Posted on 07/26/2007 7:21:34 AM PDT by hardback
Many Republican faithful, from the grass roots to the Capitol, have concluded that Fred Thompson, the preternaturally avuncular actor and former Senator from Tennessee, is the cure-all for their party's ills.
Thompson has yet to enter the presidential race, and yet Thompson already shares front-runner status with former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani in some national polls of gop voters.
Thompson will spend the rest of the summer raising money, which he was scheduled to do conspicuously at a donor event in Washington on July 28. Another advantage to waiting: the longer he remains an unofficial candidate, the longer NBC can air reruns of Law & Order featuring Thompson as Manhattan DA Arthur Branch without running afoul of the equal-time provision of federal campaign law.
"His timing has been brilliant so far," insists Tennessee Congressman Zach Wamp, who led the effort to convince Thompson he should run. "While he's been waiting, some candidates have been falling and the others haven't been moving. Frankly, there's been a lot of advantages to [it]. He's probably gotten more attention not being a candidate than he would have being a candidate."
While Thompson's undeclared campaign , raises money and figures out how to live up to the hype surrounding his candidacy, his potential opponents are busy adjusting to the new dynamics of the race.
The problem for Giuliani—and the rest of the field—is that Thompson has the same strategy, and the Tennessean's Southern drawl and conservative voting record are likely to play well in South Carolina.
If Thompson can keep enthusiasm high until he enters the race in the fall, he might be able to turn what was supposed to be a marathon race for the nomination into a relatively brief, four-month sprint.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
“ping post 132... not specifics after all, instead, picking one piece that makes their point and leaving out the parts that contradict their point.”
except that extra legislative language doesn’t contradict the main point at all. It was still a vote against/for affirmative action set asides.
May I play also?
Experience = Giuliani and Romney at 90, Hunter and McCain at 85, and Thompson at 75. I would rate Thompson higher, but as I have a bit of a bias towards him at the moment, I will leave him at 75.
TV – Very subjective. (Romney and Thompson get 90 on this one, Giuliani does well at 85, I’ll be kind to both Hunter and McCain and give them 70… neither has impressed me much on the little I have seen them in the debates in their ability to schmooze the American People.)
Conservative/Liberal – I tied these together and figured that the sum of the absolute values here logically should be 100. (Hunter 96 and -4, Thompson 92 and -8, Romney 73 and -27 (I just don’t believe him with so many changes on issues lately.) McCain 67 and -33, and Giuliani at 33 and -67)
Electability – Again I put this on a 1-100 scale. Positives – negatives + percent against Clinton + percent against Obama. Hunter had no poll results, so I gave him the same numbers as Giuliani (top) as percents against the Democrats. (Giuliani 100, Thompson 99, Hunter 83, McCain and Romney 74)
Money – converted to 1 to 100 scale. Cashed raised second quarter – cash outflow 2nd quarter + funding (Romney can self fund.) (Romney 100, Thompson 80 (no spending), Giuliani broke even though he had most contributions: 50, McCain -10 and that might be lenient, Hunter 0 he raised less than in the whole quarter than I saw that Thompson got in the first 24 hours his website was live.)
Polling – I took their numbers and multiplied them by 3.84615 and rounded up. This translated Thompson’s 26% to 100 (Thompson 100, Giuliani 97, McCain and Romney 43, and Hunter 1)
Final tally:
McCain 296
Hunter 334
Giuliani 388
Romney 443
Thompson 528
I am about even in my like for Hunter and Thompson, perhaps a bit more toward Thompson lately. Hunter loses it on how low he is still performing. Of the above, I could not bring myself to vote for Giuliani or McCain, though I might pull it for McCain if I took enough pain killers. Romney is more of an undecided in my mind. Too many of his stands have no positive history to back them.
The point is, if Thompson voted for the bill, he would be accused of supporting affirmative action because the bill provides exceptions for continuing affirmative action in ‘traditional black universities’
Exactly. Whoever is the GOP nominee will need every vote he can get to defeat Hil or BO. Giving the Leftist pacifist socialist any more amnunition to kill our own is stupid and only hurts those of us who know that winning this next election is very important to stop socialism and pacifism from turning our nation into another France or worse yet, Mexico!
I think you were being rather generous by giving Fred a 92 on conservativism, and leaving McCain with a 67. In actuality, the American Conservative Union gives Fred an lifetime score of 86, and McCain is just four points behind with an 82 lifetime score. Fred and McCain disagreed on an issue or two, like ANWR drilling and Bush's 2001 tax cut, but overall their records are pretty close. Just because freepers PERCEIVE Fred as being this all-knowing all-conservative icon and McCain as being an evil RINO, doesn't mean their actual voting record reflects that.
And what is with Romney only getting a 65 on telegenic appearance? I'm no Romney supporter, but it seemed obvious to me and just about everyone else on FR that Romney was far ahead of the pack in stage presence during the first GOP debate. The guy is extremely polished (almost TOO polished), he's almost like a fictional TV version of "perfect presidential candidate". And my knowledge of Fred's "telegenic" apperance has been limited to scripted staged events like his movie roles and pre-writen speeches. I've never seen Fred have to speak off the cuff or debate with other candidates. I imagine his ablity to look articulate would go down in that circumstance. My understanding is he was completely bewildered when some FairTax supporters tried to get him on the record and he didn't know how to respond.
My point was detractors would be saying the exact same thing no matter how he voted..
I am not sure those that say they are Duncan Hunter supporters are real Hunter supporters. They can say anything on an anonymous forum and it does not mean that it is true.
But I do believe Romney supporters are capable of spreading disinformation.
At one time I paid no attention to Romney but now because of tactics that he apparently endorses, I am forming a very negative opinion about him.
I’m for Tommy Thompson, but just for fun I decided to try his scale and rank the candidates from first to last in all of those catergories. I’m still coming up with the numbers but when did an honest judgement and rated them, I came up with:
EXPERIENCE: Tommy 95, Guiliani, Paul, McCain, Hunter, Tancredo, Brownback, Fred, Romney
TELEGENIC PRESENCE: Romney, Huckabee, Fred, Tancredo, Guiliani, Hunter, McCain, Tommy, Paul, Brownback
CONSERVATIVE RATINGS: Tancredo, Hunter, Tommy, Brownback, Huckabee, Fred, Paul, McCain, Romney, Guiliani
LIBERAL RATINGS: Tancredo (liberals HATE him), Hunter, Tommy, Huckabee, Fred, Brownback, Romney, McCain, Guiliani, Paul (not acutally that liberal BUT the loons at DU love him)
ELECTABILITY (general election): Romney, Guiliani, Tommy, Huckabee, Fred, McCain, Paul, Hunter, Brownback, Tancredo
MONEY (est): Romney, Guiliani, Paul, McCain, Brownback, Tancredo, Hunter, Tommy, Huckabee, Fred (unannounced)
POLLING (primary election): Giuliani, Fred, Romney, McCain , Tommy, Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter, Paul, Brownback
Spencer Abraham is an Orthodox Christian under the Antiochan Orthodox Archdiocese. He is a Christian Arab-American.
Orthodox Christianity is an extremely pious, modest and strict form of Christianity. It is descended largely from the Apostle Paul. It welcomes all that love true Christianity. It values obedience but it values love and compassion even more.
It teaches one to lower their head and pray when they are surrounded by suffering and abuse.
I think Spencer Abraham’s faith can only be a good thing. Because of his faith, his ethnicity matters not.
Yes, Abraham Lincoln was indeed a poor President. /sarc
He's in Ames, looking forward to beating your guy in the straw poll, so you guys can spin it by saying all the TT supporters "meant" to vote for Fred (you guys are starting to sound like Gore winning about Buchanan voters in 2000)
And I don't believe any TT supporter claimed "only" Tommy can win in November. Those are the tactics of Rudy & Fred supporters. I do think he has a BETTER chance of winning a general election than Fred, mainly because Tommy can carry Dem-leaning swing states that it would be very hard for Fred to get in the current political climate. Fred would get every state Bush got, minus Ohio or Colorado, and the GOP would be DOA.
I've been a little skeptical about the optimism surrounding Fred Thompson's candidancy (which I think is unreasonably high for an untested candidate) but he won't be that bad.
FDT voted to acquit Clinton on perjury but voted to convict on obstruction.
It does not matter how many charges were dismissed or acquitted, it matters only if there was a conviction. A conviction on one count is a conviction.
The reason he voted to acquit Clinton on perjury is because Clinton did not abuse the ‘Powers of the Presidency’ in the act of perjury. Clinton in fact did abuse those Powers in obstructing justice.
A Senate trial is not a judicial trial. A Senate trial is a trial for weighing evidence of abusing powers.
FDT knew Clinton would face charges in a judicial court for perjury and he knew there was evidence to convict Clinton of perjury in a court of law.
Here is FDT’s excellent Lincolnesque legal brief on the whole affair:
http://australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml
That’s kinda what I thought. This whole post is nothing but another attack piece on Fred Thompson.
Sure, but is there any candidate for President who can do that? Is that the job of a candidate?
You have a point. I guess failing all else, I want a candidate who will A) beat Hillary, B) do the least harm, and C) spend the least tax money.
Yes, you can concoct a strawman argument that incorrectly confuses non-objectionable affirmative action ‘outreach’ programs with objectionable affirmative action preferences, but its FUD.
Those exception are of no account, and there was no bill out there that went further than the Gramm Amendment or the Dole -Canady bill in stopping preferences.
“The point is, if Thompson voted for the bill, he would be accused of supporting affirmative action” ... no, he would have been accused by liberals of ‘destroying 30 years of civil rights’. And if he is real lucky, he’d get called a racist, just like the real front-and-center valiant conservative activists who were trying to end affirmative action preferences ...
CONSIDER WHAT THOMPSON HELPED STOP IN 1995:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/affirm/stories/aa072895.htm
“Senate Majority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) introduced broad legislation yesterday that would go beyond a recent Supreme Court ruling and end race- and gender-based federal affirmative action programs.
The bill, the product of months of discussions, fulfills a promise Dole made earlier this year and gives the GOP’s leading presidential contender a marker in the tense national debate about where remedies to discrimination should begin and end. The same bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Charles T. Canady (R-Fla.).
“For too many of our citizens,” said Dole, “our country is no longer the land of opportunity but a pie chart, where jobs and other benefits are often awarded not because of hard work or merit, but because of someone’s biology.” Dole said his bill would “get the federal government out of the business of dividing Americans and into the business of uniting Americans.”
Affirmative action proponents, however, portrayed the legislation as anything but unifying, saying it would wipe out 30 years of civil rights enforcement policies. The bill demonstrates how far Dole is on the issue from President Clinton, who said last week a review of federal affirmative action programs showed they work and that cases of reverse discrimination are rare. Ironically, Dole once supported some of the same policies he now wants to abolish.
...
Yesterday, Dole and Canady were flanked by a “rainbow coalition” of conservative Hispanics, blacks, white women, Asian Americans and white men in an elaborate ceremony at the Capitol intended to signal broad public support for the bill. So far, Dole has eight co-sponsors in the Senate. Canady said he has 70 in the House.
Called the “Equal Opportunity Act of 1995,” the Dole-Canady bill would end the use of “racial and gender preferences” in federal contracting, hiring and other federally conducted activities. It would not ban the government from engaging in “outreach” and recruitment, the new GOP buzzwords for affirmative action.
...
As one indication of the Senate’s mood for dealing with affirmative action right now, an amendment to eliminate set-asides for minorities and women was overwhelmingly defeated last week. Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), the amendment’s author and Dole’s chief presidential rival, has since scaled back on his promise to offer his amendment on every appropriations bill that reaches the Senate floor, acknowledging he has little chance for success. “
So there was a major effort in 1995 and 1996 to end affirmative action *PREFERENCES*, not affirmative action as a whole, but the more objectionable preferences policies.
Conservatives like Gramm and Dole were front and center on it. Where was Thompson?
“No, I am not buying into the facade that Thompson voted against the Amendment because “it didnt’ go far enough.” ... All true conservatives would have leaped at the chance to eliminate affirmative action in federal contracts even if the legislation had an exception for black universities. ... The bottom line is that Thompson voted against an amendment that virtually eliminated all affirmative action in federal contracts with only a few minor exceptions.”
Yes, that is right. Check the Wash Post article for what was really going on. It was a Phil Gramm amendment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/affirm/stories/aa072895.htm
It is close to idiotic to think a vote to end the pervasive use of affirmative action set asides in Government contracting would be characterized reasonably as a ‘pro-affirmative action’ vote.
Analogy: If someone voted to change from a full abortion-on-demand situation to ban abortion except in cases of incest, would it be fair to call that a pro-abortion vote?
Thompson cast a vote for affirmative action preferences, and the opposite side of the vote was against affirmative action preferences. End of story.
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.
