He is the only one I see running that I would donate money to, and I already have.

In fact, I am not sure that I would even bother to vote for sell-outs and RINOs McCain or Giuliani, or newly discovered conservative Romney, who is a lifetime hunter and NRA Life member, who supports an assault weapons ban. These guys have too many issues, character flaws, and wrong positions, not to mention poll-driven opinions. Their positions on the issues I care about are not that far from Hillary's and Obama's.

I might change my mind later, but as of right now, I would not bother to vote for anyone but Thompson or Gingrich, who as we all know, is unelectable.

I think that at this point in the 1992 election, A guy named Bill Clinton was relatively unknown and had little or no money. He managed to do okay.

TR

TR -- I am on Blackberry and can't verify now (my plane just returned to Dulles due to mechanical problems), but I am fairly certain that Clinton had raised a ton of money by the same point in the cycle. Also, people are now raising money earlier and earlier, so a late start is even worse now.

Let's face it. We are all screwed. Get ready to bend over for Hillary.

Maybe I'm Pollyanna - but I flat refuse to believe that she's a done deal. I think the anti-Hillary sentiment runs too high to get her elected or even get her the Dem nomination. That - and she's sooo shrill and boring, she doesn't have an ounce of her "husband's" charisma. I think she's going to get the Tsongas/Brown or Dean treatment and fall in the polls as we get closer to game time. I don't think she has staying power - there is too much baggage and exposive material there.

Past year's fundraising
 

I did some quick research and in April 2003 here is what was reported:

John Edwards raised $7.4 million
John Kerry raised $7.0 million
Dick Gephardt raised $3.5 million
Joe Lieberman raised $3.0 million
Howard Dean raised $2.6 million
Bob Graham raised $1.1 million
Dennis Kucinich and Carol Moseley Braun raised less than $1 million each

GWB was incumbent so I didn't look at his numbers.

I'm no analyst, but I'd say the times have changed dramatically if the front-runner at this point in the game raised $2.6m, and the eventual nominee raised $7m and now we're looking at numbers three times this amount. Hillary reported over $20m and Romney $23m in the same quarter this year. Clearly this is a different ballgame, but I still contend we don't know how that is all going to play out. I think it means people aren't thrilled with the current state of politics and so they are willing to ante up - but that doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't be willing to give up more money for another candidate they liked on either side of the aisle.

This is interesting.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...la-home-center

What is even more interesting than the facts and percentages in the article, are the results of the online poll. Fred is a landslide winner in that poll.

In that same online poll, Kucinich gets 18.8% to Hillary's 2.0%. While I wish Hillary only had 2.0% support...

Although it frightens all that is good out of me that anyone gives Kucinich 18%. Only in LA.

This is even more interesting.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ential_primary

Not even in the race yet and he has caught Rudy from behind without lifting a finger. Unless he falls flat on his face or does something stupid it is looking like a Thompson/Clinton showdown in '08. That is a fight I look forward to and one that Rudy, Mitt or John wouldn't likely win.

i'm with fred
 

just donated. first ever political contribution.

Meeee too. I chuckle everytime I think of it, matter of fact. As I've said before...he'll wipe the floor with Clinton.

Makes you feel good, doesn't it? :D It was mine as well.

Actually it does make me feel good. And since I put it on my Cabela's Visa card, I get points towards getting some free hunting stuff too!

If for some reason Hillary... or anyone of the other candidates that I really wouldn't want to see become CINC, does get elected I want to at least be able to say that I participated fully in the process this time around.

TR had it right. Got to either get involved or STFU.

Just got invited to a Giuliani fundraiser today. :D :munchin

You could take your guns and turn them in there, since hizzonner does not seem to believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals.

TR

The skeletons (and the wolves) appear to be out of the closet, I saw nothing here that would deter me.

I am sure that reps of the other candidates will soon be participating in the night of the long knives.

I want to see Fred in a debate with the others.

TR

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4470.html

Rivals try to deflate F. Thompson campaign
By: Kenneth P. Vogel
Jun 13, 2007 06:07 AM EST

Can Fred Thompson resist being cast as a lawyer and a lobbyist?

Fred Thompson has had a relatively easy ride as he has flirted with a bid for the Republican presidential nomination. His strategists have found traction promoting him as the heir to Ronald Reagan -- and a conservative alternative to the top tier of the GOP field.

But the ride is starting to get a bit bumpy.

Opponents and their researchers have begun working -- mostly behind the scenes -- to highlight perceived soft spots in his conservative bona fides.

And Thompson will have to neutralize questions on the campaign trail and in the media about his centrist votes in the Senate, his stances on litmus test conservative issues including abortion and -- perhaps most significantly -- his work as a lawyer and lobbyist.

Thompson's biggest challenge will likely be cementing his image as a conservative country lawyer fixin' to shake up Washington -- before his opponents brand him as an influence peddler and trial lawyer.

Here are the roles into which opponents will likely try to cast Thompson and the ways in which he may seek to inoculate himself:

Tricky clientele

-- Lobbyist: Thompson made nearly $1.3 million over about two decades of lobbying both before and after his eight-year Senate stint, according to government documents and media accounts from his successful run for the Senate in 1994.

Though Thompson won in a landslide, that was in a watershed Republican year and before the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal helped Democrats effectively wield the culture-of-corruption theme against Republicans.

Some of Thompson's clients could prove tricky to explain, from a British reinsurance company facing billions of dollars in asbestos claims to deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

If Thompson formally enters the race next month, as his aides have signaled, his campaign will likely try to minimize his lobbying.

Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo called the list "incredibly old news and incredibly stale news" and stressed that lobbying was but a small part of Thompson's legal practice.

"He had a law practice for over 30 years and he had about half a dozen lobbying clients," Corallo said.

Trial lawyers are bogeymen?

-- Trial lawyer: Before Thompson won his Senate seat, published reports said his private law practice handled personal injury cases and defended people accused of white-collar crimes. And in the Senate, he opposed some legislation intended to rein in escalating jury verdicts and attorneys' fees.

Trial lawyers are bogeymen for some conservative groups, which consider them Exhibit A for a legal system that rewards greed over industriousness.

But Thompson appears likely to tout the public service aspects of his legal career, including stints as an assistant U.S. attorney and Watergate congressional counsel, as well as a case in which he uncovered a payoff scheme that landed a Tennessee governor in prison.

"This is a guy who was an incredibly accomplished attorney," Corallo said.

As for the Senate record, Corallo pointed out that Thompson supported some tort reform measures.

He voted against others because he felt they infringed on states' rights, Corallo said, asserting, "He was consistent in voting against measures that provided the federal government powers that the federal government shouldn't have. … People understand that."

Backed McCain-Feingold

-- Campaign finance reformer: Thompson was among the leading Republican backers of the sweeping package of campaign finance reforms commonly known as McCain-Feingold.

Since it passed into law in 2002, conservative activists have derided it as an infringement on their free speech and have held a grudge against its GOP sponsor, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whose presidential campaign has struggled to win over conservatives.

Expect conservative groups and rivals to emphasize Thompson's support for the bill, even calling it "McCain-Feingold-Thompson."

In recent months, Thompson has worked to give himself cover on the issue, asserting that the law didn't work as intended and suggesting the fairly drastic step of removing contribution limits entirely.

"The conservatives who have spoken with Fred have been satisfied with his position as it stands," Corallo said, though he added campaign finance should not "be at the top of the priority list when you're talking about challenges America is facing."

Centrist or conservative?

-- Centrist senator: Though the influential American Conservative Union scored Thompson's Senate career voting record at 86 percent, some of the votes on which he strayed from the GOP fold could prove problematic for ardent partisans.

For instance, he backed a 1998 bill that would have established a temporary farm worker program and a 1996 bill to increase the minimum wage. And he voted against one of the two impeachment charges brought against President Clinton in 1999.

Thompson will defend each vote individually, Corallo said, but will argue he approached all decisions from a conservative, federalist position.

As for immigration, Thompson has come out strongly against the pending overhaul legislation, which McCain is spearheading.

On impeachment, Corallo said Thompson carefully studied the evidence before splitting his votes, "and he stands by it."

Pro-choice?

-- Abortion-rights supporter: Every time Thompson got the chance in the Senate, he voted with those who oppose abortion rights. But the social conservatives for whom abortion is a litmus test scrutinize every bit of a politician's record -- and Thompson's provides some fodder for opponents to question the depth of his opposition to abortion rights.

On candidate surveys in 1994 and 1996, he answered that he favored abortion always being legal in the first trimester of pregnancy and opposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution "protecting the sanctity of human life."

According to the Nashville Tennessean, Thompson included a handwritten clarification with the latter response, reading, "I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people."

After Thompson again intimated, during a Fox News appearance this month, that he'd oppose criminalizing abortion, conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote that Thompson "came close to alarming his pro-life constituency."

Thompson will point to support from leading anti-abortion groups to neutralize this line of attack. He was endorsed by National Right to Life in both of his Senate campaigns and has a 100 percent voting record from the group, Corallo pointed out, asserting: "That's what counts. How did he act?"

David Mark contributed to this report.