Posted on 07/05/2007 10:52:26 AM PDT by rodomila
"Far more troubling are the fears among Republicans that there is less to Thompson than meets the eye. He could still seize the nomination and prove a disappointing candidate in the general election. In appearances across the country, from New Hampshire to South Carolina, his speeches have ranged from "pretty decent" to "quite underwhelming." He has not yet had the knock-out performance he will need in order to prove that he is worthy of frontrunner status." Robert Novak
Icky visual, that is...
A moderate or "mild" conservative agenda is wrong for the country.
While I agree with you, I never said nor implied that such was the case.
BTW, I think that the best way to approach things in our system is to vote for/work for/contribute to the candidate you REALLY like in the primaries, and to then (if your candidate loses) turn around and vote against the other party's candidate. Our political system offers no realistic choice every 4th November other than someone with an "R" or a "D" after their name. Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is then appropriate. Failure to do that will give you results akin to those in 1992. May I remind you that Hillary would now be an unknown, fat-calved, corrupt, divorced lawyer if Bill had lost in '92.
2.
ditto.
Great. That's what I need. Eyore's analysis of charisma.
Novak is a Rudy guy. Anything he pens is colored by that support, just as anything on MittRomney.com (aka hughhewitt) is colored with a Romney Bias.
If Novak got his way and Rudy became the nominee, the GOP would lose. The only way the GOP has a shot in 2008 is if they don’t have to spend months leading into November still trying to convince their “base” to vote for them. Saw how well that worked in 2006, didn’t we? Sure many turned out in the end, but they did NOT spend the months prior to that making calls, walking precincts, talking GOP candidates up to their friends. Quite the opposite. Sure, in the end I voted GOP largely because I wanted that fence the House promised, but I spent months tearing the GOP down before that and I wasn’t alone. It should be no surprise reagan Dems rejected the GOP as a result.
The GOP needs an enthusiastic committed base from the start, to win in Nov. 2008. And right now? The only thing that would make them enthusiastic is the near guarentee conservatism won’t be shut out again. That rules out Rudy, Mitt and mcCain. If Thompson flames out, the Dem will probably win, unless a miracle conservative comes out of nowhere to save the day.
If Thompson proves a competant GOP nominee that brings conservatives in instead of keeping them at arms length, the GOP has a shot in 2008 because they’ll be starting at anywhere between 43-46% base points JUST LIKE Hillary will. from that point on it because a game of whom can attract the most swing voters. Known as Reagan dems. IMO, Thompson has better oddsin doing so because his personality is more likeable and he hasn’t been a part of the D.C. beltway for years. he can run against Bush, Clinton, Republicans like McCain, Democrats, government...everything and everyone people dislike right now.
After the Allen debacle, I'm still nervous about Thompson not being ready for prime time (and I don't mean TV). Fred Thompson will probably be fine but then who predicted George Allen's implosion.
Robert "Eeyore" Novak being pessimistic is as newsworthy as the sun rising this morning.
OK. Got me there. Second worst. Except Stockdale didn’t win.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you want to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Many are concerned as to whether Fred is the one. It will be interesting how he handles the debates.....if he ever gets in. It is questionable as to whether staying on the sideline is the best strategy. His bubble could burst awful quick. He might start to look like a tired old man during a heated campaign, failing to energize the electorate. The sooner he gets in the better off we are. The Clintons are PUBLIC ENEMY #1 and must be defeated.
Hmmm.... What does this say about all the Republicans Fred is now beating? He is the only one so far to out poll her in the national polls. If he can't beat her, we will all be singing, "Hail to the chiefette!"
“Hillary will beat herself.
She is an EXTREMELY mean-spirited, unlikable person and will NEVER be able to conceal that reality from the American public over the course of an entire Presidential campaign.”
You got it!
If Fred can’t beat Hillary, no other Repubican running can.
“He echoes my concern that Fred can’t beat Hillary.”
But one of the other GOP hopefuls can???? LOL!
I see him as a McCain supporter until he drops out... then he'll throw digs at whichever Republican wins the nomination.
The people will resonate with a leader, a person who can tell the people what they already know; the public school system is in chaos, we are graduating (?) whole classes of some of the dumbest, undereducated people of any modern society; our judicial system is riddled with pathetic, incompetent, and/or corrupt judges; we have become an undisciplined, permissive society, hand wringers who demand more and more from our government. So if the majority of the electorate accepts the above and they fall into this category, we have had it in the short run.
In your opinion, goofball.
And SO WHAT?
bill clinton and rudolph giuliani are pretty good speakers, but they are also liberal scumbags.
I LIKE the way Thompson speaks and, more importantly, WHAT he says.
He semms to tell it like it is, with no PC crap or apologies, and most of what I've heard has been conservative.
And, as a side benefit, his 6'5" frame and commanding presence will put the fear of GOD into all enemies, be they liberal demonRATS or ragheaded terrorist bastards.
Hopefully, he'll soon enter the race and vanquish all RINOs from the competition for Republican president.
RINOS BE GONE.
LIBERALS are "Public Enemy #1", and that INCLUDES liberal RINOs like judy ruliani.
They ALL must be defeated.
When we approach the primaries with the idea of nominating a candidate who "won't lose" to Hillary as opposed to nominating a candidate to WIN on conservative principles (which, as Rush points out, work every time they're tried), then we're the losers. My thinking has changed SO MUCH on all this over the past year. What's the point of "winning" when we win with a candidate that is a low-sodium Democrat (Giuliani, Romney, McCain) whose calls for government "solutions" differ only from Democrats in that they want a little less of it?
In a way it's WORSE than losing straight-out to Democrats because then Republicans are identified as being supporters of the same crap as Democrats. That's a loser for EVERYONE and does more damage to the country and the Republican party in the long run.
Republicans should PLAY TO WIN with candidates that adhere to a philosophy that aims to REDUCE GOVERNMENT in all its forms. I want Republicans to say loud and clear that the Minimum Wage is the enemy of prosperity and freedom and a huge component of the illegal immigration mess. I want Republicans to say loud and clear that they aim to END government tax-funded entitlement programs, another huge component of the illegal immigration mess. I want Republicans to say loud and clear that radical environmentalism is a con job and a political power-grab perpetrated against ignorant, gullible Americans by Liberals, and that it has to stop in order to preserve the economic freedom, health and prosperity not just of the U.S., but the world.
Sounds like Novak is playing to "not lose." I hate that the Republican party is called "the stupid party," but I understand why it is called that.
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.