Bloodless Coup

McCain? Most conservatives would fall asleep. We're not the Democrats, and if my vote has anything to do with it, we're not going to nominate some tree stump like Al Gore or some Boston party favor like John Kerry. McCain has been all over the board on several issues, and we're not looking for someone to compromise the interests of our party.

Yah, Huckabee's getting more creepy every day, but if conservatives really want to win, I've been saying since a year ago that we should nominate Fred Thompson. But nobody wants to talk about Fred Thompson, because he's the thoughtful straight shooter that McCain pretends to be. The media on both sides is fed up with a President they can't control with their polls, so they have no motivation to talk to someone who'd treat them like the birds of prey they are.

Hmmm - how did you manage to mention Fred Thompson and "fall asleep" in the same comment and not put the two together? :)

I'm just going off the polls Morris. Giuliani's numbers have been slip-sliding away, and in terms of the polls (no, not you, but the voters nationally) I've seen across lots of states McCain's got the best numbers, especially since I don't see why Rudy's numbers would stop falling, and a lot of the Republican base is going be lashing into Huckabee, driving his potential/numbers down.

McCain might not be the "straight-shooter" you want, but he's well-known and well-liked across a lot of the country (if not by you or me), and his image is pretty well set (will be hard to drag him down).

And while as you'll remember I've noted the raw deal Thompson gets from FoxNews, in general Thompson's got no one to blame but himself for his inability to take off. The press couldn't have been more excited and ready to cover his candidacy (well, not FoxNews, but otherwise ...) - but then it turned out there was nothing for them to cover. He's done an abysmal job of trying to get attention or make a mark in the race. And if he doesn't give the press something for them to cover, it's not their fault if they aren't promoting him.

"And if he doesn't give the press something for them to cover, it's not their fault if they aren't promoting him."

I guess I've got a crazy idea, that writing columns for NRO telling people where exactly he does stand on the issues is giving the press "something to cover." Unfortunately, they're more interested in what Hillary's wearing or what celebrities are endoring Kucinich and Obama while they stand in front of people and find new ways to avoid answering the real questions.

Issue positions are not things to cover, no, unless they are surprising or newsworthy in some way. It's the job of a successful politician, a real leader, to make the people interested in and willing to follow your positions. And if Thompson can't even maintain the interest of those paid to cover politics for a living ...

Besides, you know what I'm talking about - Huckabee found a way to attract attention, Romney cunningly found a way to control the week's news cycle, Thompson needs to do something similar. If he can't he's neither very politically astute, nor someone who's likely to be able to lead the country.

So the media should focus on politicians who most skillfully manipulate them?

No - but in order to be successful politicians need to know how to skillfully manipulate the media. If Thompson hopes to lead he has to find a way to get people to listen - and as of yet he's failed miserably at that.

All you need to know about Huckabee can be found in these 4 links.
http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_07_21_04/huckabee5.html
http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_07_14_04/huckabee4.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/05/exclusive-the-complete-h_n_75373.html
http://www.taxhikemike.org