Posted on 04/13/2007 8:39:38 AM PDT by meg88
In the case of the Republican presidential primary, there are two men who aren’t there: former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.). But their presence — or absence — haunts the GOP primary nonetheless. Until they make their respective moves to enter or foreswear entering the primaries, they will freeze a critical segment of conservative Republicans who are withholding their affections from other suitors, waiting for Mr. Right to arrive.
In fact, most polls indicate that these two gents account for between 15 and 20 percent of the vote in trial Republican primary heats. Not since Gen. Colin Powell froze the action in 1996 (as he sold books and pondered running) has a non-entrant so paralyzed the active crop of candidates.
Conservatives find themselves facing an unpalatable choice of Giuliani, socially liberal but conservative on everything else, or McCain, socially conservative but liberal on everything else (except Iraq, where he is merely stubborn). Some even are voting for Mitt Romney, but most seem turned off by his Mormon faith. While this artifact of bigotry is obscene, it appears to be freezing the former Massachusetts governor below 10 percent in the polls. (His recent fundraising success might backfire if a large proportion of his donations are from his co-religionists, stoking the paranoia of some voters).
And, even worse, real conservatives like Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore and Tommy Thompson can’t get their campaigns untracked because Newt and Fred are sitting on their potential voter base.
Thompson, at least, seems to realize that he is tying up traffic and appears committed to a reasonably prompt evaluation of his prospects and a decision on running. Newt apparently hasn’t read the new calendar of primary elections and fancies that he can stay out until September before making a decision.
If Gingrich were to run, he would make an excellent sparring partner for Giuliani. Tough on terror and socially conservative, Newt’s marital history is no more checkered than Rudy’s. The big difference between them is that Rudy can beat Hillary and Newt can’t. But his entry into the race, apart from making Hillary’s day, would at least create a real choice among Republicans.
Thompson, who conceivably could defeat Hillary — he is a blank slate at the moment — would also be a strong candidate. He would immediately eclipse Romney and drive the anti-Giuliani social conservatives who are now backing McCain to his candidacy. It would be the classic media match-up: America’s Mayor against the “Law & Order” prosecutor. Thompson’s solid record of exposing corruption in Tennessee and prosecuting campaign-finance violations by the Clintons in Washington would be very attractive to voters.
But they each have an obligation to clarify their intentions. It is not fair or reasonable to palsy the process, as they are now doing, by having one foot in and the other one out of the circle. Beyond appeals to their sense of decency, always awkward in politics, they must consider that the ongoing speculation is not doing their ratings for decisiveness and strength any good. As Hillary marches toward the nomination, Republicans want a clear alternative.
In the meantime, their lack of decisiveness is making it impossible for any alternative to Giuliani to emerge as a conservative challenger. How long will social conservatives let these two men block the emergence of a right-wing alternative? How much patience are they supposed to have? If the right wants a Mr. Right to run, it needs to tell Newt and Fred: Either run or get off the pot.
All human institutions are corrupt. The more power they have, the more corrupt they are.
Our form of government sucks, but it sucks a lot less than the rest of them.
How abut the form of government we used to have?
Like Ben Franklin said, "A republic, if you can keep it."
The welfare vote has us outnumbered. I don't know what you can do about that.
>I think Fred can wait as long as he wants. He’s is (sic) the best candidate IMHO!!<
WHY is he the best candidate? I really want to know. I’ve asked others that question, and have never received a reply. I already know that he is 6’6”, has name recognition because of his acting on tv and the movies. But these are not qualifications for President of the U.S.A.. Can you please fill me in?
Sign the Fred Thompson for President Petiton
Join the Draft Fred Thompson Bandwagon
THOMPSON FLOOR SPEECH ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM March 27, 2001
If you'd like to be a FRedHead let me or Howlin know.
CAUTION: This is a very high volume ping list. You may receive between 5 and 10 pings a day. If you'd rather not receive so many pings, let me know and I'll only ping you once a week.
Uh, no. While I don't think labels of "conservatism" are useful since we can't decide what that means, I do wish people wouldn't persist in framing the Giuliani debate as social conservatives vs. everyone else. The more interesting and potentially valuable story is the way opposition to Giuliani's candidacy has united social conservatives and small-l libertarian conservatives. That implies these two groups, which have been pretty much at odds since Reagan, can potentially find common ground again.
Beyond appeals to their sense of decency, always awkward in politics, they must consider that the ongoing speculation is not doing their ratings for decisiveness and strength any good.
It's incorrect to say that they haven't decided yet -- we don't know that. All we know is that they haven't told us what they've decided yet. Mapping out a strategy for when to officially enter the race is smart. Having a plan B in case one's favored undeclared candidate doesn't run is also smart.
oh wow, hadn’t read that link! thanks!
“Lower marginal tax rates have proven to be a key to prosperity now by Kennedy, Reagan and Bush. It’s time millionaires serving in the Senate learned not to overly tax other people trying to get wealthy.” - Fred Thompson
For me, here’s why Fred is the best candidate:
-Philosophy: For the most part (his now-repudiated support of McCain-Feingold excepted), his record and his commentary show that he has by far the most originalist, Constitution-based understanding of the Founding Documents and of federal government’s role. He also appears to understand the threat posed by Islamofascists and the proper strategy toward fighting them (as a war, not a crime). He’s mostly pro-states-rights/federalism, pro-fiscal-conservative/anti-government waste and fraud, pro-military and pro-personal liberty and personal responsibility.
-Communication style: He is an excellent communicator. After seeing some of W.s important ideas (for example, the Bush Doctrine) falter because of his inconsistant ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively, this is a top issue for me.
-Electability: He potentially can unite the sometimes-opposing GOP factions that any candidate needs to win. These factions include social conservatives, small-government/Constitution conservatives and national security conservatives (with some overlap amongst the three).
Seriously. The last thing we need is DickMorris.com jumping on the Fred bandwagon.
>For me, here’s why Fred is the best candidate:.....<
Thank you, ellery. That’s a fine, comprehensive answer. I really appreciate it. How about Hunter-Thompson? :o)
Good list. I would add to it that Thompson has considerable
foreign affairs expertise, he is extremely pro-America, and is highly intelligent, as proved by his writings and speeches.
Excellent points!
Or Thompson-Hunter? :) I very much like Hunter’s background as a Ranger, especially since Special Forces are the future of our military. Hunter for Sec. of Defense?
I agree, that Fred is the best candidate but he CANNOT “wait as long as he wants”. The saying goes: “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.”
If he waits much longer............no mon no fun.
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.