Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An Unconventional Idea for Fred's Unconventional Campaign
News By Us ^ | November 1, 2007 | Bruce Walker

Posted on 11/01/2007 1:12:34 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

The pundits and media and once again telling those of us in Flyover Country what a bad job Fred Thompson is doing as a presidential candidate. Aside from his campaign staff in disarray, his wife running his campaign, and his low energy level, Fred has committed a “gaffe” in New Hampshire by stating that no state legislature had yet passed a law permitting gay marriage, when the New Hampshire Legislature, alone among the states, had passed a law permitting civil unions and the governor had signed that bill into law.

Poor Fred couldn’t get his facts straight! Except…he did get them straight. Civil unions are intended to have the same legal effect as marriage, but these civil unions are not marriages. That matters – a lot – to social conservatives. Marriages, to social conservatives, are religious as much as legal. Leaving out “marriage” and allowing civil unions, purely secular relationships, is not the same thing at all.

Getting it straight with conservatives matters a lot. Battleground polls consistently and accurately show that about sixty percent of Americans consider themselves conservative, while only about thirty-five percent of Americans consider themselves liberal. That is why none of the Democratic candidates is campaigning as a liberal, but rather campaigning against the so-called “Far Right.” That is also why Fred Thompson, who may soon be the only serious conservative standing, is not only the favorite to win the Republican nomination but also the general election.

Although Republicans respect Rudy, they still have reservations about him. They will vote for him because he is a good guy and because he could beat Hillary. McCain, of course, has longstanding problems with conservatives and Romney just has not caught fire with conservatives either. Brownback and Tancredo have already left the race, and Hunter is probably not far behind. That leaves Huckabee, and the more we learn about him, the more some conservatives are going to mistrust him.

Huckabee appears to have been very soft on illegal immigration as Governor of Arkansas, and his conservatism sounds, often, more like the Populism of William Jennings Bryan than the conservatism of Ronald Reagan. Mike has gotten a bounce, and he has worked hard for it, but the closer inspection he gets, the more conservatives may shy away from him.

Thompson, by contrast, is the real deal. He has taken genuinely courageous stands, like telling President Bush that he should pardon Scooter Libby and raising money for his legal defense or like tackling Social Security – the program that seems to make all Republicans into sheep – and actually calling for a limitation on benefits. Moreover, Thompson is perceived as conservative more than any of the top tier Republicans.

Things actually are working out pretty well for Fred now. Led by state senator McClintock, a leading conservative, many California Republican state legislators have endorsed Fred and while that might not help Thompson carry California in the general election, it could prove very important in the California primary, which Rudy must win. Nationally, Fred continues to run just about even with Rudy in the Rasmussen Poll, and it is logical that the support which went to men like Tancredo and Brownback will probably end up with Thompson.

Fred has run an unconventional campaign, which has driven the inside the beltway crowd nuts. But it has worked. And Fred is a “finisher.” In his race for the Senate in Tennessee, he came from nowhere against a very popular Democrat to win easily. Underestimating Fred Thompson is one of the easiest – and most dangerous – mistakes to make.

For his unconventional campaign, I have an unconventional suggestion: normally the presidential nominee, after winning the nomination, picks his running mate and announces it to the world. No one has voted to this guy (or gal) and so the running mate is up to whomever happens to win the nomination. Fred, why not announce right now who your nominee will be? That would immediately focus attention back on the Thompson campaign and catch all the pundits and journalists off balance.

I would pick John Kasich as my running mate, if I were Thompson. He is well known, well liked, rightly considered decent and down to earth. The name of his Fox News program, “Heartland,” conveys exactly the sort of values and persona that those of us in Flyover Country, who will election Thompson as president a year from now, want.

Kasich could also start campaigning all over the country right now and very effectively. He and Thompson could each start separately campaigning in key states, multiplying the power of campaigning time. Kasich, critically, is also from Ohio and could help Thompson carry Ohio in the general election. Picking Kasich now would make Thompson’s unorthodox campaign even more unorthodox, and I bet Americans would love it.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: ca2008; campaigns; conservatives; election; electionpresident; elections; endoresments; fredthompson; gop; johnkasich; nh2008; oh2008; republicans; rudygiuliani; runningmate; tommcclintock
Worth considering.
1 posted on 11/01/2007 1:12:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Worth Considering, but Kasich is a wet. Do the Duncan, Fred.

2 posted on 11/01/2007 1:18:25 PM PDT by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote; All
Either way, help Fred today:

Fred08 - Contribute Now

3 posted on 11/01/2007 1:19:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Your "dirt" on Fred is about as persuasive as a Nancy Pelosi Veteran's Day Speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Bad idea. I’m predicting Thompson on the second ballot at the convention. He may need the Vice-Presidency as well as cabinet posts to horse-trade for delegates.

4 posted on 11/01/2007 1:20:29 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
He may need the Vice-Presidency as well as cabinet posts to horse-trade for delegates.
Smart thinking.
5 posted on 11/01/2007 1:26:59 PM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’d rather have J.C. Watts or Michael Steele as Veep. Both are rock-solid conservatives with records of accomplishment, and both will help Republicans to cut into the huge advantage that the Dems have with blacks.

I do agree with other posters that it pays to have the position open to use as bait for someone else to swing delegates to FDT.

However, I wouldn’t mind seeing FDT say that he’ll make John Bolton the Secretary of State, and Duncan Hunter the Secretary of Defense (once Duncan leaves the race and endorses him, of course).

6 posted on 11/01/2007 1:50:04 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

I say again...are we going to allow the MSM to choose our candidate? Fred Thompson is doing just fine. He is still far and above Rudy, Mitt, McCain and Huckabee. When illegal immigration becomes the primary issue tied to National Security, they will be exposed for what they are: RINOS.

7 posted on 11/01/2007 2:44:52 PM PDT by Bobbisox (ALL AMERICAN GRANDMA FREEPER, and a LOYAL and DEDICATED FredHEAD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
You know, I've had this conversation with two different gay friends (one three years ago, the other earlier this year).

Both were strongly in favor or "gay marriage". I explained to both that marriage actually had three different overall meanings, a government sanctioned contractual one, a religious one, and a general cultural one (going back thousands of years).

I asked each if they really wanted "marriage", or just something that would address the government sanctioned contractual issues that concern them. Both acknowledged that "marriage" wasn't really what they wanted.

8 posted on 11/01/2007 3:02:28 PM PDT by 3niner (War is one game where the home team always loses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
I’d rather have J.C. Watts or Michael Steele as Veep. Both are rock-solid conservatives with records of accomplishment, and both will help Republicans to cut into the huge advantage that the Dems have with blacks.

Both great guys, but picking Steele in particular (as he lost his race for gov) will look like pandering. If half of black America will pick Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, I don't see a black Republican helping much with the black vote.
9 posted on 11/01/2007 3:38:43 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana (Not a newbie, just wanted a new screen name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Fred for President.
Duncan Hunter for Vice-President.

10 posted on 11/01/2007 5:14:15 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (America: “the most benign hegemon in history.”—Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3niner

A small radical fringe of gays actually want church sanctioned marriage.

For the most part, however, the majority would probably settle for civil union - which ultimately seems like a fair thing, unless you believe that two men or women together is an abomination.

Most Americans do not, but a core base of Republican voters do. Although the civil union solution would be an amicle solution, politicians on both sides do not want a solution, they want an issues that gets voters to the polls. This works for the GOP and it the (IMO) nastiest, ugly cousin of the Gods, Guns and Gays strategy.

But, I consistently invite social conservatives to go establish another, smaller and likely very marginal “Intolerance party”. They haven’t listend yet.

11 posted on 11/01/2007 7:44:37 PM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Everyone wants a simple answer; but sometimes there isn't a simple answer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Underestimating Fred Thompson is one of the easiest – and most dangerous – mistakes to make.

Don't misunderestimate Fred.

12 posted on 11/01/2007 7:53:46 PM PDT by barker ( A smile is a curved line that sets things straight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom


13 posted on 11/01/2007 7:55:17 PM PDT by Honeybunch ("Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind." ~Rudyard Kipling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I blogged two weeks ago that Fred should make a “bold move” and name a running mate early. My choice for the #2 slot was somewhat different:;o=time;s=woman%20problem

Although Kasich would be a fine selection, I like mine better, for several reaons:

1. It’s not a given that Kasich could deliver Ohio.

2. It’s not clear that he would even be interested in running for VP. After retiring from the U.S. House, he briefly explored a possible presidential run in 2000, but decided against it. Although he was encouraged by some ionfluential GOP types to seek Ohio’s Governorship in 2006, Kasich declined, saying he was not interested.

3. Although many former Congressmen have run for the vice presidency, not that many who didn’t also serve as senators or governors have been elected in the modern era. Dick Cheney and George H. W. Bush are the exceptions. Gore, Quayle, Mondale, Humphrey, Johnson, Nixon and Barkley (Truman’s VP) had all been senators. Rockerfeller and Agnew had been governors. Gerald Ford had been a U.S. Rep, but he wasn’t chosen in a general election, but rather appointed by President Nixon and confirmed by Congress. Henry Wallace, FDR’s second vice president, had been Secretary of Agriculture. You have to look back nearly fifty years from George H. W. Bush to John Nance Garner, FDR’s first VP, to find a vice-president who was elected to the office who had not also been a senator or governor.

4. Kasich doesn’t do much to help Thompson in the two demographic categories where Fred is really hurting - single women and younger women. A woman who is relative young and a success story, Sarah Palin will attract the interest and admiration of many women from these two demogrqaphic groups. Not all of them will vote for a Fred-Sarah ticket simply because Palin is on it, but many will.

5. Even though Kasich could possibly turn one blue state red, Palin may make the difference in enough close states to turn several of them.

6. Palin is the most popular politician in the country, with approval ratings over the 75% mark. No one, not even the likeable Kasich, even comes close.

14 posted on 11/02/2007 12:38:12 PM PDT by Josh Painter ("Managers are people who leaders hire." - Fred Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson