Breaking News: Fred Thompson announces candidacy for president
(CNN): After spending months testing the waters for a presidential run, Sen. Fred Thompson has made his candidacy official. "I am running for president of the United States," he said during a taping of NBC's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," drawing applause and cheers from the audience.
Only now is this race beginning to heat up. Finally, America has their celebrity candidate for '08. Expect a SNL appearance very soon and unprecedented network television support for Thompson (esp. from NBC, go figure).
Only now is this race beginning to heat up. Finally, America has their celebrity candidate for '08. Expect a SNL appearance very soon and unprecedented network television support for Thompson (esp. from NBC, go figure).
posted by Strother | 9:31 PM
12 Comments:
Finally, America has their celebrity candidate for '08.
I thought Hillary was the celebrity candidate.
Expect a SNL appearance very soon and unprecedented network television support for Thompson (esp. from NBC, go figure).
I doubt that with regard to unprecedented network TV support for Thompson. Hillary or Obama will be their candidates.
I thought Hillary was the celebrity candidate.
Nope, Thompson's the famous actor. And no one actually likes Hillary. Give me a break. Fred's cool, and that will take him a long way.
Hillary or Obama will be their candidates.
We'll see. NBC has vested interest in Thompson. Just watch Leno (or the clip tomorrow on YouTube).
Thompson has screwed around too long and too visibly in getting into the race. He will not be taken seriously by most of the conservatives to whom he is supposed to be some kind of savior. Also, his so-called conservative credentials have undergone much scrutiny and come up badly lacking. He and John McCain are virtually indistinguishable on the issues. Social and religious conservatives will not vote for him, by and large, because he is fundamentally pro-choice. Libertarians will not vote for him because of his positions on CFR and the war in Iraq. He cannot definitively nail down the Reagan coalition.
The GOP primary voters Thompson has to win over are the ones belonging to Romney. He will easily pull in the few remaining stragglers belonging to Giuliani and McCain. He has no chance of converting many (if any) of Huckabee's and Paul's supporters, but neither of them is of particular concern to his machine. Romney voters have no good reason to jump to Thompson. They are very similar on the issues and both can pull a lot of swing voters in open primary states. The few social conservatives who have attached themselves to Romney, with noses firmly held shut, have even less to like about Thompson, regardless of his Bible-belt cred.
The fact that he is "cool," as Strother says, and because he doesn't have the deep personality flaws that McCain does will make him the media's choice for the GOP nomination. The question will be whether the pubbies have figured out how not to let the media pick their candidates for them. If not, Hillary can go ahead and start picking out new draperies for the Oval Office.
The word on the political street is that Thompson is being pressured to imply publicly that his pick for VP would be Condoleeza Rice. This is in an effort to confront the inevitable Clinton/Obama ticket. If he does win the nomination and decides that Rice is the way to go, get ready for the Clinton victory to be of historic numbers.
I respectfully disagree with about half of what Steve has said here. Of course I'm no GOP expert, but considering the state of the GOP, I don't think I need to be to be correct in evaluating Thompson's potential power here; I'm simply calling this game as I see it will unfold for the voting public, one that is completely underwhelmed by every single VIABLE candidate in either primary race.
"Thompson has screwed around too long and too visibly in getting into the race."
Or that could easily make him The Maverick that McCain couldn't be. For instance, skipping the BS 10-person primary debates to appear on NBC's Leno and gearing up for a major 'net presence is the real way to do it in '07. (Google 'Fred Thompson' and see the results: lots of news, official sites, blogs, and even an IMDB listing ... something for everyone(voter).
"He will not be taken seriously by most of the conservatives to whom he is supposed to be some kind of savior. Also, his so-called conservative credentials have undergone much scrutiny and come up badly lacking. He and John McCain are virtually indistinguishable on the issues. Social and religious conservatives will not vote for him, by and large, because he is fundamentally pro-choice."
According to OnTheIssues.org, Fred is here on abortion:
"Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007); Appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007); Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007); Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000); Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999); Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)"
Doesn't sound pro-choice to me. Maybe I shouldn't believe what I read?
"Libertarians will not vote for him because of his positions on CFR and the war in Iraq."
Who says that Libertarian votes matter in GOP primaries anymore?
"He cannot definitively nail down the Reagan coalition."
Maybe not definitely, but possibly. People hardly remember what Reagan was really like anymore, but Fred is an actor with swagger. This Reagan link can be all in the marketing, like it or not, Steve.
"The GOP primary voters Thompson has to win over are the ones belonging to Romney. He will easily pull in the few remaining stragglers belonging to Giuliani and McCain."
All this is doable, IMO.
"He has no chance of converting many (if any) of Huckabee's and Paul's supporters, but neither of them is of particular concern to his machine."
... because neither has a snowball's chance in hell anyway.
"Romney voters have no good reason to jump to Thompson. They are very similar on the issues and both can pull a lot of swing voters in open primary states."
Here's where the cool factor comes in. Romney isn't cool. It matters.
"The few social conservatives who have attached themselves to Romney, with noses firmly held shut, have even less to like about Thompson, regardless of his Bible-belt cred."
Again, see my OnTheIssues.org list above.
"The question will be whether the pubbies have figured out how not to let the media pick their candidates for them. If not, Hillary can go ahead and start picking out new draperies for the Oval Office."
Neither party has figured that out. And people do not like Hillary. I don't know how many times I have to say that. I don't know many liberals who do. You're not the only one who's tired of the Bushes and the Clintons, you know.
The word on the political street is that Thompson is being pressured to imply publicly that his pick for VP would be Condoleeza Rice. This is in an effort to confront the inevitable Clinton/Obama ticket. If he does win the nomination and decides that Rice is the way to go, get ready for the Clinton victory to be of historic numbers."
If this is true, those two would most likely give Clinton/Obama a good run for your money. It makes sense, regardless of how I feel about Rice. Of all the people in the current admin, people cut her the most slack of all. Fred would be the handshaker anyway, which, this time, is ultimately what will get someone elected.
I liken the final round of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton as being forced to exclusively listen to, say, only Lee Greenwood and Rumours-era Fleetwood Mac. Right now, I could deal with alternating Skynyrd and neoclassical piano while watching a Fred episode of Law & Order on mute ... which is, from a completely artistic viewpoint, what a Fred/Condi White House would be like. And personally, at this point, this race is just hollow entertainment anyway.
Personally, I like Fred Thompson. He has a good conservative voting record in the Senate... I disagree with his support of McCain-Feingold when it came up for a vote, but I'm not going to rule Thompson out because of it since no candidate is perfect. Thompson seems like a good, level-headed guy who has some good old-fashioned common sense. I can easily see him as a president... Just my opinion. :)
Doesn't sound pro-choice to me. Maybe I shouldn't believe what I read?
Definitely not. But you can believe what Thompson himself has said. Don't mistake his votes on those issues with a position on abortion. His positions on Roe v. Wade have more to do with his rather curious stance on federalism than any fundamental opposition to abortion.
When asked if he would support a ban on abortions in his home state, he said that he would not. There is no way to spin that into a pro-life stance. You might argue that it is a libertarian position, but that would be thin gruel since Thompson doesn't seem to hold many, if any other libertarian views.
The question of who wins the White House next year has nothing to do with whether or not people like Hillary. It has to do with who can get their people out to vote. Democrats are just as likely to hold their noses when they vote as Republicans are. Thompson cannot bring out the base. He will not excite the Reagan coalition enough to get them to come out for him. Remember, Bill Clinton never won a popular majority. In fact, he was never even close. Both times he won because the Reagan coalition stayed home.
If Thompson is the GOP nominee, and Hillary is the Democrat nominee, the conservative base will have no problem coming out for Thompson. You'll have conservatives coming out just to vote against Hillary.
You're right, Bill Clinton never won a popular majority, but that was because of a third party candidate in Ross Perot. Clinton was close in '96 when he received 49% of the vote. Bush 43 was the first guy to win a majority of the popular vote in '04 (51%) since his dad did it in '88.
The GOP has been blaming Ross Perot for their debacle in 1992 ever since it happened. The plain truth is that Bush I lied to his supporters and turned into a big government liberal. Like father like son, I guess. The conservatives and libertarians stayed home in 1992. In 1996, the GOP saw fit to run Bob Dole, another big government "conservative," and guess what, the conservatives and the libertarians stayed home.
It is not sufficient to simply invoke Reagan any more. The people who are tired of big government are also not buying that pitch any more. The only people who will come out to vote against Hillary are the GOP True Believers. Their numbers are insufficient to defeat her. Bush II has made sure of that.
Did someone say dynasty?
I don't blame Perot for Bush 41 and Dole's defeat. If Perot wasn't on the ballot, Clinton would have won anyway. I'm saying Perot being on the ballot is the reason why Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote. It doesn't matter anyway since the president is elected through the electoral college, not a nationwide popular vote.
Thompson is an appealing candidate. He's somebody I can see appealing to southern conservatives and midwest libertarians.
The election is won at the primary level. If the pure blood conservatives or libertarians can not get “their” nominee then they take their ball and go home. If that is what they want then Hillary will waltz into the White House. Then we get to listen to them bitch the whole time but what are they claiming about, G.W. Bush will always be the worst president ever…infinity.
"claiming" should be "complaining". My apologizes.
I just don't see conservatives and libertarians staying home if Fred Thompson is the Republican nominee. I could see it if Thompson is a polarizing candidate, but he's not.
Post a Comment
<< Home