As most of you are aware, I'm a fan of Fred Thompson. I'll be on the ballot as a delegate for Thompson in the February primary.
Of course, the Thompson campaign has fallen on some hard times of late. While he rode the second spot in the polls for most of the summer and fall, he's now showing third or fourth in many of them. He's not on the map in New Hampshire.
Thompson announced last week a renewed emphasis on Iowa, including a two week bus tour starting next week. The first step in that renewed emphasis was the debate yesterday in Iowa. By most accounts Thompson won and scored points in a number of areas. The result has been that a number of pundits are taking another look at Thompson's campaign, and speculating about whether he can turn it around in Iowa.
I think he can. The same traits that made Thompson popular are still there. He's a rock solid conservative who sticks to his principles. He has an affable manner that I believe is appealing to the public. I don't think that any other Republican can unite the various wings of the party as well and still be able to take on the Democratic nominee this year. While a host of issues have arisen about the other frontrunners, I don't think that any "silver bullet" has been found that hurts Thompson's electability.
Politics and the trends in national campaigns are hard to predict. So I truly think it's anyone's game. (Well, not Duncan Hunter)
For some interesting commentary check out Byron York from National Review, Philip Klein from the American Spectator, and Dean Barnett from the Weekly Standard. Rush was pretty effusive today as well.
Be still my beating heart! Please, GOP, nominate this comatose goober. Now I imagine most Fred fans find everything CBS to be despicable, but not everyone dismisses CBS.
Why then was Fred the only candidate to tell Katie Couric that he doesn't think global warming is real? I mean, even Huckabee said global warming was real, and he's got doubts about the Devil and Jesus being brothers!
There's about as much truth to the devil and Jesus being brothers as there is to the global warming scam.
I concur with "Pinch Me". As a Democrat, it is like picking out the first Christmas present under the tree when we watch the Republican debates. Who do you want to put Obama or Clinton up against? The Dems look and sound so much better than this crop of geriatric blowhards it is hard to know who we'd most like to see win it. Romney the Snake-OIl salesman? Huckabee the Baptist Preacher who refused to let a 15 year old rape victim have an abortion? Thompson, who mumbles incoherently for long stretches on end and seems to be barely awake? Tancredo? PLEASE LET IT BE TANCREDO!
The only one remotely scary is Giuliani, and the more the dirty from his sleazy life in NYC hits the electorate the further he will fall.
My suggestion to Thompson, if he wants a bounce in the polls? Propose machine gun nests on the "Wall" between us and Mexico. The Republicans have been inching toward sanctioning the murder of "Illegal Aliens" for months now. First one to propose shooting them down as they try to cross is SURE to get a big bounce in Iowa!
"The Dems look and sound so much better than this crop of geriatric blowhards it is hard to know who we'd most like to see win it. "
Said the completely objective observer...
Said the completely objective observer...
Touche. Though I've never laid claim to objectivity. I am not sure where this notion that we all need to be bi-partisan independents came from but I would like to state for the record that I am not bi-partisan but I am a little independent. As you know, I think the last thing we need is four more years of
conservativeRepublican policies.That said, I hardly think I am alone in my opinion on the Republican field ...
"I am not sure where this notion that we all need to be bi-partisan independents came from but I would like to state for the record that I am not bi-partisan but I am a little independent."
I'm not saying that anyone needs to be a bi-partisan independent. I welcome partisanship. I'm as partisan as anyone.
But forgive me for dismissing out-of-hand your opinoin of the Republican Presidential candidates. Given the things you've said about Republicans and conservatives and our perspectives on government, I cannot think of any reasonable scenario in which you'd even consider voting for one of them.
If I'd ever written anything similar about the Democratic field, you'd be right to disregard it as well. The only Democrat for whom I'd vote isn't running.
"That said, I hardly think I am alone in my opinion on the Republican field ..."
So wrote/polled the completely objective newspaper...
(Not that I think the sentiment is entirely false, but to back up your opinion of the GOP field with an op-ed from the NYT & Adam Nagourney is pretty funny.)
I thought the problem with the Republican Congress and President was that they didn't stand by their conservative values when it came to spending.
If I'd ever written anything similar about the Democratic field, you'd be right to disregard it as well. The only Democrat for whom I'd vote isn't running.
Ah! But I love to read your opinions about the Democrats. I think you were right about Obama, for example, when you claimed he was painting himself into a corner with the "New Politics" message. But I also think he has done a decent job of trying to maintain that balance between drawing distinctions and negative campaigning. It might be the most interesting aspect of that campaign, and you picked that up right away.
If you were to give your opinion about the Democats I would listen because I often think someone without a horse in the race is best able to judge the merits of the candidates. I have watched 6 different Republican debates, three with large groups of people, and they have all left me with the same impression: is this the best you can do? And the issues the GOP has chosen to focus on. Ugh! Immigration? Why are these people STILL talking about immigration? Most people really don't care all that much.
If had to pick an eventual winner right now I would go with Romney because of the team of consultants he has and the time he has put into South Carolina, which will most likely end up being the tipping point. Mitt's people have been down there for years crafting his image to that state in particular. That is his gamble and I'd bet it will pay off.
But what does that tell you? This guy is a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry, comes across as a slimy opportunist and represents everything that is wrong with politics: he is a carefully created Frankenstein candidate who has focus-grouped almost all of his moves and his responses to questions. The two strengths are his political intelligence and his ability to articulate his consultant's ideas in a clear and non-offensive package. How would he govern? We have no idea.
But that's just my opinion. Have a great Friday!
"Ah! But I love to read your opinions about the Democrats. I think you were right about Obama, for example, when you claimed he was painting himself into a corner with the "New Politics" message. But I also think he has done a decent job of trying to maintain that balance between drawing distinctions and negative campaigning. It might be the most interesting aspect of that campaign, and you picked that up right away."
Well, thanks. But I think there's a difference between an opinionated analysis of the field, and posting something along the lines of "all those guys from the other side are poopypants." Maybe that's your genuine analysis, but it's easy to discount it as electioneering.
"If you were to give your opinion about the Democats I would listen because I often think someone without a horse in the race is best able to judge the merits of the candidates. I have watched 6 different Republican debates, three with large groups of people, and they have all left me with the same impression: is this the best you can do?"
I'd trust your opinions about Republicans, and even consider your analysis, if you had ever had anything good to say about any of them. But you don't - your "analysis" is nothing more than a series of insults, sometimes issues-based, sometimes personal.
"And the issues the GOP has chosen to focus on. Ugh! Immigration? Why are these people STILL talking about immigration? Most people really don't care all that much."
I disagree.
This is a great example of why I discount your opinions on Republicans - it's not really analysis as much as it is your opinion - you don't think illegal immigration is important, so you state that nobody thinks it's important. You don't like the Republican nominees, so you state that they have no chance.
"If had to pick an eventual winner right now I would go with Romney because of the team of consultants he has and the time he has put into South Carolina, which will most likely end up being the tipping point. Mitt's people have been down there for years crafting his image to that state in particular. That is his gamble and I'd bet it will pay off."
That's a realistic scenario. I think things will be muddy until February 5, but things are more fluid right now than I thought they'd be.
"This guy is a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry, comes across as a slimy opportunist and represents everything that is wrong with politics: he is a carefully created Frankenstein candidate who has focus-grouped almost all of his moves and his responses to questions. The two strengths are his political intelligence and his ability to articulate his consultant's ideas in a clear and non-offensive package. How would he govern? We have no idea."
It's amazing how much of that description applies to Hillary. And in a Hillary-Romney race, I think whoever has lower negatives is going to win. I think that applies to just about any general election matchup that features Hillary, actually.
"But that's just my opinion. Have a great Friday!"
Mine, too. Just wish you'd state yours a little more congenially sometimes, but I should just get thicker skin, too.
Have a good weekend.
IP - I really didn't mean to respond again but I just want to clarify a couple of things.
First, from your own polling report it is clear that only 3 out of 10 Americans consisently believe immigration is "one of the most important" issues. I was not saying it is not important, I just don't understand why it seemed to move to the front of the last few debates and get the most debate time of any issue.
Just wish you'd state yours a little more congenially sometimes, but I should just get thicker skin, too.
Here's my humble suggestion. When you read what I write try to read it like you would a comedian making a joke instead of a rabid politico foaming at the mouth. None of this stuff is taken too particularly seriously by me because this is a BLOG, not real life. There are times when it gets a little slow 'round here and throwing some "geriatric blowhards" into the mix can help generate some chuckles and some interest. Honestly, that's about as far as it goes UNLESS I am misquoted and attacked. But that rarely happens.
But you don't - your "analysis" is nothing more than a series of insults, sometimes issues-based, sometimes personal. ... you don't think illegal immigration is important, so you state that nobody thinks it's important. You don't like the Republican nominees, so you state that they have no chance.
Ok, so maybe I am misquoted more often than not. Whatever. fwiw - I do think I am capable of saying something nice about a Republican. I'm just not very good at it. :)
When you read what I write try to read it like you would a comedian making a joke instead of a rabid politico foaming at the mouth.
That may help a lot - I will try that.
Back to Fred, I just got an email - he is looking for a donation push after his debate performance. Something in the campaign is working - they are striking while the iron is hot, as they say. Needs some TV money.