1. Fred gets my vote. McCain & Giuliani have shown themselves far too critical of individual rights.

Posted by: JB on May 8, 2007 04:35 AM

2. Fred has always had my vote.Now lets "Hunt For The Red Democrat"

Posted by: YakimaGeorge on May 8, 2007 06:46 AM

3. The last presidentials, the local district Ds picked Dean only because their favorite Kucinich, they believed, was unelectable.

There is still the hard feeling from the mid90s during the Pat Robertson brand of Washington politics with the Rs. The same goes for our gubernatorial candidates up to Rossi.

Is Fred the unifier or is he another product of this State's political savvy (or lack thereof)? I certainly see signs he is expected to be the unifier, but we will see.

I can honestly say I will vote for any on the R slate.

Posted by: swatter on May 8, 2007 06:51 AM

4. classic. wa gop'ers want a man is isn't yet running! i wonder how bush would poll with this group?

Posted by: dinesh on May 8, 2007 08:12 AM

5.
And I thought it was only the Seattle Libs who were the Looney Tunes...now I see this whole state lives in it's own cocoon, a world where "Fred Thompson" becomes a front runner.

Did Washington State suddenly split off from the multiverse onto it's own dimension?

Posted by: John Bailo on May 8, 2007 08:48 AM

6. Fred represents the idealized candidate. And possibly one that is not attainable. Conservatives see things in all of the other candidates that they don't like, and the project their dream for the perfect candidate onto Fred.

I happen to like Fred as well, but the reality is that translating the charisma and hope into a well oiled candidacy and money machine is an important part of every presidential race. And that has yet to be demonstrated.

What's good about Fred is that it is helping conservatives to understand that ultimately they need to rally all factions around one candidate.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 8, 2007 09:35 AM

7. My choice would be Mitt Romney. He's smart, articulate, experienced & has a good organization set up for the race.

By contrast, Thompson is behind on organization & money raising, has age & health issues & really doesn't have a lot of management experience. He hasn't really outlined his stands on several issues.

Romney has far more going for him & I hope he's the general election candidate.

Posted by: Clean House on May 8, 2007 09:44 AM

8. Did Brownback and Gilmore receive no votes whatsoever? Were they on the ballot?

Posted by: TB on May 8, 2007 09:46 AM

9. All ten announced candidates were on the ballot, plus Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich. There were over 500 people at the event, but I don't know how many people submitted ballots.

Posted by: Steve Beren on May 8, 2007 09:59 AM

10. I agree with dinesh and Jeff B. It's foolish to be throwing so much support behind a guy who isn't running. I think this is just folks wishing for something that isn't there. Get real people. It's not that I don't like Thompson. It's just the simple fact that the man isn't running. If we're going on that logic why not just put the next American Idol winner on the ballot. They usually get more votes than the presidential winner anyway.
And to further Clean House's point, what do we REALLY know about Thompson? Yes, he's a good conservative and has appeared on several radio shows and spoken his mind but he hasn't been put to the test.
Fred, if you're going to run, do it. If not, say so and put your support behind one of the folks who actually is running so that your supporters can get behind him. Politics is about the best choice available, not the ideal.

Posted by: WarmFuzzyPuppies on May 8, 2007 10:15 AM

11. Just imagine if the Democrats were waiting in the wings for an unannounced candidate with no money to jump in the race, you guys would be laughing your butts off. Funny to see people here putting all their eggs into one basket, praying to god they get a semi-decent candidate. Definitely says a lot about the current state of the GOP if you're so desperate for Fred to toss his hat in.

Go Ron Paul. =)

Posted by: Cato on May 8, 2007 10:19 AM

12. Re: Brownback and Gilmore on ballot

TB,

Yeah, Brownback and Gilmore were both on the ballot but received no votes. The ballot included everyone who is running or talking about running and was set up in alphabetical order.

Posted by: Josh, WSRP on May 8, 2007 11:07 AM

13. I know Ron Paul got at least 1 vote. Why wasn't he given the

Posted by: rocketdog on May 8, 2007 11:13 AM

14. Oh good lord... You folks cannot "honestly" say that you know "nothing" about Fred Thompson. That is the lamest canard to be pulling out of the wet sack of moldy objections.

There has been so much information circulating out there on Thompson over the last month that one would have to be either brain dead or just a closet moonbat to not notice. Uh?! Uh oh... Did I just stumble on something?

National Review Online has had oodles and gobs of information as well as several opinion pieces by Thompson.

Weekly Standard has done numerous profiles.

Politico dot com has been running several updates.

FoxNews, CNN, Hotline, his Senatorial record, Project Vote Smart, etc...

Now you folks can stop feigning ignorance. I know pretending to be ignorant is a lot easier than trying to make legitimate policy arguments against Thompson, but please, don't ask the rest of the informed world to gullibally soak up your pretense like SpongeBob.

Yip Yip

Posted by: Coyote on May 8, 2007 11:43 AM

15. I agree with dinesh and Jeff B. It's foolish to be throwing so much support behind a guy who isn't running.

I disagree. At this stage of the process, there is nothing wrong with demonstrating where your preferences lie. It helps in at least 2 ways. It helps existing candidates know that they are not getting the right message out, and it tells the candidate "considering the run" that he has a ground swell of support that might make him decide that he has a viable chance at receiving the nomination.

Remember, this is a straw poll of preferences, not a caucus that assigns delegates. Besides, even if Fred said that he was NOT running, it would not be useless support since it still shows that the major candidates have image problems.

Posted by: eyago on May 8, 2007 11:47 AM

16. I would just like to point out that Dinesh is a major Romney supporter and has made no bones about it. I think his comments about Thompson should be viewed through that lense.

Posted by: thatcher on May 8, 2007 11:54 AM

17. A quote from Fred Thompson about Lincoln Chaffee.

"There are a lot of reasons I support Linc. We agree on most issues, disagree on some. ... "

Chaffee is a Liberal. Fred is not a conservative.

Why am I not surprised by his support on this blog?

Posted by: M&M on May 8, 2007 12:00 PM

18. Read Robert Novak's column: http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272613185.shtml

I predict in the end Thompson won't run.

Posted by: Murtz on May 8, 2007 12:10 PM

19. In regards to Thompson not having declared yet...

Technically, Dino Rossi isn't officially running for governor yet. I bet a straw poll would show most of the state GOP would choose him.

Ditto Thompson. Somehow I kind of think the results of the poll were less about guaging any opinion and more about sending a nice friendly invite to the former Tennessee senator to hop in the pool.

Posted by: Don Ward on May 8, 2007 12:24 PM

20. I'd love to see Fred Thompson get tapped or be a finalist in consideration for VP when the time comes. He's pretty popular with us conservatives (I mentioned on a thread awhile ago about him making me feel like jumping up and down cheering every time I hear him speak), but like many have pointed out elsewhere, his lack of serious experience and real pinning down of what he stands for gets in the way of taking him that seriously.

I was happy to see Romney and Guiliani pretty much neck and neck on that poll. That's more like it and they are who I think are more plausible for getting the nomination. I also heartily support both of them.

Posted by: ferrous on May 8, 2007 12:39 PM

21. warm and fuzzy, he is running. People have been sitting on the sidelines and not giving to the other candidates in anticipation.

No, guys, dinesh will never vote for an R. Cato, neither, though his institute puts out a mean podcast.

Posted by: swatter on May 8, 2007 01:23 PM

22. Run, Fred, RUN!

Posted by: John425 on May 8, 2007 01:25 PM

23. Swatter @ 21

I might vote for Thompson in the GOP caucus (I'm likely to be the only person there from my Dist.), but I'd rather pick Ron Paul. You keep rooting for the phantom candidate and I'll keep my focusing on the candidate with no chance in hell of winning.

Posted by: Cato on May 8, 2007 01:44 PM

24. I'm surprised that Romney got second i hope the best for him he has the best resume for the job and has America's family at heart.

Posted by: Andre on May 8, 2007 02:11 PM

25. Completely predictable. I'm surprised Bob Dole wasn't a choice as well. If he was, he probably would have been neck and neck with Thompson in the straw poll. Can our party please get a bit pragmatic sometime soon? Just a little bit? Guiliani flubs a question (one of about five) on abortion rights at the debate and our party tries to find the next Bob Dole. Awesome.

Posted by: Jim on May 8, 2007 02:42 PM

26. Josh @ 12: Thanks for the info. I voted quickly, and didn't really take notice of who all was on the list, so in retrospect, I didn't remember.

Posted by: TB on May 8, 2007 03:07 PM

27. Seriously, folks: what has Fred Thompson ever done that is notable, aside from pretending to be a Senator -- both on film and in person? The man has no record of real achievement. He gave up his seat without a fight (out of boredom?) and dabbled with this, that, and the other thing.

I am second to none in my admiration for Mr. Thompson as the Hollywood personification of a governmental big-shot. His list of screen credits is impressive. But President? Other than the fact that he is not John McCain, I see no reason to support him. And I think he would agree.

Fred walks like a duck and talks like a duck -- but if the GOP nominates him, they'll be laying the biggest egg in history.

Posted by: Rey Smith on May 8, 2007 04:00 PM

28. Rey you forgot that he's not so smart and doesn't work hard enough. Other than that, you just copied everything they were saying about Reagan. Get original.

Posted by: thatcher on May 8, 2007 05:16 PM

29. Except that Reagan was a wildly successful governor of California and had worked tirelessly for every GOP candidate since 1964, you're spot on, thatcher. Get real.

Posted by: Rey Smith on May 8, 2007 07:49 PM

30. Jim (at #25),

What does Thompson have in common with Bob Dole that Giuliani doesn't?

Thatcher (here and at Postman),

What do you dislike about McCain that doesn't apply to Thompson?

Posted by: Michelle on May 8, 2007 10:33 PM

31. Ron Paul is the only trustworthy candidate, but the elite of the Ripofflican party did not have him in the poll.

No better than the censorship of Paul by the leftist "news" media.

Posted by: Independent voter on May 9, 2007 05:31 AM

32. Ron Paul is Ross Perot without the ears.

Enough already with the solipsistic nonsense. The Democrats are serious. Maybe it's time the GOP was, also.

Posted by: Rey Smith on May 9, 2007 05:39 AM

33. Here's my uninformed take on the way this thing is shaping up so far:
Giuliani- not actually Hillary, other than that, he's Hillary.
McCain- only 10% of republicans ever liked him, and that's not likely to change, ever.
Romney- why do I keep wanting to call him the stepford candidate?
Thompson- 92% of what we want, but toying with our emotions because he's not running yet.
All the others- who?

Just my thoughts/feelings on our crop of candidates. On a side note, Fred hasn't paid a nickel for any of the tv coverage he's had so far; that's pretty smart.

Posted by: Thekingprawn on May 9, 2007 11:25 AM

34. It's Fred. Here is why.... http://bednarzblogsphere.blogspot.com/2007/03/fred-dalton-thompson-for-president-08_18.html

Posted by: Michael Bednarz on May 10, 2007 09:23 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?