Thompson emerges as potential leader as GOP moves rightward [Fred for RNC chair?]

Thanks, the media had a negative angle on each candidate. Fred is from teh SOuth, seems laid back so he was branded “lazy.” Romney was Richie Rich who may have more than 1 wife, Huckabee was a religious nut and McCain was the only logical choice that you won’t be embarrassed about. Shut up about him being lazy. Sure he did not run after 3 months in the Senate but what did people expect him to do? He was branded lazy per Newsweek’s title “Lazy Like a Fox” The media liked McCain and that worked out well.

I supported Fred and he put forth very little effort in his campaign- I still don’t know why, but we need a fighter and he doesn’t seem to be one. Newt was doing great things for the party years ago, but couldn’t keep his pants zipped. I don’t know that much about Steele but it might be time to give him a chance.

We need Sarah as a future candidate, not as chairman of the RNC. Though she would make a good one I am sure.

I think you are overestimating or misunderstanding what a Senate Committee Chairman does or can do.

No, I am applying a standard to a Senator who would be qualified to be either President or Party chair. Both of the latter two positions require much more than is typical of the Senatorial skill set, which is one reason why so few Senators have become President. The latter are much more leadership positions than is required of a legislator. Hence, if a Senator is to impress me of his qualifications for leadership, best he have demonstrated them amply. Thompson did not.

First of all, you have to have COOPERATION. He expected Committee Democrats to cooperate with the investigation in the same manner with which Republicans cooperated during Watergate.

You know better than that about Democrats. I know better than that about Democrats. Thompson worked with them every day and didn't? Gimme a break.

He was literally SHOCKED at their conduct,

Then he's either an excellent actor and a fraud or a dupe, take your pick. I prefer the former; I don't think he's that dumb, which by the way, means that I think more highly of him than you apparently do.

He was up against an immoveable force, both them, their media apologists, and the Clintons.

The Russians were the ultimate "immovable force" and Reagan dealt them a body blow while operating with the constraint of a hostile congress. It was because he knew how to lead.

No. I’d like to see all the other potential candidates who would like to fill the position step up, but we do need someone who can give the position their undivided attention

Frankly, I hold Gingrich in higher regard for his evident accomplishments in this instance. He took a minority, got the people to hear the message, and that was what made the majority.

you can't point out anyone who has done as much for the conservative cause as he did with his work in the mid-90’s.

I agree that he should get a lot of credit for what he accomplished in the 90s- however he could not keep his pants zipped and derailed his own train. I would like to see him involved, the man knows his stuff for sure- but I don't want him at the top. We need a young face that is ready to fight at the top, we are IMO in a war for our very country.

The only other ‘real’ conservative was Duncan Hunter, and he never got out of single digits.

Sounds good. I hope NRO is right about this.

We need conservative teachers and journalists, but those are two careers conservatives are least likely to pursue. I’m not sure how we can get more conservatives interested, but it will make it much harder to counter the left without teachers and journalists.

"The time for fake conservatives is over, we need real people with real values if we are going to do battle with the Obamunists."

I agree. First of all, in my heart and mind, I believe what we need is fundamental change from the ground up. There are "elders" if you will that are needed to mentor and guide in terms of what the fundamental change is needed for the Conservative Movement /Reform. Newt turns out to be disqualified. There are others though like Dick Armey, Duncan Hunter, Sr., Jim DeMint, Rick Santorum, George Allen, Tom DeLay, Alan Keyes, Michael Steele and others. These are not the "future up-and-coming young Conservatives. They will have to be the "elders" and mentors and guides. They will not be nominees nor candidates, even though they're not old, they are past office holders and won't be elected again.

Second, we need to nail down our "Conservative contract" on issues and policies as a base standard. Things such as FairTax, line-item veto amendment, term limits, immigration reform, health care policy and how properly to reform (not national) like 'high-deduct private insurance with health savings accounts', abortion, second amendment, security...and the list goes on...BUT list the contract down and hammer out what the new young guns Conservatives stand for and run on that will get them elected.

Third, find those to fill the criteria of the new contract. Like Paul's qualifications for church leader: spiritually qualified, but husband of one wife, well reputed in the church... Like that, only in the Conservative realm, so that nothing from their past can disqualify them. The left-wing media will dig Joe the Plumber and Sara Palin's past down to the moment of birth and everything said or done or who they ever met with or were friends with..

That is just the reform for the criteria of the true Conservatives needed to be set in motion to run and take office. The really big movement is fundamental government reform back to the original intent, but for the 21st century. Voter registration, voting itself, ballot types and machines, computer voting? Photo voter IDs? The need to cut down fraud is an absolute. If online trading, banking and purchasing is safe and works with minimum fraud (barring identity theft), then why not the political process? www.Thirth-Thousand.org makes a valid argument for 1 Representative per 100 thousand. That is, if there are approx 300 million Americans, then why not 30,000 Representatives? How about a repeal of the seventeenth amendment to the Constituent and revert to the state legislatures selecting and electing the Senators? www.lonlang.com That was the Founders intent. Money and outside influence (like Soros and Saudis and big money) needs to be removed from out political process. $600 million Obama has or spent? Come on. Not out Founder's intent of the people, by the people, for the people...

"No, I am applying a standard to a Senator who would be qualified to be either President or Party chair. Both of the latter two positions require much more than is typical of the Senatorial skill set, which is one reason why so few Senators have become President. The latter are much more leadership positions than is required of a legislator. Hence, if a Senator is to impress me of his qualifications for leadership, best he have demonstrated them amply. Thompson did not."

I disagree that he has not demonstrated it. He did demonstrate a committment to advancing this party and has tirelessly worked to get our candidates elected.

"You know better than that about Democrats. I know better than that about Democrats. Thompson worked with them every day and didn't? Gimme a break."

He expected them to keep their word. Is that his fault ? What you're asking here is for him to have gone ahead and acted in a similarly deceitful and arbitrary way as Chairman. That's not his style. He possesses no guile. If he did, he wouldn't be a Republican (unless he's Slick Willard).

"Then he's either an excellent actor and a fraud or a dupe, take your pick. I prefer the former; I don't think he's that dumb, which by the way, means that I think more highly of him than you apparently do."

No, again, he expected them to live up to their word. He wasn't going to play their games and act in a deceitful way to counter them. He's a straight-shooter. I think, again, what you're accusing him of is not being ruthless enough. In that account, you're correct. He may simply be too nice and too honorable a man. If you want to argue that point, then I'll concede it to you.

"The Russians were the ultimate "immovable force" and Reagan dealt them a body blow while operating with the constraint of a hostile congress. It was because he knew how to lead."

Since Fred wasn't elected to such an executive position, we cannot assess how he would've reacted. Methinks had Reagan gotten elected to the Senate in 1974 (as he had initially planned to do, against freshman Cranston) and had found himself in a majority (absent a Watergate) and chairing a committee, he may have operated exactly like Fred. But we'll never be able to assess that either, since he never made it to the Senate.

"Frankly, I hold Gingrich in higher regard for his evident accomplishments in this instance. He took a minority, got the people to hear the message, and that was what made the majority."

Gingrich acted in a more ruthless manner to get us a majority, however he also left under a cloud (whereas Fred didn't), and has demonstrated occasionally squishiness and poor judgment. A valid argument you can use against Fred, as cited above, that he lacks the ruthlessness needed to combat the Democrats at a time like this serving in such a position. In that instance, again, I cede you that point. I'm not definitively sold on Fred for the position. I'd like to see all the potential applicants. All I can say is that he is honest, he's done yeoman work for the party, ISN'T lazy, and is well-respected.

Thank you. The Fred-bashing is as bad as Palin-bashing, as it is based on MSM bunk. People posting this should be ashamed.

Um, you do realize Fred said it went too far, right?

Fred’s a killer...saying otherwise is foolishness.

I see you’re adopting the MSM talking points. Good job.

They’re not.

I disagree that he has not demonstrated it. He did demonstrate a committment to advancing this party and has tirelessly worked to get our candidates elected.

There are thousands of volunteers who meet that standard. It is not sufficient to make a President or a Party Chair.

He expected them to keep their word. Is that his fault ?

Absolutely it is. It is unethical to trust an untrustworthy person.

What you're asking here is for him to have gone ahead and acted in a similarly deceitful and arbitrary way as Chairman.

Not at all, indeed, quite the contrary. Reflect upon that before you react.

He possesses no guile.

I don't really know that and neither do you. Nor does managing a claque of compulsive liars for what they are have anything to do with deceitfulness or guile. It is a matter of honesty to treat the situation as it is and speak forthrightly about it.

No, again, he expected them to live up to their word.

Fool me once... fool me twice...

Since Fred wasn't elected to such an executive position, we cannot assess how he would've reacted.

Sure we can, else no one can be assessed for higher office. This is a red herring unworthy of you.

Gingrich acted in a more ruthless manner to get us a majority, however he also left under a cloud (whereas Fred didn't), and has demonstrated occasionally squishiness and poor judgment.

I agree completely and had considered that. He is still far more effective than Fred Thompson, and possibly less of a poseur. IMO, he may in fact be a pied piper who took the fall at exactly the right time.

All I can say is that he is honest, he's done yeoman work for the party, ISN'T lazy, and is well-respected.

