Posted on 05/26/2007 4:48:47 AM PDT by Neville72
As opposed to the sitting senator on the other side of the ticket? If the choice is between two candidates with no executive experience, then it goes toe-to-toe on issues, character, and personality. Thompson wins.
Also, looks matter especially to swing voters, and Thompson looks old.
To anyone hung up on that, Hillary's not exactly eye candy. So that factor, too, is a wash, and it again defaults to issues, character, personality. Thompson wins.
His record in the Senate on immigration isn’t so good either.
Put it up against Hillary's. Game, set, match.
Good point.
Who knows? Maybe the ticket will be Thompson/Romney.
Gov. Romney has a very good chance of winning Michigan in the general election with its 17 electoral votes and perhaps New Hampshire too (4 votes). Both states went to the Dems in 2004. Mitt was born in Michigan and his father, George Romney, was an extremely popular, three-time governor of the state. George Romney is still remembered with great fondness in Michigan. Mitt Romney has a home in NH and very high name recognition in the state.
Incidentally, the fundraising for Romney in Tennessee has been exceptional. According to a report, the Romney campaign has raised as much in TN as all the other Republican candidates and the Democrat candidates combined.
That will change when Mr. Thompson joins the race. Depending on how Tennessee apportions delegates, Mr. Romney may get more delegates from Tennessee than any other candidate except Mr. Thompson, but Tennessee will go heavily to Mr. Thompson in the primary.
Bill
Actually, this is a very "big deal."
I gather from your comment that you were not here in Tennessee during RINO governor Sundquist's second term that thankfully, and ignominiously, ended in 2002. During his first term and throughout his campaign for reelection Sundquist promised never to support a state income tax. Once he was reelected he did exactly that with ferocious determination and split the Republican party. We fought it off by waging the next thing to a real civil war. I still have an "AX THE TAX!" bumper sticker on my car to warn the politicians never to try it again.
Marsha Blackburn fought a better fight against that abomination than any other state senator or other politician I know of and was rightly rewarded a place in the House House of Representatives for her efforts. If there's ever been a conservative in the proud tradition of Margaret Thatcher and Jean Kirkpatrick, it's Marsha. Thus, when she endorses a presidential candidate, whom she personally knows, as she knows Thompson she deserves to be followed.
Fair enough, I was going for Mass, not MI. I had forgotten he was originally from MI.
You keep on making yourself feel better with Mitt’s supposed foothold in TN though. Whatever helps you get through the thumping you’re guy is about to receive.
First, I'm not a "Romney guy." My favorite candidate at this point is Duncan Hunter with Jim Gilmore as a co-favorite. If neither of them lasts until the Louisiana primary, then I will look for other candidates who can keep Rudy Giuliani or John McCain from being nominated. Of those other candidates, I think Mitt Romney is the strongest because of his executive experience.
Fred Thompson has a generally good record in the Senate, but his chairmanship of the committee looking into improper campaign contributions to Clinton/Gore '96 was a disaster. He let John Glenn play him for a fool. He took the committee on a wild goose chase on campaign finance reform and ended with support of the campaign finance reform law that even he now admits was a mistake. His lack of foresight on campaign finance reform doesn't exactly recommend him for our nation's highest office. If Fred Thompson is nominated, I'll be glad to support him, but his record in public life doesn't make him an ideal candidate. He projects a nice image, and many people see what they want in him. In the case of conservatives, they see someone who will be their only hope for a true conservative president. I think the reality will fall short of their expectations.
I suspect that my comment about Lamar Alexander being a better running mate than Fred Thompson is funny to you because you are either ignorant of Mr. Alexander's background or simply choose to ignore it. Lamar Alexander was governor of Tennessee for longer than Fred Thompson was a senator, and being a governor gives one true executive experience that is more applicable to the presidency. Lamar Alexander has also been a cabinet member and by 2008 will have spent nearly as many years in the Senate as Mr. Thompson did. While I don't agree with all that he advocated about education, Mr. Alexander made education one of his big issues and has studied education and educational systems quite a bit. He'll get some "soccer mom" votes because of that emphasis. He spent quite a bit of time in Australia (or maybe New Zealand) after he was governor, and that time may give him credibility with those allies. He's not as well-known as Mr. Thompson is, but a V.P. candidate having too high a public profile could cause more distraction than benefit.
