Thompson Will Win the Republican Nod in 2008

In spite of all the attention Ron Paul has been getting online, Thompson is leading the polls.  He is even ahead of political unexploded shell Giulliani (The Liberty Papers):

Here’s the summary. Fred Thompson, who hasn’t even declared his candidacy, leads Rudy Giuliani 28% to 27%. Romney and McCain are tied at 10%. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback get 2% each.

The top 3 candidates all have a multitude of issues that make them too much of a risk for the Republicans in 2008.  Fred Thompson has the best chance of emerging at the top of the pack come primary season.  The essence of his risk to the Democratic candidate boils down to his celebrity and the Reagan halo Republicans are certain to graft onto his spine.  Ironically, this operation was last attempted on George W Bush, the man Thompson inherits most of his political mantle from.  He has an unpopular position on the war, civil liberties, and in fact shares nearly every weakness Bush would bring to the table without the arguable benefit of the incumbency.

The fact is that Bush deserved the Reagan legacy.  His failures are a result of, not a departure from, conservative Republican politics.  Thompson would bring that same legacy to the 2008 elections.  What may seem like a canny framing to Republican strategists will prove a heavy burden to bear against a Democratic candidate in line with voters on the most pressing issues of the day.

Even some Republican candidates can see this(Raw Story):

On Tuesday, Ron Paul, a 10-term congressman from Texas and a Republican Presidential candidate, expressed serious doubts about the chances of a GOP victory in the 2008 Presidential race if the nominee is a ‘pro-war’ hawk.

“I don’t see how any Republican candidate can possibly win next year as being proponents of war and with the intention of spreading war into Iran,” he told MSNBC News. “And it looks like it’s going to happen if we don’t have a new foreign policy.

It looks like the Republicans have set themselves up to lose in 2008.


13 Responses

  1. Go Ron Paul! Go Ron Paul! God Bless Ron Paul! Ron Paul for President 2008!

    Ron Paul in CNN debate on June 5, 2007!

    “In the time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act” GEORGE ORWELL

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.

  2. 1. Chris Lawton,
    “A nation can survive its fools”. How apt.

    Can you offer anything other than quotes and a link to Ron Paul speaking?

  3. I can offer that you may be right, but Ron Paul supporters everywhere are trying like hell to prove you wrong.

  4. Ron Paul is an internet sensation riding on a wave of libertarian thinking. But libertarianism is not a good plan – America would look like it did when we had robber barons.

    Every time a celebrity comes out of the gates like this with great numbers, I get really disappointed in Americans. At least the Ron Paul supporters, with whom I disagree, have taken the time to get to know their candidate a little bit!

  5. Do not be fooled by one Fred Thompson. He is not your Christian friend he pretends to be. Nor is he a true Republican. He is just another dirty old man trying to impress his – much younger – trashy looking trophy wife.

    Sam Brownback will be the one to get the nod. He is the only one with the moral backbone and dedication to promoting Family Values. True Republicans see this. When the votes are cast Sam Brownback will be the last man standing to take the leadership baton from another godly man, George W. Bush.

  6. Huh? Robber barons are enabled by … GOVERNMENT.

    FT has no shot – he’s the media darling now, but once things heat up, it’s all over for him and his “let’s bomb iran next guys lol” crowd. People are tired of war, and people are tired of failure. And people are not impressed by the Democrats dragging things out for their own political gain. RP is the only non-party-line guy in the race, and good on ‘im – he’s got my vote, and he deserves yours.

    The parties have ruined this country. We must fix it.

  7. 8. Gerrit,
    Libertarianism to its extreme would allow for such corporate abuse. But Ron Paul is not a pure libertarian. He is just an internet sensation at the moment.

    I agree with you on your second point. I think the more people see of Fred Thompson, the less they will like.

    9. Mrs TD. G-C,
    Fred Thompson is indeed a true Republican, from the tired campaign tricks (renting a pickup truck to seem more “apple-pie American”) to the conservative positions on reproductive rights, the economy, and the war.

