The GOP Presidential Debates

Did anybody watch the debate? What are your thoughts? Here are some of mine for the moment.

Tom Tancredo was disappointing. He stumbled often on his words, seeming not to be very articulate. What he stated was spot on and should have been stated with more force and with direct eye contact rather than ending statements looking down as if he wasn't sure of himself. It would have been a good thing had he just finished his comments and apologized for the time rather than asking for permission to continue and getting denied the time. I believe that he should bow out this time around and do some practising before the camera for the following presidential election.

McCain did a great job in his presentation and his voice sounded a lot like Reagan. He looked too dramatic, too hand gesturish to me, though. I think he came across as the winner last night in assertiveness and decisiveness.

Mitt Romney spoke out strongly against Bin Ladin, but it just didn't have the punch that McCain spoke with in stating following him to the gates of hell. He did present well, looking like a dignified face and posture of a president. He seemed to be the most diplomatic.

Speaking of Islamic terrorists, it was especially interesting and surprising to see that most of the hopefuls eagerly used any extra time to speak of jihadists and Iran and took strong stands without being politically corrrect in that regard.

Giuliani couldn't redeem himself with the questioning about abortion. He did sound strong yet there were no questions on gun control to shed light on his record on that issue. He was asked to explain the difference between the sunnis and the shiias and he was impressive there. It would have been really funny if they asked somebody who couldn't answer that one. Um, but a democrat, I'd hope everyone in my party is up on all of that.

Fred Thompson was not present and I've heard that he is not even a candidate at this point. I would have liked to have seen him here. It is a bit of a negative that he wasn't available for the debate. Tommy Thompson may as well not have been there, he didn't speak much. He might have interjected some comments if he wasn't given the floor.

Duncan Hunter did a decent job and spoke of a strong national defense. Huckabee was okay, and did a fine job on taking a pro-life stance. Neither Ron Paul nor Brownback really support the war in Iraq, which makes me wonder if they understand what's at stake for America, Israel, and our planet as we now know it. Paul claims to be a strong supporter of the "intent" in our US constitution, but the things that he spoke of, I don't see ever happening, like getting rid of the IRS. Of the underdogs, I really like Jim Gilmore who speaks of being a true conservative as far as presenting a face for America goes.

Here's more on the candidates:

http://www.venturacountystar.com//el...l/republicans/

So who's game? What do you guys think of how that debate went last night?

I didn't watch it.

Didn't watch the dhimmicrats either.

Probably won't bother with those things til there is a real set of people vying for position in a few months.

Ok, well, I watched some highlights over on HotAir.

I'm not too happy with pretty much any of them, but... If Fred Runs... I'll be working for him

Think about this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...s_souther.html

I think Thompson is by far the least likely of the 4 major GOP candidates to be elected if nominated, assuming he decides to run. This is due to one principal factor; his Southern roots. This is also one of several reasons why Newt Gingrich is almost certainly unelectable were he to be nominated.


This may not be fair, but it is the reality of the 2008 race. The Democrats have had success in their multiyear campaign to identify the GOP as largely a Southern regional party, and a bigoted one at that. You may not like it, but pretending that the problem doesn't exist is foolish.


The GOP swept all the southern states in both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections. Al Gore could not even capture his own state of Tennessee in 2000. Adding in the mountain states and some Midwestern and plains states (Ohio the most important both times), the GOP was able to cobble together a narrow Electoral College majority.


But the 2006 elections demonstrated real weakness for the GOP in the Midwest- particularly in Ohio, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and even reliably Republican Indiana. There was bad news in the West, too: in Montana, Colorado, and Arizona. There was a near total collapse for the Party in the Northeast: Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire most prominently. Only in the South did the Republicans pretty much hold their own - losing seats in Texas and Florida due to specific scandals (Delay and Foley), a Senate seat in Virginia due to a terrible mistake-prone campaign by George Allen, and just a few isolated House races elsewhere.


The GOP's primary problems in the 2008 cycle will be Iraq, and the memory of George Bush. The more closely a candidate is associated with Bush and the Iraq war, the more trouble he will have getting elected next November.



But compounding those factors is that anyone who sounds like Bush - meaning a Southerner - will also be a damaged candidate. Fred Thompson sounds like George Bush to too many non-Southerners. Elites, and many secular Americans not from the South still have a distinct if inaccurate and superficial view of most Southerners - Bible belt Christians, homophobes, narrow minded racial bigots, a bit dim witted. These stereotypes, always bigoted and unfair, should have disappeared decades ago, as the South was flooded with people from outside the region. (This mass movement of people has also occurred in the West, Southwest and Mountain states).



The South has become more like America, as the country has become more homogenized in general. But defining people by their voting patterns, the South is still different.


Those who hate George Bush blame the South and Southerners for his two victories. Why does the Washington press corps hate Bush? There are plenty of reasons, but two of them are that they believe Bush is not like them (not as cynical, a God fearing man, a rancher), and also because every August he takes them to Waco and Crawford, Texas for a month for his vacation. Bill Clinton took the press with him to Martha's Vineyard.



Ronald Reagan took them to Santa Barbara. George Herbert Walker Bush led the press to Kennebunkport, Maine in August. The press views spending a month in August in Crawford like being trapped in one of Dante's Circles of Hell.


Despite impressive personal credentials, high intelligence, and a record of success and leadership in many areas, Mitt Romney's campaign has not yet taken off. Compare his campaign so far to Barack Obama's. A candidate two years removed from the Illinois State Senate, who has never run anything except for a small legislative staff, is soaring in the polls, while offering little but a collection of vague pieties about how he will bring us all together to solve all our big problems.


If Thompson enters the race, Romney may be finished. Thompson will be the fresher face on the right, and he is media friendly from his TV shows and movies. The press loves stars. And Thompson is not Mormon. The country may be ready for an African American or a woman President, but a Mormon? Bigotry still prevails among some of the supposedly most tolerant.


By the end of this year, I think either McCain or Giuliani will emerge as the centrist alternative to Thompson or Romney, and Giuliani is the more likely of the two. In a head-to-head race, a conservative such as Thompson, or Romney, for that matter, could beat Giuliani for the nomination. But Rudy is a far better candidate than Thompson for the general election.


The GOP needs to move beyond the South to win in 2008. A candidate who can run well in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and suburban America, is better than one who will pad the victory margin by 5% in Texas . It is how many states you win, not how much you win them by that counts.

Richard Baehr is the chief political correspondent of American Thinker.

the Fred Thompson Report

May 04, 2007

Excerpt: Prepared Remarks for Speech to Lincoln Club Annual Dinner


Delivered in Orange County, California, Friday, May 4, 2007

So we meet again, and I'm honored, because I know we're here for the same reasons: Love of our country and concern for our future.

A lot of Americans have these concerns tonight. They are concerned about the way things are going in our country right now. Some fear we may be in the first stages of decline. We've heard this malaise talk before.

Of course Iraq is a large part of it. Not only is it tough going, but the effort is besieged on all sides. From those playing the most crass kind of politics with it at home to criticism from around the world.

Even at home, as we enjoy the benefits from one of the best economies we've ever had, people seem uncertain; they raise concerns about global competition or a growing economic disparity among our citizens.

These are challenges. But how we react to them is more important than the challenges themselves. Some want us, to the extent possible, to withdraw from the world that presents us with so many problems, in the hope they will go away. Some would push us towards protectionist trade policies. Others see a solution in raising taxes and redistributing the income among our citizens.

Wrong on all counts. These are defensive, defeatist policies that have consistently been proven wrong. They are not what America is all about.

Let's talk about the issues here at home, first. A lot of folks in Washington suffer from a big misconception about our economy. They confuse the well-being of our government with the wealth of our nation. Adam Smith pointed out the same problem in his day, when many governments mixed up how much money the king had with how well-off the country was.

Taxes are necessary. But they don't make the country any better off. At best they simply move money from the private sector to the government. But taxes are also a burden on production, because they discourage people from working, saving, investing, and taking risks. Some economists have calculated that today each additional dollar collected by the government, by raising income-tax rates, makes the private sector as much as two dollars worse off.

To me this means one simple thing: tax rates should be as low as possible. This isn't anything ideological, and it really isn't some great insight. It's common sense arithmetic.

That's why the economy booms when taxes are cut. When the Kennedy tax cuts were passed in the 1960s, the economy boomed. When Reagan cut taxes in 1981, we went from economic malaise to a new morning in America. And when George Bush cut taxes in 2001, he took a declining economy he inherited to an economic expansion -- despite 9-11, the NASDAQ bubble and corporate scandals.

The Democrats, of course, want to raise taxes. They only want to target the rich, they say. A word of advice to anyone in the middle class -- don't stand anywhere near that target. Wouldn't it be great if, instead of worrying so much about how to divide the pie, we could work together on how to make the pie bigger?

On globalization -- we're not afraid of it. It works to our benefit. We innovate more and invest in that innovation better than anywhere else in the world. Same thing goes for services, which are increasingly driving our economy. Free trade and market economies have done more for freedom and prosperity than a central planner could ever dream and we're the world's best example of that. So, why do we want to take investment dollars out of growth, and invest it in government?

I'd say cash flow to the government is already going quite well. Over the past year our current tax structure generated record levels of revenue for Washington. In fact it's time to seriously consider what we're getting for our "investment" in government.

For many years, several functions of the federal government have been descending into a sorry state of mismanagement and lack of accountability. I published a 68-page report on government's waste, duplication and inability to carry out some of its basic responsibilities. That was back in 2001 before 9-11, and it got little attention. Now the government's shortcomings are affecting our national security and are getting a lot of attention.

The growth of government is not solving these problems; it's causing a lot of them. Every level of new bureaucracy that is created develops a level of bureaucracy beneath it, which creates another one. Pretty soon there is no accountability in the system. A new head of a department or agency comes in from out of town and, after a protracted confirmation fight, wants to spend his or her few years in Washington making great policy and solving national problems, not fighting with their own bureaucrats. So they just let well enough alone. Then you start seeing the results. Departments that can't pass an audit, computer systems that don't work, intelligence breakdowns, people in over their heads.

Yet people in both parties continue to try to federalize and regulate at the national level more and more aspects of American society -- things that have traditionally been handled at the state and local level.

We must remember that we have states to serve as policy laboratories for innovation and competition. That's how we got welfare reform. Our system also allows for the diversity of our large country. Our attitude should be, let the federal government do what it is supposed to be doing -- competently. Then maybe we will give it something else to do.

The government could start by securing our nation's borders. A sovereign nation that can't do that is not a sovereign nation. This is secondarily an immigration issue. It's primarily a national security issue. We were told twenty years ago if we produced a comprehensive solution, we'd solve the illegal immigration problem.

Twelve million illegals later, we're being told that same thing again. I don't believe most Americans are as concerned about the 12 million that are here as they are about the next 12 million and the next 12 million after that. I think they're thinking: "Prove you can secure the border and then people of good will can sit down and work out the rest of it, while protecting those folks who play by the rules."

Speaking of reforms and our economy, there is nothing more urgent than the fate that is awaiting our Social Security and Medicare programs. The good news is that we are living longer. However, we don't have enough young working people to finance these programs from their taxes.

People say the programs are going bankrupt. They won't go bankrupt. Even as these programs sap every dime of the government's revenue, the folks in Washington will raise the taxes necessary to cover the problem. At this rate the federal government is going to wind up as nothing more than a transfer agent -- transferring wealth from one generation to another. It will devastate our economy.

Sometimes I think that I'm the last guy around who still thinks term limits is a good idea. The professionalization of politics saps people's courage. Their desire to keep their job and not upset anybody overrides all else -- even if it hurts the country.

So the entitlement problem gets kicked a little further down the road. This action is based on the premise that our generation is too greedy to help the next generation. I believe just the opposite is true. If grandmom and granddad think that a little sacrifice will help their grandchildren when they get married, try to buy a home or have children, they will respond to a credible call to make that sacrifice -- if they don't think that the sacrifice is going down some government black hole.

I am going to quote my friend, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. I don't think he'll mind, even though it was a private conversation. He said, "People talk a lot about moral issues, but the greatest moral issue facing our generation is the fact that we are bankrupting the next generation. People talk about wanting to make a difference. Here we could make a difference for generations to come."

It's clear with close numbers in the House and the Senate we need bipartisanship to have any chance at real reform in any of these areas. And there are many responsible people who are willing to try to make it happen. But the level of bipartisanship needed for real progress can only be achieved when politicians perceive that the American people are demanding it. That's why leaders of reform and hopefully our next President, will have a mandate to go directly to the American people with truth and clarity.

These days in Washington, there's an awful lot of talk about the need for conversation -- that we should talk more to our nation's enemies; that we should speak "truth to power." However the speakers are usually turned in the wrong direction. Instead of talking to each other, leaders need to be speaking more to the American people.

The message would be simple: "My friends we have entered a new era. We are going to be tested in many ways, possibly under attack and for a long time. It's time to take stock and be honest with ourselves. We're going to have to do a lot of things better. Here's what we need to do and here's why. I know that, now that you're being called upon, you will do whatever is necessary for the sake of our country and for future generations. You always have."

When the American people respond to that, as I know they will, you will have your bipartisanship.

http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=402282&SPID=15663

Run Fred Run!!!!
Jag

Fred Thompson weighs in. Here's the man:

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=239

I agree. Run, Fred, run!

There was another debate last night. What a treat! Instead of looking like contestants on a game show, the hopefuls came out with explanations on their views and their records. The questions posed on Fox were much better than the first round's were, enabling those of us who watched to get a good idea of how the men would present to the public as our president and how each defines the role. The opportunity for exchanges within the debate helped expose personality and land a few good, voiced, sarcastic slaps. This was definately worth viewing. Viewers were encouraged to text in a vote. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney came in first with a tie the last I saw, with Rudy Giuliani coming in second. For whatever that is worth, I don't know, yet it is significant that Ron Paul who blamed 9/11 on America should come in first.

Does anybody else want to share anything about this 2nd GOP presidential candidate debate? Here are a few details:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070516/...blicans_debate

GOP hopefuls debate abortion, tax cuts


By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 25 minutes ago

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Under pressure from their rivals, the leading Republican presidential contenders defended their conservative credentials on abortion, gun control and tax cuts in a feisty debate Tuesday night.




"Republicans should be uniting" to defeat the Democrats, implored former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, rather than stressing their differences with one another.


Giuliani, pressed repeatedly on his support for abortion rights, wasn't the only contender to field pointed questions.



Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney conceded he had signed legislation banning assault weapons but said, "Let's get the record straight." He said he is a supporter of the rights of gun owners under the Second Amendment.
Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona said he would make sure that

News Photos | Images | Web

President Bush's tax cuts are made permanent, even though he said he had voted against them because they were not accompanied by spending cuts.



"If we don't make them permanent then every business farm and family will have to adjust their budgets to what is in effect a tax increase," he said.


All three men sought to stand their ground — and protect their standing in the presidential race — in a 90-minute debate at the University of South Carolina.


The 10 men on the debate stage differed only by degree when it came to the familiar Republican themes of tax cuts, reduced spending and a smaller federal bureaucracy.


Giuliani called for "Reagan-like budget cuts across the board" of between 5 percent and 20 percent, and Tommy Thompson said he had cast many vetoes while governor of Wisconsin to hold down spending.


In a change from the campaign's first debate, on May 3, some of the contenders who lag in the polls jabbed at the front-runners.


Asked whether he believes McCain, Romney and Giuliani were soft on immigration, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado said, "I do."


That wasn't all, he added quickly, saying his rivals had undergone recent conversions on abortion and other issues.


"I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damascus and not on the road to Des Moines," he said, contrasting the biblical with the political.


Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore bore in, as well. "Some of the people on this stage were very liberal in characterizing themselves as conservatives, particularly on the issues of abortion and taxes and health care," he said.


He singled out Giuliani for his position on abortion and said another rival, Mike Huckabee, had raised taxes while serving as governor of Arkansas.
Huckabee responded that the state raised taxes in response to a court order and said he had cut taxes repeatedly.


On defense for much of the evening, Giuliani switched gears nearly an hour into the debate, challenging Rep. Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record)'s suggestion that the U.S. bombing of

News Photos | Images | Web

Iraq had contributed to the terrorist attacks of 2001.


As mayor of New York at the time of the attacks, Giuliani said sternly, "I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations."


His rebuke to Paul drew some of the loudest applause of the night from the partisan audience.


McCain and Romney also sniped at one another.


Romney criticized the Arizona senator for working across party lines on two bills that conservatives oppose, measures on immigration and campaign spending.


In a slap at the former Massachusetts governor, McCain said: "I haven't changed my position in even-numbered years or ... because of the different offices that I may be running for."


Romney, in turn, poked at McCain's call for closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying: "Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo." However, Romney said, he would imprison even more suspected terrorists there. "I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil," he said.


There were few moments when the Republicans sought to turn the campaign spotlight on the Democrats, who are embarked on a drive to win back the White House after Bush's two terms.


"We've had a Congress that's spent money like

News Photos | Images | Web

John Edwards at a beauty shop," Huckabee said, mocking the Democratic presidential hopeful's penchant for $400 haircuts.


He did not mention that until January, Congress has been under the control of Republicans for a dozen years.


Giuliani combined his plea to unite against the Democrats with an attack on New York Sen.

News Photos | Images | Web

Hillary Rodham Clinton as an apostle of big government.


"Those are the things that we should be debating and Republicans should be uniting to make certain what the liberal media is talking about, our inevitable defeat, doesn't happen," he said.


Not everyone was convinced.


Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, noted his experience on military matters and challenged those on stage with him to lay out their credentials to be commander in chief.

Aplomb,
If it's okay with you, I'd like to change the title of the thread to "The GOP Presidential Debates" so we can use this thread to discuss them all.

But, about the debate, I was able to watch the debate from last night. Here are my thoughts on it and the candidates:

The debate: I thought it was MUCH more professionally done than that farce MSNBC put on with relevant and actual "hardball" questions asked of the candidates. It did seem like at one point about half way through that the top candidates were the only ones getting the questions. I didn't like that so much.

McCain: I thought McCain got nailed down pretty well on his fairly liberal record and how he has tried to realign himself. Also, I know he was tortured in Vietnam but, the way he stands like he's about ready to leap over the podium is just personally disconcerting. Not as much as his liberal record though.

Giuliani: Danced around the questions all night. I got a great laugh when Chris Wallace said after one answer something like, "That's a nice response. Now I'll give you 30 seconds to actually answer the question." Talk about a virtual kick in the nuts! LOL! The only thing that had me cheering for him was his response to Paul.

Romney: I used to think that if Romney was the one to get the nomination, I could vote for him. I wouldn't like it, but I could. Not any more!! With his statement that he "supports the 2nd Amendment but thinks there needs to be an assault weapons ban", I will most assuredly NOT vote for him under any circumstance. And, I think a lot of others feel the same way given how the AWB sunk the Dems in '94 and Bill Clinton admitted as much.

Gilmore: Came across as fairly irrelevant. I think that in all seriousness he should simply drop out.

Brownback: Seemed like a used car salesman to me. Just didn't seem sincere or really even that high profile. Certainly not presidential material in my opinion.

Paul: :freak2: Need I say more?

T. Thompson: Definitely not presidential material. Seemed like a corpse laid out for wake. I think he needs to stick to the cabinet of a president or perhaps the House.

Huckabee: I liked what I heard from him. The bit about wanting to implement the Fair Tax was nice to hear on such a large forum. The problem is that he just lacked the "gravitas" a president needs, in my opinion. As such, I think he'd make a good vice president for someone. I did get a laugh out of the John Edwards comment. :D

Tancredo: I've always liked him. I think he did a pretty decent job of articulating his actual conservative stances. Like Huckabee though, I think he'd also make a good vice presidential candidate since I don't think he'll be able to break out of that "second tier" as the press has dubbed it.

Hunter: Of course, I'm a little biased here. ;) But seriously, I think he was direct and to the point on his questions. I also liked how he would finish up his responses and still get his point across before his time was up. I also liked how when he talked about his Vietnam experience he admitted (unlike John Kerry) that though he served there he did nothing special or remarkable, or tried to play it up unnecessarily. No "I'm Duncan Hunter and I'm reporting for duty" moment. LOL! I thought it was good how he brought up his son's current service with the Marine Corps and experiences over in the Sandbox. I think that gives him a certain edge over the other candidates with regards to Iraq and also Afghanistan. With each passing debate, he climbs further and further above the rest of the "second tier". Watching the Hannity and Colmes show after the debate a prominent Dem strategist said that he felt Hunter did extremely well. Now, if the press would give him the same airtime as they give Rudi McRomney I think we'd see the REAL next Ronald Reagan in office!

I would have changed the title earlier, but I had to get to work on time. I agree that all of the GOP debates would be nicely kept together in the same thread.

I agree with most of what you said, too, Ryan. I have an opinion on what McCain is saying about not using torture and that he had to endure it and that world opinion matters over the use of torture to get info that somebody in pain would tell you what they think you want to know. Well, what he is talking about that happened to him IS torture. That is different from enhanced interroogation techniques. Mitt Romney and Guiliani understand this and answered the question the way I want my president to respond. I don't want to cast my vote for McCain after all that took place last night. Last night really helped Hunter, Huckabee, and Tancredo out of the 10 present. And I'll tell you this, Ryan, I absolutely want somebody in the role of our President who stands up like Rudy Giuliani did last night to the misleading words of Paul. That is one positive, consistent thing about Rudy.

Here's Fred Thompson in a one-minute response to Michael Moore. I like this guy.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_poli...s_to_mich.html

I agree with Rush Limbaugh. Ron Paul has a snowballs chance of getting the Republican nomination.

I also would state that his position on the war in Iraq is that of a buffoon. His position concurs with that of Usama bin Laden and is completely divorced from reality as it has existed from 1991 to the present.

http://www.aolelectionsblog.com/2007...ounce-in-july/

Fred Thompson to Announce in July?

Posted May 23rd 2007 6:58AM by NixGuy
Filed under: President 2008, Republicans, Fred Thompson
So says the Tennessee Politics Blog, claiming to have a source "close to the Draft Thompson Organization" (HT to Paindealer). Actually, there are two bits of news in the piece. One is that the announcement will be after the June 30 FEC filing deadline. The other is about Tom Callomore being touted as the "campaign manager-in-waiting" by Chris Cillizza. I think it's important to note that all of these sources could be dead wrong and have no more insight into the state of Fred's mind than my dog. And my dog is good at judging people.

Anyway, I do think the essentials are right that Ted is in. Consider that since March Fred Thompson has been on a tear with columns and speaking appearances directly aimed at the Republican base. He will not be doing "Law and Order" next season. And most importantly, and unlike Al Gore, he is not telling anyone that he is NOT running.

The timing part, around end of June and beginning of July, makes sense. I've speculated before that at some point Thompson will need to raise some cash, and that should probably be no later than August or September. However, the FEC quarterly reporting period starts in July. If he starts then for a full period he can probably favorably compare his results to Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.
The other piece of the puzzle is to put together an experienced campaign team. That's happening as well, as referenced by Cillizza:

Tom Collamore, a former vice president of public affairs at Altria, has been leading the behind-the scenes organization efforts for a Thompson presidential candidacy and will be intimately involved when (not if) the former senator decides to announce a bid.
Collamore joined the Reagan administration in 1981 as special assistant to Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige. He was named staff secretary to Vice President George H.W. Bush in 1985 and was part of Bush's transition team when he won the White House in 1988. Collamore was then named assistant secretary of Commerce in 1989. In 1992, Collamore joined Philip Morris Cos., which became Altria in 2003.

Taken altogether, the Thompson campaign seems to be on track and on schedule. An announcement in a month and a few days? We'll see.

It looks like Fred IS going to run for president; and since there is now a thread entitled "Fred Thompson", I won't be posting additional info here about the man which is apart from the debates. Just an FYI. We've got our man, and with him, we've got our sites set on a win. :)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss

Fred Thompson moves to enter presidential race

The former senator, a conservative favorite, prepares to file early papers for a White House bid sure to roil the GOP field.
By Janet Hook, Times Staff Writer
May 31, 2007

WASHINGTON — Fred D. Thompson, the actor and former Tennessee senator, is about to take a big step toward a formal presidential campaign, a move that will shake up the already unsettled Republican field and throw a wild card into the competition for the GOP's conservative core.

Thompson this week asked supporters to begin collecting campaign donations June 4, after he files papers with the Federal Election Commission to establish a political committee to "test the waters" for a White House bid.



The move is the clearest signal to date that Thompson, best known for playing a gruff district attorney on NBC television's "Law & Order," is shelving his reluctance to join the race. Friends and conservatives have urged him to run to fill a perceived void on the right flank of the Republican candidate field.

After weighing a bid for months, Thompson announced in a Tuesday conference call with about 75 potential donors that he was about to establish his formal fundraising committee, Friends of Fred Thompson. Donors listening in on the call, dubbed the "first day founders," were encouraged to raise about $50,000 each.

Thompson has been keeping a high profile in conservative circles and preparing behind the scenes to start a campaign. He has gathered a cadre of senior advisors that includes Ken Rietz, a former political director of the Republican National Committee, and Michael Toner, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.

On Saturday, Thompson will speak at the Commonwealth Gala, a key event held by the Virginia Republican Party. He addressed a conservative group in Orange County this month, but some commentators panned his speech as lackluster.

Thompson drew attention this month when he got crosswise with a prominent nemesis of conservatives, Michael Moore, over the liberal filmmaker's recent trip to Cuba. After Moore scolded Thompson for his love of Cuban cigars and challenged him to a debate on healthcare, Thompson replied in a video where he brandished a cigar and suggested that Moore check into a mental hospital.

The pressure for Thompson to run for president has been fueled, in part, by conservative Republicans who see the existing field of candidates as unreliable on key issues.

Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani faces criticism for supporting abortion rights, gun control and gay rights. Sen. John McCain of Arizona is viewed with suspicion because he strayed from conservative orthodoxy on campaign finance reform, tax cuts and global warming. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is now a solid opponent of abortion and gay rights, but has had to explain why he has changed position on those and other key issues over the years.

"We have a lot of good candidates out there, but you see the polls are all over the board right now, and the base is looking for somebody," said former Sen. Mack Mattingly of Georgia, a Thompson booster. "Fred fits the conservative mold that can appeal to the Republican base, conservative Democrats and independents around the country."

Which of the established candidates would lose most from a Thompson candidacy is unclear. Thompson may complicate Romney's effort to get a firm grip on the party's conservative base. However, some polls suggest that Giuliani would have the most to lose.

A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed Giuliani leading the field with 32% without Thompson in the race; he had 28% if the actor ran.

McCain had 22% in the poll without Thompson, and 21% with him as a candidate. Romney took 12% without Thompson in the field, and 11% with Thompson running.

Thompson also may cut into the political space available to second-tier candidates, or to a potential candidate like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has said he may enter the race this fall if no other candidate is offering a vibrant agenda of conservative ideas.

Trained as a lawyer, Thompson came to national attention in the 1970s when he served as chief Republican counsel to the Senate committee that investigated the Watergate scandal. His acting career began in 1985, when he was asked to play himself in a film about a corruption case he helped expose.

Thompson was elected to represent Tennessee in the Senate in 1994. He racked up a solidly conservative voting record on issues such as abortion and gun rights, but made some departures from party orthodoxy by supporting campaign finance reform and opposing limits on lawsuits. He decided not to run for reelection in 2002, and was cast on "Law & Order" before he left the Senate.

One McCain donor who is now inclined to support Thompson said that the former senator could cast a shadow over the entire field — at least initially — because of his fame and stage presence.

"In the beginning it will have a significant impact," said the Republican, who asked not to be named because of his mixed loyalties. "It will take a certain amount of oxygen away from the others."

But it remains to be seen if Thompson's celebrity can be transformed into a durable campaign. He begins at a significant fundraising disadvantage, and his campaign message has yet to crystallize.

"At this point, his popularity is more a tribute to the three guys out front than it is to him," said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, who is affiliated with no presidential candidate.

"If he wants to convert his opportunity into a real candidacy, he's going to have to be able to articulate some sort of vision that can get people excited," Keene said.

*

---

janet.hook@latimes.com

Gilmore Drops Out Of The Race

Quote:

---

Former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III is dropping his underdog bid for the Republican presidential nomination today, he told The Politico in an interview.

Gilmore said he has been approached about running for Virginia governor a second time, and about running for U.S. Senate if Sen. John W. Warner (R) retires. Gilmore said he will consider both options. Reflecting his long-held interest in Old Dominion politics, he said he will start a political action committee to support Republicans running for the state senate and House of Delegate.

In the interview, Gilmore said the punishing financial requirements of the early-starting race caused him to decide it was "impractical" to continue. "Because of the front-loading of the primaries, I would have basically had to stop campaigning and spend full time organizing hundreds of people to raise money for me," he said.

Gilmore's campaign issued a statement in which he said: "I have come to believe that it takes more than a positive vision for our nation's future to successfully compete for the presidency. I believe that it takes years of preparation to put in place both the political and financial infrastructure to contest what amounts to a one-day national primary in February."

Gilmore said he made the decision in the past 48 hours on the basis of "an assessment of where I could do the most good for the country and the state of Virginia." He said he has not made a decision about endorsing one of his rivals, but said he would not rule it out.

Gilmore had offered himself as the "consistent conservative" and heir to Ronald Reagan in a field that has left many Republican activists dissatisfied. He is the first GOP candidate to leave the race. He said he will continue to speak out on issues like homeland security and terrorism, subjects that he emphasized in debates.

Other candidates commanded much more cash and attention, keeping Gilmore a distant also-ran. Financial reports this weekend showed he had little hope of cracking the top tier. Gilmore raised $170,000 in the first three months of the year and said he collected $211,000 in the quarter ending June 30, while the leading candidates in the race banked millions.

In Gilmore's successful race for a four-year term for Virginia governor in 1997, he showed the popular appeal of fiscal conservativism with his "no car tax" pledge to reduce the commonwealth's personal property tax.

While in office, he served briefly as chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Gilmore is a lawyer who has made counterterrorism and homeland security his specialties since leaving office. An Army veteran and son of a Safeway meat cutter, he rose as an outsider in the clubby world of Richmond law, becoming Henrico County commonwealth's attorney and state attorney general. He was the first chairman of a congressionally appointed commission on terrorism that became known as the Gilmore Commission.

---

Brownback Plans To Withdraw From The Race

Quote:

---

Republican Sen. Sam Brownback, the Kansas conservative who struggled to raise money and gain recognition in the 2008 presidential campaign, will drop out on tomorrow, people close to him said today.

Money was a main reason for his decision, said one person close to Brownback who requested anonymity because the candidate had not yet announced his plans. Brownback is expected announce his withdrawal in Topeka, Kan.

It's widely anticipated Brownback will run for Kansas governor in 2010, when his term — his second — expires. He had promised in his first Senate campaign to serve no more than two terms.

"He also mentioned he is really looking forward to spending more time in Kansas," the person said.

As recently as last week, Brownback indicated he would keep campaigning through Iowa's first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses in January, saying he would exit the race if he finished worse than fourth there.

But his fundraising has sagged. Reports released Monday showed that of the eight Republican candidates, Brownback was seventh in fundraising from July through September and had a mere $94,000 cash on hand, less than any of his rivals. Brownback raised nearly $4 million overall and was eligible for $2 million in federal matching funds.

He spent a good chunk of his money on the Iowa straw poll, an early test of strength whose significance diminished after Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani decided not to compete. He finished third in the August contest behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Besides money, Brownback was hurt because he supports a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, an issue that angers conservatives who influence voting in Iowa and other states that are struggling to provide education, medical care and other services to an influx of immigrants in recent years.

People close to Brownback said it was unlikely he would endorse another candidate on Friday.

It's uncertain how much weight a Brownback endorsement would carry. While the anti-abortion senator is a favorite of religious conservatives, he failed to become their consensus candidate and ranks low in national polls and state surveys.

Still, a nod from Brownback could bolster the conservative credentials of a candidate such as McCain or Huckabee, the rivals who appear most likely to receive his support.

Brownback and McCain are close Senate comrades and have refrained from criticizing one another, instead assailing Romney.

While McCain has a voting record similar to Brownback's on cultural issues, McCain prompts skepticism on the right flank of the party because he isn't a high-profile crusader against abortion rights and gay marriage. Brownback's backing could signal to Christian conservatives that they can trust McCain.

Campaigning in Spartanburg, S.C., on Thursday, McCain said of Brownback, "I'll miss him in this debate. He's a voice for family. He's a voice for the pro-life movement and community in America."

Huckabee, a Southern Baptist preacher, is another favorite of religious conservatives. But like Brownback, he has struggled to rally that voting bloc around his candidacy. He, too, could benefit from Brownback's backing.

Huckabee, campaigning in Rindge, N.H., declined to comment on Brownback's withdrawal because he hadn't heard it officially.

It's harder to imagine any other Republican in the field getting a Brownback nod, although former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson is a possibility. The Kansas senator has bitterly criticized Romney, and Giuliani is disliked by many religious conservatives because of his abortion rights and gay rights positions.

---