Redstate

Seriously, what is with this (small) contingent of people who think that you have to campaign for several years, spend a hundred million dollars, and act as if you've failed at life if you don't get elected president?

I'm sorry, but I'd rather have a guy like Thompson who exhibits traits of presidents throughout our history, rather than this "win at all costs" attitude that seems to pervade some people's minds. It may have been Hillary, Kerry, and Mitt's dream to be president since they were little and they've been groomed for it forever, but that doesn't mean others have to follow their example.

FYI, Thompson has passed a milestone. He is now ahead on Intrade for all the GOP candidates.

I by no means using this a way to tarnish Thompson and promote complete fonies with their head so far up their behind like McCain, Hillary, etc. So through that idea out right now. And what did I say, I think its a good thing that he's going in late, I'd actually tell him to wait longer. I don't care about the money. And I definitely hate people that must "win at all costs".

Now I hate political consultants at least of the type you apparently think I'm in. They are actually one of the groups that I hate the most in my life, they are cynical, they will get a candidate to compromise on everything they hold dear, and they are not conservative. I on the other hand am conservative and I'm almost a geek about it, I have a lot of passion and I devote thousands of hours researching, listening to speeches, reading, etc. I know exactly what I believe about almost every issue and for those issues that I don't have an answer on I'll come out and say that. Don't you ever put me in a category of pathetic Dick Morris like consultants and pundits.

I have an honest constructive criticism of Thompson and what do you do you don't discuss the criticism you proceed to put my in a "small contigent" of people who say that Thompson doesn't deserve it. All I want from him is at least some show that he actually will show the work ethic of really being able to understand and communicate that understanding. Because we've had 8 years of a president that doesn't even take the time to tell us for example a single statistic or fact on the podium, or provide any reasoning on why anybody should support what he supports. That takes work.

I think your point misconstrues the largest weakness of President Bush. It is not that President Bush is lazy, it is that he is not a good communicator.

"Because we've had 8 years of a president that doesn't even take the time to tell us for example a single statistic or fact on the podium, or provide any reasoning on why anybody should support what he supports. That takes work."

Bush works plenty hard, but he is a relatively bad speech giver and a worse debator. These weaknesses manifest themselves in ways you characterize as lazy, but President Bush is not lazy. Nobody capable of being elected President can be lazy.

Be prepared for the MSM to pounce on Thompson specifically for this apparent aversion to hard work. Reagan was "lazy" and "dumb." Bush Jr. liked to take "vacations" so he was "lazy" and "dumb"

Anybody we nominate is going to either be a liberal RHINO, or face allegations of being "lazy" and "dumb." Thompson however has a presence and charisma that will prevent those charges from sticking. If he runs, he will run to win--make no mistake about it.

At least he keeps a very busy schedule, is always on time, and takes on big undertakings, and I do also believe he is a horrible speaker, but in that category it seems that he has no "work ethic" to try to change that. I mean how hard is it to remember a fact, hey hes got teleprompters read the damn thing off of there. Or is it really that hard for him to sit down and craft a reasoned argument for something or does he just have to say, "I support this" and say it in litterly the exact same words every time.

I don't think all Republicans will be tarnished as lazy and dumb, I could site examples like Goldwater, or Newt and they are by no means RHINOs they are more conservative than all 10 of the current crop of candidates, and I'd like to see anybody try to win an argument to the contrary of that.

They may have called Reagan dumb, but all the conservatives knew he was extremely intelligent. He always had very profound words, if you follow the shear brilliance of his Cold War strategy that nobody understands even today of actively aiding revolts in Communist countries such as Poland that no president had the balls nor the brains to pull off before him.

I'm not calling Thompson dumb either. I think he has to show that he will extremely hard to use his intelligence to learn issues inside and out like Reagan did, and to carefully craft creative ways to demonstrate that understanding to the public. YOU DON'T GET ANOTHER REAGAN IF YOU DON'T DO THAT.

You seem to be attaching special requirements to a Thompson candidacy as if he has something to prove which others do not. All candidates should prove they are intelligent, capable, and hard-working.

Thompson has a law degree from Vanderbilt for crying out loud, he's got a deep work experience background, and he's served more time in public serve than Hillary or Mitt, or Obama's 2 1/2 years in the Senate. It's not like the guy hasn't proven himself over and over again - and he's won two statewide elections, as well.

Perhaps, if you simply just want to see him campaign, then wait. If that's the case, then just wait and see. Otherwise, you're clearly just coming on the internet either to intentionally parrot the "he's lazy" line, or unintentionally disseminate what you've heard by word of mouth. Either way, it's not productive.

I am not doing this to create any special requirements to anybody. For crying out loud can anybody just take what I said for what it was a honest constructive criticism of what I think he is lacking. It has nothing to do with whether other candidates are good at it or not many of them suck at it to, for those people they would rather read a poll than bill. Also has it crossed your mind that maybe I'm actually genuinelly intrigued by Thompson and that I am establishing the a parameter for which I feel if he showed would put him in a category of leaders that only a few around the entire world have ever been in.

Since you're going to judge my thoughts on the matter, why don't I judge yours. I think that you have already made up your mind that your a Fred Thompson fan before the campaign has really even gotten started. I think that you don't want to hear anything on this site that would possibly shake your opinion that Thompson is some holyier than though Reagan clone. And anybody that presents a criticism in good faith is somehow, "unproductive". I haven't made up my mind on who I'll support, its to early. And so I hope that you can at least keep an open mind yourself.

This whole discussion prompted me to think about the Reagan and his speeches so I posted a new Blog called "Great Communicator"--parameter for choosing

At this point in time, my biggest concern is not that Fred isn't a hard worker, but that he has specifically stated that he'd like to run a "different kind of campaign" and a "front porch campaign."

My concern is not in his governance -- I think he would what he needs to do in the White House.

My concern is that he could win the primary like this and then think it would translate to the general which I don't believe it would. I think it would appeal to conservatives because they would look at it and say, "Here's a man with priorites," but I think its a negative because in the general, I don't think that Independents would feel the same way.

Romney or Fred.

There is no requirement to work one's ass off to make things happen. I think most members of Congress spew out legislation to try and convince their constituents (and perhaps themselves) that they are earning their paycheck and worthy of reelection.

Some of the best leaders, perhaps all the best leaders, spend little time in research and all of their time in listening and absorbing and then in deciding.

Too many people seem to think the President needs to be an expert on every issue or a workaholic. This is false. He only needs to be an expert on selecting the right people and then needs to be free to focus on the many issues he will be presented with each day. He does need experts on every issue at his back and call so he can find out what the implications are and then make quality decisions.

Never, ever, confuse quantity for quality. If Fred, or whomever, makes just a few exactly correct decisions -like who to pick for his cabinet staff, what to do on Iraq, Iran, immigration, taxes and social programs, He can sit on his butt and coast for all I care. He'll have earned all the respect I can dish out - and he'll have earned it.

First of all "Listening and absorbing" is a form of research or education if you want a better word, its just done orally instead of on paper. I don't expect him to be an expert so that he can craft perfect bills, but I do expect him to know enough about an issue for him to know in his own heart the truth when somebody is telling him it, as to that I couldn't comment on it.

But to be able to communicate an issue is entirely different. You have to be able to sit down, learn it pick out whats important and craft an argument to the American people on why it is important to them PERSONALLY. If you think that isn't what made Reagan great your nuts. People don't understand that you don't address the congress, you address the American people and if they want it bad enough no congress can stand in their way. But that requires the skill to communicate a complex issue to average Americans in a way they can understand and make their own personal vendetta. That requires a passion for learning that issue.

You are entirely correct. That is one of the things that made Reagan great - he took his decisions to the American people.

Leaders lead through example and communication. If he does everthing else right and fails to communicate the 'why' to those who are lead, he has failed.

Bush has done a lot of things right.

No one knows anything about them.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Without any further political insight to follow this comment - Fred Thompson is your next President.

Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book. - Ronald Reagan

the little all tuckered out fella? But thanks for the explanation.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I could have elected to not put "college" in my screenname and you wouldn't be able to say anything. I put it in there to demonstrate the intelligence of youngER conservatives. I didn't expect it to be used to discredit me to avoid arguing the substance of my words. I've approximated that I have spent around 2500 hours of research on politics and politically related subjects in the last several years, I would gladly take on any old fart that thinks he is somehow brilliant because he is in fact old.

Sorry for picking on you, but this is really annoying me.

Also, I can assure you that college and intelligence are not necessarily related terms, a statement for which you provide a convincing proof. I've approximated that I've spent over 2500 hours on the can and had you studied the product of those efforts, you would have been far better prepared for life than you apparently are.

Being old doesn't make one brilliant. Being young doesn't make one a fool, but it certainly helps.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

... and quitting Law & Order could just be because he needs a break to... go fishing or something...

(snicker, snicker)

Move along people... nothing to see here.

"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."

If you want energy and fire, from what I have seen you may not get it. Fred Thompson is the kind of guy where he can tell you how stupid you are in such a way that you didn't even know he called you stupid.

Watch his video response to Micheal Moore. it is on YouTube.

He is very very smart, and very much a gentleman in a folksy country kind of way. I don't see him being a cheerleader, but instead he is a very strong leader who knows how to lead.

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

http://www.breitbart.tv/611.html

Thats exactly what I'm saying, he needs to have that drive that he isn't showing right now.

Maybe he isn't the candidate for you, then. If you want a maniac, there are other choices.

Who said anything about a maniac? Please stop excessively characterizing a basic criticism. There is a very huge gap between passionate and a maniac.

I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to the person who said that he acts half-asleep. I'm sorry, but I don't think we have to play into this stereotype that presidential candidates have to be shrill and over the top like Hillary Clinton, for instance, in order to win.

They said the same things about Reagan. The same things about Bush Sr. (he's got no vision, he's boring, etc.). The same things about George W. Bush. And it's a shame to see people supposedly on our side of the aisle who are buying into the left's criticism of yet another superb Republican candidate.

Ronald Reagan in 1980 was not considered half-asleep by anyone. He was lively and charismatic.

Bush Sr. was drab and would have lost in 88 had the Democrats offered anything resembling a worthwhile candidate and he did lose in 92 when they did.

Dole in 96 was also lifeless and cold and was easily defeated by an energetic Clinton.

I don't recall anyone calling Bush boring or lifeless. Dull and slow-witted perhaps but that isn't the same thing.

I don't think that this sort of criticism is unfounded. The American people like charisma and charm and energy.

That doesn't mean he needs to scream from the ramparts but exuding confidence and vitality is very helpful.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Flyer Hawk very well put, I suggest you read my new blog, "Great Communicator"--parameter for choosing. It details what one motivated, charming, and charismatic leader could do.

Sorry for mistaking your reply as to me instead of the other guy, but our point is quite the same. First of all stop thinking that just because I disagree with you that, "I am buying into to the liberals". My analysis of Thompson is almost all of my own, given my research into his speeches, his votes and his words about his votes, that was my determination not anybody elses. So if you are going to judge myself as buying liberals crap, than I'll judge you. I think that you are so in the bag for Thompson that you can't even acknowledge a constructive criticism predecated on good faith because you don't want to read anything that challenges your view that he is some holyier than thou Reagan clone. And this is extremely evident because you have the tenacity to spin great virtues like passion into negative conatations like shrillness. Who makes that leap? but somebody that just doesn't want to hear anything that shakes his view on things.

I'm not saying this to promote some other candidate because quite frankly almost all the other ones have their head so far up their behind they don't even know what the heck their doing. I'm just saying the one quality that made Reagan great he isn't showing. So any belief that he is some how anything close is just a fantasy, and you are going to do Thompson a huge disservice when the reality catches up with the fantasy.

Those kind of polls don't matter any this far out. If they did, why bother have elections? Oh, right, Democrats would rather not bother with them, I forgot.

If this was 4 months out and comprised of "likely voters" then it would mean something.

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

They don't matter that much. I'm not exactly suggesting we call off the elections. However they do matter some.

1) Giuliani is beating McCain+Romney+Thompson right now in Connecticut if that poll is accurate. That's pretty sizable.

2) There are at least three states in this country where Rudy would do better in a general election than any other Republican candidate: New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

This diary was about how Fred Thompson might win Connecticut. Might he? Sure, I guess. But one guy is already winning there.

...those numbers have some validity, but I think the first couple of states to vote/caucus will carry a lot of weight in how the rest of the country goes. Unfortunately, they will have too much weight. It is far to compressed for my liking.

I am not sure where Conn. falls in the schedule, but something tells me that unless it is very early in the primaries, the voters of Conn will shift to the favorite quickly like the rest of the states. The challengers will not have the resources to recover any early set backs.

Right now, the primary polls in the early states carry a lot of weight, and the weight will get more pronounced as the primaries approach.

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

I don't think a lot of people have warmed up to the new realities of the primary process.

At this point, I think polls are actually quite important -- to an extent. The trending that a candidate's polling takes in a particular poll is important. Presently, McCain's trending down, Romney's trending up, and Giuliani's holding steady after taking a hit from Thompson's entry into the race.

The polls are also important in individual states that will have early primaries. That always used to be Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. But a number of states are going to have impactful primaries this time around.

Basically, the present time in the primary season is the same time as September/October were in the 2000 cycle....because of the way the schedule's changed.

As such, it's simply wrong to say that a poll this far out is meaningless. Were that the case, then the candidates wouldn't be working so hard to move them.

Does anyone think those numbers are in any way representative of what the general election would look like?

Give me a break.

Run like Reagan!

I do think they give as good of an idea as any for the most part. Polls this far out aren't going to predict anything with great accuracy, but they can certainly give you an idea of the direction things are going.

The horse race questions involving Thompson might not be all that instructive since his name id is so low, but the fact that Hillary hits 49% against him isn't great.

On the other hand Rudy is beating Hillary by 6% in the poll. Is this unrepresentative of what the general election would look like?

Or you could look at other polls where they're tied or he was beating her by a point, or it's a much closer race. Polls are polls. And when you're polling one candidate who is a relatively unknown quantity vs. someone people have known most of their adult lives (Hillary), it's going to look different.

The fact that Hillary only hits 49%...and never seems to hit above that against anyone...is indicative of the fact that she is beatable. Regardless of who the nominee is.

How does Al Gore beating Fred Thompson by 35 points or whatever, say anything at all about a horse race between two hypothetical non-candidates?

I don't see it, sorry.

Run like Reagan!

You picked the most meaningless question of the whole poll and extrapolated it to "show" the entire thing is meaningless.

Do you at least think that a candidate ahead in the polls has a better shot at winning than one who isn't?

Run like Reagan!

It's important to be likable, and Fred Thompson certainly is that. I think he'd do better in the state than GWB did in 2004 (54-44 loss).

I just think that for a Republican to win Connecticut in a presidential election one of two things has to be true. Either it's a 40+ state, 375+ EV blowout or he has a special connection with the state like Giuliani does. Thompson has the potential to be a strong enough candidate to wipe the floor with Hillary or Obama, and at that point Connecticut might be in play. I guess what I'm getting at is I don't see how he wins the state without winning nationwide by at least six or eight percent (which would be phenomenal, I just don't know that it's all that likely).

Iowa, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Nevada.

Missouri voted for Clinton twice, and is right next door to Illinois (B.O.) However, I think FDT will play well there.

Pennsylvania has been leaning D recently...and it's hard to say how PA will feel about Thompson.

Nevada...who knows.

Iowa is interesting b/c of the caucuses...We'll see how the straw poll plays out in August.

As always, these nine states are critical if you want to win the White House. He has a shot at all 9, though...Ohio and Penn could be tough...gotta win one of them, though.

Missouri - tends to vote Republican unless it is a bad year (i.e. 2006). 92 we had Perot siphon off votes, 96 we had a terrible candidate in Bob Dole. Plus, Bill Clinton was far more moderate than any Dem running today.

Pennsylvania - this one goes Dem unless the GOP runs a great campaign. This is tough territory, but it's not out of the question.

Nevada - still leans Republican. I predict the GOP takes it.

Iowa - somewhat inconsequential, but leans Dem because the unions are very powerful there. I believe Kerry won in 2004.

These predictions mean almost nothing this far out, but these are my early inclinations.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Sure, neither Swann nor Santorum won, but that's more a reflection on how those candidates weren't at all right for Pennsylvanians (including a lot of Pennsylvania Republicans), not necessarily an indication of a shift away from being a swing state. Give us a qualified, reasonable candidate that the suburban republicans and independants can rally behind, and we could very easily shift back the other way. (We did, after all, re-elect Spector :-) I'd give Giuliani excellent odds here against any of the Democratic possibilities, McCain and Romney would have a decent chance depending on who they were up against.

Thompson is still too much of an unknown for me to say, though. As was discussed on local radio here today, his biggest advantage right now is that he isn't a candidate yet. I just don't know enough about his political views.

Santorum and Swann were faced by a combination of anti-republican factors and the fact that they both ran piss-poor campaigns. They expected their positions in Pennsylvania Lore to carry the day and didn't do anything about it.

The anti-Rep factors they faced were the all around anti-rep sentiment nationwide and the State anti-Rep backlash from the Pay Raise scandal. Santorum and Swann coming out in support of what's-his-stupid-name-who-lost-to-Eichelberger and Santorum also being supported by King Rendell the 1st also were unhelpful...

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

A solid, Conservative, President who wins in a squeaker...AND has the ability to articulate Conservative ideas to the American people can built momentum for a landslide the second time around.

Conservative ideas sell when they are properly articulated.

But make sure that he/she is in fact good at articulating them.

it might be that a clearly articulate conservative will do much better than Bush, or its possible that no Republican can come even close to winning if the populace has tied too much of the Bush administrations failures on the party.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle