Lemme repeat that for yous guys:
Hillary wants to pwn Air Force One. Is that what those planes deserves, *again*?
Posted on 08/24/2007 9:37:08 PM PDT by Doofer
A bunch of white guys simply ain't gonna cut it in the media world where a Woman, A Black and a Metrosexual are the top three possibilities for the Dem nomination--the media SO want to cover those first two as president (and wouldn't mind flirting with the third--the men and the women).
So the Republicans have to do what winning Republicans have always done in the post-Kennedy era--they have to speak so plainly that the American people ignore the media spin and just think for themselves "I just like this guy because what he says makes sense to me."
I think Fred is the perfect man to do this IF he doesn't do a Bob Dole and run a "I want the media to LIKE me" campaign.
I simply don't see any of the other Republicans overcoming this obstacle because they're either too liberal (hate to tell some folks this, but being a liberal doesn't make you a RINO--Nixon and Rockefeller were not conservatives), too unpalatable, or too nuts.
I believe Thompson CAN do this. I am just not sure yet if he WANTS to, but he's smarter about media than most of us here, I'd wager, and he has a long track record.
All the more reason why folks on the right should hope Fred Thompson gets in the race. He's one of us. A conservative who is pro-defense, pro-limited govt (federalism), pro-tax reform, pro-gun, pro-life and anti-amnesty.He is one of us. And he is all those things you list.
It's too bad he was never a governor, since governor's have an edge in presidential elections, but then again, neither was Hillary.
People keep saying "Fred is no Reagan", even though Fred never claimed to be a Reagan, and it's true. He's not. But that doesn't mean he's not a good solid conservative and that doesn't mean he lacks what it takes to beat Hillary.
Actually, I think one of the few Republicans who might actually lose to Hillary is Newt himself. I bet she'd love to have Newt be the Republican nominee.
Ping; did you guys see this? I had noticed your comments in the “We have met the enemy” thread.
Really fantastic post you wrote! I'm supporting Romney because if anyone can run this thing in an efficient manner its him. But if Fred runs on a federalist idea to seriously decentralize power to achieve what you pointed out.. I will proudly campaign for him in the general election should he win the nomination.
And anyone who does want the job should be suspect.
Every president in the last 30 years or so looks like they aged 20+ years in the 4 to 8 years they served. And then consider that the odds of something truly terrible happening during their watch has gone up dramatically in the last 6 years. The tools needed to really reduce those odds are not popular, it’s a no win situation. The history books won’t be kind to whomever is in charge no matter what they do.
Fred & Hunter (or whomever Fred chooses as VP) can pull this off: but absent old-world Bush family rule, we the reds have to step up in getting us all in the truck.
I mince again that it's a little late to be not having the slightest grip on who's gonna rule the Free World 2009.
At the risk of being booed, and contradicting my own long-held belief, I fear Hillary is the best bet as of this moment.
All that can defeat her--that can defeat the idea that it's "time for a woman," is her own failings, which may yet come back to haunt America, so that enough people stop and THINK "Do I REALLY want this corrupt person in charge?"
I fear the answer.
My personal polls show them leaning towards Edwards. Go figure. I think they're as lost as we are as to whom to support.
That's surprising.
However, I'm in Moscow-on-the-Charles (aka Cambridge, MA) right now, so I may be getting the most radical take.
I fear Edwards has that Bill Clinton "He's so CUTE!" thing that seems to sway just enough ignorant women and gays to decide the election.
I think they're as lost as we are as to whom to support.
If you're right, then there's plenty of time for the Republicans to follow Fred as a conservative who isn't scary--which isn't the same as compassionate conservatism.
I would campaign for Fred but would vote for any Republican in the general ezcept Ron Paul.
There's a large contingent who are wary of voting for a woman or a black and surely are wary of voting for them on the same ticket.
And also a Hispanic, such as Bill Richardson, given the South's immigration...situation.
It wouldn't be hard to herd 60 million plus voters to Edwards, who doesn't bring negatives, considering Kerry got 60 million votes in '04.
I can't improve on perfection.
Should I say it? OK, I'll say it...
Edwards is going to ride the romantic idea of running for the presidency only to have his wife die during his first term, into the White House.
I'm hating myself for even THINKING it--but he's DOING it.
Pointing doubters toward Fredipedia, etc., Townhall, where Fred’s written extensively, is a big help for those who really don’t know much about him.
My personal analysis is that Rick Perry will run, and win, '12. He's primed. He'd have run this season hadn't the rats soured the nation on Texas cowboys.
Um, we’re not ‘sorting through the bargain bin’ to find a Presidential candidate. Fred Thompson’s saying that if he runs it’s because he thinks the country needs him (perilous times), is indicative of character and beliefs — not how much money he has, not who he knows. People have been telling Fred to run for President for years because he’s a passionate conservative and federalist. (Reminiscent of RR’s experience.) This isn’t ego driven. However, when you think about it, taking the oath of office takes enormous courage...toughest job in the world, and we ask a private citizen to do it. Mindboggling.
Clinton is a sociopath. Dangerous, narcissitic, etc..
Lemme repeat that for yous guys:
Hillary wants to pwn Air Force One. Is that what those planes deserves, *again*?
The problem I think is that Newt will never get a nod from George Bush and therefore he will not be named chairman of the RNC which is a very great pity. I have long thought that Bush, instead of mediocrities like Governor Ridge and his successor, should have made Gingrich czar of Homeland security. Had Bush done so, we almost certainly would have avoided the catastrophic aftermath of Katrina and its consequences at the polls in November.
But Gingrich is not Bush's kind of man. Gingrich is not button-down. Gingrich is a team leader more than a team player and Bush, if nothing else, wants conformity on his team. Maybe this is what led us to the disaster in Iraq. In any event, Bush will not tolerate Gingrich in any position where he can make policy. So in order to have influence, Newt is left with making a run at the White House in 08. In this respect the Republican establishment's attitude towards Gingrich resembles that of British Conservatives toward Churchill between the wars. Indeed, in many ways including his intellectual candlepower, his prodigious output of writings, and his incendiary tendency to piss off a friend and foe alike, Gingrich resembles Churchill. How nice it would be if the Republican Party could send out a message to its ships at sea, "Newt is back." If the nation finds itself in a fix resembling that of Britain in 1939, after a strike on the homeland for example, such a message might have to be sent.
Meanwhile, we really need Newt to play a bad cop to Bush's good cop for the next two years. Newt can attack, attack, attack, and unmask the lunacy of the coming Pillosi/Reed Congress. Any hope that Bush will even attempt to do this is forlorn.
The really depressing thought is that the only ball carrier we have on our team now is George Bush. We need somebody in some pulpit, bully or otherwise, who can at least fashion a coherent sentence if we are not to be swamped in 08.
And here:
While Bush is preoccupied with his historical legacy which is all wrapped up with and the war in Iraq, the Republican Party must be concerned, literally, with its own survival as a viable national party. In the 2008 election the odds are against us: the 2006 election demonstrated that the Democrats are capable of raiding deep into our territory and we can make no gains anywhere in the blue states. We will be conducting a national election after having held office for eight years. The demographics are increasingly against us as unchecked immigration changes the coloration of America and in America all politics are racial, not local. From the top of the ticket on down, Republicans will face a relentless media tsunami which will require a whole new set of tactics to counter. Finally the war in Iraq is a political disaster which may shatter our election hopes across-the-board and leave the party holding not much more than the old Confederacy. The last election demonstrated that the Republican hold on Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia (gasp, the Old Dominion!), Ohio, and even Florida are in grave jeopardy and with the loss of almost any one of these states we cannot have the presidency.
Enter Newt Gingrich who I believe sees the handwriting on the wall in the general terms which I have just set down. Newt knows the only possible chance Republicans have is to revert to conservative principles and to do so while changing the subject away from Iraq, away from health care, in short, away from the entire "progressive" Democrat agenda and onto a whole new way of seeing the world. We simply cannot win the election if it is fought over Iraq and healthcare as the establishment media will try to achieve as it sets the agenda. Gingrich is possessed of the kind of mind which can change the whole agenda but he is not the right messenger.
And finally, along the same lines, here:
Gingrich has nearly as much downside as Hillary but 10 times the upside. Historically, our closest article to Winston Churchill was probably Theodore Roosevelt. But among the current crop of politicians in America, the closest to Winston Churchill is clearly Newt Gingrich. He has not been utilized by the Bush administration for the same reasons that Winston Churchill was not utilized during the years of appeasement in Great Britain-neither one was a team player, both were brilliant, and both had a pyrotechnic ability to piss people off.
The Bush administration never embraced Gingrich, not because he is radioactive, but because he is not button-down. Can you imagine the last election if Newt Gingrich had been chairman of the Republican National Committee? Can you imagine the aftermath of Katrina if Newt Gingrich had been ram rodding Homeland Security? We might still have the House and Senate.
There was wide scope to let play the genius of Newt Gingrich in this administration but the country club Republicans would not have it. Karl Rove would rather pretend to be a real conservative than to actually set one loose inside the harem.
Newt Gingrich cannot be our nominee, we all know that, but he can save the party.
Beyond that he apparently cuts a fine figure as a tv star which seems to be enough for a lot of people but not for me !!!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And Lord knows, an actor would make a horrible President.!
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.