Captain's Quarters -

I note that the State of Confusion is not a choice.

This should be rectified in the next poll.

Anyone else find it strange that Ron Paul isn't on this list? I know he is way back in the pack and has little chance. But why would Jim Gilmore and Duncan Hunter be included by not Paul?

I see that Fred Thompson is doing VERY well in this straw poll. I know little about his politics and record, and I suspect that this is true among many Republicans / conservatives. Hence, it seems to me that he's a sort of man on horseback: people are not exactly thrilled with the current crop of GOP candidates, and are hungry for somebody who at least calls himself a "true conservative".

Can somebody enlighten me as to why Fred is their pick?

I like Fred because he's is own man who is not carefully-crafted by political handlers who consults on every aspect of a politician's life. Other than his vote on the McCain-Feingold his record is not way ot of wack with his beliefs.

If Guiliani is the nomination I'll vote for him hands down, but I will be leery of his 'social liberal' side not because it contradicts social conservatism but because it contracts fiscal conservatism. Romney too weak of national defense and McCain is way to much of a media maverick.

That said, I can no longer trust a politican who tries to satisify the middle-of-the-roadies by preaching fiscal responsibility but then will abandon this responsibility in order to please liberal socialism. Gov Arnold is the same type of fiscal conservative/social liberal as is Rudy and I see nothing but trouble if I were to elect such like-minded centrist position.

To me a politician who, for example, supports government funded abortion cannot possibly maintain two core Fiscal Conservative values ie small government spending and encouraging personal responsibility. Case in point the government has been pouring money into finding an AIDS cure for now twenty years yet for some reason after twenty years of undertanding AIDS people are still being infected. Why is this happening, it is because they cannot take the personal responsibilty of wearing a .50 condom.

Social LIberals create infantile, hapless people whereas Fiscal Conservatives create individuals able to function responsibility.

There is no such thing as a Centrist platform.

Giuliani has run a big organization, balanced budgets, implemented strategy, and like that. What sort of experience does Thompson have that would be comparable?

Nothing personal, but BITE ME!

Ask me again next year. Until then, the info is confidential...

Re: Dignan at April 30, 2007 06:12 AM

A politician can be "pure" and inflexible, OR they can be a plausible presidential nominee (unless they're a Libertarian, and then it doesn't matter because Libertarians don't get elected President.)

I'd like to see the conservative question broken down. There are three main streams in politics: fiscal/economic, social, and foriegn policy. The GOP contains people liberal in some branches, while conservative in others.

Why no Ron Paul? He's actually going to be running, actually will be in the debates, which automatically puts him at a higher viability than at least four candidates on the list. He's not going to win, of course, but you can say that of at least half the list as well. I can't imagine why he wouldn't get included.

Thompson's riding high precisely because he's an unknown that the party's base can place all their hopes and dreams on. He is whatever you want him to be.

The moment he gets into specifics about what he'd actually do, his wide but shallow support will dry up. Whatever others say, I don't (as of yet) see him turning into the Second Coming of Reagan.

DU

Re: Paint CHiPs at April 30, 2007 04:44 PM

I hope they don't let candidates like Ron Paul, with so little support, participate in the debates. It sounds good, sounds "fair," but by spreading the time so thin, all the answers end up that much shorter and more superficial. It just doesn't work. There has to be some reasonable threshold for participation. I don't think Ron Paul makes the cut.

"Thompson's riding high precisely because he's an unknown that the party's base can place all their hopes and dreams on. He is whatever you want him to be."

Mechanical Eye,
That's not true. Thompson has been publishing a lot of articles in 2007, each staking out abnormally clear positions on every current hot button issue. Thompson is not taking the Obama approach (speaking in such vague terms that people can interpret how they want), but rather is unabashedly taking a federalist position. Anyone who bothers to actually read NRO (a lot of CQ readers) is very familiar with Thompson's positions.

Thus Thompson takes away my support from Ron Paul, because Thompson is also federalist ("the federal gov't is one of limited, enumerated powers") but Thompson is not a libertarian (Thompson would be fine with states outlawing weed). Thompson takes support away from Guiliani because while Rudy gives lip service to federalism (he's abortion and gun comments are muddy on federalism), Thompson is true and consistent.

The criticism of Thompson generally are that he doesn't have enough experience (yet he is at least on par with all of the democrat front runners), or that he is too 'states-righty' (see the Ponnuru and AEI criticisms, which will be echoed by all the big gov't Bush republicans).

As yet, nobody is touting Fred Thompson because we should "choose the lesser of two evils", "the best is the enemy of the good", or "first we have to win elections". He is the hope of the revolutionary Republican party, that remembers when the GOP went into elections with an agenda for reform.

As yet, nobody is touting Fred Thompson because we should "choose the lesser of two evils", "the best is the enemy of the good", or "first we have to win elections". He is the hope of the revolutionary Republican party, that remembers when the GOP went into elections with an agenda for reform.

As yet, nobody is touting Fred Thompson because we should "choose the lesser of two evils", "the best is the enemy of the good", or "first we have to win elections". He is the hope of the revolutionary Republican party, that remembers when the GOP went into elections with an agenda for reform.

Ron Paul isn't on the list because everyone DOES know him.

Fred Thompson does so well on the list because most folks DO NOT know him well enough.

If they liked Fred Thomspon well enough FOR WHO HE REALLY IS, then they would have been very satisfied with John McCain.

Honestly, what Fred brings to the table, we could get from Olympia Snowe.

As far as I am concerned, a vote for Fred right now is a vote for "NONE OF THE ABOVE".

Folks get a load of that
*Campaigned for McCain in '00 (while the Arizona GOP Caucus was unanimously CENSURING him)
*Voted for McCain Feingold
*Voted with 3 GOP Senators that Clinton DID NOT commit Perjury.

Don't even remind me of what I am looking for.

Rose, Madam, John McCain is NO Fred Thompson. The fact that you would say what you did means you don't get conservatives. John McCain does not get conservative support because he is NOT a conservative on things and he has gone out of his way to throw a monkey wrench on the President's agenda for his own agrandizement.

Thompson might be friends for McCain, and not knowing who McCain ran against when Thompson supported him, I make not judgments about that. McCain Feingold is a mistake that a majority of Congress made.

However, Thompson GETS IT on federalism, he GETS IT on immigration and he totally GETS IT on the war on Islamic Fascism (forget the war on terror, let's just call it what it is).

When I think of McCain now (and I used to love him when I lived in Arizona and frequently took the same flight from Chicago to Phoenix on Friday afternoons back when he was just a Congressman), I think of a suckup to that horrible man Ted Kennedy and someone who led that horrible "Gang of 14".

ANd Thompson has the verbal communication skills that this current President sorely lacks. He INSPIRES people. The other candidates DO NOT, in either party. Some libs might be inspired by Obama for the same reason, but as someone above said, at least Thompson is SPECIFIC on issues (go read his stuff), whereas Obama is giving platitudes that you hear from life coaches at MLM meetings.

Why Fred? if you look up the word "gravitas" in the dictionary, you'll see his picture there.

Authoritative, clear speaking, plain speaking, plus he's pro-defense, pro-life, and pro-gun.

He doesn't mince words. You'll know where he stands. He's 100% authentic.

BTW, he will absolutely sweep the South in both the primaries and the election.

At the same, the crazy nut liberal LA Times wrote a puff piece about him! The Times quotes producer Dick Wolf saying that when he walks into a room people feel like they should salute, yet he is always willing to hear what everyone has to say.