Fred Thompson, the still not formally announced candidate for president, has made the rounds of state fairs this summer, seen here at the Minnesota Fair this week. Photo by Kari Goodnough/Bloomberg News.
By Mark Silva
At least one traditionally influential voice in New Hampshire has had enough of Fred Thompson's fence-sitting in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
The New Hampshire Union Leader in Manchester opined today that if Thompson is serious about this bid, he should sign up for the New Hampshire Republican Party's debate next week.
Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee and television and film star who holds an enviable position in early opinion polls of Republican voters without having formally declared his candidacy, has suggested that an announcement is coming after Labor Day.
The Union Leader is calling him out:
Not-so-fast Freddy: Thompson should attend NH debate
"FRED THOMPSON has flirted from afar with Republican voters for long enough. It's time for him to accept a date. And there is no better first date than the New Hampshire Republican Party's presidential debate on Sept. 5.
Thompson is expected to announce his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on or near Labor Day, which is Sept. 3. Asked two weeks ago in Nashville whether Sept. 5 would be the day, Thompson said, "I can't give you a particular date, but sounds like you're in the neighborhood."
If Thompson announces before the debate, New Hampshire voters will expect him to be at the University of New Hampshire with the other announced candidates. A no-show will be counted here as a snub.
If Thompson waits until after the debate to make his announcement, it will appear to some as if he timed the announcement just to avoid the New Hampshire debate. That would give his foes the chance to say he is either not serious about running for the nomination or is too unprepared to be considered a credible candidate.
Politically, Thompson simply ought to come to the debate. Avoiding it costs him stature, which is his chief political commodity right now.
We know that state GOP Chairman Fergus Cullen and the co-sponsoring FOX News team would be happy to find a spot on stage for Fred Thompson even if he announces his candidacy the day of the debate. Timing is no excuse for missing this event.
Thompson's main weakness right now is his commitment to the race. Republicans are starting to think that his heart is not in it, and they are getting tired of the teasing. The best way for Thompson to dismiss this concern and prove that he is a serious and credible candidate is to take up the challenge and join his rivals on stage Sept. 5.''
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Who is that zombie in the blue shirt?
Posted by: jethro | August 29, 2007 12:19 PM
Fred Thompson is not the Second Coming. He should quit acting like he is.
Posted by: Swamp Rat Patrol | August 29, 2007 12:28 PM
Fredrick "Of Hollywood" Thompson?
The Great White Guy Republican Hope?
Posted by: John E | August 29, 2007 1:04 PM
Wanna know the truth? Big Daddy Freddy is the quintessential drama queen. You know what's going to happen. The stage is set. He descends a broad staircase clutching his speech, his adoring wife by his side, trying to smile lovingly at him being careful not to trip on the steps. He begins his announcement with all the media focused on his chunky bod. His speech goes like this: "Hi, my name is Fred Thompson and I want to be your president." The crowd cheers wildly: "The reason I took so long to grace you with my presence on the campaign trail is cuz I wanted to be sure America is ready for an old fart with fresh, youthful ideas, such as appointing judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, making Americans pull themselves up by their bootstraps, stoping abortions, building more prisons, bombing every country we disagree with, getting rid of social security, medicare, taxes on the wealthy, the Federal Reserve, and this fool nonsense of man on man and women on women. When I plop my big but in the White House not just the floor will shake but the whole house will. So, if you want a big guy who can move more than bowels, I'm your boy!!!!!." The crowd goes wild.
Posted by: GW | August 29, 2007 1:15 PM
Haven't many posted on how the long campaign is? Many have complained (and rightly so) that the presidential campaign used to be a year, and now it's 2 years. So, if Fred Thompson plans on getting in after Labor Day, what is wrong with that?
Frankly, I wish they all waited until after Labor Day weekend.
Posted by: John D | August 29, 2007 1:37 PM
Alternate caption:
"I thought the penalty on Kurt Busch was, well..bush. If ya ain't cheatin', ya ain't trying."
Posted by: TheReamer | August 29, 2007 1:43 PM
Mark, redstate.com (the website the Swamp lists on this page, but misspelled as "red state.org") and real clear politics (a website often cited in the Swamp) both report that they've heard Thompson will announce on Sept. 4th.
I realize reporters don't talk to Republicans or read Republican websites, and thus don't keep up on what's happening with the GOP, so I'm glad to help you out here.
Posted by: Bruce | August 29, 2007 1:59 PM
Oh yeah, the "Family Values" Republicans can't wait for him to join the race.
I wonder if they know his new wife is four years younger than his daughter?
Posted by: nisleib | August 29, 2007 2:04 PM
The real show is in California. I've been telling you for weeks. The proposal to change how the electoral college is selected in CA is the big story.
Normally, I wouldn't worry about it because the U.S. Constitution strictly forbids what the Republicans are trying to do in CA. But the Supreme Court is now stacked in the Republicans favor and they have about as much interest in upholding the U.S. Constitution as this White House does.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | August 29, 2007 2:48 PM
Fred should stick to acting. Then again since he's a loser he'd make a great republican candidate.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | August 29, 2007 3:26 PM
"I realize reporters don't talk to Republicans or read Republican websites, and thus don't keep up on what's happening with the GOP, so I'm glad to help you out here."
Oh yeah right. Republicans just bend over backwords to speak with reporters. Unless it's James Guckert. Or is it Jeff Gannon?
Or, maybe reporters have rolled their eyes one too many times with bs answers republicans give them. It hurts after awhile. I know my eyes were hurting listening to Bush & that was before he stole the 1st presidential election. It's advanced to migranes. Soon, it may be a comma.
Regarding Thopmson, he needs to finish business or get off the pot. Not that it will matter anyway.
Posted by: RomanB | August 29, 2007 3:45 PM
Dumb old man. Kinda cute though. Meet me in the bathroom and bring your tap-dancing shoes. Nothing screams quackery like the republican party!
Posted by: queer as folk | August 29, 2007 5:50 PM
“Normally, I wouldn't worry about it because the U.S. Constitution strictly forbids what the Republicans are trying to do in CA.”
******
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | August 29, 2007 2:48 PM
Start worrying Bud. The Constitution doesn't forbid what's in the works in California. This is true regardless of the Supreme Court's current lineup.
Article II, Section I only says that the each state must appoint a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives, and the choosing of electors shall be done "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct . . ." It then says that the electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for two persons and then send the certified results to Congress. The one with the most votes of the majority of electors wins the Presidency. [I’ve left out some of the nonessential details.]
Two features are worth noting, mostly for what is left out of the Constitution on this point. The first is the fact the Constitution does not provide at all for a popular election of the President. The only reason we now have a popular election in each State is to determine who gets the electoral votes.
The second noteworthy feature – based on the absence of any requirement for a popular election – is that there is no requirement that each State give all or a particular portion of its electoral votes to a particular candidate. It simply provides that the electors shall meet in their respective States and vote for two persons (with at least one out-of-state candidate). Theoretically, at least, the electors could vote for whomever they wanted, giving any number of votes to any of the candidates. To be sure, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires each State to give all of its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote of the State, or that it is prohibited from apportioning the EC votes in any particular manner. These are all questions left entirely up to each of the State legislatures.
The proposal in California is simply one to apportion the electoral votes based on either: (1) the results of each district; or (2) the percentage of the overall results of the popular vote (I forget which right now). In any event, the basic premise is that each candidate should get as many electoral votes as the congressional districts he or she carries (on the theory that each congressional district has roughly the same number of voters). In addition, the winner would get two extra votes, representing the EC votes for the number of Senators (the CD votes corresponding to the number of EC votes for Representatives).
The benefit of the proposed change is that it would make the Electoral College vote more closely track the results of the popular vote. In the hypothetical case in which the vote was a 60-40 split in California, the winner would get Electoral College votes equal to 60% of the number of Congressional Districts and an extra two votes for winning the State overall (31+2 =33). The looser would still get 40% of the EC votes representing 40% of the number of Congressional Districts (=20). This is clearly a lot more equitable manner in apportioning the number of electoral college votes than the winner take all system. It also has the added benefit of being capable of being done without any amendment to the Constitution.
Posted by: John W. | August 30, 2007 8:34 AM
"in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct . . ."
You can stop right there.
Are referendums the new Legislature?
I didn't think so.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | August 30, 2007 5:59 PM
"in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct . . ."
You can stop right there.
Are referendums the new Legislature?
I didn't think so.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | August 30, 2007 5:59 PM
Actually, Bud, they can be. It depends on whether the initiative enacts the law itself, or directs the legislature to enact such a law. If the initiative directly establishes a law, then it would arguably run afoul of the Constitution. If, however, it directs the legislature to do something, then the resulting legislation would still be a rule promulgated by the legislature and would, thus, be free of any constitutional defect. California’s referendum system has produced both kinds of results before.
However, to be perfectly fair, I have read the ballot initiative, and I can tell you that the initiative does attempt to directly legislate the change. On this point, you might have a good argument.
However, that doesn't change the fact that they might still be able to fix the situation between now and the election – to have the law changed as a measure passed by the State legislature. We'll just have to wait and see.
But my original point stands. The concept of apportioning electoral votes (as is done in both Maine and Nebraska) is not prohibited by the Constitution.
Posted by: John W. | August 31, 2007 12:36 AM