It’s hard to understand the GOP swooning over the prospect of a Fred Thompson presidential candidacy, as this Slate column argues.
Thompson was a very undistinguished two-term senator who had a reputation for not wanting to work very hard. His accomplishments were thin to nonexistent.
Moreover, he’s a bad actor whose emotional range runs the gamut from A to B. But that Reaganesque quality doesn’t make him Reagan.
He’s a good communicator, say his supporters, but the question is, does he have anything to communicate? Other people in the race have real accomplishments and credentials.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
78 Comments
If there’s a Republican from Hollywood the party wants them for office. If it’s a Democrat from Hollywood then the Republicans say nobody from Hollywood should open his mouth. Kinda funny that moral crusaders will criticize Hollywood but they’ll elect Reagan, Bono and Thompson at the drop of a hat. Republicans are always two-faced.
Bob Novak reported this weekend that Fred Thompson spoke to Orange County, Republicans recently and was an empty suit. Now, Novak being the Prince of Darkness and all, Thompson might have merely not been fascist enough, but the event doesn’t bode well for a Fred Thompson candidacy.
George WMD Bush has so screwed up the Republic Party — indeed the whole concept of conservatism — no on with a chance of succeeding in the 2008 General Election can survive the GOP primaries.
Nobody is going to save the Republican Party. Like I said- right now the Dems could run OJ Simpson and win. As for Thompson, he was lazy in Senate while Reagan was a 2 term govornor of Calfiornia. That is a big difference. As for Fred Dalton Thompson’s acting, I do not agree he is a bad actor. I like seeing him. But again Democrats make the best actors because we are more artisically enhanced. Most Republicans despise the arts.
“Republicans are always two-faced”
“Most Republicans despise the arts.”
Oh boy….let’s get the bashing started early and often, shall we?
It is one thing to have a difference of political opinion. These childish, untrue, unsupported generalizations have no foundation or purpose other than to create strife.
Sheeesh.
Is Thompson the Republican savior? Peggy Noonan implied as much in her Wall Street Journal column the other day. And what in the world does emotional range have to do with getting elected? You’re telling me George Bush has range? I had a labrador retriever when I was a kid. The dog had range. When you fed him, he got excited. It bummed him out when you left. And if you chucked a ball in the air, the big tail went wump, wump, wump.
John McCain had range the other night and he has credentials. He also stood up there like Adolph Hitler, waving his arms around.
If the money people say that you’re the savior, then you’re the savior. Raise a hundred million so you can put out the maximum amount of propaganda in primary season (which lasts about two weeks now), and you win. Having something to communicate does not mean zilch.
Sorry to say, but the Republicans will not win the White House and will lose more seats in Congress in 2008.
The Primary Voter Republicans will choose the wrong candidate to run against Hillary.
Remember that Bush barely won both in 2000 and 2004 against very weak Democrat Candidates, Albert Gore and John Kerry. But Hillary is no weak candidate.
Hate to admit it, but the majority of people in our country are Democrats and they all want to ride the wagon while the producers of our society pull it for them.
“Democrats and they all want to ride the wagon while the producers of our society pull it for them.”
Ride the wagon please elaborate. Producers of society. Paris Hilton is she an example of the producers of society?
History has proven that when one party controls Washington, it’s bad for the rest of the country. No over sight!
Bush has the court stacked for decades, that will help prevent some of the rampant destruction of our country, such has existed in the last 6-7 years, but not all of it.
This nation did best when it had a conservative President who knew how to talk to the people, a liberal Congress, and a court that leaned conservative, but could go either way. Oh how I miss the 80’s!
By the way, both extremes of Liberalism and Conservatism are dead WRONG! Both are greedy power hungry entities that basically eat away at individual rights and freedoms. (personally I believe in a massive conspiracy where they are actually “one” and they need each other to advance each others agenda, and in the end turn this country into one giant corporation/government nanny state entity)
Randy notes; “Other people in the race have real accomplishments and credentials.” Yet, Thompson has about the same level of experience as the top two Dem candidates.
