At 27%, his next closest competitor is Mit Romney at 16%, with McCain third at 13%.
One of the speakers at the YAF conference was National Review’s John Miller, who admitted to leaning toward Giuliani, though he acknowledged Rudy’s problems on abortion with the conservative base.
Of course, Miller’s observation is only germane if one believes the conventional wisdom that the conservative base these days consists nearly entirely of social conservatives. Personally, I’m not convinced that’s the case, but we’ll learn soon enough from the early primaries, where Romney appears poised to take an early lead.
I haven’t spoken much about the candidates to this point, so let me take some time to offer my (tentative and still preliminary) observations, which I’ll juxtapose with those offered by Miller.
First, I think Giuliani has a real chance of winning the nomination — either because the social conservatives are no longer the only truly interested conservative primary voters, or else because they will soon discover pragmatism. Of the current frontrunners, Giuliani is, to my way of thinking, the only electable GOP candidate. And as a concession to what are his several socially liberal beliefs (beliefs that could, in fact, bring back into the fold certain libertarians who fear the kind of nanny-statism that HillaryNation™ will proudly embody), he has already noted that he will nominate only those Supreme Court Justices who treat the Constitution not as some living document to be tortured by the logic of reader response theoretics, but rather as a document with a fixed set of intents, which they will work to tease out from under the palimpsest of historical overwritings.
None of which is to say Giuliani is my first choice. That remains to be seen. But I don’t think Romney can get more than, say, 45% of the vote in a national election, and — for what it’s worth — I don’t think the country is ready for a President named “Mit”. Couple that with what I think are some glaring weaknesses in his record, and — while his campaign remains one of the best run campaigns going — I don’t think he can hope to win a national campaign.
Ironically, though, he might be able to win the nomination, which could end up costing the GOP the White House.
John McCain has been strong on the war. And that is to his everlasting credit. But let’s face it: many conservatives would just as soon vote for Hillary as McCain. McCain’s “maverick” reputation is largely an honorarium bestowed upon him by the press, with whom he has a very congenial reputation. And then, there’s the question of what being a “maverick” means.
In Beltway culture — and I could be wrong here, so feel free to correct me — being a “maverick” means being a Republican who is willing to break with Republicans and side with Democrats on legislation that, in important ways, weakens a traditional view of government, or else lends credence to certain Constitutional arguments that draw from a less-than-textualist reading of the document. McCain Feingold, in fact, remains one of the worst pieces of legislation passed in our lifetimes, and it is to George Bush’s discredit that it ever made it past his desk (though I understand why it did, and the political calculus involved; unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruined that particular play).
Too, McCain is a statist and a demagogue. And because I believe Hillary Clinton, if elected, would be ferocious with respect to foreign policy (she absolutely will not let herself be seen as weak, and so it could be the case that her fidelity to feminism will, in an important way, inform a muscular foreign policy), I’d just as soon have a Democrat shoulder the blame for the increase in nannystatism that would occur under either a McCain or a Clinton administration.
Mike Huckabee — a nannystatist zealot, a tax-raiser — I admit, I’m consistently shocked at the support he gets from conservatives. Miller called him a liberal democrat, and his governing record (see, for instance, this report by the Club for Growth) seems to suggest just that.
Miller did allow that Huckabee is the best speaker of all the current candidates, which might account for his popularity. But those who talk pretty to me while simultaneously reaching into my wallet and laying down ground rules… well, let’s just keep them on the lap dance stool where they belong.
Where I disagreed with Miller most strongly was on his assessment of Thompson. First, let me get this out of the way: I think Fred has to walk back his support of McCain Feingold, and then get his campaign in order. Right now, he doesn’t seem ready for prime time.
But if he can begin to turn it around, I believe he can communicate in the straight-talk style generally granted McCain — only in doing so, he’d be articulating, with humor and avuncular toughness, a truly conservative message.
Miller thinks Thompson would top out at 45% in a national election. Me, I believe that if conservatives want a truly conservative candidate with a chance at winning the national election, Thompson is their best hope.
I think his debate style and his confidence — combined with his training as an actor, which allows him to block out and practice his communications (very much like Reagan did) — would appeal to the optimism of Americans who, while they may not agree with the current war, nevertheless don’t see America as a force for evil in the world, nor are they willing to surrender to the self-loathing and ennui being pushed by today’s left.
And for that reason, I think Thompson, with the right ticket, could win a national election — and is the real dark horse of the campaign.
Of course, I once thought the same thing about Phil Graham, so take this all for what it’s worth.
Finally, Ron Paul. About whom I’ll say this: America needs Ron Paul in precisely the same way it needs those folks who yearly try to sneak into Area 51, or who scour Mississippi donut shops for an aged Elvis.
He’s excellent for local color, and — as a bonus — he siphons off some of the paleocons who might otherwise embarrass a socially conservative candidate.
Not to mention that he is precisely the kind of candidate whose ego is big enough to convince him to run a third party candidacy. And if he does, he will take votes away not from any GOP contender, but more likely from a Democrat who is insufficiently willing to see that 911 was, in fact, an inside job.
In Paul’s favor is his avowed stance against feel-good legislation. But Paul’s anti-pork stance hasn’t kept him from accepting his fair share, and his pro-free trade stance hasn’t translated into votes supporting such programs.
Miller speculated that this deficiency in Paul’s voting record is due to his insistence that none of the legislation on offer is ever good enough. Which puts Paul in the carefully crafted position of laying claim to ideologies the legislative manifestations of which he never votes to support — ostensibly because they aren’t ever pure enough.
Meaning that to Paul, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Couple this with his “non-interventionism” dodge — he claims to support a muscular foreign policy, but only one that acts when necessary (which, I’d bet, would track with George Bush’s very own thinking, without the risk, on Paul’s part, of actually having to make the tough decisions to act preemptively) — and what you have in Paul is the 2008 version of Howard Dean, and his supporters the 2008 version of the Deaniacs.
Soon enough, the Trutherism rampant among his diehard supporters will become mainstreamed, and Paul’s campaign, already dead in the water, will become just another fringe campaign that tries keeping itself alive by inviting in any kook with a $50 check.
I think that he’s a “two-t Mitt,” but I also think that the country would still rather have a pitcher than a catcher.
Dick Nixon.
Rested and ready in ’08.
“Serious” left bloggers Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drumm both say they’d support Ron Paul over Guiliani. Yes, it’s obvious they want what’s best for the country.
I love Rudy. I had to register as a Republican for him– I hope he’s in the race when the primaries roll around here so it’s worth my while. I have friends to make, and can’t do it with a big scarlet R on my voter registration card.
Man — you got Huckabee’s number!
“‘Serious’ left bloggers Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drumm both say they’d support Ron Paul over Guiliani.”
Okayyyyyyy…….
I’d support George McGovern over Stephen Douglas or Henry Clay. Grover Cleveland, even.
I’m going to need someone to define “serious” for me.
I hear Grover Cleveland was a nice guy and stuff. Aside from being dead, he’s a better candidate than George McGovern.
We serious people tend to fall in the McGovern camp, John.
Emphasis on “fall”, of course.
I do not understand the allure of Romney. Essentially, he enacted Hillarycare at the state level, has had nearly every position on abortion, and just feels too packaged for me. Giuliani has his problems with the social cons in the primary, but clearly has the best chance to win in the general. Thompson is also a viable candidate in the general, and I would pay to see him debate the Dems. Paul – we need him like Oliver Willis needs another case of pork rinds. Huckabee? Does not even register with me.
And because I believe Hillary Clinton, if elected, would be ferocious with respect to foreign policy (she absolutely will not let herself be seen as weak, and so it could be the case that her fidelity to feminism will, in an important way, inform a muscular foreign policy)
I gotta disagree on whether that’s a good thing.
Lefties like Hillary! have no idea exactly what the military can and can’t do. They think the military just waves a wand and stuff happens.
They also threaten a lot and don’t follow through on it (Bill’s specialty), and, if they do follow through, it’s usually ineffective (Bill’s other specialty, remember Sudan’s pharmaceutical plant? Afghanistan’s tents that were blown up by cruise missiles fired over Pakistani territory without asking permission, merely telling them they were on the way. Remember when Clinton attacked Saddam in a truly useless way?)
Nope, aggressive, erratic and crazy isn’t the same as strong. The only good thing about a Hillary! foreign policy will be that no countries will know whether they can act all tough as she might need a little foreign trouble to get American’s minds off of her latest trouble.
But then, I thought about Bill to and we see how that worked out.
Thompson has come out to attempt to distance himself about McCain-Feingold, but I agree- he hasn’t done enough to recant his support for that atrocious piece of filth.
I’m afraid Giuliani’s family will become a bigger problem for him once the race gets closer to showtime. He has some serious issues with his kids and his ex-wife that will turn off most conservatives if the press gets a chance to shine a light on them, not to mention the other socially liberal views he espoused while Mayor.
I keep waiting for Thompson to generate some sort of surge to push him to the front. Despite the fact that he continually speaks and writes music to my ears and eyes in terms of government and policy, it doesn’t appear to resonate out side of his rabid base of followers. He may have waited too long to get in the race, who knows.
What keeps me confident that Thompson can turn it around is how early it is still. Remember how far Dean was ahead of the pack?
Yeah, that makes me feel better.
You’ve managed to hit all of the reasons why I’m struggling with this decision.
Since no Democrat is going to get my vote (well, at least the one’s running) I can quickly eliminate Paul (foil brians) and Huckabee (immigrant pimper, taxer.) Currently the choices for me, from bottom up, are:
4) McCain. Like the guy personally. Love his support of the GWOT. Can’t stand the fact that he is a meddler and a media whore. Agreed on McCain-Fiengold, a big, heaping pile of monkey crap. Immigration, interrogation, legislation. There’s no way I can vote for the guy.
3) Romney: Too many faces, too many views, not enough rock solid conservative principles (at least long held.) Practically all of his accomplishments involve government expansion of spending and bureaucracy. No thanks.
2) Guliani: Proven leader, great on the GWOT, decision maker, somewhat fiscally conservative, don’t see him having any problems wielding the veto or inspiring the country when necessary. The bad news: guns, abortion and certain simple minded nanny statism in NY. I could probably be pragmatic enough to vote for him but I need to hear more.
1) Thompson: I want to believe, I really do. Federalist, limited government, anti-abortion, guns rights, strong on the GWOT, folksy charm, great writer, good speaker, good debater. But, dammit, McCain Freakin’ Feingold and some concerns on immigration. I’ll be watching Fred on these two issues as closely as I watch Guliani on guns and state initiatives.
IMHO
I agree that Thompson needs to back away from McCain-Feingold. It seems to be the major kink in his campaign for the nomination in my opinion. Beyond that, I think he could be a powerful candidate.
Merely a cut-and-paste mixup, I’m sure, but this isn’t in the right paragraph.
It was supposed be in all of them, right? Except maybe Fred’s. But especially —
…
Y’know, it MAY be useful for some quasi-expert in the subject to compare Republican self-deceptive un-talk-to-able-ness re: inevitaRudy with the ’04 election’s post-mid-primaries enforced conformity among media and internet Democrats, where what was not allowed to be spoken against “electability” cost them a sure-thing victory in the general. PERHAPS.
Or, y’know, we can just thank the ol’ Party for President Hillary right now.
Thompson. I like Thompson. He seems like a nice person. Giuliani was the mayor of New York and Ahmadinejad was the mayor of Tehran and spellcheck on Firefox thinks they’re both pretty dubious.
I don’t know why I’m bothering to try to educate someone who thinks that Fred Thompson would make a good president, but it’s Phil Gramm, not Phil Graham.
You’re welcome.
I like Thompson too, but he’s looking increasingly like the guy with all the right stuff to be president, and none of what it takes to get elected president. Unless he gets off his ass soon he’s going to be remembered for 2008 the way Alan Keyes would be for 1996 — if anyone remembered that Alan Keyes ran for president in 1996.
HOW DARE YOU TRY TO IMPOSE YOUR AUTHORITARIAN SPELLING CONVENTIONS ON US!!!1!!!!11!!!!!!!!one hundred and eleven!!!
I agree completely on Thompson.
Is it Hilary or Hillary or Hilarity? Bubba or Stogie Pig? Sandy McflypaperpushingO’shreddypants? William “Chill” Jefferson.
Oh, I know! BUSHITLERMCCHIMPYDUMASSBURTONFASCIST!!!
This is fun! WEEEEEEEEE!
I’ll follow BJTexs’ lead and list my “favorites” in ascending order:
7) John McCain. Yes, he’s a war hero and yes, he’s taken a hard line on the GWOT. But the guy is just plain batshit crazy. And I don’t mean crazed in a good way.
6) Ron Paul. What can I say? He’s got the skinhead/militia vote. I’ve met a few of his supporters and they are scary people. When all the other political supporters are wearing coats & ties, Paul’s supporters show in camo & guns. Nothing wrong with camo & guns, I’ve got camo & guns, but I don’t wear them passing out political literature in the city park on Sunday. Nothin’ to hide from, nothin’ to shoot. I’m a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but there’s a time & place.
5) Mitt Romney. A classic empty suit. The guy has staked out all sides of every issue. If he has any convictions that haven’t changed since last week I’d be pleased to hear what they are. A vote for Romney is a vote for.. Well, Moroni only knows.
4) Hillary Clinton. I agree, she’d take a hard line on foreign policy, at least until someone figured out that she can be bought, and too many of our country’s enemies have already made the down payment. Unfortunately, she’s probably a Hsu-in for the Dem nomination and I would vote for her if the option were McCain, Paul, or Romney.
3) Mike Huckabee. Should probably be sharing #3 with Hillary. The only difference I see between them is that I don’t know for sure that Huckabee can be bought. Why the guy calls himself a Republican is beyond me.
2) Rudy Giuliani. Rudy is probably closest to me in his political philosophy, being hardcore on the GWOT and on law & order, while being generally socially liberal. If it weren’t for his stance on gun control I’d be happy to vote for him, but I doubt I’ll have the opportunity once the social conservatives have their way with him.
1) Fred Thompson. I like pretty much everything I see about the guy, although I’d like to know a lot more before I make a decision. He seems strong on my key issues: The GWOT, gun control, and law & order, and I suspect he’s more socially liberal than he’s letting on (not a bad thing in my book). I can’t say I’m impressed with his campaigning so far and, as that reflects on his administrative abilities, it gives me pause. Still, if most of our politicians are any indication, the skills needed to govern and the skills needed to run an effective campaign don’t overlap much.
All that said, when we get to the polls we’re still going to be faced with the evil of two lessers. Not a one of these folks I feel strongly enough about to donate $2 to their campaign. Too bad Dick Cheney’s ticker’s broke. I mean! The guy shot a lawyer. Sure it was an accident, but that only means he does better by accident than most do on purpose.
Well thought and excellently written. The compressed primary schedule means that Thompson does not have the latitude necessary for a slow build. He needs to get the mea culpa on CFR done very soon. I’d give Huckabee and Paul a quarter each to go away – they add nothing.
Huckabee seems to draw most of his support from the anti-abortion crowd.
Paul has stated repeatedly that he will not run a 3rd party candidacy; I don’t know why everyone assumes he’s not on the level.
It’s beyond me why any Republican would support McCain, who’s done almost as much damage as Dems to the Rep cause.
Giuliani? Romney? If I wanted Hillary or Obama I’d just vote for Hillary or Obama.
Huckabee? Umm, not. For all the reasons already stated.
Thompson? I prefer my candidates to at least pretend their interested in being elected.
I’m planning on sitting this one out unless Paul should pull off the improbable and get the nod. I’ve read his positions and he’s not nearly as out there as he’s been portrayed.
And it might just be a lunatic I’m looking for.
“they’re”
Dang.
dang*
there was supposed to be a link there, but I’ve kind of decided it works just as well like that
I completely agree with Jeff…
“Thompson? I prefer my candidates to at least pretend their interested in being elected.”
I don’t really trust anyone willing to put up with all the horseshit required to get the job, so Fred’s sometimes seeming disinterest is part of what I like about him.
“I don’t really trust anyone willing to put up with all the horseshit required to get the job, so Fred’s sometimes seeming disinterest is part of what I like about him.”
Hell, you might just as well vote for my uncle Tim. He isn’t willing to put up with a lot of horseshit either. Disinterested might be one way to describe him…
B Moe, wouldn’t that have made William Tecumseh Sherman the ideal presidential candidate?
You have an attitude.
crap. not you McGehee.
…wouldn’t that have made William Tecumseh Sherman the ideal presidential candidate?”
Politics is hell, McGehee.
Gotta take issue with the Hillarycare bit. Romney’s law gets everyone on private insurance and lets the market take it from there. If not for the fact that they made it compulsory, I’d think it a pretty good way of solving the health care problem and getting the government out of the business of managing care. That it is compulsory, well, fuck you, Mitt.
I like Rudy and I like Fred. But Rudy can demolish the Hildabeast, Fred likely cannot.
My big problem with Fred is that, like so many in this race, he’s never actually run a damned thing. About the only thing that would make me vote for him is if he came out and said “you know folks, we need to rethink this whole war on drugs thing.” But then again, that’s what it would take to make me vote for any of them. I’m a one issue voterâ€â€or at least I was. Long ago I decided that I could not vote for anyone who countenanced the war on drugs. It made things so easy. I’d just vote the Libertarian ticket and leave my polling place with a spring in my step and a song in my heart. Which is exactly how I voted for Paul in ’88. But if the Libertarians nominate an anti-war screecher for ’08, I may have to do something I’ve never done: stay home on election day. The very idea disturbs me profoundly.
Anyway, for the Republican Party the answer is obvious. If they want to hold onto the presidency, Giuliani-Thompson is the way to go. They’d be unbeatable. I’d hate them as drug warriors, but at least I’d be able to sleep at night knowing grown-ups were in charge.
yours/
peter.
Don’t know what you’ve been reading, hoosiertoo, what your definition of “out there” is.
Consider all of the following taken from the Paul website:
“NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system.â€Â
“Practically speaking, our meddling in the Middle East has only intensified strife and conflict.â€Â
“…the Federal Reserve does not mimic a gold standard by any measure. The clearest example of this lies in our current account deficit, which our fiat currency encourages. Under a gold standard we would not have exchange rate distortions between the Chinese renminbi and the U.S. dollar, for example. True currency stability is impossible when fiat dollars can be produced at will and foreign lenders bankroll our deficits.†Wishbone note: Total U.S. gold reserves amount to less than $200 billion.
“For the critics of our policy of foreign interventionism in the affairs of others the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise and many have warned of its inevitability.â€Â
“Most Americans do not anticipate a military victory in Iraq , yet the Washington politicians remain frozen in their unwillingness to change our policy there, fearful of the dire predictions that conditions can only get worse when we leave. They refuse to admit that the condition of foreign occupation is the key ingredient that unleashed the civil war now raging in Iraq and serves as a recruitment device for Al Qaida.â€Â
I was wondering when the Ron Paul effect would kick in…
Shoot!
Elect me, and I will give everyone ANYTHING they ask for.
Except you will have to do without “The Kardashians”(?). They will be executed under the retroactive abortion law within five minutes of my taking office.
All other pinheads are off the hook, until they piss me off.
Pretty solid platform, I would have to say.
“Wishbone note: Total U.S. gold reserves amount to less than $200 billion.”
The radical deflation would be a really good economic lesson for most of the idiots in this country, you have to admit.
“. Romney’s law gets everyone on private insurance and lets the market take it from there. If not for the fact that they made it compulsory, I’d think it a pretty good way of solving the health care problem and getting the government out of the business of managing care.”
Isnt that hillary’s new plan?
“The radical deflation would be a really good economic lesson for most of the idiots in this country, you have to admit.”
It would certainly fuck up most people that owe money.
andy – Nope. Not even close. I was wrong in comparing the two. You know no better. In Hillary’s plan, my doctor would have to look to the DMV for guidance as to what procedures are covered. Or something like that. Either way, the government would be making my healthcare decisions as opposed to me. Any pro-choice person should be appalled by this.
McGeHee, could you imagine what Uncle Billy would have done to Congress if he had been elected?
Afterwards it would have been ‘send for the painters and decorators – we’ll never be able to get the blood out of this!’.
No.
But wait, here’s the best part!
Not only will we fix the whole system and get everybody covered under it but we’ll get money for doing it. It’s better than free!
I can’t wait to see the nuts and bolts of how Hillary is going to fix health care services to save all of this money. Something tells me that it isn’t going to have much to do with letting the market work.
“Not only will we fix the whole system and get everybody covered under it but we’ll get money for doing it. It’s better than free!”
Ron Popeil for Surgeon General.
And it makes mounds of cole slaw.
You mean right after he arrested and executed the Chief Justice for trying to swear him in?
Related to what Pablo says, constructions like that which Hillary is using are why people hate politicians. Everybody in the real world knows that in order to do what they want to do, it is going to cost money. Real money. Really big money. We will not be able to do it for free, and it will not be anywhere near “revenue neutral”. Any attempts to make it otherwise are flat out lies, or even worse, lies couched in unfounded budget assumptions, cooked books, and accounting tricks.
I think Fred Thompson is the reflecting pool for most conservatives. They don’t remember anything he ever did as senator (which is easy, since he didn’t really do anything), so they view him as whatever they would like him to be. A lot of democrats do the same thing with Obama. In any case Thompson appears to be completely out of his depth, at least at the debates.
If Giuliani really is pulling out of Iowa and New Hampshire to focus on Super Tuesday, he’s toast. He may have a lead in the national polls, but it’s soft and will not survive a pair of solid hits. In that case, you’re stuck with Romney, which would be an electoral disaster.
Crusty Dem – You are right in one regard, Romney would be an electoral disaster.
I am curious, as the Left repeatedly tries to advance this “Fred didn’t do anything” or “Fred is lazy” meme. What has Hillary accomplished? Obama? Edwards? Dodd? Kucinich? What is so stellar on their resumes that should worry someone that would otherwise support Thompson?
