Sen. Thompson's Chance to Matter
His Views Inspire, His Candidacy Does Not
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (53) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I did not watch the debate. But from reading far too many reviews, live bloggings, etc, it seems that one major conclusion was that Fred didn't help his case much. Fred is behind in all early states despite having a national following that keeps him tied for second depending on the poll.
Of the big 5, Fred is in the worst position with having a path to ultimate victory. Huck is gunning for IA, McCain could pull out NH, Romney is ahead in both, and Giuliani has the money and name recognition to try to last until Super Tuesday. Fred doesn't have a viable path. Fred's answer to the VP question also sounded a lot link he was describing... Fred. Fred is the least experienced politically of the candidates (one Senate term, no major executive experience). Of the crowd, he would make a good VP for several other candidates.
If Fred picked his horse to ride and endorsed one of the other 4 candidates, he could put himself in a good position to be a strong VP choice. It is no small secret that Thompson and McCain are good friends and have very similar political views. A McCain endorsement would make a lot of sense. But hooking himself to Romney, Rudy or Huckabee would be possible as well. The one way Thompson can ensure going back to Paul Harvey radio and nothing else is letting his slow-paced implosion continue.
And for the record, Fred is still on the short list (of 3) for my primary vote.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | CMU Attempting to Expel Dennis Lennox for Being An Activist Conservative — Comments (11) »
Sen. Thompson's Chance to Matter 53 Comments (0 topical, 53 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Thompson has been attacking Mitt recently. And please spare the Rudy-Huckabee stuff, it's not going to happen. If anything, Mike is challenging Rudy in Florida. The one alliance that might be beneficial to Huck is:
Huckabee / McCain
That would be a winning ticket right there.
Giuliani's campaign has already said that they wanted Huckabee to win Iowa, thus stalling Romney's campaign. Rudy needs a social conservative like Huckabee to balance his own liberal views. McCain will never be a Vice President. He's too proud. That's like saying Hillary will be Obama's VP.
Huck and Rudy are in love with each other. Huckabee is not and will never be the front runner. He's running for a VP position and that's it.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
Huck will win Iowa, South Carolina, Florida, etc. And he will knock out Rudy when the time comes. But Rudy has backwards momentum right now coming out of the debate, and there may be a chance he might not even take part in the eventual 2-man race. There is a reason voters in the early states are not favoring Rudy. When voters really begin to pay attention, Rudy's candidacy will evaporate.
The 2-man race might boil down to Romney vs. Huckabee.
b/c if the first three states were CA, NJ, and CT then Huckabee would still be close and Rudy would still be in third. Heh.
IA, NH, SC are not friendly turf for Rudy. He gets to try to come up with a winning strategy in (or around) them, but the idea that exposure is what hurts him is disingenuous.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
they nominated Bill Simon over the popular Richard Riordan.
Even if Huckabee were to win Iowa, Romney will still win New Hampshire. Huckabee's not really in contention in South Carolina, so he'd have to work some kind of magic to pull that off. Florida would be a possibility, but a remote one.
I wish you were right about it boiling down to Romney vs. Huckabee. I like Mitt's chances in that scenario.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
There is zero chance he is going to trade all the power he has in the Senate for a VP post with no shot at the top job. He isn't going to be able to run again in 8 years. This is his last shot.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Huck's not gonna endorse anyone while he retains status as a serious candidate. The question is what happens if Rudy gets the nomination.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
on a Huckabee ticket, and probably no one else's either.
He would have far more power and influence as a Senator.
It is pretty hard to disagree with that one. Time to move on.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
I think that if Fred quickly started endorsing someone (like Romney), that would put him place for a good cabinet position. Don't see him as VP, doesn't bring anything to the table. But I see him as the Attorney General.
He would balance a McCain or Giuliani ticket pretty well. He adds a border South person on the ticket. He reassures conservatives on policy issues. Either of the top 2 could say that Thompson would have a lot of say in judicial vetting (McCain could say so b/c he isn't a lawyer, and Giuliani could come up with another excuse).
Romney or Huckabee probably wouldn't need Thompson as much but he does have a Gravitas and some experience in Washington which they don't.
He wouldn't be a shoe in, but he should be a short-lister.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
But what states does Thompson give you.
To me, the ideal VP is still Jeb Bush. I live in Florida, and believe me, if Jeb is on the ticket, Florida is a show in. IMHO. Also, Jeb bush is not like his brother, if it wasn't for GWB being president, Jeb Bush would be a shoe in for the Presidency.
I think Jeb would be the best possible R President right now.
But a) he is a Bush no matter how much it bugs me that it disqualifies him and b) no one will choose him unless his brother's approval shoots up.
Hispanic family, swing state popularity, successful governor of major (swing) state, and Catholic. He's like the perfect on-paper candidate. He should just switch to his wife's last name and run. :)
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I'd vote for Jeb in a heartbeat. Dang you, GW.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
A Romney-Bush ticket with Jeb as the running mate may work since Jeb is a Romney fan. I think the world of Jeb, but one more Bush might be a little over the top, even if he's not like his brother.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
It's sitting in the Oval Office right now. He's a non-starter. The GOP needs to draw some distinctions between the last 8 years and what the next Administration is going to do. Remember that Gore lost after 8 years of Clinton even though (oddly) Clinton still had some popularity and things in the country were (fairly) good. People like change after a while.
We need to sell ourselves as the people that can bring change. That will be much harder with another Bush on the placards.
Jeb needs to wait a cycle, maybe get himself a Cabinet post. If we can win in 2008, maybe the President switches running mates in 2012 to make him a natural frontrunner in 2016.
Jeb Bush is only the ideal VP candidate because he's the ideal Pres. candidate. Well, and because he makes Florida a cert. But the Bush name will probably drag down the ticket even in the VP slot and would negate the 'here we go again' attacks on a Clinton candidacy; also, two white guys against a Clinto-Obama ticket would probably be too much.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
I'd say we're likely to have that with or without Jeb. You could probably count on one hand the number of minority or women Republicans who would be assets to a national ticket. And I haven't exactly heard anybody talking about a lot of them when the subject of VPs coming up.
If the election comes down to an "affirmative action" question, we lose. If people are going into this election saying "we want to elect a woman and/or minority to one or both of the highest offices in the land" then we have already lost this race.
I've definitely shifted from Fred to McCain as far as who I'd support if Rudy was out. It's a shame, Fred has actually been doing some serious, substantive policy work lately. But he just does not have what it takes to go all the way, any more than Phil Gramm or Jack Kemp did.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Cheney-style VP.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Huckabee has bumped him from 4th place. IMO, energy is an indispensable attribute in a presidential candidacy, and a huge challenge in Fred's. A good guy, but not The Guy for 2008.
My top three remain Rudy, McCain and Mitt.
Rush said that all were moderates on that stage last night except for Fred. Fred needs to ramp it up now and start selling his great conservative ideas. He is the only true conservative out there (I agree with Rush) and the only one that inspires me.
If we can't have Fred as our nominee, Romney is my second and then Rudy.
Go Fred!
...too old.
Putting aside that Fred is my #1, I could see Thompson VP for any of the others if things don't work out.
They are executives, he's a Washington guy.
They all have parts of their record that don't seem conservative, he seems very conservative.
In fact, a Huckabee / Thompson ticket would be an upgraded Bush / Cheney ticket (although I don't want Huckabee).
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Amy Tuck for MS Senator" on First Cut Politics
I like the PResident, don't get me wrong. But Huckabee's only "upgrade" on him is that he is better at talking. He would be just another term of the same policies. Policies most of us could do without save for the war.
Seeing the last 8 years, I have started thinking we'd have been better off if we had gotten a Cheney/Bush ticket in 2000. Then maybe W would have learned a few things.
I'm not interested in making the same mistake by putting the bleeding heart at the top of the ticket again.
Fred has moved up to my #2 guy, simply based on his positions and the positions of the other guys. Romney is #1 fo me. The rest I will have a hard time supporting. Right now, if I was told I had to vote for any of the other 3 (who I consider RINO's), I probably wouldn't.
But when I look at the democrates, I would have to hold my nose and vote for who ever won the nomination.
Choices, 4 Liberals and a Conservative. What to do?
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
ideas. Why would I want to take a step down just because he does not a speech well?
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
...and dropping like a heavy rock well below the top four nationally almost as quickly as Huckabee is rising (and has risen nationally above him), check it out here in latest Rasmussen poll nationally.
www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_...
Whats sad for Fred, is that the important early states are even more depressing an outlook for him.
Fred's done, and Rush's tepid "I'm not endorsing ANYone" routine he cited verbatim in his year long fear of losing listeners is not going to save him. Rush ran away from saying anything that could be interpreted as supporting Thompson other than saying he didn't show some conservative positions yesterday, will not stick his neck out for Thompson now, too little too late.
Here is the list of all pollsters. And even with Rasmussen's numbers he is statistically tied with Romney, McCain and Huck for 2nd.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
among the 4 beind Rudy.
Thompson may be willing to take the VP slot. But what does it get him? To take the slot under a younger guy means he literally is Cheney - this would be his last stop. He could even see himself dumped in 4 years as the top of the ticket looks for a "successor." After this mess this year, I don't think the GOP is going to be interested in doing it again in 8 years - no Pres of VP on the stage.
But if he is, that's all the more reason to stay in. With Huck coming up, and McCain trying to make a go at NH, there's still the chance that Feb. 6th will see continuing chaos with Romney, Rudy and Huck all having decent delegate counts but none of them in a "clear driver's seat." While Thompson (or McCain) may run 3rd or 4th in most states, there are a number that use proportional systems for allocation. He could still have a few delegates in the bank - and that may be a big selling point for one of the top 3: getting Thompson to release his delegates with a "recommendation" that they vote for his guy.
Thompson would be a pretty solid Rudy pick. He's got the NRLC endorsement, and while he is federalist about it, he is a social conservative where it counts in this race - on judges and on federal legislation (see voting record). He also comes from a border South state (balancing the NYer Rudy), and has been generating some great conservative policies on the issues that Rudy could pick up. Plus, if Hillary wins and picks Obama (which seems to be the CW - though with the campaign tone there declining, the Hillary may not take him) - Thompson could clearly do to him what Cheney did to Edwards in the VP debate last time around.
Thompson doesn't offer Huckabee much - Huck doesn't need a Southerner. His statist/populist tendencies would make it difficult for him to incorporate Fred's policy ideas. And Huckabee is not a federalism guy. I'm not even sure that Thompson would WANT to be the #2 there.
Romney is trying to place himself in the same ideological place as Thompson, so I'm not sure what Thompson brings Romney other than regional balance.
In the end, I think that Thompson's selling point (along with McCain) will be as a delegate "kingmaker" - throwing what delegates they amass to one of the others. But I really don't know who that will be. Actually they could go in different directions (Fred to Romney and McCain with his push for independents to Rudy who he may see as more likely to hold the unaffiliated in the general).
Thompson may be willing to take the VP slot. But what does it get him? To take the slot under a younger guy means he literally is Cheney - this would be his last stop. He could even see himself dumped in 4 years as the top of the ticket looks for a "successor." After this mess this year, I don't think the GOP is going to be interested in doing it again in 8 years - no Pres of VP on the stage.
I'm glad we don't have an obvious successor. VPs have a really lousy record (Gore, HW Bush, Mondale, Ford, LBJ). They either lose or they win one term and stink up the place, ensuring the opposition takes the White House. And if we had a VP right now we'd probably be sunk in 2008. It's hard to position yourself as a change from the current administration when you were part of it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
A McCain-Thompson ticket is about as good a team as it gets.
IMO, you'd have charisma and policy. Fred would pull in some of the wary socons. I also think there's enough difference that people wouldn't make Bush-Cheney comparisons.
==== 13 ====
About this time in the last election, the Dems were talking about Howard Dean like many of you are talking about Romney/Guiliani. Where is Dean now?
It is sad to see so many so-called conservatives say they are supporting Romney or Guiliani when these two are left of Republican moderates. Huckabee, left of George Bush. A vote for any of them only slows the national move to the left, not reverse it.
Being more like the Dems is not going to win. Where is selling your political soul going to get you in another decade?
Until the convention I am standing by Fred - period. I will support the Republican nominee only because I think any one of them is better than Mrs. Bill Clinton or Obama.
It is sad to see so many so-called conservatives say they are supporting Romney or Guiliani when these two are left of Republican moderates.
Only in your opinion; I would agree about Guiliani, but Romney's platform is just as conservative as Thompson.
Only since he decided to run for POTUS. Wonder how quick he would revert to the same ideas he had as governor?
Reference: See Thompson ad showing Romney discussing his stand on abortion as late as 2002.
Only since he decided to run for POTUS? Newsflash: POTUS is what we're voting for and its 2007, not 2002.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
If you don't rack up a win by Super tuesday, say goodbye.
How can you claim to trust the commentary. The same talking heads you claimed stacked the deck (which they did) are the same ones who want to see this race be between Hillary and Giuliani, make Paul look like a kook, and Huckabee an alter boy.
Thompson was on the mark. He is the only one with the nards to take on Hillary or the RINOS.
What is wrong with you people?
Maybe instead of waiting for Fred to get excited for you, you might ought to get excited yourselves! You think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGsUZFUPcJo
Had you watched the debate, you would have seen this ad he chose to run. CNN talking heads were calling it an attack ad and desperate. It was just letting his opponents talk themselves into a corner.
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/11/28/fred-thompsons-revolution-ad/...
First, I read non-MSM commentary about the debate.
Second, this has generally been true even before the debate. The debate didn't change it.
Third, what does this has to do with Hillary-Giuliani? It's about Fred and the other 4 frontrunners.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
There are special interests out there, shall we say, that are not liking Fred, I believe because the RINOs are in as deep as Hillary on the things that Fred is willing to go head to head with her on, as in Chinagate.
