Posted on 08/06/2007 1:48:10 PM PDT by Fred
"Some Washington insiders expect Fred to fizzle and whisper questions about a lack of substance or fire in his belly. As with all such whispering campaigns, it is hard to separate legitimate expectations from the hopes of some insiders."
Some of them--Rep Hayworth, successfully.
Coburn, unsuccessfully.
Rove warned all amnesty opponents not to run on the issue or criticize the "Surrender to Mexico" GWB policy, or they'd lose support of the RNCC and RNSC.
Strategy--run an amnesty-sympathetic Rovian National Committee candidate in the primaries, and try to dry up the anti-amnesty candidate's money. Then, if the anti-amnesty candidate did actually win the primary, allow no money for him in the general election as punishment. After the RNC hands the seat to the Democrats, put out lots of media spin that opposition to amnesty is a losing issue. Well, it sure was, wasn't it?
We'd have probably still lost seats. But I wonder if we would have lost so many, if the RNC was actually loyal to Republicans?
Remember Tony Snow the morning after the election...? Remember his chirpy jubilation...."At least now we can move forward on immigration reform."
WE WAS FRAGGED.
I can't connect with any candidate so far because it's like their all running on issues from special interest that have wacky agendas.
I guess I'm alone one this one...
VERY nice!!Heeheehee
Hey Monk I was on other site actually Poltico org today they saying Freddy going announced after Labour Day holiday stay tuned
You should add a fourth consideration: Electability in the general.
"Jim, it's Thursday...what's your position on term limits today?"
Bwahahahahaha...priceless!
You can’t frighten me with the Hillary Boogeyman. She’s less effective at pushing socialism than the aforementioned RINOS.
That’s unbelieveable! She’s far worse than any of the RINOs.
Any of the current crop of Bozos will give us the same thing as Hillary, only the idiots allegedly on our side will go along with them, where they would resist Hillary’s push to hell.
I agree.
The fact that he's considered a front-runner now bewilders me. He had a much better chance of keeping Hillary! out of the Senate in 2000 than any other potential candidate (IMO), but dropped out.
What incentive is there to support him now? He has personal problems and what guarantee is there that he won't drop out again when a bombshell is dropped late in the game (a la Eagleton in '72)?
If you go by that criteria, then Hillary! is clearly the most qualified candidate in the nation. She's already been co-president for 8 years and has the "experience" of her "husband" to draw upon as well.
Is that what you want?
Personally, I'd prefer someone with the capability to grow into the job. Running as an outsider worked quite well for President Reagan and it's the best bet (IMO) this time too.
You must be young. I can remember Ted Kennedy always placing at the top of Democratic party polls for president right up until the time he decided to actually run, then sank like a rock.
I don't mean to disparage Fred Thompson or your support of him. The more choice the better, in my opinion. Give the voters more choices and let us sort the candidates out.
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.