Posted on 06/03/2007 12:43:04 PM PDT by truth_seeker
The way the pundits reported it this past week, youd have thought the imminent entrance of former senator and Law & Order star Fred Dalton Thompson into the Republican presidential sweepstakes represented manna from heaven for conservatives. But from what I can tell, in Orange County at least where there are probably more conservative Republicans per capita than most other places in the country that wing of the GOP is not breathing a collective sigh of relief. First of all, Thompson gave a less than stellar performance last month when he was in Newport Beach for a Lincoln Club event. Not good, particularly given that club members are the ones able to pony up the big bucks Thompson will need if hes going to compete in a field that already has 10 candidates.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
“I do not even know if I care that much what Orange County collectively thinks.”
OC doesn’t think collectively. OC thinks action, business. Three million population, lowest unemployment rate in California. Four of the six most southern counties in California vote Republican. San Diego, Orange, Ventura and San Luis Obispo.
While the rest of the country talks about immigration, Orange County made news with the County and the City of Costa Mesa hitting hard in the jails, to check immigration status.
A good Republican can win California. Reagan did. Nixon did. GHW Bush did, 1988. Several Governors, too.
Collectively perhaps not red-meat conservative enough to statisfy some at FR, but nonetheless far better than the alternatives.
My criteria are 1. Ability to win (primary, general). 2. Policy positions, overall.
For me Thompson and Romney meet those requirements.
It appears Fred has his work cut out, to convince the kingmakers he has the stuff—money, staff, platform, commitment, etc.
Those people are the same ones that brought us the screw-up Arnold and refused to bankroll a McClintock. Those people are doing more to liberalize this state than the Dems could have dreamed of. Please don't rely on them to help the country.
“How about that Paul fellar? Can he convince the kingmakers in OC that he has the stuff?”
First, he must get hisself invited to a Lincoln Club gig. I can’t help him with that.
Obviously he is to be admired for his understanding of the Constitution’s definition of the role of government.
But like Harry Browne, he cannot be taken seriously about international relations. We sent the Marines to Tripoli, when our interests were involved.
That article was posted back on 4/20 at the following link....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1820588/posts
That should give me a lot more freeper comments to read.
“That article was posted back on 4/20 at the following link....”
I looked into that. The immigration ratings cited by Basil gave Fred a “C” and gave Al Gore a “A-.”
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/delegation.php3?retired=1&District=tn
Now sit back, and consider—should Basil be taken seriously? Is that Basil/basil?
I keep hearing people whine that Thompson didn’t give a good speech in Orange County, as if this matters somehow? Did he belch into the microphone or something?
I keep hearing people whine that Thompson didnt give a good speech in Orange County,
I don’t know how true any of the above is.......
LOL! For a while my tagline was “Hunter/Thompson ‘08.”
“A good Republican can win California”
I think the likelihood of a Republican carrying California is so slight, and the expense of the campaign there so great that it makes no sense. The resources should go to Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota,and Michigan, states that are genuinely in play.
No Republican has won California in 20 years, since Bush41 narrowly defeated Dukakis there. Since the Simpson Mazzli Immigration bill in 1986, it has been trending heavily Democratic.
That said, I do believe that a really appealing candidate with some connection to California cannot be written off. I think Thompson fills that bill. Romney, IMHO, does not.
Thompson doesn’t need CA to get elected anyway, although he will get more votes from there than McInsane ever would.
For those haven't seen it it will replayed at 9:30 eastern time on Cspan.
Until I see a full and adequate explanation for that CFR hookup, there will be no support from me. I like Duncan Hunter as the best of the bunch.
If you think that speach was good the one he gave last night was a Grand Slam!!
Which CFR? I assume you’re not referring to McCain/Feingold.
Here is Fred's speech at the Lincon Club last month, which some folks, (mostly Robert Novak) were not very impressed with. I enjoyed the speech. Admittedly, it wasn't Fred's best speech ever, but I still thought it was quite good. This is in 4 parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN3z4mqRn7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhJ5dy_MTxY
I can't speak to all of the accusations made against Thompson, but as for the claim that he supports abortion it is flat wrong. Fred's Senate voting record is 100% pro-life, and he got a 100% rating from National Right to Life, the largest pro-life org in the US. If the source of your article would lie about that part of Fred's record I wouldn't give him or her any credibility on the other points either.
Anyone who wants to see how Fred voted while in the Senate can click HERE and see every vote he cast.
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. Require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES Reference: Lautenberg Amdt #362; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-134 on May 20, 1999
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. The Hatch amdt would increase mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, fund additional drug case prosecutors, and require background check on purchasers at gun shows. [A YES vote supports stricter penalties]. Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)48; N)47; NV)5 Reference: Hatch Amendment #344; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-118 on May 14, 1999
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. Vote to table or kill a motion to require that all gun sales at gun shows be completed by federally licensed gun dealers. Also requires background checks to be completed on buyers and requires gun show promoters to register with the Treasury. Reference: Bill S.254 ; vote number 1999-111 on May 11, 1999
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. Vote to table [kill] an amendment to make it unlawful for gun dealers to sell handguns without providing trigger locks. Violation of the law would result in civil penalties, such as suspension or revocation of the dealer's license, or a fine. Reference: Bill S 2260 ; vote number 1998-216 on Jul 21, 1998
Looks good to me. The NRA thought so too, and gave him an A rating.
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.