Posted on 08/06/2007 6:24:55 PM PDT by gobucks
(snip) Much has been made about whether or not Fred Thompson is the second coming of Ronald Reagan, and while it's clear that he's not, it's also becoming fairly clear that the oddly constructed coalition that Reagan built combining fiscal conservatives, defense hawks, libertarians, Evangelicals and working-class conservative Democrats is about to fall apart unless Thompson can reinvent it.
(snip)
Among those issues, of course, abortion is the major litmus test that Thompson will need to pass to win their support. And fortunately for the candidate, his lobbying on behalf of Planned Parenthood took place 17 years before his presidential run, not unlike Reagan, who 13 years before his own run had signed a therapeautic abortion law as governor of California.
In Reagan's case, evangelical voters accepted his explanation that he had been tricked by liberal legislators who had promised him that the law would allow for abortions only for serious medical conditions, when it in fact opened the way for a "health" exception that was subsequently interpreted broadly in its application.
Similarly, future Thompson voters are likely to accept a mea culpa from the candidate if it's straightforward and doesn't fudge. These are, after all, evangelical Christians for a reason, one of the central tenets of the faith being forgiveness for an act that is repented of and is in the past, preferably the distant past.
With his Evangelical base solidified, Thompson will then be able to secure his more natural constituencies — gun owners, "lunch pail" Democrats, country music fans, star-struck Law & Order viewers, and even elements of the entertainment industry who are unlikely to see him the same way they see other conservative candidates because of his star power.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
IF another did come along or perhaps one much like him who was never pro-choice and was against the 1986 Amnesty. Would the GOP know him, if he did come along, or would they leave the popularity contest long enough to support him?
That question was a rhetorical one as the answer, obviously, so far is, no.
He already has a "cushy" job just like daddy. It's called serving his country, risking his life for freedom. If you find that a "cushy" job I can point you to a recruiting station near you. Three tours as a US Marine, that's his cushy job like daddy. That's a cushy job that neither Fred or any of his offspring can claim, although, there have been cushy jobs for little Fred. If you think Duncan Hunter is not giving his district or the American people their moneys worth I suggest you file a complaint if you feel a law has been broken. I would submit that if pay was driven by performance and hard work, the American people would owe Duncan Hunter money. He has been tireless in his efforts to see our military have what they need to protect our country and his bill for a fence is now law. Fred gave us CFR, is it too late for a refund?
“Only if voters allow their emotions to rule, and go for someone like Ross Perot again.”
We live in a post-literate world, a world based in the oral and the vision, which does nothing but amplify the the emotions.
For a long while, my feelings against Bill’s ‘wife’ from being Prez were so intense, all I could believe was that there was no way Democrat money would be wasted on her. But I looked hard at my ‘feelings’ about her and realized something - the polar opposite is likely true, too. So, her success depends upon a Ross Perot - and I think he’ll show up sooner or later. Heck - maybe it will be Fred himself.
Well I am all for fun, as anyone knows ;-)
After all I am the best pro Fred Fred basher around these here parts...
Agreed. I’m reading the Reagan Diaries right now. He agonized over what to do.
I guess if I can’t have Duncan Hunter I’ll settle for FDT.
So with the exception of the perennial candidate, Lyndon Larouche, it was just before the LAST election that folks started jumping in early. Doesn’t mean anyone HAS to do that, they just chose to do that.
Wrong again.
Presidential candidate entry, 2000 race:
Smith: Feb 18, 1999
Nader: Feb 21, 1999
Buchannan: Mar 2, 1999
Alexander: Mar 9, 1999
Forbes: Mar 16, 1999
Quayle: April 14, 1999
Bauer: Apr 21, 1999
Gore: June 16, 1999
Bush: June 12, 1999
Hatch: July 1, 1999
Bradley: Sep 8, 1999
Keyes: Sep 20, 1999
McCain: Sept 27, 1999
The fact is that a Fall entry is late in the game. Even more so with the big states moving up their primaries to January. If you back out the extra 7 weeks that Super Tuesday used to allow, that means that the eventual candidates from 2000 would have been declaring in late April or early May.
We are now in August. Deduct the 7 weeks here, and that makes today the equivalent of end of Sept, 2000.
FYI:
In California, the deadline to be on the published list of candidates is Oct. 8, 2007. After that, to be on the ballot, the candidate needs to circulate a petition, gaining at least 1% of CA registered Republican signatures between Oct. 24 and Nov. 23. Nov. 23 is the deadline for candidacy in the CA GOP primary.
I assume most states have similar deadlines about 4 months out from their primaries.
I’m sure Fred is aware of the requirements of each state for their primaries. He comes into this race with a lot of name recognition among both the politicos and some TV viewers. Who knows, he may bring some folks to the polls who haven’t bothered to vote in years! But name recognition, for a non-incumbent, is the biggest hurdle, and one he won’t have to worry about, even with a Fall entry into the race.
The guy Chuck Norris is afraid of?
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.