April 5, 2007

The Welcoming Void

The New York Sun reports that recent polling has encouraged Fred Thompson to seriously consider a run for the Republican Presidential nomination. Jim Geraghty, the blogger behind NRO's HillarySpot, says that Thompson fills a void left by the unexpected loss of George Allen in last year's midterm elections:

When George Allen fell to Jim Webb in the Virginia Senate race, it opened up a slot in the upcoming Republican presidential primary: the role of the reliable longtime lawmaker who has no serious disagreements with the conservatives who make up the party's base.

That slot is moving closer to being filled by a former senator of Tennessee, Fred Thompson. The potential candidate is about "50–50" on running "because the polls have caught his eye," a source close to Mr. Thompson told National Review. The AP suggested this week that a bid by the former "Law and Order" actor would be hindered by "a shrinking pool of campaign professionals" not yet affiliated with GOP candidates.

But a longtime Thompson associate said the former lawmaker has received many calls from veteran Republican campaign staffers expressing interest in working with him if he decides to run. At least one high-level staffer of another Republican presidential candidate has expressed concern about running against Mr. Thompson, citing a long personal connection to him. And last week, Alex Castellanos, a press strategist for a former Massachusetts governor and Republican White House hopeful, Mitt Romney, was seen with Mr. Thompson at a restaurant in Alexandria, Va.

With Rudy Giuliani defending federal funding of abortions, that opening may have widened considerably in the last 24 hours.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Welcoming Void:

» The Welcoming Void from Bill's Bites
The Welcoming Void Ed Morrissey The New York Sun reports that recent polling has encouraged Fred Thompson to seriously consider a run for the Republican Presidential nomination. Jim Geraghty, the blogger behind NRO's HillarySpot, says that Thompson fil... [Read More]

» Bill's Nibbles // Open Post -- 2007.04.05 from Old War Dogs
Please feel free to use this post for comments and trackbacks not related to other posts on the site. If you leave a trackback your post must include a link to this one and, as always, comments claiming the sun [Read More]

Comments (8)

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 3:14 PM

I am not as conservative as Fred Thompson, but I like and respect him. If he got the nomination I would vote for him.

I don't like abortion, never have. And I think that getting in between a teenage girl and her parents when it comes to something like abortion is crazy. The government should never leave parents in the dark on something like that. So when it comes to parental notification or an issue like that I definitely side with the more conservative view. However, I do not think that all abortion should be illegal. I just don't think that will ever work.

And.... if some poor woman who has access to medicaid or some other federal health care needs an abortion for some medical reason and can not afford one herself, I would assume the government would pay for it...under certain circumstances.

Sometimes people try to oversimplify these things and it seems to me that the reporter was just trying to ask Rudy a question to which there is no good simple single answer.

Posted by quickjustice [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 4:18 PM

My first choice is Rudy Giuliani, but he definitely tripped over his tongue on the federal funding of abortion issue. His staff now are claiming that he misspoke. I hope that's true.

In NYC, of course, abortions are publicly funded. That's a function of the liberals who control the government in this city and state, rather than of Giuliani himself.

I think Fred Thompson is terrific. I'd love to see him join the field, even though he let all of those Asian witnesses who laundered money to benefit the Clinton campaign escape through his slow reaction time!

Of course, he wasn't the only Republican who let the Clintons slip through his fingers. Let's hope he's faster on his feet this time.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 4:18 PM

I see the GOP is determined to have another national race similar to that when they put Gerald Ford and Robert Dole on the ticket.

Se la vive. Se la guerre. O' la.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 4:52 PM

The race isn't tightening now.

And, I read the news a bit differently than most folks, do.

I see, here, that the conservatives can't field a candidate, the way they could back when Gerald Ford made it to the nomination. Bypassing Reagan. Who was much MORE electable.

Jimmy Carter? Came in from left field. Wasn't much of a president. And, you can tell the way in which he got dismissed in 1980.

In 1980 democrats went and voted for Reagan. Joining the swelling ranks that put Reagan into the White House.

At other times, Americans also kept focussed on getting the man they wanted ELECTED!

Even when FDR ran for an unprecidented 4th term. (And, he was as sick as a dog at the time. Without the medical miracles we have today, that can cope with congestive heart failure). Instead? The people had a choice. The guy who lost? John Dewey.

And, the Chase Manhattan Bankers picked John Dewey, again, in 1948. Bypassing General MacArthur; who might have won the race.

But the GOP insiders practice "selecting" candidates the way some people "practice" suicide. There's NO explenations for it, either!

In 1952, the very desperate Rockefellers approached Eisenhower. Who had also been approached by the donks!

Eisenhower thought he'd have a better chance to "lead" as a GOP candidate. Which is why he picked the ticket.

Angered Barry Goldwater; who was furious at the Chase Manhattan Bankers. And, it started a very slow turnover on the primary selection process.

Where once it was up to the East Coast Bankers? That changed. When Reagan ran in 1980, he had discovered his way into AMerica's hearts by adapting his LESS GOVERNMMENT, LESS TAXES message, to fit the conservative's values. (But Reagan really wasn't a "one issue" man at all.)

As a matter of fact, as governor of California, he signed laws legalizing abortion, a full two years before Roe came down the pike.

Schewartzenegger, too, is now a GOP player. Why? Because California is a goldmine of electoral college votes!

And, what's probably changed is that today's conservatives have given up on the less government message. And, seem to be a special interest group, instead. Hoping to void Roe.

Since Roe has been the law since 1972, you might want to look for inroads; but that hasn't happened.

And, as split as Congress is these days, Bush doesn't have clout in 'that department."

For some reason, a dean at Yale, named KOH, is a name that sent Glenn Reynolds to link to Bainbridge. Who calls KOH a liberal disaster.

Bush? Probably would put Koh into place, just to get a nomination through congress. But there ya go. Bush lets down people who count on him.

And, he marginalizes the conservatives.

Not so Guiliani. Or anyone else that see's electability as a criterion. Not one issue, special interest politics. Something the donks have a lock on, anyway.

Plus, what exactly do the donks have, now? You need a magnifying glass to see their majority. Because 50/50 means the split is very close.

By the way, it's worth considering that abortions, when they are legal, strip the police of powers to destroy women and doctors who seek this out.

And, one of the things the GOP may be unaware of; is that most Americans hate any assaults on medical procedures they take for granted. (Not just abortions, either! But the fact that most Americans don't want to touch Canadian health care. Or what passes for limiting choices.)

Again, that's just in the numbers.

While special interest politics no longer has the oomph it once did.

Doesn't mean Howie Dean didn't find 40-million dollars thrown his way by poor people.

What should attract Fred Thompson's eye? An ability to keep passing GO, and collecting $200, for every spin he can make around the board.

Meanwhile, enough has changed, coming up, that the old way of applying pressure. In small states. And, in primaries where you could buy every single vote in Iowa; has been dumped.

In this environment? Bush wouldn't have reached Square One.

Meanwhile? He's at the end of his run.

Watching him leave office will be like watching the last act in vaudeville. When people stopped supporting that form of entertainment.

You may not like the candidate that ultimately gets picked. But the BIG STATES have arrived. And, their influence should become apparent. Since the donks are fielding the pig who thinks she can fly.

If Americans don't pick well in 2008? Oh, well. There's always four years later.

But we're talking about 2008 a bit early, no? How did Bush accomplish this? He took Bush Derangement Syndrome, which only affected a very small group of people. And, the big secret? Guess who doesn't like him now?

You'd think the loss of enthusiam would wake some people up to the idea that Bush had an agenda like a real estate lady, trying to bust up your neighborhood.

Well, if you can see Tony baloney Blair as a blow hard, why is it difficult to see what's wrong with Bush, as well?

There's enough lackluster talent to go around.

Posted by Karen [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 5:42 PM

Carol, you ramble, and I never seem to understand the ultimate point you try to make in your posts. What are you saying?????!!!!!

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 6:28 PM

I don't think too much of a man who has to watch the polls like a bookie watching the odds before he'll commit. Does he expect to be given the nomination - or even the presidency - by acclaim?

Posted by Gahrie [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 9:05 PM


Wait! Come back....don't venture into the wilderness...who knows what lurks that way...

I have come to the reluctant conclusion that it is best if you don't try to understand her posts....

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 9:11 PM

Can someone explain to me how a best friend of John McCain who votes for McCain Feingold is labeled a Conservative?

McCain Feingold is a CONSERVATIVE thing???

Here, I have been under the impression that CONSERVATIVE implied Conservator of the Constitution of hte United States of America?