the GOP finally found there guy. i think he's pretty much unbeatable.

6/1/2007 11:45:11 AM

Thompson v. Richardson . . . that'd actually be a quality match - up.

6/1/2007 11:46:50 AM

He's got pretty much the same platform as McCain, but he's a fresher face (relatively speaking; he's no spring chicken).

The biggest thing he's got going for him besides being in Law and Order is that he left the Senate before the trainwreck that was the GOP congress over the last 4 years. He isn't Reagan, but he's the closest thing to Reagan on the GOP ballot.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 12:01 PM. Reason : 2]

6/1/2007 11:56:00 AM

^ indeed. He's got the same advantage that Obama has - he wasn't around when the shit hit the fan. In addition, IMO the American people would like to think one of the democratic candidates, but deep down they're not convinced. The democrats still come off as wishy washy to me, so a strong republican candidate could still win this election.

They just haven't HAD one... that is until now (potentially) with Thompson.

6/1/2007 12:26:27 PM

People are sick of McCain because he's been running for President for the past 10 years. Also social conservatives would have a heart attack if they were chosing between Giuliani and Romney.

Is there any appeal Thompson has over Huckabee other than playing a no-nonsense DA on TV?

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 12:53 PM. Reason : formatting]

6/1/2007 12:52:25 PM

^ Yes, Thompson can win; Huckabee can't. Thompson-Giuliani anybody?

6/1/2007 1:06:59 PM

^^ummm, how can you even compare the 2?

Mike Huckabee is a former Southern Baptist Minister. If his service as governor is any indication, he's also a cut-and-spend neocon. I don't think that appeals to anybody except southern baptist conservatives.

Fred Thompson is a socially moderate, fiscally conservative federalist.

6/1/2007 1:13:40 PM

^^ I agree (astonishingly) with the first half. Giuliani though? He's not pandering to the right just to play second fiddle to a character actor from Tennessee. I don't see any of the current presidential candidates agreeing to be VP, it'll have to be someone currently unknown.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 1:14 PM. Reason : ^^]

6/1/2007 1:14:18 PM

Thompson Giuliani would be two people lacking in intellect. Got to at least throw Romney or Gingrich as the VP to add some credibility to the ticket.

But I do think Thompson could be the man.

6/1/2007 1:18:48 PM

^^ Simply not true--Republicans want to win. And politics makes strange bedfellows.

Better to play second fiddle in the big dance than not to be in the dance at all. And keep in mind: I would like to have the opportunity to vote for Giuliani.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 1:26 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2007 1:26:24 PM

I'm pretty sure he will win the canidacy. Someone give me some hypotheticals. I'll start:

Thompson/Mccain would win vs Clinton/Obama
Thompson/Guiliani would win vs Clinton/Obama

I'm having a hard time seeing an actual victory for the dems in Clinton or Obama is their choice. I just don't think they have it in em

6/1/2007 1:27:44 PM

Giuliani will not play second fiddle to anyone. He's too egotistical for that.

Fred Thompson is the kind of guy who wouldn't mind being a VP.

6/1/2007 1:28:31 PM

guliani is dubya all over again, only pro-choice.

fuck that noise.

6/1/2007 1:32:37 PM

^^ exactly. Do not underestimate the egos of politicians. You have to have a certain amount in the first place to be able to stand up in front of a crowd and say "hey, look at me, I'm the best person to lead all of you".

Quote :

"And keep in mind: I would like to have the opportunity to vote for Giuliani."

I'm sure Rudy cares.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2007 1:33:57 PM

well im not sure anyone would ask Thompson to be a VP...

McCain thinks he can get people like John Chambers to be in his cabinet.... HAHAHA ... but he wont win anyhow

I think Giuliani already has someone in mind who he owes a few to.

Once again .... I like a Thompson/ (Romney or Gingrich) ticket. It would be a strong one.

6/1/2007 1:34:06 PM

^^^^ I disagree. Thompson has been on the national scene a lot longer than Giuliani--Thompson served as co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, among many other positions. And Thompson is a lot taller than Giuliani--and don't get me started on that dynamic, but it's one of many tangential things that matters.

"If the 2008 Republican presidential primary were held today, whom would you support if the candidates were [see below]?" If 'All': "If you absolutely had to choose, which one person would you support?" Names rotated"

Rudy Giuliani 26%
John McCain 17
Newt Gingrich 10
Fred Thompson 9
Mitt Romney 8
Sam Brownback 2
Mike Huckabee 2
Tom Tancredo 2
Jim Gilmore 1
Duncan Hunter 1
Ron Paul 1
Tommy Thompson 1
Other (vol.) 1
None of these (vol.) 2
Unsure

(Diageo/Hotline Poll conducted by Financial Dynamics. May 16-20, 2007. N=196 Republican primary voters nationwide.)