He must be referring to the Republican front runners.
outlander–
Did you see where it turns out that Giuliani had given money to Planned Parenthood?
“Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani in his campaign appearances this year has stated that he personally abhors abortion, even though he supports keeping a legal right to choose. But records show that in the ’90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood, one of the country’s leading abortion rights groups and its top provider of abortions.
“Federal tax returns made public by the former New York mayor show that he and his then-wife, Donna Hanover, made personal donations to national, state and city chapters of Planned Parenthood totaling $900 in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/05/07/giuliani-made-six-donatio_n_47893.html
This is based on tax records, so there’s no use going off on an irrelevent rant about The Huffington Post.
Also, the early polls out these days show ANY Democratic candidate defeating ANY Republican.
Must really suck to be in the 28 percent that still approve of Bush . . .
Cap’N,
Indeed. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stand on their collective windpipe while they’re down.
The Republican Party needs to be eradicated: shot, buried, dug up, and shot again. It’s the only way to keep it from coming back, zombie-like, and doing yet more damage to America’s institutions and well-being.
Yup Capn. I knew that. Did you know that Rudy’s pro-choice? Thank you for pointing that out. Rudy’s not my first choice. Mitt Romney has been since he first announced.
Thompson’s probable candidacy helps focus a spotlight on the experience and accomplishments of the Republican field, and the lack of experience and accomplishment in the Dem field. (Except for Bill Richardson, who I guess doesn’t have the charisma that Hollywood wants in their candidate).
Look what happened here. Randy tries a hit piece on Thompson and it just washes over onto the Dem front runners. It should be interesting.
Outlander,
Actually, what the floating of Thompson’s name shows is that the stink of desperation already surrounds the party leadership.
If the “experience” and “accomplishment” of the present Republican candidate field were sufficient, why would the activist base of the party be so restive and publicly dissatisfied with what’s on the menu?
The history of betrayal and feelings of mistrust between the moderate and nutcase wings of the Republican Party are splintering the coalition. And if any of the candidates appeals to either wing, they do so at the price of alienating the other. In McCain’s case, this means that he alienates his natural allies among the moderates by pandering to the Fundos. Giuliani’s social liberalism will alienate the fundos, and everybody uniformly finds Romney creepy.
Great to watch the Republican Party crashing to the ground, like the supposedly invincible space robots in “War of the Worlds.”
Zero is greater than a negative. I suspect that is what Republicans are perceiving when they look at Thompson in comparison with the rest of their field.
You have got to me. Has anyone actually watched the thing?
It was an interesting speech. Substantive yet somewhat low key. It wasn’t designed to be a stump speech.
George Washington did not have the “fire in the belly”. I frankly don’t a President that hungry for Power aka the Clintons. It makes me wonder with the negativity that is coming out if Fred shouldn’t run.
If you want to make a decision for yourself. The draft Fred site has a copy on this blog.
http://www.fred08.com/blog.aspx
Well, who knows CF2K. You may be right. I think you exaggerate. It’s all just talk and speculation now anyway. But do you really think that Obama and/or Hillary are the best the Dems have to offer? Man…
And I’m glad you think that Romney is no threat. Pay him no mind.
Yer on a roll CF! You go!
Your comment remind me of what folks in Texas say about a really bad actor (no pun intended :)
“That boy’s so bad, we should light him on fire, burn him to the ground, and then salt the earth underneath him.”
I can think of multiple folks who might fit that category.
Slate and scholfield don’t like him. That’s enough for me. Count me in on the Fred wagon.
Boy. That fleetwood is sure his own man, ain’t he?
I suspect that Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate in 08. He’ll be chosen because RNC strategists will conclude he’ll beat Hillary in the swing states Ohio, Florida and his native state of Michigan (his father was a popular three-term governor), and probably Pennsylvania, Colorado, Wisconsin and Minnesota, as well. He’ll have a decent chance of taking Dem-majority Washington state. He’s got a lock on all the non-coastal Western states, and is going to win running away across the entire Bible Belt.
What states are slam dunks for Hillary? New York, California and Vermont. Illinois, her native state is going to be a battleground state. She has a good shot at taking Massachusetts, which would be notable because former governors usually prevail.
If Hillary decides to put the party’s interests ahead of her own, she’ll step down. But she views this election to be historic– she wants to be the first female American presidential candidate, and she’s got the backing to do it.
But she can’t beat Romney. In debates, Hillary is going to come across as really smart, but on edge. Romney is going to come across as really smart too–he went to Stanford for two quarters– but relaxed.
He’s going to project a sense that he will take the job to serve his country, but he doesn’t intensely crave it as Hillary does. He’s been a successful business executive, rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics, and run a blue state by being bipartisan. He even led a state version of universal healthcare which was implemented, while Hillary’s national version went down the tubes.
I think Tom Vilsack would have had a good shot at being elected, if he’d been able to get the funding to make it to the primaries.
Bill Richardson has a much more impressive career resume than Hillary: 14 years in Congress, UN Ambassador, Secretary of DOE, Chairman of the Democratic National Convention, Governor of New Mexico. He personally secured the release of Americans held captive in Iraq, Sudan and North Korea.
Frankly, the DNC should let Hillary get her TV time, and then pull her plug, if the Dems want to win in 08.
Uh Mark. How CONveeeeeenient to overlook the latest polls. ALL democcrats beat ALL republicans in head to head matchups.
I see you playing the electoral college game. I think this democratic victory will negate that strategy.
After all, a landslide is difficult to game. No matter HOW many servers the RNC uses.
I’m a realist here. Republicans don’t have a chance in 08.
They need to dump the evangelical base back to the Democrats and stop courting them no matter how much their campaign dollars attract them.
Yeah! It worked in the 80’s to court the Moral Majority, but now that you gave them too much reign over policy that is deconstructive to our liberties and pushes towards theocracy, it’s time to get rid of them. Let the Democrats have them back. Because they will continue to loose the Republicans elections.
And Mitt Romney? I don’t know how close he is to his Later Day Saints faith, but Mormons aren’t any better than evangelicals. Like Harry Reid who is a devout Mormon, they believe in racial segregation, believe that homosexuality is immoral and believe that no women should have the right to choose. Hell, then even choose if their own wife can go to heaven or hell, not to mention their spirital underwear.
I’m going to be frank! I wouldn’t trust a Mormon. I’m not saying that all are bad people or worth not being trusted, but with such a fanatical cult religion like that, it’s not so much what they practice or worship, but how they look upon everybody else. Like evangelicals believe that people who aren’t born again are going to hell, Morons believe anybody that isn’t Mormon is underneath them and almost non-human. Harry Reid believes that, and I’m sure Mitt Romney does as well.
These are people who should hold positions of leadership in public office.
I love how Mark just ASSUMES Romney would carry the Bible Belt. This is particularly amusing to me as I know many of the ‘far-right’ evnagelecals – followers of Terry Fox locally. They tell me they consider Mormonism to be a cult and would NEVER vote for a Mormon.
Funny thing is, I COULD vote for a Mormon if I liked the candidate.
“After all, a landslide is difficult to game.”
Do you mean a landslide like the last anti-war candidate? What was his name? Starts with George, ends with McGovern.
I would probably consider myself an “evangelical”, but I don;t really consier myself the “far right”. Others may disagree. Makes no difference. I really don;t care if Romney is a Mormon, Obama a Muslim or Christian, or whatever. Many people who don’t know any evanglelicals think they know they won;t vote for Romney because he is Mormon. They would be wrong. I know one of th so-called leaders of the evangelical movement has said that he could not vote for Romney, and they will have some followers, but less than many think. I have not really looked into any of the Candidates deeply. The buzzword is that Romney has flipped on several issues to gain the “evangelical” vote. If so, he loses mine. I would almost rather vote for something that I disagree with but can trust than someone whom i agree with but do not trust.
Fleetwood conveniently forgets that in both the 1968 and 1972 campaigns, Nixon campaigned on promises to *end* the Vietnam war. In that sense, the anti-war candidate *did* win in both those years. It just so happens the candidate who won was *lying.*
“but Mormons aren’t any better than evangelicals.”- Joe Williams
With all due respect Joe, on this issue you are a bigoted moron.
LittleJohn–
You bring up a good point.
“Evangelicals” are Christians who evangelize or spread their faith. In that sense, I would say that I am an evangelical. Their worship services are characterized by emphasizing the holy spirit. Pentacostals fit this definition closely. Some of the finest people I’ve ever met have been Pentacostal.
“Fundamentalist” on the other hand is someone who takes the Bible as literal truth with no interpretation or negotiation of meaning necessary.
They hold the false belief that a document written over thousands of years thousands of years ago requires no understanding of the context, the society, the historical forces at play at the time and can be read “as is” and every word is equally true now as then.
Fundamentalism is a kind of dogma. Its followers like the Southern Baptist leaders–Falwell and his ilk–reject rationality not in favor of mysticism like the evangelics but in favor of ANTI-intellectualism. Theirs is the “faith” of the fascist.
It’s a kind of heresy that makes an idol of the Bible. Instead of worshipping God, they worship the infallibility of the Bible.
The irrationality necessary to repress the hopeless contradictions inherent in a fundamentalist reading of the Bible leads to a warped and twisted religiousity of repression and divisiveness.
That’ll be something to see, a Republican that doesn’t believe in Jesus the Saviour, sweeping the Bible Belt! Not even if Roberts dictates it!
Glen Johnson, AP Writer
The Rev. Al Sharpton speaks in this April 20, 2007 file photo in New York. Sharpton, who recently urged that radio host Don Imus be fired for making a racially insensitive remark, said in a debate that “those of us who believe in God” will defeat Republican Mitt Romney for the White House. But Sharpton denied he was questioning the Mormon’s own belief in God. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II, FILE)
“As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don’t worry about that; that’s a temporary situation,” Sharpton said Monday during a debate with Hitchens at the New York Public Library’s Beaux-Arts headquarters.”
“undistinguished two-term senator”
That kinda fits Hillary, don’t it? And she even had to parachute, carpetbag and all, into a state where she could win a Senate seat because she couldn’t win in the state she had been living in much of her adult life.
Aside from “standing by her man,” just what has Hillary accomplished? It’s an interesting irony that this icon of independent feminism rose to her position entirely on the coattails of her husband.
CapnAmerica-
Very interesting post. Without going into a long theological discussion, which may or may not be appropriate here, i will tell you what one of my favorite pastors once told me Do not criticize the world, they are only doing what they do. Criticize those within the church, they know better. Leave most critisms of actions of the past and modern day behind, they are not scriptural (ie playing cards, dancing, drinking without drunkenees, gambling, etc. the list is quite long) Concentrate on being a witness, remember that jesus did not come for the saved (or good), and hung out with the sinners, without being one of them. Do not condemn anyone, you are not God and pretending that you are is blasphemy. Let your life be a witness, not your mouth.
It was something like that. Twas a long time ago
Sound advice, LJ . . .
No! The bigoted are the evangelical fundamentalist of all religious faiths who have no tolerance to other peoples opinions or lifestyle. Meaning that is yourself.
It is true that as an evangelical you believe that people who are not born again are going to hell. Right?
So meaning that you have condemned a person for not believing your religion. Plus you dictate what is moral in our society based on your religion and intolerance of others.
It can get to the point that people like you can start killing people in the name of your religion. Islamic extremist, the bombing of abortion clinics, ethnic cleansing and the list goes on.
Look! I don’t care what you believe or how you worship or who you worship. You and everybody should have the freedom to do that.
But once you have demoted a person to sub-human or a condemn person going to hell based on your religion, you will automatically treat that person differently, meaning if you were in a position of management you only hire or promote people who are born again and only shop, receive services and eat at places that are considered “christian”.
Like Bill Maher put it best. Christianity is a market.
I’m tolerant of Christians, Mormons and everybody else, religious or not. I don’t care what you do. If I was in a position of management or political power, I would care less about your religious faith and I wouldn’t discriminate based on that. You’re religious faith is your own business.
But when it comes to a matter of public policy, which effects everybody and the public treasury being steered, I’m sorry! But I cannot trust a group that is set to use the power of government to force the religious doctrine of your faith onto everybody else and use public monies to fund religious projects and programs.
It isn’t a mis-trust that I have because of some preconceived notion, it is because there is a complete historic track record and it is still continuous to this day that religious groups believe it is their mission to have government under their guidance and control.
I’m sorry! Our Fore Fathers fought against that. No matter how much you want to try to spin that this Nation belongs to and is a Christian Nation, it isn’t. The Government is completely Religious Blind and should remain that way.
I’m sorry Outlander. I like you personally and we agree on a few things on public policy together and it does appear I’m attacking your faith, which gives you the go ahead to attack me and call me a bigot because of that, but I don’t trust religion and politics mixing. I just don’t. And I especially don’t trust religious radicals and religious sects that look down on everybody else. I’m tolerant, but doesn’t mean I have to accept everything you do or your mission to transform government into the church.
http://www.upci.org/about.asp
Capn: Pentacostals are among the most conservative of Christian denominations. They believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word.
But I’m glad you think that very highly of some them. I hope this revelation doesn’t affect that opinion.
Sounds like LJ is using a double standard Joe. Calling you a bigot, then leaning on the pulpit of self righteousness to uphold his personal perception of being morally superior.
What’s that old expression? Practice what you preach?
I don’t claim to be morally superior nor that I’m right.
Just that other people who claim themselves to be morally superior and right based on their religion giving them that right is what I don’t trust.
Me? I’m just an average Joe, what you may call a lost soul.
Sounds like LJ is using a double standard Joe. Calling you a bigot, then leaning on the pulpit of self righteousness to uphold his personal perception of being morally superior.
What’s that old expression? Practice what you preach?
Posted by: Republican | May 09, 2007 at 12:06 PM
What?! Where did I call Joe anything? Where did I say I was morally superior? Do you not comprehend anything? God, I use to think your detractors were way off the mark. You are either a moron, or you deliberately misquote stuff to cause trouble. Either way, you need to learn to be quiet sometimes. It is not your ignorance that shows, but yur stupidity
Look! My opinion is the same as everybody else.
I don’t think religious extremist should have the right to steer our government towards their own religious mission.
And Dems don’t want Republicans to steer the government and Republicans don’t want Dems to.
What’s the difference? Dems don’t trust Republicans, Republicans don’t trust Dems. And I don’t trust religious activist.
Well Joe, your expounding really didn’t do anything but confirm by original thoughts. You are essentially stating that people of faith shouldn’t be able to serve in public office unless they believe as you do.
That is going to be a tough sell for you should you run yourself.
outlander–
Of course, there can be a lot of overlap between the two–Billy Graham started out pretty fundy but became less fundy: he said Jews and Muslims can go to Heaven for instance, when a lot of fundies read “I [Jesus] am the way . . . no one gets to the Father except through me” in an exclusionary way.
There’s a lot of variation among believers, by individual and by congregation.
Pentacostals are a bottom up group, not top down. Most of them probably don’t even know what the “official” positions of their church are.
Joe
For the record,while I disagree with you on many points, I do not think you are a bigot. And my advice, don;t trust activists of any flavor. Activits (of all stripes) generally seem to have a hidden agenda, or at least a violent reaction to any other idea due to some personal pain or injury that they have suffered, or are just what I call deep enders. They just wandered to far into the pool, cannot swim well, and are screaming to be heard. Some are just opportunits. In all flavors
My mistake LJ, you are just amorally stanced. :)
By the way, outlander–EVERY Christian organization says that the Bible is the inerrant word.
