Posted under Election 2008
A Fred Thomson aid has all but announced that Thompson will enter the race, which will change the demographics significantly. I doubt he’ll steal many Ron Paul or Tancredo supporters, but he will pull support from Giuliani, McCain and Romney.
Thompson will run as a “mainstream conservative,” which itself is misleading, since he is a neocon. He is a “fellow” at the American Enterprise Institute, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and, while in the Senate, had a lackluster voting record on immigration. He also is member of that suicide pact known as “nothing is wrong with unbridled free trade,” and he supports affirmative action.
Regardless, he’s a smart choice for the neocons. He’s just socially conservative enough and just tough enough on the borders to attract many movement conservatives.
Filmer on 30 May 2007 at 3:04 pm #
I have said all along Thompson is running, and he will immediately be top tier.
I think he crushes Romney and McCain. I think he wins the nomination by default. I am not endorsing him, and I don’t think that is a good thing, but that is how I see it. The only thing standing in his way is if he falters in Iowa and/or NH and his health.
Also, I think Paul will be the last man standing of the Conservative alternatives.
Hopefully Paul’s backers will bolt and vote third party and not support Thompson in the general. It would actually be better for energizing a real conservative alternative if Benito got the nomination because he is so clearly not a conservative, but I don’t think that will happen.
Patroon on 30 May 2007 at 3:45 pm #
The more the merrier. What’s nice about being the antiwar Republican candidate is that Paul has that vote all to himself and doesn’t have to share it while the warmongers have to divide their vote among 10 candidates.
Thompson’s a beltway conservative. If you look at his polling he does not have a lot of support on the ground in Iowa or New Hampshire, just a lot of pundits and bloggers and GOP political hacks. The minute he enters, the minute he shrinks in stature.
Filmer on 30 May 2007 at 3:49 pm #
He has a lot of support in the South among activists.
Bede on 30 May 2007 at 3:54 pm #
Gingrich probably won’t enter now – or maybe he will. He seems not to realize that he has no chance of winning the presidency. His personal life alone makes Bill Clinton look like a saint.
I don’t even know if Thompson will have a chance against Clinton, especially if we are still in Iraq. He could probably beat Obama, especially after Americans learn how radical Crackhead is on many social issues. Regardless, 2008 will probably be a bad year for Republicans.
Hopefully (if Tancredo, Paul or Hunter does not receive the nomination) conservatives will vote third party in 2008. But I am afraid that many of them will be neoconned that Thompson is “one of them.”
jimvkruse on 30 May 2007 at 4:06 pm #
I wonder if he’ll be quickly added to the CNN “debate” scheduled for next Tuesday.
ERIC on 30 May 2007 at 4:55 pm #
Fred Thompson will win the nomination, no doubt about it, only his health will get in the way if it goes bad.
White evangelicals (the biggest Republican constituancy) do not really have a candidate yet (they should with Tancredo or Hunter), Brownback and Huckabee are both pro-life and anti-gay marriage but are pro-amnesty.
Any chance that Tancredo or Hunter had in getting the nomination is now gone with Thompson running.
Thompson has a little bit of everything, he’s good enough for white evangelicals, good enough for country club/fiscal conseratives and good enough for neocons, and those are the 3 biggest constituancies in the republican party.
Unfortunately Paleoconservatives just don’t make up enough people to be a force in the republican party even if you add Paleolibertarians, a Paleoconservative candidate needs to atract the white evangelical vote to defeat the country club and neocon forces in the republican party and Fred Thompson has just killed any chance of that happening.
Unfortunately when or if Thompson is the next president it will be more of the same stuff, because all Thompson is doing is lying that he is a border hawk and against amnesty.
Right now, immigration/third world invasion is the most important issue going on, even more so than abortion and gay marriage, because if the country is lost to third world people, abortion and gay marriage theoretically become irrelevant.
Thompson is just another country club/neocon type, that is going to use white evangelicals to get in the white house (same as Bush), and when or if he gets in there he will throw just enough red meat at the white evangelicals to keep them satisfied (appointing a supreme court judge to overturn roe vs. wade), but won’t push for an end to gay marriage/illegal immigration/affirmative action.
Without white evangelicals support, a Paleoconservative candidate such as Tancredo or even Hunter (even tho Hunter is pro-war he’s Paleocon everywhere else)) cannot get the nomination.
All Tancredo needed to do is just get the white evangelicals and he could have gotten the nomination, but Thompson just killed that idea.
ERIC on 30 May 2007 at 5:10 pm #
The reason I didn’t mention Ron Paul with white evangelicals is because white evangelicals are more populist than libertarian, they want government to put a stop to certain immoral things (Paul won’t use his power to end gay marriage) and who knows if Paul will appoint a judge to overturn roe vs wade.
I’m a populist leaning conservative, not a libertarian leaning conservative, and I consider myself in line with white evangelicals, paleoconservatives, and Reagan democrats.
Extremely socially conservative, mildly economic conservative but not ultra capitalist/ultra libertarian, and non-intervention/america first foreign policy.
bret on 30 May 2007 at 5:23 pm #
Eric – unfortunately, you are ignoring every lesson of history: that using government to achieve moralistic ends is doomed to failure. Paul is the only anti-war candidate on all the issues – which “should be” the Christian, moral position. This is a moral issue – whether you believe in waging offensive wars or whether you believe they are inherently evil (as they are). Thus, the “war on poverty” is a failure, the “war on drugs” is a failure, and the war on terror is also a failure. No war has ever “succeeded – not even WWII (I’d hardly call 6 million jews murdered a “success”, even if german imperialism suffered a defeat).
RP is right – this debate has to be about the reasons, the goals, the purposes of government. Thompson is just another party-line goon. But RP is showing that people are starting to wake up to the fact that we’re constantly bombarded with more of the same old same old. The truth looks strange and new – but it’s always been there, waiting to break out.
I’ve been hoping that christians would wake up for a long time… we still have a long way to go, but hopefully they will come around.
ERIC on 30 May 2007 at 6:08 pm #
My opinion on the war isn’t whether or not war is evil.
My opinion is that either you go to war full force/level Iraq and don’t try to salvage so-called innocent civilians or you just leave it alone.
Unfortunately we are in a politically correct war, we are trying to help so-called innocent Iraqies at the same time trying to kill the bad guys.
Well, my opinion is that there are NO so-called innocent Iraqies, they are ALL the enemies, so either level Iraq or leave it alone.
As far as the war on poverty, I’m not a big government/welfare type, so the war on poverty, I agree is a failure and should be ended.
But the war on drugs on the other hand (drugs are immoral and devestating) needs to be fought even harder and some how more efficient to get results, and if you think about it, the drugs come from third world countries and therefore if we had NO third world people in this country it would drastically reduce drug use in this country.
Call me what you want, but there are 2 types of people, God’s people (white people, and Jesus Christ being God) and Satan’s people (non-whites), Satan’s people are evil by default, God’s people are sinners by default but with the power of the holy spirit mainly and the repentance of the white person, the white person can change their ways (born again).
God’s people and Satan’s people cannot live together and the bible condems it.
And there will someday be a racial holy war (White christians vs the heathens).
Jim Lenahan on 31 May 2007 at 5:38 am #
I agree with those thinking that Thompson is the automatic frontrunner. As “ERIC” stated, he is good enough for the majority of activists and party faithful (read: Christian Coalition, neo-con wonks, and “Reagan Republicans”) to come out and vote en masse. He WILL carry the South and mid-west Red States.
McCain loses big to Rudy in the beauty contest of the rest of the votes.
Newt will have a tough decision: Is his ego or his intellect bigger? Given a moment to think about it, he KNOWS he cannot win either the nomination or the general election. With Thompson in, that all but seals it.
The problem with Ron Paul is that you have to THINK to appreciate him. Unfortunately, we do not have a rational, thinking electorate.
JL
Jim Lenahan on 31 May 2007 at 5:46 am #
ERIC —
“God’s people (white people, and Jesus Christ being God) and Satan’s people (non-whites)”
You are a bigotted moron.
sigh
Where in the bible does it say ANYTHING about “white” and “non-white”? Chnaces are, Jesus and the heros of the Old Testament were darker in winter than you are after a month under the Georgia summer sun.
sigh
Meth — one of the most lethal drugs on the market, comes from homes in subdivisions around the country just like yours, not the third world.
sigh
“Drugs are immoral”? According to whom? There is wine aplenty in the Bible — including at the Last Supper. Alcohol is by any definition a drug.
sigh
It is too bad people like you are allowed to rear young.
CyberDoodlle on 31 May 2007 at 5:42 pm #
This article is about the Thompson candidacy, not your collective self-absorbed egos. Knock it off!!!!
——————————————————————
David Allyn on 31 May 2007 at 7:50 pm #
Fred Thompson and Newt Getrich – tweedle-dee, tweedle-dum
Just more distractions from Ron Paul’s candidacy.
Notice that neither Thompson nor Getrich EVER talk about the constitution.
Jim Lenahan on 31 May 2007 at 8:16 pm #
Paul’s base is not hurt by Thompson’s entry. However a Paul victory requires much more than his typical base.
Thompson takes away a good percentage of the “anti vote” Paul may have won. He is folksy enough and a good enough actor to come across as more of an outsider. He has a sufficient populist streak to entice many on the fence. He will be seen as the least bad candidate by a majority of the (GOP) voting public.
Who EXITS the race is bigger news for the Paul camp.
As much as I would like to see otherwise, the only winning strategy is to view the Paul candidacy (and every vote he garners) as a step towards a victory 3 or 4 election cycles hence.
When trying to change the world, there are usually only two choices: patience and revolution.
JL
J. Klein on 01 Jun 2007 at 9:41 am #
Does anyone remember Jay Leno’s comment when Iraq was trying to come up with its constitution?
He said (paraphased): Why don’t we just give them ours? We’re not using it!
Why is anyone even hoping that the Republican Convention will result in a Paul, Tancredo, or Hunter? Let’s work on Plan B NOW! If the convention goes as predicted, implement it!
My suggestion? Plan B: The Constitution Party. It has the infrastructure needed to participate in a National election, and it has a philosophy that conservatives can identify with as an alternative to the RINO/neocon/Bush one.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/mission_statement.php
No more voting for the lesser of two evils! We are the majority! We just need a political home, now that Reagan has left us.
Filmer on 01 Jun 2007 at 2:28 pm #
J. Klein,
I agree that is plan B. But the CP has to nominate an anti-war conservative. They can not nominate Corsi or Keyes. That would be a disaster.
I hope Baldwin gets the nomination. Do you have any intel?