Is Fred Thompson going to be holding the conservative banner?

I was going to write this AM that I wanted to hear more about a Fred Thompson candidacy, but then I see that SDP beat me to the punch. Apparently we agree on the issue that we need a straight talking conservative.

Rudy? Bleaugh. I'm sure he's a nice man (Just ask one of his previous wives), but he's not for me. McCain hasn't tripped my trigger, either. Any of the other Republicans don't seem like they're coming out of the gate with enough "oomph" to successfully battle a Hillary or Obama.

I had toyed with the idea that Newt could be the standard bearer, but let's face it. He brings a lot of baggage. With a Thompson candidacy, we get conservative positions in a very publicly recognizeable candidate.

This one may bear watching.


Anonymous said…
The problem with Newt is that he is 'way too intellectual and doesn't have cachet with the masses. I personally think Rudy is the only chance (thus far) for the GOP to stay in the White House because he can get crossover votes. But this Thompson thing intriguing. Maybe there is hope yet.
Anonymous said…
Besides the personal problems, Rude Dog Giuliani doesn't have enough hair to get elected president. He's a bald, one-trick pony (shetland variety). But he does look alot like Robert Duvall.

The electorate likes Republican actors, but Fred Thompson is probably too smart. And 2008 should be a Democratic year since everything Bush has touched has turned to $%!t.
Anonymous said…
Newt is too intellectual and has too many personal problems.

Someone has to carry the conservative banner. Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee seem like the best choices to me.
lexrex said…
newt's my likely choice. not sure he has the baggage that everybody thinks. much of it is water under the bridge. (he recently repented of his marital transgressions on dobson's radio show.)

he has transformed his persona nicely since the clinton years. and there's nobody brighter.

huckabee and brownback are good conservatives, fiscally and socially.

thomspon? less so on both counts, not as principled, but still decent.
Anonymous said…
lex, that makes it all ok. Pope Dobson has heard his confession. Are you kidding us or do you really believe the drivel you write?
Anonymous said…
Lexrex – To say that Newt doesn’t have that much baggage is kind of like saying that Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman. While under a very small specific perversion of the words “did”, “not”, “have”, “sexual”, “relations”, “with”, “that”, and “woman” MIGHT hold up in a court of law, everyone knows it is pure utter total bull@#$. I’m guessing you must mean that he was traveling pretty light on an airline and didn’t check anything at the counter.

This is a guy who divorced his first wife when she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. He refused to pay child support or alimony for 12 years, even though he was ordered by multiple judges – in other words he was a deadbeat dad. He is a serial adulterer - both on his first marriage and his second. Smart money says it’s just a matter of time until he cheats on his third wife.

If you think that values voters will for a second give him a free pass, you are quite mistaken. I would rather vote for just about anyone – Rudy, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, or heck Obama, Edwards, or a random block of wood (not Hillary, I would write in the random bock of wood). The man is just flat bad for the party and would guarantee a Democratic victory.
lexrex said…
2:42 are you really that belligerent? it could've been anybody's show, and i would've mentioned it. he just happened to confess it on dobson's show. if he ever apologizes on larry king, i'll let you know.
lexrex said…
go easy 6:25, i'm not saying values voters will give newt a pass. i haven't completely. i would be the first to say that newt acted like a first-rate dirtball for how he treated his wife and family.

but he's on the right road of confession and repentance that will put him back on the good graces of religious folks like me.

that's the difference between him and clinton.

not to mention, he holds the right values. he just had a horrible time practicing them in his personal life. maybe he's back on track. remains to be seen, but i'm hopeful.
Patti said…

To me Clinton and Obama hold the right values. Values that everyone should possess.

Is this the Fred Thompson who foams at the mouth over video games? Why would anyone vote for that deranged man?

Kerry was berated by the conservatives for being too 'intellectual'. Now the conservatives think Newt is too 'intellectual'. What do conservatives have against being smart? Why would you guys want dumbasses for your presidential candidates?
William said…
Having lived for a time in Georgia before moving back to South Dakota, I've known Newt Gingrich for longer than most. I've even met him and I personally think that during debates, he'd definitely be the smartest guy in the room. That said, he could make a great cabinet secretary in another Republican's administration... I'd vote for him but I really don't think I represent the majority vote on this.

Fred Thompson could easily sit back, let the early candidates spend most of their money and chew each other up and then walk into the race with great name recognition and a convincing platform.
Patti said…

Looking at this Fred Thompson guy. I was thinking of a totally different person.

Out of all of the conservatives, I like Rudy. But I fear he will be too pandering to the right-wing social conservatives.
nonnie said…
Patti, what values does Clinton hold? She is brassy, obnoxious, but is trying to improve that image. She is a proven liar but the press doesn't ever get into that. She will do about anything to win and thinks she is owed it. She "moved" to New York so she could run for Senator because she thought she could win there; she was no more a New York resident than I am.

She does promote the liberal line of income redistribution, socialized medicine, higher taxes for more social programs. So I guess she would appeal to the far left libs.
Anonymous said…
Rudy is not a conservative, nor do I think he would pander to them. He is a "moderate" New Yorker.
Anonymous said…
So nonnie, I take it you don't like brassy and obnoxious in a woman? What is it you like - barefoot and pregnant? If you're looking for proven liars you may want to look at the right side of the isle - at the moment they're a bit more spectacular in that area than Mrs. Clinton. I don't quite understand your logic about her moving to New York cause she thought she could win... she did, right? twice. Perhaps she knows what she's doing?

Personally, I think Republicans are screwed this time around. You got nothin'. Giuliani is your best bet and I probably like him more than you do!

I think it's gonna be a sweet year! :)
Fred Thompson? Don't you mean Arthur Branch, the New York County States Attorney on "Law and Order"?

Todd Epp
Senior Mixing Reality and TV Editor
S.D. Watch
PP said…
"Dun Dun!"

or whatever the Law and Order noise is.
Anonymous said…
11:34. I have a problem with anyone who simply buys a house in a state and moves there simply to run for election. States have representatives/senators that are supposed to have resided in that state. She just used the system to advance her agenda, and yes, you are right, it worked, didn't it. Doesn't make it right though.

And yes, she has been caught in lies, but like Teflon, it slides off because the media won't touch her.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long