One thing I've noticed on these threads is that while some of Mr. Thompson's supporters are good people, he's also attracted more of the arrogant jerks than Mr. Romney has. Even when I've expressed doubts about some part of Mr. Romney's record, most of his supporters have been polite and have responded with substance rather than insults. I can't say the same about Mr. Thompson's supporters. While I'll vote for Mr. Thompson if I must in order to deny Giuliani or McCain the nomination, any positive feelings that I have for Mr. Thompson are mitigated quite a bit by some of his supporters.
Bill
Not a Romney guy? That's funny, you use all of their talking points. Executive experience is a common talking point. It's pretty much all Mitt has to fall back on. His positions on everything seem to sway with the wind, but hey, at least he has executive experience, right? So did Jimmy Carter. Executive experience is worthless if you've got your finger in the air trying to figure out which direction to lead. I'll agree that if the choice came down to McCain, Rudy, or Mitt, Mitt would certainly get my vote. My support would be tepid to say the least, however.
Fred Thompson has a generally good record in the Senate, but his chairmanship of the committee looking into improper campaign contributions to Clinton/Gore '96 was a disaster. He let John Glenn play him for a fool. He took the committee on a wild goose chase on campaign finance reform and ended with support of the campaign finance reform law that even he now admits was a mistake. His lack of foresight on campaign finance reform doesn't exactly recommend him for our nation's highest office. If Fred Thompson is nominated, I'll be glad to support him, but his record in public life doesn't make him an ideal candidate. He projects a nice image, and many people see what they want in him. In the case of conservatives, they see someone who will be their only hope for a true conservative president. I think the reality will fall short of their expectations.
While the talking points on Glenn and CFR are old and very common, I can't disagree with what you said. Fred's not perfect. All of us who support him are well aware of that. However, there is quite a lot more to the man than the cherry-picked items that you cite from his record. Why not have a look at the whole picture, rather than reciting a couple of talking points?
I suspect that my comment about Lamar Alexander being a better running mate than Fred Thompson is funny to you because you are either ignorant of Mr. Alexander's background or simply choose to ignore it. Lamar Alexander was governor of Tennessee for longer than Fred Thompson was a senator, and being a governor gives one true executive experience that is more applicable to the presidency. Lamar Alexander has also been a cabinet member and by 2008 will have spent nearly as many years in the Senate as Mr. Thompson did. While I don't agree with all that he advocated about education, Mr. Alexander made education one of his big issues and has studied education and educational systems quite a bit. He'll get some "soccer mom" votes because of that emphasis. He spent quite a bit of time in Australia (or maybe New Zealand) after he was governor, and that time may give him credibility with those allies. He's not as well-known as Mr. Thompson is, but a V.P. candidate having too high a public profile could cause more distraction than benefit.
From talking points to strawmen. Who the hell cares about Lamar Alexander's record? Is he running for president? Has he given any indication that he is considering such a run? Is there a groundswell of grassroots support for Lamar's entry into the presidential fray? Didn't think so. Therefore, as great a guy as Lamar might be, he's completely irrelevant to this topic.
One thing I've noticed on these threads is that while some of Mr. Thompson's supporters are good people, he's also attracted more of the arrogant jerks than Mr. Romney has. Even when I've expressed doubts about some part of Mr. Romney's record, most of his supporters have been polite and have responded with substance rather than insults. I can't say the same about Mr. Thompson's supporters. While I'll vote for Mr. Thompson if I must in order to deny Giuliani or McCain the nomination, any positive feelings that I have for Mr. Thompson are mitigated quite a bit by some of his supporters.
Has he attracted a lot of them? I was under the impression that I was the only one. So, we've gone from talking points, to strawmen, to 'I might like Thompson if his supporters didn't question my silly statements.' Nice. You've combined a whole thread's worth of troll posts into one post, which is actually a nice change and a refreshing conservation of FR bandwidth.
You forgot to mention Fred's fire in the belly and that he looks too old and that he has cancer. I guess that'll be coming in the next post, eh?
It got read (by somebody).
If Fred jumps in with TAX Reform, its all over for anybody else, the people are hungry for it.
Thank you sir. I anxiously await the reply as do millions of others!
:)
You're putting the cart before the horse. I could see supporting Mr. Romney because I see as important some of the same things that his supporters see as important.
Executive experience is a common talking point.
The presidency is an executive position. Therefore, executive experience is a good qualification to have. Executive experience is not the only qualification, and I could support someone without that experience but who was right on the issues over someone who doesn't have that experience who is wrong on the issues. In fact, if Mr. Thompson and Mr. Giuliani are the only viable candidates when the primary comes to my state, I'll enthusiastically support Mr. Thompson in spite of his lack of executive experience over Mr. Giuliani. I'll cede to Mr. Giuliani's supporters that his executive experience is a point in his favor, but I'll say that Mr. Thompson is the better candidate for many other reasons.
Why not have a look at the whole picture, rather than reciting a couple of talking points?
I have looked at the whole picture, and the whole picture is why I could see myself supporting Mr. Thompson under certain conditions. For instance, if Mr. Romney does poorly in the Michigan and Florida primaries, we could wake up on February 6 to Mr. Thompson and Mr. Giuliani being in a tight race for the nomination. In that case, I'll likely be knocking on doors for Mr. Thompson during that week.
Therefore, as great a guy as Lamar might be, he's completely irrelevant to this topic.
Actually, the topic was Tennessee politicians and their ambitions. Mr. Alexander hasn't shown any interest in running for president again, but he had a strong desire to be president in 1996. He won't say anything at this point because all prominent politicians in Tennessee are supporting Mr. Thompson, but as an aside to the topic of Tennessee politicians, I mentioned that his qualifications were easily as strong as Mr. Thompson's.
So, we've gone from talking points, to strawmen, to 'I might like Thompson if his supporters didn't question my silly statements.'
Once again, your reading comprehension isn't very good. My point is not that I might like him if his supporters weren't idiots. My point is that I like him in spite of the fact that he is attracting more of jerks than any other candidate now that the Giuliani people have left Free Republic.
You forgot to mention Fred's fire in the belly and that he looks too old and that he has cancer. I guess that'll be coming in the next post, eh?
The "fire in the belly" issue is irrelevant. Throughout much of our history, presidential candidates were expected not to appear too eager to be president. That part of his persona doesn't bother me at all.
I don't think he looks too old, and I don't think that his appearance will hurt him. Again, that point is irrelevant.
As long as he doesn't pick someone like Rudy Giuliani for his running mate, the cancer issue will be irrelevant.
I've spoken of things that I like and dislike about almost every candidate. I've criticized Mr. Romney for his statements about the assault weapons ban. I've said that his changes in key positions over the years will hurt him. I've said that even though Duncan Hunter is one of my favorite candidates, I acknowledge that his lack of executive experience is a major weakness. I've said that even though he's done well in both debates, I think Mr. Huckabee will have electability problems because he's a preacher. I've said that Mr. Giuliani holds extremist liberal positions on abortion and gun control. I've said that Mr. Brownback is too weak on illegal immigration and seems most likely to get carried away with theocratic goals. I've said what you've seen me say here about Mr. Thompson.
When I've said these things, I've only been attacked by the supporters of Mr. Thompson and Mr. Giuliani. To some extent, I can understand the attacks by the Giuliani people. I am trying to hurt the campaign of Mr. Giuliani. With the others, I'm just trying to discuss strengths and weaknesses. Quite a few of the Thompson supporters have shown a hyper-sensitivity to any discussion of any of his weaknesses and respond with insults rather than with intelligent discussion. That kind of response isn't helping their candidate.
Bill
If Rove had figured this out before 06 (Tax Reform) we would not been dealing with Dingy Harry and Nancy right now.
You are correct sir!
So far for me:
Giuliani: strong on foreign policy, but fatally weak on domestic issues. Coasting on name recognition and NYC press favoritism
Paul: Giuliani's mirror image; his foreign policy ideas are dangerously naive.
McCain: No. Between CFR and the Gang of 14, he proved to me that he is unfit for the Executive Office. His loyalty to the Senate over the People's work doomed him in my mind.
Romney: Not exceptional, conservative wise, but better in my mind than Bush was in 2000. I voted for Bush then solely due to his stance on USSC picks, and that he wasn't Gore.
Hunter: He needs to break through. A good test on the ability to function as President is the ability to BE presidential. If he can't inspire enough support to break out of the 1-2% range now, he won't pass this test. Ball is in his court.
Tancredo: In it solely to push his issue: illegal immigration. Heard him on several interviews, and that's all he spends time on.
T. Thompson, Huckabee, etc.: Who?
Fred Thompson: Commit already. When he shows the proof he is serious, and lays it on the line as the other candidates have, then I'll take time to research him better.
I don't like the coy game of wink and nod noncandidacy, though. The longer it goes on the more I dislike him; it's disrespectful to the process and the office he is/is not seeking. Yeah, I know all the reasons why, from not spending money, to "prior commitments", to avoiding Da Rulez that appertains to announced candidates. But I find the gamesmanship manipulative and off putting.
I don't think that Giuliani is all that strong on national security. His support of sanctuary for illegal aliens was part of the whole attitude that led to a police officer releasing one of the 9-11 hijackers after stopping the hijacker for a traffic violation and finding that he was in the country illegally. I fear that his tough foreign policy stances would be more posturing than substance.
For Mr. Hunter and all of the "second-tier" candidates, the secret will be survival and fundraising. I suspect that the Iowa straw poll will eliminate some of the "twin" candidates. For instance, I think Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are "twin" candidates in that both of them are known as being tough on illegal immigration. Duncan Hunter's positions on trade and national defense and his experience in the military make him a more attractive candidate to me, but he and Tom Tancredo are drawing support from many of the same voters. If one could establish dominance so that voters would switch to his candidacy, he might start to gain some momentum and recognition. I think the same is true for Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback. I see almost no difference between their stands on the issues. Mike Huckabee has better qualifications because he's been a governor. He also performed much better in the debates. If he could take all of that pool of voters, he'd gain momentum and might get some needed attention.
I'm in Louisiana, and we're scheduled to vote on February 9. We'll be the first primary after Super Tuesday. I'm currently trying to help Duncan Hunter a bit, but If more than one candidate is viable after Super Tuesday, I'll likely volunteer for the one that I think will be the best.
Bill
“US Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee”
Backing Fred for her is not exactly a stretch.
While polls this far out mean less than absolute zero, of the “top three” Romney is the only one I’d hold my nose for.
While I plan on supporting Fred Thompson whole heartedly.
They are both Tennesseans. Why should this be a surprise at all?
Sure, Fred has given her a heads-up to the most obvious and open secret of all: Fred's going to run.
Okay, let's get on with it. Let's see if Fred has the stamina and desire to actually run a presidential race instead of hiding behind the YouTube. He's got the "stuff." He'd make a good president. The open question is, can he run a political marathon and not look old and weary?
I think when Fred gets in, he will take a lot of support from McCain and Romney in the short term, and from Rudy to a lesser extent. I think it will be a race between Rudy and Fred, with the victory dependent on how the McRomney supporters break. I think it will be a tough slog between the two, and hope to see Fred as our candidate.
One early indicator will be the amount of cash that heads Fred’s way in the thirty days after announcing. I know that I and a lot of people I know are holding back to support him. Not sure about the big money donors though, they will be another key.
Between the money and the initial surge, he will generate the positive news that will bring up his name recognition. HE NEEDS TO BE PERFECT IN THE THIRTY DAYS AFTER ANNOUNCING— Vibrant, Engaging, Friendly, Honest, Strong...
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.