    Brownback is consistently far back in the polls, and lacks the buzz of Ron Paul or the exposure of the front runners. I don’t really see how he could come out in front. Additionally, his positions on faith and science seem to put him at odds with too many Americans for him to be a mainstream conservative.

    10. bret
    Robber Barons are indeed enabled by our government. Look at Haliburten and Cheney. But we need to collectively restrict what is permissible for corporations, and that means government regulation. Good government prevents robber barons. Bad government may help some flourish, but no government would open the floodgates.

    FT, he may be able to stick things out once things heat up. Giuliani is a joke (and still top tier strangely), and unless McCain somehow becomes serious and relevant again, or Romney finds where his credibility is hiding, I don’t see who can present a challenge.

    Democrats aren’t dragging things out for political gain. Some are principled and want out now, others are weak kneed and want to let the Republicans drive. As for the candidates, a number of them (like Edwards and Obama) present a solid anti-war choice.

    RP may not be party-line, but a number of his policies and positions are just way out there. Opposing the civil rights legislation will not help him in 2008.

    The parties have done a lot of damage to this country, and to fix it we need to see beyond the hype of any candidate, and realize first and foremost they are all flawed.

    At the moment, the flawed Republican most likely to grab the nomination appears to be Fred Thomas. It is unclear who the flawed Democrat will be (hopefully not Hillary).

  8. How does Obama present a solid anti-war choice? He wants to increase the size of the military (at least so he said in the last debate, he wants a 100k increase AT LEAST). What for, may I ask? As for Edwards, he is in favor of mandatory military service for everyone, as sort of a racial justice issue. The problem is, that panders to a racial vote without acknowledging the flawed economic policies that continually oppress racial minorities and poor people all across the board, soon to be hitting the “middle-class” pretty hard as well.

    Certainly, I will grant you, RP is not perfect. But I also firmly believe that he would actually do what none of the others have the guts to do – say no to the corporatist/elitist warmongers. All of the others are bought by those warmongers, there’s only one credible alternative.

    It just really galls me that someone would say that a particular vote against some civil rights legislation (on a principled basis) is grounds for tossing him all the way out. To do so consigns yourself and your country to 4 more years (at least) of business as usual. I hope all of us agree that business as usual is Bad.

  9. He’s against the Iraq war. As far as being against ALL war, that is another matter (and one I should keep a closer eye on him for, thanks!). That is a very good question you ask. What the hell would they be for?

    Edwards, is more after the “if its everyone, we will be less likely to send our kids to war”. I think this underestimates just how bloodthirsty some politicians are.

    His saying no to the warmongers is highly appreciated. I just don’t see him gaining enough traction to take on the other candidates in the primary.

    Business as usual is partially bad. If it were completely bad, more people would join us (more actively) in tossing it out. That being said, it is bullshit. There are plenty of issues that are so fundamentally against one’s ethics, that to support the candidate does not seem realistic. Civil Rights is one such issue.

  10. […] 1st, 2007 Bret mentioned Obama’s support for an increased military budget, and I thought I’d take a […]

  11. I think we just diverge here. I see Civil Rights as proceeding from within, and not granted by government.

  12. I am a graduate financial economics student at present, and I can say unabashedly that libertarian policies offer the utmost protection against robber barons. By freeing up business constraints and allowing for more competition in the marketplace it causes businesses to keep profit levels at a competitive level. Robber barons were a byproduct of statist intervention in the freemarket.

    To summarize how wrong you are in a paragraph would be impossible but I urge you to read up on Cournot, Bertrand, Nash, Smith, Friedman, Hayek, and all the other great economists who’s published works show the negative impacts of collusion, corporate subsidy and welfare on the economy.

  13. Bret,
    Human rights I’d say are innate. Civil rights are, by definition, granted by a civil authority. But even if they proceed from within, what guarantees their protection?

    Bill O,
    I think state collusion with corporations and corporate welfare are largely detrimental to the economy, and certainly to society. Where we disagree is in the theory that removing restrictions yields the best behavior. Why not apply this reasoning to criminal law?

    In an ideal society (or one so small that every act has a direct and perceivable impact) one can argue that freeing up constraints will not lead directly to abuse. Beyond that you’d have a hard time making a case for it.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: