Posted on 08/23/2007 7:42:50 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Liberal Giuliani has been coasting on his name recognition since 9-11!
Liberal Hillary has been coasting on her Hubbies name recognition her entire life!!
Fred Thompson is the one candidate who has a legitimate history of conservatism. FredT has a conservative voting record in the US Senate --- not a perfect record, mind you --- and has shown to be a candidate with solid potential in the eyes of conservative voters. It'll be interesting to see what happens once FredT makes his candidacy official.
GO FRed GO!
I’m pretty excited about Thompson...I think he’ll do a great job of communicating with the American people, something W has not done so well. (His speech after 9/11 was the high point).
I like Bush, but he is weak on spending control, immigration/border security, controlling the bureaucracy, and communication. If Fred performs in those areas, he could be a great president.
I look forward to seeing him debate Hillary.
**************
Now, that will be interesting.
Is that why this very same media is trying to pre-label Thompson and his wife? Methinks the East Coast media does not want Thompson.
As I posted on another thread, what attracts me to Thompson is that I believe he does not like what he sees and truly wants to serve this country in these very serious times. In this regard, I think his having two young children and looking out what the future could be gave him the incentive and, as will become evident, drive and conviction to win....
The liberal east coast media had nothing to do with Fred Thompson’s entry into the presidential race. This was a grass roots decision made by conservative Republicans who didn’t want a liberal named Giuliani, or a centrist named Mitt Romney to be the GOP nominee for 2008.
Like Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter is a good conservative but neither man has had a significant impact as a presidential candidate, so far. And I doubt thats gonna change. FredT hasn’t announced an official run, yet he’s pulling support from Rooty and building himself some serious support among conservatives.
Fred, Mitt or even Rudy, I don’t care. As long as they can defeat Shrillary and her marxist plans for America, he’s got my full support.
Rudy was handpicked by the MSM, and Fox News, as the candidate to run against Clinton, the only one that would guarantee her election. Romney was the fall back in case the base balked at Rudy. Romney and Rudy had similar liberal positions, but Romney flipped on most of his. Romney, it turn out, has negatives higher than Hillary so she would be able to beat him as well. Then here comes Fred to upset their plans. This is going to be fun to watch. Like 1980 all over again.
Put Hillary and Thompson on the same stage. Who will appear stronger, more confident and capable?
I can hear the MSM now, portraying her as the “victim” of Thompson’s “masculinity.”
This deciding factor in the ‘08 election is going to be about gender and health care. Here in Missouri, mostly naive young women turned out and voted in Claire McCaskill as Senator over a very capable Jim Talent.
How many women voting for the first time will be fooled by Hillary? That’s the question.
You got that right. As we can see now, with a big emphasis on Fox News.
>>>>>Like 1980 all over again.
Maybe like a composite version of 1976 rolled together with 1980 into a 2008 condensed version. ;^)
************
It's one question. Another is, how many men, whether Democrat/Republican/other will vote for Hillary? My guess is, not enough. Her voice alone is a death knell to her hopes for the presidency, never mind her leftist goals.
There are a couple of reasons McCaskill won. The stem cell amendment pulled out some extra lib voters, including, as you astutely point out, single women. But Southwest MO and rural MO did not go as strongly for Talent as a statewide (R) needs to overcome the urban centers.
Talent is a decent, true conservative guy, but a bumbling, inept candidate. He did not distinguish himself in debates, often looking childish. After his loss to Pee-Wee Holden in 2000, he should not have been pushed for the Senate.
McCaskill won by default — a warning to the Republicans nationwide.
It doesn’t matter whether Rudy can beat Hillary.
Rudy IS Hillary.
Rudy is Hillary with a lisp.
Quite correct. Early polls are all name ID and only that.
McCaskill took about 5% more of the vote in southwest Missouri, which was the difference. A lot of those were first time women voters and swing voters on stem cell research.
Hunter won’t be gone.
If you had to vote from the following candidates, who would you choose:
Rudi
Mitt
McCain
I can imagine people groaning saying, "If I had to choose one of those three it would be rudi, and I'd have to take Pepto to the voting booth with me"
Thus the lead for rudi....
It is not like Thompson is Ronald Reagan as a communicator! I believe Hunter is a great communicator.
While he is not as polished as Romney, I do not believe any candidates have given better answers to questions during debates than Hunter.
Hunter is also by far THE MOST qualified canidadte by far.
Sorry Mr. Thompson, I didn’t know you ere a member of FreeRepublic?!
Mr. Thompson, while you’ve been acting, Mr. Hunter has been leading. Leading the fight aganist illegal immigrants, leading the fight for our solider, leading the fight aganist big government, and trying to protect us from China.
Mr. has actually DONE things, while you only ACT as if you will.
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.
