NewsMax.com Predicts Fred Thompson Will Drop Out - Dallas Cowboys Forum

CowboyJeff · 08-05-2007

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Fred Thompson Will Drop Out[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]John LeBoutillier[/FONT]

[FONT=arial]Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2007[/FONT]

Let's take the beginning of August to step back and examine some political developments:

1) Fred Thompson — before he has even announced his candidacy — is beset with difficulties. He did not raise the amount of money his backers expected for his Exploratory Committee, and this should be easy because the first money a candidate raises is from his closest supporters, past donors and associates. The fact that he couldn't even meet his own internal goal of $5 million (he raised about $3.5 million) shows big trouble for Thompson.

He has already had a major staff shake-up, further evidence of a troubled campaign, and he hasn't even announced his candidacy yet!

Many already speculate that Thompson will announce in September and drop out of the race by November.

He may already have peaked this summer and already be on the decline.

Plus, the more voters see him, the less impressed they will be.

2) The GOP race: with Thompson's desultory performance and a reduced sense of enthusiasm for his candidacy, where does that leave things today?

McCain is a goner. Period. Gone. Finished. Kaput. Yeah, the MSM still gives him more credence than he deserves, but inside the GOP we know it is over for him.

That leaves Romney and Rudy Giuliani as of today.

Romney's second quarter fundraising was way, way down, a worrisome indicator that people are cooling on him. The Mormon question and the flip-flopping are hurting him. He is doing very well in Iowa and his neighboring New Hampshire (he actually lives in New Hampshire) because he has spent heavily already on TV advertising there. But there is not much enthusiasm for him, either.

Rudy has basically abandoned Iowa; he blew off the upcoming Iowa Straw Ballot. He is trailing in New Hampshire. He seems to be gambling on the Florida primary to give him the momentum into mega-super Tuesday.

Rudy is strange . . . he has some strengths, but is fraught with trouble, too. He doesn't fit the GOP at all, but there is such a vacuum on the right that anything can happen.

Romney and Rudy.

Can the GOP really be this desperate?

Or can another candidate emerge who can excite a moribund, dispirited GOP?

No doubt Ron Paul excites libertarians and will surprise at the Iowa Straw Ballot. But he isn't The One. He is a good guy, a bit old, no TV pizzazz, which is a must these days, and isn't going to win the GOP nomination.

Newt, undisciplined and unelectable, keeps trolling to see if there is interest in him yet. He is provocative and entertaining and makes news. But he isn't the answer either.

No wonder the party, and the conservative movement, are down in the dumps. Bush wooed everyone and then sold our principles down the river.

We need someone exciting - who through his or her presence - turns the GOP on and makes us proud again. Yeah, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee we'll all band together to vote against her. But wouldn't it also be wonderful to have someone to vote for?

We need a new start — and soon.

3) The Democrats: don't buy into this "Hillary is inevitable" nonsense. Yes, she does well today in these name-ID national polls. But in individual states she is in trouble. She trails in Iowa and South Carolina and is tied with Obama in New Hampshire.

As the presumptive front-runner, to lose in these early states will doom her candidacy. When a front-runner stumbles, it is magnified. And she may be in for a stumble.

Obama has finally started to take the gloves off. Meanwhile, while John Edwards has his wife attack Hillary for him.
And then Hillary has Bill Clinton answer Obama for her.

What kind of candidates are these?

Can't they do their own campaigning?

Why do their spouses have to do it for them?

It's pretty weak, and the Republicans can use it against them later on. For example, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says something awful is our next President's husband or wife going to do the responding? Pathetic.

ologan · 08-06-2007

Hmmm...Dropping out before you even drop in. Maybe Fred would make a good VP candidate?

Danny White · 08-06-2007

This is the first I've heard about him "dropping out" by November. I think NewsMax is just trying to be provacative.

IF that were to happen, though, I think you'd see Newt get into the race immediately.

jterrell · 08-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyJeff

3) The Democrats: don't buy into this "Hillary is inevitable" nonsense. Yes, she does well today in these name-ID national polls. But in individual states she is in trouble. She trails in Iowa and South Carolina and is tied with Obama in New Hampshire.

As the presumptive front-runner, to lose in these early states will doom her candidacy. When a front-runner stumbles, it is magnified. And she may be in for a stumble.

Obama has finally started to take the gloves off. Meanwhile, while John Edwards has his wife attack Hillary for him.
And then Hillary has Bill Clinton answer Obama for her.

What kind of candidates are these?

Can't they do their own campaigning?

Why do their spouses have to do it for them?

[View Full Quote]

ROFL. I love how Repubs can't mind their own ship but are worried about the Dems. Its pretty funny and well much like the Dems in 2004.

Thats how you lose elections.

The Hillary note is simply silly. Of course she is losing steam in South Carolina thats where one of her biggest opponents hails from. And like Guiliani she has paid no attention to New Hampshire. You gain momentum from Super Tuesday and the political candidates know that. So many people have moved up from later polling dates to earlier ones that now NH has much less meaning.

And of course they are using spouses for verbal barrages because they can then still work together as Pres/VP tickets later if they lose the nomination.

Obama is losing in his parlays with Hillary according to most polls and its undoubtedly shallow to assume a dislike-able candidate can't win; after all we have endured 8 years of Jethro Bush.

When it is all said and done Hillary will be there and she won't need many Repub votes to win.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=789

AtlCB · 08-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jterrell

ROFL. I love how Repubs can't mind their own ship but are worried about the Dems. Its pretty funny and well much like the Dems in 2004.

Thats how you lose elections.

The Hillary note is simply silly. Of course she is losing steam in South Carolina thats where one of her biggest opponents hails from. And like Guiliani she has paid no attention to New Hampshire. You gain momentum from Super Tuesday and the political candidates know that. So many people have moved up from later polling dates to earlier ones that now NH has much less meaning.

And of course they are using spouses for verbal barrages because they can then still work together as Pres/VP tickets later if they lose the nomination.

Obama is losing in his parlays with Hillary according to most polls and its undoubtedly shallow to assume a dislike-able candidate can't win; after all we have endured 8 years of Jethro Bush.

[View Full Quote]

The big difference with the Bush election was that the Dems ran an equally dislikable candidate (Kerry). The only person I see on the Republican side that would piss democrats off enough is Newt, and I don't think he has any chance to win the nomination.

**BrAinPaiNt** · 08-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny White

This is the first I've heard about him "dropping out" by November. I think NewsMax is just trying to be provacative.

IF that were to happen, though, I think you'd see Newt get into the race immediately.

I would have to put a little credence in the report if a site that is known for being republican is talking about it. Does not mean it will happen but I would put more stock into it coming from this site than many others.

Also if Newt ran and became the primary winner I would NOT be voting republican this coming election.

I guess I would have to vote for an independent.

Danny White · 08-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

I would have to put a little credence in the report if a site that is known for being republican is talking about it. Does not mean it will happen but I would put more stock into it coming from this site than many others.

Also if Newt ran and became the primary winner I would NOT be voting republican this coming election.

I guess I would have to vote for an independent.

Well he's still raising money under the "Testing the Waters" provision, and still planning on announcing in September as far as I've heard.

If you notice in the NewsMax article, the speculation is that he'll announce and then drop out in November... so reading between the lines, they think he's going to run, but not do well and be forced to drop out quickly. It's more of the author's opinion rather than him breaking some news that Thompson's not going to run. But the headline makes it sound like they've got some inside scoop... that's what I meant about them trying to be provocative.

CowboyJeff · 08-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny White

Well he's still raising money under the "Testing the Waters" provision, and still planning on announcing in September as far as I've heard.

If you notice in the NewsMax article, the speculation is that he'll announce and then drop out in November... so reading between the lines, they think he's going to run, but not do well and be forced to drop out quickly. It's more of the author's opinion rather than him breaking some news that Thompson's not going to run. But the headline makes it sound like they've got some inside scoop... that's what I meant about them trying to be provocative.

I think the fact that the candidates enter the race too early (versus previous years) makes them peak too soon. It's almost to the point where immediately after a President is sworn into office, candidates are announcing their intensions for the next election 4 years later.