Romney and Thompson
Tied with Burn Rate of Heckuvalot and Zero, Respectively
By Hunter Baker Posted in Breaking News — Comments (43) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Quinnipiac's latest poll from Ohio shows that Fred Thompson who has toyed with the idea of running for about five minutes is tied with the hard-running, big-spending Mitt Romney. The two men, candidate and not-yet candidate, are running at 6% while Gingrich has 8%, McCain 20%, and Giuliani 31%.
More, much more below the fold . . .
If Thompson actually declares, spends a few bucks, and begins campaigning in earnest, Ryan Sager thinks -- "Dun, Dun" -- the Romney campaign is dead.
I think so, too.
"Dun, Dun."
Or as Sager says, Romney may be . . .
"Done, Done."
Sager also points out that one of Romney's big financial backers has jumped ship:
Richard Blankenship, a Jacksonville-area investment banker and President Bush's former ambassador to the Bahamas, cited Mr. Romney's low level of support among Republicans and the former governor's shifting positions on various issues. "The changes in core beliefs gave rise to some concerns. You have to have an anchor in life," he said of Mr. Romney.
« Toward an Understanding of the Obamian Language — Comments (4) | Val Plame's brief testimony before Waxman's circus — Comments (105) »
Romney and Thompson 43 Comments (0 topical, 43 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Look, Fred Thompson never ran around proudly proclaiming that he was unequivocally for a woman's right to choose. Romney was set to be a crusader.
Thompson supported McCain-Feingold after chairing hearings on the '96 Clinton campaign, which investigation left him with the notion that something must be done. We'll see where he is on this as his campaign, assuming it happens, starts to move.
If you don't like anchors, well...
I'm not joining the prediction that Thompson's entry would end Romney's campaign, but I've argued that the evidence never bore out the "Big Three" theory. For me, it's still early, but Romney still has to do a lot to prove to me that his campaign should be taken as serious and possibly impactful.
Thompson enters, the entire contest is rewritten.
That Fred Thompson came to the conclusion that more regulation, not less regulation, was the "something that must be done" about campaign financing instead of deregulation is not exactly a point in his favor.
In Tennessee, you don't need to go around "crusading" for a woman's right to choose. In fact, you can be absolutely pro-life and still win. It would probably have been more helpful to him, even. Thompson, however, chose to run as "pro-choice" although, obviously, with restrictions.
I like anchors. But there is no top-tier candidate who has a pure spotless conservative record. And that includes Fred Thompson.
I'm not saying that his entry won't change the contest...I'm just saying that it just adds yet another imperfect conservative to split the conservative vote one more direction, thus helping to ensure that the lone liberal Republican, Rudy Giuliani, wins the Republican nomination - just like we've seen happen in congressional primaries such as the one that led to Joe Schwarz and Brian Bilbray ending up in congress over much better conservative candidates.
I guess conservatives are just bound and determined to be sure that Giuliani is the nominee.
pro-choice. That was Romney. And though Thompson called himself pro-choice -- and I'm taking this second hand as I've never seen such a declaration, only reports of one -- Senator Thompson received high marks from both the Christian Coalition and National Right to Life.
As far as the conservative vote and assuring a Rudy victory, conservatives currently have no candidate. McCain, though his votes are generally conservative, is creepy, for lack of a more perfect term, to them. Not in "yet," Gingrich is far too flawed and is perceived as unable to win the general election. Romney has not appealed to conservatives and he will not.
I've seen conservatives her at RedState trading rationales, and most are uneasy so far. I am uneasy with the declared lot. There is no candidate to carry the conservative vote, and Thompson becomes that, thus assuring that Rudy Giuliani will not win the nomination.
Mitt Romney is not going to be able to have his peeps smear the way to the nomination. If he wants to retain any chance to register with the top tier, he has to run as himself. If he deserves to win, he will. If he tries to spin and smear his way there, the entire process will be polluted. Republicans don't like that, and it can be argued that this still lingers with John McCain.
This is either the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen this comment on Redstate. Please give us some evidence if you believe this is true. Fred himself said he's pro-LIFE. He just believes that it's something that should be left up to the states, among a other issues. That doesn't mean he pro-abortion.
Both [Thompson and Houston Gordon] also are basically pro-choice on abortion although Thompson has voted to bar federal funding of abortions. Both candidates said they would have voted to override Clinton’s veto of a bill this year that would have banned a controversial partial-birth abortion procedure. (Memphis Commercial Appeal, 11/4/96)
U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson says he seldom hears about abortion in campaign travels throughout Tennessee and hopes the issue is downplayed at the Republican National Convention. The Tennessee Republican, a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt, is preparing for next week’s convention in San Diego. He said the party must avoid distracting issues and focus on electing Bob Dole as president. “We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us,” Thompson said in an interview with The Tennessean published Tuesday. Thompson said he opposes making early-term abortions a crime, as some Republicans would like to do with a constitutional amendment. “But I don’t think you should bolt on one issue. I’m still not convinced platforms are a good idea. We know what we believe in and I don’t think we need to write it all down in a document,” Thompson said. (AP, 8/6/96)
On abortion, both Thompson and Cooper are pro-choice. But Thompson favors parental notification, Cooper voted against it. (National Review, 6/27/94)
Though Thompson says he’s pro-choice, his voting record on abortion issues (which includes opposing fellow Tennessean Henry Foster’s nomination for surgeon general) has earned him high marks from both the Christian Coalition and the National Right to Life Committee. He has also won the backing of the tobacco industry and the NRA. (Washington Monthly, 12/1/96)
Opposition to a Constitutional Amendment to ban a form of abortion does not make one pro-abortion. There is a very long and closely held belief shared by many Conservatives that the Constitution should not be changed lightly, or to achieve social/political goals that can be met under the existing Constitution.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Being in support of keeping abortion legal makes one pro-choice. And Fred Thompson was, for a very long time. Although, he was obviously pro-choice with restrictions which is why he voted for all of the very minor restrictions that came before the senate. Kay Bailey Hutchison is much the same. She's pro-choice with restrictions, but has a pro-life voting record because of the measly restrictions that have come before the senate. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that both pro-choice Kay Bailey Hutchison and pro-choice Fred Thompson voted for the restrictions. But I think we're still waiting to hear what being pro-life means to Fred Thompson, and what changed his mind as to start self-identifying as pro-life.
My ears are open.
He is pro-life, but he doesn't believe that the federal government is the place to solve the issue. Fred Thompson believes in the states' rights, and I agree with him. In the constitution it states that all powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved to the states, a clause too often forgotten these days.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ~Ronald Reagan
Mitt gives speech in Miami quoting Fidel Castro. coincidence? I don't think so.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
which never hurts. That's a long way from making a credible candidacy. He could be one, but he has to really want it and go for it.
I love Hugh Hewitt, but he does look quite foolish consistently claiming that the race is between McCain and ROMNEY..lol..If Thompson jumps in Mitt will be at 2% after spending millions of dollars. I don't know if Thompson would hurt Giuliani or McCain more..
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
Voted NO on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Voted YES on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997) [which one is it Mr. Thompson?]
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
Voted NO on medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996)
Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999) & Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999) [Congress shouldn't be micromanaging wars...especially those that they vote to authorize force for]
From OnTheIssues.org
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm
Puts him almost squarly in the "Moderate" section of the political spectrum. Not on the conservative side of the spectrum. (see the graphic at the bottom of the link)
to be very close to McCain in votes. I do recognize a substantial differences between the two men in style and personality, but not so much with respect to votes.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
...that Newt Gingrich is also in the moderate section.
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnel
It's not my duty to also provide the votes for the things I do agree with him on. Most of those should be a given. And I provided a link for anyone to go check themselves.
I'm sorry if it's inconvenient for your Thompson-shilling to highlight that Fred Thompson is a moderate and not a conservative.
I've defended Romney, as well.
Why do you have problems with those votes? We can draw our own conclusions from those votes, but we want to hear yours.
He's always been with us on judges and that is the main pro-life issue. He's been against federal monies for abortion (the other main abortion issue).
As for the positions you list above, there aren't a lot of things there that I have a problem with. I'm not a help big business at all costs / CFGer so I could care less about his forest votes and why should we increase tax deductions for college?
On nuclear weapons, how many do we need to mutually annihilate each other.
I'm not sure who your dog is in this fight, but it seems like:
a) you're really searching here
and
b) you need to take a deep breath (like sixteen comments in a very short period of time)
Let your "facts" speak for themselves.
Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) Guiliani; 4) McCain; 5) Gingrich
Ever noticed the Hillary section on "voting record"? Its filled with BS "position statements" and little about actual votes.
They seem rather selective about what they post and how they post it. I mean they have Hillary rated as a clear moderate- leaning-a-little-left. We all know better.
OnTheIssues seems a little more than fishy to me.
In my book there is one thing going for romney, there is no better zealot than a convert.
life is worth living
A "convert" who just so happened to "see the light" right before a Republican primary when his best move was to try and be "the Conservative" in the race?
I think, considering his past statements AND his record as Governor, which has many non-conservative skeletons, that we have a right to be skeptical.
I mean, this is a guy who was for gun control, and a coupe of years ago bragged "I don't line up with the NRA!", yet now he is a "lifetime member" and proud of the organization which he joined...
in August.
Yeah - real genuine, Mitt.
And now we find out today he endorsed, just a few years ago, the Salt Lake City mayor who is anti-war and pro-choice. Nice.
And now we find out today he endorsed, just a few years ago, the Salt Lake City mayor who is anti-war and pro-choice. Nice.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/03/youtube_wars_ro_...
Doesn't work.
As has been said before - the site is very, VERY fishy.
And it's humorous that you would use a bot rating from a fishy site with liberal leanings to make your point.
But guess what? Guess who the site puts in the EXACT same "moderate" position on their little graph as Fred Thompson?
Mitt Romney.
Still the site we should trust to tell us who our leaders are, guys?
Take a cursory look at some other figures and it's almost laughable where they put some people. Somebody else already mentioned Hillary, but just try it out yourselves, it's funny.
As for taking positions on votes, this is much stickier than you think. You have to unwind a lot of votes and really look into them to see what is really there. Lots of times, Senators vote for or against an overall bill, but the bill may have things slipped in that they could be either against or for as well.
For instance, if the Republicans vote against an Iraq war funding bill laden with pork, as we all think they should(and hold out for the right bill), then a site like this could say
Voted AGAINST funding for the troops.
Or some other silly such things. This is the reason why it's been traditionally so hard for Senators to get elected. It's far too easy to pick out things they voted for or against that were merely included in bills that had other stuff that may have been the real consideration.
Not even close
For the Bush tax cuts
Always been a "Reagan" small government low tax guy
For ENFORCEMENT FIRST on the border
Is seeing the folly in Campaign Finance Reform
These are all major breaks from McCain.
And I believe he was also for drilling in ANWR.
I also have a hard time imagining Thompson would have been such an ass about terrorist interrogations, either.
I'm sure I could think of more, but these are off the top of my head. And Thompson's Senate ratings are in the range of Newt Gingrich's - definitely to the right of McCain.
He is verifiably Conservative, both in his statements and in his Senate voting record, which nets him around a 90% rating in most Conservative "scorecards".
And he's electable. Romney simply is not, as the Mormonism will turn off enough voters to make it very dicey in the general election. That shouldn't be an issue, but you know it will be for enough folks to make defeating HIllary very, very difficult - we can't afford any votes, let alone the 5% to 10% he might lose over the religion issue.
How about another difference from McCain is that Fred Thompson is not all about celebrating himself and trying to make himself look good.
Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) Guiliani; 4) McCain; 5) Gingrich
Is the time frame. This poll was begun only days after Thompson announced he was "considering" a run on Fox News Sunday.
Much of the Thompson burst has come since that time, and has been a building thing.
So the poll, which started on March 13, does not reflect "today's reality", which I believe would show Fred Thompson running even stronger than that. His stock has only gone up, as has his name-recognition and excitement in the base since his announcement, and this poll was started at the beginning of that journey, not captured only today or yesterday.
Now that the Thompson thing has gotten out there more, and even more people are paying attention and getting excited, I bet he would be in double digits - having not even announced yet, too.
But a guy who hasn't even announced, and who was included in a poll which started only a day or two after his FOX News Sunday appearance(near the start of his boomlet which has only increased), is already tied with a guy who's been running, raising and spending like crazy for months?
Stick a fork in Mitt, he's done the second that Thompson steps into the race.
And I hope Thompson does. We need him.
That point about the timing is a good one, Bushido. If the poll were taken today after tons of op-eds and internet stories about Thompson maybe running, he'd probably do even better.
Unless they are an overwhealming known idealog like Newt Gingrich, support for an undeclared "dream" candidate is usually more about disatisfaction with current choices, and not about true support for the candidate.
I think the bigger surprise is how little support Fred Thompson gets, considering the underwhealming nature of the current Republican field.
Furthermore, it is far too early to stick the fork in any candidate.
Finally, national polls do not have nearly as much influence as Iowa and New Hampshire will.
I have a problem with that comment, mainly that my support for Thompson is NOT just based on overall dissatisfaction with the current GOP field. I was a mitt-head myself - bought and sold, truthfully - but now after hearing Thompson on the issues and after doing some research into his past stances I would have some issues having to settle for Romney.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ~Ronald Reagan
...just waiting to be filled by a conservative who's not yet in the race. Who that would be I have no idea. But that's OK. I'd never even heard of Fred until a week ago and he's now my favorite.
Cicero made a point about the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. We also have other states trying to get into the "me first" primary club. Frankly, I don't care what voters in SD, VT, CA, FL, NV, or any other state think. I'm going to vote for who I want. I don't subscribe to the belief that 1st primary states have that much influence. It didn't help Howard Dean.
Finished a dismal third in Iowa, behind Kerry and Edwards. Remember the Dean scream? It was exhorting the troops to march on after the disappointing loss.
The early primary states matter a whole lot. Dean proves, not refutes, this rule.
What's Thompson ever run larger than a Senate office?
__________________________________________
First State Politics
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
I was waiting for that one.
__________________________________________
First State Politics
How much has "big-spending" Mitt Romney spent in Ohio?
Romney's at 20%+ in NH and Michigan, and in double digits in a handful of states, and he's flirting with double-digits in national polls, despite a huge name ID deficit as compared to RG, JM & NG.
I imagine when he starts to pay attention to Ohio, his numbers will jump there, too.
__________________________________________
First State Politics
Drudge is reporting that the state of Florida might move up their primary to the end of January in response to California moving to February 5th. Unless this madness ends, Iowa and New Hamsphire could very well move up to the 4th of July !
Pro-choice now, quite suddenly, pro-life (at least Mitt Romney's full conversion was 2 years ago)
Pro-McCain-Feingold, now possibly but not explicity anti-McCain-Feingold
Of the paltry sum of reasons to support Fred Thompson, that he has had an "anchor in life" is not one of them.