JD, go look at wikipedia, you can find plenty on the legislative record for Hillary and Obama. Obama’s been involved in border security, immigration, and fighting electoral fraud. Hillary has done a lot getting money to NYC for security after 9/11. Neither has been a superstar in the senate, but I don’t think it’s possible to be one unless you control both houses and the presidency.
Thompson’s wiki entry basically says “He served on the Committee on Governmental Affairs” and he voted against impeaching Clinton on perjury charges. I realize the flaws in using wiki, but I’ve never heard him tout any work he did as senator, have you?
I could care less about wikipedia, certainly as a resource. I would like to hear your views on it, since you seemed like a reasonable sort.
Obama has been in the US Senate for less than 4 years. He fought for border security? I have no doubt that he fought for illegal immigration. Electoral fraud? I would love it if the Senate ever did anything about that. His resume is lighter than Edwards.
Hillary fought for money for NY post 9/11? Given the drunken orgy of spending that followed, that took no fighting. She was a lawyer and the wife of a President. At least she had experience, with Thompson, during Watergate, but she did not make a name for herself then, unlike Thompson.
Edwards. Useless one term Senator that channelled dead babies thoughts. Impressive.
So, why are any of these people any more impressive than Thompson, on paper?
Well, ok, Obama’s been involved in border security, immigration, and fighting electoral fraud, he passed a bill w/Tom Coburn requiring online clarity in federal funding. Hillary has done a lot getting money to NYC for security after 9/11, she was on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Thompson did very close to nothing. If you doubt this, look at his web site http://www.fred08.com/About.aspx and click the “legislation” tab.
They’re more impressive than Thompson because, whether you believe they accomplished anything of substance, they have issues they focused on. Thompson doesn’t even have that. He did nothing and he learned nothing (other than that he preferred acting to legislating).
Forgive me for mistaking you for a reasonable chap.
yeah, just ignore that section about government waste and oversight on the legislation tab at Thompson’s site…. he didn’t focus on anything….
I’m confused–is electoral fraud still an issue?
Seems to have faded.
And the fact that someone has a thin resume as a Senator is, to my mind, a good thing.
um, in looking at the Thompson page, it looks like he focused on reducing government waste. or do people usually just make reports for fun.
wishbone – It is still an issue to Dems that believe that Bu$sHitlerburton stole the elections in Florida and Ohio.
Sorry JD, I’ve been so busy aborting babies and texting Osama that I must have missed the reasonable part.
Thompson did make a name for himself during watergate, he was Nixon’s chief mole in the investigation. But Nixon thought he was a moron.
JD, what exactly do you think Thompson accomplished in the senate?
Well Crusty Dem started out reasonable and then decended into unsourced rumor and snarky opinion. I’d be very, very interested to see the source for your watergate mole/Moron story.
I could not have been more wrong. Ask Osama where he is.
Just your standard lefty wackjobs at the AP:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19675541/
I should correct, Nixon never called Thompson a moron. Just “Dumb as hell”. Snarky I’ll accept, unsourced rumor, not so much.
JD, he’s in your basement, eating your cheetos.
Well, Crusty–forgive us, we’ve been busy breaking into DNC HQ and starting wars for oil.
Seriously–did you just try to hitch Thompson to Nixon? And THEN use Nixon’s opinion of him as a negative? Both in the same post?
How…er…intellectually limber of you.
Crusty – To borrow from your quite liberal use of the terms, Thompson was involved in border security, immigration, and fighting electoral fraud, national security, campaign fundraising improprieties, taxes, abortion, and making sure that women, minorities, children, and old people are well fed, amongst other things.
McGehee – Everybody knows that Thompson was Nixon’s mole. It is common knowledge, don’t ya’ know?
I don’t think they realize that makes him a more attractive candidate. Better King Log than King Stork, no?
Crusty – That would be difficult for him to do, given the number of contractors working down there right now. I think his dialysis machine might be a bit touch to hide at this moment. The turban too.
Sourced rumors are soooooooooooooo much better.
wishbone – One thing we know is that today’s Left are experienced contortionists when it comes to intellectual pretzel making.
Wishbone, dude, I don’t give a rat’s ass about Nixon, and I’m not hitching anyone to anything. Read up, JD was commenting about Thompson’s “impressive” role in Watergate, I’m just clarifying what his actual role was. I was accused of using unsourced rumor, so I sourced AP.
