Condoleezza Rice and Newt Gingrich.
ADDED: In the comments, I make what you might think is an amazing assertion: I have never seen Fred Thompson in any movie or TV show. So there! I think that makes me a good judge of his substance, because I bring no extraneous fondness to the matter. Surprised that I've never watched "Law & Order"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
From the article:
"The poll shows scant Republican support for U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and little desire among Democrats for the Rev. Al Sharpton to become a candidate."
While the poll confirms Iowan primary voters do not warrant first in the nation primary status, at least they aren't insane. It would have been fun to see what candidates partisans want the other party to run. I'd guess more Reps would favor Sharpton running than Dems wanting Hagel.
I don't think Dr. Rice would ever run, but I would seriously consider voting for her. I sincerely hope Fred runs.
No love for Fred Grandy?
Fred Thompson has much lower name recognition than the Secretary of State and the leader of the Republican party during Clinton era. (See polls: Gingrich - 20% "haven't heard of" vs. Thompson - 50% "haven't heard of.") And those two barely have any statistically significant lead over Thompson (Gingrich is only 3 points ahead of Thompson). So I'd say Thompson wins this poll (on the Republican side). No one thought that Joe Lieberman was the front-runner in the 2004 primaries, even though he was #1 in the early polls.
John: I've never watched any of his movies or TV shows, but I think he's considered famous as an actor.
I like Newt a great deal, but sadly, I'm hard-pressed to see him winning an election, unless the opponent is Hillary. I'm still nominally in the Guiliani camp, but his recent comments on Roe have muddied what I had thought were crystal-clear waters, and so I'd very much be open to Fred getting in. But I talked to one of Guiliani's staff yesterday and explained my concerns, and perhaps he'll get back to the clear position he had earlier in the year, even if the New York Times don't think of it as such.
Rice might have made a potential veep once upon a time, but in light of events, I think it would be highly sensible to keep anyone from the Bush administration (a fortiori its foreign policy) as far from the ticket as possible.
Ann, He's a face that has yet to be attached to the name. Many people would probably recognize him if they saw him, but he is hardly a household name like Rice or Gingrich.
Plus, something else to consider with this survey: 143% of those surveyed want Rice, Gingrich and/or Thompson in the race. Clearly there's more going on than just an upswelling of unqualified support for Rice - people want more options, they want to be able to consider voting for these candidates; they surely can't be saying that these are who they want to vote for, or the number would addd up to a maximum of 100%.
Also, this is not a national poll. This is a state well out of Thompson's base region or where he is most recognized.
Ann,
You've never watched an episode of Law & Order??
Once the Joe Six-Pack men of America (and Iowa) learn about Fred Thompson's childhood and early years, the guy will be unstoppable.
"Thompson was the son of a used-car salesman from Thompson was the son of a used-car salesman from Lawrenceburg, Tenn., who, like Thompson's mother, never graduated from high school.
Thompson was such a class clown and scholastic underachiever at Lawrence County High that a group of teachers got together to protest his being named "Most Athletic" by his classmates because they didn't want to reward the kid for being a goof-off."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/18/AR2007051801681.html?sub=AR
Vote for a prissy concert-pianist? The know-it-all historian big mouth....No way.
And Fred's a lady killer, too...
Newt would be amusing. I doubt he could top 40% in an election though, even against Hillary.
At the moment, the Republicans could not win a Presidential election.
But I'm sure the Republicans are praying hard for another massive Al Queada attack in this country, as that's the only thing that could improve their fortunes right now.
And yes - I do think most Republicans had their choice between A) no Al Queada attack and a Democratic Presidency or B) a masive Al Queada attack and a Republican Presidency, they would surely choose the latter.
Which is kind of sick.
Ann, you are not the only one who has not watched a single episode of Law & Order, and I'm as big a supporter of Fred as they come.
dtl: You know, that's a hell of a thing to say. How can you even interact with people when you think about them like that?
I like both Gingrich and Rice as thinkers, but neither is a good politician -- Rice lacks the experience and Gingrich just rubs too many people the wrong way.
I'd like to see Newt in a Cabinet role, though.
Who says I interact with them?
Movement conservatives don't interact with gay people - don't you know that?
simon wrote:
Plus, something else to consider with this survey: 143% of those surveyed want Rice, Gingrich and/or Thompson in the race.
No, not quite. You didn't read the section on the Iowa poll methodology. Here is the pertinent section...
From the Des Moines Register "Methodology and questions for May 2007 Iowa poll:"
(Asked of Democratic caucus-goers) I’m going to mention some people who are not currently running for president. For each, please tell me if you would like to see them get into the race, or not.
Retired General Wesley Clark. Former Vice-President Al Gore. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. The Reverend Al Sharpton.
(Asked of Republican caucus-goers) I’m going to mention some people who are not currently running for president. For each, please tell me if you would like to see them get into the race, or not.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel.
I hope that clears up any confusion, simon.
Ann: I'm not surprised that you've never seen an episode of Law and Order but I am a little surprised that you never saw The Hunt for Red October. It's a very good thriller and while Thompson has a small role, it's a role where he plays, typically, Fred Thompson. Or, rather, he playes an admiral who is exactly the sort of person you would expect a character played by Fred Thompson to be.
Cyrus,
I missed that in the story, but as my post shows, I concluded as much from the data.
I was getting impressed with Fred Thompson until I saw him speak (on TV, not in person.) I was struck by two things; First, for a professional actor, he gave an awful delivery. Second, he was a total empty suit! The man was devoid of content--it was all faux conservatism. Like we need another one of those.
Gingrich is a complete and total ass. I seriously would vote for Hillary Clinton before I voted for Newt. Doesn't matter anyway, he'd be crucified in the press for his troglogyte behavior (I'm indifferent if someone gets divorced, I figure they had their reasons and it's none of my business. Newt is different; he dressed himself in moral clothing then dumped his wife in the most horrible of circumstances. The man simply has no decency.)
Simon - Rice might have made a potential veep once upon a time, but in light of events, I think it would be highly sensible to keep anyone from the Bush administration (a fortiori its foreign policy) as far from the ticket as possible.
Well said. Bush's #1 foreign policy and national security advisor has too much baggage. The few that want her are obsessed with how they think the only thing that beats a white women from being elected President is a charismatic African-American man, who in turn can only be defeated by a black female.
Silly nonsense.
I hope Gingrich runs. Not that he will win, but he will elevate the debate past "killer sound bites" to actual discussion of problems and solutions.
Joe - he'd be crucified in the press for his troglogyte behavior (I'm indifferent if someone gets divorced, I figure they had their reasons and it's none of my business. Newt is different; he dressed himself in moral clothing then dumped his wife in the most horrible of circumstances. The man simply has no decency.)
The liberal Jewish media hated Gingrich in a way that they have not hated anyone since Nixon. And wanted him discredited at all costs. Gingrich's ex-wife has said that the reporters lied. No divorce papers were served. Divorce was already underway, and the ex was the one that called in Newt to discuss some financial matters and other decisions that couldn't wait. A classic smear job - tabloidized & eagerly repeated up the MSM food chain,to the networks and "ladies talk shows", in a well-orchestrated campaign.
The story of who was behind the Gingrich smear is actually more interesting than the story. Hatchet reporters and editors with close ties to the Dem Party.
You won't hear a retraction in the MSM as the official line in the Newt divorce story has been presented. Just as the official line on the Swift Boat controversy is that most of Kerry's fellow officers were "malicious and inaccurate". Nowadays, though, the facts of who was behind the Gingrich story and who promoted it within the media and from the DNC "opposition research center" is known.
Fred Thompson has a small part in The Hunt for Red October, which if you haven't seen is a very good movie.
I think it's wonderful that Republicans are eager to embrace serial adulterer/liar/hypocrite Newt Gingrich. Nominating Newt would be phase two in the Republican plan to "restore honor and dignity to the White House."
simon wrote:
I like Newt a great deal...
Yeah, what's not to like?
Cedarford, I was skeptical of the Newt story at first, but when it came from multiple, apparently reliable, sources, I gave it credibility perhaps I shouldn't have. I will henceforth go back to reserving judgment on that matter then. (See what I get for violating my own rule of leaving divorce issues of others alone.)
Having said that, Newt is still one of those people who just grate my nerves when he speaks regardless of content. (Off the top of my head, Hillary, Al Gore, John Kerry, Orin Hatch and even George Bush all fall into that category for me. I have no rational explanation, just a visceral response.)
"At the moment, the Republicans could not win a Presidential election."--dtl
I don't think this is true, since Giuliani or Romney would give Obama or Clinton a tight race. But if it was true that Republicans can't win no matter what, then we should run someone we really like.
Either Gingrich or Rice would fit very nicely in this role. Gingrich can communicate, like no other Republican today, the ideas of conservative Republicanism. Rice, for her own part, no slouch at communication, could act as a symbol of what we stand for: That a person of such talent, Self-discipline and accomplishment deserves to be at the top of a major party ticket. Even if they didn't win, maybe especially if they don't, they will plant the seeds of future Republican sucess.
dbp
Post a Comment