Posted on 04/01/2007 9:13:44 PM PDT by SE Mom
In just three weeks, Fred Thompson has transformed the contest for the Republican presidential nomination. It is not merely that he has come from nowhere to double digits in polls. He is the talk of GOP political circles because he is filling the conservative void in the field.
Republican activists have complained for months that none of the Big Three -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney-- fits the conservative model of a conservative leader for a conservative party. The party faithful have been waiting for another Ronald Reagan. But in conversations with them the past year, nobody mentioned Thompson as the messiah until he appeared March 11 on "Fox News Sunday."
Thompson was surprised by the reaction to his statement that he was "giving some thought" to running. In the first Gallup Poll that listed Thompson (conducted March 23-25), he scored 12 percent -- amazing for someone out of public life for more than four years who has not campaigned. More important is his backing within the political community. Buyer's remorse is expressed by several House members who endorsed Romney, the former Massachusetts governor.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The DU'ers are already scared to death of Fred Thompson. I lurk there occasionally to see what they are up to and one poster from TN told them a couple of days ago to "Be afraid, be very afraid of Fred Thompson because if he gets the nomination he will beat anybody their side puts out there." LOL
In any case, I think Thompson would be agreat choice. He's a Conservative AND, with wide, positive acceptance, has a genuine shot at winning. A fine bonus is that he can think well on his feet, far, far better than any dim that I can think of.
Nam Vet
I'm interested in knowing how this works. Can you explain a bit more?
I'll have a double Thompson with a large coke please.
We ran a war hero, and he lost.
We ran "Mr. Conservative", and he lost. Republicans are just one 'Rat commercial away from oblivion.
What would Barry Goldwater's advice be today?
Yes, the NR (or actually just one writer on it) was.
On the matter of whether Rudy Giuliani appointed liberal judges because he had to, or not, see this March 3 post by Jim Rob and its links: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1794792/posts?page=7#7
Thanks!
All I need to know on that subject is that he said he would pay for the murder of his own unborn grandchild.That really does say it all.
It isn't clear yet, but I detect some family values issues coming over the horizon in 2008. If Edwards is the Dem candidate, he will get no traction against Fred, and he may even slide a bit as people marvel at his insistence on campaigning while his wife battles cancer.
Whereas if the Republican candidate were on his third marriage, Edwards would look faithful and overflowing with character by comparison.
And character is an issue. In fact I consider it THE issue, always. If a man falls short in that, how can he be trusted to lead, and to deal with all other issues?
We are on the same page!
How do you plan to purge FR of Rudy supporters?
Agreed. Thompson leaving his job was the right thing to do for him and his family. If conservatives begin to battle each other on candidate's 'family values', then there are a few candidates that should quit the race right now.
No, I'm looking at his record. Ever since his name surfaced I have been trying to figure out the buzz about someone who seemed to me to have a rather unremarkable political career. I didn't say I wouldn't or couldn't support him though. I felt similarly underwhelmed by Bush early on in the process and ended up a huge supporter.
So does Rudy.
That's got to be a contender for the Top Five Stupidest Things Ever Posted on FR.
If he pulls momentum from Romney and Rudy, to get McCain in shooting range, and then says he's not running...where will his former supporters go?
Back to Rudy or Romney, NOT to McCain. The entire exercise would be pointless, and I doubt Fred wants to waste his time to do that.
What the article makes clear is that Rudy could have shaken up the system if he felt he had a need to. Did he have a need to?
Here, we need to look at the big picture. On occasion, the system may have forced Rudy into making unfortunate choices. He may even have made significant mistakes. (As Reagan did with O'Connor and Kennedy, or Bush did with Souter, or Nixon did with Stevens.) I think any conservative has to be amazed at how successfully Giuliani improved the circumstances of NYC, and I don't think the conservative movement is well served by fretting over whether Giuliani employed a given tactic in his efforts; the point is that his efforts were hugely successful.
It is certainly legitimate to question Rudy's adherence to conservative issues of jurisprudence. On the other hand, I doubt that mining his record on approving judges is going to prove useful. I dare say he has done a better job than his chief critic on this issue, Mitt Romney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.