« Happy Father's Day | Main | Airbus Woes Continue »

Some Thoughts on the Republican Field

I was watching "Meet the Press" this morning, and it was nothing surprising. This morning, they were discussing the 2008 Presidential elections, and divided the discussion, reasonably enough, into the Republican and Democrat fields. They only discussed the major candidates, so I am afraid there was no mention of Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or Albus Dumbledore. Where the discussion left balance and approach MSM norms, was the way the press panel discussed Republicans as a whole, and how they discussed Democrats as a whole. That is, the press panel focused on negatives, or potential negatives, for the Republican candidates, and considered only relative positives for the Democrats. In the end, though, that sort of thing tends to work for the Republicans, since the eventual GOP nominee will have to address weak areas early on, while the Democrat will not expect it until after the party convention, at which time - unable to address the most difficult questions - the Democrat nominee may be expected to declare that it is a 'smear' to challenge his/her/its claims.

As a result, nothing significant was said about the Democrats; the press still prefers them, and won't say a word against any of them. The fun came before that, when the press was playing, once again, 'Why No Republican Is Any Good'. Going down the list, the panel played true to their favorite routines;

Fred Thompson won't last, because he's just an actor;

Rudy Giuliani is a goner, as soon as Republicans find out what he really stands for;

Mitt Romney is not trusted by Republicans, who are suspicious of his Mormon faith and his position flips;

John McCain is "desperate", and will do or say anything to stay in the race.

I was almost hysterical with laughter when they finished that review. I mean really, I don't care much for McCain, but to call him "desperate" two seasons before the first primary even happens? Also, it's a bit of projection, I think, for the left-leaning press to worry about a Mormon running for President - no Republican I have talked to, considers it a deal-killer for someone to be a Mormon and ask for his vote. As for Giuliani, he's been very honest about what he believes and how he would govern, so the notion that he's pretending to be something he is not is rather far-fetched. Were that so, Rudy could have played himself as a strong pro-lifer for the support, but he did not do that.

And then there's Fred. One thing I love about the present situation, is that the Left, well beyond a doubt, is afraid of Fred Thompson. Very afraid. Enough afraid of him, that even folks who don't know much about him are interested in finding out what has frightened the media mob so much. We have learned over the years, that the press always hates leaders who are really good for America, so it's an early endorsement, albeit unintentional, for Thompson that the press is determined to sack him if they can.

Don't misunderstand me, that I would accept a candidate without giving him/her a good hard look. But neither do I rule someone out just because someone else says nasty things about them. To tell the truth, I even considered the candidacy of Barack Obama early on, but his demonstrated positions on the issues has proven he would not be a good candidate for President, especially on the most critical issues of National Security, reforming Social Security and the Income Tax, on Immigration Reform and Border Security, and on America's position and responsibility in the world. As for Hillary, she was kind enough to make her positions clear in the past four years, and thereby removed herself from serious consideration before 2006.

For the Republican candidates, I would say that while I have preferences, I am open to just about any of them, so long as they are properly focused on, as I said, those critical issues. And since we are still months away from the primary season, it is fine for a candidate to speak in general terms, if he or she prefers to establish his identity and character with the GOP voters. I do intend to find out where Fred Thompson stands on the key issues, but for now I like him because he seems to grasp the priorities better than anyone else. Running for President is not the same as applying to be a company's go-fer. Even though the party has done a very poor job of it in recent years, when the President is elected he will lead the party and the party has the duty to pursue the course set by the President. As a result, it is essential not only to know where a potential President stands on the issues, but for the party to get a gut feel for who they would most be willing to trust with the helm. The candidate's temper, stability, judgment, humor, intelligence, faith, courage ... all these things matter more in the early going. To put it simply, Howard Dean's obvious character flaws blew him off the map in 2004, a lesson both parties should consider before plunging too fast into the 2008 primaries. John McCain lost me not when he sponsored McCain-Feingold, but when he lied about what he had done, and about his opponents. But I could be content with a Romney, a Giuliani, or a Fred Thompson in the Oval Office, provided their answers remain consistent and direct as we move on in the primaries. What the press continually fails to grasp, is the need for a good person, not a clever media-savvy one, to serve as President.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some Thoughts on the Republican Field:

» The Thunder Run linked with Web Reconnaissance 06/18/2007

Comments (82)

the Left, well beyo... (Below threshold)

the Left, well beyond a doubt, is afraid of Fred Thompson.

I don't think ANYBODY is afraid of Fred Thompson. And, lets put it this way, Ronald Reagan was a leading man. Thompson is a marginally known character actor. Beyond the two of them having been actors, the comparison ends there - and once he DOES declare his run, that blank slate most people project onto will diminish even more.

Thompson is a hack, nothing... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Thompson is a hack, nothing more than a lobbyist trying to act presidential.

Bring him on and run his as your nominee, please!

DJ I find the left hypocrit... (Below threshold)

DJ I find the left hypocritical but I am not surprised. Thompson is "just an actor" with a blank slate in the senate. John Kerry has been in the senate for decades with no impact yet the liberals embraced him. Obama has no standing in the senate, he is running, Edwards was in the senate and did nothing and was Kerry's running mate. Al Franken is running for senate it the left embraces him. When Warren Beatty was hinted to a run for the governor of California the left went wild. The point is, the left tries to marginalize republicans and they used to be successful but with radio, internet and Fox News, that can no longer happen. I too, and open to the whole field. Way to early. I am just glad the Obama and Clinton are using up their money to beat each other. Very happy indeed. ww

I'm now sure that Thompson ... (Below threshold)

I'm now sure that Thompson scares Democraps,how else do you explain comments to the contrary.A candidate that is not feared is ignored,not belittled.I to say yes bring on Fred as candidate,he will make Shrillery look just that shrill.Al Gore look ignorant(he doesn't need much help),and Osama-Obama look the empty suit that he is.Come on Fred.Any of Repubs but McCain would do.

Today on the "Newsweek on A... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Today on the "Newsweek on Air" radio program they proclaimed that Fred Thompson passed the "beer test" -- he's the kinda guy you'd like to sit down and have a beer with. This is the reason why Fred Thompson is a real threat to the Democrats. People are so easily duped by his good ol' boy fake persona and because people are so nostalgic for a past-that-never-was. It's the kind of thinking that places a miscreant in The White House.

I caught something similar ... (Below threshold)

I caught something similar last night. I was at the gym and they had a copy of Rolling Stone and a cover story was "All Flipper No Gipper: GOP's Pathetic Candidates". Why would a Leftist rag like Rolling Stone care if the GOP's candidate were like the Gipper? They hated him. Would they come to any other conclusion than the candidates are pathetic?

Another annoying article in that issue was a story about eight soldiers who've been killed in Iraq. I knew it was going to be schlock when the title of the article ended with "the president's war". It's not just his war.

So Adrian and Lee are profe... (Below threshold)

So Adrian and Lee are professing to us on the "fakeness" of Fred Thompson, while the candidates on their side include John Edwards, Barrack Obama, and Hillary. LOLOLOL.
The plastic man, the know-nothing/never been anything man, and the shrillest person to never have been directly responsible for anything. Have any of these three clowns ever authored a piece of legislation?

If Fred Thompson is no thre... (Below threshold)

If Fred Thompson is no threat, why all the attention?

ODA315,I just wanted... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

I just wanted to stay "on topic" (Some Thoughts on the Republican Field) and not "hijack" the thread.

The thing about Fred is his... (Below threshold)

The thing about Fred is his own words. Unlike Hillary, he's not been pining for the White House since he was a kid. And in her case, scheming to implement her socialist dreams upon America.

No Democrat or Republican c... (Below threshold)

No Democrat or Republican currently running comes close to filling the role of President. Although the U.S. survived Clinton (barely), there is no excuse for mediocrity and 'straw men' with half a brain focused on themselves. The front runners (on both sides) are either fakes, ignorant, corruptible or gutless.

Reagan was 'real'. Not one running comes close to being able to fill his shoes. Someone sincere (without flip-flop), with common sense, vision, and solid character would be a start.... J.C. Watts or an equivilant.

AD - to the topic or not, w... (Below threshold)

AD - to the topic or not, when the word "miscreant" comes up wrt presidents, resonably thinking people think of Clinton & Carter. And to the thread - I totally agree with what WildWillie and Jainphx posted. gc

Fred Thompson has yet to de... (Below threshold)

Fred Thompson has yet to declare. He has hinted that he will declare on Independence Day. Just a thought: Is it written in stone that he will go after the Republican nomination? Seems somehow appropriate that on that day he would declare as an Independent. Given that we are presently being governed by the most reviled Congress of my lifetime, this may be the year that the American Voter is ready for some big changes at the top. A Thompson/Lieberman ticket may be the only thing that could get me exited about the upcoming election. Let's face it the citizens are fed up with both the Republicans and the Democrats.

...people are so nostal... (Below threshold)

...people are so nostalgic for a past-that-never-was. It's the kind of thinking that places a miscreant in The White House.

Yeah, like Clinton. Good point.

Thompson's spokesper... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Thompson's spokesperson said that Fred's publicist, his personal assistant, his stylist, his agent, his manager, and his accountant all think he's a genuine person -- what you see is what you get with Fred.

~I'm Fred Thompson 'n I uh-proved of this here message.

Hillary in the White House?... (Below threshold)

Hillary in the White House?? Hasn't she broken enough priceless historic antiques???? OMG

"Where the discussion le... (Below threshold)

"Where the discussion left balance and approach MSM norms, was the way the press panel discussed Republicans as a whole, and how they discussed Democrats as a whole."

Kate O'Beirne and Byron York as MSM? Bat-shit delusional.

This Drummond piece on Meet the Press is just more denial that the Moon isn't made of green cheese or the world isn't flat or that early homo sapiens did not have dinosaurs in theuir backyards.

If this is what the Wizwingnuts and the rest of the wingnuts object to about the MSM, you people are just looney toons crazy for the most doctored and distorted presentation of reality (?) as fits your depraved need to maintain a laughable version of your demented vision of the world in which you exist.

I saw this same program and one would have to be daft to come up w/ Drummond's interpretation. No wonder you people love your Alice in Disneyland unreal world. Explains a lot about how you arrrive at your distorted vision.

Here's my quick assessment:... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Here's my quick assessment:

Rudy Pro: 9-11 rep, helped clean up NYC
Rudy Con: the dresses, abortion, questionable personal life

Mitt Pro: Saying all the right things now
Mitt Con: Saying all the wrong things in the past, LDS

McCain Pro: Genuine war hero, supported Bush even when poll numbers collapsed
McCain Con: Temper issues, The knife in the back he got in 2000

Fred Pro: Charisma, Able to stay above the fray for now
Fred Con: Shaky political credentials, lazy?

The Field Pro: Good support on individual issues
The Field Con: Most of those issues aren't big with average voters

My assessment of the race as it now stands: Rudy still has a big lead when you factor in everybody but his support is not as strong among Republicans only. Barring some mis-step, he still is the favorite. Romney is going nowhere and his speeches are getting a little shrill. McCain is a solid second, but his support for the war might work against him overall. Thompson is going to have to either announce or withdraw pretty shortly, and at that point, we'll see what he's really got to offer. I suspect that there's less there than meets the eye.

I've got no dog in this hunt, so this is my honest assessment.

Though they do exist, I can... (Below threshold)

Though they do exist, I can see very few positives for the Republican candidates. Romney is certainly not one of him. Frank said this, and though it's hyperbole maxed out, it still rings true.

"The real Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsoever," Frank said. "He is the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics."

Fred is the same way as him, ie renting pick up trucks and driving around building up support when he is a highly paid corporate lobbyist. He also will say anything to get elected and has very few principles. Nowhere close to Romney though - the man really will fold and crumple to no end.

"No wonder you people love ... (Below threshold)

"No wonder you people love your ... unreal world."

Open your eyes. The Constitution IS real. lol

It's the press that's delusional....

I've been noticing on the v... (Below threshold)

I've been noticing on the very liberal msnbc.com lately that there have been articles trying to bring Fred down. Once it was that he is "too lazy." Then it was he's "not conservative enough for the conservatives." These articles show that the left is indeed scared of the Thompson Threat.

On a side note... to say Thompson "will say anything to get elected and has very few principles" is hilarious to me... One, he's not even running yet, has hardly spoken, and already he's nearly leading the GOP candidates. Two, to say that about Thompson when the liberals have Hillary "The Weathervane" Clinton running is a complete joke. Now THERE is someone who will say anything (in the appropriate accent depending on the crowd) to get elected, and has very few principles.

Bottom Line: Republican vot... (Below threshold)

Bottom Line: Republican voters at this point are having concerns about which of the candidates have the best conservative credentials. I suppose the Democrat voters are very fortunate in that all their candidates are liberal European-style socialists (big govt, high taxes, no borders, terrism-is-simply-a-police-action, etc)- it doesnt really matter which one they nominate from a beliefs standpoint. gc

Damn right the democrats... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Damn right the democrats are pissing their pants at the thought of facing Fred Thompson. He is a democrat destroyer. He doesn't have lying fraud written on his face like the the criminal democrats do. He is TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN and I for one saw Him in the Movie Red October and said , now that guy has President of the United States written all over him. That movie came out when I an ignorant democratic voter. That is why the Rats are no doubt intimidated by Him.

Besides the Dumb democrats are still trying to win the The elections of 2000 and 2004. There is absolutely no reason for an honest , hard working "INFORMED" Patriotic American to ever vote Democratic. The party of democrats are a criminal and perpetual fraud, they have outsourced their loyalty and allegence to other Countries for their political backing as a strong arm tactic as a means of influencing and to drive fear into the week minded and uninformed Citizens in our own Country.

Simply put , democrats are sell outs , to anyone or any country. It's not a secret that democrats have and will "SAY ANYTHING" and "DO WHATEVER IT TAKES" to "TAKE" power. Don't ever forget it.

The liberals, the mainstrea... (Below threshold)

The liberals, the mainstream media, and anyone even remotely opposed to conservatives in general have been badmouthing, name-calling, and generally trying to trash Fred Thompson since it was even whispered that he might, possibly, maybe, could be, etc. running.

If that is not perfectly indicative of an irrational fear, I honestly do not know what would be.

Of course, if he really "will not last", then why are the mainstream media, liberals, and all the rest trying to hard, even to this day, to discredit, disparage, defame, and generally demolish him? Their efforts would be better spent on a potential candidate who would actually "last", right?

Oh wait... Methinks they dost protest too much?

"He is TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERI... (Below threshold)

"He is TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN and I for one saw Him in the Movie Red October and said , now that guy has President of the United States written all over him."


With voters like these...

HilLIARy, Osama Obama, Hipp... (Below threshold)

HilLIARy, Osama Obama, Hippocrate Edwards....


With nominee's like these...

You know, Lee et al., your ... (Below threshold)

You know, Lee et al., your own party is so screwed up, having a weak candidate would be in your favor, so why are you worried about who the Repubs run?

My thoughts exactly, JP2. ... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

My thoughts exactly, JP2. The only qualification in the minds of some people is to look the part. I wonder if they would have thought Lincoln looked presidential?

Hey Steak, if Hillary and O... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Hey Steak, if Hillary and Obama cancel each other out, as I suspect they might, the candidate that YOU guys have to fear is Bill Richardson. He's got the skills, got the experience, got the style to carry the midwestern and mountain states. I still think he's the best candidate we've got.

"I for one saw Him in the M... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

"I for one saw Him in the Movie Red October . . ."

Just wondering - was the capitalizing of "Him" a typo or do you think Fred Thompson is God?

I'm now sure that T... (Below threshold)

I'm now sure that Thompson scares Democraps,how else do you explain comments to the contrary.

Well, you explain them because a question is asked about someone's credibility and they ACTUALLY tell you what's on their mind. What, if someone said nothing, you'd probably say, "Gee, they're not saying anything. They really must be scared."

That's republican logic - What is said is not really what is meant, and what is meant is only what you perceive it to be in partisan context. It's a loser in a debate before you even start one (unfortunately, the lot of you have bought into this schoolyard logic for 6 years now. Got some swampland to sell you if you're interested).

Unlike the two-faced lies you get from the a-hole in office, most smart-minded people speak their mind. And - trust me - nobody's afraid of Fred Thompson.

Go ahead, make our vote. Elect him your candidate. We'll be laughing all the way to the White House.

He is TRUE PATRIOTI... (Below threshold)

He is TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN and I for one saw Him in the Movie Red October and said , now that guy has President of the United States written all over him.

Do you ever have any idea, Rob, how imbecilic you sound making statements like this? Do you think Sylvester Stallone would be a great heavyweight contender because you admired him in "Rocky?"

Actors are cattle. If you believe they're more, you live in a fantasy land.

hansel2,Very nice ... (Below threshold)


Very nice how you don't mention which Democrat you support. 'cause you know most here would start laughing the moment you mention one by name (even many of the leftists).

Did you see the funny one up there about Richardson?

The fear of Fred Thompson i... (Below threshold)

The fear of Fred Thompson is that he can pierce the media's BS by defending himself publicly and appears to know the value of doing such. *sigh* Would be nice for a change.

Richardson advocates comple... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Richardson advocates complete surrender to the terrorists and that 's why liberals love him. At least they are honest about what they believe. That 's a good thing.

Richardson: Total Iraq force withdrawal

Recently the Dems were all ... (Below threshold)

Recently the Dems were all puffed up with themselves and spinning a USA Today poll that showed Hillary beating Fred by 7 points if the election were held today. They were proclaiming how "weak" Fred was as a candidate and that the GOP didn't have a chance to take the White House in '08.

The GOP was going to have problems in '08?!? The Dems leading candidate is only 7 points up on a GOP candidate that: 1) Has not formally declared yet. 2) Has not spent dime one in any state for any commercials. 3) Has not yet participated in any GOP debate to get his message out. and 4) Still has no operational campaign staff for a national campaign. And yet, he only trails by 7 points in a national poll!

And the Dems think they have nothing to worry about? Keep drinking that Koolaid you guys, it sure beats reality.

I, for one, would like to hear more from Fred and where he stands. I'm looking forward to having him declare himself as a candidate.

Looking at the wack jobs, l... (Below threshold)

Looking at the wack jobs, losers, and zero-experience clowns on the the other, the GOP cupboard looks pretty full.

Seriously libs:

1. What has Hillary ever been in charge of, led, or organized to a successful conclusion (except for that cattle futures thing and lifting the silverware service from the WH)?

2) Has Obama ever worked in an executive branch dealing with Attorney General, DOD, or INS issues?

3) Does Edwards have ANY management experience?

Actually, you could ask any of these lightweights any of the questions and get the same answer. Zip, zero, nadda.

With all this legislative branch experience have any of these three authored any legislation that was placed into law (not the old "signee" BS or the "I supported" crap, authored means you wrote it).

Now let's interject Rudy or Romney into the three questions. #1 check, #2 check, #3 check.

Yeah, I can see how the libs think they got this one sewed up. LOLOLOL

The attacks on Thompson are... (Below threshold)

The attacks on Thompson are laughable...and do indeed show a decided fear from the Left.

The Left wants McCain because they know Republicans do not want him. So when they "attack" him they do so very carefully so as to leave him credible...at least in their eyes

Very simply, the democrats ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Very simply, the democrats have not fielded any candidates capable of being President of the United States considering the world situation as it stands. Once that is pointed out to the American people, when the defeatist attitude of the left is shown to the voters, when the Republican candidate asked America if they want to lose another one based upon media perception and political BS, pretty much any of the front running GOP candidates win. Beating Hillary would be such a pleasure.

Paul cheerfully admits that... (Below threshold)

Paul cheerfully admits that if he had a dog in the hunt we wouldn't get his honest assessment.

Actors are people, then aga... (Below threshold)

Actors are people, then again, h2 probably considers people cattle, too. Well, we are. We are herd animals. And if you want to sneer, go forage alone.

Hey Paul, Chadouri hearts R... (Below threshold)

Hey Paul, Chadouri hearts Richardson.

"As for Giuliani, he's been... (Below threshold)

"As for Giuliani, he's been very honest about what he believes"

He has not been honest about his views on illegal "immigration". Not at all.

I like this: Reagan was a ... (Below threshold)

I like this: Reagan was a leading man, Thompson is a character actor. Obviously, that political pundit finds Reagan much more fit to be President.

Very nice how you d... (Below threshold)

Very nice how you don't mention which Democrat you support. 'cause you know most here would start laughing the moment you mention one by name (even many of the leftists).

I'm only responding to this to point out - once again - how idiots on your side of the argument spend alot of time "assuming" what people mean and not alot of time actually reading what they've said. First of all, my opinion of Thompson - and the response to the blog - is not a catch all. Should I tell you my opinion on immigration as well? Has nothing to do with the post.

Secondly, the only reason you have interest in who I may or may not support (in actuality, I'm not impressed with any of them) is because you can't defend your own candidate and you have to rely on the "so lame" bait-and-switch response ("Oh, well you don't like Thompson, but you support so-and-so...), something that you folks believe is point with merit in every discussion.

Try this. Defend your candidate when he is criticized. If you can't, shut up. Doing comparisons with other candidates is not vindication for yours. He has to stand on his own merits. If he can't (which someone like Thompson is too thin a candidate to do), then you've lost that argument.

Hansel2, you need a lesson ... (Below threshold)

Hansel2, you need a lesson on politics. Only registered republicans vote in the primary. All the candidates will say what the base wants to hear. Then the successful candidate will try to keep the base AND move to the center at the same time. Very tricky to do, but it can be done. The democrat party does the same thing only to the left. After the primaries, the independents have more sway. There is approx. 52% of the total general vote.

Now, I cannot predict who will be my republican candidate, but I KNOW who will be the democrat. Hillary Clinton. That is set in stone. The Clintons play rough and dirty with a lot of money at their sides. Now, personally I am glad. Because with Hillary running, she and she alone will do more to bring out the republican base plus a huge majority of the independents simply because Hillary is Hillary. How about that. The democrats themselves is helping the republicans get in office. Hillary is the Bob Dole of 1996.

You won't admit it here, but you know it is true. ww

hansel2,You know, ... (Below threshold)


You know, you say in your post at 9:11 pm that you'll be "laughing all the way to the White House". That implies that your Democrat will win. You're not talking about immigration.

Now, let me try to get to your level. If you'll be laughing all the way to the White House if Thompson runs, then that means that your Dem will win. Entiende?

So how? It is very fair dude, to see who you're going to do this with.

But I actually know why you don't support any candidate on the left. So I don't blame you for answering. Kinda like admitting your mom is . . . plain.

Do you enjoy debates with y... (Below threshold)

Do you enjoy debates with yourself hansel2? lol

Correction,the pos... (Below threshold)


the post above at 8:19 am is by me, and not by halsel2. Sorry.

wee wee lee lee wardie is a... (Below threshold)

wee wee lee lee wardie is a bluie. ( which equals losser). snicker snort

Question--is hansel2 suppose to be some kind of gura? (he seems to pat himself on the back an awful lot)

jhow66,your questi... (Below threshold)


your question re: hansel2.

What he's doing is actually fairly common (and done often also by conservatives -- but more often and worse by leftists). It's easy to point out the negatives of candidates (how often have you heard "bring Hillary on! She's unelectable".
Which I agree with, but an election is between two or more candidates, and we need to be realistic about our own.

hansel2 says regarding Thompson, "we'll be laughing all the way to the White House", but then says that he doesn't like any of the Democratic candidates. Right.