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm




[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 1:46 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2007 1:37:08 PM

Well obviously Huckabee hasn't raised money, and the issue is star power. Thompson didn't get that by being a former senator. Huckabee is a 3-term governor and past chair of several governor's associations, we aren't talking about a fringe televangelist. You are kidding yourself if you think Fred Thompson isn't running as the true (i.e. social) conservative (at least in the primary). The only candidates competing with him for that are Huckabee and Brownback--2nd and 3rd tier candidates, as Thompson's strategy will be making Romney and McCain look like pretenders.


If you are really noting the difference between Thompson's ideology and his campaign strategy I can agree with you there. Ideologically he is similar to McCain. In fact, he was National Chairman for McCain in 2000! However, he will likely be playing the conservative card at least in the primary, and hoping his Tennessee accent and the public's faded memories will keep the anger many evangelicals have directed at McCain from rubbing off on him.

6/1/2007 1:40:31 PM

Yeah I don't buy the idea that G = W, and you're right the president needs to be taller, and better looking than your VP, who should be relatively bland and inoffensive. If you could get G to do it, it might work, I just don't see the former mayor of NY going for #2. Just because the party wants to win doesn't mean G cares.

6/1/2007 1:41:55 PM

I don't like the fact that he's pro-life. He used to have a true federalist stance: repeal roe v wade and let the states decide what they want to do about abortion.

Now that it's GOP primary season, he's firmly anti-abortion.

6/1/2007 1:44:15 PM

Quote :

"He isn't Reagan, but he's the closest thing to Reagan on the GOP ballot."

6/1/2007 1:44:18 PM

Which will happen first:

Republicans quit looking for the "next Reagan"; or
Basketball fans and analysts quit looking for the "next Jordan.?

6/1/2007 1:47:18 PM

^ To hell with all that. I'm looking for the next Dr. J--and I think I found him: Ben Wallace.

6/1/2007 1:51:53 PM

This is the guy that rented an old beat-up pick up truck for the cameras to see, then drove a mile down the road and got back in his limo? Come on...this guys is a nobody, and I think people are going to see that pretty soon. This guy is *not* Reagan...I don't know why anyone would even suggest that.

6/1/2007 1:52:34 PM

i also don't know why people think the dems will nominate clinton. i give them a little more credit than that.

6/1/2007 2:19:40 PM

Well, she does have a double-digit lead in the polls and a sizeable edge in fundraising.

She's been the democratic frontrunner since forever, it seems like.

6/1/2007 2:24:46 PM

that's all well and good, but she won't get nominated. unfortunately (or fortunately) national polls don't mean all that much for the nomination process. how's she doing in iowa and new hampshire?

6/1/2007 2:53:17 PM

I sure hope she doesn't get the nomination, I think it will spell a quick end to any chance of substantial change in the White House. I think a lot of die-hard Dems want Bill back in the White House so they would vote for Hillary just for that reason.

Honestly I am not impressed with any of the candidates on either side. All of them leave something to be desired.

6/1/2007 3:25:06 PM

There are probably more supporters for Hilary than any other candidate, but also more anti-Hilary sentiment than any other candidate.

6/1/2007 3:35:01 PM

All I know is, if Bloomberg runs as an independent, the Republicans can say goodbye to the presidency.

Thompson is a base anomole. He has no appeal to anyone outside the party base.

6/1/2007 6:09:26 PM

A billionaire independent ruining the chances of the Republican party...



Why does this sound familiar?

6/1/2007 6:30:00 PM

FT FTW, G.

6/1/2007 7:35:47 PM

Quote :

"I think a lot of die-hard Dems want Bill back in the White House so they would vote for Hillary just for that reason."

The thing is, she's nothing like her husband either in personality or policy. She'd much less of a consensus builder and much more of a decider. Kind of a Democratic W.

Quote :

"All I know is, if Bloomberg runs as an independent, the Republicans can say goodbye to the presidency."

Doubt it, he was a lifelong Democrat who switched to the Republican party because his own wouldn't nominate him. He's too liberal for most of the Republican party, he might draw some votes from both parties, but he'd be largely inconsequential.

Quote :

"Thompson is a base anomole. He has no appeal to anyone outside the party base."

Thompson is charismatic, intelligent, and experienced. I'm not saying he'll win, but he's more than a write-off.

6/1/2007 7:53:43 PM

if it hasn't been said already Thompson's health is definitely an issue. I guess could live
with Giuliani as the Vice, he at least pretends he will nominate good judges.

6/1/2007 8:32:17 PM

Quote :

"also don't know why people think the dems will nominate clinton. i give them a little more credit than that."

sarijoul

Because it's hers to lose.

Quote :

"Thompson is a base anomole. He has no appeal to anyone outside the party base."

nutsmackr

I don't agree with some of Thompson's positions, but your statement is incredibly ill-informed. Yeah, movie and TV stars have no broad appeal. BTW, did you mean "anomaly"?

Check out Thompson's filmography--perhaps my favorite being Barbarians at the Gate:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000669/





[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 9:21 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2007 9:16:30 PM

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0821638/

What kinda America-hatin' crap is that? Wounded Knee? NEVER HAPPENED.


Also, it was ill-advised for a Republican presidential candidate to play Ulysses S Grant in a movie. Corruption ftw.

6/1/2007 9:31:28 PM

FTL.

6/3/2007 2:49:17 AM

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2007-06-03T050028Z_01_N02411792_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-POLITICS-THOMPSON.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage3

i think this dude has a pretty good chance at getting nominated(since guiliani is a democrat on social issues, mccain is bush jr, yet 70 years old, and romney is a flip flopper)

6/3/2007 2:51:45 AM

i still think ron paul is the best candidate for the job. sucks he won't get nominated

although i don't dislike thompson, i definitely have to read more about his positions before i jump to a conclusion on him so for the time being i'll say i'm neutral on him

6/3/2007 3:34:49 PM

Guiliani has no right to be the next Pres. Romney is Mormon. McCain is kinda old. I'd support Pat Buchanan, but he's not running.


I think we have to go with F. Thompson for the win. It's logic.

6/3/2007 4:20:50 PM

lol, FUCK pat bucanan

6/3/2007 4:34:46 PM

Quote :

"mccain is bush jr,"

[NO]

6/3/2007 5:36:15 PM

mccain is a partyline player nowadays

6/3/2007 8:54:58 PM

why does it matter that romney is mormon?

6/3/2007 8:56:07 PM

It matters if one of your party's most influential factions is made up of Evangelical Christians who believe Mormonism to be a heretical cult.

6/3/2007 10:02:35 PM

^^^ not totally, although (unfortunately) far more than in years past...but I still would not characterize him as "Bush Jr"

^ Well, Mormons aren't gonna pull any Branch Davidian or Jonestown moves, but the (Christian) religious right isn't exactly incorrect in not viewing them as any sort of sect or denomination of Christianity.

6/3/2007 10:27:45 PM

Quote :

"I don't agree with some of Thompson's positions, but your statement is incredibly ill-informed. Yeah, movie and TV stars have no broad appeal."

Yes, because being a character actor means you have broad political appeal. Grow up and offer real insight rather than, "OMG he was in MOVIES."

6/3/2007 10:28:12 PM

He looks weird.

6/3/2007 11:22:54 PM

Quote :

"It matters if one of your party's most influential factions is made up of Evangelical Christians who believe Mormonism to be a heretical cult."

I'm not a Republican or a Christian, and even i know Mormons are a LoonyToon cult.

and no, i don't think that "all religions are a cult".

LDS is nutty. and only slightly less dangerous than Scientology.

6/4/2007 12:34:31 AM

Quote :

"LDS is nutty. and only slightly less dangerous than Scientology. "

I disagree. Their beliefs are nutty, but they don't cause their followers to harm their own health, or others'.

Mormons in reality are generally more friendly and helpful than other types of religious people. What other church ever thought to make commercials like the ones LDS has made?

6/4/2007 12:38:08 AM

^^^^ As if you would recognize "real insight" when you see it. But I'll play--here are just a few reasons:

1. Name recognition: You don't have to spend as much time or money getting your name out there if it's already out there. Did that fact ever occur to you? Thompson's third in one of the latest polls--and he hasn't even officially announced!

Quote :

"There's room in the Republican race for Fred Thompson, the ex-senator-turned-actor who's climbing into the contest. Including Thompson (and leaving out former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who's flirted with the race but not committed), Giuliani has 34 percent support among leaned Republicans, John McCain 20 percent, Thompson 13 and Mitt Romney 10. Each is within three points of his mid-April position."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/Story?id=3238667&page=2

2. More than just "OMG he was in MOVIES," which is your quotation--not mine: Thompson usually plays the heavy in his TV and film roles: district attorney, White House chief of staff, FBI agent, CIA director, NASCAR director, admiral, general, president (several times), among many others. Thompson is perceived as fitting these types of roles--and perception has a way of becoming reality.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000669/

3. The real-life experience to back it all up: Thompson is an attorney, and he was even involved in the Watergate hearings; he was a lobbyist; and he was of course a US senator, among his many other endeavors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson

BTW, you added the word "political" to broad appeal. I simply posted that TV and film actors have broad appeal. At some point, however, such appeal must be used to support an effective message--and Thompson is in fact beginning that process in earnest right now. In addition, your "grow up" remark was stupid--just like the overwhelming majority of your posts.

I think you liberals are really scared of Thompson, aren't you? No doubt because you believe he can win.




[Edited on June 4, 2007 at 1:03 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2007 12:55:34 AM