Sen. Fred Thompson announced Wednesday night on Jay Leno that he will indeed be running as a Republican for the Presidency in '08. He joins an already crowded Republican field in his hope to be nominee. The question that many are asking is how big of an impact on this race will Thompson have on the race and my answer is not much.
The only reason Thompson even has a good reason to enter this race is because polls show that Republicans are dissatisfied with their choices, but I don't think Thompson adds anything thats not already there. I suppose some expect Thompson to be the Reagan of the 21st century, but I just don't see it. Reagan had a charisma about him that Fred lacks. While he can be charming at times, Thompson fails to live up to expectations for me. He was supposed to be this rock-star candidate, but he appeared so subdued on Leno. In his campaign launch video, he looks like an 80 year old man rambling on and on while bobbing his head every second or two. When I hear him speak, he fails to energize the room because of his own lack of enthusiasm. He comes off as if he just doesn't care, as if he's going to walk in the race and win it without having to work. He waits to officially enter the race at least 6 months after everyone else already did. He has not participated in one debate and has yet to take a stance on they key issues facing our country. If his only claim to fame is that he is a "consistent conservative", its not going to be enough. Huckabee is more of a conservative than Fred ever was and is far more charismatic, yet hasn't done too well in national polls. If Republicans wanted a strict conservative, they already have one, they want the entire package, whatever that might be.
Then there is the theory of many in the media that Thompson is going to completely unravel Mitt Romney's campaign. I couldn't disagree more. Thompson isn't just going to walk in and all of a sudden get all of Romney's support in the two key states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney has spent months in those states campaigning, not to mention millions of dollars. Fred doesn't have months to campaign or millions to spend. Thompson's biggest chance to win the nomination will come if he can do a good showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, I sincerely believe Romney will win both states, and then goes on to win southern states such as South Carolina. I could see a scenario happening where Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Utah, Michigan, and a few other Northeastern states. Thompson captures the south. Guiliani wins more liberal states such as Florida and California. Then you basically have a three way happening and someone would have to do the math to see who that would benefit the most.
Bottom line is I don't think your going to see Thompson live up to the hype. I don't think he's going to unravel Mitt Romney's campaign and I don't expect him to get the nomination. Right now he's getting all the attention because he's a new face, but in a couple of weeks, he'll just be another Republican candidate. I suppose its me vs. the media on this issue, but I do not believe Thompson will have a huge impact on this race at all. He will soon fade into the background.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Bin-Laden to speak soon
There is breaking news today that Osama bin-Laden, the man behind the 9/11 terror attacks, will be releasing a new web video addressing the U.S. within the next 72 hours. This will be the first time bin-Laden has been seen on video in nearly three years. Here's my take on this disturbing piece of news:
The GOP is going to try everything to use this to their advantage. They are once again going to try to instill fear in Americans and lie by saying that they are the only ones who can be trusted to keep this nation safe. But I would hope Americans remember, its been six years after 9/11 and we are not even close to finding and killing bin-Laden. And why? Because George Bush lied to the Congress, lied to Americans, and lied to the world and got us into Iraq. By going needlessly into Iraq, we turned our focus from fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and onto Iraq. This allowed bin-Laden and other al-Qaeda members to escape. Now, the latest reports show that since we shifted out attention away from fighting terrorism, al-Qaeda has been able to regroup and regain strength, possibly even stronger than pre-9/11. This should be seen as a warning to those who think republicans can handle national security. They are the ones who let bin-Laden slip through their finger-tips. I would be willing to bet, that if we didn't get into Iraq, we would have found bin-Laden by now and he would be dead. We would have drastically demolished al-Qaeda and therefore greatly decreased the chance of a terrorist attack on our great country. I hope that the American people see this and, in the next election, vote for leaders who want to protect America and not those who want to continue avoiding the problem.
The GOP is going to try everything to use this to their advantage. They are once again going to try to instill fear in Americans and lie by saying that they are the only ones who can be trusted to keep this nation safe. But I would hope Americans remember, its been six years after 9/11 and we are not even close to finding and killing bin-Laden. And why? Because George Bush lied to the Congress, lied to Americans, and lied to the world and got us into Iraq. By going needlessly into Iraq, we turned our focus from fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and onto Iraq. This allowed bin-Laden and other al-Qaeda members to escape. Now, the latest reports show that since we shifted out attention away from fighting terrorism, al-Qaeda has been able to regroup and regain strength, possibly even stronger than pre-9/11. This should be seen as a warning to those who think republicans can handle national security. They are the ones who let bin-Laden slip through their finger-tips. I would be willing to bet, that if we didn't get into Iraq, we would have found bin-Laden by now and he would be dead. We would have drastically demolished al-Qaeda and therefore greatly decreased the chance of a terrorist attack on our great country. I hope that the American people see this and, in the next election, vote for leaders who want to protect America and not those who want to continue avoiding the problem.
Republican Debate(a special editorial by John Lucia)
With the exception of Ron Paul, one has to feel like President Bush wrote the comments for the Republican candidates. Like Bush, they tried to sound tough, even Chris Wallace tried, but no one had a answer to Ron Paul when he said the same people who got us into this war and those who still support the war were wrong about everything that has happened in Iraq.
The word "honor" was used a number of times to describe how this war over WMD that did not exist should end. But well into the fifth year of war in Iraq no one can tell the american people how it will end or when or what will be the outcome.
Our men and women in uniform serve with honor and commit themselves to the ultimate sacrifice. They go where the President and Commander in Chief tells them to go, they do their jobs well, without complaint and serve their country. They do this even if a President commits them to an unnecessary war and occupation over WMD that did not exist. Our brave men and women in uniform serving in Iraq completed their mission over three years ago when no WMD were found and when Saddam was no longer a factor in Iraq. Yet, into the fifth year of this war those who want to keep it going have failed to articulate their definition of victory in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform have already been victorious and have served with "honor,courage and commitment." If any of those candidates don't think our troops can leave with "honor" now, they are the ones who are without "honor." Does any american truly believe that our wounded who are home from Iraq and trying to put their life back together and those who gave their life for their country did not serve with "honor."
A few of the candidates were of prime age (put up on the TV screen) during their generations war but never wore the uniform of their country. Yet they adopted the so called tough talk of some people in this administration who also either never wore the uniform of their country during their generations war or joined the safety of the guard so they would not be called to active duty. In other words they cut and ran. They try to talk and act tough to make up for their own inadequacy.
The debate indicated that what the GOP badly needs is a Dwight Eisenhower to lead them once again. I do not think the american people are ready to elect a republican president who wants to continue the war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist well into the future.
It is ironic that no republican candidate for President can explain how a war over WMD that did not exist could turn into the sad situation it has become and our men and women in uniform are still paying the ultimate price for that reckless decision. And to think that some of those candidates say our troops can't come home with "honor" until the war is extended with no end in sight and with out an explanation as to how to end the war. "Ike" would never look upon these candidates with pride.
The word "honor" was used a number of times to describe how this war over WMD that did not exist should end. But well into the fifth year of war in Iraq no one can tell the american people how it will end or when or what will be the outcome.
Our men and women in uniform serve with honor and commit themselves to the ultimate sacrifice. They go where the President and Commander in Chief tells them to go, they do their jobs well, without complaint and serve their country. They do this even if a President commits them to an unnecessary war and occupation over WMD that did not exist. Our brave men and women in uniform serving in Iraq completed their mission over three years ago when no WMD were found and when Saddam was no longer a factor in Iraq. Yet, into the fifth year of this war those who want to keep it going have failed to articulate their definition of victory in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform have already been victorious and have served with "honor,courage and commitment." If any of those candidates don't think our troops can leave with "honor" now, they are the ones who are without "honor." Does any american truly believe that our wounded who are home from Iraq and trying to put their life back together and those who gave their life for their country did not serve with "honor."
A few of the candidates were of prime age (put up on the TV screen) during their generations war but never wore the uniform of their country. Yet they adopted the so called tough talk of some people in this administration who also either never wore the uniform of their country during their generations war or joined the safety of the guard so they would not be called to active duty. In other words they cut and ran. They try to talk and act tough to make up for their own inadequacy.
The debate indicated that what the GOP badly needs is a Dwight Eisenhower to lead them once again. I do not think the american people are ready to elect a republican president who wants to continue the war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist well into the future.
It is ironic that no republican candidate for President can explain how a war over WMD that did not exist could turn into the sad situation it has become and our men and women in uniform are still paying the ultimate price for that reckless decision. And to think that some of those candidates say our troops can't come home with "honor" until the war is extended with no end in sight and with out an explanation as to how to end the war. "Ike" would never look upon these candidates with pride.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)