Despite a disappointing finish, Thompson doesn't bow out

Chicago Tribune ^ | January 21, 2008 | William Douglas

[McGruff]

every national poll shows that McCain is the only one that would beat the Dems (in a theoretical match up).

That is your weakness my friend. You worship polls that can be manipulated. As for voting for Sen. McCain. Only if the alternative is Satan.

[Camel Joe]

I support the ENTIRE Constitution and therefore cannot support McCain. End of story, perhaps a term for Hillary that is just as successful as Jimmeh Cahrters is what we need to point us in the right direction again.

[fortheDeclaration]

The things that I loved about Reagan were his smile, his overwhelming love of his country, his constant pronouncement that anything good is possible in the United States, his firmness in dealing with adversaries....and his, cocked head in response to stupid media questions, "well......there you go again"....

Very substantial reasons!

LOL!

[Camel Joe]

Agreed 100% to post #40! Huck is not the messiah anf Jesus will still love you if you vote for another.

[RangerM]

You have misunderstood.

The original assertion was that Thompson is the ‘only Republican that can win in November’.

This flies in the face of every shred of evidence available. Even I, as a Huckabee supporter, must acknowledge reality.

Your use of “Satan” reinforces my viewpoint that many FredHeads deify the candidate(s).

[RangerM]

I agree with your point about the Constitution and McCain, but “Winning through Losing” isn’t a great strategy, IMO.

[normy]

Do you understand that Huck supporters, by backing a fiscal liberal and a man weak on defense you have alienated fiscal/defense voters from ever backing your guy? You could have had it all with Fred as far as a candidate goes but you got greedy. Now if Fred does poorly and drops out Huck will suffer because most Fred supporters will back Romney or someone else? If Fred goes the values voters will be replaced with moderates and we both lose. If I can get security and low taxes and spending with McCain or Rudy or Mitt, why would I choose Huckabee who has lied through his teeth since starting his campaign? No matter what Huckster, your guys have lost, unless a solidly pro life guy like Fred wins the nomination. I would prefer a guy who is pro life but if I have to choose between the three legs of the Republican Party I will choose low taxes and strong military.

[Always Right]

Such language of “exclusivity” only supports my point.

Saying someone is the only candidate who supports your viewpoint is far from worshiping that person. I am tired of such inflammatory posts on this forum from all sides. You don't have to accuse people of blasphemy to make a point, unless you have no point to make. I have legitimate beefs against all the other candidates, and it has nothing to do with worshiping a candidate.

[cbkaty]

Very substantial reasons! LOL!

Now if you are being sarcastic...KMA-MF!

If you are not.....thanks...but why the LOL?

Reagan could communicate...to everyone....and it worked....at home and abroad.

[The Sons of Liberty]

I like Fred and, of all the candidates, I think he would make the best President. But it's beginning to be the time when we need to consider electability. The MSM has apparently been successful in shutting down his candidacy.

As distasteful as some of the other GOP candidates are, they are far superior to anything the dims have. I cannot abide by the thought of four years of Hildebeast or Osama Obama, and I'm not sure the Country would survive.

[Red_Devil 232]

At least Thompson is not trying to establish his own Ultimate Mega Church with pandring lies.

[normy]

The deceitful tactics used by Huck and his supporters show their brand of Christianity shining through. I would rather you say ‘Huck is better than Fred because”. Why can’t Huck supporters back their candidate with solid facts? Deceitful and passive aggressive just like Huckabee. That man will never see the White House. Maybe Fred wont either but Huck never will and I for one would prefer his supporters form a 3rd party when this is all over. The Republican Party doesn’t need Religionists Socialist anymore than it needs secular Socialists.

[bd476]

In it to WIN it!

[Daveinyork]

“I can respect your support of Thompson, but language like this is a bit over the top.”

I disagree. The last Republican moderate to win election was Ike, or maybe you could include Nixon, who always ran as a conservative, even if he didn’t govern that way. Bush 41 won because it was thought that he’d be continuing Reagan’s work. He lost because he governed as a moderate. In 1996, the Republicans eschewed the conservative Phil Gramm, for the “electable” moderate Dole.

Bush 43 realized that he needed to mobilize the conservative base in order to win. The undecided’s are either too few, or don’t vote. Even Dems realize that they need to shift to the right to win national general elections.

Any Republican candidate for pres. who does not mobilize the conservative base will lose, and right now the conservative base is angry at McCain, and skeptical of Huck. They could be defeated in embarrassing landslides, because conservatives as a group are angry and impatient, and we realize that a moderate, in Washington, DC, governs as a liberal, making a Huck or Mac Presidency no better than a Democrat.

It is an observable trend that almost everyone who goes to Washington, DC who is not a strong conservative, will become more liberal over time. That Thompson has done the opposite is to his credit, if he is sincere. He may not win the general election, but I think he has a much better chance than anyone else the GOP is fielding.

[Edit35]

Get used to saying "President Clinton" again.

Hillary does NOT have heart-felt support from Democrats, which is an essential element of any campaign.

She and Slick are alienating a lot of Bomb-o Brack-a supporters by their subconscious race-baiting attacks. THAT will detract from any potential support big time.

On the other hand, Romney has gotten a LOT of support from strong and influential conservatives... because Romney IS a great promoter of the conservative message.

And because we are certain he can win.

Romney is likable. He is smart as a whip. His business message is timed perfect, considering Iraq will be less of an issue.

Also, Romney takes no gruff from smarmy reporters, which has many the GOP base cheering.

I know I sound like a broken record, but Romney's record is fairly conservative. Did he make some dumb statements in 1993/1994 when running against uber-Lib Ted Kennedy? Yep.

But he got good governance marks from all ProLife groups, from low-tax and conservative business watchdog groups, and even from the NRA he got a B+ ...

So this crap about Romney being a lib is just that... Crap!

[Theodore R.]

We really cannot blame the liberal RNC for what the rank-and-file liberal Republicans with some Democrat crossovers are doing. Conservatives cannot unite, and even if they could, they will have trouble nominating anyone. We need a whole new slate of candidates, and that is not possible.

[Theodore R.]

Your formula will consign the GOP to Whiggery of the 1850s. As Nixon was famous for saying, the Republicans cannot win without the conservatives (1968), but they cannot win with just the conservatives (1964).

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Hey why dont you go play over at the kos

[Rumierules]

Any Republican candidate for pres. who does not mobilize the conservative base will lose, and right now the conservative base is angry at McCain
________________________________________________

The conservative base is rather small. If the base cannot articulate why it is angry at McCain in some way other than listing several issues that most primary voters are uninformed about (immigration, CFR, the Gang of 14), he will roll onto win the nomination.

[Theodore R.]

The only thing that could yet spare us of the odious slogan “President Clinton” is if she should decide a year from today that she wants a fresh start and will be known as “President Rodham”.