Furthermore, some of the "evangelical$" want a pawn, not a president.
Get off your duffs and fight for what you believe, instead of letting extremists do your talking for you.
Fred Thompson is intelligent and has a lot of integrity and more common sense than anyone who has come down the pike in a long time.
Quit asking for Fred to wake up. Wake up yourselves.
So you can think what you want. The powers at be don't care who wins so long it is Hillary or Giuliani.
Soros has also corroborated with Giuliani. That is real life I guess.......but quit deluding yourselves, please.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR200605...
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/rudy_wows_the_rjc.p...
Click on hyperlink "appointed" in above
Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani
Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA
Thursday, October 10, 1996
..." Among the members of this coalition will be Bob Tisch, Co-chair and Co-C.E.O. of the Loew's Corporation...
Alan Greenberg, chair of Bear Stearns & Company, Inc...
The artist Peter Max, a naturalized American born in Germany...
George Soros, international financier and founder of the "Emma Lazarus Fund," which assists legal immigrants...
And Bill Fugazy, of NECO, the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations, the single largest ethnic organization in the country.
A number of prominent organizations have also expressed interest in being part this effort, organizations such as the "New York Association for New Americans" (NYANA), and the "UJA Federation.""
That was 1996. I don't remember hearing much of anything about the man until at least 2000. And his real nastiness came out after 9/11 and the Iraq War, going into 2004.
I don't think it's "hypocritical" to say that since the 1996 effort Soros has become a vicious partisan. I doubt Rudy would appoint Soros again if he were making the decision today.
Fred's candidacy does inspire. Look at all the blogs solely dedicated to him. There has been no candidate in the history of candidates who has more inspired me. And while some of that is his policies, of course, much of it is also the way he carries himself, how he speaks, and how he's different than the rest.
Fred Thompson is a refreshing politician in today's age of slick and media one-liners. He's not slick. He's not Washington. He's Fred.
And he's the one serious candidate in the race. And be serious I mean on substance and what he really wants to do for the country.
"And he's the one serious candidate in the race. And be serious I mean on substance and what he really wants to do for the country."
No, he's not.
And more importantly, unless you (and more importantly he) has some grand new plan about how to win the nomination then it doesn't matter anyway. If Fred can't win the nomination, then the question is how can he best get toward the ends he wants to pursue.
If you think he can still win the nomination, then you should probably talk to his campaign. Because so far they don't seem to have a real clue or plan about where they expect to win to get the train going.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Hey Adam...you also forgot to include doom and gloom for EVERY Republican candidate running.
I think mid January is when we need to start determining who is going to make it further. We know that this election is going to be different than any election in a generation... so the "conventional wisdom" and the constant punditry by everyone who acts like they "know better" than anyone else is just silly.
Fred does have great ideas, AND yes, he needs to deliver them better. But I wonder, so far, every candidate that gets written off seems to surge at one point or another.
His campaign hasn't gotten totally on track due to the media's obsessino with seeing him not get on track. But in terms of substance, none of the other Republican candidates offer any serious hope for change in this country. They are all a bunch of squishy mods who haven't offered anything but image and BS. McCain is an exception, particularly on security and spending, I suppose, but among the other big 3 -- Rudy, Romney and Nannybee, the pickin's are slim if you want someone with any kind of conservative substance.
Fred can absolutely win the nomination. Why couldn't he? If you say Fred can't then you have to say that Huckabee, Romney and McCain can't either because they've all been trading positions with Fred in the Rasmussen tracking poll, with Rudy hanging out in the low to mid 20's. That's hardly a margin that can't be overcome.
Fred is in the teens in Iowa and needs to take out Huck -- everyone agrees with that. He's tied for the lead in SC, second in Florida, and ahead in many southern states for Feb. 5.
Does he need to be in a better position? Yes, but so do the others. Huckabee trails bad outside of Iowa. Rudy isn't ahead in any of the first 3 primary states. Romney does awful outside of Iowa and NH and isn't even winning in Iowa anymore. McCain leads nowhere.
So how can anyone possibly argue, with a straight face, that Fred can't win the nomination? Here's a clear path:
2nd or close 3rd in Iowa, McCain and Rudy well back.
respectable 4th in NH. McCain endorses Fred.
1st in SC, Romney 2nd, Rudy 3rd, Huck 4th.
ties up Rudy for 1st in FL.
dominates southern states on Feb 5. Rudy wins northern states.
Edges out Rudy long term in delegate votes.
That's not implausible.
I agree with you 100%. Thompson's views are fine. He's just not a good candidate. I think a Romney-Thompson alliance may be the answer to a Rudy-Huckabee alliance. We shall see...
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill