Fred Thompson can win the Nomination or the Presidency.

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
I have been looking at the Thompson candidacy, and I have concluded the following:
When Thompson declares in September, Guiliani will still be the front runner. In order for Thompson to win the nomination he must distinguish himself from Guiliani by appealing to the extreme right wing of the Republican party, especially the social conservatives,the ones who won't accept Guiliani. Thompson must come out very, very, strongly for things like banning abortion under any circumstances, continuing the tax cuts, perhaps even outlawing extra-marital sex,etc. He also must match Guiliani in areas of national security and limitations of the rights of Americans.
If Thompson does this he might win the nomination, but be so far to the right, he will go down big time in the general election.
If Thompson were to run more to the center, he won't win the Republican nomination, but could win the Presidency. And since you need the nomination to run for the Presidency, he is through.
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Why can't he appeal to the extreme right until he wins the nomination, and then spend all the time until the election moving back to the center. Call me cynical, but I think a politician could do that and the American people would swallow it.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Thompson is a hollow shell and I think most people, even conservatives see right though him. Same with Romney. They can pretend to be whoever they want but their actual bona fides are few and far between.

The awesome part about Thompson is the whole lobbying thing where first he denies ever lobbying for abortion rights then a few weeks later says, well you know, you need to distinguish lobbying and being just an attorney for a said cause, or something to that effect.

I'm sure that just warms the heart of the local P&N obfuscaters.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Just what we need, another ethically challenged putz as President. Fred Thompson Was A Nixon Mole During Watergate.

During Watergate, as minority counsel to Republican Senator Howard Baker, Fred Thompson was the one who spilled Nixon's beans by asking Nixon aide, Alexander Butterfield whether there was a White House taping system. The nation was shocked when Butterfield confirmed that the system existed, and as the saying goes, the rest is history.

It turns out Thompson's objective was not to bring evidence to light about Nixon's criminality, but rather, to prove that he was innocent of the charges against him. Since he was a Republican, I can't fault him for that. What does bother me greatly is, Thompson did more than hope his man was innocent. He has since admitted that he was a mole for the Nixon Whitehouse, and he phoned Nixon's lawyer and tipped the committee's hand the day before asking that history rocking question in the publicly televised hearings.

Thompson said in an interview (see full story, linked above), "In retrospect it is apparent that I was subconsciously looking for a way to justify my faith in the leader of my country and my party, a man who was undergoing a violent attack from the news media, which I thought had never given him fair treatment in the past," Thompson wrote. "I was looking for a reason to believe that Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, was not a crook."

I'm amazed that, in the face of the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, Republicans could still be stupid enough repeat the same mistake and buy into another ethically challenged clown like Thompson, who acted unethically, surreptitiously, and probably illegally to help the worst criminal to hold the office of President in the our nation's history... UNTIL GEORGE W. BUSH. :roll:
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
his decision to delay his announcement to run is causing fund raising issues. Now, he is pushing back his announcement to September 4. He has been estimated to have raised just 3 million dollars instead of the 5 million dollar goal.. That is Ron Paul territory.
Iowa would just be 4 months away. Will he have enough time to compete there or will he put all his chips into South Carolina?
The race is wide open at this point.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: techs

-snip-

F. Tompson does NOT need to run very far the right to be to the right of Rudy.

You make it sounds as if he has to run a "Hitlerian" campaign to get to the right of Rudy.

Other than talking tough on terrorism, I don't see where Rudy is much different than a Dem candidate.

Fred's from the South, I expect he'll get a lot of support from here in the primary.

Unless something dramatic happens, I expect Fred has a good chance to pick up the nomination if he can just demonstrate a healthy amount of charisma and "gravitas". Given his acting experience, that should be do-able.

While I expect the Dems to gain the Presidency, it's theirs to blow. I sense they better be careful, better not get overconfident. If they run too aggresive a general campaign, over-reach too far on their leftist ambitions, they may just lose to non-ambitious gov type, who's not a policy wonk and simply generates more charisma than anything else. A "safe" vote if you will. I don't sense people have a loy of confidence in government now.

I know polling generally indicates "change" is felt needed by people in general. The problem as I see it is "what change"? It get's difficult to get a big consensus on that. Also, and in spite of the polling, "change" tends generate uneasiness. Uneasiness != security. People these days would like to feel more secure, IMO.

Fern
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
The nixonian mole, the family values guy with a divorce and trophy wife, the pro-life lawyer who consulted for an abortion rights group, the man known as Fred Thompson, won't be winning anything.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
There is only one former Tennessee senator I would vote for, and it's not Fred Thompson.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The entire thread title is a misnomer---because even the OP admits Thompson can't win the Presidency without getting the GOP nomination---but the thread title puts it as an either or but not both.

But even as a self confessed dimorat as the GOP might wish to put it---the logic of the thread is also flawed. At present, the 08 Republican field consists of one almost social liberal--Rudy G, a libertarian in the form of Ron Paul, and a big pile of ultra right types all fighting each other to be more right than thou. And as soon as one concludes that Guiliani can't win the Republican nod, and that Ron Paul as a libertarian can't either, then one can only be left with the conclusion that one radical right winger or another will emerge from the crowded pack and win the GOP nod. And since Thompson is one in that probably will emerge group, he has a good shot. And may have to move right to win the nomination but can them move more to the center to try to win the general election.

And while I as a democrat eat up all the negatives against the integrity of Thompson, for the sake of my argument, in actual physical height, Fred is head and shoulders taller than everyone else. Larger than life---and I note in his younger days---he had shoulder length and longer hair---time is just a bald faced crook.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
I :heart: Fred.

Oh, I found someone to take my $100 bet that Hillary won't win the presidency. So it's on. :D
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
LOL @ everyone digging up his past like it's going to matter.

The man is pure gold in front of a camera and he has an answer for every point brought up in this thread. In a head to head debate the only D candidate who can match him in likeability and charisma is Obama and even then I'm not sure he can go toe to toe with Fred. Hell, there was even a story on him where his ex wives and old GFs think he's a great guy and can't wait for him to run.

I'm not sure I'd pick him as the nom if given the choice, but what I've seen of him so far has been very impressive. From a pure marketing standpoint, I don't see anyone who can top this guy. And don't give me any crap about issues... Presidential politics hasn't been about issues for 20 years. It's a marketing campaign. Nothing more, nothing less.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
LOL @ everyone digging up his past like it's going to matter.

The man is pure gold in front of a camera and he has an answer for every point brought up in this thread. In a head to head debate the only D candidate who can match him in likeability and charisma is Obama and even then I'm not sure he can go toe to toe with Fred. Hell, there was even a story on him where his ex wives and old GFs think he's a great guy and can't wait for him to run.

I'm not sure I'd pick him as the nom if given the choice, but what I've seen of him so far has been very impressive. From a pure marketing standpoint, I don't see anyone who can top this guy. And don't give me any crap about issues... Presidential politics hasn't been about issues for 20 years. It's a marketing campaign. Nothing more, nothing less.

Heh, thanks for the laugh. Fred Thompson only appeals to the hard right.

Issues?

IRAQ

Fred's stand on Iraq will sink him utterly, if he manages to get the nomination.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: techs
perhaps even outlawing extra-marital sex,etc. .
?!? WTF? lol...

...and yet I always get complaints when I say "silly liberati", as if it weren't merely discriptive instead of the percieved insult. ;)
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,511
1,075
126
Originally posted by: Hacp
The nixonian mole, the family values guy with a divorce and trophy wife, the pro-life lawyer who consulted for an abortion rights group, the man known as Fred Thompson, won't be winning anything.

So how do you feel about Clinton's 12 year stint as a corporate lawyer where she represented those she is vhementally against today. And was said to dispise before her stint as a corporate attorney.

Is she unelectable because she represented companies opposing workers rights, etc etc...

Hillary is just as much of a hypocrit as Thompson. As are most if not all politicians...

To make it in law, there are times you have to represent those that you may not personally/morally agree with.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
For some reason I don?t think many of us on the right are going to buy Tech?s arguments regarding Thompson.

Techs it is apparent that you know NOTHING about Republican politics.
If you actually cared about what goes on within the right and read web sites such as National Review you would see articles mentioning that the religious right is losing control of the party to the small government and security oriented right. (Although in most cases those people are the same, but the abortion argument does not have nearly the power it did in the 90s.)

I think both parties are seeing a movement away from moral issues to spending and security issues. The rapid feminists in the Democrats party have largely been replaced with the rapid anti-war types. Abortion and gay marriage will have virtually NO impact on the 2008 election.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For some reason I don?t think many of us on the right are going to buy Tech?s arguments regarding Thompson.

Techs it is apparent that you know NOTHING about Republican politics.
If you actually cared about what goes on within the right and read web sites such as National Review you would see articles mentioning that the religious right is losing control of the party to the small government and security oriented right. (Although in most cases those people are the same, but the abortion argument does not have nearly the power it did in the 90s.)

I think both parties are seeing a movement away from moral issues to spending and security issues. The rapid feminists in the Democrats party have largely been replaced with the rapid anti-war types. Abortion and gay marriage will have virtually NO impact on the 2008 election.

It doesn't matter where the Republican party stands. Its VOTERS are still highly concerned over the issues of gay rights and abortion. They have spent years being convinced by the Republican party that these are two of the most important issues.
And to win the Republican nomination, you either get ALL the votes of the Republican wing that doesn't care about these issues or most of the votes of those that do plus picking off some of the other group. With Guiliani staking out the voters who fall into the category of those who don't care about those issues, the only way to beat him for the nomination is to go after those that do.
Which brings us to the general election where those two issues will have far less impact in 2008 than they have in the last two elections.
Leaving the only path to the nomination for Thompson to sacrifice the General election by going after the social conservatives if he is to win the nomination.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For some reason I don?t think many of us on the right are going to buy Tech?s arguments regarding Thompson.

Techs it is apparent that you know NOTHING about Republican politics.
If you actually cared about what goes on within the right and read web sites such as National Review you would see articles mentioning that the religious right is losing control of the party to the small government and security oriented right. (Although in most cases those people are the same, but the abortion argument does not have nearly the power it did in the 90s.)

I think both parties are seeing a movement away from moral issues to spending and security issues. The rapid feminists in the Democrats party have largely been replaced with the rapid anti-war types. Abortion and gay marriage will have virtually NO impact on the 2008 election.
It doesn't matter where the Republican party stands. Its VOTERS are still highly concerned over the issues of gay rights and abortion. They have spent years being convinced by the Republican party that these are two of the most important issues.
And to win the Republican nomination, you either get ALL the votes of the Republican wing that doesn't care about these issues or most of the votes of those that do plus picking off some of the other group. With Guiliani staking out the voters who fall into the category of those who don't care about those issues, the only way to beat him for the nomination is to go after those that do.
Which brings us to the general election where those two issues will have far less impact in 2008 than they have in the last two elections.
Leaving the only path to the nomination for Thompson to sacrifice the General election by going after the social conservatives if he is to win the nomination.
Again you are totally 100% wrong.

For years the Democratic Party was mainly concerned with civil rights, socialism type programs etc etc. Now no one really cares about that stuff and all they care about is ending the war. Priorities can chance and they can change very fast.

Furthermore, Thompson is already to the right of Rudy on moral issues, he does not have to mover further to the right in order to trump him on these issues. The right wing base is his for the taking.

The Democrats don?t have this luxury since Edwards and others are moving further and further to the left forcing the Hillary and Obama?s of the world to move to the left in order to keep up. Didn?t both Hillary and Obama claim that we must fund out troops in this war and didn?t both of them vote against the last funding bill?
They took the position that we must support the troops, but were forced to vote again the funding in order to make the far left happy.

Thompson or any Republican will not have to do anything similar to make the far right happy.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think both parties are seeing a movement away from moral issues to spending and security issues. The rapid feminists in the Democrats party have largely been replaced with the rapid anti-war types. Abortion and gay marriage will have virtually NO impact on the 2008 election.

The Bush administration is so ethically challenged that they've forfeited even the scantest pretense of any claim to moral or ethical authority. They wouldn't know a real moral issue if it bit them... which it has.

Any Republicans who still supports anything remotely identified as coming from the adminstration can only reinforce the idea among voters of all parties that they are as corrupt as the administration they support.

The only reason Thompson's considerable ethical baggage hasn't become high profile headlines is because he hasn't formally announced his candidacy. Once he does, the shit will hit the fan, and he's carrying plenty of brown to go around. :p
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: Hacp
The nixonian mole, the family values guy with a divorce and trophy wife, the pro-life lawyer who consulted for an abortion rights group, the man known as Fred Thompson, won't be winning anything.

So how do you feel about Clinton's 12 year stint as a corporate lawyer where she represented those she is vhementally against today. And was said to dispise before her stint as a corporate attorney.

Is she unelectable because she represented companies opposing workers rights, etc etc...

Hillary is just as much of a hypocrit as Thompson. As are most if not all politicians...

To make it in law, there are times you have to represent those that you may not personally/morally agree with.

That makes sense, but the right wing neo-con's won't buy it, which is why Thompson will go nowhere. I personally have no trouble with his divorce, his trophy wife, or anything else. I'm just against his stances on issues.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: Hacp
I personally have no trouble with his divorce, his trophy wife, or anything else. I'm just against his stances on issues.

I'd echo that, except for the his horrible breach of professional ethics as council to the Watergate Committee and the fact that, thirty years later, he has his head just as far up his ass about the Bush admin as he did about Nixon, despite all the evidence proving him so wrong in both cases.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
He wants to give us our machine gun rights back, and that's all I need to know. Fred has the unequivocal support of the gun lobby. Run Fred run!