Redstate

Yep heard the same thing, or rather read it. The TV shows he's on are going into sweeps and if he declared NBC would be restricted from showing without offering equal time to the others on both D and R side.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

Obama could easily defeat ANY of our candidates. Hillary is the opponent that we want to face...she'll do more to galvanize conservatives than anyone else, including Fred Thompson. Obama is going to bring more people to the polls just to vote for him---he'll expand the electorate in a way Hillary nor Edwards can, and that spells doom for us. Obama is going to pass Hillary in the polls at some point, and she'll never recover from that. There is very little that we can do to pick Obama apart--at least nothing we can do to get enough swing voters. And if Thompson is the GOP nominee, than Obama's lack of experience becomes a non-liability, as Thompson has a rather undistinguished terms in the US Senate. As far as being a great communicator, Thompson won't have much on Obama on that score either. Like it or not, Obama connects with people whether is he's using soaring rhetoric or simply thinking out loud. It's not fair, but it's reality.

Thompson is a solid conservative, sure...that's great. But no way Obama loses states the Kerry won in 2004, and he'll pick up Ohio too. And with the right VP choice, he'll likely pick up a couple western states as well--it's been going purple out there. So while our heart may say Thompson, our heads should be saying Giuliani. Giuliani at least puts PA and NJ in play and probably puts a lock on FL. We will need these states since Ohio is likely to go to the Dems.

Anyway, if Hillary is the Dem's choice, I like our chances. If it's Obama, I think he's the first black president.

That because I have never seen Obama in a tough situation he can't handle them. Given the way he deals with political matters and the lack of substance in his books* and statements I think I am justified.

From watching what he has done and more importantly what he has not done I am pretty certain the only republican that could lose to him is McCain. If McCain doesn't have one of his famous moments even he can take him.

In short the only difference between Obama and Edwards is Edwards has already proven he is a Hairdo and Empty Suit.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The lack of substance meme works right now because Obama has intetionally been light on policy in an effort to soak up as much goodwill as possible before courting controversy. But that is about to change as he begins his big policy roll-out over the next several weeks. Plus, substance or lack thereof is overrated when it comes to drawing votes. There's a superfical aspect to all of this that could carry Obama a long way.

As far a toughness...don't let Obama fool you. He presents a disarming facade, but he was downright ruthless in eliminating his political opponents in Chicago. And he's not above the politics of personal destruction...the sort of politics that got McCain destroyed in SC back in 2000. Obama scares me as the sort of guy that smiles in your face, doesn't invite confrontation, but is still willing to put a knife in your back when the times call for it.

I think you are totally justified in you assessment of Obama as an empty suit, but unjustified in your underestimation of his appeal and ability to win a general election. I just don't see McCain, or any Republican besides Giuliani, winning in Ohio, and don't see the Democrats losing anywhere they won in 2004 unless G-man is the nominee.

But I'll wait and see how Thompson performs.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Thompson is the great conservative hope. You may be right that his policy roll out will help. I just don't see him making it in a debate against any of the above. I'd include McCain in but his temper is a wild card.

Both Giuliani and Romney can steal the oxygen from Obama in blue states. Giuliani will probably put New York in play. Romney could put a good portion of new england in play. This really upsets the usual democrat calculation of automatically taking NY and CA.

Thompson I just don't know. If McCain pulls a third party campaign I'd say we are done. It would be Perot all over again. Absent the spoiler Thompson should be able to mop the floor with him. He might get the old people vote simply from law and order.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Giuliani won't get out the social conservative vote in many key states that are close. Lose those and it's over for us.

And he'll lose those states to what Democrat? I think TN is safe.

I think Edwards could beat Rudy in TN.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

At least Rudy's bloggers haven't defamed the winston cup.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

cleaned the podium with him in their senate debate.

"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)

There is a lot of corrolation between "states that Kerry won in 2004" and the ACORN voter registration fraud problems. Washington State, Wisconsin, and others are mentioned often in the Google search.

We make jokes about this when we should be in tears. All my life its been obvious and beyond obvious fraud on the dems side. Look at Philly in the last election.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I could not agree with you more about Obama as a very formidable candidate. I teach in a middle class public high school in a community of Reagan Democrats. I have average students who have decided to pick up Obama's book because they are intrigued by his beyondism rhetoric about 'bringing the country together'. I fully recognize that he has an incredibly liberal voting record, but the average voter does NOT care, and will not be convinced by the type of ads that attempt to plaster Obama with "left-winger" type scare tactics. Whether he is experienced or not, I do not think the American people will care. He has the charisma, intelligence, and speaking ability of Bill Clinton, and the American electorate will eat it up the same way they did for eight years during the 1990's.

Michael Barone was a Regent University Forum where he predicted that 2008 is going to be a non-traditional election similar to 1992 where the typical salience of left versus right is not going to apply. I do not have a crystal ball, but so far the mood in America seems to indicate that people are fatigued by the slug fest against Clinton and Bush.

I hope that I am wrong, but Obama very well could be the next President of the United States unless a GOP candidate can appeal to the conservative base and independents. I hope that my assessment is way off because I loathe the idea of a larger federal government and socialized medicine.

Which is exactly why I think conservatives are backing up the wrong tree with Thompson. Romney is ever bit as energetic as Obama and has just as much charisma. Only, he's done far more with his life than Obama could ever dream of. Romney has been the quintessential executive. Extremely successful in business, extremely successful in the Salt Lake Olympics. Very successful as a Mass governor considering what he was up against.

He donated his salary to charity while working for the Olympics, created a profit out of a loss. He balanced the Mass budget.

Obama can't claim any of that. He can't even talk about legislation that he authored. All he has to offer is empty rhetoric.

And there's no doubt the youth of America eat this up. I'm one of them, and I see it everyday. They can't tell you one position he has outside of the war, but they love him. And he's practically bullet-proof, being an eloquent black male.

But when it comes to speaking with substance, enthusiasm, AND accomplishment, Romney is the only one who can do that. Thompson's career as a Senator was hardly inspiring. I like the man, but he's the wrong man for the job at hand.

Romney gets Jihad (and actually speaks about it). He gets immigration (and actually speaks about it). He gets the economic difficulties facing our nation. He's got charisma, and honestly, he'll get more of the female vote than will Thompson. No doubt in my mind about that. ;)

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

“They chose dishonor. They will have war.” - Winston Churchill

Because I've looked at his record and can't find where he ever voted for anything but the pro-life line.

Sure, he told the Libertoid-Republicans that it was a matter for a woman and not the government, but he got the endorsement of all the big pro-life groups in 1994, and prior to his election had called for an end to all federal funding of abortion, a return to the Mexico City Protocol, and anything goes for restrictions at the state level.

McCain-Feingold will be a problem for him, but not abortion. And Romney and Giuliani were also previous supporters of BCRA.

Here's the statement in question: "Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own."

As I said in my original post, his voting record is pro-life. As far as the life issue is concerned, I think he's fine, but he would have to explain this statement. Romney has been asked to explain his about face, and has explained it poorly. I think Thompson would explain the change satisfactorily, but that is just one example of the type of pitfall and scrutiny to which all of the other candidates have been subjected.

1994 was thirteen years, one marriage, and two more children ago. In 1994, the GOP signed the "Contract with America." Things change.

where one can read the entire staement?

He made the comments to the Republican Liberty Caucus. Their website is www.republicanliberty.org. The American Spectator's blog has a story about it, but I was unable to find a story from 1994. http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6230

No story from 1994 says to me the story needs more evidence, especially before Thompson loses any of my support.

P.S. Dang, you got a reply just before me :(

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ~Ronald Reagan

There is none. The quote referred to comes from only one blog posting on American Spectator - which was then reposted many times by other blogs - that claims Thompson said it in an interview with "Republican Liberty", a newsletter for the Republican Liberty Caucus. Here's the catch, there is no proof unless you actually have a copy of the newsletter, because there is no online archive.

Furthermore, his comment is far less harmful to him than Mitt's (assuming Thompson even said it):
"Government should stay out of it. No public financing."
--Do you see a problem with that? I don't

"The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own."
--The only controversial part of his statement. However, I have a far easier time believing that he changed from "the decision must be made by the woman"(1994 if even true) to "Pro-life"(now) than Mitt went from "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country"(1994) to "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose"(2002) to "I am pro-life"(now) Not to mention I'd much rather have Fred Thompson in position to affect the abortion issue than Rudy Giuliani.

__________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ~Ronald Reagan

If Thompson is not a conservative enough candidate for you, I would suggest voting 3rd party because you will never be happy in the Republican Party.

Thompson is as conservative as a candidate could possibly get, and still be electable to a majority of Americans. This isn't Europe where there are 5 different political parties running and you can win with 36% of the vote.

My only worry with Thompson is I think the electoral map will look identical to 2004, with it coming down to the state of Ohio, a state that has now become very hostile to Republicans.

I'd like a Republican candidate that could win over states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc.

That's a big reason why I support Giuliani's candidacy, he expands the Republican map and could probably elect a Republican Congress along his coattails.

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

Thats because he IS one of them. Whats the point in winning if all you do is draft the enemy and adopt their policy? :)

The Democrat that grew the economy with tax cuts while reducing government spending at the same time, as Rudy did in NYC. Bush can claim only half of that.

Add to that his cleaning up the streets, putting the mob behind bars and his heroic leadership on 9/11 and you have anything but a Democrat. Obama couldn't command an ice cream stand, much less the NYPD and FDNY in the middle of crisis (Romney could hands down). Rudy may not be your model Republican but he certainly isn't one of them, the Democrats.

After this recent Supreme Court decision, the opposition to federalist judges is going to be more fierce than ever. Rudy may be the only one that can get them through. The MSM will successfully demonize all federalist judges nominated by a southern white male Christian president.

And Rudy would expand the map. I think everyone is underestimating the number of blue collar Reagan Democrats in the North that do not like Hillary. For every social conservative that ops out and stays home there may be at least one of them if not more. In addition, I think we have a lot of room to work with in the South, it's where our cushion is at. I'll gladly trade of some margin in the South if I can pick up PA, MI, NJ and/or WI in return while locking down Ohio.

I'm a social, economic and national security conservative, but it's about results. I think Rudy can deliver results in all three even if he doesn't have moral authority in all three. His moral authority as a federal prosecutor will get federalists on the bench and thus deliver social conservative results, potentially more than the others that will be easy to demonize.

“They chose dishonor. They will have war.” - Winston Churchill

The review of Thompson's record in the comment to which I link below suggests that he's not all that conservative. Like I said, he's better than the top three, but leaves plenty to be desired. A candidate opposing racial preferences, supporting more tax deductions, and supporting medical savings accounts most certainly is electable. What's more, you don't win elections by turning off the two most critical parts of your base, pro-lifers and gun rights activists, by nominating a candidate like Guiliani. I'm no Thompson fan, but given the choice between him and Rudy, the decision is easy.

http://www.redstate.com/stories/breaking_news/romney_and_thompson#commen...

Given the standard that you seem to hold people running for office to, you probably would not have supported Reagan back in the day.

Before you blow a fuse, I'm not suggesting that Thompson = Reagan, but please remember that winning elections is what counts, not ideological purity.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

If the junior Senator from New York changed the D to an R, I still wouldn't vote for her. We need some standard. If the bar is low enough, Thompson might clear it, but there has to be some standard. You seem to suggest that you'd back Lincoln Chafee for President if you thought he had the best chance of winning.

from a life long conservative. Someone who is strong on national defense, cuts taxes to grow the economy while shrinking the size of government and gets federalist judges that respect the constitution on the bench. I would call such a person a solid Republican.

Rudy can potentially claim all of the above and has already done the hard two, cutting taxes while shrinking government. If Rudy is just another Dem with an R next to his name site for me a Dem that is strong on all of the above.

“They chose dishonor. They will have war.” - Winston Churchill

Romney's record is 100% on the side of life, to my knowledge.

couple of years, yes. If you're talking about 2002 and earlier, not so much.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

n/t

Are you serious?

His stance for the Governor's race in 2002, that is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

RECORD, as in, ACTIONS.

I'm very much aware that he was pro-choice running for office (i.e. campaigning), but the poster here said that Thompson's conversion was more compelling because he had a record to go along with it.

To my knowledge, Romney never sided with the pro-choice clan on any piece of legislation that crossed his desk while actually in office.

His conversion took place some time into his term, after which time he donned the "pro-life" label, but if I'm not mistaken even before that time he'd committed to a moratorium, and never actually liberalized MA abortion law.

"never actually liberalized MA abortion law" seems like weak sauce, but keep in mind that in MA, pretty much the only legislation that came to him would have called for liberalization of abortion laws. It is debatable whether anyone in his position could have done more for life than he did.

That's not "weak sauce," that's "water."

The problem with this argument is that he spent a lot of time trying to get elected to two major offices, and making it clear to the baby-killers that they had nothing to fear from him; and at no point before 2002 did he have a chance to prove it.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I suppose by that you mean that since the laws were so liberal, keeping them from going more liberal ain't no thang.

I see where you're coming from, but the fact is, there were many laws that reached his desk attempting to do just that: attempts to nullify parental consent laws, etc.

Look, I'm not trying to say Mitt was a crusader for life while in office. He wasn't. But to say he was anything other than pro-life WHILE IN OFFICE is disingenuous.

For what it's worth, I think his going through a rather public conversion, and subsequently having to explain himself repeatedly on an issue that many have barely touched on have finally made him one of the best proponents for life in the race, by necessity.

People worry about whether or not his conversion was genuine? I think it was, but even for the cynical among you, it's a moot point this far into the game of politics. He, more than any candidate, has his chips bet on social conservatives.

(1) There's this guy, Sam Brownback, you know, who has even more pegged on social cons than does Romney. Given that neither will get the nod, I classify them at more or less the same level.

(2) I'm not sitting here debating whether the man is sincere. All I was pointing out was that your parent comment was slightly sophistic.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Forgive me, but I didn't, and still don't, see anything sophistic about what I said. Care to elaborate?

I generally speak in terms of the "big three," since I don't believe there's much of a chance of anyone else catching up.

RECORD, as in, ACTIONS.

Read that, then read my comments; if you remain confused, tell me so.

Well, if we're gonna be honest, it's the Big Two and A Bunch of Guys Who Maybe Kinda Could But Probably Won't With the Possible Exception of Fred Thompson. I know there is great Mitthusiasm out there, but lots of money isn't turning into lots of support. That he polls so badly -- and with such a compacted primary schedule, where the early States don't matter worth a hill of beans any more -- puts him a lot closer to Brownback than he is to the baby killer or the psycho.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

You did read my comment where I said I wasn't attempting to portray Mitt as a Crusader, right? His actions were pro-life, not pro-choice, and that is all I meant to say.

At any rate, my alleged sophistry aside, I think we are understanding each other now.

I don't think it's two man yet. I will wait until some debates before saying that. Mitt's a stellar debater, and I have a hunch he can still break through.

If I ever feel that my support of Romney just becomes a tacit endorsement of Giuliani (i.e., it really is just a two man race), I will leave the good ship Romney and see what I can do for McCain, since I much prefer him to Rudy.

I believe he is correct if you look just at his governing record. Just like Thompson.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

n/t

Fred could simply and honestly say that now that he has grandchildren, and has two young children from his second marriage (1 and 4, I think), he's had such an experience with new life that the realizes how precious it is, even before birth.

He's also lost a daughter. It changes one's priorities.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

Yes. But Mitt still has problems with Romneycare and having less national recognition than Thompson. Thompson doesn't have to introduce himself to the country. Romney does. Thompson may have to reintroduce himself to people who aren't familiar with his political career, but he's go the name and face recognition and public persona. Mitt isn't well known outside NE, and the Olympics are long over.

"Romneycare" is actually one of the big reasons I support him. This is one area I never felt completely comfortable with in the party with. I also had strong aversion to putting into practice a socialist healthcare system. The plight of the uninsured is truly horrible. Every time I get an EOB from my insurance showing how much of the bill the hospital/doctor agrees to drop from the bill because of their "agreement" I shudder to think of what this does to the uninsured.

Enters "Romneycare" with a plan that provides insurance to all through a private system with subsidies for the poor. This plan to me was brilliant. Simple and yet I never saw it because the argument had been framed between complete government take over or let the chips fall as they are. This is why Romney has my support. He represents me better than any of the other candidates. He has proven himself in business and as an executive. These things are very appealing to me. The rest of the candidates seem to pale in comparison other than perhaps Rudy in pure executive talent.

I didn't intend this to be a commercial but too late.

So what do I have to overlook with Romney? I don't like his support of the assault rifle ban. I don't his history of apparent pandering to liberals in Mass but also appreciate the position he was in there. I wish he had a more solid past on abortion but I believe he will continue to act correctly in that area. These are thing I can live with to gain someone of his talent as the POTUS.

Big fan of Romneycare here, too. Not only do I think it makes loads of sense, I think it is politically dynamite. It takes a central campaign issue from Obama, Edwards, et al. and dresses it up in grown-up clothes. It's a huge plus for moderates.

and not just politically. If anything, it's politically risky. But it does address health care in the manner most people want it addressed in; market based private sector solutions with minimal government interference while providing universal health care.

If we continue couching the argument on our side as all or nothing, HillaryCare vs status quo or vague conceptual positions on market solutions without specifics, we'll eventually end up with HillaryCare as the only means to universal coverage.

“They chose dishonor. They will have war.” - Winston Churchill

And if Mitt were VP, many people would get used to him and to Mormonism, and think nothing of his religion. So if he eventually ran for president, it would be "what's the big deal?"

Wethal,

You're right and wrong at the same time.

Right in the sense that if Mitt were the Republican VP candidate and eventual VP and then did a good and effective job of being the VP; insert Cheney, Bush Sr, here, then he would be known on the national stage and would be a prime candidate for President when his President's time was over.

Wrong in the sense that Mitts religion would be gotten used to. There is nothing to get used to as you would put it, and I seriously doubt that Mitt would make his religion any more an issue than Oren Hatch does, and he's a pretty good Senator in my book. I could same the same about Harry Reid's religion, also a member of the LDS church, but I and I would think most here on RS would disagree about 99.99 percent of the time with his policy.

As it the "What's the big deal", there is none that I know of with Mitt Romeny, he's a member in good standing with the Church of Latter Day Saints, makes no apologies for his faith and none are needed. So the "big deal" as you put it is in the minds of people from the Left who don't like anyone to profess faith in anything other than their navel, or those on the Right who should be worried about some real stuff like the global war on terrorism, Taxes and taking care of our fellow Americans instead of how a person worships. The Left will always be the left, sort of like why mail dogs urinate on everything, those on the Right worried about how a person worships need to give some serious thought to what's really important for this country's future.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

Mitt wouldn't make an issue of it, but Hillary might try to somehow. Or the Moveon group. Even some conservative GOP factions, such as religious fundamentalists who don't accept Mormons as Christian (but who might likely be persuaded to vote for Romney over Hillary, who knows no religion but self-worship) might be wary initally of Romney. Hillary is in an interesting bind, since Harry Reid is also nominally Mormon.

Hatch has never made a big deal of his religion, and since he's just a senator, presumably people think, "Well, what would a bunch of Mormons in Utah vote for, anyway?"

I like J.C. Watts for vice prez

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.C._Watts

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ~Ronald Reagan

JC's too young, but would make a fine cabinet secretary.

Despite being in favor of that huge gun that got canceled, I'd like to see some new young blood running DOD, no offense Secretary Gates.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

Don't forget Senators are terrible presidential candidates because they have no leadership experience. In a year where the Dems are going to run a no accomplishment 1 term senator we shouldn't do the same.

Look at an electoral map.
http://www.270towin.com/

Thompson can't win any non-Bush states and Ohio is going blue no matter what because of state politics.

Rudy is only a legit candidate becuase he is a virtual lock to win the nomination because he brings NJ, PA and maybe NY to the GOP. Being a moderate with a reputation for successful leadership also will play well with independents in other states. He will win the south by putting someone like Thompson or Haley Barbour on ticket with him.

Romney will bring MI and NH and perhaps other Maine. He also has the resume to appeal to all kinds of moderate voters. His reputation for cleaning up fiscal problems is just what we need in Washington where people are upset with both parties.

Why does anyone assume that Mitt can carry Michigan? Unfortunately for the rest of us, the tri-county area, Macomb, Oakland and Wayne, control the way this state goes in elections most times. I'm sure if Barry Obama is the nominee on that side, 2 million citizens of Detroit will vote for him, even as the population dips toward 900K. The dems will have to empty the cemetaries, but he'll get enough votes to offset the sane people in the outstate area. People still believe that the Gov is still fighting the Engler/Bush legacy, and she can't be blamed for presiding over our one-state recession. She got re-elected with that meme.

The Romney name still has a great legacy in that state and unless the black vote comes out in triple strength as you suggest people in MI will be drawn to a name they trust, especially in tough local economic circumstances.

Its not just the name. Romney is easily the most credible on the economy out of everyone running. His healthcare plan, though not exactly what Romney would want nationally is going to take a huge issue away from the Dem nominee. It's not like Kerry crushed Bush, he only won 51-48%.

The Dems are betting the farm on not only one term Senators with no real track record, but on the first minority President period assuming it stays Hillary and Obama as the top tier. That is a huge risk and a huge vulnerability, particularly in an election where national security is still going to matter.

2008 may end up being like 1992 again with the electorate dissatisfied with the beltway and party status quo, but unlike 1992 national security is going to matter. Romney and Giuliani are both proven outside the status quo leaders with proven leadership experience while Hillary and Obama are beltway Senators with no proven leadership experience. I think as the election heats up the dynamic will change away from Bush and the past and towards the future and what is needed. That will be the demise of Hillary or Obama if either one of them is running against Romney or Giuliani.

We really need to stop looking at the 2008 election through the prism of 2000 and 2004. This is our first post 9/11 primary and that should mean something significant.

“They chose dishonor. They will have war.” - Winston Churchill

Drives home the point we need a candidate that can compete in Ohio and elsewhere in the Midwest and West, not someone who's going to drive up the margin of victory for the states that are safe.

I love Blackwell, but I think his governor's race is the best example that running the quintessential social conservative will lead to disaster. Granted, the GOP in Ohio is in shambles, but that in itself doesn't account for the margin. The press smeared him as a right wing social conservative and that got a lot of traction with swing voters in Ohio. If we run a presidential candidate where they can do the same thing over again we can kiss Ohio and 2008 good bye. The press and the rest of the Democrat party in Ohio have figured out the state wide formula for victory, all they need now is for us to serve up the model candidate.

And that's the point here. Can you imagine the Dems trying to figure out how to campaign against Romney or Giuliani? Their entire play book is smear the Republicans as hayseed bible thumping hicks from the South or neocons! Put a Northeastern Republican that's outside the status quo and gets the big things right against them, exploiting their weaknesses, and the whole dynamic changes. It may backfire in the South, but I'm thinking it puts the Dems on the wrong side of a landslide.

The world isn't linear and we may be talking about an entirely different baseline electoral map in 2012. Something systemic will happen that changes the current red/blue breakdown from 04 and 08, it's just a question of when.

“They chose dishonor. They will have war.” - Winston Churchill

“They chose dishonor. They will have war.” - Winston Churchill

In addition to the base. We need a candidate that will first energize the base and then appeal to independents. In 2006, moderates and independents defected to the Dems for a variety of reasons - many of which (the biggest being Bush himself) will not be on the table in 2008. What makes you think Thompson can't appeal to independents and moderates? I certainly think he will more than Hillary. While it's true that Guiliani could likely put a lot of those states you mentioned IN PLAY, it is still unlikely that a Republican can win them, especially when facing a New York Dem like Hillary. New Jersey is basically a corrupt political machine dominated by Democrats, we won't win there. While Rudy will no doubt perform better in New York than Thompson or any other Republican, he still won't win it.

Why is Ohio a lost cause? I understand the debacle of 2006 and the state party there has its fair share of problems, Ohio is still a pretty reliable red state, especially in federal elections. A candidate like Thompson will play well there, certainly better than Hillary.

Basically, Thompson should be able to carry every state Bush won - that is all you need. Admittedly, Ohio and (probably) Florida will be battlegrounds.