Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

A Look at Thompson's Staff

The shakeup in former Sen. Fred Thompson's staff continued today as research director-in-waiting J.T. Mastranadi submitted his resignation.

Thompson communications director Linda Rozett confirmed Mastranadi's departure but offered no further comment. Mastranadi's departure comes one day after campaign manager Tom Collamore was moved to a senior adviser role and political director Randy Enwright was elevated to oversee the day to day operations.

Mastranadi was one of a small handful of operatives in Thompson's world with past ties to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) He worked as research director at the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2002 when Frist chaired the campaign arm and went on to serve as deputy research director at the Republican National Committee in 2004. Just prior to joining Thompson, Mastranadi was working at Citizens United, a conservative third-party group.

Mastranadi's departure got us to thinking about just how big a staff Thompson currently has for his non-campaign, campaign. And, voila -- a rival campaign provided it. (God bless opposition research!) By their count, which was produced from various news reports about hirings, Thompson has nearly 30 staffers on board including a pollster (John McLaughlin), a direct mail firm (HSP Direct), a social conservative outreach director (Joseph Cella) and even an e-campaign team (Blaise Hazelwood and Ken Smith).

"We have enough to test the waters," said Rozett simply.

That wording is carefully chosen. Thompson continues to maintain a so-called "testing the water" committee with the Internal Revenue Service, which allows him to raise money, hire some staff and travel to early states in order to decide whether or not he wants to run. (Here's the Federal Election Commission's explainer on the difference between testing the waters and running.)

While Thompson clearly has decided to run, his campaign has effectively avoided crossing any of the lines laid out by the FEC that would constitute a candidacy -- including seeking access on ballots, referring to himself as a candidate or advertising in support of a campaign. The one place where Thompson could run into trouble is the FEC provision of raising "funds in excess of amounts reasonably required for exploratory activity" -- but it's far from clear what constitutes "excess" fundraising.

We'll know a heck of a lot more about the scope of Thompson's campaign come July 31. That's the day his committee is expected to file a report detailing its fundraising and expenditures with the IRS.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 25, 2007; 4:28 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Mitt: A Giving Person
Next: Wag the Blog: The Obama Conundrum

Comments

Here is the opposite of everything Fred Thompson stands for........

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2284724646717174405

Posted by: JT | August 1, 2007 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Once a chicken hawk, always a chicken. Julie Annie, Willard (his real name) Romney, and Flipflop Fred, three chicken hawks, are afraid to show up for the CNN/youtube debate. CLUCK! CLUCK! CLUCK!

Posted by: gao xia en | July 30, 2007 1:06 AM | Report abuse

A Ron Paul supporters site......

http://www.buchanan.org/blog/

Here's a good article from that site, I'm sure Ron Paul agrees with Pat and Fred Thompson doesn't....... make sure to look for Presidential Candidates in there, then, ask your friends and family if they were for or against that Bill, when they say they were against it make sure to let them know that those Presidential Canditates ....... WERE! and are STILL FOR IT! Ron Paul would never "Yea" a Bill like that.

...and Jefferson said.... those guys are bogus.... and if we don't get some cool rules ourself,then pronto... we'll just be bogus too, yea! (Not Jeffersons exact wording)

.................................................

The Amnesty Bill Has Been Defeated. Now it's time to punish anyone who voted for it.


By James Buchanan


The attempt to pass an Amnesty Bill for 20 million illegal aliens was such an incredible act of treason that we need to remember who voted for this abomination and remove each and every one of them from office. From this point onward, the 46 Senators who voted to destroy America as we know it and who attempted to turn it into a Third World cesspool, will be known as "The Amnesty Traitors."

A massive grass roots campaign organized by patriots on the Internet and talk radio hosts inspired millions of Americans to lobby the Senate incessantly for over a month to kill the Amnesty Bill. These Senators knew exactly what their constituents wanted. There is no excuse. Every single one of these Senators deliberately ignored the will of the people and voted to betray America.

It is now our moral obligation to vote every one of these traitors out of office. Every time there is a primary or election from now until the purge is complete, we need to e-mail this list of "Amnesty Traitors" to all our friends and encourage them to forward the list to their friends.

Many of these Senators have grown old and arrogant. They have nothing but disrespect for ordinary Americans and they have committed the ultimate offense of supporting an amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens. They tried to destroy our home, and now we have a moral obligation to end their political careers.

The Amnesty Traitors

The following Senators voted "yes" on an amnesty for 20 million illegals.

1. Akaka (D-HI), Yea
2. Bennett (R-UT), Yea
3. Biden (D-DE), Yea
4. Boxer (D-CA), Yea
5. Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
6. Cardin (D-MD), Yea
7. Carper (D-DE), Yea
8. Casey (D-PA), Yea
9. Clinton (D-NY), Yea
10. Conrad (D-ND), Yea
11. Craig (R-ID), Yea
12. Dodd (D-CT), Yea
13. Durbin (D-IL), Yea
14. Feingold (D-WI), Yea
15. Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
16. Graham (R-SC), Yea
17. Gregg (R-NH), Yea
18. Hagel (R-NE), Yea
19. Inouye (D-HI), Yea
20. Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
21. Kerry (D-MA), Yea
22. Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
23. Kohl (D-WI), Yea
24. Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
25. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
26. Leahy (D-VT), Yea
27. Levin (D-MI), Yea
28. Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
29. Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
30. Lott (R-MS), Yea
31. Lugar (R-IN), Yea
32. Martinez (R-FL), Yea
33. McCain (R-AZ), Yea
34. Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
35. Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
36. Murray (D-WA), Yea
37. Nelson (D-FL), Yea
38. Obama (D-IL), Yea
39. Reed (D-RI), Yea
40. Reid (D-NV), Yea
41. Salazar (D-CO), Yea
42. Schumer (D-NY), Yea
43. Snowe (R-ME), Yea
44. Specter (R-PA), Yea
45. Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
46. Wyden (D-OR), Yea

.............................................

Spread this list around.

Posted by: JT | July 29, 2007 3:09 AM | Report abuse

In response to this:

"Ron Paul is a libertarian, which might appear similar to a moderate democrat. He's off the deep end on his iscolationist foreign policy, and I suspect most of the country wouldn't like him if his social views came to light.

I personally like a lot of his views, but we simply can't afford to have a man in the White House who cites actions taken in the 1950's as reasons to do or not do something abroad. He's living in the past. Wasn't it he that talked about the Manroe Doctrine at one of the Republican Debates?"

---

Someone who understands HISTORY is precisely the kind of leader we need. How could you possibly be so warped as to think otherwise?

The bottom line is this, people... If you want the United States to continue acting like the world police and getting itself into wars for the good of the military industrial complex (another "old reference" that's STILL RELEVANT MORE THAN EVER) then vote for an establishment shill like Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, MCain, Thompson, etc.

But if you really really want something different, something that *GASP* the founders of this country intended vote for Ron Paul. Although, granted, if you're a complete moron like the guy who wrote the quoted text above, the ideas and intentions of the founders are now irrelevant because they were nothing more than 230-year-old "iscolationists"... Besides, haven't you heard? Philosophies and history have expiration dates now, which means we can drop them down the momeory hole after 5 minutes or so...didn't you get the MEMO!?

Take a chance. Better yet, vote him into office, then take a pool on how long the bankers and military contractors and the CIA take to put a hit on him.

It's not really like you would DO anything... Sitting at your computers precludes the drive to riot or revolt or exact any kind of lasting change in this country; hell, very few of us can even be bothered to vote at all.

Posted by: Brad | July 29, 2007 3:07 AM | Report abuse

Ron Paul all the way to victory!

Posted by: Ward Ciac | July 28, 2007 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson is anything but conservative.

He has shown his commitment to available to the highest bidder. He has lobbied against gun owners. And lobbied for abortion groups.

He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and refuses to give a straight answer on his support for that "one world government" organization.

He is a member of the American Enterprise Institute. That's a think tank funded by Exxon, BP, GE and other monster corporations. He calls his participation "intellectual exercises."

And when he is not lobbying on the Hill for special interest groups he spends his time as a lowlife trial lawyer.

His most honorable employment in the last thirty years was a bit part in "DAYS OF THUNDER" with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman.

He was even a sleazebag on "Law and Order."

Does Fred Thompson think Americans are so stupid as to believe that he is not a corporate owned candidate?

Posted by: BillyG | July 28, 2007 10:42 PM | Report abuse

"No! It is not enough, so, that is even more of a reason to get pumped..... set goals, even if it's as simple as making sure to talk to 2-3 people a day about Ron Paul and opening their eyes."-- JT
***********************

JT,

I already am a Republican and former Democrat. I switched because I was tired of the big govt socialism of the Dems.

But there's an idea thanks. I was considering campaigning anyway. Now my brother knows who he is. That means I gotta convert 2 more. I'm good at selling. Heh! I work in advertising.

Thanks of the videos. The one with Rudy in red, with the deep voice and glowing eyes cracked me up!

Posted by: Paula for Paul | July 27, 2007 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Restore the Constitution!!! Ron Paul 2008!!

Posted by: Bill Masur | July 27, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

"Seriously, though is the internet enough? How many aren't on it that vote? And what about the same phenomena that happened with Dean? Seems like there is some validity."

Posted by: Paula for Paul | July 27, 2007 12:25 AM
............................................

No! It is not enough, so, that is even more of a reason to get pumped..... set goals, even if it's as simple as making sure to talk to 2-3 people a day about Ron Paul and opening their eyes. Ron Paul is for "the people" not "Big Business", so we have to help carry the load..... if there's anything that life has taught us, anything is possible, but first you have to believe it.... if you don't believe it can happen, it never will.

Watch this and remember this was recorded "LIVE", so their script didn't work.

http://ihateronpaul.com/

It just goes to show, "the news" does not report to us, it feeds us......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rPQCPwdwHQ

Make sure to Register to Vote Republican for the Primaries.... very important.

Also, lets help set a record, tell all the 18yo's to "Register to Vote", their lives depend on it.

Fred Thompson..... just another puppet.


Posted by: JT | July 27, 2007 3:18 AM | Report abuse

I will be nominating Ron Paul despite all.

Can anyone help me answer the constant refrain I get from Rudy and other supporters as to Paul consistently polling in single digits. That the last election touted Dean as the internet and cell phone winner that,he went on to raise lots money only to be marginalized by the Dem party machine and new voters registered too?

Is the internet really enough?

I talked to my brother who lives in Maine, I'm in Florida, as well as cousins in NH and I got: "Who is he?" My brother's politics are exactly like mine paleo conservative-right libertarian. Seems this may be the answer most to poor conventional polling--lack of name recognition.

Seriously, though is the internet enough? How many aren't on it that vote? And what about the same phenomena that happened with Dean? Seems like there is some validity.

Posted by: Paula for Paul | July 27, 2007 12:25 AM | Report abuse

As a 54 year old grandmother, a life long democrat,I am completely consumed by the evils of the patriot act and the patriot act II and what it will mean to my children and grandchildren. Real Id, biometric chipping,loss of habeous corpus, wire tapping, house searches, government controlled medical records inbedded in the chips, North American Union, The Amero. The only candidate for president that has come out against this complete break down of the United States as we know it and as we will be passing on to our children is Dr. Paul. I have switched my party affiliation and will be voting republican for the first time in my life for Ron Paul. Ann

Posted by: Ann | July 26, 2007 10:54 PM | Report abuse

The word about Congressman Ron Paul is spreading. Every person from all parties are excited about a person that is honest. He does what he says and says what he does. And that gets RESPECT! What is amazing is that you have rapid inflation, a housing bubble, gas looking to stay over $3, only low paying jobs, and everyone in Washington doesn't care except for Ron Paul. Our national debt is almost to $9 TRILLION and no one is screaming that it is insane. Washington justs keeps trying to spend, spend, spend.
Ron Paul will be the Next President.

Posted by: Proud American | July 26, 2007 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul represents a very traditional Thomas Jefferson Republican view of America who believes strongly in freedom, liberty, small government, and a very conservative interpretation of the Constitution.

Ron Paul will help restore a proper balance of power between the Federal and State governments, as the Constitution requires. And if he can just say 'No' to congress' overspending for a few years then he will have done a great service to our country.

Posted by: Bill O. Rights | July 26, 2007 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul will win!

Ron Paul is 1st in YouTube, Meetup, MySpace, Facebook, Technorati, Alexa, Google, etc. The old media is just too slow to realize what is happening.

Ron Paul places 1st or 2nd in every straw poll, debate, and active participation survey.

Ron Paul has the most contributions from U.S. military personnel above all other candidates. So support the troops and vote Ron Paul!

'Scientific Polls' at this stage only measure name recognition. Over the next six months Ron Paul will gain name recognition and people will learn about who Ron Paul is. Most people who learn about Ron Paul become major supporters.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were doing about the same in the 'Scientific Polls' at this stage in their elections. Ron Paul has tremendous momentum and his support is growing exponentially. The other candidates are stagnant. Only Ron Paul's support is growing and will continue to grow!

Ron Paul is the man of integrity and courage that America needs at this time.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

We are making history - Vote Ron Paul!

Visit YouTube and search Ron Paul to learn more...

Posted by: Bill O. Rights | July 26, 2007 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is what the doctor ordered. Labels like libertarian, republican, democrat, and so on amount to about nothing in a fascist corporate state. Ron Paul is about individual freedoms. What red blooded American can refute that message? He has my vote.

Posted by: Warren | July 26, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

To: Fred Thompson and Supporters of Fred

I see a lot ot pathetic Fred Thompson supporters offer silly comets about Dr. Ron Paul.... Let's put an end to the pathetic comments from a few lukewarm supports and let the two men meet and debate the issues.

The end result will be as follows:

Ron Paul #1
Fred Thompson #2

No one in the GOP who is running for the nomination can even match Paul's record on any level.

As a GOP member I have seen our group grow from 4 just after the first debate to over 119 from last night. Over 65% are current GOP members and we have had 15 change parties to support Paul's run for the nomination.

Paul's message is simple.... Freedom... The other members prefer Real, ID Act and a whole host of other issues. Today I noticed a World Net Daily story which showed Fred could be a member of the CFR. The CFR supports the North American Union. But he never did answer the persons question. Why?

We demand to know Fred do you support the North American Union? Are you in fact a member of the CFR?

Debate the issues with Ron Paul and we will see an end of your run.

So Fred.... Take the challenge debate the issues with Ron Paul in a public forum I'm looking foreword to seeing you fade away just as Rudy and Mitt will. We need fair, honest and just leadership and Ron Paul is the only candidate who is running for the office to grace the office with class and respect with the rule of law.

In fact Mr. Thompson I bet many of Ron Paul's supporters could even beat you in a debate. I have noticed in our own Paul group we have constitutional lawyers, doctors, professionals, a few hippies, etc., but we all like Ron Paul.

So call Dr. Paul's office and set up the debate... If you want to keep testing the waters then whey don't you do it with a debate with Ron Paul? Rudy is still licking his wounds from the fox debate. Did you notice he never attacked paul again?

Also, why did you have to go to England to meet with the queen about running for the office? I thought you would address the people...

In closing how many more days are we going to hear you announce a run then retreat with some other future date? Run for the office or just Run! Either way Run and tell the people what you stand for... Tell is if you are willing to sign a document to end the North American Union?

For others who support Fred Thompson I have been a small gathering and asked him a simple question about the IMF's report to devalue the dollar by 20%. He refused to answer the question. Why would he ignore a valid question? Paul would answer the question and guess what Obama will not answer the same question and neither will Hillary so why does Fred Thompson compare to Hillary and Obama?

Posted by: Darel | July 26, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul Primaries.

Posted by: Chris S | July 26, 2007 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Jt,

Are you referring to 1860 or 1960 for the beginning of the Republican Party? 1960 is a ninety degree turn and 1860 is a 180 degree turn. Some might argue the Republican Party is doing 360 degree turns today and just going in circles!!!

Posted by: JT
Fred Thompson is on the Council of Foriegn Relations. Do you want Mexico, the United States of America and Canada to become "one"?
The "Republicans" today are the opposite of what they stood for from the beginning of the party, it used to be Anti-Governmental, now it's Pro-Corporate-Pro-Government. Republicans or Democrats, it's the same story just different pocket$.
Read between the lines with Politicians, it's terrible to have to say in this country, but, don't believe what they say is they're going to do, check their history records, that will give you the real answers.

Watch "Gestapo" tactics in plain sight....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvMWGNX7HlI&NR=1

Posted by: DC | July 26, 2007 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Go Dr. Ron Paul!

The only true conservative in the race. Check him out, he's all over the web and has a track record of 20 years in congress. You can also read back issues of his weekly TEXAS STRAIGHT TALK on his site at http://www.house.gov/paul or go to http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst99/tst022299.htm from 1999 for example. You can go back and read what he wrote in 1996, it's all on the web and he has nothing to hide.

If you are looking for a true statesman, then Dr. Ron Paul is your man. He's from Pennsylvania, educated at Duke Medical School, Air Force flight surgeon and practicing medical doctor in Texas since 1968 or so.

Go Dr. Ron Paul! If you check him out, you will like him.

Posted by: Brian Picard | July 26, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is referring to a shift in foreign policy that really started with events in the 50's. He isn't blaming the current situation on one event in 1953. Anyone who thinks that knows nothing about US history for the last 6 decades.

Ron Paul all the way!

Posted by: Dirk | July 26, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson is on the Council of Foriegn Relations. Do you want Mexico, the United States of America and Canada to become "one"?

The "Republicans" today are the opposite of what they stood for from the beginning of the party, it used to be Anti-Governmental, now it's Pro-Corporate-Pro-Government. Republicans or Democrats, it's the same story just different pocket$.

Read between the lines with Politicians, it's terrible to have to say in this country, but, don't believe what they say is they're going to do, check their history records, that will give you the real answers.

Watch "Gestapo" tactics in plain sight....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvMWGNX7HlI&NR=1

Posted by: JT | July 26, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson is either a liar or a cheat - 3.3 hours in (supposed) face-to-face lobbying of administration officials, NOT giving advice to fellow partners of the law firm. He's toast.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/politics/19thompson.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Records Show Ex-Senator's Work for Family Planning Unit
By JO BECKER
Published: July 19, 2007
clip:
Billing records show that former Senator Fred Thompson spent nearly 20 hours working as a lobbyist on behalf of a group seeking to ease restrictive federal rules on abortion counseling in the 1990s, even though he recently said he did not recall doing any work for the organization.

According to records from Arent Fox, the law firm based in Washington where Mr. Thompson worked part-time from 1991 to 1994, he charged the organization, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, about $5,000 for work he did in 1991 and 1992.
...
The billing records from Arent Fox show that Mr. Thompson, who charged about $250 an hour, spoke 22 times with Judith DeSarno, who was then president of the family planning group. In addition, he lobbied "administration officials" for a total of 3.3 hours, the records show, although they do not specify which officials he met with or what was said.

The billing records, along with meeting minutes from the association, show that Arent Fox was hired to help overturn the ban.

Posted by: Tom J | July 26, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

This Revolution will be YouTubed.

WE THE PEOPLE will be heard in 2008.

Ron Paul 2008!

Posted by: Free dom | July 26, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

All these web searches may mean something, but what? Maybe, "Who is Ron Paul?"

Everything I read comes from the grassy folks out there. Contrary everything I read about Fred comes from the news. Ron's at the bottom Fred's at the top. The ONLY way to beat Hillary is elect Fred. That is what will happen.

Don Jones
MyManFred.com

Posted by: Don Jones | July 26, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Well hopefully the freedom lovers like me who are fleeing the democrats to vote for Ron Paul will count for something. This election is about the restoration of a constitutional republic vs the expansion of an empire and centralized large government. This is not about lib vs conservative. All that has happened is that the authoritarianism of the republicans has rubbed off on the democrats and the socilaism of the democrats have rubbed off on the republicans. This is why there is no real difference between Hillary, Obama, Fred Thompson or Rudy, they both have the worst traits of both parties. Only Ron Paul stands apart as an American first. Fred Thompson will sell out America as fast as he can get his chubby alcoholic hands on it. Peace.

Posted by: joshuabruce | July 26, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Let the "old media" continue to ignore us.
This Revolution will be YouTubed.

WE THE PEOPLE will be heard in 2008.

Ron Paul 2008!

Posted by: jorge | July 26, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

listen to Ron Paul speak the truth - then decide
www.ronpaul2008.com

Posted by: a patriot | July 26, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me, or does Fred's "non-campaign" campaign, not delared so it evades the FEC, seem very Cheney-like? I think we should all be concerned about behavior like this, it provides a small windo into how he might behave in office...Yikes!

Posted by: Paul | July 26, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"It's obvious by the negative comments about Fred Thompson, that Fred might possibly be the one to carry the Republicans to the White House-" Using your logic, the obvious Republican nominee would be RON PAUL, NOT Fred Thompson. I just recorded all the google search results for "______ won't/can't/cannot win" and averaged them out. Here are the results:

Hillary Clinton 1699
Ron Paul 1455
Barack Obama 750
Rudy Giuliani 548
John Edwards 412
Mitt Romney 260
Dennis Kucinich 237
Fred Thompson 147
John McCain 115
Bill Richardson 78
Joe Biden 3
Mike Gravel 3
Tom Tancredo 3
Mike Huckabee 2
Tommy Thompson 1
Sam Brownback 1
Chris Dodd 1

Thompson isn't even close to Giuliani or Paul in negative predictions.

Posted by: Cameron | July 26, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I don't remember whose comment this was, but on a daily basis's the conservatives are comparing the Iraq War to WWII in policy making. That puts the PNAC neocons, Cheney/Bush, and the rest of the GOP presidential candidates about ten years behind Ron Paul in foreign policy thinking.

Somebody wrote:
"...we simply can't afford to have a man in the White House who cites actions taken in the 1950's as reasons to do or not do something abroad. He's living in the past."
jb-indiana
*****************************************
Nice try, but unfortunately you're wrong; most of the negatives are coming from conservatives toward Fred Thompson and that's a bad indicator for Fred. Why do you think he shook his staff up?

Posted by: jb-indiana

"It's obvious by the negative comments about Fred Thompson, that Fred might possibly be the one to carry the Republicans to the White House-Seems the typical "far left" stategey to assassinate his character before he really gets started. They must really be afraid of him."
**********************************
Mike,

It seems anyone to left of the 99.99th percentile on the political scale is liberal to you. It's not a case of almost everyone being too liberal; it's a case of you being so far to the right that you no longer have a legitimate perception of reality

Posted by: DC in TN | July 26, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Go Ron Paul!!!

Posted by: Phillip Rhodes | July 26, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Correction to a post below:

Not only should Ron Paul be running as a republican, he is the only GOP candidate who remains true to what it means to be a republican in the first place. But the populous has been weened on modern day liberalism (which includes globalism) to the point where hyper-liberal GOP candidates like Rudy and Mitt somehow slip under the conservative radar when really they're pro-police state liberals. So just to cover it one more time: Conservatism means limitted government, not KGB style marshall law, the destruction of habaes corpus, imperial hubris and massive debts.

Ron Paul in 2008!

Posted by: NEC | July 26, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

It's obvious by the negative comments about Fred Thompson, that Fred might possibly be the one to carry the Republicans to the White House-Seems the typical "far left" stategey to assassinate his character before he really gets started. They must really be afraid of him.

Posted by: jb-indiana | July 26, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Just did some searches on Google. Seems the more popular you are, the more you "cannot win".

"Hillary Clinton cannot win" 847 results.
"Rudy Giuliani cannot win" 621 results.
"Ron Paul cannot win" 395 results.
"John McCain cannot win" 331 results.
"Barack Obama cannot win" 294 results.
"Mitt Romney cannot win" 8 results.
"Fred Thompson cannot win" 8 results.
"John Edwards cannot win" 6 results.
"Dennis Kucinich cannot win" 5 results.
"Tommy Thompson cannot win" 4 results.
"Tom Tancredo cannot win" 4 results.
"Mike Huckabee cannot win" 3 results.
"Joe Biden cannot win" 2 results.
"Sam Brownback cannot win" 1 result.
"Mike Gravel cannot win" 1 result.
"Bill Richardson cannot win" 0 result.
"Chris Dodd cannot win" 0 result.

Is Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd our next President? They are the two who nobody thinks "cannot win", according to this search. Conversely, Clinton, Obama, McCain, Paul, and Obama obviously have no chance at being President. ;-)

Posted by: Cameron | July 26, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

If Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination, I will vote Democrat.

I am a lifelong Republican, but if it comes down to it, I will vote for a Democrat when I know I will be getting a big government liberal with either choice. In other words, I may as well order what I recieve.

All the other republicans I see so far are neo-cons. Neo-conservatives stems from Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol the TV pundit, who "was", along with his wife, a Trotskyist - a communist. This is all on wikipedia, look it up. President Bush gave Irving Kristol a Presidential Medal of Freedom Award in 2003. Neo-conservatism, like communism in practice, pushes for big government and constant foreign interventionism - spreading democracy.

Our party has been hijacked.

Posted by: I am a republican but will no longer be duped | July 26, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

"...we simply can't afford to have a man in the White House who cites actions taken in the 1950's as reasons to do or not do something abroad. He's living in the past."

I am tired of people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday. Human nature doesn't change just because time has elapsed.

Posted by: Walker Pfost | July 26, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

You're right DC -- I do fear Democrats.

Posted by: Mike | July 26, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

This is such a disappointing comment: "Beating the Democrats is equivalent to beating the terrorists." All Americans want to defeat terrorists and only a very naïve person would make such a comment. The terrorists are fueled by ideology in the Muslim world, you can't take a precision guided missile and take out an idea that is spreading though 1.5 billion people, such action will only create more terrorist and more enemies wanting to kill us. Thus to defeat the terrorists we have to take a different approach. Somebody forgot to tell Bush and you to "know your enemy", now you've been told Mike and it's not your fellow Americans. Whatever you fear controls you and since you fear democrats and terrorist they control you Mike!


As for Ron Paul, his success with the GOP lies with the GOP's ever growing frustration with the Iraq War. Bush went to war on the "cheap" so as not to upset the standard and style of his base. Whatever chance there was of having a competent Iraqi Government was lost at that time. Iraq essentially has no national government. If our involvement in getting the Iraq government on its feet where compared to a Waltz, our Waltzing partner would be a flailing corps. Every time we let go of her she drops to the floor in a useless jumbled heap. Thus we will have to perpetually dance with her. And as we continue to dance pretending she is alive, everyone around us knows she is dead because of her stench and rotting flesh falling to the floor. Yet as the flesh rots off her face, to some admirers, she appears to have a charming grin and these foolish admirers mistake it for life. Mike you are one of her foolish admirers, please sniff the air, the smell is not victory, it's decay.

This comment best describes a true conservative foreign policy: "Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. Ron Paul does not wish to dabble in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations." Bush is not a true conservative in his foreign policy, he is a neo-con PNAC. See the link: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

*****************************************************************
Alan,

Are we reading the same comments here? Don't you mean Ron Paul will sweep into office?


Posted by: Alan
You can just sense the fear of Fred thompson on this board. When he does announce, it will to be a whole new ballgame. You will be surprise by his fundraising numbers also. After Clinton and Obama spend their warchests destroying each other, the conservatives will unite behind Thompson with piles of cash and sweep into office. It will be President Thompson taking the Oath of Office in January 2009.

Posted by: DC in TN | July 26, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to need a lawyer to explain the quality of the legal work that Thompson filed.

Thompson looks like a young Brokaw in that photo. It's amazing that because of his role in "Law and DisOrder" he has become a major candidate. He doesn't have the years of honing his message or thinking about his political views that Reagan had, Bonzo or no Bonzo.

It would be better if Thompson's wife is more less helpful, even though she be a terrific lawyer and politician. The public can't focus on both at once, and she is already drawing attention from the press about how she looks, even if she is not a trophy wife. Plus, Mrs. Kerry didn't help her husband, and Mrs. Guiliani is not doing him any good. Mrs. Edwards is politically savy. But perhaps that's because I like John Edwards.

Posted by: julia | July 26, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to need a lawyer to explain the quality of the legal work that Thompson filed.

Thompson looks like a young Brokaw in that photo. It's amazing that because of his role in "Law and DisOrder" he has become a major candidate. He doesn't have the years of honing his message or thinking about his political views that Reagan had, Bonzo or no Bonzo.

It would be better if Thompson's wife is more less helpful, even though she be a terrific lawyer and politician. The public can't focus on both at once, and she is already drawing attention from the press about how she looks, even if she is not a trophy wife. Plus, Mrs. Kerry didn't help her husband, and Mrs. Guiliani is not doing him any good. Mrs. Edwards is politically savy. But perhaps that's because I like John Edwards.

Posted by: julia | July 26, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Thompson (F and T), Newtie, Rudy McRomney, Tancredo, Brownback, Huckabee, and the unelectable Ron Paul. Seriously, GOPers, do you see anyone in that group that is going to attract non-GOP voters?

And don't mention Rudy G. because you won't be nominating him, so he's totally irrelevant.

Posted by: What a collection of losers | July 26, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"Beating the Democrats is equivalent to beating the terrorists."

And you expect anyone other than your fellow rightwingnuts to take you serious. Best of luck with that.

Posted by: Mike just can't help himself | July 26, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

How exactly is Fred qualified? Oh right, he's from the south. Big deal.

Posted by: Jill | July 26, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I am disgusted with the conservatives (can busy and his cronies even be CALLED conservative)? I'm disgusted by Mcain for trying to woo the theo-conservatives and ultimately destroying any chances he has of winning. I'm disgusted with all the death, spending, cronyism, criminality, etc that this administration has wrought. I just don't know WHO to vote for any longer . . . I am so intrigued by this Ron Paul guy, though. I came across an equally zealous supporter of his recently on a different blog. I will look strongly at this candidate, people like me are sick and tired of all the other jokers.

Posted by: Todd | July 26, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Thompson represents everything that is wrong with the conservative side over the last two decades. He is a big puffed up nothing who is an inability to grasp the complexities that we are dealing with in the nationally and abroad. We will have simple homilies and anecdotes from him like Reagan's "people who live on the streets of America do it because it is a lifestyle choice". The misuse of words like freedom. Excuse me I have to go and puke the thought of him being president is so revolting.

Posted by: anonymous | July 26, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Interesting commentary today on WTOP by Mark Plotkin on Obama giving absolute minimal time to acknowledge the endorsements from DC Democratic leaders.

More interesting were the scathing comments on Obama's staff and their disdain for local media.

Plotkin may not be at the Chris (Cillizza or Matthews) level but he knows how the game is played locally and nationally. If Plotkin is correct and if a candidate's staff mirrors the candidate, then Mr. Charisma is just another political hack. One we should be keeping a close eye on.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 26, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Alan, I notice you give zero reasons why anyone should support Fred Thompson.

Posted by: Charles | July 26, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Let Newt join the race - yet another discredited warmonger to split the "nuke the towel-heads" trailer park vote. I'm tempted to send "Juan" McCain a $50 check just to keep his loser a** in the race to split that vote. The only candidate who has deep-rooted support is the only candidate who has integrity: RON PAUL 2008!

Posted by: Charles | July 26, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse

You can just sense the fear of Fred thompson on this board. When he does announce, it will to be a whole new ballgame. You will be surprise by his fundraising numbers also. After Clinton and Obama spend their warchests destroying each other, the conservatives will unite behind Thompson with piles of cash and sweep into office. It will be President Thompson taking the Oath of Office in January 2009.

Posted by: Alan | July 26, 2007 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Everyone keeps forgetting that Newt may still join the race.

Posted by: Anon | July 26, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

People really need to understand Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy.

Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. Ron Paul does not wish to dabble in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations.

This does not mean that we are to close ourselves out from the rest of the world. Ron Paul support free trade. He does not support the "managed trade" of many of the interational trade organizations. This "managed trade" has served the interests of businesses and foreign interests. It is not truly free.

Check out this page on his political positions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Posted by: litcigar | July 26, 2007 9:32 AM | Report abuse

I dont see what's so impressive about F. Thompson? I mean, as far as I know, he has no executive experience at all. His campaign likes to compare him to Reagan, but Reagan was a governor of California. Thompson has spent some time as a US Senator in Tenn...2 different things. As a senator, if you don't show up for a vote, many times, nothing is really missed. It's a good thing, just look at Thompson's lazy record. AS a gov., if your not around to get things done, they don't get done. I can't recall anything big Thompson did in the senate, can anyone else? It takes more than driving around in a red pick-up truck to be President of the US. I'm certain Thompson will run, but I seriously doubt he wins the nomination...and certainly won't have my vote.

By the way, I wonder which rival campaign gave the information on Thompson's staff? My guess is Romney, the real worker in this race. He can afford the type of staff to do this type research and bash his opponents. McCain has now imploded from the inside, and unless he can make a come-back he could be done for. F. Thompson is imploding here before he even really got into the race. That leaves Guiliani and McCain. It will be interesting to see what organization Bill Perry (TX billionare and Romney supporter) puts together against Guiliani in this primary. It will likely knock Guiliani back a few notches. Romney's plan could work and he could get that support, or we could see a resurgence from McCain as Guiliani begins to fall more. Or, Rudy could weather the storm and still come out with the nomination. It will be interesting to find out.

Posted by: reason | July 26, 2007 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Blarg said: "The most important thing Mike can imagine isn't defeating the terrorists who threaten this country. It isn't winning the war in Iraq. It isn't fixing Social Security, or improving healthcare, or making sure that the world is a better place for future generations. No, to Mike, the most important thing in his lifetime is for the Republicans to stay in power for 4 more years. It's all about making sure that his team beats the other team, and the rest of the world can go to hell. Sad."

Beating the Democrats is equivalent to beating the terrorists.

But I really liked your stupid little talking point.

Posted by: Mike | July 26, 2007 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Ron Paul has a chance only because ignorance has had its day (6 years) in the White House and slowly but surely his logic and reasonable approach to the business of America is getting through to people. Big money and Empire-Builders will try to stop him at any cost, and opportunists like Thompson will clear out of his path if they think a Republican can't win in 2008. Actually, it would be very healthy for the party to have a McGovern-like person, perceived as a hopeless case by his own party, to contest the election. It would put the sold-out Democrats into a real tight spot and maybe create the atmosphere for a truely open and intelligent debate about which direction the nation should head: toward some type of authoritarian dictatorship (Rudy/Hillary) or toward a revitalzed Constitional Republic as envisaged by the Founding Fathers.

At any rate Ron Paul is not a quitter and I expect him to last way beyond New Hampshire and even surprise people when the Super Primaries arrive.

Of course as President of the United States he would have a hell of a fight against a sold-out House and Senate, but it would be great to have a breath of fresh air in the stale atmosphere of politics as usual.

Posted by: D-Man | July 26, 2007 8:10 AM | Report abuse

I wouldn't vote for Thompson if he paid me to. Thompson is a shill. Thompson, Guiliani, Romney, McCain, what is the difference is these boys??? NONE! I am voting for Ron Paul. I have been a republican since I started voting 25 years ago. I have voted republican in every election, even the last two, much to my shame. I remember when republicans talked about smaller government, less taxes, standing by the Constitution. I didn't leave the party, the party left me. I have been following Dr. Paul for years, and praying that he would run. Now he is finally running, and I will vote republican one last time to hopefully save America, or at least forestall her demise. Government has become a boulder sitting on the neck of liberty. It is time to blow that boulder up! Vote for Ron Paul 2008!!!!

Posted by: Little Bit Farm | July 26, 2007 8:00 AM | Report abuse

It's going to be hard to feed the world with our presidential candidates jumping on the bandwagon to promote biofuels. Have you noticed the increase in the price of dairy products lately? That is in direct relation to the use of biofuels in fueling cars, making cattle feed more expensive. Every person on the planet who eats (i.e. all of us) is being forced to subsidize the cost of the fuel used by the car owners (i.e. a smaller percentage of the world).

Ron Paul in 2008.

Posted by: Andie | July 26, 2007 7:56 AM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is the only representative that I've heard of, at any level of government, who actually wants to take office, then reduce the scope of power that office holds. i.e., He wants to reduce the power of the President back within the contraints of Article II.

As a Congressman he votes against legislation he might support on policy grounds because they're not legal from a procedural standpoint. i.e., the legislation (and 95%+ of laws Congress passes) isn't necessary and proper to carry into execution any of the powers "delegated" to Congress. He wants to bring Congress back within the constraints of Article I Section VIII.

Dr. Paul is a true Federalist. The Federalists of the 1790s were Nationalists, the Anti-Federalists were really "Federalists." (supporters of a federal government, not a national govt.).

For these legal/historial/procedural views alone, I support Dr. Paul. Only those matters delegated to the Fed via the federal Constitution should be debated in DC. National Socialist Healthcare plans supported by the Democratic Socialist Party (Clinton, Obama, etc...) are not within the legislative powers of Congress. (Neither is Social Security, Medicaid, etc...). The debate should be about whether Congress should propose a Constitutional Amendment to the states to enable the federal government to establish a (devastating) government health plan.

The problem is that our "greatest" Presidents (Lincoln, FDR, etc...) all took drastic steps to destroy the system of government established following the war of separation from the British Empire. Dr. Paul would like to reduce the power DC has usurped from the states and the people of the states.

Why shouldn't most policies be debated at the state and local levels instead of at the national level? The Constitution gives very little power to Congress, and most has to do with foreign issues. The federal Bill of Rights was even a superfluous restraint to make the point clear that Congress was a legislative body of only enumerated powers. The federal courts hijacked the Bill of Rights in the early 20th century and, coupled with the "New Deal," finally put into place the form of government which was overwhelmingly rejected in Philadelphia and in the state ratification conventions.

For these reasons, Dr. Paul is the only candidate in either party worthy of discussion.

Posted by: John | July 26, 2007 4:25 AM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson - Cheney 2.0

Posted by: Nicekid | July 26, 2007 4:16 AM | Report abuse

Fred who? Never heard of him. Ron Paul 2008

Posted by: Joe | July 26, 2007 3:56 AM | Report abuse

Freedom is Popular. When people hear Ron Paul's message direct and unfiltered, from Congressman Paul himself, they are invariably surprised, impressed, and more often than not, decide to join the Revolution.

Who is Ron Paul? Search Google for the "most honest politician". Then visit ronpaul2008.com. From his campaign site, you can link to youtube to see Dr. Paul in action. His visit to Google's headquarters is worth a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

Posted by: Richard B. | July 26, 2007 3:33 AM | Report abuse

If you've ever listened to Thompson speak, you quickly recognize that he's an empty suit, reciting common slogans, with no depth or context.
The McCain and Bush faithful have handed him a script, promising him fame ... just play the part our way, Freddy.

From what I've read, his staff is "rolling over" because his wife thinks this is just another PR campaign: pure fluff; all sizzle; create a brand.

Of course, Ron Paul is the exact opposite.

How long will he last?
a) he's very frugal, saving for a New Year media blitz;
b) he's novel, interesting, and (his fans would say) exceptional ... so the media will be happy to pitch his "buzz" for free.

I would say that he's in for the full ride, aimed at peaking just before the primaries. He can run through the Super-Duper Tuesday states, then will have to look at real votes and reasonable prospects.

Remember that he's an idealogue, so even if it's a lost cause, he'll still look for an opportunity ... even if that's "only" a prominent GOP Convention speech slot.

But, I think he'll do far better than that.
It depends on a lot of circumstances, but it seems entirely possible that he could win in New Hampshire, taking the "Big MO" into South Carolina and Super Tuesday. If McCain and Guiliani continue to fade, it could be Paul or Romney in the final lap. I think Paul could actually win.

November? ... we'll wait and see. He's doing as well as the generic Rep/Dem vote, so he has nowhere to go but up. None of the other Republican candidates can appeal to independents and Democrats as well as Paul. But, he's also "strange" enough to scare voters ... which is where Hillary will attack if she thinks it necessary.
It may be another Goldwaterish campaign ... or not.


Posted by: Westmiller | July 26, 2007 2:32 AM | Report abuse

Wow! Who is this Ron Paul guy? I seem to hear a lot about him on the posts here. Why don't they have more stories about him?

Posted by: Sam | July 26, 2007 2:12 AM | Report abuse

Let Fred Thompson run and divide up more of the pro-war vote. You could ini-mini-miney-mo any of the pro war candidates and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Ron Paul being the only anti war candidate will win by a landslide. Not only is Ron Paul's message solidly based on an observation of the FACTS, it is the only true conservative message. It is pro American, it follows the founding father's, and it follows the Constitution. Thompson running only hurts the other candidates. It doesn't affect Ron. The stars are lining up for a RP sweep.

Posted by: Henry | July 26, 2007 1:33 AM | Report abuse

Ron Paul can't win because the MEDIA, and not Americans, will pick the next president through manipulation - as seen at www.IHateRonPaul.com. Watch as Fox News, the night of the second debate, tries to politically assassinate Congressman Paul, only to have it BLOW UP in their face. 40,000 people voted; Ron Paul led most of the night, and came in an admirable second place, way above Rudy Giuliani. Fred Thompson knows that when he actually decides to declare, that the power of the uncensored internet will expose his big government, special interest background. If you don't like the idea of the media picking your president, then wake up, do the research, and vote for the BEST MAN to do the job.

Posted by: Rudy | July 26, 2007 1:28 AM | Report abuse

Thompson will not be president. Prognosticators who fail to comprehend the extent to which the current administration has alienated the electorate will be the only ones surprised by the coming democratic landslide. The only chance republicans will hold the whitehouse lies in nominating Ron Paul.

Posted by: Rob | July 26, 2007 1:26 AM | Report abuse

Thompson was a Criminal Defense lawyer (drug dealers, murderers) and a Lobbyist, including tobbaco companies, that right there alone is a... hell no, now, Ron Paul, you may not agree with every single issue but thats not that big of a deal because he is all for FREEDOM.
It's funny all the people out there that say... "I agree with him, but, he can't win"... well, if all those people would vote for him and spread his word to their friends Ron Paul would have a chance, Ron Paul continues to grow. A Candidate for the people by the people. Thompson is just a corporate puppet!

Posted by: JT | July 26, 2007 1:18 AM | Report abuse

"...we simply can't afford to have a man in the White House who cites actions taken in the 1950's as reasons to do or not do something abroad. He's living in the past."

People don't get annoyed by foreign powers messing with their government anymore? Since when?

Posted by: zoom | July 26, 2007 1:17 AM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson is a BIG GOVERNMENT big spending republican, like McRudeRomney.

Fred McRudeRomney type make big spending liberals look like fiscal conservatives.

We need to have several series of involuntary layoffs in Washington.

Ron Paul is my hatchett man.

RON PAUL to reduce the size of the Washington Lobbying machine.

Posted by: WASHINGTON'S CRUISERS | July 26, 2007 1:17 AM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson is a BIG GOVERNMENT big spending republican, like McRudeRomney.

Fred McRudeRomney type make big spending liberals look like fiscal conservatives.

We need to have several series of involuntary layoffs in Washington.

Ron Paul is my hatchett man.

RON PAUL to reduce the size of the Washington Lobbying machine.

Posted by: WASHINGTON'S CRUISERS | July 26, 2007 1:17 AM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson is a BIG GOVERNMENT big spending republican, like McRudeRomney.

Fred McRudeRomney type make big spending liberals look like fiscal conservatives.

We need to have several series of involuntary layoffs in Washington.

Ron Paul is my hatchett man.

RON PAUL to reduce the size of the Washington Lobbying machine.

Posted by: WASHINTON'S CRUISERS | July 26, 2007 1:16 AM | Report abuse

I seem to notice a phenomana with coments refering to Ron Paul. Why is it that in every mainstream media article that I read about Ron Paul the writer seems to include a phrase like "Ron Paul cannot win," and yet I don't see that phrase fallowing anyone else. there were 3 GOP debates so far. One was on MSNBC one was on CNN, and one was on FOX news. Ron Paul came in first place for both the MSNBC and CNN debates while placing second for the FOX news debate. If Guiliani, or Mccain managed to do that, every Mainstream media article would label them as the shoe-in for the republican nomination, however if Ron Paul does it, the mainstream media continues to say "he doesn't have a chance" For the sake of argument what happens if Ron Paul wins the straw poll at Aims than what. I know if Ron Paul lwere to lose Aims the Mainstream media would use that to discredit Ron Paul, so if he wins Aims will the Ron Paul cannot win attitude subside?

Posted by: Earl | July 26, 2007 1:12 AM | Report abuse

The media is doing Ron Paul no justice. The fire is being fueled because of this... he is converting people into loyalists day by day and people are watching this injustice. Instead of giving the man an equal opportunity, all you hear about is Hillary, Obama, Rudy, Romney, McCain and now Thomson. Despite this craze, many people still have never heard about him. This is going to change real soon. People are sick and tired of the false hopes and promises.

Posted by: Joe | July 26, 2007 12:37 AM | Report abuse

hey Blarg -- keep giving Mike more rope to hang himself. When the independent vote breaks 70-30 for the Dem candidate next year, he'll be left with his thumb up his butt saying, "Wha happen?"

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 25, 2007 11:33 PM | Report abuse

"Beating the Democrats in '08 is, in a lot of minds, the most important thing we can do in our lifetime."

What an incredibly narrow and short-sighted view of the world.

The most important thing Mike can imagine isn't defeating the terrorists who threaten this country. It isn't winning the war in Iraq. It isn't fixing Social Security, or improving healthcare, or making sure that the world is a better place for future generations. No, to Mike, the most important thing in his lifetime is for the Republicans to stay in power for 4 more years. It's all about making sure that his team beats the other team, and the rest of the world can go to hell. Sad.

Posted by: Blarg | July 25, 2007 11:24 PM | Report abuse

"Which might appear similar [to a conservative], [from the point of view of] a moderate Democrat" I wish I was a better writer like Mark or JD or (God help me) bsimon.

Posted by: Mike | July 25, 2007 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is a libertarian, which might appear similar to a moderate democrat. He's off the deep end on his iscolationist foreign policy, and I suspect most of the country wouldn't like him if his social views came to light.

I personally like a lot of his views, but we simply can't afford to have a man in the White House who cites actions taken in the 1950's as reasons to do or not do something abroad. He's living in the past. Wasn't it he that talked about the Manroe Doctrine at one of the Republican Debates?

I honestly can't explain why there seems to be some wind in his sail (online, anyway).

And it is probably true (someone posted this somewhere on the Fix recently) that he's the least corrupt politician.

I admire that.

I don't think there is a difference between the conservatives that want to prevent a liberal takeover of this country and the conservatives who vote on principle. Beating the Democrats in '08 is, in a lot of minds, the most important thing we can do in our lifetime.

I think the liberal anger has peaked. I think the Rosies and the Kos Kowards and the Rufus' of the world have done all they can, all they're going to do.

But there's a real fire burning in Conservative hearts, and it was ignited by Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty, and the anger is growing in a huge way.

That said, I wouldn't be so quick to divide the conservatives - not when the prospect - the necessity - of beating a liberal democrat (which all of the top 3 are) is going to be so uniting.

I do agree that Fred probably isn't what he's cracked up to be, and you're spot on with at least the first 2 of your reasons for his delay. I don't agree with the last 2, because this guy is running, regardless of the country's take on Iraq.

Posted by: Mike | July 25, 2007 10:45 PM | Report abuse

I'm a moderate Democrat, but I drop in on a daily basis on one of the conservative right wing blogs (the hard core base) to see which way the wind is blowing. A few months ago it was all Fred Thompson, but there is now a small, but definite shift toward Ron Paul and a significant number turning negative on Fred Thompson. They admire the candidates who have stepped forward to enter and are tiring of Fred's flip-flopping and are getting a feeling that they're being played by him. The GOP seems to be falling into two camps; one that's wants to win to stop the "liberals" and one more based on true conservative principles.

Fred's waiting till September for the following reasons:

1. Avoiding scrutiny until the last moment so he can get ahead of the pack in the nomination process.
2. Saving campaign funds and still getting free PR from the press (as with this column). This recently seems to be back firing.
3. Waiting to get a better grasp on the national trend to see if the country is leaning to far toward the Democrats for a Republican to win the presidency. If it's strongly to the Dems then Thompson will not run, but will wait till 2012.
4. Waiting to see how the Iraq War will be playing out. If it's strongly anti Iraq War then Thompson will not run, but will wait till 2012.

Living in Tennessee, you can get a "feel" for a candidate from this state. Al Gore did not do well in his own state. There are rumors in Tennessee about Fred Thompson. Look for more negative news, there's a big one that the national press has not pursued at this point, but will likely be exploited by his opponents when he enters. If the Thompson Campaign is a camel with a load of straws, if he gets to many more straws on his back it's going to break.

Ron Paul follows more of the TRADITIONAL conservative policies than any other candidate in the GOP field. You are confusing PNAC neo-cons with true conservatives, there is a difference. I won't vote for Thompson or Paul, but Ron Paul has consistence positive progress in the polls and blogs and Fred Thompson has peaked, if not dropped back slightly. Basically Fred is flat-line or less right now, that is why there was a staff shake up.

To answer your question; Ron Paul will stay in as long as he has funds, as a true conservative he will not go into debt. If he runs out of funds he will drop out. At the moment he has a positive cash flow. Surprisingly he's getting over 50% of all the donations from the troops. What's your take on that?

Posted by: Mike

"DC -- Ron Paul not only has no chance, but he shouldn't be running as a Republican.
How long do you think he (and others) will stay in before dropping out?"

Posted by: DC | July 25, 2007 9:29 PM | Report abuse

I would like to see all the candidates address the United States' commitment to the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025. Indeed, it is estimated that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. In a time when the current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach and it is my hope that whoever becomes president in 2008 addresses this pressing issue.

Posted by: Jessica | July 25, 2007 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul will be in until the end. He has plenty of money and his burn rate is zero. Ron Paul might end up being the Howard Dean of the GOP. The younger repubs love him and he is raising money on the net at record numbers. I don't think he will win but he is on the right side on the war and his isolationist attitude sells well with your run of the mill GOP voter in places like NH which is where he should focus his attention.

Now if he somehow pulls out the nomination the democrats will wipe the floor with him because of some of his more extreme views on education, trade, and public aid.

Posted by: Andy R | July 25, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

DC -- Ron Paul not only has no chance, but he shouldn't be running as a Republican.

How long do you think he (and others) will stay in before dropping out?

Posted by: Mike | July 25, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse


To win the primary and then the general election Thompson must have strong support from the conservative base. To a small extent he appears to be a softening of some conservative support and this might explain the staff shakeup.

Although Thompson still has strong support in the conservative blogs, it starting to wane. More and more negative comments are being posted by conservatives over his being a lobbyist for abortionists and now his son receiving substantial campaign contributions for apparently performing no task or duty for the compensation. The big winner in the conservative blogs seems to be Ron Paul: a noticeable shift is taking place from Fred Thompson to Ron Paul.

Posted by: DC | July 25, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

time = dime

Posted by: Mike | July 25, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

I don't think this guy is anyone's savior. But if I were him, I would stall as long as possible - imagine not having to spend a time to poll like he does, meanwhile Rudy and Mitt are spending money like crazy to outflank one another...

Posted by: Mike | July 25, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

And that's the GOP savior, huh?

Posted by: Greg in LA | July 25, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Andy R -- I'd like to see this number in some kind of context.

How large is a staff anyway? Anyone out there know?

Posted by: Mike | July 25, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

How many staffers does Guiliani, Romney, or McCain have? I don't know if 30 is a lot or not. My initial thought would be 30 isn't nearly enough to run a serious bid, but I don't know what to compare it to.

Posted by: Andy R | July 25, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Thompson has probably fired his people for making too many demands on his copious leisure time.

Posted by: robert chapman | July 25, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

High turnover for Fred. That can't be good. He's already looking like the newest McCain in the race...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: mpp | July 25, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Is his wife on the payroll? It seems that she has a lot of influence, very early.

Posted by: Toby | July 25, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company