Thompson Snags Santorum Frontman

Pennlive.com ^ | June 29, 2007 | Brett Lieberman

[OCCASparky]

I believe Santorum could help the GOP carry Pennsylvania in 2008.

I don't know that Santorum would be the best choice. You want someone at least somewhat removed geographically if not ideologically to balance out the ticket.

That being said, don't be surprised if Thompson, should he win the nomination, choose someone from out west, one with experience in the governor's office (NO, not Arnold).

Several names come to mind right now--former Colo. governor Bill Owens is one, current Nevada governor Jim Gibbons another. Just a thought.

[Shortstop7]

Who are you pulling for?

I don’t see that this is a big deal. I trust Fred.

[NobleEagle2004]

What I Want to Know!
Is Where The Hell! Is Thompson! Its July 4th,I’m Still Waiting!

[streetpreacher]

I support Fred. But let’s be careful with the “trust” thing. That’s all we’ve heard for the last seven years.

[streetpreacher]

I don’t see it as evidence of anything. The guy worked for Santorum. How do we know he’s not the most qualified for the job and his homosexuality has nothing to do with his appointment?

[Rome2000]

I don't think there is anybody in the field other than Fred that is a conservative who can win.

Everyone else is either a mental case or a liberal or is not electable.

Thompson can be the next Reagan, just puzzled by his hiring a homosexual to be his press spokesman.

If the guy has an adviser role and is not the voice of the White House in a Thompson Administration that would be the best for all concerned.

[Shortstop7]

Yeah, I think it’ll be just fine. Go Fred!

[Sola Veritas]

“He’s been working with the GOP since the early 90s. If it was OK then, why the big deal now?”

Because it looks bad. Even if this man is not an activist, it looks bad. For Senator Thompson to look correct to the base (moral conservatives) he needs to avoid anything that makes him look two faced. Rudy’s homophilic attitudes make him unacceptable (along with being a baby killer and gun grabber). Senator Thompson must avoid ANY appearance that he approves of the homosexual lifestyle. His appeal to and excitment generated in the base will go down the tube quickly if he isn’t a little more circumspect in whom serves on his staff. Just as in the military, once exposed as a homosexual, you are no longer suitable for service. The same is true of a presidential candidate’s staff - if the candidate wants to appear to be a full fledged conservative. Otherwise, his will just be another “also-ran.”

It just is a plain stupid move. There are plenty of other personnel out there that can serve - without homosexual tendencies.

[kevkrom]

even though he is gay, seems to push hard against the gay agenda

There's a good argument to be made that the "gay agenda" is actually harmful to homosexuals.

[kevkrom]

few have more influence on policy than those who author the message

Well, in Thompson's case, that would be Thompson, so no worries there. :)

[Josh Painter]

The guy's private life is nobody's beezwax but his own. If he's as good at his job as everyone says he is, and if he's not actively pushing a gay agenda, I think it was a shrewd move for Fred to hire him. Some day we'll all have to stand before God to receive His judgement. We should worry about our own sins and just let Him sort us all out according to His own design. But so many think they know better than God how things should be done...



Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Quick Reference

Fred Thompson FAQ: THE Fred Thompson Web Resource

[Sonny M]

There's a good argument to be made that the "gay agenda" is actually harmful to homosexuals.

I've met a few folks who were gay who claimed that the "side effects" of the gay movement were to harmful for them to ever support so said movement.

I always assumed they meant taxes and economic issues, never really thought it could or would be anything else.

[Sonny M]

In fact, few have more influence on policy than those who author the message.

Its a good point, but this goes back to the old business school question.

Who has more say, (or should), the guys in marketing or the guys in engineering?

[Antoninus]

It's a "shrewd move," says Sharon Cobb...who notes Traynham brings strong qualifications to the campaign plus hiring the openly gay man could help win support of moderate Republicans.

Here we go. It was stuff like this that helped convince people that Santorum was a fake. Bad move, Fred.

[Antoninus]

On the other hand, Santorum was reliably pro-life and pro-family, an orthodox Catholic.

Yes, but I have to say, when I found out that this guy was his comm director, my respect for him plummetted. Why would you be stupid enough to have a mole for the people who are working hardest to defeat you that close to the interior of your campaign?

[Antoninus]

If Traynham is the best in the business and he can help get a conservative into office, I say, go for it.

He sure did a bang-up job for Rick, didn't he? His loss was one of the worst spankings of a sitting senator in my memory.

[Petronski]

Bad move, Fred.

Good move, Fred. Traynham is very talented. I doubt he was hired to pander to moderate Republicans.

[Antoninus]

I don’t have a problem with it unless his position is used as a platform to advance and promote the gay agenda.

You can bet having a fellow like that as part of the campaign means that Fred won't be coming out for the Marriage Amendment any time soon.

Sigh. Guess it's time to look for a new "Plan B"...

[Antoninus]

In fact, few have more influence on policy than those who author the message.

Exactly. This is a really bad move by Thompson. When I heard this guy was Santorum's comm director, his crushing defeat suddenly made a lot more sense to me.

[Antoninus]

Good move, Fred. Traynham is very talented.

Are you saying that without him, Santorum would have lost by 30% instead?

Frankly, nothing about this appointment makes me feel good about Fred. And I really want to feel good about him...