Um, aren’t we supposed to vote for Thompson’s ideas? His aides’ don’t really matter once we hear what Thompson has to say on the issue. I’d hold judgment until we hear that.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Aides do matter because right now, we don’t have much to go on.
I really would like to believe in fred but he has to show more and this is not helping.
But that is the point, if Fred Thompson doesn’t actually get out there and tell us his positions, we must speculate based on the people he is surrounding himself with. His actions (few that they are) are speaking louder than his words.
I’ll admit that, at first glance, it’s a bit disturbing.
However, it’s Fred himself that would make policy decisions, not his advisors or his campaign staffers.
Using the same logic, Bush might well be a Tancredo conservative considering some of those who endorsed him or worked on his campaign in 2000.
The best judge of a "growing" candidates positions is not statements but who he has as advisers.
You may be right, but this is a bad sign. Thompson must know that Abraham is an open borders enthusiast. He must know that Abraham helped torpedo the chances of really good immigration reform in the mid 90s. And Thompson must know that a lot of the base knows all of this. In light of the last two years of intense debate over illegal immigration, this just sends a very bad signal.
Abraham won an award from La Raza! La Raza! What else is there to say? That should be a badge of dishonor for a conservative.
And he lost his bid for reelection. What exactly marks him out as the best guy for this job?
Au contraire, you precisely know the flow and nature of a candidate's would-be Administration by the senior advisory powers he surrounds himself with, in the early days--the tit-for-tat is that most of them are promised, or their select friends and associates, positions of influential administrative power if the team is successful. This is a cold, undisputed organizational reality which I did not know in my 20s when voting and supporting certain candidates for President, foolishly seduced by their cleverly crafted, focus-group sculpted stump speeches only.
Come on. Let's move past that, OK?
Analysis of organizational structure and backgrounds of the "players* is one of the few windows we have as to what is to come, IMHO. The rest is taken on sheer faith. Verily, the rest is all just campaign rhetoric which has about as much effect on me these days as party platforms--which together with $3.50, can buy you a coffee at Starbucks.
The Abraham selection is rather troubling.
What ideas? Campaign finance reform? What, exactly, are the thoughts inside the head of this faux actor? Cripes, talk about buying a can of worms from a used car salesman...
MArtinez, Gonzales, Mehlman - they didn’t mirror Bush’s warped perspective of the Mexican Reconquista?
I have feelings of disquietude over the fact that Hunter was a career politician, apparently has the support of the Bushes, and now this.
This is a slowly developing situation.
I still think Hunter is the best candidate, and intend to support him or Thompson. But if the campaign unfolds and Thompson appears to be a Bush II clone - a watered down Democrat, its third aprty time.