As to honest, there has been many a deep plant throughout history who was regarded as such, so I am withholding that accolade considering what happened with Chinagate and the primary. As to hard working for Republicans, that is doubtless. It is not sufficient for me to want him in that position.

The answer to both questions is NO.

Fred never supported global warming.

I’m sorry, I hate to turn on Fred as well, but anyone that connected to John McCain is toxic and not to be trusted. It has nothing to do with “belly” or any of that garbage. Anyone who voted for or endorsed McCain during the primaries is also not to be trusted anymore.

Tom Tancredo had the good sense to endorse Romney when he dropped out. He would be a good choice.

"There are thousands of volunteers who meet that standard. It is not sufficient to make a President or a Party Chair."

Not the be all and end all, but an important characteristic. But I think you'll agree that a lot of our best and brightest aren't in the running for key offices today for obvious reasons (the Palin family gynecological probe by the media being the quintessential example).

"Absolutely it is. It is unethical to trust an untrustworthy person."

That being IF they demonstrated such behavior towards him beforehand.

"Not at all, indeed, quite the contrary. Reflect upon that before you react."

I'll reiterate again, he was expecting bipartisan cooperation. You know and I know how deceitful the Democrats tend to be, but when you're having to actually work with people up close and personal, sometimes the equation can be a bit different. Should he have known they were going to be deceitful based upon their usual behavior ? Perhaps so. But what he was hoping to achieve was a bipartisan investigation to get to the bottom of the facts of the matter. I still believe legitimately he was dumbfounded at the audaciousness of their deceit in agreeing to cooperate and doing nothing but running out the clock and calling it a partisan witch hunt when it was anything but. I'm not Sen. Thompson. Were it me, I would've read every last one of them the riot act on national television, telling them and the American public precisely what they were covering up and as a nice parting shot, telling Glenn right to his face that he sold out his country and his soul for a ride into space to cover for the most corrupt administration to date. That's what you and I would've liked to see, but he's not that kind of person to do that. Perhaps serving in that body as such makes it very, indeed, extremely difficult to savage your fellow members when you have to serve alongside them for years at a time. It was why McCain was virtually hamstrung to go after the False Messiah hammer and tongs...

"I don't really know that and neither do you. Nor does managing a claque of compulsive liars for what they are have anything to do with deceitfulness or guile. It is a matter of honesty to treat the situation as it is and speak forthrightly about it."

No, as a fairly good judge of character, there really are some people that are a cut above, however few, these days. I stand by saying he really is without guile. He doesn't reek of the bullcrap so many others do. But, yes, as I stated in my above paragraph, I personally wish he had gone after them all in a ruthless fashion, but it's not his style... although it is my style.

"Sure we can, else no one can be assessed for higher office. This is a red herring unworthy of you."

I think what you're asking here is the difference between how you or I think he would've reacted on a given situation vs. how he actually would've reacted. We can speculate all day on the former, but we'll never definitively know the latter. Fred never had to face down the Soviets, but Reagan never had to chair a Senate committee full of deceitful obstructionists hell bent on running out the clock. They both very well might've ended up with the same outcome.

"I agree completely and had considered that. He is still far more effective than Fred Thompson, and possibly less of a poseur. IMO, he may in fact be a pied piper who took the fall at exactly the right time."

I think Gingrich WAS effective at one point. That remains to be seen now. Some of us still view him through the prism of 1994, but I view him from the prism of 1995-99 and onwards where he really goofed. He had a good run as leader really for only less than an entire year. Once Clinton got the upper hand on him with the government "shutdown" standoff at the end of 1995, that was the point at which Clinton was rescued from losing reelection and Gingrich and indeed, the entire GOP majority, became neutered. Frankly, we've been coasting effectively from that point on and never got back on our game. It's amazing we effectively held a majority (excluding the Senate break) for 12 years. I would tend to regard Gingrich as a riskier bet than Fred. But again, we shouldn't be exclusively limited to those two for potential RNC chair, and even if neither is chosen, that they shouldn't play some sort of role in the rebuilding effort if they have something to offer.

"As to honest, there has been many a deep plant throughout history who was regarded as such, so I am withholding that accolade considering what happened with Chinagate and the primary. As to hard working for Republicans, that is doubtless. It is not sufficient for me to want him in that position."

Given that Fred has never at any point set out to deliberately and vindictively sandbag Republican fortunes (as has Huckster, Slick Willard, McCain, and early in his career, Giuliani), I would never accuse him of being a plant as some of the other Presidential candidates were very well guilty of.

Tancredo is a Judas who was paid off to support the Socialist Democrat agent Slick Willard. He stabbed not only Duncan Hunter in the back, but the Conservative movement and the Republican party. He is a disgrace and deserves precisely nothing from us. If this party elevated such a traitor, it deserves all the future losses that would result from doing so.