An appeal to Fred Thompson
his chances of getting nominated are nigh impossible, but he can still influence the race
By Charles Bird Posted in 2008 — Comments (116) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I like Fred Thompson. I like his conservative views, I like his demeanor, I like his sense of humor, and I think he would have made a solid choice for Republican nominee. But in Iowa, he finished a distant third, barely ahead of a John McCain who barely campaigned there. Last night, Thompson finished a distant third, barely ahead of a Mitt Romney who, in the last days, barely campaigned there. In New Hampshire and Michigan, his numbers barely registered. The Florida polls must be discouraging for Thompson, with the former Tennessee Senator in a depressing fifth place at 8.5%, going by the RCP average. I just don't see a Thompson surge happening in Florida, not with him so far behind. Because of this, I think his chances of getting nominated have moved from slim to none.
This is hard-to-take news for his supporters, and I feel your pain, but there it is. As I see it, around nine or ten months ago, Thompson captured a little political magic in a bottle, but the problem is that he opened that bottle three months after the expiration date. He started too late and he never caught up. As Ben pointed out, Peter Robinson's analogy is incredibly apt.
More below the fold...
Thompson did not have enough appeal to garner enough votes for himself in South Carolina, but he did have enough influence--after directly challenging Mike Huckabee on his economic liberalism and whatnot--to pull enough votes away from the former Arkansas governor to put John McCain over the top.
Going forward, if Thompson wants to maximize his influence on the race (and I'll grant you that it's a big "if"), his best option in my opinion is to drop out and stand behind John McCain (full disclosure: if anyone doesn't know it by now, I decided to support McCain for the reasons stated early last November). Not only that, I'd like to see Fred Thompson stump for John McCain nationwide. Why? Because there are too many conservatives who distrust McCain. Fred Thompson could be a party unifier, and quite frankly, I think we can all use a little unifying after these long months of hard-fought campaigning.
Thompson has enough support from social and economic conservatives to bring us a solid base going forward, especially if Thompson is a presumptive running mate. Unusual times call for unusual measures. If president cannot be had, I think most of us could agree that Thompson would be a helluva vice president.
Thompson and McCain are friends and onetime Senate colleagues. During the campaign, they did not go negative against each other, and in fact, they expressed mutual admiration and respect. They would make a great team, though it may look a little funny with them standing side by side, with Thompson being about a foot taller than the vertically challenged Arizona Senator.
Fred Thompson can complement John McCain's weak spots among conservatives. On immigration, Thompson could stand behind McCain and say that "when John McCain says he'll enforce the borders first and deport illegal immigrants who've committed felonies, that's what he'll do, and I'll be here to enforce his pledge first."
On judges, Thompson could say whatever about the Gang of 14, but he could assure conservatives that McCain's judicial picks would be along the lines of Roberts and Alito.
On taxes, McCain could go as far as adopting a chunk of Thompson's tax plan, which is a pretty good one. This would improve McCain's standing among economic conservatives, it would tell the conservative community that he is not so wedded to his positions that he wouldn't consider new and better ideas, and it would dampen the political hits McCain has taken for voting "nay" on Bush's tax cut proposals.
Fred Thompson is a southerner, and the GOP needs southerners. But like McCain, Thompson also has good cross-party appeal. Remember, self-described conservatives comprise maybe one-third of the electorate on the best of days. To win, we need the best conservatives available AND the best candidates available who can draw independents and moderate Democrats.
One of the arguments against McCain-Thompson (besides the height differential) is that they're both Senators, and a Senator has not won since 1960. But in 2008, a Democratic Senator is going to get nominated, and that Senator may just select another Senator for vice president. The argument would be moot for McCain-Thompson.
Ronald Reagan was known to say that the Republican who agrees with us 75% of the time is not our opponent. A McCain-Thompson ticket would satisfy that 75% minimum and then some.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | A Different Way To Analyze the SC Outcome — Comments (42) »
An appeal to Fred Thompson 116 Comments (0 topical, 116 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Don't get me wrong, I'd vote for a McCain/Thompson ticket, but I wouldn't hold out much confidence of victory in the general against either Obama or Clinton. Especially Obama.
Fair point. I was thinking in terms of ideological appeal and not political appeal. I'd still take a Sanford or Palin VP pick though.
There is nothing lonelier than being a black Republican in Boston, Massachusetts
Nah. The age/yesterday factor acts as a real drag on that ticket.
Of all the GOP hopefuls, I think Thompson makes the least sense for McCain--unless he makes the pick during the primaries and that's what it takes for him to get the nomination.
Agreed. Thompson would enhance McCain's vulnerabilities, namely his age and his "establishment" credentials, the exact opposite of what he needs to do. He needs to get someone younger and less tied to Washington then himself.
I think it largely depends on which one gets the nomination on the other side. Strangely, I think if Hillary gets the nomination, a minority would be a good pick, and if Obama is, a woman would be a good pick. Think about it:
Hillary is the nominee, and McCain picks J.C. Watts. It'll remind blacks how they were, yet again, dissed by the Democrats when it really mattered, while if it was if Obama is the nominee, it might look like ankle biting and pure racial ploy, which won't work at all. But against Hillary, it could swing some black votes, and white votes for Obama, to the Republican side, while downplaying the "First Woman" thing Hillary's got going for her. The fact that Watts hasn't been around Washington for 6 years, and was around for only 8 wouldn't be bad either.
If Obama is the nominee, and he picks, say, Sarah Palin, it'll remind Women that the D's just turned down the chance to have the first serious woman candidate, while we nominated an attractive, good looking, family oriented (key) woman could be a huge boon. The fact that she's a favorite of Conservatives would also help out with his right flank, while also enhancing his credibility as a "Maverick", as well as a Washington outsider.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
"Strangely, I think if Hillary gets the nomination, a minority would be a good pick, and if Obama is, a woman would be a good pick."
Clever!
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
What you say is true. A McCain-Thompson alliance would be strong. I must admit that I like that team's chances against Clinton.
But, Thompson needs to support the candidate that he most believes in, not fulfill political expediency. If that candidate is McCain, then so be it. However, their views on issues are quite divergent, as you eloquently point out.
Thompson's views are closest to those of Romney. So if he wants to be true to his political views, he should support Romney.
I think you forgot the Utah incarnation from 2000 when he was considering running for governor. The fact of the matter is that Romney's fellow candidates buy his "Road to Des Moines" conversions even less than we do.
There is nothing lonelier than being a black Republican in Boston, Massachusetts
I suppose if "closest to" meaning "pays the best lip service to," then yes.
But if you mean has more deep-seeded agreements on substantive problems on, that's a LOT more questionable.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Charles Bird brought up three areas of differences between McCain and Thompson: Taxes, immigration and judicial nominees.
Romney shares Thompson's views on all of those issues. They both below in low taxes and less government spending, they both support legal immigration by fighting against illegal immigration, and they both vow to nominate judges similar to Roberts and Alito.
Depends on which Romney you're talking about.
1. McCain
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani
and the more my Thompson friends get to know Romney, the less they like him.
Hmmm...kind of like every single candidate who has been on the trail with him.
Ron Kaufman is tied to his campaign. Honesty is not.
Interesting choice of words for you, since I proved that you are a liar with your "Romney interrupted Fred's speech comment yesterday." Your hatred of Romney is obvious. You, sir, are a liar and a hypocrite. I guess I can take solace that it's probably only a matter of time until you go too far and get banned - prove me wrong.
"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Thompson would not add anything to McCain's ticket. Why not taking a real conservative (ie someone who did not author CFR), who has an actual record (ie Gov), and has above-average media and management skills. Not being (another) old grumpy looking white man would help too.
Besides, 4 years of McCain would destroy the country and party: 100 Million new illegals, Global Warming Myth mandatory in schools, Liberal Judges, remaining of political and free speech shut down.
That's actually all of Mexico. So we could just annex them and get some new coastlines if that happens :)
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
In light of all the people in Mexico who apparently want to be in the United States, I'd say this would be a win win. Worked for us in the 1800s, why not now?
/tongue in cheek
Of course the problem with this would be that the Dems would become the center-right party in American politics. The Republican party would disappear and a far left party would emerge.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
There's an exponential factor that operates in every form of human social networking. And illegal migration is absolutely a word-of-mouth, social networking phenomena.
1986 Amnesty - 3 million (was estimated at 1.8 million before passage)
...the unseriousness of it and lack of enforcement led to what we have today...
McCain-Kennedy - 20 million plus amnestied (the 12 million figure is more laughable than the 1.8 million was 20 years ago)
So, it really isn't a stretch to proffer that 100 million more might be encouraged to violate our laws if we prove so completely spineless regarding our sovereignty by granting another amnesty.
The only way to kill the illegal migration beast is to change the messages transmitted back through the social network that supports it. Tolerant and compassionate words and deeds only serve to make this sort of network stronger.
Shutting off the flow requires that explicit intention be transmitted in un-couched language back through the illegal alien social networks for long enough to cause their collapse.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
I think we actually agree what needs to be done, but there is no way the number is 100 million new illegals in 4 years, as suggested above.
Obviously it wouldn't happen in four years. But it probably would in 20.
And I don't think it would be fair to today's American kids if we were to screw over their potentials and futures in the name of compassion and tolerance or because we were so afraid of being called bigots by folks like McCain that we were cowed into submission.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
But MCain/Thompson would hardly be a disaster. It locks up the map for McCain and ensures a Reagan message out of the ticket. I'll take it and it is what I am hoping for at this point.
Mental Picture Time:
Imagine a picture of McCain and Thompson together.
Now imagine a picture of Hillary and Richardson together.
Or Hillary and Schweitzer together.
Or Obama and Feingold together.
Or Obama and Bredeson together.
See a problem?
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Why? Because there are too many conservatives who distrust McCain.
And rightly so. I think that is the crux of the problem for Mccain going forward. If you look at his numbers, it's always Independants who pull him through. An admirable and necessary thing in the general election, but he is not winning as many republicans or especially conservatives.
You are correct, I absolutely do not trust Mccain on most every issue important to me. If he promises conservative actions, then his record is a lie. If he follows true to his past history, then his campaign promises are a lie. Either way, not a guy I want to lead the party or country.
Having Fred as a VP would be window dressing for the conservatives. Unlike GWB taking Cheney on to mollify conservatives, Mccain is NOT a humble man who seeks council. Fred's contribution would be more in the traditional role of VP attending funerals and public functions while the policy is set by Mccain following his well established philosophy.
but if Obama wins there goes his "independents" who would vote for him.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
"I absolutely do not trust Mccain on most every issue important to me. If he promises conservative actions, then his record is a lie. If he follows true to his past history, then his campaign promises are a lie. Either way, not a guy I want to lead the party or country."
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
FDT could make him have a tough stance on border security and good judges. If McCain gets off line FDT holds his feet to the fire. The last thing McCain would need as POTUS is his VP comeing out against him. But FDT would only be able to do this with only a few issues or it would not work. I worry about judges the most.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
Past history has shown that VP's do not cross with thier Presidents. Perhaps in private, but not in a public way - it would be disasterous for any administration. FDT would have too much loyalty and decorum to hold Mccain's feet to the fire on any issue publicly.
It would be great of it could happen that way, but I just can't see it.
..."voodoo economics." Reagan was so incensed that he made hin his running mate.
1. McCain
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani
VPs don't pick fights with their Presidents, even if they don't like each other. Bush 41 had to wait patiently till his first term before he had any chance to put his McCain-style economic views to use. McCain appears to think supply side economics are "voodoo" as well.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
though a better analogy might be Ford offering the VP slot to Reagan, which I think was discussed rather seriously. (I could be wrong; I haven't hunted around for info to refresh my memory.)
can make many of us forget how McCain treated all of us when he didn't get his way over the immigration bill. Between him and his big supporter Lindsey Graham we're all bigots and racists and out of spite the fence that was supposed to built was defunded in Congress... But spending is still up and that's all that matters, right?
McCain is making nicey-nice now because he wants the nomination and to win the general election. Once accomplished, the first time he doesn't get his way, look for the real McCain to come back out.
If McCain and the others had been acceptable from the get go, we wouldn't have drafted Thompson in the first place. I'm so tired of having to "settle"... especially when I know that once the deed's done, we'll be back at square one for another 4-8 years.
And no I am not a friend of his and he did not tell me that on the phone or over a cigar.
I have heard him say it repeatedly, and after getting a great measure of the man since I began supporting him in March, I am positive he would not want that spot. He is a "call the shots" kind of guy, and frankly would not help the ticket (if it were McCain) as much as a younger candidate would (given that we live in the age of the MTV electorate)
Should he drop out, and if he chooses to stay in public life, he can better serve our great Republic as Attorney General, or in another capacity at a Conservative think-tank helping to try and preserve the Reagan Coalition( what's left of it).
Most of all, should he drop out (I for one hope he does not) he has already helped this great nation by preventing the snake oil salesman from winning SC and by making his fellow competitors shift to the right. He could continue to serve to make sure a President McCain (that hurts to say) actually secures the borders and does not bring detainees to Leavenworth to recruit even more jihadists etc.
One thing I find odd is how so many here are so sure Fred was THE one. But when Fred endorses McCain in a few days, they will disregard it as meaningless. I will not explain what is odd about that, but there is something strange there.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Who was it you said you support?
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
What I said was many are extremely devoted to Fred and to date have supported his speeches, strategy, and political views. Then I said, I believe when Fred endorses McCain, many of his most devoted supporters will say the endorsement has no meaning, in other words, it will be the first time they call Fred wrong. Is that clear now? I never said anything negative about your candidate.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
That's whats so ironic. Fredheads won't listen to Fred when it matters. You're right that if he drops out, he'll endorse McCain. But they won't listen.
As I've said before, I don't think Thompson would be a good VP for a lot of reasons, but what about a Chief of Staff? I could see him being a great Chief of Staff to McCain, and he'd have enough influence at that level to make it worth his while. He'd be like a new Jim Baker, but kind of in reverse.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Or actually, Howard Baker, now that I think about it.
More Tenn. Senators for Chief of Staff?
Maybe Frist just for fun? lol
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
I was joking about Frist. I just meant it would be funny if 3 Tenn Sens wound up as CoS.
Anyhow, I do think Thompson would make a good CoS though.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
with the guy because he forced the internet poker ban through at the last minute because he thought it would help his presidential ambitions. Anyway, I am over it, but Frist is not my type of guy :)
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
I'm not big on him just because I thought it was bland an ineffective. I didn't like the internet poker thing either.
I mean, I think it's pretty clear already that we would have been a LOT better off if Mitch McConnell had been Majority leader between 2002 and 2006.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
I like Bill Frist. But I think the position of Majority Leader tends to reduce a person's status rather then increase it. When you have to get down on your hands and knees and beg your fellow Republicans to ...... act like Republicans and you don't get a good response. Well, that's just not good for the image.
I think Bill Frist and Mitch McConnell are actually more responsible for the Roberts and Alito confirmations than mavericks McCain, Graham and DeWine. Frist and McConnell basically threatened (even after the gang of 14 deal) to use the nuclear option is the Democrats filibustered.
The fact is that the gang of 14 deal was signed in May or June of 2005. The Roberts nomination was a few months later and Alito's was later than that.
So, while John Kerry tried to lead filibusters of Roberts and Alito (looking ahead to another run for President), many Democrats didn't want to sign up for that because they knew that Frist and McConnell waited in the wings.
McCain's hand-holding with Democrats didn't get us Roberts and Alito. It was Frist's repeated threats to go nuclear that did it.
Did Frist have the votes? We will never know. But we need more Frists and McConnells in the US Senate and fewer turncoat, backslapping, cozying-up-with-Democrats Senators like McCain.
memory. It is like an onion with many layers, if you peel it, it just have another layer, and they are all bad. Frist did the thing on a port security bill. He also did it to try to inoculate Republicans from the Jack Abramoff mess. This ban came up 8 years in a row, and never got the votes to even see the floor. But politicians were scared of the MSM this time, and the Frist Republicans thought taking a few rights away was an acceptable loss compared to bad press and ruining his chance at winning Iowa. Of course in the end he lost everything and left Congress as quietly as a Majority Leader can. Oh well, that is the past, obviously I hold no grudges :)
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Can you tell me what I want for breakfast? I want to make sure I have everything I need.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Supporting Fred doesn't imply agreeing with Fred on everything, nor does it imply slavishly following his endorsements.
I figure that if Fred endorses anybody, it'll be McCain. That's fine for Fred. It's not for me.
If you don't trust his judgement on who's best to lead America, how could you trust him to make appointments to the Executive and the Judiciary?
But you're wrong about me. If Fred endorses McCain, what it will mean for me is I'll take another very serious look at him. I'll find out why he endorsed him, and exactly what that means.
I'm not a Fredbot. I'm a Fredhead. There's a difference.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
you will be considerate in your deliberation. I am not exactly joyful about all this, I am now supporting Rudy because at least I know he will fight until the last dog dies. He enjoys attacking Demos.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
drop out then Rudy has actually moved into my second place spot. I used to see him as someone I would likely not vote for but ever since Huckabee became a serious contender I've had to reevaluate the field.
The only thing McCain has over Rudy is SoCon credentials but Rudy has said he will appoint the right type of judges and even though I don't have a great deal of trust in Rudy, I trust him to be more overall conservative than McCain.
I will support McCain if he wins the nom (not if Huck is his VP) but I will not vote for Huck. I won't consider a Huck win in the general as a win for Republicans; I just don't.
"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
but I think we should go for a young vice president, by Republican standards, that means under 60.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
McCain. No need to draw attention to it by having a VP who is seen as an older person (although not as old as McCain). McCain should think this decision through carefully. (if he is the nominee)
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?
-- imwithfred --
I think Fred would take VP to McCain. And this idea he wouldn't help the ticket is nonsense. He ensures it to victory!
...when I donated to Fred.
Either you stand on principles or you don't. There's a difference between compromise and blatant selling-out.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
going with some of Fred's platform it might work.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
He wanted it out of service to country, and not for the fame or recognition. It says a lot about our current society and party when a serious man with the most well thought out and substantive policy positions basically loses due to the fact that he does not dance like a monkey to suit the media and our MTV culture. Tis a shame my friend.
This is the biggest job in the world. How can you get the job unless you fight for it? Fred is a good man, a nice guy, and a good conservative. But the idea that someone will win who is not willing to give everything just makes no sense. Think about it this way, the EASIEST part of the presidency is getting elected, from there it just gets harder.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
you have to play by the rules or not play, at all. I'm sure everybody has a grumpy old uncle with great conservative ideas and policy positions but still, they would not be good presidents or candidates.
As a candidate, you have to actually run a large organisation, be effective fund-raiser, communicate your policy, convince people to support your policies etc. This is what presidents have to do everyday.
Fred may be a good University professor or think-tank member writing policy papers, but he just wasn't presidential material.
Romney played by the rules with a very methodical campaign -- and only modest success. Huckabee didn't -- to great success. I grant that Fred was too quiet for too long, but he still would have done well against Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Hunter and Tancredo. Instead, Huckabee took much of the Southern and pro-life vote that would have gone to Fred.
Let me help you by refreshing it;
Candidate Research - Know Who You're Voting For ( The Easy Way ) http://tinyurl.com/2sowta
“I believe that conservatives beat liberals only when we challenge their outdated positions, not embrace them. This is not a time for philosophical flexibility, it is a time to stand up for what we believe in,” - Fred Thompson
This is all exceedingly disappointing for all of Fred's supporters.
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2008/01/im-right-again-obama-wins-most.ht...
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
I don't care if Ronny Reagan himself rose from the grave and endorsed McCain, I will NOT support him in the primary. And the only way I would vote for him in the primary is if he did swear to serve only one term and picked a very conservative VP. And then it would only be so the conservative had a leg up in four years. Otherwise I would just as soon the democrats won this election and give the republican party a fresh start in 2012 and maybe they could find a conservative candidate then.