That's why so often early on in an election cycle the "undecided" and the "favor someone else" does so well. Real people tend to have negatives, and we prefer some idealized fantasy.

Up to this point, the only candidate that was better than the fantasy was Ronald Reagan. The candidate who did the fantasizing was Bill Clinton. And the only one that made people not even want to fantasize any longer was Hillary.

I saw Fred on FOX News Sund... (Below threshold)

I saw Fred on FOX News Sunday in March. What else would you need to know?


OK, h2, I won't assume: did... (Below threshold)

OK, h2, I won't assume: did you expect your characterization of Thompson vs Reagan as character actor vs leading man not to be ridiculed?

So Fred Thompson is first o... (Below threshold)

So Fred Thompson is first or second in many polls, but if the Democrats acknowledge him as a front runner and talk about his weaknesses, they're afraid of him? What the hell kind of logic is that? And if criticizing a candidate means you're afraid of his strength, what does that say about the many posts in this thread criticizing the Democratic candidates? I assume that all of the criticism of Hillary means you're all afraid of her.

Fred Thompson may turn out to be the nominee. He may even be able to win. No one knows. And why? Because he hasn't been campaigning. Candidates who have yet to enter the race often have high favorables, because no one has campaigned against them. It's no accident that McCain's numbers have dropped, since he went from being glorified in the press as Mr. Straight Talk to actually running a campaign.

As for the press loving the Dems, I guarantee you that the Edwards haircut story has gotten a lot more play than Giuliani's divorces, and the Clinton marriage has been scrutinized in a front page New York Times article, with a lot of hints about their marriage not being real, unsupported by any facts. What other candidate's marriage has undergone similar scrutiny? Which is amusing when you add up the total number of divorces among the Republican candidates versus the Democratic ones.

And when have you seen the so-called "liberal media" question Giuliani's credentials for fighting the war on terror? He showed leadership on TV during 9/11, but in what way does that make him any kind of expert on fighting the war on terror? It's like claiming to be an expert crime fighter because you got mugged in a parking lot. But the press is too intimidated to ask Giuliani the simple question: "What in your experience makes you more qualified to conduct a global war on terror?"

As for this statement: "no Republican I have talked to, considers it a deal-killer for someone to be a Mormon and ask for his vote," is that what passes for research in your world? I'm not saying being a Mormon will kill Romney's chances, but are you seriously suggesting that Romney's Mormonism is not an issue with any of the conservative Christian voters that make up a large chunk of the Republican base? Do you even read the papers? Yes, many conservative Christians say they have no problem with it. But many have also been vocal about their distaste for Mormonism. Of course, if they haven't personally talked with DJ, I guess they don't exist.

I love it. "Fred Thompson ... (Below threshold)

I love it. "Fred Thompson isn't campaigning". What are they gonna call it when he does start? Oh, I know.

Please, please don't tell m... (Below threshold)

Please, please don't tell me that the New York Times puts articles on the front page unsupported by any facts. That's an article of faith you are dealing with, there, and the Gray Lady is sanctified beyond her miracles.

By the way, you oughter rea... (Below threshold)

By the way, you oughter read the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. When you have, I'd like to hear just what part of them you object to.

Is it the Bible? You do kn... (Below threshold)

Is it the Bible? You do know that Bill Clinton used biblical references twice as often in his speeches as Bush does? Find a candidate who repudiates the Bible.

I think the fact that Romney is Mormon may actually help him in that there is a dynamic between his sect and the fundamentalist Christians, not so much over social issues, really more theological ones, but it may allow him to avoid the tag given the most extreme Christians.

I think, in the end, his Mormonism will help him.

How many of y'all out there hate the Mormons you know?

Do you get it now? They do... (Below threshold)

Do you get it now? They do community as well as anyone.

Now I'll hush and not tell you how they fail at community.

Geschrubt!Gesundhe... (Below threshold)



kimI see you're em... (Below threshold)


I see you're employing your usual sterling abilities at comprehending and processing what you read. I said that several conservative Christians are on record as being opposed to Mormonism. You respond by challenging me to tell you what's wrong with Mormonism. Huh? Why don't you ask the people who have come out against it? Where did I indicate in any way that I was talking about my personal views on the faith?

I should know better than to ask you questions. It's clear that your opinion of your own intellect is so lofty that you are above backing up any of your statements. It's not like you're a mere mortal, afer all.

ChrisO,You have ma... (Below threshold)


You have made many valid points. I wouldn't say talking about Fred Thompson means the left is scared. But I do think that they were happier when they knew that conservatives were unhappy about all the available candidates.

As far as the press loving the Dems, you can cite I'm sure many examples of how they were critical of specific Democrats (after all, the media is on 24 hrs/day on TV, internet, hundreds of print media daily, and will they not have ANY negatives on Democrats? -- that's unrealistic and it would make the media look too much like a farce).
But make no mistake, if you're a conservative paying attention to the media, you know when you're not fairly represented (in fact, one's lucky if he's not misrepresented, i.e. National Guard story).

And as far as being scared of Hillary. Actually, I kind of am.

Oh, and about Mitt and morm... (Below threshold)

Oh, and about Mitt and mormonism:

I am a fundamentalist Christian. I love he sermon "Sinners in the hand of an angry God" by Jonathan Edwards.

However, I am a realist. If there were a candidate that was a real Christian (Obama is definitely not -- his actual belief is closer to Muslim), I would also look at electability and so on. So if it were between a Christian candidate, a social liberal like Giuliani, and a Mormon, I would have to look at the practicality. If I didn't think the Christian could win, I would then look at either Romney or Giuliani. Then if I thought that Romney was more of a pretend-conservative to win, then I may look at Giuliani. He has been supportive of Bush, the judges that Bush has chosen, and seems more electable, so I may actually support him (even if among the three he and I disagree most on the issues).

So Mormonism, though not a deal-breaker, is not a positive. It's more that he may not be a consistent, fighting conservative that's less appealing.

At this point ther'e certai... (Below threshold)

At this point ther'e certainly no Repub candidate that stands out among the field. They seem like just the latest crop of empty suits, all desperately trying to look the part and avoid saying the wrong thing. I hear nothing of any substance from anyone on energy independence, health care and climate change, all issues which are becoming important to a larger number of Americans. The fact that virtually all of them seem fine with the status quo in Iraq doesn't help them either. The Repub candidate will be the one who gain the benevolent blessing Dobson, Robertson and maybe even Jerry from beyond the grave.

They're just distancing themselves from the sinking S.S. Bush, while referencing Reagan at every opportunity. And the man who will deliver the faithful?...someone whose chief quality thus far is that he seems somehow more,..well...presidential.

The Republicans are looking backward, the Dems are looking for themselves while the country goes nowhere. I think more and more people are craving true leadership and they're not going to find it here.

Well groucho, you certainly... (Below threshold)

Well groucho, you certainly picked an apt screen name!

Although the original Groucho seemed a bit more quick on getting the facts straight. And he had snappier reparte'.

Kim said:Paul cheerf... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Kim said:
Paul cheerfully admits that if he had a dog in the hunt we wouldn't get his honest assessment.

That's called politics. Everybody has a favorite candidate that they talk up at the expense of others in the race. But since I'm a Democrat, I can be objective about the Republicans.

WildWillie: Some states ha... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

WildWillie: Some states have open primaries where anyone can vote for either party's primary. You might remember back in 2000 there was some complaining early on that Democrats were "infiltrating" the Pub primaries to vote for McCain.

True enough Paul, but not e... (Below threshold)

True enough Paul, but not enough to matter. When the average base of both parties is 26%. And what was happeninig in the primaries you mentioned were democrats voting for republicans to fix the election. ww

Using the logic of this pos... (Below threshold)

Using the logic of this post, then the Right, well beyond a doubt, is afraid of Ron Paul. And they're still apparently afraid of Bill Clinton, too. And Al Gore. And Rosie O'Donnell.

And I think the Right, since they talk so much about how scared the Left is of Thompson, are really just demonstrating how scared they are that it isn't true!

Endlessly entertaining stuff here today. DJ never fails to amuse.

A fair answer, Paul. I wit... (Below threshold)

A fair answer, Paul. I withdraw the innuendo.

Heh, heh. ChrisO keeps thi... (Below threshold)

Heh, heh. ChrisO keeps thinking I'm talking to him.

Or better, he keeps thinkin... (Below threshold)

Or better, he keeps thinking he's talking to me, when he's really just conversing with himself, and poorly. Do other peope ever point that out?

It is not hard to be afraid... (Below threshold)

It is not hard to be afraid of Hellery Clinton, and not easy to be afraid of Ru Paul.

"And as far as being sca... (Below threshold)

"And as far as being scared of Hillary. Actually, I kind of am.

Posted by: nehemiah

Me too. I wouldn't want this to be my mommy, let alone the President:http://www.funnyhub.com/pictures/img/scary-hillary-clinton.jpg

kimSo I said Fred ... (Below threshold)


So I said Fred Thompson hasn't started campaigning yet, and criticized a new York Times article (the only mention of the New York Times in this entire thread.) The next comment was from you, saying "I love it. "Fred Thompson isn't campaigning". What are they gonna call it when he does start? Oh, I know.."

The next comment after that was from you again (how unusual for you to post repeatedly like that) saying "Please, please don't tell me that the New York Times puts articles on the front page unsupported by any facts."

Finally, you said "Heh, heh. ChrisO keeps thinking I'm talking to him."

I guess my only question would be, have you gotten an actual diagnosis? Or are you afraid if you tell them what's really going through your head they'll send you back to that place with the electro-shock machines?

So what do you think of the... (Below threshold)

So what do you think of the Articles of Faith of the Mormons, or would you rather mumble to yourself in the corner?

So do you see the way you h... (Below threshold)

So do you see the way you haven't answered my ridicule of your statements about Thompson and the New York Times? And dodged it when I asked what you thought of the Mormon Articles of Faith? I believe you'd rather grumble than talk to other people. You are welcome to start answering anytime. Any of those three topics will do, or any other matter for that matter. I'm actually curious if you can converse.

I see you're on another thr... (Below threshold)

I see you're on another thread complaining about someone not debating you the way you expect to be debated. Hey, how about some of your thinking on these issues?

kimI really don't ... (Below threshold)


I really don't know what the hell you're talking about. Do you? I said that several conservative Christians have said they oppose Romney because of his faith. Because of your poor reading comprehension, you responded as though I were attacking his faith, which I clearly was not. I responded by explaining, trying to avoid too many big words, that I wasn't attacking his faith. So what does it matter what I think of the Mormon Articles of Faith? I have no familiarity with them, which doesn't matter, because again, I wasn't attacking his faith. I was stating what I have read in many places. I'm now hoping that explaining it four times will be enough even for someone with your limited cognitive skills.

As for the New York Times, I said the media is not going easy on the Democratic candidates, as evidenced by the article about the Clintons' marriage, which inferred things about the marriage that were unsupported by facts. You responded "Please, please don't tell me that the New York Times puts articles on the front page unsupported by any facts. That's an article of faith you are dealing with, there, and the Gray Lady is sanctified beyond her miracles."

What the hell does that even mean? Are you saying the article was false? True? I don't even know. What exactly is it you said that I'm supposed to respond to?

I also said Fred Thompson has high favorables now, but that may change when he actually starts campaigning. You said "I love it. "Fred Thompson isn't campaigning". What are they gonna call it when he does start? Oh, I know."

Again, more than a little incomprehensible, but I guess what they'll call it is "campaigning." I suspect that most of the poll respondents saying they support him know little or nothing about his policies. As they get to know him better, and as he's challenged by his opponents, his support may slip.

By the way, you have some nerve accusing others of dodging your questions. I have repeatedly asked you some very basic questions about the Libby scandal, and you have yet to respond. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen you respond to any of the legitimate challenges to your comments, most of which are clearly pulled from your ass.

In this thread you claimed not to be responding to me with your cxomments. When I pointed out that two of your comments were addressed directly to me, you fell back on your usual tactic and completely ignored the fact that you had once again been shown to be full of shit.

So now that I've responded to your ridiculous ppost, I'll ask you directly. Do you still claim that the comments you posted were not directed to me? I'm not sure what you claim, because you first said "Heh, heh. ChrisO keeps thinking I'm talking to him." followed by accusing me of ignoring you when you were talking to me. I'm nitpicking this because I'm really curious now if you have any clue what's going on around you. And I'm wondering how long you'll keep poasting as your almost non-exiastent credibility dwindles to nothing.

And by the way, when someone refers to "responding" to a post, they mean present your arguments, don't just tell them to go read something.

As I'm writing this, I'm starting to feel a little bad. It just dawned on me: English isn't your first language, is it? Welcome to our shores.

I'm enjoying the thread. H... (Below threshold)
Ole Man Mose:

I'm enjoying the thread. Happen to be of a conservative bent. Clearly Kim is out of her/his intellectual class in a discussion with ChrisO.

So, what's your Libby quest... (Below threshold)

So, what's your Libby question? I think I've answered all successfully. You could reread the Libby threads for my credibility; it stands pretty well.

If it's about the five who claim Wilson leaked his wife's identity, you might ask the defense. It is their claim.

You are a cow, Ward. You pick at details of discourse that are beside the point.

What is your point about Libby that I have not answered? You must understand that much of what I write is opinion.

Old Man Mose; you are a pitiful specimen of a sock puppet. Can you figure out any point of Ward's except picayune ones? Has he said anything, or has he used a lot of words saying what he hasn't said, and what he imagines I've said?

What do you think of the Mormon Articles of Faith? Why don't you want to talk about anything except the structure of the debate? It's like you are chewing regurgitated cud.

Your mistake, Cow Ward, was to take the word 'you' personally when I said I wasn't talking to you. I really meant 'just you', but I'll try not to sound so personal in the future. It is apparent you are part of the left herd, and just as happy as all of them to go over the cliff with Fitzgerald.

By all means, do review the... (Below threshold)

By all means, do review the Libby threads. Coward Lee alleges I've no credibility about Plame/Libby but review will not bear him out.

I've updated this challenge to the Cow, Ward, in a comment about Tatel, who jailed Miller on Fitz's lie, being on the appellate panel, but often, trying to engage him is a vain attempt. He is sure to get torqued about something silly and twist off turbulently.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy