The Shotgun Blog
« Statement from Brian Mason on the passing of Pam Barrett | Main | The Eastern Standard »
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
First Thompson, next Giuliani
UPDATED
A couple of days ago I said Fred Thompson and Giuliani were about to go belly-up. Thompson's gone ahead and bared his, and Giuliani is in a bit of trouble.
Not only did the NY Times release a feature story about Giuliani being a petty and thin-skinned jerk, they also replaced him in their election guide with Ron Paul, the Congressman Giuliani was busy chuckling and laughing at during the debates.
UPDATE: Well, it was a short-lived victory for Paul over Giuliani. Here's the before and after pics (from the election guide):
Earlier today:
And about an hour after Thompson's announcement:
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 22, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5500155108834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference First Thompson, next Giuliani:
Comments
"Ron Paul has been belly-up for months, but he hasn't the intelligence to realize it."
Dr Paul still have plenty of money and supporters...
Rudy doesn't even pay his staff... and lost 4/5 times against the good DR
Posted by: MaxG | 2008-01-22 1:50:16 PM
"Haha" (in a Simpson's kind of laugh)
Read this.... http://news.goldseek.com/DailyReckoning/1201032670.php very down to earth writing style about the economic climate today.
Posted by: Theresa | 2008-01-22 1:57:33 PM
Even if we don't get Ron elected at least we squished the fascist Guiliani. A petty victory but a victory none the less.
Posted by: joshie | 2008-01-22 1:59:41 PM
Obc it’s ok to feel sorry for Rudy but if you read Ron Paul's policies you will realise he is for a free America and would make a great President. Let go of your scepaticism and look at the economy and understand that RP has being telling congress this would happen for years. He knows what he is talking about and you should learn the truth. www.ronpaul2008.com
Posted by: SiFromEire | 2008-01-22 2:03:58 PM
Rudy thought he could sit back and wait 'til Florida and Super-Super Tuesday. And this year, it *might* have worked too. Unfortunately - within the party, the fiscal conservatives got itchy about him and the social conservatives never liked him, and outside the party his numbers have been sinking as hypotheticals have been changing into real primary results. Sorry, Rudy.
Fred never really campaigned. He was a real disappointment.
It'll be McCain or Romney at the end. But only God knows which one at this point.
Posted by: Meg Q | 2008-01-22 2:06:00 PM
Ron Paul does not pay for most of his support.
Every day there are people contributing time and money of their own to get the message out.
Don't other candidates have grass root supporters?
Posted by: Karen | 2008-01-22 2:10:36 PM
The Great Dr. Paul has cured my apathy! It took 50 years to wake me up to what's going on in this country and glad I found Ron Paul. Thank God for the internet because mainstream media just ignores him, what are they afraid of?
Ron Paul 2008!
Posted by: Rosco1776 | 2008-01-22 2:17:48 PM
The problem with Ron Paul is simply that he educates people instead of talking in code. Whatever will the government and media do if people actually start thinking for themselves? Ron Paul is an intellectual, so not easily understood. Which means mostly intellectuals will vote for him. Or others to take the time really look into what he is talking about.
It is sick that we elect people on charisma; I heard Ted Bundy was very charming...
Posted by: Karen | 2008-01-22 2:56:28 PM
"...because mainstream media just ignores him, what are they afraid of?"
It doesn't look like they're ignoring him to me, with all the interviews and whatnot. check out youtube.
Posted by: Conrad | 2008-01-22 2:57:47 PM
Sad to see Alabama native Fred Thompson bow out, but these things happen. Rudy will stay on if he wins Florida but that's a long shot. BTW he was not a congressman, he was Mayor of NYC, and damn good one too.
I predict Romney will win the RNC nomination, but will lose to Hillary Clinton in November.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-22 3:23:26 PM
Congrats, OBC.
You did it again! Why are these robots so predictable?
:)
Posted by: atric | 2008-01-22 3:44:06 PM
I'm surprised a celebrity candidate with a relatively solid conservative record wasn't more popular with rank and file Republicans.
Was it a poorly run campaign?
Where will Thompson's support end up?
Who will Thompson endorse?
I'll bet he gets behind Giuliani. McCain is too left. Thompson doesn't seem to like Romney much. Huckabee isn't committed enough to economic liberty. Ron Paul is a non-starter for a hawk. Giuliani is committed to the war on terror, which was an important part of Thompson's message.
Peter - how can Paul grow as candidates fall off? Is there a single candidate in the race now whose supporters would back Paul?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-01-22 5:43:36 PM
You ask a good question, Matthew, and I don't know. I do know that libertarian orgs, like Cato, were busy promoting Thompson, and I also have plenty of libertarian friends who thought Thompson was best. I have a hard time believing that libertarians would go anywhere but to Paul (the more hawkish ltns probably supported, or continue to support, Giuliani).
I don't see this as a benefit to Paul--I see it as making things harder for him. But watch Louisiana. They're busy with a caucus right now that, uhm, nobody seems to know anything about! Only Paul was busy stumping there, and HuffPo thinks he's got a good shot at surprising people there. We'll see.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-22 8:51:37 PM
Hmm. I didn't know Cato was long on Thompson. Maybe some of his supporters might migrate over to Paul.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-01-22 9:28:47 PM
I am holding out hope for a Giuliani/Thompson ticket. While he had arguably the best platform and ideas, Thompson just didn't have the outward drive and dynamism that Rudy can bring to the top of the ticket...
But can't you see Thompson embarrassing the hell out VP candidate John Edwards in the summer debates?
Giuliani is hardly out of it (assuming he wins in Florida) and I believe a Giuliani/Thompson ticket has the best shot at winning in November.
This country needs serious tax and spending cuts -- and it needs them now.
And is there anyone who doubts Rudy would be a great diplomatic leader and a excellent Commander of Chief of the US Military?
Posted by: harpers | 2008-01-22 11:39:04 PM
Giuliani is Pro-Abortion.
Anyone with that mindset cannot possibly have any notion of limited government.
Giuliani is anathama to America's core values. He was a typical false prosecutor of innocent men in order to climb the political ladder.
"Long ago" a man couldn't get a bank loan if he was divorced. The theory was that if you cheated or broke your promises to one person, you would do the same to anyone else.
What has Giuliani shown us of his core values? My answer is: everything that I abhor. And I'm an American voter. The "girls" of America will vote for someone like this, and be "surprised" by the result.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-01-23 8:51:10 AM
Thompson may endorse McCain:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/15/a_mccain-thompson_alliance.html
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-01-23 10:40:31 AM
Thompson's support will probably end up split between Romney and McCain, in what they'd consider a "lesser of two evils" type of choice. Paul won't get their votes because he's against the war (and the flakier his followers are perceived to be, the less "regular" Republicans want to do with him - he may well end up 3rd party, and that will be interesting), and Giuliani won't get their votes because he's pro-abortion and just generally considered not trustworthy by the Republican rank-and-file.
I have to say that, although I voted for Rudy as NYC mayor back in '93, that was definitely a "lesser" choice against the feckless David Dinkins. I have been glad of that choice in that Rudy did a good job in many ways, even before 9/11. However, he has a hair-trigger temper (diplomatic? not quite) and, if he feels threatened, can get entire projects caught up in his self-defense. Not attractive personality traits. Plus all of his personal-life stuff - gee, at least Bill has been able to stay married to Hillary, whatever else you can say about them. Bottom line, the press in New York has way too much (real) bad stuff on Rudy that they haven't even begun to come out with, and if he hasn't been able to float his candidacy higher on his own merits, then one candidate or another will use some of that stuff to sink him if he tries to make a move at this point. (It's a rough business.)
The rank-and-file don't trust McCain because of McCain-Feingold and all that "maverick" crap for which the press just love him; however, they do like him for his general conservatism and of course admire his family's tradition of military service and his own personal courage and bravery. They don't trust Romney because of the "lib-state lib-governor is he a flip-flopper?" thing, but most grassroots people now believe that he is sincere in his current abortion and so-con beliefs (which certainly adhere better to the tenets of his faith) and so with his fiscal conservatism, that's cool. He also was against gay marriage while gov of Massachussetts - in a kind of wimpy way, but OTOH he was the only state politician willing to speak out against it, and the more he spoke the stronger his stance became. (FYI - I don't think the whole "Mormon" thing will be that big a problem when push comes to shove, I think the media are really making a bigger deal of it than anyone else, because they love to bait the "evangelicals".)
Why did Fred sit back and wait to be anointed? I don't know. It was really, really disappointing. Maybe he thought that everyone was so unhappy with the choices thus far that they'd come running if he threw his hat in. But, Fred, even Reagan had to run! For on to six years!!! *Nobody* gets elected or even nominated these days without making a good, hard run. (A lot of this applies to Giuliani, too - he has been kissing off hard-core Republican states and thinking he can jump in when the "numbers" start - that would be how some guy from New York would think, but that's not how it works, as he's finding out.) A lot of the conservative sites and blogs in the States will be analyzing the "Thompson question" over the next few weeks (and more), so maybe we'll see some answers. Personally, I think that he wanted 1) to do enough to get everyone off his back and 2) to position himself for vice-president, if he could. JMO (as always).
Posted by: Meg Q | 2008-01-23 3:56:25 PM
P.S. OBC -
The Paulbots are psycho, I agree, but "Dr." and "Hon." are perfectly correct honorifics for Ron Paul. He is actually a doctor of medicine and has been a practicing physician in obstetrics, and of course all members of Congress are entitled to the honorific "the Honorable" (followed by their name and then, "United States Congress"). I believe, though am not certain, that "Hon." is also an honorific permitted and applied to MPs in Britain and Canada - ? Many American newspapers - certainly ones in Texas, where both Dr. Paul and I are from - refer to the man as "Dr. Paul".
I only mention this because *Dr.* Paul :^) himself is actually a halfway decent guy and a good Texas congressman, even if 95% of his supporters seem to be whackjobs or freaky lines of code.
Meg the Friendly Texan
Edmonton
Posted by: Meg Q | 2008-01-23 4:08:12 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.