I mean, I guess I can understand where some would think Duncan Hunter is not a serious candidate. He's barely on the radar at all. But, at least Tancredo has an actual campaign going in Iowa. Just like Romney and Paul, his radio ads are all over the place and I've have received many mailings and phone calls.
But, given that FRed's lifetime ACU rating is 86 and Tancredo's is 97.8, I'm curious why everyone seems to think Thompson is "the conservative" in the race. Is the ACU's definition of conservative somehow lacking?
Are you referring to something other than Tancredo's deer-in-the-headlights facial expressions and inability to complete a sentence without stuttering?
That's an excellent question- and MY answer is that while I did buy Tom's book, and would have supported him, he (and Duncan- my answer applies to both) needed to show enough "star" power to get up out of single digits. We're nominating someone to face the machine of the beast, or Opra's magic negro, and Tom and Duncan have had their shots, and they were short.
And that man, as President, is only known for being assassinated.
I think the "rally" behind FDT is in part a bow to aesthetics - a reflection more of the voting population than of the candidates. Fred has a more commanding presence, is a relatively familiar face and voice to Americans, has a very quick wit, and has conservative views which are still within the comfort zone of those afraid of rapid changes. A mix of style and substance (you gotta admit that Paul, Hunter, and Tancredo are lacking in the style department - I personally don't give a damn if they would make terrible used-car salesmen, but others apparently do). Good ideas and good plans are sadly not enough to win elections - the TV culture needs a good delivery, and it is a reality that needs to be accommodated. IMO, Fred can pull it off with a minimum of deviation from a conservative agenda.
Electability has overcome principle. Unfortunate, eh?
I believe all our candidates are good, but vary on strength of leadership.
You can see McCain buckle under pressure.
Romney comes off as indecisive.
Giulianni can lead, but Fred is stronger.
Huckabee is also weak on making a stand if opinion is against him.
Tancredo would be excellent in a new Republican administration working the border, but too narrow for setting the nations course.
Hunter would be excellent somewhere in immigration and military also.
Fred Thompson showed he’s not afraid to back down when he knows he’s right, in yesterdays debate. This is the difference between FT and the rest.
***Can someone tell me why so many FReepers are rallying around Fred Thompson rather than, say, Tom Tancredo?***
Speaking just for myself, I'm supporting the best candidate who actually has a chance to win the nomination. Rudy, Mitt, Huck, and McInsane are obviously bad choices. That leaves Fred and some people who either aren't running or have negligible support. I'll go with Fred, thank you.
Tancredo’s a loose cannon.
Next question?