My point (no matter how badly I stated it in my first post) was that the country is at a different place than it was 30 years ago when Reagan was running. He was running against an incompetent President, who almost ruined our nation. Reagan revitalized patriotism, not only because of who he was, but because of who he was running against. I just do not see Fred as that much different from President Bush (who I love, and respect), but that may be a detriment. I may not be the most articulate person, but what I am trying to ask is, how can Fred succeed? We can not compare him to Reagan because Reagan was running under totally different circumstances. I also want to find out what States Fred can secure, that President Bush was unable to.
I understand your post perfectly and I think you have a point. What I am saying, is if war breaks out before the election, people will forget all about a “change” and hillary won’t have a prayer. It’s over a year away. Alot could happen.
BTW, the economy isn’t in the crapper yet, so the carter analogy isn’t quite there yet.
There are some cold hard facts we must face. Don’t get mad at the messanger for bringing this up.
Like Jimmy Carter in 1980, the country today sees George W. Bush as incompotent. With Carter it was Iran and the economy. With Bush it’s Iraq and Katrina. So any GOP nominee who’s closely associated with Bush will be a loser in 2008. That’s why I don’t think Fred Thompson has a chance.
It’s moderates who determine who wins the presidency. W. NEEDED Rudy (and Arnold) to win the election in 2004. In this election, Hillary’s going to appeal to those moderates, by reminding them of how wonderful things were under her husband’s administration. Now you and I know that’s BS, but I’m afraid moderates will disagree - simply because they’re fed up with Bush.
Fred Thompson has charisma and reflects the core values of his party’s base. So does Barak Obama. But the Dems won’t nominate him because they’re afraid he won’t appeal to moderates. Hillary Clinton’s entire schtick as a Senator has been to ‘appear’ to be a moderate. She’s despised our presence in Iraq as much as any Left Wing kook out there. But she voted for it, because she knows her party is seen as weak on defense.
Hillary’s weakness, as we all know, is that she’s not well-liked. She’s polarizing. Those are big negatives to moderates. I think Rudy is the best candidate to exploit that weakness. Rudy has a chance to win big states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Fred has no chance.
I’m going to vote for Rudy, even if I don’t agree with a lot of his social positions. I do believe Rudy is committed to carrying on the War on Terror. I do believe he’ll cut taxes.
The Dems are going to hold on the House next year, and probably pick up a few more Congressional seats. If they win the WH too, the War on Terror will be a memory, taxes will go up. They’ll care out their Left Wing agenda, and do as much damage to this country as Jimmy Carter did. In other words, we conservatives simply can’t afford to sit this election out.
Remember, in 1976, Gerald Ford was far more to the left than Rudy was. Would you have sat out that election, and allowed Jimmy Carter to win?