Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > September > 06 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USThompson is in. You care?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Fred Thompson made it official Wednesday night, allowing Jay Leno to assemble his announcement audience just after the rest of the field gathered in New Hampshire for their fifth national debate. The timing and Thompson’s choice of Leno over New Hampshire is pretty clear evidence that he concedes that state to others, probably Mitt Romney.
He starts the campaign about 11 points behind Rudy Giuilaini and 2.6 points ahead of Romney, on average, nationally. He’s appealed so far to Republicans who survey the field and decide their first choice is somebody else. He’s the “other” candidate who polls well, but traditionally begins to fade when the real candidate emerges.
He starts his campaign eight months after the rest of the field, and lags way behind both Romney and Giuliani in organization and fundraising.
He’s attractive, in large part because he blends the entertainment-politics culture. He’s easily most familiar to the nation as district attorney Arthur Branch on ABC’s “Law & Order” crime drama. He’s also had roles in more than a dozen movies.
He also appeals in the Red State South because he’s a former U.S. Senator from Tennessee between 1994 and 2002, where he was mostly conservative. He backed John McCain over George W. Bush in 2000. He also spent a number of years in Washington as a lawyer and lobbyist and those years are likely to give him some trouble in the primaries. One of his lobbying clients was the leftist former President Jean Bertrand-Aristide of Haiti and another was the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which retained his lobbying firm in 1991 to ease a regulation that prevented clinics receiving federal money from providing abortion counseling.
Any Thompson supporters here? Thompson badly needs to win South Carolina, where he’s currently running behind Giuliani, to demonstrate that he can carry the South. Maybe. But I’m betting that while he’s the “other” candidate now, by tomorrow he’s just another mortal in the race.
Comments
By Jeff
September 6, 2007 8:27 AM | Link to this
Well, Mr. Wooten, I haven’t changed my support from a Paul or possibly Paul/Tancredo ticket.
You seem to be growing less attached to Thompson by the day.
I’m thinking that - much like the 04 elections - the front runners in the beginning will be the ones LEAST likely to come up with the nomination, and that goes for BOTH parties.
Paul’s support is growing slowly but steadily. As I’ve said before, he is the closest thing to Jefferson either of us is likely to see in our lifetimes, and therefore he is the man I want residing at 1600 Pennsylvania NW.
By saywhat?
September 6, 2007 8:32 AM | Link to this
It really doesn’t matter who joins the Republican nomination race. They are going to lose anyway to the Democratic candidate, whoever that ends up being.Keeping fingers crossed it will be Kucinich or Edwards.
By ybrik
September 6, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this
Oh Jim… how you forget to mention a few things.
Thompson had only 4 out of 90 bills passed in the Senate during 8 years.
Thompson has the lowest ratio of votes in attendance while a senator for 8 years.
Do we really, regardless of our political leanings, want a president that appears to have less desire for the office than the current one? A man that seems to think that governance is only a side-product of being in government?
We’ve seen what happens when you assemble an administration around a faux-cowboy with no motivation, intelligence, or passion. Do we really want to see what happens when we have a president who’s better at playing one on TV?
By jbmlaw
September 6, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. I proclaimed my support for Fred on this blog last March; I have not seen anything to change my mind. The WSJ today publishes Fred’s voting scorecards by various interest groups, both intelligent and leftist, and Fred’s numbers are consistently strongly conservative. Is he a perfect conservative? No, he is more moderate than I, but almost everyone is. He is actually more conservative than Rudy, and Fred radiates a more conservative persona than Mitt, although Mitt is really ok.
I resided in Tennessee when Fred was our senator, and I regarded him well. He delivered the address at my hooding ceremony, although that would not necessarily bias me toward his candidacy – I regarded that as a fluke, since leftists predominate at the law school. I also lived there during the period when Fred, as a private attorney, contributed mightily to deposing a corrupt governor, a fellow whom I believe died in prison or shortly afterward (I believe that story, “Marie,” later became Fred’s first movie. It is a true, albeit unbelievable, story.)
Do I think Fred will get the nomination? It is a three-man race, but a race still Rudy’s to lose. I note that Fred is an ideal VP for either Rudy or Mitt. Fred is Reaganesque in his style, and wears well; if there is any risk of voter fatigue in a long campaign, he will grate less than any other.
By jbmlaw
September 6, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this
Dear ybrik @ 8:47, you note “Do we really, regardless of our political leanings, want a president that appears to have less desire for the office than the current one?” Of course the flip side of that inquiry is, “Do we want a president who desires that power more than anything else, one who lusts so for the power that she will do anything to seize it?” I favor the Cincinnatus model.
By Reason
September 6, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this
C’mon, anybody buy Giuliani. He’d be slaughtered by the Democrats - if not, then we’d have a President even dumber than Georgie.
By curtis41
September 6, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this
Take a good look at his video on http://www.fred08.com/index.aspx Fred Thompson is running for the right reason and with the support of a lot of people fed up with business as usual. He is not afraid to tackle problems head on, and that is unusual in itself. Securing our borders is something NO president of late has been able or willing to do. We need a man like that in the White House and not a warmed over strident socialist.
By Rod
September 6, 2007 9:02 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw - in your 8:52 post, you described George Bush perfectly when you said: “Do we want a president who desires that power more than anything else, one who lusts so for the power that she will do anything to seize it?” (Can’t believe you called him a “she” - although he is rather effiminate.)
George is after absolute power. His own war, the right to listen in on any conversation, ignoring the people’s desires, …….
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this
Fred Thompson is just another Bush. Do we really need another swaggering, shoot-em-up cowboy-type president? I think not.
I liked seeing him on Law and Order the couple times I watched that show, but this is the real world, and we need a real president. He plays a good bad a* DA on TV, and unfortunately Americans are so dim-witted, they think that is reality.
I’m sure he’ll (like all the Republican candidates) start playing the fear card soon, that’s what seems to get people in frenzies and unfortunately works in this country.
Look at his position on the issues, he’s just another Bushie neo-con.
By Call Me Al
September 6, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this
By Jeff
September 6, 2007 8:27 AM | Link to this
Well, Mr. Wooten, I haven’t changed my support from a Paul or possibly Paul/Tancredo ticket.
You’re an absolute idiot Jeff. Tom Tancredo? Give me a break. You and your stickbud Tom ought to start the “nativist” party. At least it would flush the klan element out of the Republican party.
By Carl
September 6, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this
The best thing that could ever happen to the Republican party would be 8 years of Hillary Clinton. Maybe that would be the wakeup call needed to get the party back to its roots and rid itself of the right wing trash that has destroyed it.
By Politics Aside
September 6, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this
Thompson can win because most conservatives havent seen the “entire package” from the field yet. The set of values that comprise the entire conservative package is the criteria Thompson must use to form the language to mold his campaign distinctly from the others. His writers must spin insights not yet conceived by the field’s writers. I could help Thompson with that, and then he would have a Rove on his campaign.
Thompson’s take on Iraq will be critical. Iraq is now being spun by the Right as a non-issue that will just burn itself out into page-three ho-hum. If you listen to the generals, the sunnis have surrendered, the shia have called a cease fire, the kurds are fat and happy, and so what’s all the shouting about? (“We’ll get our 130K advisors home in good time, enjoy your 1000K/plate chicken dinners”).
Abortion is so tricky because so many americans have personal experience and pain about it. Trying to find middle ground with abortion is like finding the exact moment voluptuous women become fat chicks, (is it when they get preggers, mommy?).
(Rove scores. The crowd goes wild.)
Thompson should spend spin on spinster spending, ( fiscal conservatism). He should quickly be seen as a skinflint who cares about his own budget as well as the nation’s. Jack Benny did alright with that persona. Someone dust off the archival best lines and we’ll do modern variations. We’re taking on the big boys and it’s no time to be original.
Thompson should come out strong about rebuilding respect for our institutions, especially the oval office. No flag burning, and things like that.
Thompson can win. He needs a Rove, (or a Rovespierre).
By jbmlaw
September 6, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this
Dear Rod @ 9:02, if I read your post correctly, you agree with me that those politicians who lust for the power are dangerous. Perhaps you also agree with me that the “lust” is less obvious in Fred than in any of the others.
Based on the posts so far – best example is Bosch the Jew-baiter @ 9:14 – Fred strikes more fear in the hearts of the moonbats than Rudy or Mitt combined. That vindicates my innate sense. I hypothesize that Fred, among the Republican candidates, is most likely to triumph because he will draw out the worst instincts of our less-loyal opposition.
By Hmmm
September 6, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this
How can the Republican party spout out Family Values when most of the candidates are on their second/third wives?
By Jeff
September 6, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this
Al:
The thing about Tancredo and Paul that sets them apart from every other player in the field - of EITHER party - is that they both want strictly confined government. They are the ONLY two that can be trusted to at least START to return us to a small government model.
At first - before I found Paul - I thought Tancredo would be a good POTUS, but admittedly that has changed. I think he would be a good backup in case something happened to Paul, and that is why I think a Paul/Tancredo ticket is THE ticket. But I also agree with something McCain said in one of the debates this year as far as the responsibilities of the VP: “inquire daily as to the health of the President, cast tie breaking votes in the Senate, and NOTHING MORE”
By harold
September 6, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this
Teh reupblicans will run giuliani so they can get rid of him like the decomrates ran the Big Guy to get rid of him. When you have no chance to win, you run the guy you want to get rid of. That be Guiliani.
By Rod
September 6, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw - you state that lust for power is dangerous. Apathy in a candidate is equally dangerous.
By harold
September 6, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
second/third wives and 8 gazillionth bathroom/boy encounter
By David
September 6, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
NEWT, NEWT, why have you left us hanging without a choice???
By Goldie
September 6, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
Ron Paul has absolutely NO CHANCE winning the Repug primaries — get a clue! What exactly would be the attraction to your primary voters… ya know, amongst all those religious extremists and war-mongerers who have taken over your party???
HA! Ron Paul is obviously too smart for your average Repugnant Party supporter.
By Al
September 6, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this
Tancredo is a one trick pony. And unfortunately his one trick appeals to the rancid elements that have infiltrated the party. The Republican party with its present makeup is rapidly alienating large numbers of independents and moderates that it needs to assure long term viability. The only way the party survives over the long haul is to rid itself of the right wing. This populace is just too diverse. Until the republican party becomes more inclusive it has no hope for long term sustainment. And the Tancredos that infest the party at this time are barriers to the party going in a positive direction. Only by scrapping the politics of fear and exclusiveness can the republican party survive.
By Tom
September 6, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw: I’m interested in your “hooding ceremony.” What was it like when the Grand Kleagle placed placed the hood on your head? Did you get to light your first cross right then, or was that at some later affair?
By Goldie
September 6, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this
{{“He delivered the address at my hooding ceremony, although that would not necessarily bias me toward his candidacy”}}
Aw shucks, jbmlaw— you mean to say that sharing KKK hoods with Freddie is not goinig to “bias” you???
HA! No matter Freddie in or out of this race— your party still loses big in’08!
By Donna P.
September 6, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this
I’m voting for Fred. The other Republican candidates are weak. Fred will make a great president and stand up for the middle class Americans. Hillary is for MORE H1-B visas so MORE American tech jobs can be lost and she loves the illegals. She also will tax us to death and try to control our health care system. I pay $270 a month for health care through my employer.
By Politics Aside
September 6, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this
Last night, Thompson made a very complex Ed McMahon to Leno’s shallow Carson. Thompson can act his way into the white house. Americans think that actors ARE the characters they play on TV. They believe that so much, they’ll buy advertising from even perverted actors who play doctors. (“I’m not a doctor, but I play with myself when there’s porn on TV.”)
The best line last night? Fred offered this, “Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo, and you were a pair of brown shoes?”
By deegee
September 6, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this
Fred Thompson has too much baggage. He might as well get Larry Craig to run his campaign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072502329.html
By Jeff
September 6, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this
Al:
The Democratic party with its present makeup is rapidly alienating large numbers of independents and moderates that it needs to assure long term viability. The only way the party survives over the long haul is to rid itself of the left wing. This populace is just too diverse. Until the democratic party becomes more inclusive it has no hope for long term sustainment. And the Kucinichs that infest the party at this time are barriers to the party going in a positive direction. Only by scrapping the politics of fear and exclusiveness can the democratic party survive.
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this
Jew baiter? What? JMB, do we have a certain prejudice against those with German names?
That’s all the Republicans have going for them is the Fear Factor. They have nothing else. Thompson will play that card, just like his predecessors.
But the saddest thing is - the American people buy it, and will probably vote for Thompson (or another Republican)because they somehow feel he can protect them.
Personally, that wouldn’t bother me so much if a Republican won again. Let them deal with the consequences (?sp) of their actions a little longer. The economy is on the verge of collapse, and the war? Well, I actually see that things might be coming to a halt over there - and I think that a Republican in office after Bush and the backlash from the war, they need to own it.
By Mike
September 6, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this
Donna P. you are dead wrong! It was the Republicans that fought tooth and nail for more H1Bs during the past immigration debate. Don’t even try to lay that one on anyone else. The dems were argueing for family based immigration policies. Next time check your facts.
By deegee
September 6, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this
Jeff, Donna P., link to your forum is below. There you will find the Republican right wing in all its stellar glory.
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/immigration
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this
Oh, and Donna P. you said that the other Republican candidates are weak? What makes Fred so strong? You honestly think Fred will stand up for the middle class? A Republican standing up for the middle class is an oxymoron. He is a champion of big business, you think he gives a damn about your health care premium? Do yourself a favor and actually read his position on the issues.
By Jackie
September 6, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this
A report out this morning indicates the Iraqi police is corrupt and is run by the Shiites. I believe Dubya made his surprise visit to Baghdad to warn Petraeus about his report or else! Dubya’s financial record: debt from $4 Trillion to $8.5 Trillion; borrowing from Chinese military $4 Trillion; $2 Trillion tax cut for wealthiest Americans. Anecdotally, economy on the verge of collapse and Dubya indicating he can’t wait for the clock to run out so that he can go out and make some money. Where is Nancy Pelosi when you REALLY need her?
By Politics Aside
September 6, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this
I like Fred Thompson. I like his low growl and slow-burn delivery. As he campaigns, he’ll develop the exact method-acting technique that will transform himself into the defacto president, and Americans will buy it.
We are polling sheep. We let a man say, “nooyoolar”, and instead of feeding him to the wolves, we made him first malaprop and shephard-in-chief. We would elect OJ Simpson if he ever came up with the right combo of garbled message and stuporific delivery, (and diebold hackers), (and supreme court complicity).
By jm
September 6, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this
well, a Thompson presidency would be one way to eliminate the lobbyist middleman, since Fred himself is a lobbyist. Nothing to dislike about Thompson but like everyone else running, nothing that makes me say “Wow”.
After eight years of W the incompetent, I am just hoping for someone who knows what they are doing.
By Stuckey
September 6, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this
By Jeff
September 6, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this And the Kucinichs that infest the party at this time are barriers to the party going in a positive direction. Only by scrapping the politics of fear and exclusiveness can the democratic party survive.
And the racists, bigots, and nativists that infest the fear wing of the Republican party will ultimately kill it. Jeff, where were you in 06. Did something from those elections results fly right over your head little fella? Keep up that train of thought and pass it along. Keep working for the demise of your party. Jeff, you’re gonna hate 08.
By Nan
September 6, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this
Fred Thompson was a mediocre Senator, now he’s a mediocre actor with an oversized ego. Tricky Dicky summed up Thompson’s abilities over 30 years ago — “dumb as hell” — and nothing in Thompson’s history suggests Nixon was wrong. If he’s looking good to Republicans, then the Republican party truly is hurting for candidates.
By DebbieDoRight
September 6, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this
Fred Thompson? Well, speaking totally on the “disgruntled haters platform”, I don’t think any female would actually vote for Fred. All they have to do is look at his pretty, younger, third wife; and ask to see his first two older wives that he dumped to get to the floozy.
Once they see that, he’s history. Stick with Guiliani — at least his wife is older and smart enough to carry on an affair with him for years under the press’ nose.
By Captain Freedom
September 6, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this
THE Captain felt a long-absent tingle in his nether parts as the manly and virile Sen Thompson announced his assumption of the Republican nomination.
At last, a perfect replacement figure for our beloved Saint Ronald, a man whose musky scent of manly manliness comes straight through the television screen. A man whose faint aroma of cologne, cigar and fine whiskey — mingled ever so slightly with manly man sweat — conjures up the protective aura of Daddy during a long dark night of thunderstorms and nightmares of swarthy boogie men armies of people who are darker than Simon Cowell.
Yes, says THE Captain…THIS is a man who will continue to keep us safe from tigers, all the while regaling us with Common Sense homilies and anecdotes about Aunt Bea and crazy Uncle Buck out back of the barn with the sheep.
I can picture Our Fred now, sitting in a rocking chair on the veranda of the White House, a veritable Wilford Brimley President, mopping his forehead with a pocket hankie and hooking his thumb through a suspender as he dispenses the Decent True Belief Wisdom that Our Nation so desperately needs to defend ourselves from the insidious degradation that comes from those liberal Demons of Reason and Thought.
Pointy-headed America-haters will deride Our Fred as “cornpone” and “Huckleberry Hick”, but that just shows the disdain that intelligent, educated people of Our Nation have for regular real people like me and Dusty and Redneck Convert…God Fearing Real American people who are smart enough to know that we don’t know anything and that it is Right to let our betters (like Our Leader and Our Fred and jbmlaw) dictate to us what we should believe and which parts of the Constitution are better used to clean our recktums after a visit to the privy.
This kind of thinking was good enough for THE Captain’s Daddy, and his Daddy, and his Daddy’s Daddy’s Daddy. That’s why I’m so excited about Our Fred, a true National Daddy if ever there was one.
(Plus, his child bride Jeri is super hot. I love her low-cut dresses that show off her well-manufactured lady humps, the ones Our Fred call Law and Order. And since she is the late-model trophy bride, we can imagine Our Fred mounting her with vigor - as a true manly man should — without any of those icky thoughts about Dad schtupping Mom.)
It is indeed a great day in America.
(Special thanks to Jay Leno and his might chin of freedom.)
By Thogwummpy
September 6, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this
GOP only has fear? They’ve also got solid economic theory; while NEO-LIBS are devoted to the obsolete 19th century socialist schemes that repeatedly turn prosperous market economies sour. And fear isn’t such a bad thing when it reflects reality. NEO-LIBS are plain naive and are in denail about the dangers of the world. Their conistent policy is: “when provoked, we should cave-in, and that will provide security.” I’ve yet to meet a liberal that doesn’t veer into bizarre presumptions (like demanding warrants before we can monitor two foreign terrorists communicating via our satellite communication system)…for example, EVERY anti-war advocate, make illogical (and usually highly inaccurate) defenses of Saddam Hussein. From what I’ve heard from Fred; he gets it. We need a strong leader that’s a defender of America. The Left, which is the polics of the perpetual malcontent…wishes to remake America by dismantling it; and thusly they flirt with treason. Yes, at some point NEO-LIBS; you become enemies of our nation. I’ll stand by that, and I’ll get in your face and push you back on your rump if I have to.
Now that Fred’s in; his momentum can begin!
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this
Politics Aside - You are right about Americans electing OJ. Think Newt. Suddenly, he doesn’t look so bad? What? He used to be considered the AntiChrist to Democrats and liberals. I said this years ago - the A-D-D American population will completely forget his ethics violations and his hypocrisy and will elect him president one day. They will forget that the huge bipartisan divide that brought birth to the neo-con wingnut, fearmongerers we have today, were a direct result of Newt’s politics while he was SOH.
Totally sad - we are a nation who votes more for American Idol and is more interested in Paris Hilton’s newest fashion trend.
By Redneck Convert
September 6, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this
Well, I think I like this jbmlaw fellow better. I had a hooding ceremony a few years ago too. It was nice, but turns out there wasn’t enough of Those People up here in north Forsyth to make a klavern worth the trouble. So we just broke up.
I watched the debate last night. I imagine the towelheads in Iran did too, trying to decide which approach to attacking them they liked best. Anyway, if I was them I would go for this Ron Paul. Anybody that is for getting rid of the CIA and FBI must look pretty good to them. It just goes to show what a bonehead this Jeff must be. Without the CIA and the FBI Iran could just move a division of the Republican Guard right into the White House and the president wouldn’t know nothing about it.
Anyway, I didn’t turn my back to the TV because it was godly Republicans that was on. When the missus wants to watch the Democrat debate I turn my back and make noises.
I guess we got a pretty sorry bunch of Republicans running for president. The leader is for abortion and is on his 3rd wife and his kids don’t speak to him. Then there’s the Mormon guy that ain’t even a Christian and thinks his boys is being a hero like soldiers in Iraq because they are helping him get elected. Then there’s McCain that just wants to take all of Mexico in and make us the United States of America and Mexico. And this Thompson guy lobbied for abortion clinics. The rest of them is a bunch of nut cases. I would as soon have TFTT as president than any of them. Except when he needs his treatment. He would probly lob a few A-bombs at countries then.
If the Republicans don’t get a bible thumping conservative to run pretty soon I might just stay home on election day. And I don’t mean this guy from Arkansas that nobody knows anything about and don’t care. I figure about 8 years of this Hillary woman will straighten them out and make them return to the godly ways of the Baptists and other god fearing churches.
Its all the Rev. Fallwells fault. He had no business dying when he did. If he was alive he could get a godly conservative to show up at his church and give him a degree and we would know which one to vote for.
Have a good day everybody.
By Greg
September 6, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this
Newt? Where are you Newt?
By Greg
September 6, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this
Newt! We want Newt!
By Politics Aside
September 6, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this
Cartoon idea: Notice how nobody ever asks Mitt Romney, “Boxers or Briefs?”
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cartoon Idea: Notice how nobody ever asks Mitt Romney, “Boxers or Briefs?”
By DebbieDoRight
September 6, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this
GOP only has fear? They’ve also got solid economic theory
When are they going to use it? What are they waiting for — America to turn into a 3rd world country?
By Captain Freedom
September 6, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this
Apparently, the not-a-real-Christian Romney likes Boxers, preferably strapped to the roof of his car.
By Rod
September 6, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this
Thogwummpy - The GOP has solid economic theory? Why haven’t they ever used it? The economy is in the sh1ts thanks to Bush. When are you guys going to break out the solid economic theory. Oh, you meant the way Bush watches out for you rich guys while the rest of us pick up the tab. Gotcha!
By AmVet
September 6, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this
So Fred is in. Who really cares? He has a lot to prove and imitating Ronald Reagan is not going to work this time around, as America has seen enough of this neo-con philosophy to last them a lifetime. And I hope that they won’t be duped by another actor yet again.
IMHO McCain is the only man on that stage with the credentials to lead, but in spite of his good showing last night, he is still despised by the “base” and has no chance.
Giuliani, a moderate, perhaps even a RINO, would try desperately to prove he is a “real” new-age Republican and might govern accordingly. That is the last thing we need. And Romney is completely irrelevant.
Besides if Rudy is elected there might be a Constitutional crisis as he would attempt to move the nation’s capitol to NYC. Practically ALL he does is talk about his time as mayor there and how he single handedly saved Gotham.
Huckabee becomes more interesting with each debate. He seems reasonable and not completely in tune with the neo-con philosophy as evidenced by his support of the Fair Tax and his “we broke Iraq” comment.
Politically I most like Ron Paul, the only candidate to have the guts to say that the current neo-con dominated GOP is a train wreck and that FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE is required to restore the credibility of our government. But the bloodthirsty extremists in that party could barely contain their snickers when he spoke. Shameful. And Chris Wallace essentially called him a coward with that incredibly stupid “so you think Al-Queda should determine our timetble for leaving” remark. Incredibly shameful.
Speaking of which, isn’t it time to stop the pretense and just call that network what it truly is? The Republican News Network.
The funniest part of the evening was when Hannity was interviewing Cong. Paul and the Texan said that even Reagan was smart enough to admit that the Middle East was so full of lunatics, there was no reasoning with them and that is why he got us out of there after the Lebanon barracks bombing.
Sean puffed up so quickly that I thought he was going to bust that $250 silk tie! He started a mini-tirade about how RR was a REAL conservative.
And in spite of the accuracy of the analogy, it would have been great fun to have watched Paul explain to Mr. Hannity et al, all of the many things that showed President Reagan to be in some ways, the very antithesis of a true conservative.
By Politics Aside
September 6, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this
Fred Thompson needs to be seen as a gruff no-nonsense, no joking around, I’m just one of the guys, have a beer with me candidate.
Because we have a child in the white house now, america will vote for an adult. Hillary is gruffesque, so let Thompson counter with a gruff face on the right.
But not too harsh, these things have to be handled delicately…….
By Curious Observer
September 6, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this
If anybody can make the widely disliked Hillary Clinton look good by comparison, it is this slate of GOP candidates.
The results of the 2008 presidential election are a foregone conclusion. I’m more interested in learning whether the Republican Party will invite the incompetent Dubya to speak at the nominating convention, or whether they’ll pretend that Mr. 28 Percent doesn’t exist. If they do invite him, it will be interesting to see whether he’ll get an early start on his post-presidency career by charging them for the speech.
I was delighted to see yesterday that TFTT is still fixated on me. Sorry, TFTT. I’m not wired like you. There are no bathroom stalls and shoe-kicking in my future.
By Goldie
September 6, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this
{{“while NEO-LIBS are devoted to the obsolete 19th century socialist schemes that repeatedly turn prosperous market economies sour. And fear isn’t such a bad thing when it reflects reality.”}}
Yeah, damn those LIBS devoted to the obsolete 19th century schemes, like doing away with child slavery in your “prosperous market” factories! And those LIBS fighting for a 40-hour work week, thereby making those “prosperous market economies” turn sour! Damn those LIBS!
Just imagine what kind of world we would be living in today if it wasn’t for those damn LIBS ruining your rampant “prosperous markets”… we’d all be slaving away in factories today, working those wonderful 80-hour weeks on the clock, if left up to you NEO-CONS and your anti-AMERICAN AGENDA.
By getalife
September 6, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
No.
By Jeff
September 6, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
Observer:
What does it tell you when the DEMOCRATIC controlled Congress has a LOWER approval rating than the much-despised President???
Talk about “Mr. 28 percent”??
How about “Ms. 26 percent”?? (Pelosi or Clinton, take your pick)
By Goldie
September 6, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this
{{“Now that Fred’s in; his momentum can begin!”}}
HAR, HAR, HAR — now that’s really funny! We can’t wait to see some of that “hooding ceremony” going on for the KKK during this prez. campaign!
By Goldie
September 6, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this
Debbie @ 10:24— yeah, the GOP’s “solid economic theory” obviously includes having China own our economy… what a bunch of idiots! To think that they’re still trying to use the “economics” card during the ‘08 campaign!
By ybrik
September 6, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this
@Thogwumpy. Economic Theory? Ahh, yes. Average incomes rising slightly over the last 8 years as the number of hours worked increases and the average pay-per-hour decreases.
The nation’s median household income grew modestly in 2006, the Census Bureau reported yesterday, even as the percentage of people without health insurance hit a high. Experts said the rise in income was mainly a reflection of an increase in the number of family members entering the workplace or working longer hours. Average wages for men and women actually declined for the third consecutive year. The NYT then added this gem: Some Republicans seized on the new data as evidence that Bush administration policies had been good for people’s pocketbooks. Seriously, it’s as if Republicans are trying to appear foolish and out of touch. People are working more for less and the GOP responds to the news by saying, “See? I told you we knew what we were doing.”
Keep up those economic theory jokes you have - they’re great!
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this
AmVet- Hey! I decided to venture over here today.
So you think the complete A-D-D American population won’t buy into the Ronald Reagan antics of Fred? You are totally more optomistic than me.
I think they’ll totally buy it. He’s like the Bush of 1999 cowboy that Americans loved so much. He’s like the reincarnation of Reagan. They won’t care about how he’s actually voted on the issues, it’s all about image, and he has a smoking hot wife to go along with him. Disgusting.
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this
Jeff, That “Congress has a lower approval rating” sh!t is so old. Congress always has a low approval rating.
But, maybe, just maybe, their approval rating is low because they were given a job to do back in November (end the Iraq war) and they haven’t been able to do it because there is not a Democrat majority, and Bush keeps vetoing everything. There is still no real checks and balance.
By deegee
September 6, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this
If the Iraqis learn anything from the US it will be the manipulation of statistics to support your position regardless of what that position might be.
“Picking different numbers, outcomes.
The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. “If a bullet went through the back of the head, it’s sectarian,” the official said. “If it went through the front, it’s criminal.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20594604/
By AmVet
September 6, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this
If I were on the Officer Review Board, I would personally recommend that our Captain Freedom be promoted to the rank of Major.
Anyone this plain spoken, humorous and lucid all at the same time should be!
By Teddy Bare
September 6, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this
The man is dying of cancer, and he’s married to a strumpet who could be his GRANDdaughter. Pass.
By Tom
September 6, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this
Jeff, could it be that Republican senators and congressmen factor into that disapproval rating. Wait until the democrats pick up more senate and congressional seats in 08 and see how that changes with a more solid dem majority. Remember. When the republicans controlled the senate and house therating was just as abysmal.
By Jeff
September 6, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this
Bosch:
Excuse me, I didn’t know Pelosi was a Republican. Sure could’ve fooled me!
Also, with Lieberman being officially designated an “Independent Democrat”, it gives the Senate a 50-49-1 DEMOCRAT-Republican-Independent spread, which means that the DEMOCRATS are, in fact, in control of the Congress.
By Goldie
September 6, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
{{I think they’ll totally buy it. He’s like the Bush of 1999 cowboy that Americans loved so much.}}
Bosch— I think that Americans are very much OVER that pseudo-cowboy image and what it really means for our future. Thanks to the 30%-Repugs keeping their lips stuck to Bush’s patooty for so long, they’re done for in ‘08!
By AmVet
September 6, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
Bosch, I agree that there is always going to be a certain segment and percentage of the American electorate that is so easily manipulated that they would vote for Ghengis Khan if he were in their political party.
But I think that over the past 25 years, we’ve seen enough of the neo-conservative hooey, that the percentage is unquestionably dwindling.
I think most people would agree that their chances in 08 are not very good at all.
These men broke the GOP and unless and until they fix it, many of us are going to stay far away.
By BPJ
September 6, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this
Maybe we Democrats should nominate Sam Waterston - every “Law & Order” fan knows Jack McCoy is the real brains in that office!
By Goldie
September 6, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this
Bosch, re: my post above ^^^… of course, I could be wrong. It’s really up to the Dems to lose this one — Hillary, Obama, Edwards et al will have to screw up really bad to lose this one!
By TheodoreR.
September 6, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this
Nice attempt at spinning off responsibility for the sorry state of affairs in this country today. The republicans are responsible for this mess. They should own it.
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this
Jeff, Did you ever take a Civics or Government class in elementary school or high school? It takes a MAJORITY to overrule a presidential veto. We don’t have that. The Democrats are in control of Congress, but by the skin of their teeth and the only thing they can really do with their position is select Committee chairs.
By dawg_gone_truth
September 6, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this
It don’t matter, we are finally going to have a black man as president of this country built with the black man’s blood. W has spoiled any chance a republican has at winning, and this country aint ready for a Crooked Lawyer from South Carolina or a power hungry man hating woman lawyer from Arkansas. Fred is doomed by Bush, so give it up and embrace a real leader Barrach Obama.
By BumperStickers
September 6, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
Bush: End of an Error
That’s OK, I Wasn’t Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
Let’s Fix Democracy in this Country First
If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran.
Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
If You Can Read This, You’re Not Our Preside nt
Of Course It Hurts: You’re Getting Screwed by an Elephant
Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
Impeachment: It’s Not Just for Blow jobs Anymore
America: One Nation, Under Surveillance
They Call Him “W” So He Can Spell It
Whose God Do You Kill For?
Jail to the Chief
No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?
Bush: God’s Way of Proving Intelligent Design is a Load Of Crap
Bad President! No Banana.
We Need a President Who’s Fluent In At Least One Language
We’re Making Enemies Faster than We Can Kill Them
Is It Vietnam Yet?
Bush Doesn’t Care About White People, Either
Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Hand Basket?
You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
Dubya, Your Dad Shoulda Pulled Out, Too
When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
Pray For Impeachment
The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th C en tury
What Part of “Bush Lied” Don’t You Understand?
One Nation Under Clod
2004: Embarrassed. 2005: Horrified. 2006: Terrified
Bush Never Exhaled
At Least Nixon Resigned
By Goldie
September 6, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this
BPJ @ 10:59— that’s funny that you mention Sam Waterston. I saw him on some talk show and he’s involved with an independent party called “Unity ‘08”… seems like a losing proposition with the way our electoral college is set-up these days. But maybe now that Freddie is in, we can convince Waterston that he should run as a Dem — that would really add a little spice to this campaign, yes?
By getalife
September 6, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this
Bad boys, bad boys, what ya going do, what ya going to do when they come for you?
Bwa.
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this
Goldie, Did you read on the other blog what I said about the 2000 election was always Gore’s loss and not Bush’s win? He should have won that election by a landslide, but allowed Bush and his spin doctor, Pillsbury Doughboy to manipulate the press away from him. They (the Dems) were left standing around with their mouths open wondering, What the hell just happened here?
It’s totally possible, because the majority of Americans care more about the next American Idol, care nothing about the state of the country as long as it doesn’t affect them, and are in denial about the things that are affecting them. They just don’t believe it or choose not to believe it because their GOP party tells them it’s not real or they give some BS excuse about how the terrorists are all going to blow them up and that they can protect them.
A majority of Americans are too stupid to see that these issues DO affect them - they only see the bottom line of what does it mean for me.
Maybe it’s just because I live in Georgia and are surrounded by the good ol’ boy, cowboy loving mentality, maybe I should get out more, but I just don’t see it - that the country does NOT still love the cowboy image. It’s very discouraging to me. AAAARRRGGGHHH!
I need a vacation! I need a vacation! I need a vacation!
By Allen M.
September 6, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this
Only a right winger can’t see the issues in the republican party. Only right wingers can’t see the damage that they have done to the party. Only right wingers can save the party…by getting out of it. The right wing has lost the war for the entire republican party. They should start the miscellaneous trash party. Get all of the racists, bigots, xenophobes, homophobes, and talibaptists together and they can have their perpetual hate fests without dragging mainstream Americans down with them.
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this
Bumper Sticker, I want ALL of those stickers on my car.
By Jeff
September 6, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this
It is the “tolerant” people like our friend Allen M here who show the Democratic party for what it really is.
They proclaim “inclusiveness” and “tolerance”, but are FAR more EXCLUSIVE and INTOLERANT than ANYONE in the Republican Party.
It doesn’t take a blind person to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By getalife
September 6, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
Ron Paul blamed the neocons for the demise of his party.
You have one gop candidate speaking the truth and he will not get the nomination.
The hopes of the gop are betting on lazy fred.
He will let them down as an abortion lobbyist and council for Nixon during Watergate.
By DW
September 6, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
Folks I am a saddened republican. It just blows me away that we have allowed a small percentage of lunatics to turn this party into a smoking hole. Some of the above posters are right. For this party to survive the right wingers have to go, or at least be brought under control by the majority of the party that do not fall into the category of nativist, racist, bigot, xenophobe, etc. We have already lost a segment of this populace that will in the future be the swing vote in numerous key electoral states. Republicans have to change the image of the party. To allow the right wing to be percieved as the THE republican party will insure the utter destruction of the GOP.
By Goldie
September 6, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this
{{It’s totally possible, because the majority of Americans care more about the next American Idol,}}
I live in GA, too, Bosch so I totally understand your concerns! Like I said, I may be wrong about this, but I really think the pendulum is swinging back to the Dems… our political system never withstands a one-party-rule for very long.
Rover was awfully dumb to think that he could change the pendulum swing to just stay stuck on the Repugs forever! That was his brilliant idea, remember the “permanent majority” strategy of his? Ain’t gonna happen.
By Goldie
September 6, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this
Impeachment: It’s Not Just for Blow jobs Anymore
I think that one’s my favorite — where can I order?
By Tom
September 6, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
Thompson has MY vote!!
By Goldie
September 6, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
He should have won that election by a landslide,
Bosch @ 11:11 — the 2000 election was the wake-up call for me… I realized that I had done very little in 2000 (other than mail-in a $25 contribution to Gore’s campaign), and have been working hard for the Dems since then. My complacent days ended in Nov. 2000.
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
Goldie, I hear you sister. I’m just in a bad mood today. Maybe a glass of chardonnay would cheer me up!?!
My favorite was “Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Hand Basket?”
Second: “They call him W so he can spell it”
Third: “We’re Making Enemies Faster than We Can Kill Them”
LOL! Those Bumper Stickers really cheered me up today!
By Van
September 6, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
Goldie,
The pendulum may be swinging, but I do not see the average working American supporting someone that is promising to raise taxes. By letting the Bush tax cuts expire, we will get back to taxing those in the $10-$15K bracket. Bush did raise the minimum tax bracket and Pelosi and the next Democrat President will change it back.
And that is just the start.
By Political Wrinkles
September 6, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
Why doesn’t anyone ask Mitt, “Boxers or Briefs?”
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Why doesnt’ anyone ask Mitt, “Boxers or Briefs?”
By Sally G.
September 6, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
Y-y-yeah! Why d-d-doesn’t anyone ask Mitt, “B-b-b-boxers or b-b-b-briefs?” (whew)
By @@
September 6, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
Oooohhh no Jim, the Luckovich liberals have followed the conservatives over here. Well you know what they say “We have to fight the terrorists over there so they won’t follow us home.**
Not much going on at Luckovich’s since the conservative’s have found something better to do.
It would appear that Mike Luckovich is on vacation but then his liberal fans have been on a mental vacation for as long as I’ve been visiting the site.
Fred Thompson and do I care? Of course I care Jim…he’s a conservative candidate for president. Timing is everything in politics and I initially thought his strategy of entering the race late was a good one. I just hope his watch wasn’t running too far behind.
I like the guy. I share his opinion on presidential debates. No opportunity to get to know the candidates in depth. Not enough time and it’s all for show.
I was more impressed with some of the lesser known candidates last night.
Mike Huckabee…awesome takedown of Ron Paul. I witnessed, for the first time, the absurdity that IS Ron Paul. He bought into Bin Laden’s claim that our presence in Saudi Arabia provoked al-Qaeda. He also buys into the PNAC conspiracy theory. He’s a victim of extremist propoganda and liberal conspiracies.
A Nutjob!
Sam Brownback? I like him. If I recall correctly he supports a three-state Iraq. I would respectfully disagree there.
Duncan Hunter? I appreciate his views as well.
Rudy Giuliani? I still support his view of a federalist government. It sounds like he was able to take a lousy hand in NYC, and through innovative policies, turn it into a winner. Compromises are often necessary to make the very best of bad situations.
Mitt Romney? I’m trying to like him. My husband likes him, but he’s like a big ball of string with loose ends dangling everywhere.
I think it was Rudy that suggested a one on one debate between Paul and Gravel. I smile when I think about that one. Two nuts side by side.
There’s a name for that.
I’ll be “looking up” to check out Fred.
By jbmlaw
September 6, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this
Dear Bosch @ 9:56, most people with German names have the good sense to avoid using anti-Semitic slurs in public writing. Your own writing indicts you. Same with Goldie @ 10:33.
Dear AmVet @ 10:30, I thought you were above hurling ethnic slurs. I know you know better. I don’t understand why you Leftists always opt for ethnic slurs to demonize your opposition.
Dear Getalife @ 11:19, nay we assume you will vote in the Republican presidential primary, or are you just blowing smoke?
Dear DW the faux-Republican @ 11:19, when you aver the desire to return to the pre-Conservative” Republican party, you are advocating for a return to the times of a permanent minority status, and a constant accommodation of the socialists via election of RINOs. Please understand, there is no difference between an Eastern Republican, a la Arlen Specter, and any collectivist Democrat. That is why, given a choice between a marginally competent conservative and a gifted moderate, I always vote against the one with no principles.
By MrLiberty
September 6, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this
Just another fascist celebrity republican. They are a dime a dozen in this race. He has avoided this race up until now because he knows that the sunlight will ultimately be his doom. He is a big money lobbyiest for a murderous dictator and little more than a carbon copy of the loser who currently occupies the white house.
Ron Paul is all that anyone needs to know when election time comes around. A true statesman who proved last night that he knows what foreign policy should be about and how meddling intervention has brought us to the horrible state we are in today.
The hyenas laughed at Ron las night, but their laughter could not cover up their uneasiness in knowing that he is right and they are all wrong.
It is sad that americans are so smitten with celebrity. Fred’s entry into the race will unfortunately be an unneeded distraction at a time when they need to be listening to the message of Ron Paul - the message of freedom, the restoration of the republic, and the restoration of the constitution and bill of rights.
By Goldie
September 6, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this
Van @ 11:33— you may still use your “no taxes” mantra to scare working Americans, but I think most voters are done with the big-spending Repugnants for awhile.
And they’ve seen the results of your corporate welfare policies and tax “relief” that greatly favors the wealthiest Americans. Plus, add on the current wave of “family values” hypocrites, and you’ve got a big mess going on for the Repug Party!
The Dems Can’t Wait For ‘08!
By Political Foreskin
September 6, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
Anyone ever notice that nobody ever asks Mitt Romney, “Boxers or Breifs?”
By Goldie
September 6, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this
most people with German names have the good sense to avoid using anti-Semitic slurs in public writing. Your own writing indicts you. Same with Goldie @ 10:33.
jbmlaw, what the hell are you ranting about “anti-Semitic slurs” — you’ve obviously got no other arguments so you think that making up some “slurs” will do???
What, are you still in the 5th grade, pounding furiously on the library computers today?
By Blind Homer
September 6, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this
Bosch - The problem in 2004 was the Dems ran that cigar store Indian. Anything that faintly resembled a presidential candidate would have won. Now what, Hillary? I think she’s in for the nom and probably the WH as long as she avoids putting Obama on the ticket.
By Captain Freedom
September 6, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
THE Captain, like most Right Thinking True Believers, appreciates an ethnic slur as much as the next guy (as long as that guy is no darker than Ryan Seacrest). So, tantalized by jbm’s Ethnic Slur alert @ 12:16, I scoured the referenced posts in search of new japes to hurl at those unlike myself and jbm. Imagine my confusion when I could find none of the promised invective.
C’mon jbm…where’s the fire? You made an implied promise of barbs, specifically against the Jesus Haters (no, I don’t mean Mitt and his Mormontologists). Stand and deliver, sir.
By Political Foreskin
September 6, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
One serious note about Mitt’s Longjohns: Judge Clarence Thomas’s favorite porn video is called, “Long Dong Silver”.
I’m sorry, but that’s too much coincidence for me, and I’m crying foul here, I think something’s up, and I dont like it one bit.
The irony that it would take a union suit connection to bust the union with suits is more than I can bare.
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this
Blind Homer - I hope Hillary doesn’t get the nomination. The problem with her, is, well, obviously, she carries a lot of baggage with her husband around, and two, she is just too far left, and to be honest, I just don’t think the pendulum has swung THAT far. Yes, I think the country is sick and tired of the neo-cons and their absolute incompetence, but I think the Democrats are putting too much into Hillary, and I just don’t think when it comes right down to it, when the mud-slinging and all that crap starts up after the nominations, she’ll be able to hold out.
We need somebody more middle road with less baggage. I think the Democrats are just fooling themselves yet again with the candidates they have.
By WhataJoke
September 6, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
Someone really needs to let jbmlaw know that just because Buchanan uses neo-con as an anti-Semitic slur, not everyone agrees with that, and in fact most use it as a shortened neo-conservative.
Of course I think it should be shortened to neo-con because of the convict connotations.
By doombass
September 6, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this
I know nothing about Thompson, but I assume (cuz that’s what we people do in the absence of good data) that he’s not qualified to be president. He’s an actor who spent some time in the senate, whoo hoo! Good for him. Although, I will admit he seems infinitely more qualified than Dubya ever has to me (I voted for Gore and then Kerry, but I’m actually a Libertarian - go figure - my enemy’s enemy is my friend when our country’s being run by jerk-off neo-cons who haven’t the faintest clue about history or how to run a war - needless and retarded as it may have been to start said war in the first place).
I’d have to say I really like Paul - he’s the first REAL conservative the party’s seen in a long long time and I’m excited at the prospect (dim as it may be) that he could be a contender. He could easily win the general election against the dems, but I don’t think the repugnicans will give him the chance - they’d rather have Giuliani or Romney lose the general for them (even though McCain or Paul could trounce the dems very handily).
Oh, and to the poster who said Paul couldn’t win the repugnican vote because of the religious right - guess what j*******: Paul wants to overturn Roe V. Wade and has said so on numerous occasions, and although I don’t agree with that stance, I do agree with nearly 90% of the rest of his platform. Go figure. Paul simply won’t get the nomination because he’s honest, rational and makes too much sense. Repugnicans vote based on emotions, fear, and the cult of personality (cowboys being the most prominent theme throughout - even tho Dubya’s from Connecticut, everyone assumed he was really from Texas - silly dumbass Americans). For the party that claims to be the rational choice against dems, it seems oddly ironic that repugs would do this time and again to themselves, and to our country.
We’re all screwed no matter who gets elected. Start building your bomb shelters and enjoying your 401k’s now you sheep. The lights are going out sometime in the next 8 years… and they’re not coming back on. Buy candles, weapons and rations. don’t even bother voting (or praying for that matter), you’re just wasting your time at this point.
By Abomi Nation
September 6, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this
Boxers or briefs? That is no question to ask a Republican.
The correct question to Republican candidates should be “Huggies or Luv’s”
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this
Thanks WhataJoke, Is that what jmblaw means by me being anti-Semitic? New on on me. I don’t keep up with the rantings of Pat Buchanan, but I do like his sister, Bay, she makes me laugh sometimes.
By WhataJoke
September 6, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this
What, are you still in the 5th grade, pounding furiously on the library computers today?
Close, a hooded law school grad.
ya know, think New Orleans, actually Long Island, Dr. John’s I been hooded.
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this
Okay, but now I’m curious - how is “neo-con” anti-Semitic (in the Buchanan world)?
By WhataJoke
September 6, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this
Okay, but now I’m curious - how is “neo-con” anti-Semitic (in the Buchanan world)?
You would have to ask jbmlaw, only the hooded shadow knows.
Probably because he does not support all the neo-conservatives in their world-wide quest for domination.
By Goldie
September 6, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this
Blind Homer @ 12:32— great name you picked there for blogging…
As evidence: Anything that faintly resembled a presidential candidate would have won.
We all know that not only America would be a better place today, but the entire world would be a better place if our “cigar store Indian” was in the WH in 2001… I’ll take a smart wooden candidate over a fake cowboy candidate anytime — much more presidential for America. Thank God we’ve only had a few as arrogant and ignorant as our fake-cowboy!
By Rosie O'Donnell
September 6, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this
How is bulldyke anti-lesbian is the ladies only room?
How is f* anti-gay in the homogenius mens room?
By Camus
September 6, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this
“Neo-con” became an anti-Semitic slur when the neo-cons themselves realized that their ideas and predictions about everything had been proved utterly false and disastrous. However, rather than admit their mistake (and thereby relinquish their cushy thinktank sinecures and status as “respected experts” on the Sunday talk shows), they decided to turn the attack around and declare that anyone who criticized them did so only because many of the neo-con architects are from Jewish heritage.
Aided and abetted by their supporters at the Wall Street Journal (whom jbm so slavishly parrots), this silly game of “I’m rubber you’re glue” was given a prominent platform and even gained a veneer of respectability. But only amongst those who feel that word games and sophistric spin determine reality.
For those of us in the reality-based community, neo-con remains synonomous with perfect incompetence. Ethinicity has no part in it.
By Goldie
September 6, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this
Whatajoke @ 12:51 — and of course, it was good ole Newt who came up with the name “Neo-Conservative” to describe his right-wingnut ideology. The term “Neo-con” is the standard abbreviation for Newt and his heel-clicking followers.
Only a Neo-Con would try to act insulted about being called a Neo-Con, because Newt’s ideology doesn’t really have a lot of logic to it, hmmm?
By Frank
September 6, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this
Notice that nobody ever asks Mitt Romney, “Boxers or Briefs?”
Politics makes strange bedfellows. That much we know.
By Frank
September 6, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this
Politics makes strange bedfellows. that’s why someone should ask Hillary what she has under her skirt, “Nylons, or Neocons?”
By RE
September 6, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this
Fred Thompson seems to me to be the unnamed candidate. You know when they do polls and put candidate X against the unnamed candidate from the opposite party. Fred has not really expressed any opinion that I have heard of, not really spoken out on any issue, he has just been the non of the above candidate.
The political world seems so insulated. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who speaks out on issues with any grasp of reality, and I am including the democrats in that as well. The most realistic dem is probably Kucinich or Biden, but kucinich has a different ideal for the US than I do, and Biden just talks to hear himself sometimes.
I think I would take Ron Paul above all others.
By getalife
September 6, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this
Lazy fred’s wife is a trophy wife but she ran off all his campaign staff.
She is no Hillary but wants to be.
Clintons 08!
By AmVet
September 6, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw, I thought we had discussed this issue before, but perhaps I am mistaken, so let me make this as clear as I possibly can.
NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, buys into your extremely obtuse assertion that the term neo-con is anti-Semitic.
Notwithstanding that you give the term some unusual power, common usage and common sense dictate that. It is a convenient and shortened version of the word neo-conservative. Nothing more.
And NOBODY but you even realizes the inane etymology, as you once referenced to one unknown (irrelevant?) source. So to claim that people are using it in a Jew-baiting fashion is simply ludicrous.
Let it go counselor.
As they are fond of saying here in the Deep South, that dog won’t hunt.
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this
Okay, I’ll just start using the term “fasco-Nazi,” how’s that?
:-)
By Jackie
September 6, 2007 2:32 PM | Link to this
@jbmlaw,
Keep repeating the same ol’ lie and pretty soon it begins to sound like the truth, huh??? It ain’t working and will not work. No one is intimidated by your assertions and half-truths. BLINK, BLINK, BLINK!!!!!
By Jackie
September 6, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this
@jbmlaw,
Forgot to mention the fact that Wal-Mart has batteries on sale for half-price for your clown nose. BLINK, BLINK, BLINK!!!!!
By WhataJoke
September 6, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this
“fasco-Nazi?
Are you anti-Semitic or something?
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this
Whatajoke, Au contraire-
I’m just trying to be politically correct. If “neo-con” is anti-Semetic, I certainly do not want to be viewed that way. “Fasco-Nazi” is a better descriptive of that ilk anyway.
By Whatajoke
September 6, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this
Bosch - I was joking…sorry.
By JK
September 6, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this
I like to call the b——-ds “*Neo-Fascists,” meaning the new fascists among us taking over, which is what they are, since their policies of aligning government with money and big business while reducing individual rights and strangling opportunities for small business, and of promoting nationalism over good judgment are more fascist than anything else. I mean, they’re not really “conservative” in any traditional meaning of the word, since they’re not conserving anything of actual value (bigotry and the caste system aren’t of value to most of us), and they’ve turned the concepts of smaller government and individual freedoms into little more than a dirty joke told at the kind of parties they don’t admit to attending, let alone hosting, which they do regularly, wink wink nudge nudge, and don’t we all know it. Neo-Fascists.
By GPS Guidance System
September 6, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this
According to Democratic Socialists, anti-war and anti-American Code Pinko types and MoveOn.org pro-secular socialism types, anyone who disagrees with them is a “neocon.” Ron Paul supporters agree.
But according to Fritz a 70+ year old self-proclaimed Nazi of Hitler’s Nazi regime, anyone who believes the Holocaust actually happened and that Israel has a right to exist is a “neocon.” Ron Paul supporters agree with this one too.
He, Ron Paul is uniting the “no moral social restraint” anti-war factions from all political ideologies into one group and anyone not in that group is a “neocon” a “Nazi” or a “fascist.” Just ask them…
The hate mail I have received from Ron Paul supporters reads just like the hate mail I have always received from Marxists around the globe and across the aisle. It’s hate-filled overtly angry foul mouthed and threatening rhetoric that reads like it was written by anti-Semitic skin-heads on crack. I doubt that even Ron Paul would be proud of how his supporters behave…
I first thought that Ron Paul supporters were just misguided conservatives seeking a real constitutional candidate who would return America to its morally conscious pro-individual system of self-governance. Having the benefit of direct experience with many active Ron Paul supporters now, I was wrong.
By jct
September 6, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this
I am still suffering for early presidential running malaise. Wake me up in December and I will start to actively engage in Presidential politics.
Campaigning for two years is not healthy for the country. It’s one sound bite after another. There are few differences between the two parties that does it really matter who you vote for. The dem’s are usually more polite when they scr** you.
I am ready for a 3rd party candidate that will uphold the U.S. Constitution; introduce and implement smart government programs and less rhetoric.
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this
JK - LOL! Good point.
I chuckle to myself that the ultra-right wingers in Germany are the Neo-Nazis. Coincidence?
By Dusty
September 6, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw @ 8:49
Your review of Thompson was helpful. I had felt he was a bit too casual about this whole thing. Then announcing his decision to run on Leno’s show did not set too well. But you have made some good points, ‘specially his experience in Tennessee. I will be watching to see how well he fares on the campaign trail.
By the way, I have never read anything about Thompson having THREE wives. I have heard of only two. Some libs keep talking about three.
The liberal propaganda wheels are already turning as you can tell here. Maybe somebody threw in an extra wife along with all the other stuff that hits here everyday.
Kinda pathetic. You think Democrats might pull for the country instead of their usual display of scurrilous partisan politics. I guess the Democratic Party wants the same rating level as our Democratic led Congress. That is, of course, lower than dirt.
By RE
September 6, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this
For clarification:
Thompson: 2 wives
McCain: 2 wives
Romney: 1 wife
Gulianni: 3 wives
Not sure on the others.
For the dems:
Clinton : 1 husband
Obama: 1 wife
Edwards: 1 wife
Need a scorecard
By getalife
September 6, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this
The faux opinion poll and applause meter showed Ron Paul as the clear winner last night.
A spark of sanity for the gop. Of course, Jim fails to mention him.
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this
Dusty, You are just jealous because we have a sense of humor. We can’t help it if you are as funny as toe fungus.
Been fun! Later!
By jbmlaw
September 6, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this
Dear AmVet @ 2:09, you know better. The ignorant – you cannot claim to be one - merely need to check Wikipedia for the history of that particular epithet. It is not arguable, but, as with everything about moonbats, it is venal. This blog has two threads going at any time, one with those who post substance, the other that mostly subsist on epithet. Our friends TFTT and DebbieDoRight are the only ones who work both sides regularly, but you may be one of them. As for me, I stay on my thread of the blog.
By Bosch
September 6, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this
Wait, I had to comment, just saw this.
jmblaw, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anybody can post and edit at Wikipedia. If that is the history of that particular epithet written in Wikipedia, for all we know, YOU could have wrote it.
By AmVet
September 6, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this
As regards that 3:12. If that was my best response, I too, would not use my real name nor provide any links!
As was so clear last night, Guiliani is trying desperately to advance his case that he understands terrorism better than any of his opponents.
And there is little doubt that he has learned an enormous amount about emergency management and getting quantifiable results after the attacks in NYC.
But his well-documented penchant for secrecy, his value of loyalty over merit and his hyperbolic rhetoric is eerily reminiscent of a certain commander-in-chief. And that should be a BIG red flag for most Americans.
And though Rudy may be totally unpalatable to the “base” of religionists and southern Republicans for his moderate and reasonable stance on social issues, he will sell well to the “Be vewy vewy afraid” crowd.
By Ron Paul
September 6, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this
I rise in opposition to H.RES.921 which condemns the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, and for other purposes.
Anti-semetic through complacency or maybe just plain anti-semetic.
By Jackie
September 6, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this
News items. Portions of the Patriot Act have been ruled unconstitutional, specifically the issuance of security letters by the FBI. The satellite surveillance by the NSA is being questioned. What is Dubya going to do now with Alberto not being in place to shield his illegal activities?
By RE
September 6, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this
Just a question for some of the GOP folks over here, when did the security of a foriegn nation (Israel) become the equivilent of national security?
Israel is not an ally of the US, it is more of a dependant nation that takes 3 billion of foriegn aid a year but offers nothing back.
By Anonymity is my right
September 6, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this
As regards that 3:12. If that was my best response, I too, would not use my real name nor provide any links!
Link to the 3:12. Neo-Con Do You Qualify?
I have only to read your initial posts AmVet; after that it’s the same old, same old. Typical lib rhetoric.
By AmVet
September 6, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw, are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Let me get this straight. You deem it permissible to use the term neo-conservative, but the shortened term neo-con is an epithet?
The technical, esoteric difference is for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to me. And even given the veracity of your claim, I do not subscribe to this supposed anti-Semitic slant. BTW, as my mother and her parents fled Germany in 1939 and lost everything but their lives, I don’t think I’d be inclined to insult my own heritage.
I am intentionally ignorant in this area, and I have no idea, nor care to learn, where the odd terms moonbat and wingnut, that are often hurled around here as insults, derive from, nor their bizarre meanings.
Methinks thou protest too much.
By Dusty
September 6, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this
BOSCH HAS A SENSE OF HUMOR!!! So he suggests at 3:54. Besides the laughable “Bush is a traitor” missives, I guess we will have more moose jokes.
Maybe I should be jealous of such bovine “humor”. But… I did not grow up in a barn where such jokes are considered real funny.
By AmVet
September 6, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this
Anonymity is my right, your new screen name is correct. As is your shame, embarrassment and/or cowardice to avoid your real one.
No big deal. I see it often here. From extremists on both the left and right.
As for the term neo-con, I have stated many times that my view is not so much that it is an insult, but rather the misuse of the term conservative, by today’s sell out GOP, is a charade.
And neo-con best describes this travesty.
Bring back true American conservatism and the term dies on the vine.
By Fred Thompson Fan
September 6, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this
I care that Fred Thompson has joined the race! So do the army of Fredheads!
Discuss Fred Thompson at the best Fred Thompson Forum on the net!
Fred Thompson Forum
By jm
September 6, 2007 5:28 PM | Link to this
So, what is a neocon
By Anonymity is my right
September 6, 2007 5:35 PM | Link to this
The technical, esoteric difference is for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to me. but a conservative definition is?
That depends on what your definition of is is.
As is your shame, embarrassment and/or cowardice to avoid your real one.
Why did you change your name from Huge blowhard? Cowardice? Embarrassment?
Pick one.
By jbmlaw
September 6, 2007 5:40 PM | Link to this
Dear Bosch @ 3:59, to put your mind at ease, I am not the author of Wikipedia’s well-annotated history of Pat Buchanan’s ethnic slur. I am an admirer of Norman Podhoretz and his theories, but his neoconservatism and my libertarianism are not identical. So long as you are writing critique of Podhoretz and his neo-conservative theories, you are not a Jew-baiter. When you are employing Pat Buchanan’s epithet to hurl as an epithet, I draw the obvious conclusion. I am persuaded by the sincerity of your writing, that you do not intentionally hurl ethnic invective, at least not before now.
There is no penalty on this blog for hurling ethnic invective - goodness knows we see it all day long. I like to argue with the principled minds on this blog, and frankly my post was to determine whether you had standards or whether you merely wish to follow the other thread.
My own analysis is that neither “moonbat” (my affectionate term for collectivists) nor “wingnut” (Getalife’s term of endearment for our conservative brethren) have an ethinic basis.
By jbm is a condescending...
September 6, 2007 5:40 PM | Link to this
Jbm, just say you don’t want to discuss the stupidity and arrogance of the neo-cons. I’d be embarrassed to discuss that as well. But it is beneath contempt to brand everyone who uses that phrase as an anti-Semite. It is pathetic as well. Grow up and get over yourself.
By jbmlaw
September 6, 2007 5:46 PM | Link to this
Dear condescending @ 5:40, I do not aver that everyone who uses an ethnic slure is aware of the faux pas. However, everyone who knowingly uses an ethnic slur as an epithet is lower than a moonbat.
By deegee
September 6, 2007 5:59 PM | Link to this
Who but Pat Buchanan gives a rat’s azz what the completely irrelevant, politically impotent Pat Buchanan says?
By TW
September 6, 2007 6:01 PM | Link to this
And in response to 9/11, not only have the Republicans urinated all over themselves, OK - and us too, but they have somehow succeeded in turning Usama Bin Laden into a movie star. No, Jim, Fred Thompson is no less a joke than the rest of them. The conservative voice, the imperative conservative voice, is dead - clobbered by the very capitalism it once promoted….shame on the present day keepers of what was once a valuable part of our country…shame
By getalife
September 6, 2007 6:03 PM | Link to this
CNN is reporting a new OBL tape to show us here is still out there.
This will give the scared Americans like @@ and Dusty their no warrant spying on Americans. They trash those who have fought and died for freedom because they are scared. Pathetic.
W said we are “kicking a* in Iraq.” Drunk.
Embarrassing.
Geez.