Posted on 09/07/2007 8:36:10 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Fred Thompson spent the day of his official launch campaigning in Iowa, seeking to exploit the diffidence Republican voters have felt over the slate of GOP candidates in the state. Some wondered whether Thompson might have focused on Super Tuesday states first, especially in the South, but the campaign feels that Thompson has an opportunity to surprise people in Iowa:
"Fred D. Thompson took his bid for the White House to the campaign trail Thursday, vowing to compete aggressively for the support of Iowans and pitching steady, experienced and conservative leadership."
"'I still have the same common-sense conservative beliefs I did when I ran in 1994,' the former senator said in a speech at a Des Moines conference center, a not-so-subtle reference to criticism about the changing positions of his main Republican rivals, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani."
"'The preseason is over,' he declared. 'Let's get on with it.'"
Thompson begins at a big disadvantage in Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses, trailing Romney and several others in establishing an organization here, but his advisers believe it is a contest he cannot skip. They plan to target the conservative base here, a group that has consistently expressed frustration with its presidential choices this year.
He'll be running from behind in Iowa. Mitt Romney has built a pretty good organization in the state and has been rewarded with wide support, if not deep. Caucus systems reward organization, and Fred would have to tap some serious discontent if he expects to overcome Romney's head start -- and Romney is no slouch as a campaigner, either.
Still, a win isn't a necessity in Iowa. A second-place finish in the state could give Thompson a lot of momentum, especially since it would mean beating Giuliani. He has a better chance of doing that in Iowa than in New Hampshire, in which all three other top-tier contenders (John McCain included) have more substantial base support. If Thompson can steal a march in Iowa and then take a couple of the other January primaries, he could have real momentum heading into Super Tuesday.
Of course, he has to prove that he can campaign first. All of the predictions about his ability can get tossed out the window at this point. He'll prove himself in the next few weeks, and with four months to go, voters will have plenty of time to get to know Fred Thompson and decide if he has what it takes to run a winning campaign.
It's good that Fred's wife doesn't meet that description, isn't it. Which candidate are you thinking of?
starfish923
Troll since
Since Aug 30, 2004
eewww...
Well, Starfish923 apparently doesn’t want a hot babe as First Lady, so that naturally drove my solution to that “problem.”
That maybe one issue...
More like a 42 year old wife. Typo?
I guess it takes a twit to know a twit.
Jeri Thompson is 40 years old.
Go take some valium — a lot of it.
How about a new 12th commandment where everyone agrees not to put up gungrabbers, medicine socializers, and abortion advocates for the Republican ticket?
This new 12th commandment would make it a lot easier to follow the 11th.
Talk about completely stepping in it! Hahahaha : )
I think it matters VERY much, not only to me but to most of the voters in this country.
Kerry didn't lose because of his somewhat off-the-walls wife. He lost because he was a lying sack-o-shiite (as the Swiftboat folks showed), because he ran an inept campaign, because we are generally a conservative nation where the Presidency should go by default to the Republican unless he or the Party has REALLY screwed up (look at the last 2 Dems-Carter got in because of Nixon and Ford's pardon of him, and Clinton got in because of bumbling Bush 41 and Perot), and because we were a country at war when that war wasn't so divisive as it is today.
Family in a national campaign can mess you up, but I can't believe that more than 1% of the people vote on that basis (though more may do so this time - for or against - if Hillary is the nominee). They do have a hell of a life during the campaign - I genuinely pity them having to go through with that crap, esp. the lack of privacy - and they do have their own handlers, but the handlers are there for damage control. If there's truly a reluctant spouse, you just never see them much. Reluctant kids - that's easy, you buy them off with some toys, put them somewhere isolated and firmly tell them to STFU (and the handlers help with that). Bottom line: family really doesn't matter that much in a race.
BTW, Reagan was divorced, with a wacko hippy daughter and a faggy-acting son (no, I'm not PC and I refuse to try), and he beat Carter and Mondale soundly (and don't tell me that people were sick of Billy and Miss Lillian - they actually helped Carter, since he was such a miserably President...they were the comic relief). Bush's 2 immature, spoiled, bubble-headed, alchy daughters didn't hurt much. Clinton's butt-ugly, butch wife who demeaned every stay-at-home mom, and who put up with his obvious philandering didn't hurt him.
Meow. :o)
Well, you seem to object to having a cute babe as First Lady. The antidote to this "problem" seemed obvious.
Twit can mean:
A British slang referring to a silly, annoying, ineffectual, and/or imbecilic person.
I feel you misidentified this LADY.
I tried pretty hard to do that for a long time, even defending Mitt against what I considered scurrilous charges (the hotel PPV-porn thing), but the Mittites will have none of it. They behave like obnoxious little ^ssholes at every opportunity, so the hell with them and their plastic-haired gun-grabbing baby-killing magic-underwear-wearing effeminate metrosexual flip-flopping RINO jerk of a candidate. I'm hitting back hard and calling him on EVERYTHING from here on out.
Telly’s dead...which means that he’s voting Dem.
This new 12th commandment would make it a lot easier to follow the 11th.
I agree with your description of certain, uhhhh, un-named candidates. However, a factual debate of the issues and the candidates' relative positions and histories will get most voters in the Party to the point where people meeting your desciption will be big and early losers.
Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Accepted. You are a true GENTLEMAN.
Hey, that's what the Rudy supporters said.
No kidding. Which ones?
The FR search capability is a marvelous tool.
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- A La Verkin man who raised money for the presidential campaign of Republican Mitt Romney has left the organization.
Romney spokeswoman Gail Gitcho says Robert Lichfield's work with the campaign ended in July.
At a single Utah event this year, Lichfield brought in about $300,000 for Romney.
Lichfield is the founder of the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools. He and the association are among at least 140 defendants named in a federal lawsuit that alleges students at schools with ties were subjected to abusive treatment.
Representatives of the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools have called the allegations ludicrous.
First that asshat who worked for him impersonating a cop, then Larry Craig, and now one of his key supporters is involved in a child-abuse scandal?
Romney is doomed. The wheels have come off the Romney campaign. Stick a fork in him, he's done. The plastic hair is starting to melt.
With Fred in the race, Mitt's going to be a big loser. They campaign for many of the same voters (Mitt by finessing his obviously non-conservative record on many issues, and Fred by letting people know his philosophy), and Fred's going to win most of them...along with the vast majority of the Tancredo, Brownback, Hunter and Huckabee voters. Romney will never do better than about 10%-12% nationally, once people know who Fred is, and once the momentum of voters and money swings in his direction. As to Romney's views and voting record - the gun issue alone killed any chance he may have had with me. I'm generally an open-minded person (in the sense of listening first before saying "hit the road"), but when someone with Mitt's (or Rudy's) record on guns shows up I have no patience to listen to the rest of their dog & pony show. They don't trust me and the vast majority of the decent, hard-working, law-abiding citizens out there with guns...then I don't trust them with power-PERIOD. I wouldn't vote for either of them as dog catcher.
Still, a civilized debate on the issues and track records of the candidates will do the job of pushing people like Rudy and Mitt to the sidelines. Hitting too hard at fellow Republicans is a good way to have them stay home next November - which Reagan knew we couldn't afford in any election. Focus your righteous anger on the REAL enemy - the fat-calved, socialist gun-grabber who will appoint ACLU lawyer to the Supreme Court and put Chuckie Schumer in as AG.
I knew you wouldn’t answer. :)
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.