Ol' Fred

The WaPo sees Thompson as a threat to McCain.

Thompson's candidacy appears to present the most challenges for McCain. One of only three senators to endorse his candidacy when the lawmaker from Arizona sought the presidency in 2000, Thompson has been basking in media attention even as McCain has been the subject of attacks from the party base on the compromise immigration legislation he helped shape.

Funny, I always thought the biggest threat to McCain was ... McCain. And I still think so. Also, I've probably been more lukewarm as regards Thompson than some I have been seeing. That hasn't changed either.

He has a good image and is saying the right things, so I am by no means suggesting I am against him. But I want to look a little deeper into what substance there may be behind the man. He is not Ronald Reagan as regards reputation and experience when Reagan sought the nomination. Mouthing conservative talking points is easy. Leading a political movement, not so much. I want to know if Thompson has the patience, work ethic and dedication to do it.

For now, I'm still leaning towards Romney - mostly because of the "C" word: competence.

Still, it's all so far off, not much to do but speculate for now. Who do you like?

Comments

[seekeronos]

So far, I like Fred head and shoulders above the others. I'll agree he isn't _quite_ Reagan.

He (Fred) seems to be playing things a bit closer to ground than Reagan did, or at least he is for the time being. He'll likely play a guarded game like this until close to the primary, waiting for the other candidates to savage each other.

The Gipper is the Gipper, and I don't reckon we will see another Gipper cut from the exact mold again. At best, I'd like to see someone who does come as close to Reagan as any candidate we've seen, and one who lacks as much ugly baggage and slips of moral courage as some others.

Newt? Still suffering from his fumbles in the 90s. Smart guy, great for big business, conservative to a fault - but a wee bit unstable when handling the reigns of power. If he can keep his nose clean for another 8 or 16 years, he might be a good bet in a future run.

Duncan Hunter? Good all the way around, seems to be a solid Christian, which is probably the exact the thing that will disqualify him in the eyes of the GOP kingmakers. Otherwise, he is a relative unknown. I think he'll make an incredible VP pick though, and the thought of a Thompson/Hunter ticket makes me giddy. Especially if it grooms Hunter for a run in 2016.

Tom Tancredo? Less of an unknown than Hunter, a bit more antagonistic to his "foes" than Hunter. He might be viewed as a bit of a one-trick pony on immigration, but otherwise strikes me as a solid conservative. I can't recall atm, but didn't he do something that aggravated the GOP mainstream?

McCain? McCompromise? McAmnesty? He brings up a sudden urge to be ill. I will be sore vexed if by some miracle he wins.

Rudy? Potential flip-flopper. I'll have more respect if he sticks to his social-liberal guns than if he flops on abortion and guns (even if I am opposed to his views). He'll be good for the GWOT and potentially on immigration, if he can be convinced of the threat a porous border poses to us.

Mitt "Flippy" Romney? I'm not sure which side of the issues he is on currently. What time is it again?

[Hank]

Competent?

During the debate Mitt said:

"...f we knew that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and if he had complied with the United Nations resolutions to allow IAEA inspectors into his country, we wouldn't be having this conversation."

Either he is ignorant of the fact that there were inspectors in Iraq, or he is not telling the truth.
Whatever the answer, it certainly does not make him sound competent.

[Arcadia]

He's the real thing. I'm voting for him...if he runs...if not...of course I will vote for our nominee.

[Buzzy]

I think Fred is the real deal, I hope he's the real deal. I donated some money to his campaign based on the word of people that I know and trust that are "in the know". I know I like his Federalist stance. We have so much more impact, vote for vote, on the local and State level than we can ever have on the Federal level.

I suffer no delusion that Fred is a new Reagan but I badly need to hear my President talking about the things that are important to me. Hell, right now I'd love to hear my President speak without sounding stupid.

I know I'm sick to death of the lies of the Bush administration and their crappy elitist attitude towards the people who put them in power. Honestly they're no better than Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi etal on the left. I even have to admit that this shamnesty issue has raised a lot of doubts about other issues we're embroiled in.

McCain is done. His shamnesty bill wiped out what little conservative support he had left. He'll be hounded about this sad bill until he accepts the inevitable and quits the race.

Mitt for some reason scares me. Already he has a Spanish language version of his campaign web site. Don't you have to be a citizen to vote and don't American citizens speak English? He's a little too smooth, a little to business, a little too wrong about a lot of things. Lied about being a hunter (shades of Kerry). Doesn't have a clue about the weapons inspectors in Iraq prior to the war. Too many little things keep me from being comfortable with him.

One thing is for certain, I will not vote for Rudy. I'll stay home and lock myself in the bunker first. No more voting for RINOs or CINOs just because they are slightly better than the Democrats, did that twice now and look how it turned out.

[Cindi]

I'm in with Fred. No I don't watch his television show, or any TV for that matter. Of course you are righ Dan, for me all this campaign bullshit is way to early. Honestly I belive I will stick with Fred should he run. After all..........I like em' rough. ;)

[CKMacLeod]

Rudy. RINO's just a label: I'd rather have a guy whom I disagree with on some things but who means what he says and is tough as nails than someone who says all the "right" things then proves to a wimp or a sell-out. Romney is totally unconvincing as a security President, and has reinforced doubts with recent triangulating gestures, nods, and winks vis-a-vis Iraq, but I'd be happy with him as a VP or Treasury Secretary. I find Thompson likable, but as much as I've wanted to be wow'd by his appearances, I've found them tepid. McCain's campaign looks like it's collapsing, though I'm lightyears from being an insider of any kind, so I'll wait and see.