It’s how they interpret “inerrancy” that makes the difference . . .
Republican === ignore
Man, Republican is going for his few supporters.
Could be another JM style melt-down in the works.
Pass the popcorn . . .
littlejohn === usually ignored because of pontification tactics
One reason I hope Thompson does NOT run: they would have to take his episodes of Law and Order off the air. I think he is great in that series.
That would indeed be a shame, Thompson did do a great job on the show, but I liked the first guy better.
I don’t care if people of faith run for office. Most people in office are a member of some church or faith.
People who are religious or believe in God is not what I’m saying. It is the people who have extreme ideology in religious doctrine.
You can be religious and be a good stateperson. Again! As I say, it is the group or individuals who want to use the government to perpetuate the mission of their religion. Most of all people of faith do not believe this nor strive for it. Only extremist do.
Joe: That is not what you first wrote. Which do you really mean? I can understand wanting to back away from your original rant. Did you see Capn America’s post? He considers himself an evangelical. Could it be that you are just ignorant on the issue and maybe you should stop digging ’til you inform yourself?
The answer to that question is yes.
And Joe, I think you are a good, well-meaning person. But you are (or were) way off base on this.
Capn America considers himself an evangelical? Of what? Communist ideology and socialistic “Nanny” government?
Actually, I appreciate Joe’s comments…he’s not off base if you understand what he’s saying. He just doesn’t want extremists of any faith in political power. I think we could all agree with that. Everyone has a right to their faith, belief system, etc, but how you live it, make decisions or separate it from public life is important.
Apparently Repub is bored and trying to stir up trouble. I hope that LJ will continue to ignore him, and I hope Capn will as well. I know he gets under your skin Cap, but just ignore.
“Capn America considers himself an evangelical? Of what? Communist ideology and socialistic ‘Nanny’ government?”
Uh, no, Republican. Unlike you, I am a contributing member of a local church. I will share my faith with anyone who is interested.
As far as “nanny” government goes, you still haven’t explained why you have to buy health insurance for your prescription drugs but you are a disabled vet.
Your drugs related to your injury should be free of charge.
Schizophrenia probably is not covered though . . . so that would explain why you don’t want to talk about it.
Ignore Republican?! Are you kidding me, TRT?
He’s the main reason I log on these days.
I love seeing the blog bully get his ass kicked.
Check yesterday’s “open thread”–Republican tried to bs his way through another lie. No surprise there.
Thing is he used a bunch of computer terminology he thought no one would understand.
Instead he runs headfirst into my main man TOM who it just so happens has been a professional IT guy for about 30 years.
Smoked Republican like a cheap cigar . . .
It was righteous.
Remember that scene in the first Godfather where Sonny Coreleon beats the crap out of his squirrly brother in law for hitting his sister.
Yeah, it was like that.
For free.
I did read that, and it was awesome. I didn’t know what they were talking about really, ’cause I’m no computer expert, but I could see that Tom put it to Repub, and all he could do was sputter.
Capn – didn’t Jesus say something about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked? And about how ‘easy’ (NOT) it is for a rich man to get into heaven?
Yes, Ben. And “turning the other cheek, and whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me, and sell all you have and follow me.”
That’s the part of the Bible that the literalists “explain” as metaphor and hyperbole.
Ditto for “divorce is adultery.” Divorce and re-marriage isn’t really the sin of adultery even though that’s exactly what it says, because then millions of fundies would be adulterers.
So, it gets explained away.
However, the earth is only 8,000 years old because “the Bible says so.”
I still don’t believe that Evangelical Christians will ever vote for Mitt Romney. If they do, it will be a sell-out vote and then I wouldn’t label them true Evangelical Christians.
I look for the Evangelical Christians to try to throw a hissy fit and get one of their own hand-picked fair-haired white boys in the race. Perhaps James Dobson? God help us all if that is the case.
Tom the Wittless doesn’t have a clue about SQL or he never would have made those remarks.
I have been told about the same kind of non-logic when John Kennedy ran. He was Catholic. The smear then was that he would be taking his marching orders from Rome.
I happen to agree with Mitt Romney’s positions on the issues. I attend an unaffiliated Christian church. I am an evangelical. He is Mormon. I don’t care. He would, IMO he would make a fine POTUS. He is not going to push a Morman agenda, whatever that is, as some fools contend. That is the smear attempt this time around. You would have thought we would have advanced more since the 60’s. But as we all know here, appealing to a person’s prejudices is not an ineffective political strategy.
If Fred Thompson is the GOP’s ’savior’ for 2008, they’re in deeper shit than I thought.
Like Marianas Trench deep.
You know if the Republicans would not eat their own moderates, maybe they might amount to something more than a pile of dung on the electorial cow field. But there is no way a Gerald Ford, Dwight Eisenhower or even George Bush I would get elected today.
“I suspect that Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate in 08. He’ll be chosen because RNC strategists will conclude he’ll beat Hillary in the swing states Ohio, Florida and his native state of Michigan ”
No he won’t because the religious nuts in the GOP will not vote for him because he “ain’t the right type of Christian” for them and because in the past, he like Rudy, has supported gay rights and abortion rights.
Who says Hillary will be our nominee? Not if I can help it. My thinking is that 1 of 2 things will happen- either Obama will win the nomination and choose Richardson as a running mate giving him a lock on the midwest, west, east coast and west coast which would leave the GOP with the plains states and the south OR Al Gore will get back in and Obama will step down to be Gore’s running mate which the GOP will not be able to beat anywhere. Obama could even win Kansas since his mom is from there!
“What states are slam dunks for Hillary? New York, California and Vermont. Illinois, her native state is going to be a battleground state. She has a good shot at taking Massachusetts, which would be notable because former governors usually prevail. “
I’m fighting against you Kev. I hope you’ll get on board when she’s nominated.
While I am not backing Hillary for the nomination I definitely do not see any Republican I would vote for against her. Right now Richardson is my first choice.
“I’m fighting against you Kev. I hope you’ll get on board when she’s nominated.”
Of course I will support the nominee no matter who it is. There is only one time that I did not vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party and that was Michael Dukakis who was one of the worst nominees we ever had. Gawd what an awful phony!
Like it or not, Mormonism was founded by a sexual libertine alcoholic who claims God spoke to him during a blackout. Mormons today still cannot (or will not) shake the plural marriage idea and continue to support pedophilia.
Would this be in the same way Catholicism supports pedophilia?
Happy you got issues.
Happy or Dopey or whichever dwarf you are. Quit taking what the most extreme members of a “group” are doing and applying it to everyone in the group. That is bigoted.
How would you like it if someone said all you dwarfs were child molesters.
Is happy parkay in drag?
Don’t be insulting dwarfs by comparing them to Happy, Outlander.
If Thompson has a reputation for not wanting to work very hard, that’s one complaint I can’t hold against him. Americans get a trifle overzealous when it comes to the work department. “Hard work” and “working hard” get bandied about a lot in American conversation and people can often be seen in the workplace running around trying to prove how hard they’re working.
I’ve battled this phenomenon since parochial school. Work is clearly ingrained in the American psyche. It started with the Puritans and the Puritan Work Ethic, and people have been doing it ever since.
One thing you notice in the workplace is that just because a guy works hard doesn’t mean he adds a lick of value. I prefer thinkers. The thinkers where I work don’t spend much time running around because they’re too busy fixing all of the screw-ups, the mistakes that people made when they were working.
Maybe when Thompson got to the Senate, he observed a bunch of work-in-progress that didn’t amount to much and he decided not to play the phony game of pretending to give a damn about nothing. Fair enough. Sometimes it’s best to sit back and daydream.