Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Collamore Heading up Fred Thompson's Effort

Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) is growing more and more serious about a run for president, installing a former aide to President George H.W. Bush as his "campaign manager in waiting."

Tom Collamore, a former vice president of public affairs at Altria, has been leading the behind-the scenes organization efforts for a Thompson presidential candidacy and will be intimately involved when (not if) the former senator decides to announce a bid.

Collamore joined the Reagan administration in 1981 as special assistant to Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige. He was named staff secretary to Vice President George H.W. Bush in 1985 and was part of Bush's transition team when he won the White House in 1988. Collamore was then named assistant secretary of Commerce in 1989. In 1992, Collamore joined Philip Morris Cos., which became Altria in 2003.

The decision to put Collamore atop the Thompson campaign reflects a desire to have a learned Washington hand at the tiller -- even as Thompson is positioning himself as a conservative outsider in this contest. It also shows that Thompson will not seek simply to replicate the political network of former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). While Frist is an informal adviser to Thompson, his campaign people have largely been kept out of the loop as Thompson prepares to make a run.

The buzz continues to grow that Thompson will indeed join the race sometime before the end of June. At last week's Republican debate in South Carolina, flyers were handed out in the media filing center that had a glossy picture of Thompson and touted endorsements from the likes of Reps. Gresham Barrett (SC.), Jeff Miller (Fla.), Don Manzullo (Ill.) and Steve Buyer (Ind.). The flyer was sponsored by the Draft Thompson effort.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 21, 2007; 12:32 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Romney Making Gains in Iowa
Next: Third Way Study Revisited

Comments

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | May 28, 2007 4:55 AM | Report abuse

can someone explain to me the definition of sedition and why the media and the left wing democrates are not being referred to as traitors and seditionists?.
I believe in world war 2 many of these people would have been rounded up and put in a camp.

Posted by: d owens | May 24, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

""proud" to be GOP - what are you seeing that the rest of us aren't?"

The big pack of liars that has become the Democrat party and their sycophant minions in the media. Any other questions?

Posted by: Starman | May 24, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Did you ever wonder about paper clips?

Posted by: Andy Rooney | May 22, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Did 'ya notice that Iraq has now become all about "winning and losing" for the Chickenhawks.

Not a Roadmap for Peace, or bringing Democracy to Iraq, or anythingelse which requires substantive thought.

Life's just a game to these people, as long as the game is played with somebodyelse's life.

Kinda sad, isn't it!

Posted by: Andy Rooney | May 22, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

"that last electiuon must have been a big let down. but your leadership is correcting those winning ways with a grand strategy of defeat so never fear - or in your case - fear"

Posted by: clear proof of insanity | May 22, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

"proud" to be GOP - what are you seeing that the rest of us aren't?

Posted by: big bird | May 22, 2007 12:26 AM | Report abuse

So loudumb and ignorant coward are only interested in what zouk has to say?

-Actually, I can't imagine anyone being too interested in what Zouk has to say. Sometimes it's funny - accidentally - but usually it's not worth the time wading through the misspellings and blatant falsehoods.

so that zouk can humiliate them as usual?

-Funny, they do not yet seem sufficiently humiliated. They keep coming back. Maybe you're not as impressive as you think you are? Just a thought.

what is about you Libs that make you love surrendering and losing so much.

-What is it about you neo-cons that makes you love misspellings and grammatical errors so much? For future reference, a "question mark" (?) must appear at the end of every question in English.

that last electiuon must have been a big let down.

-Actually, I took the day off after the last "ELECTION" (notice: no "u") to celebrate with friends. We drank a toast to the failure of the Bush social agenda, then went out to a French restaurant.

but your leadership is correcting those winning ways with a grand strategy of defeat

-By my estimation, this Congress so far has almost equaled the last one in terms of work done, and it's only about 1/3 over.

so never fear - or in your case - fear

-The only thing we have to fear is 1 1/2 more years of misguided leadership. Thankfully, Karl Rove is almost out of ideas.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Cassandra: You fairly well sum up the war in Iraq. Now I can really get in trouble by pointing out FACTS about the 1980s. Osama bin Laden was supported, Saddam was furnished chemical weapons, Weapons were exchanged for hostages in Iran in a backdoor deal, we "cut and run" after the marine barracks loss.

Posted by: lylepink | May 21, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

So loudumb and ignorant coward are only interested in what zouk has to say?

so that zouk can humiliate them as usual?

what is about you Libs that make you love surrendering and losing so much. that last electiuon must have been a big let down. but your leadership is correcting those winning ways with a grand strategy of defeat so never fear - or in your case - fear

Posted by: Trotsky | May 21, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, I'm sure he reserves his best work for those with the requisite intelligence to understand it.

Posted by: Frazier | May 21, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Loudumb checks in with another pointless one liner. Seriously, is that your best work?

Posted by: Trotsky | May 21, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Carter calling Bush bad is like Zouk calling Trotsky an idiot.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 21, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Hey Trotsky!

You've been working hard, and we've decided you need a vacation, so we're offering to pay for a trip for you - to Mexico!

You REALLY deserve it.

Posted by: Joe Stalin | May 21, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I see ignorant coward's obsession with zouk is back.

Seek professional help my friend.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 21, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

re: Presidential ratings- I don't trust the placement of anyone on that list after Ike chronologically. The historians still look at it with their partisan battle scars and not the objectivity they use on prior presidents. Heck Wilson's record and rep have been in flux in recent years.

The Carter speech on Bush did make me shake my head, but only in a pot kettle way. They both have a pretty bad record currently.

Posted by: bluemeanies | May 21, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

TO: the King of Zouk
FROM: Alberto Gonzales
Office of the U.S.Attorney General
DATE: May 21, 2007

Your Majesty, things have changed since we last spoke, and I may now be available to handle those harassment suits for you after all - probably within a few weeks. It may actually be best to do this relatively quickly, before I am disbarred.

Posted by: Alberto Gonzales | May 21, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

I think Mitt Romney is sexy. I imagine playing baseball with him - the twist is that although his name is "Mitt," I'm the catcher!

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 21, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

wouldn't you keep a sharp eye out for a replacement?

no class and no dignity. Same as the clintons. Must be a Dem thing. Perhaps not Obama but we'll see. Bill has been doing pretty well under the radar as an ex-pres. this could end anytime.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 21, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - Exactly. Osama made his bones in the CIA-funded Afghan-Soviet war. Those in government now will insist that we never supported him directly, and "had no idea" what kind of guy he was.

In other news, I hear there is a large bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

Posted by: Bokonon | May 21, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

lylepink - WWHD? (What Would Hillary Do?) I'm sure you will be able to draw on your vast store of Frumpiana to let us all know.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

JPerez - respectfully, I believe you are wrong. If Bush were still popular, the GOP would be on its high horse about "continuing his legacy." In the wake of the most wrong-headed, damaging-to-the-nation presidency in history, why is it so implausible that this election will be about undoing it?

Posted by: Bokonon | May 21, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Romney is a killer!

Posted by: Rodent | May 21, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

trotsky writes
"Ignorant coward accusing others of descending into the sandbox is....well, like Jimmy carter accusing someone of being the worst president ever."

Can you blame him? If you were the holder of that position, wouldn't you keep a sharp eye out for a replacement? The problem for the Bush administration is that Carter makes a compelling point.

Posted by: bsimon | May 21, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky writes
"suzannes' article is not about going back to blame someone, it is about whether the clinton team can be seperated in the voters' mind. If you really want to fight that argument again, you have very weak legs upon which to stand."

I don't dispute Suzanne's point that Hillary's candidacy relies on Bill's charisma. I do dispute the rewriting of history to pretend ObL's history began in the 90s, when it was clearly earlier; I also point out that there was plenty of Congressional pressure to get out of Somalia, but Republicans & Conservatives seem to want to forget that.

Posted by: bsimon | May 21, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

lylepink - Come on! Nixon didn't get into trouble trying to protect others. He got into trouble trying to protect Richard Milhous Nixon.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Ignorant coward accusing others of descending into the sandbox is....well, like Jimmy carter accusing someone of being the worst president ever.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 21, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

quite a pantsload of propaaganda there, suzanne. you must listen to rush every single day.

The war in Iraq is less about any actual threat to america, and more about war profiteering, oil and incredible, mindless greed. The way it has exposed the entire republican party's lack of a soul, any sense of shame, or any kind of regard for human life, even that of our own military, whom they have shameslessly put in harm's way to fulfill their own filthy agenda.

Posted by: Cassandra | May 21, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Zouk - That's Speaker Pelosi to you!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: You point out how simple it is for anyone to find fault, and overlook the good things a person does. Nixon, I doubt knew, got in trouble by trying to protect folks that did a stupid thing, and ultimately lied to him about what it was about. Others have pointed out how our rankings of the POTUS are being done, so take the "cut and run" that happened after we lost well over 200 troops in one such attack.

Posted by: lylepink | May 21, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

The betting window on Zouk was open on the wrong thread.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

'Ignore content, go after personalities. Facts cause us to break out in hives.

the Dems'

i see you're here late today, zouky/trotsky. and the conversation immediately descends to the sandbox so you can throw your usual dirt.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

bsimon
he Clinton administration gave Osama bin Laden the idea that America was weak

Was it the Clinton administration or the Republican Congress

the President is responsible for foreign policy, not congress. I know Generalissimo Pelosi thinks otherwise. clinton actually did many things with the military in his time and didn't ever consult congress on it.

suzannes' article is not about going back to blame someone, it is about whether the clinton team can be seperated in the voters' mind. If you really want to fight that argument again, you have very weak legs upon which to stand.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 21, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

So if my taxes go up, that is not a tax increase?

Only in Dem lala land. Except that the meaning of the word "is" may need to be redefined if you are a true believing Lib. so just so you know rolling back cuts is not the same as an increase. although I do remember that slowing the rate of growth (for children's programs) was slashing. Hmmm. I think we need to access that Liberal dictionary again. all these English words are tricky these days.

Meanwhile Judge is busy creating his own little "objective form of history" based solely on his personal feelings, ignoring a panel of actual historians. He confronts a paid and professional Liberal columnist(who accidentally strayed too far off the reservation) with accusations of insanity. Because anyone who dares go against the strict liberal orthodoxy must be crazy, there is no other explanation.

Has anyone ever paid you for your views judge or is the value evident by the price?

In response to some humor from the Simpsons we get back from ignorant coward:

"You are the cartoon characters " or in translation - I know you are but what am I? that is the typical level of his analysis.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 21, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

suzanne writes
"Hillary is nevertheless betting that her husband is more popular than she is and he can raise money and warm up her image."

Its a safe bet. But that doesn't mean anything on the subject of whether or not she's a good candidate.

Suzanne also wrote
"the Clinton administration gave Osama bin Laden the idea that America was weak"

Was it the Clinton administration or the Republican Congress? And would Osama have even been around to notice US policy at the time, if Reagan hadn't trained him & armed him? While its easy to try to blame all of Bush's problems on Clinton, its a naive way of looking at history.

Posted by: bsimon | May 21, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

JamesCH-
I can't help but notice that, in trying to ingore the debacle that is the war in Iraq, the right is retreating to traditional talking points about 'tax and spend' liberals. Novak has a piece today on this very subject. What I can't help but notice both he and the Nat'l Review article you quote ignore is the spending. They want to claim that Democrats/Liberals will tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, spend, but somehow overlook the Republicans' recent record of ever-increasing spending. The problem with Conservatives and Republicans is that they never ask what the appropriate level of taxation should be. Sure, Dems & Liberals approach the equation from the wrong direction, but at least they ask it; the Republicans just want to cut, cut, cut revenue and 'grow' their way into funding government. Its like the old joke about the guy who's giving away his product for free, upon being asked how he's going to make a profit, he responds "volume." It don't make no sense.

Posted by: bsimon | May 21, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Monica Lewinsky was less about a sexual liaison than about the way it exposed the president's lack of dignity and self-discipline. When he lied under oath about it, the personal became the political and impeachment followed. Hillary Clinton dealt with it by turning the personal back to political, inventing "a vast right-wing conspiracy" to blame everything on. We can expect her to revive this fantasy as needed.

For now, she understands that the less said about all that the better. Many women say they'll vote for Hillary because she's a woman, counting on the herd mentality. But this underestimates the thinking women and it's countered by men who vow they'll vote for anyone but Hillary. Campaign '08, once it actually gets here, is likely to be issue-oriented, and fears of Islamist jihad will trump other concerns.

Hillary must be wary about too close an identification with Bill, popular though he is in many quarters. Bernard Lewis, the eminent scholar of Islamist terror, argues that the Clinton administration gave Osama bin Laden the idea that America was weak, indecisive and vulnerable when Bill Clinton didn't respond to the terrorist attacks on his watch -- the first World Trade Center bombing in New York in 1993, attacks on U.S. soldiers in Mogadishu in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing in Riyadh in 1996, the attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the assault on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in 2000.

Hillary is nevertheless betting that her husband is more popular than she is and he can raise money and warm up her image.

Posted by: suzanne | May 21, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

To all right-wingers on this blog,

In case you would not have noticed, you are a minority. You are the cartoon characters desperately clinging to your delusions by hoping that a nobody like Thompson will rescue the Gas & Oil Party. You really are laughable. You, yourselves, would crack up if you could see how ridiculous you are.

Oh! Don't forget to blame Clinton for everything wrong that has happened to the US in the past 6+ years... It is such a novel idea!


Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"Tax revenues this fiscal year are running at about 19 percent of GDP, which is in line with historical averages over the last 50-plus years, showing there is no justification for a tax increase."

The Democrats are not proposing a "tax increase". See, this is the kind of deception the GOP likes to use. The Democrats are recommending that we do something we should have done years ago: roll back part of the Bush tax cuts.

Try to understand this: when you spend more money, you have to collect more as well. When you lock the U.S. into a costly military engagement with no end in sight, it helps to collect a little more in taxes, rather than running up the credit card. Nobody will be paying more in taxes than they did ten years ago.

As for the increases in spending in the proposed budget (and I feel you might be going there next), it's important to remember that this is a negotiation. If you want things funded at their current level, or maybe at a .5 to 1% increase, you start out high (3-3.5%), and lower it to compromise. You'll notice that the White House got the full appropriation it wanted for defense, and that will likely come down a little as well.

Posted by: JamesCH | May 21, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

The origins of the survey - the editorial page of the WSJ - reveal the goofiness of anyone who thinks that Nixon isn't the worst president ever. As history will show - the objective form of history, not the political hachet job practiced by the WSJ - Bush will run a close second to Nixon.

And anyone who truly believes Hitchens' delusions is as badly in need of antipsychotics as he is. Do they have Internet access in psychiatric wards these days? Apparently.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 21, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

I was very pleased to discover that the sage of our time despises liberals and admires Fox news and Fox. If you happen to make it to the subject of satire on the Simpsons, (go Homer) you have officially become a laughingstock. congratulations Liberals and fox haters, you are officially cartoonish.

Posted by: bart's dad | May 21, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

What passes for liberal intelligence these days:

"Oh good, Fred is being managed by a tobacco exec. They're better at lying than almost anybody.

He is widely rumored to be lazy.

married to a blond bimbo who is regularly photographed with her ample breasts tumbling out of her decollete"

that is truly substantial liberal policy analysis. I can only guess that is all you are capable of concocting.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

judge you "inadvertantly" cut off the last sentence in your quest for truth:

Still, he would have a long way to fall to reach Carterian depths--and Carter, now out of office more than 26 years, is likelier to remain mired in those depths for centuries to come.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"Bill Clinton, whom he had known at Oxford, accusing him of being a rapist and a serial liar"

which he was. 100% accurate so far.
missile attacks by Clinton on Sudan constituted a war crime.

so bombing an aspirin factory in response to an intern hearing is OK with you Dems? this was not authorized by congress and may have been the result of faulty intelligence. but if you're a Dem you will have to chant "Clinton Lied". and considering that the House found that he was a liar and Arkansas found he was not moral enough to be one of their lawyers, you would have a good case based on facts.

Of course, Dems don't care about facts, only personalities, so clinton must be the victim somehow.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

'Run Fred, Run! We need ya, man! We need someone who can make Billary, Obama, and all the other Dems look like what they truly are: Lightweights who have no business being in the Whitehouse.'

Definition of lightweight=Hollywood actor

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

anonymous coward quotes me, and responds:
"'questionable morals , questionable business deals and questionable friends & associates'

sounds like Hillary"

Indeed it does. Hillary and Rudi are two sides of the same coin. The process that is going to likely produce the two of them as nominees is an utter abomination that produces the worst candidates for the job.

Posted by: bsimon | May 21, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

The WHOLE truth from http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010106

"To be sure, one has to take Bush's ranking here with a grain of salt. Bush came out "average," but that's because he was so highly rated by Republican-leaning scholars (who put him 6th from the top) and so poorly rated by Democratic-leaning ones (who put him 35th, or 6th from the bottom). Even a scholarly rating of an incumbent president is more an approval rating than a basis for lasting judgment. And it's likely that if the survey were conducted again today, Bush's rating would be lower, as one suspects Republicans are less happy with him now than in 2005."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 21, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Thompson is an empty suit. His political resume is wafer-thin: one term in the Senate. He has no international experience. He was a Washington lobbyist for 17 years, hardly cause for comfort and confidence these days. He is widely rumored to be lazy.

So far, all we know about him is that he is staunch right-winger (very few real conservatives exist any longer)and that he supports Bush's Iraq folly. And he is married to a blond bimbo who is regularly photographed with her ample breasts tumbling out of her decollete... Not very first-lady-like

So, by all means, if the US wants a sequel to "Bush: the Movie", get Thompson in the White House.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Ignore content, go after personalities. Facts cause us to break out in hives.

the Dems

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

All profitable US corporations are evil. Elect Dems to eliminate them all.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"Hitchens also became increasingly disenchanted by the presidency of Bill Clinton, whom he had known at Oxford, accusing him of being a rapist and a serial liar. Hitchens also claimed that the missile attacks by Clinton on Sudan constituted a war crime. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

Posted by: Waking up with fleas yet? | May 21, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

'In 1992, Collamore joined Philip Morris Cos., which became Altria in 2003.'

Oh good, Fred is being managed by a tobacco exec. They're better at lying than almost anybody.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

At the end of the day, it must be acknowledged - particularly by American political leaders - that the situation is improving going forward, particularly because Iraqis themselves are taking ownership of the survival and security of their own country, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city and troubled province by troubled province. While the Sunni tribal leaders increasingly reject al-Qaeda and transform into the terrorists' newest and most damaging new enemy, the Shi'a leadership also has begun to internally acknowledge the shallowness and duplicity of Iran's stated support for them.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28345

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Run Fred, Run! We need ya, man! We need someone who can make Billary, Obama, and all the other Dems look like what they truly are: Lightweights who have no business being in the Whitehouse.

Posted by: bdstauffer | May 21, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"kill people, make big profits"

Unfortunately for you, the biostatistical analysis of drug studies is not something a simpleton can do.

The announcement that was made reflects the current trend to sensationalize even the most spurilous claims when it comes to adverse effects of drugs. In fact, in this case, the study's findings aren't definitive.

The researchers compiled data from existing studies. In other words, they employed a questionable meta-analysis technique that is not reliable when it comes to making cause and effect claims.

The researchers didn't examine the patients and didn't know other details of their medical conditions, which could limit the significance of the findings.

Because of the high incidence of cariovascular disease in people with diabetes in general, this requires further study. However, one would be ill-advised to jump to conclusions based on this announcement alone.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 21, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

A Fred Thompson run can only help the Democrats. Either (unlikely) he is nominated and is far too far to the right to win the general or (likely) he simply pulls the other R candidates to the right a bit, making them swing right for the primary then back to the center for the general, making it that much easier to portray the R nominee as a flipflopper.
Also, if FT is the R nominee, I expect some socially moderate, fiscally conservative candidate to try to make a third party run in the middle. That would screw things up for the GOP as well.

Posted by: Cali49 | May 21, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Democrats took control of Congress promising swift action on a broad range of reform proposals that included raising the minimum wage, cutting student-loan interest rates, negotiating lower drug prices under Medicare, funding for stem-cell research and approving the remaining homeland-security recommendations by the 9/11 Commission.

To date, none of these have been enacted, falling victim to a failure by the House Democrats to compromise on their demands or gridlock in the Senate, where Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid seems incapable of moving any legislation through that chamber, despite a 51-seat majority.

Democratic officials say the fault lies with Republicans. "Obstructionist Republicans blocking America's priorities are bound to impact the numbers," said Karen Finney, the Democratic National Committee's communications director.

But Democrats control the legislative calendars in both chambers and the committees that produce all the bills. They are fully in charge of the machinery and have sole responsibility over its operation.

Public perceptions are everything in congressional politics, and what the voters are seeing is a Congress more interested in holding politicized hearings aimed at grilling administration officials in an effort to embarrass the White House and ambush Bush's senior advisers.

The dubious House and Senate hearings into the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys have found no wrongdoing, but they continue in a vain and obsessive effort to bring down Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and presidential adviser Karl Rove.

Posted by: Donald Lambro | May 21, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Just what we need. Another actor in the White House.

First the Gipper.

Now the current occupant acting like a Political Bogart.

Posted by: poor richard | May 21, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Bush did a lot better than Carter. Out of 40 presidents*, Bush finished 19th, with an average score of 3.01. Carter was in 34th place, with an average of 2.24--ahead of only John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Warren Harding and James Buchanan.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010106

title available - cheap. "worst President ever" contact current owner. J carter General delivery Plains GA Owner moving up to bigger title - "worst ex-president ever" fear of water-borne rabbits a plus.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Tax revenues this fiscal year are running at about 19 percent of GDP, which is in line with historical averages over the last 50-plus years, showing there is no justification for a tax increase. But the Democrats' plan for history-shattering tax increases starting in the next fiscal year, to support record-setting increases in spending. Their long-term budget plan is for truly massive increases in taxes and spending, like nothing ever seen before.

Those conservative commentators who argued last year that Democrats would be better at fiscal discipline than the Republicans played a major role in bringing down the Republican congressional majorities. They are being proved quite wrong.

Now just wait until you hear about the Democrat plans for entitlements.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjEyNGIwNTIzYjE1NWQ3NjM2ZTQ0MTFiNWJkODQ4NTU=

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

"questionable morals , questionable business deals and questionable friends & associates
sounds like Hillary"

Pshaw. When it comes to moral history, Guiliani makes Hillary look like a bright-eyed Girl Scout selling Thin Mints door-to-door.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 21, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

questionable morals , questionable business deals and questionable friends & associates

sounds like Hillary

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Hitchens has strongly supported US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, particularly in his "Fighting Words" columns in Slate. This is all you need to know to discount his criticism of Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 21, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Zack M writes
"I still say that if the Republicans want to win the general election (which is what truly matters), they would do better to nominate a liberal to moderate Republican like Giuliani. It will be interesting to see how everything plays out."

The problem is that Rudi Giulianni is a sleazebag. In addition to his social positions that eliminate his chances with the evangelicals, he also has questionable morals (i.e. personal family history), questionable business deals (Giuliani Partners) and questionable friends & associates (Bernard Kerik). I agree that the GOP would do themselves a favor by nominating a moderate, I disagree that Giuliani is the right candidate to fulfill that need.

Posted by: bsimon | May 21, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Thompson may be an appealing candidate for primary Republican voters, but I am quite curious to see how he would do in the general election versus a potential Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton candidacy. The positive aspect of this is that there would be a stark contrast between the two nominees, and a definite choice. But is America ready to elect another tough talking conservative southern Republican after 8 years of George W. Bush? I still say that if the Republicans want to win the general election (which is what truly matters), they would do better to nominate a liberal to moderate Republican like Giuliani. It will be interesting to see how everything plays out.

Posted by: Zack M. | May 21, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

It's hardly an exaggeration to say that every administration since has had to deal with the chaotic legacy of Carter's mind-boggling cowardice and incompetence.


http://www.slate.com/id/2166661/

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Ryan is right this guy worked for the largest ciggarette maker in the world. He approved of strategies in India where they hand out little 3-packs of smokes to elementary school kids outside of schools. Sounds like the perfect guy to manage Thompson's campaign.

Posted by: Andy R | May 21, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Imagine, for a moment, that a Republican candidate (or soon-to-be candidate) places a former VP for Planned Parenthood as their campaign manager. Can you imagine the uproar? Republicans would want to know how one of their candidates could have a campaign manager who had been involved in a group that provides such an immoral thing (in their opinion) as abortion.

My question is: Why is there no uproar over hiring someone from Philip Morris/Altria? Is the selling of a product that, when used properly, kills or seriously hurts the health of its users morally acceptable? Does it not matter that the companies make their profit by getting young people addicted to their product, which in turn will probably kill them?

Why do the Republicans have such transparent and hypocritical morals and yet NO ONE in the media calls them on it? Why are they given a free pass but, when Barack Obama meets with a rapper, people in the media jump up and down calling him a hypocrite?

Chris, I'm sorry but it's your responsibility, in part, to call this stuff out.

Posted by: Ryan | May 21, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Thompson is a non-starter,and a non-event. The only reason he's getting any play at all is because he is kineticly OUT of the picture with the "potential" of getting in. It's the old story! The repubs want what they don't have and as soon as he gets in, they'll savage him like they did McCain, and are starting to do to Giuliani. Any candidate coming into the picture from the party of the Executive in power with this backdrop of disaster and mistakes will suffer the same fate. There's no time for an "evolution" of the electorate beyond the basic human nature to blame them all for the bushies' screwups.

Posted by: L.Sterlling | May 21, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Ban Paperless Voting

A new bill in Congress would ban paperless voting. It's got enough support to pass, but time is short. This week, the Democratic leadership is deciding what Congress will take up next. If they don't put voting on the agenda, there simply won't be time to make the change by the 2008 presidential election. Sign this petition to ask the Democratic leaders in Congress to ban paperless voting before it's too late.

Please sign in at:

http://pol.moveon.org/paperlessvoting/

Posted by: che | May 21, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"Republican voters only know how to repeat whatever talking points they hear on Rush Limbaugh, GOP activists say. As a result, they're unable to leave 500 comments on Daily Kos arguing about arcane policy points. Posted by: | May 21, 2007 12:50 PM"

This disparity doesn't extend to the voting booth.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 21, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Uh, that 1:11 post looks like its a month out of date. Or was there another suicide bomber in the parialment's canteen that killed two MPs?

Posted by: bsimon | May 21, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

You know, I smell Karl Rove behind the Fred Thompson emergence.

Did anyone else notice how quickly Thompson came out with his youTube blast at Michael Moore for visiting Cuba, right after the WH announced threats against Moore 1 month before his new movie gets released? If Moore violated the law last year, why would the WH wait so long to announce so publicly that they are targeting him? How could Thompson get his video (which is kind of funny) out so fast if there wasn't coordination?

I smell a rat--or is it a Rove?

Posted by: windserf (elan melamid) | May 21, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

A suicide bomber blew himself up in the Iraqi parliament canteen inside the Green Zone today, killing two MPs in a major breach of security in the country's most heavily guarded site. The attack marks a major breach of security in the Green Zone, which is also home to the Iraqi government and foreign embassies.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

'In its annual proxy release today, Merck valued CEO Richard T. Clark's 2006 pay at $8.4 million, which includes $1.2 million in salary, with most of the balance in stock awards, stock options and deferred compensation.'

Posted by: kill people, make big profits | May 21, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

pretty funny, but sadly true...

'Judging from the early Republican presidential debates, it appears that the GOP has come up with a consensus strategy to escape the "George Bush Horror Show" - let's do the time warp again.

At various points in the California and South Carolina forums, it seemed the cast of candidates were stuck in 2001 -- circa Sept. 12 -- talking as if the only issue that mattered to the American people (outside of abortion of course) was terrorism. And in the grand tradition of Dan Quayle's "Murphy Brown" remark, one of them actually invoked the fictional "24" character Jack Bauer in the second debate as the standard-setter for intelligence gathering.

At many other moments, especially at the first debate, the Titanic Ten pretended it was 1987 instead of 2007 and that they were auditioning to be Ronald Reagan's successor instead of W's. The fawning was so pronounced that one half-expected some of the Gipper snappers to click their heels together and repeat, "It's morning in America again; it's morning in America again."

Then there was one memorable spot where the all-white, all-male debaters seemed to yearn for the simpler times of 1925 -- the year of the Scopes Trial. Asked if they believed in evolution, three of the second-tier candidates unhesitatingly raised their hand to say no. Equally telling, no front-runner dared challenge the folly of that position.'

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4075.html

Posted by: drindl | May 21, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

If former US Senator Thompson is going to enter the GOP Presidential nominating marathon, he better hurry. The best campaign staff talent is promised and working for other candidates, donors are tapped, and he doesn't have much time to organize in all 50 states and territories. The race might be over before he starts; that is, if he starts.

But if he does announce Rudy, Mitt and John stars will sink like the Titanic. He seems to be more in line the Republican base than any of the other candidates. The Republicans will never nominate a New York Republican, the will never nominate a flip-flopper like Mitt, and McCain is on the wrong side of the war and his age is more of a concern than I what I orginally thought. The rest of field are jocking for cabinet positions in the event a Rpublican wins the White House in 2008

My advice to Senator Thompson: Make hay while the sunshines, don't waste anymore time.

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana

Posted by: Danny L. McDaniel | May 21, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Republican candidates are flopping on the Interwebz this year, and GOP experts blame the Democrats for wrongly attracting people who can read, write and use a computer:

One reason for the disparity between the parties, political insiders say, is that the top Republican candidates are not exciting voters the way the Democratic front-runners are. Another is that it takes a certain level of technical skill and understanding to be an online strategist, and Republicans admit that "the pool of talent in the Democrats' side is much bigger than ours."

Republican voters only know how to repeat whatever talking points they hear on Rush Limbaugh, GOP activists say. As a result, they're unable to leave 500 comments on Daily Kos arguing about arcane policy points.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like Fred Thompson thinks too much to be a credible Republican Presidential candidate.

Posted by: bsimon | May 21, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin (AP) -- A new analysis links the widely prescribed diabetes drug Avandia to greater risk of heart attack and possibly death.

More than 6 million people worldwide have taken the GlaxoSmithKline drug since it came on the market eight years ago. Pooled results of dozens of studies revealed a 45 percent greater risk of heart attack, according to the analysis, published online Monday by the New England Journal of Medicine.

Several experts said it was another Vioxx-like example of the government failing to detect a safety problem until millions had taken a drug. Vioxx was a blockbuster arthritis medicine until it was withdrawn in 2004 when heart problems came to light.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration had no comment on the report.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

he said what he said, mo.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Nice job picking phrases out of context, "not prime time". Thompson was not "putt(ing)in a good word" for Chamberlain or remembering him fondly. He was complimenting Churchill's ability to do so despite huge division.

You put words together well, but write loathesomely.

Posted by: Mo | May 21, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I think the contents of this post are very interesting. I further believe that students across the U.S. should be discussing the upcoming election and policy issues that are up for discussion even before the election. Interestingly, the only core subject area that No Child Left Behind does not mandate testing for is social studies (civics). This is horrible. For in education the saying goes that what is tested is taught. If social studies is not tested than a blog like this will cease to exist in twenty years because people in this country won't understand democracy. I'm hoping that you will join me in urging members of Congress to include a madate for social studies testing in the reauthorization of NCLB along side reading, science and math.

Andrew Pass
http://www.pass-ed.com/blogger.html

Posted by: Andrew Pass | May 21, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I think the contents of this post are very interesting. I further believe that students across the U.S. should be discussing the upcoming election and policy issues that are up for discussion even before the election. Interestingly, the only core subject area that No Child Left Behind does not mandate testing for is social studies (civics). This is horrible. For in education the saying goes that what is tested is taught. If social studies is not tested than a blog like this will cease to exist in twenty years because people in this country won't understand democracy. I'm hoping that you will join me in urging members of Congress to include a madate for social studies testing in the reauthorization of NCLB along side reading, science and math.

Andrew Pass
http://www.pass-ed.com/blogger.html

Posted by: Andrew Pass | May 21, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I think the contents of this post are very interesting. I further believe that students across the U.S. should be discussing the upcoming election and policy issues that are up for discussion even before the election. Interestingly, the only core subject area that No Child Left Behind does not mandate testing for is social studies (civics). This is horrible. For in education the saying goes that what is tested is taught. If social studies is not tested than a blog like this will cease to exist in twenty years because people in this country won't understand democracy. I'm hoping that you will join me in urging members of Congress to include a madate for social studies testing in the reauthorization of NCLB along side reading, science and math.

Andrew Pass
http://www.pass-ed.com/blogger.html

Posted by: Andrew Pass | May 21, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Republicans may be right to miss Reagan--not because his policies worked, but because the country has so soured on their party that only an actor could still put on a happy face. That's the role many Republicans have scripted for Fred Thompson. They don't much care what he stands for, provided he can cheer Republicans up.

If that's his goal, Thompson got off to an odd start in an address to Orange County conservatives this weekend. Jonathan Martin, who covers Republicans for the Politico, said Thompson's speech was "low key and at times meandering." Robert Novak, conservatism's biggest grump, called it "a downer."

Far from helping Republicans escape their despair, Thompson couldn't stop reminding them of it. "We've had our ups and our downs," he said, insisting that the party's post-Watergate gloom wasn't as bad as it seemed at the time. He warned that we're "even hearing that old malaise talk we used to hear," then indulged in some, noting that there's "some concern that maybe we're slipping away like all the great powers have."

He closed his speech by inadvertently giving a good impression of Reagan's famous "Highway 1" closing statement in the second 1984 debate. In Thompson's rambling story, a group of sixth-graders in North Hollywood asked him why he went into politics. The question made him think back to Washington, Lincoln, the Revolutionary War, and our common heritage. The answer: no idea.

But the award for most surprising performance by an anecdote in a supporting role goes to two other historical cameos in Thompson's speech. In a rare turn for the 2008 Republican campaign trail, Thompson praised Wendell Willkie, the Republican nominee who lost the 1940 election in a landslide but became one of FDR's most important allies
.
More remarkably, Thompson went out of his way to stick up for perhaps the greatest wimp of the 20th century: Neville Chamberlain. The Bush administration has spent the last six years trying to tie Democrats to Neville Chamberlain. Don't even ask how he got there, but Thompson was working off a different set of talking points.

He didn't defend Chamberlain's record, but he did paraphrase Churchill's eulogy to say, "Neville Chamberlain marched in the ranks of honor."

Perhaps that was Thompson's indirect way of saying something nice about Bush. The next line in Churchill's eulogy fits Bush even better: "It fell to [him] in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, and to be disappointed in his hopes.
.
In any case, it's a modern political first: Fred Thompson could go down in history as the only presidential candidate in either party to put in a good word for Neville Chamberlain.

Could this be the future of conservatism? Will Republican candidates try to prove they're not the next George W. Bush by leaving open the possibility of being the next Neville Chamberlain?

In 2000, Bush invented compassionate conservatism to distance himself from Newt Gingrich. The GOP's challenge is even greater in 2008, but Thompson may have found the answer: appeasement conservatism. With a Republican Party that loses elections as gracefully as Willkie and loses wars as pre-emptively as Chamberlain, America will forget the Bush presidency ever happened.

Posted by: not ready for prime time | May 21, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company