Thompson demonstrates the advantage of non-candidacy to Romney, McCain

AJC.com ^ | June 1, 2007 | Tom Baxter and Jim Galloway

[Politicalmom]

Matt Towery of InsiderAdvantage is branching out into national polling, with a 1,000-voter survey of Republican voters and their presidential preferences.

Towery says the buzz over actor/former U.S. senator Fred Thompson has vaulted him to No. 2 in the GOP scrum for the White House, past both Mitt Romney and John McCain. But Rudy Giuliani still holds the top spot with a substantial lead.

The poll was conducted May 30 and 31. Note that Thompson, Romney and McCain are all within the 3 percent margin of error. Newt Gingrich was not included among the pack.

Here’s the rundown:

Rudy Giuliani - 28%

Fred Thompson -19%

Mitt Romney 17%

John McCain -16%

Mike Huckabee- 4%

Sam Brownback -3%

Duncan Hunter- 2%

Ron Paul - 2%

Jim Gilmore - 1%

Undecided/Don’t Know -8%

[Politicalmom]

PING!!

Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference

Please FReepmail jellybean if you want on/off this list. WARNING: This ping list is EXTREMELY active.

[Graybeard58]

The way I read it is Rudy’s 28% are the liberal wing of the party, the others and “don’t know” share the other 72% as the field narrows the 72% conservatives aren’t going to Rudy.

[greyfoxx39]

WOOHOO!

[Hazcat]

Hate to brake it to you but Romney, McCain and Rudy are all libs. They add up to 61%.

The ‘conservative’ Republican party has ceased to exist.

[supercat]

Hate to brake it to you but Romney, McCain and Rudy are all libs. They add up to 61%.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that all McCain and Romney supporters are liberals. There are many conservatives who feel that they must support the candidate they believe to be the most conservative and yet still have a shot of winning. It would be interesting to see what happens to those people's numbers once Fred gets in the race.

[Witchman63]

Pretty bad read. Yeah right, all 72% aren’t going to Rudy. Lets say that one of the top 4 will get the nomination. Rudy will get most of the 8% don’t know catagory because they are inclined to vote for the front runner and because they will go for the moderate. Lets say 4% of that. That makes 12% left over to fight for. If you add that 12% to any of the other four to their numbers, they can’t beat Rudy. And thats a stretch assuming that Rudy wont get any of that 12%. Fred has the only shot because he would probably would pick up more of the 12% than Rudy and because he hasnt announced.

[Graybeard58]

I expect to see Rudy in the single digits soon after Thompson announces.

[rhinohunter]

The way I read it is Rudy’s 28% are the liberal wing of the party, the others and “don’t know” share the other 72% as the field narrows the 72% conservatives aren’t going to Rudy.

I agree. I believe Rudy's support level will remain fairly stable while all the other candidates' support will gradually be absorbed by Fred.

[Witchman63]

I am a Thompson fan. But when it comes down to the wire, a bunch of McCain fans will bail to Rudy. He will probably get most of the Ron Paul camp. They’ll split the Romney camp. And lets not forget the 8% don’t know catagory will probably go to Rudy because they are less politically active and will vote for what they see as the safer bet. It will be close.

[Witchman63]

As for when Thompson announces, no way does he pull ahead of Rudy. He may come close to pulling even. Thats 9 percentage points when most republicans don’t know where he stands.

[Politicalmom]

McCain people will go to Fred, due to their close ties.

[Jeff Fuller]

Romney wasn't ever "a liberal" not in 1994, 2002, or now. Get over it. See below (pasted in from Iowans For Romney). McCain's deeply flawed immigration bill has been a recent "flash point" for criticism. McCain has obviously taken the attacks on this horrible legislation a little too personally and has wrongly punched back on the personal level (similar to his personal attack on Romney's conviction during the 2nd debate that he switches positions "during even numbered years".) From a Newsweek article:

Referring to Romney's stance, McCain said: "Maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes because it's changed in less than a year from his position before."

Then followed his "varmint" comment which was an obviously planned line fed to him from someone in the campaign. So, what's so desperate about attacking a cheif rival? The attacks, on the surface, speak of an general unease in the McCain camp about their own failings and Romney's continued successes. But it's not just the attacks, but the substance of the attacks and the actual accusations being leveled. McCain's campaign aides are sensing the fear of a Rising Romney and have resorted to DNC-like charges at Mitt's apparent lack of core convictions. From Newsweek recently regarding the varmint comment:

To which John Weaver, a top McCain aide replied: “It was a joke and, by the way, Mitt Romney should be mocked! There isn’t a single issue in politics he hasn’t flip-flopped on."

From a Mother Jones article another top McCain aid said:

"Mitt Romney has been consistent in one regard: that nearly every position he holds now is opposite of what it was when he was governor of Massachusetts."

That same article also had the following zinger:

He [Romney] previously held all of the same positions as Giuliani -- he's just trying to lie about them while Giuliani is standing for what he believes in.

This is a segue into the deeper theme they are trying to lay. A smattering of recent quotes is enlightening: Deseret News:

Foremost is the charge that he's a campaign convert to conservatism after running as a more moderate or liberal candidate in Massachusetts.

Even some conservative commentators like Deroy Murdock (a big-time Rudy supporter), get in on the game from time to time.

Romney is either a true, rock-ribbed conservative who played a Rockefeller Republican to get elected in Massachusetts, or he is a genuine, limousine liberal portraying a conservative to win the 2008 GOP nomination. This fine thespian has lost himself so thoroughly in both these roles that no one really knows where the performer ends and the characters begin.

Bill Maher recently said "If Mitt Romney were a movie, it would be "Say Anything." (I'm sure he wouldn't apply that same critical humor to his buddy Bill Clinton, eh?) The overall image being portrayed of Romney (and don't ever think these lines of attack aren't driven by the media moguls of the MSM) is that he's a man with no convictions, who will say or do anything if it is politically expedient. However, their only other "dig" against Romney is not just his religious affiliation, but that he's unabashedly a devout and practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints--somehow implying that he's TOO dedicated and true to his core convictions, namely his faith and his family. It would be in their best interest to decide on one line of attack. If they keep pounding both of these drums even the average American voter will realize they are being sold a false bill of goods. We won't be buying it guys! I've blogged before (here and here) that Romney was never close to being the liberal that some are claiming. He was actually far more of a conservative than even a moderate. Below I'll put in the image again of one of his 1994 campaign flyers and let you judge. Aside from the well documented, AND WELCOMED, shift on abortion he's been rock solid as a conservative then and now (BTW Romney vetoed the "employer mandate" portion of the MA healthcare plan) I'd like to see McCain, his aides, and the DNC explain their position that Mitt has "flipped on every political issue" when he's been consistant on 23 of the 24 (or 96%) issues in this flyer. They're busy enough spinning their own problems, so I probably shouldn't "pile on" right now! Help spread around this message that debunks the "Romney was a liberal" or "He's flip flopped on every position" memes.