I think Thompson will become the receptacle for Anyone But Rudy (ABR) SoCons, but that Romney's strength as a campaigner and his obvious talent and intelligence will keep him in the race. If McCain drops out, I believe his strongest support will go to Rudy, since Right-to-Life SoCons tend to despise McCain anyway. Rudy can win if Thompson and Romney split the ABR vote in the early going, and big wins in the more liberal early big states give Rudy a seemingly insurmountable delegate lead.

Giuliani-Romney would be a great reform Republican ticket, but it Romney's SoCon credentials are too weak to head off a SoCon mutiny - or anyway shore up Giuliani's SoCon and Southern weakness. On the other hand, Mitt and Giuliani are said to get along very well, and I could see Rudy going for a Republican version of Clinton-Gore, going against the possibly defunct regional balancing rule. I don't think that Huckabee would want to be seen as a right-to-life sellout and accept a VP nod, though in the real world (where not everyone resides of course), being given the traditional "heir apparent" spot should be a pretty good trade to SoCons in exchange for supporting a candidate with a chance of holding off Hillary and a commitment to appoint "good" judges. Thompson may be the acceptable receptacle for SoCons in a fields weak for SoCons, but I wonder if his SoCon credentials are really enough to serve him on this score, and he's too old to be a good heir apparent.

So now you know.

[templar knight]

What the hell is a SoCon?

[CKMacLeod]

Social Conservative - these days it usually suggests hardcore opposition to abortion and to gay marriage and the rest of the gay rights agenda, to cite the two sexiest SoCon issues. 2nd Amendment typically figures strongly for many of them, along with a negative view of popular/urban culture. I'd say pretty close to Christian Right, but not restricted to evangelicals.

[bloodrage bob]

i dunno....the only "c" word that comes to *my* mind upon an inspection of romney is "candyass".

remember the old political cartoons about bush, sr., showing him as razor-thin with oddly delicate wrists and a swanlike willowy neck, carrying a purse? that's about how romney seems to me. nice guy. lovely smile. about as tough as ice cream.

no thanks.

[templar knight]

Wow, do say. I guess there's an acronym for everything.

[Purple Avenger]

"If McCain drops out"

He's dead Jim ;->

[seekeronos]

"Know your Cons" :

NeoCon: Neo-conservative. (Ex.: Karl Rove). A consortium (some might say cabal) of mostly late Silent Generation/early Baby-Boomer elites of relative high intelligence and close social bonds, many of whom were liberal Jews in the same top-tier colleges during the tumultous 1960s. Arguably responsible for much of Bush-43's success - and downfall - in the first decade of the 21st century. Key points: agressive foreign policy, pro-big business. Gloabalist in outlook, as far as economics is concerned. Tend to be socially moderate, although play to SoCon base as needed. Contrasted with PaleoCon.

PaleoCon: Paleo-Conservative, or "Old School" Conservative. (Ex.: Pat Buchanan). These guys were conservatives long before it was "cool" to be conservative... they tend to be isolationist or nationalist, and possibly economically protectionist. Includes pre-FDR Old Democrats (particularly from the deep South) and also tend to embrace small (particularly federal) government. Defensive foreign policy, tendency towards conservative views on social issues. Adherents tend to be on the older side of the Silent Generation, (ppl. born roughly 1925-1945) although there are indications that increasing numbers of Baby Boomers and Gen. X'ers are coming into its fold.

SoCons: (Ex.: the late Jerry Falwell). Subset of conservatism that looks primarily at social issues balancing personal choice against the needs of preserving a certain standard of socailly accepted behaviour, with an end toward how these choices and standards will affect future generations. Key hot button issues are repealing most forms of non-emergent abortions or "abortion on demand", especially "late term birth control" abortions, as well as keeping the sanctity of biblical "one man, one woman" marriage as the definition of marriage. Generally opposed to most movements concerning extension of special recognition of Muslims, LGBTs, and illegal immigrants as "protected" classes (as well as any other legislation providing for "protected classes" of people). Adherents tend to be religious, particularly belonging to certain evangelical and fundamentalist strains of Christianity.

FiCons/FinCons: Financial Conservatives. Area of concern is the economy, and particularly in reducing our burdens to useless organizations such as the WMF, WHO, and UN. Most would favour a limited, but not impairing, level of trade protections, especially with nations seen as not to be "playing ball" with the US. They tend to favour smaller government, and specifically, more _efficient_ use of governmental resources. Tend not to favour welfare or other handout programs unless there is some way of quantifying how such a program is actually helping people get off of the dole, favouring work-based incentive programs instead.

MilCons/DefCons: Military/Defense Conservatives. In contrast to FiCons, these folks want to expand the Pentagon and NSA's budget to allow for the best possible conditions for a large, satisfied military that has the ability to project power globally in defense of American interests.

And one I made up (unless someone can come up with a more "official" term) ---

LibertyCons: Libertarian-Conservatives. (Ex.: Rudy Guliani?) The most "laissez-faire" minded of conservatives, seeking smaller government, less restrictions against people's choices (parting company largely with SoCons on LGBT rights and abortion)... tend to run somewhat more moderately on defense issues, with an emphasis on Homeland Security and slowing free and unchecked immigration over agressive foreign containment of potential enemies. More globalist in outlook than some of the more strict conservatives, but not to the point of shooting themsevles in the feet repeatedly over immigration as NeoCons might be prone to doing.

[Phoenix]

Thanks, Seek. I hate those labels. No wonder our government doesn't work worth a poot.

LibertyCons sound good to me.