Fred Thompson's Timing

[Colt]

While many are anxious for Fred to declare, this article points out that he is right on track.

Some good insight into the Fred Thompson strategy
As usual, Nashville's Bob Krumm offers some words of wisdom.

Fred Thompson is certainly taking an unorthodox approach to his probable run for President. Only he’s not. What is unusual this year is that every other candidate is behaving differently than in the past.

The differences began with timing. First Obama, then Hillary, then the rest of the field declared their candidacies far earlier than in years past.

Trying to forestall inevitable losses by making pre-summer campaign announcements in 1999 were also-rans Bob Smith, Pat Buchanan, Lamar Alexander, Steve Forbes, Dan Quayle, and Gary Bauer. The eventual nominees, George W. Bush and Al Gore, both didn’t officially declare their candidacies until June of 1999–and even that was earlier than in years past.

Today, pundits wonder whether Fred has waited too long to announce, when perhaps the lesson from 2000 was that the others announced too early.

Just as Fred Thompson did last week, eight years ago every major candidate avoided the spring debates . . . because there weren’t any. The first debate was not until October 27, 1999 between Bill Bradley and Al Gore. The six remaining Republican candidates didn’t joust until December. By then, the field had already thinned itself of Buchanan, Smith, and Elizabeth Dole–allowing the debate to be less “canned” since fewer candidates had more time to speak.

Another feature common to recent Presidential candidates is the campaign book. In 2000, all the major contestants had one. Bush had A Charge to Keep, McCain wrote Faith of my Fathers, Gore recycled Earth in the Balance from his 1992 campaign, when he contested Bill Clinton who wrote Putting People First. All but Gore used ghost writers–and Gore probably should have too.

Now Fred Thompson joins the 2008 field with a campaign book. In fact, it’s written entirely by a ghost writer: Steve Gill. The Fred Factor promises to reveal “the man behind the role” of New York District Attorney Arthur Branch of Law & Order fame. It’s an “introduction” book, just as most modern successful campaign books have been.

So far, the only thing unusual about Fred Thompson’s campaign for President is how usual it is.

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/2007/05/some_good_insig.shtml

I don't buy into the idea that he's missing all the money. I know many poeple, personally, who are holding onto their checkbooks until he declares, myself included.

 

[ArmedBear]

Furthermore, if they SPEND all their money by late Fall 2007, how is that going to help them? If they spend that money making themselves look progressively worse, it's even better for an opponent!

Getting your enemy to waste all his ammo is as good as cutting off his supply. It just takes more patience. But it's often a lot safer.

 

[Len S]

Do i see a split gun owner vote between Fred and Ron Paul? Then we get gun ban rudy or one of the other rinos running in the main election.

 

[Boats]

Quasi-Libertarian Republicans shouldn't flatter themselves into thinking Ron Paul will be a factor.

F. Thompson's support might turn out to be a mile wide and an inch deep, but that will be way more support than Ron Paul's inch wide and a mile deep fanbase can muster.

I like Ron Paul, but his broader appeal to the Republican base is really limited.

 

[Titan6]

I like Fred Thompson but he hates freedom. He will not get my vote.

 

[jpk1md]

Titan, please explain.....

 

[Titan6]

Expanded terrorism laws to include “domestic terrorism” which
could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping,
harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy.

Expanded the ability of law enforcement to conduct secret
searches, gives them wide powers of phone and Internet
surveillance, and access to highly personal medical, financial,
mental health, and student records with minimal judicial oversight.

Allowed FBI Agents to investigate American citizens for criminal
matters without probable cause of crime if he says is for
“intelligence purposes.”

Permited non-citizens to be jailed based on mere suspicion and to
be denied re-admission to the US for engaging in free speech.

Suspects convicted of no crime may be detained indefinitely in six
month increments without meaningful judicial review.

What part of hates freedom do you not understand?

 

[cbsbyte]

Personally, I really don't see him as a better alternative than what we have now. He has publicly stated he supports the Iraq war, War on terrorism and expanding the police powers of the government. Really is that much better for us than Bush II. The only thing he disagrees with the current administration is the border but there he wants to expand the Government agencies to secure the border. It seem the Republicans are falling for the same trap as in 2000.

 

[Grey54956]

Fred Thompson isn't perfect, but no one is. The point is, he's better than Hillary or Obama.

I am still giving a Fred Thompson / Ron Paul (in no particular order) small odds. From the field of possible tickets, this one would be best.

 

[vito]

Fred Thompson is a bona-fide conservative, as evidenced not by what his sound bites are, but how he voted during 8 years in the U.S. Senate. He is already polling at 3rd without spending a cent or even announcing his candidacy. Ron Paul is seen as a joke by the Republican party. If you support him, more power to you and to Ron Paul during the primary process. BUt once the Republican candidate is chosen, if you truly value your 2A rights you will vote for whoever it is, since Hilary/Obama/Edwards are all virulent anti-gun believers. For those of you who think that supporting the Patriot Act, or the War on Terror is anti-Freedom, you are sadly misinformed and worse, oblivous to the real threats facing us. I think Fred Thompson is actually electable, and would get the support of the core of the Republican party. He may not be Ronald Reagan, but he is the next best thing.

 

[Boats]

Personally, I really don't see him as a better alternative than what we have now. He has publicly stated he supports the Iraq war, War on terrorism and expanding the police powers of the government. Really is that much better for us than Bush II. The only thing he disagrees with the current administration is the border but there he wants to expand the Government agencies to secure the border. It seem the Republicans are falling for the same trap as in 2000.

Why would you care who the Repulican nominee is? Your choice, based on reading other posts of yours, is between Hillary and Obama.

 

[Titan6]

For those of you who think that supporting the Patriot Act, or the War on Terror is anti-Freedom, you are sadly misinformed and worse, oblivous to the real threats facing us.

Good to know repealing the Bill of Rights is not a threat to freedom. I was worried about nothing... Since I am so misinformed please tell me what is the real threat again?

Ron Paul is seen as a joke by the Republican party.

I have not seen one single republican laugh yet. In fact every time his name comes up they all look like they just had a bad case of indigestion

BUt once the Republican candidate is chosen, if you truly value your 2A rights you will vote for whoever it is

What if the Democrat is pro 2A and lobbied for concealed carry in his state and signed it into law?

 

[Erebus]

What if the Democrat is pro 2A and lobbied for concealed carry in his state and signed it into law?

And which of the Dem candidates that has a hope in hell of getting the nomination would that be?

Oh right, NONE!!

 

[Monkeyleg]

"And which of the Dem candidates that has a hope in hell of getting the nomination would that be?"

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

 

[cbsbyte]

Why would you care who the Repulican nominee is? Your choice, based on reading other posts of yours, is between Hillary and Obama.

Hardly, my choice will be between not voting or just voting on local issues 2008. I pretty much have given up on the American political system and could careless on who wins since the status quo will always be maintained. Though if Bill Richardson got the Dem nomination I would vote for him.

 

[Monkeyleg]

"Hardly, my choice will be between not voting or just voting on local issues 2008. I pretty much have given up on the American political system and could careless on who wins since the status quo will always be maintained. Though if Bill Richardson got the Dem nomination I would vote for him."

Huh. So you've given up on the American political system, but if that system makes Bill Richardson the Democrat nominee, you'll vote?

Reminds me of the old Woody Allen joke:

"The food here is terrible."

"Yeah, and such small portions, too!"

 

[Titan6]

NEOCONS very touchy about pro 2A Democrats? I understand it is like that teenage boy coming up to pick up your baby girl for a date. But if you have been a bad daddy like Rudy and Romeny you should be nervous. She has to find love somewhere.

The election is about more than guns. In fact if Parker makes it to SCOTUS and gets a ruling it will not be about guns. But it is about freedom. So what is the threat? If it is not Thompson I would like to know what it is?

 

[Erebus]

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

Which part of "has a hope in hell" did you miss?

The latest polls have him between 2 & 6%.

 

[71Commander]

To hear the DUmmies talk, it's NOT to late for ALGORE to announce.

 

[CA357]

Ron Paul is a good man, a man of character and ideals. I don't think he has a chance at winning the nomination.
Fred Thompson, while possibly not the greatest candidate is a genuine conservative. I believe he's also a man of conviction. He is probably our best chance of winning the Presidency. He's got a pretty good voting record.
I don't think Republicans can afford to be divided when faced with Obama or Clinton. We absolutely must prevail or our Country will be further driven into socialism.

 

[Selfdfenz]

vito

BUt once the Republican candidate is chosen, if you truly value your 2A rights you will vote for whoever it is, since Hilary/Obama/Edwards are all virulent anti-gun believers.

And if that Republican candidate is anti-gun believer Rudy G.......sorry dude, you can have my share of that batch of kool_aid.

S-

 

[NickEllis]

It seems clear that there are quite a few Ron Paul fans here who see Thompson as their biggest threat as a conservative, ELECTABLE candidate who finds support within the 2A community. Ignoring the FACT that, unfortunately, Dr. Paul has no chance of getting either the primary or the general vote, there is an unfortunate tendency to slander someone who, honestly, DOES seem to be conservative in his views and voting record. Perfect? Not by a long shot. A better option, in every category, than the other electable Republicans? Better than any of the Democratic candidates, including the broader statist party line in general? I would suggest most definately.

To state that Fred Thompson is a hater of freedom is laughable, and bordering on naive fanaticism. Don't overstate your case, my friend, just to make your own option more palatable (i.e., throwing away your vote in the name of principle).

I will NOT vote for a statist Democrat, unchecked by congress, even if he DID vote for concealed carry. Those who would sacrifice the good in the name of the perfect deserve their own foolish demise.

 

[longhorngunman]

If it's Rudy or Romney vs. Barack Hussein or Hillary then yes, there is no difference, on guns and many other issues. If it's Fred Thompson vs. Obama or Hillary, then yes there is a BIG difference and I'll push my way through a mile of stinky Commie hippies to vote for the man. Haven't seen anything about Fred that I disagree with. BTW, if Ronald Reagan was POTUS after 9/11 and realized what a mess security and intelligence organizations in this country had to deal with to find suspected terrorists HE would have signed the PA into law too.

 

[Titan6]

Ignoring the FACT that, unfortunately, Dr. Paul has no chance of getting either the primary or the general vote,

I have had this discussion may times with other people who do not know the difference between fact and opinion. Go look it up in the dictionary.

there is an unfortunate tendency to slander someone who, honestly, DOES seem to be conservative in his views and voting record.

Since when is pointing out a voting record slander? He voted against freedom. He came back later and wrote letters of support against freedom.

Perfect? Not by a long shot.

Agreed then.

A better option, in every category, than the other electable Republicans? Better than any of the Democratic candidates, including the broader statist party line in general? I would suggest most definately.

Depends upon what you mean by "electable republicans".

To state that Fred Thompson is a hater of freedom is laughable, and bordering on naive fanaticism. Don't overstate your case, my friend, just to make your own option more palatable (i.e., throwing away your vote in the name of principle).

I do not know you and doubt we are friends. In any case I find nothing in the Patriot Act funny. If you find it funny then you would probably find Stalin a real hoot!

I will NOT vote for a statist Democrat, unchecked by congress, even if he DID vote for concealed carry. Those who would sacrifice the good in the name of the perfect deserve their own foolish demise.

At least Richardson fights against the Patriot Act, and continues to do so from his little corner of the world. You have to respect that. Richardson is not my First choice either but if it comes to him and Thompson it will be Richardson by a mile.

 

[Titan6]

if Ronald Reagan was POTUS after 9/11 and realized what a mess security and intelligence organizations in this country had to deal with to find suspected terrorists HE would have signed the PA into law too.

Maybe, he had Alzeheimers real bad by 2001. But if he were still healthy I really doubt it. But if you really think it was about finding terrorists please show me all the ones it has caught. Show me any terrorist it has helped catch......