I don’t have any particular dislike for Thompson, I’m just curious as to what he’s accomplished (outside of excellent work in “The Hunt for Red October” and “Law & Order”) that makes people here think he’d be a good president. Look up to my first post, my point was that I think conservatives view him as a blank slate and attribute features to him that he does not have.
Crustydem: I’d also point out that the exact same language you used to describe Obama and Hillary could be applied to Thompson. You said:
Now using your construct I can go to the link you provided and write this:
“Thompson has been involved in fraud and waste inventigation and fighting misspending by government agencies. He helped enact three different tax cuts and attempted to hold China responsible for Nuclear prolifereation violations through the free trade agreement. He was on the Senate Intellegence Committee.”
See how that works? The end result is that none of the three Senators have a particularly active and amazing Senate record of accomplishment. Your tired attempt to paint Hillary and Obama as somehow “better” than Thompson is demonstrably ludicrous and partisan.
JD, What does it take to convince you of a fact? If I tell you the sky is blue, will you complain about sourcing and bias? Just look out the window, dude.
CrustyDem: That story was about as thin as thin can get. No direct quotes, no pointing to which tapes, who was talking, what the bacKground of the conversation was. It has all of the markings of a hit piece.
You’ll need to do better than that when it comes to sourcing.
Oh and BTW: Being called “Dumb as Hell” by Nixon doesn’t exactly put him in an exclusive club, if you catch my drift.
Crusty – If you told me that the sky was blue, I would be glad to know that you did learn something in grade school.
For you to convince any of us that Thompson was Nixon’s mole is going to take a lot more than that link. Just yesterday, I saw another Leftist trying to assert that Thompson was Nixon’s lawyer.
I did not say he was impressive in Watergate. I said he made a name for himself. Don’t lie. Not a good habit.
He was an actor. Big deal. So is every politician. To characterize his life as being nothing more than an actor and a lazy Senator is just evidence that you are a crusty partisan hack. Smegma, perhaps.
Two words on bias and the sky being blue, Crusty:
Drunk elephants.
JD: Thompson revealed what some witnesses were going to say to the White House during the course of the investigation (in his autobiography.) That constitutes being a “mole.” It’s obvious that Nixon and Buzardt thought Fred was less capable than Sam Dash and that he agreed to be more of an advocate for the White House during the hearings. You know, being a Republican and all. there is very little evidence during the hearings that he acted as some kind of Nixon advocate and, as the Republican lead council, had to walk a fine line between prosecution and party defense.
The link below is a more complete record of what CrustyDem was trying to get across.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/10/nixon-on-thomps.html
Again I say: So what? None of the three have particularly distinguished Senate Records. I’m more moved my Thompson’s work on cutting taxes and dealing with wasteful spending than I am by the evidence expressed for either Obama or Clinton.
Thanks BJ. I suspect that you are giving crusty far too much credit. That sounded like full on conspiracy talk, or at least headed that way.
See, crusted smegma, it is possible to present information in a clear and rational manner.
Were it not for “Campaign Finance Reform”, I would probably be in the Thompson camp. To me, that is such an affront, that it makes me reconsider anybody that supported it.
Interesting to see your comments on Giuliani winning and the seeming social conservative exodus from the mainstream republican party… Where are these folks going? Related: check this post on how the candidates stack up in the media. Interesting to see the HUGE discrepancy in Giuliani’s coverage in the MSM vs the blogosphere.
http://thetomoreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/presidential-candidates-october-media.html
Shorter JD – “I’ll call you names because I don’t read very well.”
BJT, I don’t think any of the three have fantastic records, but who would you does say has a “particularly distinguished senate record”? Over, say the last 10 years?
JD,
I’m obligated to inform you that you owe royalty payments to the estate of Howell Heflin’s ass-crack for your unauthorized use of “smegma”.
Joe Lieberman
Smegma – I read your link, and it was lacking in actual sourcing. BJ outlined it in a manner that is plausible. You, not so much.
Anytime is see the “shorter” construct from a Lefty, I know that what follows is going to be as valuable as a bucket of warm spit.
I’m a Giuliani supporter. However, I always cringe when I see electability used as a factor to determine whom to support. I present as Exhibits A and B John F. Kerry and Lincoln Chafee.
Lincoln Chafee. That brightens my day. Thanks.
Mike C – Elect-ability does not bother me so much, so long as rational people are making that determination. The fact that Kerry was deemed electable by the Left and the media tells us more about their warped thinking than it does about the idea that it should be a considered factor.
