wrong I LOVE them all, I am a Republican. I just believe to my core that Fred Thompson can win.
Go to YouTube and put in Fred Thompson, and watch his interviews. Go to his website and see his voting record.
He will throw in soon he is just waiting to see the public response to the fact that he had cancer. Which is smart because he is laying ALL this out on the table so the Liberal Lunatics have NOTHING on him.
RUN FRED RUN !!!!!
April 12th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Can anyone give me reasons (other than he is Southern, he is a “true Conservative”) that we should vote for F. Thompson?
The 3 major cadidates have credible reason why we should vote for them - 9/11 hero, long-term senator with vast foregin policy experience, CEO and Gov. who knows how to run the show.
What does Fred Thompson bring to the table other than a good personality, communication abilities, and being a “check-list” Conservative?
By the way…America does not want a “Check-List” conservative…they want a leader.
April 12th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
JF, Romney could get himself elected running as a conservative, rather than adopting conservative talking points for a different electorate than he has faced in his prior runs; that would be a start. You asked.
April 12th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
If you really want those reasons, JohiW, they are readily available at http://www.DraftFredThompson.com.
April 12th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Pastor Dan, what is the difference between running as a conservative and adopting the conservative platform as your own? In my mind, there is no difference, but clearly you see something I don’t. Please help me understand.
April 12th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I have to be honest….his resume and background a good. Solid for a candidate. I just don’t feel it’s as good as either Giuliani, Romney, or McCain.
I think we can do better than someone who can communicate well. Can Thompson bring us as a Nation togther? Or will the Red-Blue divide grow?
What happens when Thompson becomes “not conservative enough”? What are we going to do then?
April 12th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
The conservative movement is not very apologetic (which is a good trait sometimes), but is Thompson “conservative” enough? Are we going to be satisfied or suffer from buyer’s remorse?
April 12th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Believing that one candidate has a better chance over others at this point, when they have not been in the debate, and when they are still defining the platforms? We should not claim so-so is our only chance. Let us all look at every good and worthy man and woman (meaning Rice, if she does decide to jump in; after all her picture is still there on this site! This was not in reference to Hillary!)
But yes, we must be mindful of the so-called third party. I read somewhere that out of those who vote, there are roughly 25% declared Democrats, and 25% Republicans, and 50% who could go either way. We need to be mindful of these 50% when we consider our candidates. The best way to reach them is to have a great communicator who could attract them, and yet, at the same time, be willing to be firm on his platform once we have define it.
Let us focus on being clear with all candidates on what we expect, and allow them the time to set the platform based on our expectations. McCain does very well in standing up for what he believes is right. Now we need to tell him what is right. Let us watch him and see how he communicates with us. Romney operated under the best circumstance he found himself in. He kept, or tried to, every single promise he made during his campaign. Now, let us help him know what we meant by conservativism. And again, we watch and see how he communicates with us. Rudy stood up bravely and strongly for the issues that were important to him in New York City. I wish he is not too stubborn at this point about working with us, who are his fellow people, not enemies. Hopefully, he still will give us the chance. Then, same, let us watch him and see how he communicates with us. Let us do the same for every single good and worthy candidate. I say, let us be clear, collectively and individually, what we expect from each of our candidates, and see how they respond to them, and how well they communicate what is important to us. We may be as narrow-minded as many of us already are (focusing on abortion only and ignore the rest of moral issues or focusing on war on terror only and ignore problems at home, etc), or we may demand more from our candidates. We are at the point where there must be two-way channels, from the candidate to the voters and from the voters to the candidate. Let us focus on demanding from our candidates. And the one who adopt what is important to us and communicate well these with the rest of the America and world is the one who we should vote. This is the point of campaigning!
So, RUN FRED RUN, and the same for every good and worthy candidate!
April 12th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Steven, agreed. Let any and all run, let it be bloody, and let the best candidate survive.
April 12th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I want to give point toward both McCain and Romney for their efforts in understanding what matters to us — McCain with his Straight Talk Express where he go out around meeting with citizens and learn from them, and Romney with his Yahoo Question/Ansewr and YouTube “What Greatest Challenges is for you”. He also started “Ask Mitt Anything” events. Hopefully, he will continue. Anyone else know the channels for other candidates? I hope they all will have the similar and ongoing avenues for us to tell them what is important to us!
April 12th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
again…everyone…please go to draftfredthompson.com and look at the rapid responses to answer any of your questions…FDT is the only choice…see for yourself…watch any of his videos on youtube…he’ll make you want to stand up and salute…
run fred run…
April 12th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
JF, the difference is that someone who runs as a conservative - and wins - has convinced his constituents that he is credible. Someone who adopts another ideology than they’ve presented in the past in order to get elected may as readily do so for the next cycle if the mood of the country changes because of the slant they get from the old media. I want to vote for someone that has demonstrated that they are a person of conviction and commitment to the principles they espouse, because that gives me confidence that they will govern from those same principles. Romney may well assert that he is pro life and against same-sex unions, but that is not much of an indicator that he believes in either of those positions.
JohioW, again I suggest you consult http://www.DraftFredThompson.com for clear and concise answers to the very questions you raise.
In short, Fred Thompson, though an actor, exudes authenticity. There aren’t many politicians about whom we can say such things.
April 12th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
The only hope for a great future with this great country of ours is Fred Dalton Thompson!
He is the strongest one of the smartest of the potentioanl candidates for POTUS.
He hasn’t announced he’s running, hasn’t raised a dime yet he is still running a strong 3rd
in national polls only by mearly saying he was looking into the posiblity of running. That
should tell you something about the man if he can commmand that much support just by saying
he may be interested. Just imagine what will happen when he decides to run!
April 12th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Yes I now I spelled command wrong. I have big hands, sorry!
April 12th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Kavon, I want to commend you for keeping an open mind. I hate to see others blackballing anybody. May the best candidate win. I don’t blackball candidates because their not the same. I started posting with an open mind to all the possibilities, and to be honest, considering all the candidates. I have spent so much time defending a candidate, when others (not everyone) seemed to take offence to it. Just keep an open mind, everyone.
April 12th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
http://www.gunweek.com/2000/feature0810.html
April 12th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Senator Thompson is a great communicator. He will be able to articulate conservative values.
Those values are shared by a majority of Americans; thus, he will win the election. Hillary and Obama
are way outside of mainstream America. FDT is the candidate who can win!
April 12th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
If the Republicans only chance in 2008 is Rudy, I’d rather let a Dem have the next 4 years before being replaced by a proper Republican. Jimmy Carter did a great job of reviving the GOP brand after Nixon/Ford, maybe Hillary could do the same thing?
April 12th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Pastor Dan, in other words, you think Reagan was a phony. Reagan governed like a liberal and rhetorically shifted to the conservative side. Romney got elected on moderate rhetoric, governed like a conservative, and shifted his rhetoric to the conservative stance. That puts him in a favorable position vs. Reagan. Just remember, if you’re going to get Puritan on the candidates, that the Puritans resided in Massachusetts..
April 12th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
http://www.jacksonsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070412/NEWS01/70412018
“Meanwhile, a poll of political insiders by National Journal, a political publication, found that Thompson was considered by both Democrats and Republicans as the person who “will emerge as a strong contender for president.”
A total of 156 political insiders — 75 Democrats and 81 Republicans — were surveyed and 43 percent of the Republicans chose Thompson and 46 percent of the Democrats as the hottest prospect. “
April 12th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
McCain, Guliani, and Romney have all inspired us in some way. What they have acomplished many of us wish we could have achieved. I wish I could give you all of the answers why Fred Thompson is our guy. Awhile back I would have told you our guy is McCain or Guliani or Romney. Each have aspects that I like, many that I don’t. I have always liked Fred Thompson in the way he answers a question. Straight to the point…say it like you mean it! Someone, probably most of us heard of said “Words Mean Something” and I get the feeling that when Fred Thompson speaks he has that quote in mind. I also like his voting record with a couple exceptions.
We all have skeletons in our closet. The doors to those closets have been opened for the three above. I can’t speak to the ambition that Fred had during his four years in the Senate or how much he will show when he enters the race. If it is with as much gusto as when he speaks, there will be no stopping!
Check out the web site below it is a Great article on Fred.
http://www.americandaily.com/article/18331