1. ConservativeCaucus says:

    Thompson may be the eventual consensus conservative candidate, but Huckabee is making a lot of sense.

  2. Bull Moose says:

    With 36% or so name ID, it’s going to be very difficult for Fred Thompson to catch up.

    The fact that he was a Senator for 8 years with a fairly weak record of accomplishment and he’s an actor hardly qualifies him to be President of the United States, ESPECIALLY considering that he really lacks a desire to be President.

    Given his Roger Mudd / Ted Kennedy moment in responding to his record of accomplishments (or lack there of actually) in the US Senate, the Thompson supporters might want to check in with reality.

  3. GabrielSterling says:

    Did anybody catch the cameo by conservative State Senator Ralph Hudgens at 0:46 in the video?

  4. Bull Moose says:

    I’m torn on who my second choice is to be honest with you.

    I was so impressed tonight by Mike Huckabee. He really came across sincere and that is one of the main reasons why I support John McCain.

    There is also a part of me that really likes Rudy Giuliani. Then again, Newt is appealing but he’s like our modern day Benjamin Franklin, he’s almost above politics.

    I’m watching Fred Thompson but so far, it’s really heavy on advisers. We’ve been down that road (GWB) and it’s not going so well.

    I’d like a new type of President, one who is a take charge, get it done President with a REAL consistent record of results.

  5. Louis_Oliverio says:

    I think I posted this on the wrong thread, so here is my 1 cent analysis:

    First off, RUDY won this debate–don’t listen to the liberals at CNN who bore the brunt of an attack by Rudy, which was the most passionate moment in the debate–truth is if the General’s report about Iraq is positive, it will not be reported with the same gusto by CNN as if the report is critical.

    Here is my ranking of the candidates performances:

    1. Rudy–held firm; still have some difficulty on his abortion stance and some social issues, but when looking at the Democratic opposition, I have to support Rudy.

    2. Mike Huckabee–I hope that he can gain some traction; he speaks with a positive, conservative tone and it would be good to see a debate with fewer candiates, but including him.

    3. John McCain–I am tired of McCain, but he appeared Presidential tonight at times and is going to be a factor in NH especially.

    4. Mitt Romney–smooth, but still not totally believable; would like to have a debate where he speaks for 3 minutes from the heart about why he wants to be President.

    Now we’re getting into the lower tier:

    5. Tommy Thompson–FINALLY a question about his strong suit–health care; Tommy is very bright and likeable, and can speak in depth on many issues–but he won’t gain enough traction to be a serious contender; Back when debates were more about substance than soundbytes, he may have had a shot.

    6. Duncan Hunter–of the 3 Congressmen, he was the most eloquent and articulate. Could gain some traction on the immigration issue;

    7. Sam Brownback–a real loser tonight; it is between Brownback and Huckabee to gain support among the conservatives of the party and Huckabee cleaned Brownback’s clock badly and has so for all 3 debates.

    8. Jim Gilmore–I don’t remember a single line of his from the debate–but in the SC debate, he was too negative.

    9. Tom Tancredo–will strike a chord with a few over immigration, the media has done enough to make attacks at President Bush.

    10. Ron Paul–does not belong in the debate–he was on the attack-end of the focal point of the SC debate but was irrelevant tonight.

    Finally, Fred Thompson–on Hannity and Colmes–it will definitely be interesting to see him on the debate floor; I don’t think its a as much of a slam dunk that the conservative GOP base will flock to him as it seemed 2-3 months ago.

    In the end, maybe 5% of the electorate is paying attention to this–so we have a long way to go.

  6. Jeff Emanuel says:

    He won’t win, and his record of nanny state championing and poor-in-hindsight pardons as Governor of Arkansas would likely torpedo his candidacy should he ever become a serious contender, but I do think that he (a) has performed very well in the first debates, (b) deserves the attention and praise he has received so far, and (c) would be a great candidate for Senate from Arkansas.

    He’s a smooth speaker and a good communicator; that, combined with the performance of another former Arkansas governor, almost makes you wonder if there’s just something in the water down there in little Hope, Arkansas that makes politcians from there almost uniquely smooth and effective. 😉

  7. jsm says:

    McCain, Giuliani, and Romney looked like buffoons. They’re trying too hard to say the right things, and it shows. The candidates that are considered “second tier” make more sense to me. I would trust Hunter or Tancredo above anyone else on the stage to do what’s right in the Oval Office.

    Fred’s got America where he wants them–waiting with baited breath for a candidate who will talk straight about issues and offer real solutions with a constitutional basis.

    Go Fred.

  8. ToddH says:

    I’m sorry, I just do not understand the hype about Fred Thompson. He’s not that great of speaker and with an underwhelming political record, I think that he is just the Andre Ware of the 2008 Presidential Race.

    What I find especially galling is the comparisons to Reagan. I can’t remember who but one media pundit expressed the same sentiment in saying that Reagan left acting b/c he believed so deeply in making a political difference and entered politics. On the other hand, Thompson was so uninterested in politics that he abandoned his chance to make a difference and became an actor. I can think of no greater difference between Fred and Ronald than that.

  9. Doug Deal says:

    I think a distaste for politics is a good trait in a person.

    I also think people are overhyping Fred Thompson, and that is a silly thing to do, as he can do nothing but disappoint. Perhaps the better approach is to see how he performs in the debates and on the stump, rather than speculate.

  10. Holly says:

    Wait just a minute, Debbie. . .

    Now, I dislike the immigration bill, but you need to tell the whole story.

    While John McCain voted against the Cornyn amendment as seen above, he voted for the similar Kennedy amendment, as seen here.

    The difference between the two seems to be that Cornyn’s would’ve refused to let absconders apply for citizenship, which was apparently a deal killer with the Democrats signed on to the bill.

    I was hoping Cornyn’s amendment would pass, of course, but it was defeated 46-51.

    Encouragingly, for those of us who are desperately hoping our senators will “get it” before the big vote today and go against this bill, Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss voted against the Kennedy amendment. I have to think that the continued weakening of this bill is making them more and more uneasy. I also think that if they really wanted the bill to pass at this point, they’d have voted for the Kennedy amendment as well as the Cornyn amendment. But that’s just my reading, of course.

  11. debbie0040 says:

    That was not the only difference. Cornyn wanted to permamently bar them from receiving amnesty. The Kennedy ammendment did not.

    The Cornyn ammendment was a much broader scope of criminal offenses that would prohibit you from obtaining amnesty. The Kennedy Ammendment restricted the criminal offenses.

    To judge which bill was the best, just look at who voted for each bill.. The majority of conservatives voted for the Cornyn ammendment. The liberals sided with the Kennedy ammendment.

    I think in the end, Chambliss and Isakson will vote against the bill.

  12. debbie0040 says:


    Kennedy SA 1333: a “side-by-side” amendment with SA 1184 (Cornyn) that is said to expand the list of crimes making illegal aliens ineligible for legalization.

    Adopted 66-32
    Roll call vote tally

    NumbersUSA Urged A NO Vote

    This counterproposal to Sen. Cornyn’s amendment is an attempt by the open borders champion, Sen. Kennedy, to make it appear he is addressing the same critical problem with the bill. Although the text of the amendment has not been made public, it is certain to be less effective then the Cornyn amendment.
    Cornyn SA 1184 (for himself and Sens. Ben Nelson and DeMint): Permanently bars from admission into the United States, and denies immigration benefits (including legal status under the amnesty in this bill), to: (1) absconders (i.e., aliens already ordered deported); (2) aliens deemed inadmissible or deportable as security risks (e.g., terrorists); (3) aliens who fail to register as sex offenders; (4) aliens convicted of certain firearms offenses; (5) aliens convicted of domestic violence, stalking, crimes against children, or violation of protection orders; (6) alien gang members; and (7) aliens convicted of at least three DUIs.

    Failed 46-51
    Roll call vote tally
    NumbersUSA Urged A YES Vote
    Those who have already violated our laws (including our immigration laws) or who are found to be security risks should be barred from entering or remaining in the United States in order to protect the Americans they otherwise would victimize.

  13. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Of course, John McCain gave Cornyn the infamous “F*** YOU! I know more about immigration than anybody in this room!” when there was a press conference to get to and Cornyn was making things difficult by still trying to get the contents of what would be his amendment into the original bill.


  14. debbie0040 says:

    The longer this Immigration Bill Debate lingers on, the lower McCain drops in the polls.

    McCain is a very smart man. He has to know this is hurting him with GOP Primary voters.

  15. ConservativeCaucus says:

    Nice football analogy, Todd. I am always proud of people who can integrate football into any conversation… well done.

    It will be interesting to see if any of the second tier can be a Tom Brady.

Comments are closed.