If Thompson does drop out, the only republican candidate left I could pull the lever for and not hate myself would be Romney.
Two very old Republicans with a history of cancer and some troubling history of disloyalty to the Republican Party?
Never would they win in Novemeber.
Please start thinking strategically people.
I can see by his repeated jabs at conservatives following his 2000 defeat the charges of disloyalty at McCain. I don't see where Fred was disloyal - sometimes he didn't toe the party line, but is that disloyalty?
Supoorting McCain makes Freds whole campaign a fraud and hypocrisy!Immediately Fred becomes a hypocrite on immigration, the courts, tax reform and on and on and on. Fred really shouldnt support any of them! Most of us that support Fred do so becasuse he IS NOT one of the others! He is the Conservative. Its time to confess; all of you. The others, they are moderates to social liberals.
If he picks an endorsement based on the issues we face right now; I have to say pick Rudy! Rudy will not back away from Bill and Hillary. He will take her on and win because his pal Mike Bloomberg will come in and suck votes from Hillary.
Fred and Rudy would be the kryptonite that takes down the Clinton Machine.
I still believe that it is about the Court and the War. Hopefully Rudy wins Florida.
Rudy, PICK FRED!
2008; Its about a Commander In Chief!
It seems to me that Fred and Rudy are pretty close on the issues. Do you agree that they are pretty close on most issues?
The only issue they seem to differ on is abortion, and because of federalism and which state each one is from I'm not sure they disagree that much on that one.
Fred wants Roe overturned so that each state can restrict abortion, but he doesn't favor a national government ban on abortion.
Rudy doesn't want Roe overturned, but he wouldn't get upset if it got overturned - which would allow states that wanted to restrict it.
Presumably Tennessee (Fred's state) would restrict abortion if Roe was overturned, while New York (Rudy's state) would allow abortion on demand in the first two trimesters like it did in 1972 before Roe.
Thompson's record is closer to McCain's than anyone else. But it isn't just the record that matters.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
wants, even if it is McCain and he uses the "friendship" reason. I don't really have a problem with this because I don't think endorsements really sway that many people.
The reason it would trouble me personally is that when I switched from Fred to Mitt several months ago, I did so because I feared from several things I found out, that Fred was actually more like McCain than he would like us to believe. This sounds lame but it was really kind of a gut feeling. Now, if he does endorse McCain, even if it is because of friendship, it will validate for me that I was right. This was just my gut feeling but my gut has been right more than it's wrong throughout my life. I just can't see how Fred could endorse McCain based on the messages of his campaign. If I felt the endorsement would really make a difference I would probably be angrier if/when it happens but I've seen no evidence that an endorsement like this would make that big of a difference.
"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
One reason I liked Fred so much this summer was that he had a similar position profile as McCain but less baggage with religious conservatives. Personally, I decided that other McCain attributes made him the best candidate regardless but Fred was a close second because his views were very similar
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Fred agrees with the Bush tax cuts, while McCain still says he was right to oppose them. Fred opposes McCain's "Amnesty" bill, while McCain still says his position hasn't changed. Fred does not agree with man-made global warming disastrous policies, McCain does and thnks the situation is serious (give me a break).
Where exactly are there positions similar. They're both older senators but other than that, they're really nothing alike.
Fred, as he ran, was really the anti-McCain. Fred was running as the true, consistent, conservative, who would not compromise with liberals just to get something done. McCain and his like are the type that Fred was drafted to save us from.
Maybe I misinterpreted you but Fred '08 was nothing like McCain.
"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
Yah, Fred was for "Amnesty" before he was against it. Same for CFR.
He's different on Taxes. I'll grant you that.
Any other differences on positions are cosmetic at best.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
The only similarities between McCain and Thompson makes Thompson look bad.
Thompson was an early supporter of the bill to shut down conservative voices while leaving liberal media outlets untouched: McCain-Feingold.
And Thompson endorsed John McCain in 2000. To be fair, Thompson endorsed McCain before McCain went on his tirade against Jerry Falwella and Pat Robertson, comparing them to anti-Semites Al Sharpton and Louis Farakaan.
Give Thompson the benefit of the doubt. Ever politicians is entitled to make a few mistakes in his life. Fred's two biggest involved John McCain.
Fred is McCain with a couple flips. They had very similar voting records in the Senate. They both supported CFR, Fred flipped on it. They both supported comprehensive immigration reform and both now support enforcement first but not mass deportation.
Fred and McCain are pro-life, but anti-HLA on federalism and feasability ground. They are pro-traditional marriage, but anti-FMA on federalism grounds. They both support constructionist judges. They are small government, anti-pork activists. And with the singular exception of the Bush tax cuts, they both have pretty perfect records on tax cuts and hikes (but McCain's record is longer with some of the Reagan cuts).
I understand that McCain haters don't like to acknowledge the similarities, but with a few minor differences they are the two closest candidates by record.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
It really is disingenuous to continue this:
They both supported comprehensive immigration reform and both now support enforcement first but not mass deportation.
Fred supports attrition by enforcement, John supports attrition by legalization. In Freds world, the illegal aliens are back home. In John's world, they're still here.
The deportation canard really is unbecoming when it originates from anyone trying to appear informed.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
in the primary - if he chooses to get out of the race. I know what my values & principles are, & have researched the candidates & have a good idea what they're all about. As of now, I'm STILL for Fred because he's in the race & matches my views & principles more closely than the rest. After that, it's Romney. Guliani & Huckabee are close, followed by McCain. I'm not sure that I've gotten the full story on Huckabee & would want to research him further if I were to choose between Guliani & him. Guliani has not sold me that he would protect the second amendment.
Romney all the way, Fred will do good being his VP. Think about it.
unless the announcement came with a pronouncement that Fred would be the VP---that might influence me somewhat.
Fred knows his supporters think for themselves---he won't endorse unless Huckaboom 2.0 reduces the field to two candidates.
What do you mean McCain didn't campaign in South Carolina, in 2000 that was the state he lost and he made a big storm about it because he was blaming dirty politics. His supporters there didn't need campaining to, they were concrete about voting for him again and seeing that he won this time, since everyone else is new to the presidental race it'll be hard for them to make a name for themselves in such a bitter state.
A McCain/Thompson ticket is silly. Conservatives don't take a back seat to middle of the road left leaning Republicans. Why not tear the party a new one and campaign for Madeline Albright to go up against Hillary since you seem to think it's all about winning the White House and not what will happen if McCain does run up all his liberal agendas, which he's trying to deny now that he won South Carolina.
He's a Politican, tell you what you want to hear, not offering leadership of a solid kind, just the same ol' thing, We'll pass tax reform, national security and cut the spending.
No new ideas of real reform and making government actually cut spending and being an actual voter of tax reform, and no body really cares about the national security issue anymore, the war in Iraq? what's that? Isn't it all about the Economy now.
I was wondering about all the talk yesterday and today in the MSM that it was planned in South Carolina. The local paper here even talked about how it looking back now as if Fred and McCain were working together. I was also thinking about Linsey Graham not for V.P. but A.G. and then Supreme Court he would sail through assume DEM Congress. Fred would be a great V.P. because I think McCian would only serve one term.
Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina all allow crossover voters. Florida will be the first primary where only registered R's can vote. There is anecdotal evidence of dem's voting in republican primaries.Kos was pushing hard for dem's to vote posing as independents.
As I had been predicting on this website for 2-weeks straight. Fred would not come in better than 3rd place after Iowa. it is now time for Fred to do the right thing and drop out of the race.
PS. The other two (4th & 5th place) persons should also.
benefit their candidate. Honestly, I think it's only going to help the other candidates in November. In my opinion the primaries is about selecting the person that can best represent your values, for me that person is Fred. If he's not in it, I'll be voting for whoever the Rep nominee is in November. I will not suppport any other candidate until then because no other candidate will be representing my values better than Fred.
------------
Conservatism is about empowering people to do the work, not the government!
...third place and below, and average 5-10% of the vote in every primary, your candidacy is no longer serious nor viable.
I don't think Fred has enough supporters to seriously benefit anybody.
Thompson's 3rd place finishes are having a tremendous effect of keeping a national front runner from emerging. Everyone wants him out so their candidate might be able to rise above the rest.
Personally I want Fred to stay in because it reminds everyone in the Rep party that conservatives have a very strong voice in who should be our nominee. We will not be ignored!
------------
Conservatism is about empowering people to do the work, not the government!
Thompson's 3rd place finishes are having a tremendous effect of keeping a national front runner from emerging. Everyone wants him out so their candidate might be able to rise above the rest.
If Thompson has been reduced to being the spoiler, it's time to move on.
Thompson's 3rd place finishes are having a tremendous effect of keeping a national front runner from emerging.
Uh, no. Huck, McC, and Romney trading off first place finishes is keeping a national frontrunner from emerging. Fred's way-down-ticket finishes are having no more influence on that than Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani's finishes are.
If you vote for a no-hoper, you will be ignored.
At this point, voting for Fred is not much different from staying home.
This was such a fascinating article because it pointed out that McCain has several weak areas (very weak!) and Fred Thompson is strong in each of those areas. What was missing is that Fred Thompson is just as strong as McCain in every OTHER area, so why bother voting for McCain?
Fred Thompson is right on EVERY issue, and if he is not the Republican nominee, then the Republicans will get what they deserve.
If someone else is "right" on "EVERY ISSUE" according to you, you need to start having independent thoughts and not let other people think for you.
Oh, and the one big difference you don't mention is that McCain can and probably will win the general, while Thompson probably can't wand probably won't.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
What was missing is that Fred Thompson is just as strong as McCain in every OTHER area, so why bother voting for McCain?
Fred Thompson is right on EVERY issue, and if he is not the Republican nominee, then the Republicans will get what they deserve.
Whether it's vain hope or sincere divorce from reality, the FredHeads don't seem to be able to get one key thing through their heads:
Nobody is voting for Fred Thompson. If you are going to win elective office, people have to vote for you.
Why is this so difficult to grasp? Great, he has the best ideas and says the best things of anybody in the race. With nobody voting for him, he'll continue saying those things and not being President forever.
It's over, folks. NOBODY VOTED FOR HIM. This is more embarrassing than the Al Gore fiasco; at least people voted for THAT windbag. Thompson is neither a windbag nor a loser like Gore, and he does have the best platform in the race, but that matters 0% when nobody votes for you.
Hey, I understand that I agree with him on just about every issue (I think his thought processes are neoconny on campaign finance, and I outright disagree with him on birthright citizenship removal, but that's about it), but it's the party public that decides who best represents our party's views.
And this year, it's not Thompson.
Heh! That would be awesome.
But don't get into this whole bitterness game where you blame Republicans for Thompson's loss. Remember that a lot of the reasons the Thompson campaign didn't take off has to do with some bad decisions the campaign made. Also, its a messy year with lots of different candidates with different kinds of appeal, and there never was a clean choice between Thompson and someone else.
11 primaries and came back to win for me.
Thanks!
Yah,
A. It was a two man race, not a six man race.
B. Reagan was way ahead of Ford in NH at one point and then faltered, only to regain his mojo. Thompson has never been ahead in any state.
C. It was a clear ideological contrast. Ford was a very liberal republican, Reagan was a very conservative republican. That's simply not the case here. You have people with shades of conservatism, vs. people with different shades. Fred might be the most conservative, arguably, but he had his share of disagreements with his side too (see: Human life and Gay Marriage Amendments, his "I was for it before I was against it" positions on immigration and CFR.)
D. Reagan was a national figure long before he ran. Thompson was better known then most Senators due to his acting, but his career was shorter and less popular in Hollywood then Reagan, and being a Senator from Tennessee for 8 years isn't the same thing as being the Governor of the biggest, most populous state in the nation for 8 yeaars.
E. No matter how often Fredheads want to insist that Fred is Reagan, he ain't.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
McCain could pick Thompson as a running mate and pledge to serve one term if elected setting up Thompson as the presumptive frontrunner in 2012.
There is nothing lonelier than being a black Republican in Boston, Massachusetts