Redstate

they are Rudy, McCain, and Newt. Newt isn't running, but he's polling better than is Mitt (RCP average), though neither is near the top two. I think "Big Three" was a term created by Romney supporters to give their guy a look of the bigtime before he'd earned it. (And he still could. As could anyone else.)

Thompson would not be a marginal candidate, in fact, he could be dynamite. He is being urged to run, and he is said to be seriously considering it. The question is, would he take the huge pay cut to serve his country?

...only time and affirmative decisions could tell whether Thompson would be a competitive candidate. Like I say, I suspect that he wouldn't -- but stranger things have happened.

I doubt that money would have anything to do with his decision. For starters, he's already quite wealthy. And, beyond that, the presidency is often (rightly) seen as a 4 or 8 year earning hiatus on the way to a very cushy retirement....where speeches alone will earn you a nice 7 or 8 figure income.

But, as for who the GOP "Big 3" are, I don't know who coined the term. But I do think that Romney belongs in that category and that time will show us as much. He won the CPAC straw poll and he's been signing up some impressive staff and supporters (including my favorite economist since the passing of Milton Friedman, Harvard's Greg Mankiw).

His polling numbers are low right now, yes. But I suspect that has more to do with his relative national obscurity as compared to McCain and Giuliani (and Gingrich, for that matter). He doesn't have a lot of name recognition.

I think you have to remember that relatively few people are actually paying attention to the presidential race...outside of we political junkies.

should he jump into this -- but if he does make the run, his celebrity alone will assure that he's not a footnote.

As for "Big Three," you've supported my contention, that the term was used by Romney supporters to elevate their candidate before he'd earned it. If you think that he will one day be in the "Big Three," or big whatever-there-is, that is fine, but he is not there now.

For my purposes, in gauging a campaign, an "advisor" is a glorified name for a "supporter." Dr. Mankiw's is an impressive mind and Romney would be well-served by paying attention. Where is Mankiw on Romney-care?

Fred was not dynamite as a high school student. Fred was not dynamite when he got his girlfriend Sarah Lindsey pregnant just before his senior year in HS. Fred was not dynamite as an atty., as a lobbyist averaging $30K a year( for first 18 yrs) before he was a senator. Fred was not dynamite as a US Senator--very, very lackluster. Fred was not dynamite in his first marriage.

Fred was dynamite getting his law degree (his dad never attended college). Fred was not dynamite getting to know Howard Baker, he was lucky--again and again as he was appointed or helped by Howard in getting positions. Fred's life was not dynamite as he never really designed his own life but was a product of other people handing him opportunities or pushing him towards a senate election and endorsing him.

Fred was dynamite in the eyes of hollywood because he fit the part. Fred was not dynamite ousting a TN governor. He was lucky the whistle blower chose him as her attorney. Fred was dynamite in DC with the ladies--nick named the "Tennessee stud" for nearly 20 years. What a guy!

Fred was not and is not dynamite as an administrative leader of men and money. His only administrative experience was with his senate office staffers. He isn't a leader of many men. Why?
Why so few acheivements in his life without the motivation of others? Fred has "failed to launch" most things in his life except the characters he's played in the movies and TV. He is not a "go-to-guy". He could have been dynamite many times in his life but...who knows. He just wasn't.

Listen, I like Arthur Branch. He has administrative experience and was/is a leader of men, even has multi-million dollar budget duties I'm sure. But is Arthur Branch really qualified to be POTUS?
Dynamite could have been...but never did, poof!

As one of the site's resident Romneybots, I have to respond to your "Big Three" comment with a big, fat, HUH?

Having followed Romney very closely from the beginning, I am not aware of any conscious effort, coordinated or not, to use the term "Big Three" in an attempt to give "our guy a look of the bigtime before he'd earned it." Let alone "create" that term!

As far as I can tell, Romney got lumped into the "Big 3" moniker once the press, pundits, and politic weather vanes took note of his Commonwealth PAC and fundraising abilities, his rising profile among governors, his mounting endorsements, the strength of his team and groundgame, his personal wealth, his record in business, etc. The term emerged when party insiders took note of the structure and direction of his campaign.

Your comments, above and below, suggest national polls are the only credible standard to be used in determining the "Big Three." I suppose that is fine as a subjective opinion, but as a subjective opinion, it cannot be used to support a claim that Romney supporters both fabricated a term and did so solely to shill for their "guy."

As far as I know, however, both the mainstream and alternative media sources have included Romney as one of the "Big Three" for quite some time now without the urgings and demands of those incessant Romneybots. Please inform me if I am factually mistaken.

In the end, the term matters little anyway. Just, please don't accuse the "bots" among us of shilling where such claim is factually unwarranted. We already take enough derision for the shilling that can be established as bonafide :)

- Brick

Has he entered the race yet? Didn't think so.

Come on - you're smarter than that :-)

You would avoid McCain even if it meant Hillary? Come on now. Hillary is a socialist on most, if not all, levels. At least McCain is strong on pork.

I don't like McCain, either, but if it's Obama or Hillary in the opposition, I will hold my nose.

I wasn't excited about Bush, either, but when you look at Gore, and then you look at Kerry, and THEN you look at Bush, it makes him a lot more attractive.

Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum

For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

Yeah, I mean it.

DW too. McCain would be worse than any of the above.

McCain backers simply don't grasp how strong the dislike of him is among many of the base.

For the first time in nearly 2 decades of voting I undervoted the last election for the Govenor (Oregon) and I beleive I did the right thing. I'll do it in the president's race if I must.

Not voting is never the right choice. Although it's unpleasant, choosing the lesser of two evils is sometimes our civic duty.

Please don't try to ascribe noble goals to your selfish refusal to make a decision.

Refusing to vote is foolish and counterproductive. If one major-party candidate agrees with you on 40% of the issues and the other on 20%, vote for the 40% and mitigate the damage likely to be done by the next Administration.

It is even better to vote third-party than to stay home. If you stay home, nobody knows whether you're sending a message or just plain lazy, ignorant, and apathetic.

Vote for the Libertarians, vote for the Constitution Party, vote for any non-left party -- but by all means VOTE. If one of those parties got millions of votes -- especially if it's greater than the margin of victory and the Republicans lose -- the GOP would have a reason to take notice and change course.

I undervoted, didn't stay home.

I had lots of votes to cast: US house, state house, local races, etc..

"stayed home" from the race where you didn't vote. You didn't send any discernible message by not voting in that race.

It's great that you voted in those other races. I just wish you had voted in ALL of them.

I wanted the D to win because I believed the bozo the R's put up would have been more destructive. Had I voted in that race, I would have had to voted D for the first time in my life.

It just didn't seem right for a solid conservative to vote D, so I didn't.

...between a Crook (D) and a Klansman (nominal R), I have no sympathy for you.

If you feel the D is the less bad of two choices, vote the D. I did, and I would again.

Since my state (LA) has open primaries, I'm often forced to choose between two candidates from the same party (in the run-off). By not choosing, I would be abrogating responsibility to someone less informed.

Vote for the Libertarians, vote for the Constitution Party, vote for any non-left party -- but by all means VOTE.

I lump this in with the same category as staying at home. Driving to the polls is a waste of time and gas if you are just going to throw away your vote on some protest candidate that has zero chance of being elected dog catcher, much less POTUS.

The only thing you can do is vote for the better of the two candidates that might actually win.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I know how popular McCain is among the base, because I AM the base. I would rather vote in the primary for Tom Tancredo than John McCain.

But, if it gets down to _________ vs. McCain, then I have news for people: I will suck up my testicular fortitude and cast a vote that I don't necessarily like.

But, why? Why would I sell out like that, you say?

Simple. The alternative is ten times worse.

Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum

For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

Simple. The alternative is ten times worse.

I'm not so sure HRC would be worse than McCain at all, much less "10x worse." I'd vote in that match up (or any other), but I can't guarantee I'd be voting for McCain. I would certainly vote for WJC over McCain in a hypothetical matchup.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

As I sit here today, my sentiments on McCain put me right in line with your comment. I can see where this may irritate the “just grow up” crowd out there because it may come across as “he’s not my guy so I’m staying home.” Honestly, when it comes right down to standing in front of my ballot on Election Day, I don’t know what I would do with McCain vs. Clinton but right now this line of thought deserves much more consideration than just being brushed off as a juvenile fit.

Simply put: this is tough for me. I agree that any McCain presidency is bad in the long run for conservatives and the Republican Party. I know I’ll hear all about his conservative voting record but my gut just tells me otherwise. Throw in the McCain-Feingold trump card and you’re looking at too many negatives for me. It is very tough to weigh the importance of the next administration with regards to Supreme Court appointments against a 10-20 year regrouping and rebuilding effort for the conservative movement.

There is no doubt that a Clinton administration would be bad --- very bad --- for the good ‘ol US of A and the rest of the world (at least the freedom loving parts of the world) is the shorter term. However, four years of Mrs. Clinton would definitely refocus conservatives in very short order. This is very risky at such a critical time in the history of world civilization but “we” did survive four years of Mr. Carter in the midst of the Cold War. The question is, would we have survived eight years? That answer puts significantly more risk on the pile for a potential second Clinton presidency.

IF my level of uncertainty on this candidate is as widespread as I happen to think, is a McCain nomination a strong hand to play in November 2008?

- - - - - -
"Everybody has an agenda. Except for me." - Michael Crichton, State of Fear.

Jeff what is your personal knowledge of Fred's accomplishments? I think you owe us an explanation of Fred's life beyond just his positions on issues, votes as senator. What has this man accomplished in his life once he was elected senator? He's Senator Lackluster. Really!!

Image IS not everything. Arthur Branch was a leader of men. Fred Thompson only had his little senate staff to lead. America needs strong, seasoned experience in its presidential leadership. Fred still hasn't taken the initiative to develope that in himself. Do you want him to learn about that after he gets into the WH? Jeff,have you ever had a supervisor that didn't know very much about how to lead and he had to learn on you. How did it feel? Or maybe how do you think it would feel?

Men who have been in executive positions and have proven their metal for years are what we want and desperately need for this country at this time in our history (as never before). You've put in a lot of time and effort into a website for a man you want us to "roll the dice on"? Acting dynamic will never cut it.

Rudy is proven, Mitt is a LEGEND in his industry with decades of leadership and astounding problem solving abilities.

Though I am with you in scratching my head about Fred?, and I don't fully agree with Mark Kilmer's points, I would advise you to take note of two things:

1) Mark's made his point on Fred? in a creative and non-confrontational manner. The skit on height also carries the subtle message that although Fred? appears to be legit, the rationale for the Fredlove may be more superficial than substantive at this point . . . that remains to be decided.

2) Mark indicated that he had just discovered a message board about Fred? and was going to spend some time getting to peruse the site and see what he learns.

So, while I think you may have some worthwhile information to share (I for one had no idea abou the teenage pregnancy bit about Fred?), I would urge you to share it in a way other than hitting fellow posters upside the head with a figurative 2X4.

I don't think you need to gasp at the lack of research one has done on Fred? when he just disclosed that he has to read up more on the shadow candidate to form a more reasoned opinion.