Crusty, you show two things by your appearance here: first, that you have a biased partisan view of Senate records. Obama, Clinton, and Thompson all have undistinguished Senate careers, and that is the nature of the beast. Being a Senator of short tenure means one does not get to be a committee chairperson or make bold initiatives. To a lesser extent than the House, seniority is important in the Senate. Nonetheless, none of them did very much in the Senate.
Secondly, engaging JD is always a mistake, as he senses heterodoxy and then begins the insults…after he has accused you of arguing in bad faith. I read the site a bit before I posted, so I knew better than to engage him directly.
Most of the other actors here seem to be in good faith, but the level of proof for non-conservative stories is going to be very high. You either need to cite an absolutist media source (A said B) or get an already vetted conservative commenter to say it (notice when BJ confirmed the main parts of your tale, JD was able to back off?).
I like Fred Thompson more than Skittles.
JD, the problem I have with it is that, rather than selecting the person that represents your priorities/beliefs the best, you are trying to discern what people who, almost by definition, see the world differently than you do will vote for. I think it almost necessarily leads to absurd results.
The absurdity is more pronounced among libs because they don’t believe conservatives come by their views honestly, therefore they try to please a caricature rather than an actual person. But, even if you’re right, you’re destined to be unhappy.
“I like Fred Thompson more than Skittles.”
waffler
I’m Just Saying:
Actually I pointed ouit how thin the source was, found a better source and then showed how characterizing Thompson’s role as a “mole for the white house” was pure hyperbole. I also pointed out that the reference didn’t mean squat to the discussion.
JD was correct; Crusty Dem tried to pull a fast one.
Mike C – And I agree with your assessment. Let’s take the Dems for example. If Kucinich best represents that asshole timmy’s view, but would ultimately end up ensuring Thompson winning, whose views are least palatable to that douchenozzle timmah, shouldn’t he take that into consideration? I guess what I am saying is that maybe one’s second or third choice might be a better choice, if it keeps one’s last choice from becoming a reality.
timmah aka I’m Just Sayin – Did you get lonely over at Caric’s? For you to discuss good faith argument is laughable.
And yes, I did drop it when BJ discussed it, because he took the babble from crusty, and translated it into rational thought. I do not speak babble, and do not possess the Rosetta Stone. Additionally, BJ has a history of being right, honest, and sincere, so I admit I am more likely to believe him than some troll that drops in and accuses Thompson of being a mole for Nixon, and finds that Obama, Edwards, and Clinton’s legislative accomplishments dwarf that of Thompson, who did next to nothing.
BJ – timb cannot help but lie. It is his nature.
Now, now, JD, kind words aside, Crusty did not bring Edwards into the discussion or I might have joined you in insulting him. He was just trying to pull a little fast one, that’s all.
No Senators run anything, which is the nature of their jobs. The reason why Senators haven’t been getting elected president is that little problem called a voting record. It’s what makes the whole argument of Thompson vs Hillary senate accomplishments so irrelavant. I’m far more interested in core principles as outlined by actual votes (along with legislation written) than I am by committee assignments and how much money somebody scoffed up for their district.
They are still lying crapweasels. Hear that, timmah? I called you a name again. Go back to Caric, maybe you can cure each others loneliness.
BJ – Again, my mistake. He only brought Obama and Clinton up. Did you know that Obama has been leading the fight for vote fraud, illegal immigration, and border security?
I’ve seen Nixon’s mole. It’s a lot hairier than Fred is.
Why, yes, JD, I noticed that. Obama was leading the way on so many issues while bald, fat assed Thompson was diddling his trophy wife, lying about abortion and feeding inside info on Sam Ervin’s love life to Haldeman.
Do-Nothing!
“I did not say he was impressive in Watergate.”
Well I will say it, and I don’t need a source caused I watched the hearings. I was a hardcore little lefty who hated Nixon’s guts and thought Sam Irvin was closer to God than the Pope, but I was very impressed by both Thompson and Weicker on the other side. They were smart, hardnosed and fair.
Late to return – probably a waste of breath, but…
#38 – if you think a Ron Paul mention on this thread is an example of the “Paul Effect,” then you haven’t spent much time at Tonhall or other such sites.
#37 – Saying that our policies in the ME have produced “blowback” is hardly original to Paul.
There is some evidence for the North American Union see SourceWatch, and Tancredo is also beating that drum, not that a congressman on the House committees for foreign affairs and international relations would know anything.
That leaves the gold standard and his antipathy for the Fed, which puts him in good company. See here.
I like Skittles more than Ron Paul.