Posted on 05/27/2007 1:37:14 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
The three front-runners for the Republican presidential nomination are trying desperately to ease the suspicions among the party's hard-core conservatives that each of them arouses for different reasons.
Rudy Giuliani promised to appoint “strict constructionists” to the court. John McCain mended fences with the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. Mitt Romney said his past support for the right to have an abortion was wrong. While there are signs that these efforts are having varying degrees of success, many conservatives are withholding their support in hopes that somebody else emerges.
“What conservatives are looking at here is a group of less-than-perfect candidates,” said Lee Edwards, a historian of the conservative movement at the Heritage Foundation. “A lot of them are waiting for Ronald Reagan, and there is no Ronald Reagan.”
Reagan may not be available, but former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia are talking about joining the race.
Danielle Vinson, a political science professor at Furman University in Greenville, S.C., said either man could find a receptive audience in her state's crucial primary, which will be third in line behind Iowa and New Hampshire next January.
“I think right now (that) if somebody else would come along in South Carolina and cut through the noise generated by the big three, they'd have a chance,” Vinson said. “I've heard more Republicans, especially evangelicals, expressing unhappiness with the current field.”
The seven other candidates in the Republican field can boast of more solid conservative credentials, but they are attracting only isolated pockets of support because few give any of them a chance of winning.
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
Stop it now! ;-) You are tempting me (to vote FOR him)!
No doubt about it and he doesn't have to explain past votes for McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform" (which unfortunately for Fred, this vote and a few others may really haunt him should he decide to allow himself to be "drafted" into the race.)
Exactly. It’s kind of scary how much the Fred supporters are acting like the old Rudybots. They are defending his liberalism by claiming that he “can beat Hillary” and that he “has high poll numbers” and he’s “electable”. Never mind his weak record on immigration, his support of CFR, and his NO vote when it comes to Bill Clinton’s perjury.
Heck, I'd take a Goldwater, ca. 1964 at this point.
Speaking of that, Jim, that might be a halfway decent excuse to post a vanity--i.e.: the differences between Reagan and Goldwater (besides the obvious, like the Ronladus Magnus won two landslides).
But how will he improve on Bush's 35% policy approval? Echo same for whole GOP field. GOP needs 50%+ to win. Who has it if there is no separation from Bush? 'Better communicator', doesn't cut it.
He said, "How can you continue to support Hunter, as he has no real chance of winning the Primary and certainly NONE of beating whomever the dims put forth?"
I said, "Well, first, Duncan has absolutely NO liberal votes in Congress, has the backing of all of the conservative groups to which I either belong or have great admiration of; secondly, he'll have a pristine past which will be examined by the Hillary crowd to the hilt; and lastly Duncan IS an American Hero, he doesn;t merely PLAY one in the movies and on TV."
As always, brilliant analysis. I believe you are right. This is a Thompson vs Romney race, and I believe Thompson can win that race, but it will be one hell of a fight. At this time, I can’t imagine the GOP recovering from recent events with regards to the amnesty sell-out, and the Iraq war constantly looming over everything like a dark cloud. Whoever gets the nomination will need a revolutionary message of change to win the general election. Right now, I’m just not hearing it from anyone currently running. If nothing changes from now until the election, I predict the dems win the presidency in ‘08 and pick up seats in the house and senate. The GOP has some serious work to do and not much time left to do it.
that's what happens in the Big Tent world!
Invariably, I have been whittling it down to a science and I will make a final judgement once the big man gets into the battle, and equally joins as a debate participant. It will probably take one or two debates for me to decide...plus a search of who is funding or advising the two candidates, since that would tend to show where they will end up in policy if actually elected president.
I have been a witness to too many GOP elections where what they said in the Primary, or even the General, was then abrogated by their service in office. No tricks this time!
For me, Giuliani, Tommy Thompson, Brownback, Paul, McCain and probably Romney are COMPLETELY OUT.
Interesting that its the big three, now. Before it was “Rudy” then as he slipped more than McCain, the “Big two.”
Romney is next logical media Front Runner but this really means the field is open, as it should be before Iowa and NH.
I don’t understand why this guy with a liberal voting record is gaining so much support on FR. Is it really just because he’s an actor?
Last interview of him we saw most recently, he looked very old and tired.
Hubby thought that as he hasn't seen much of him, Fred was having a bit of a face lift.
Finally nice to see someone not rolled into the “Fred Thompson will save us” line. His years in the Senate make his conservatism automatically suspect to me, but all I hear is “he looks/sounds good on television.” Well, that doesn’t qualify him to make the heart-wrenching strategic decisions necessary to guide this war toward victory or execute the moves necessary to quell the enemies of the United States entrenched in the Congress. I honestly haven’t looked seriously at Fred Thompson and do not plan to do so until and unless he enters the race. I also don’t see any candidates who really exude the fortitude that Bush displays against our enemies abroad every day. But I increasingly support Mike Huckabee and think that he can and will grow into the role.
Definitely look into Duncan Hunter. He was a paratrooper and Ranger in Vietnam, and if anything he’s tougher than Bush since Hunter has already stated that it’s time to take action against Iran. His son is going on his third tour in Iraq, so he would easily resist the chickenhawk attacks from the left.
He’s the right man to lead this nation in a time of war.
The liberal Fred Thompson doesn’t even come close.
I never even heard of Fred Thompson before this recent craze on FR. Most Americans will not know who this obscure, boring actor is. He does not have the name recognition that his RINO supporters would like you to believe.
Obviously, name recognition doesn’t matter but if that is his biggest selling point, then that’s pathetic.
Liberal?
Hunter is my first choice, but I'd be OK with Fred being the nominee as well. You don't do Hunter much good by claiming Fred is a liberal when he is not.
Like hell. Fred is from the center of the GOP and has plenty of conservative positions.
Never mind his weak record on immigration,
His voting record against illegal immigration is fairly strong, and he's correct in pushing for border security first.
his support of CFR,
Funny, Duncan Hunter voted for the 527 bill, but I don't see you making a big deal out of that.
and his NO vote when it comes to Bill Clinton’s perjury.
For which Fred wrote a lengthy and substantive justification, after which I tended to agree with him - that article of impeachment was flawed. Fred did vote for the obstruction article.
You're not even very good at Fred-bashing.
“His voting record against illegal immigration is fairly strong, and he’s correct in pushing for border security first.”
I believe that someone else already posted Fred’s illegal immigration record, and it’s nothing for Fredbots to brag about.
“Funny, Duncan Hunter voted for the 527 bill, but I don’t see you making a big deal out of that.”
So Fred decides to vote for a bill that would take away our First Amendment rights(McCain-Feingold), and once it passed Duncan decided that he would vote to define it in a way that would hurt the Democrats. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
“For which Fred wrote a lengthy and substantive justification, after which I tended to agree with him - that article of impeachment was flawed. Fred did vote for the obstruction article.”
I have read his lengthy justification, and I don’t agree with it.
Before Fred Thompson decided to start his non-campaign, if you asked most conservatives “Do you think Clinton should have been convicted of perjury”, you would get a resounding “Yes”. But ever since the Fred craze, that has changed. If Fred Thompson supported Bill Clinton on that charge, then the Fredbots will do the same.
So much for your First Amendment absolutism, weasel-boy.
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.