Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Thompson Reshuffles Staff

Before he even becomes a full-fledged candidate for president, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) is reshuffling his senior staff.

Tom Collamore, who had been functioning as de facto campaign manager for Thompson's bid, has been moved into a "senior advisor" role, according to communications director Linda Rozett. Randy Enwright, a longtime Florida operative, will take over the political operations for the campaign while former Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.) will serve in an as-yet-to-be determined capacity.

"We are preparing for the next phase and bringing on some new political strength," said Rozett, adding that Collamore had done a "good job of putting together an organization."

Rozett disputed reports that Collamore had been pushed aside due to clashes with Thompson's wife, Jeri. But, it's worth noting that washingtonpost.com's own "Sleuth" aka Mary Ann Akers reported last month that Jeri's central role in the campaign was rubbing some within the organization the wrong way. (In The Fix's look at Thompson's Inner Circle we noted that "no one has more say over Thompson's budding presidential campaign than his wife.")

One Republican insider granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal campaign matters added: "The perception is that Jeri is dominant in this organization."

What do the changes at the top mean for Thompson? Frankly, regardless of the circumstances surrounding Collamore's demotion, it's probably a good thing for the long-term visuals of Thompson's campaign. For the fifteen years before signing on with Thompson, Collamore worked for Phillip Morris/Altria. Having someone who has drawn his salary from a tobacco company for the past decade and a half just doesn't look all that good.

Enwright's elevation is also telling. Enwright is widely seen as one of the best political operatives in the state of Florida. Since 2001 he has been the Republican National Committee's main man in the Sunshine State. Prior to that he served as executive director of both the Florida and Iowa Republican parties.

In other words, he's "mobbed up" when it comes to 2008 connections. Enwright's prominent place in the campaign is further evidence that Thompson views Florida's Republican primary -- set for Jan. 29 -- as essential to his chances of winning the nomination. It won't be easy; former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani also view Florida as keys to their chances of winning.

Enwright did not return an email seeking comment on his new post.

Shakeups are rarely a good thing in campaigns as they draw attention to process as opposed to policy. But, it's better to change the team before you start running rather than midway through your run (see McCain, John).

Thompson seems to recognize that the most important stretch of his campaign will be the first few weeks. All eyes will be on him to see whether he can live up to the hype that will almost certainly greet his entrance into the contest. Thompson is all too aware of the last "savior" candidate to run for president: retired Gen. Wesley Clark. After scads of hype, Clark quickly flamed out. Thompson is hoping to avoid a -- ahem -- rerun.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 24, 2007; 4:58 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A Real Challenge for McConnell?
Next: Parsing the Polls: Who Really Supports Withdrawal?

Comments

Fred Thompson, Mr. Excitement, the Candidate from Elmer Fudd? They gotta be kidding. Makes as much sense for Republicans as forgetting that Giuliani chickened out in 2000 against Ankleless Annie and a year later skyrocketed to universal admiration, along with Mr. Smirk, by being "late to the event" - which he then used shamelessly, though unsuccessfully, to try to extend his term of office.

Posted by: Philip V. Riggio | July 25, 2007 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Mike -- your hypothesis assumes a finite number of terrorists. Since there is almost unanimous agreement among foreign policy experts that Iraq has served as a HUGE recruiting tool for extremists all around the world, I think that kind of thinking is not only wrong but dangerous -- since the war seems to actually be INCREASING the total number of terrorists, despite the casualties suffered in Iraq, not decreasing their numbers.

Honestly, every time Bush and McCain say "we'll fight them there so we don't have to fight 'em here," I cringe at the ridiculousness of the statement. Terrorists still want to attack the US and, eventually, will attempt to do so again. Whether we still have 160k troops in Iraq has nothing to do with that threat.

Posted by: Colin | July 25, 2007 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Al Qaeda is a living, breathing, changing, and growing enemy. We can both agree on that.

I think that report, if it's right, is nothing more than a snapshot in time. This jihad has been going on for a much longer time.

Imagine how powerful they would be today if we hadn't killed "thousands, if not tens of thousands"?

Posted by: Mike | July 25, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Mike writes
"Regarding progress, I think the genious of Iraq is this - that it creates a battleground for an enemy that inherently does not fight in a battleground.

Since our enemy is truly globalized, truly decentralized, and truly committed to killing us, he is extremely hard to fight.

Unless you funnel him in to one location (Iraq) and kill him. In large numbers."


Mike, are you saying it was brilliant strategy on the part of the US to create a new front in the war on terror by invading Iraq? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

If that is your point, I find it shocking. For one thing, according to the latest NIE on the subject, al Qaida is as strong or stronger now than it was in 2001. Your argument apparently finds this a good thing. Over the last nearly six years, we've literally killed or captured thousands, if not tens of thousands, of terrorists, Taliban and insurgents. Yet, six years later, the enemy that attacked us - despite huge losses - is stronger than they were before we confronted them militarily. Please explain how this is 'genius' strategy.

Posted by: bsimon | July 25, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon -- thanks for your thoughtful insights.

Regarding progress, I think the genious of Iraq is this - that it creates a battleground for an enemy that inherently does not fight in a battleground.

Since our enemy is truly globalized, truly decentralized, and truly committed to killing us, he is extremely hard to fight.

Unless you funnel him in to one location (Iraq) and kill him. In large numbers.

I would rather fight him over there than over here. And I call that progress.

Perhaps that wasn't the original mission, but Americans are flexible, and we see the enemy today and can kill him.

Regarding military size/training/equipment.

I honestly don't have an answer. I agree with you that the political will for a draft doesn't exist. And I agree that politicians are not trustworthy stewards of our young men's lives. I'm not a recruiter, so I don't want to speak to missed goals. I guess all I can say is that the stronger we make our military, the better. That will require an increased committment in funding, training, etc.

Posted by: Mike | July 25, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Mike, of course you think you're right. Most people do. As someone with experience in Iraq, your opinion is certainly differently informed than mine is. (However, I have a cousin - a major in the Rangers - who has now been deployed twice, and he does not agree with you.)

Respectfully - and don't get me wrong, I do respect your experience - I have to say that I think using "ideology" and "morality" to determine how viable a solution is represents a lot of what I don't like and think is absolutely wrong and dangerous about this war.

Remember, despite what is currently the party line about our reasons for entering the war ("to fight al Qaeda, who attacked us on 09.11"), at the time of "shock and awe," our motivation was to disarm Saddam/dismantle his nuclear/bio/chem weapons capability. No one at the time seriously thought that he was an author of or contributor to the 09.11 attacks - in fact, as we have recently learned, our intelligence services were pretty sure that he was NOT involved, and that there was NO al Qaeda presence in Iraq.

Bush's success over the six years which have followed has been to keep the focus on fear, and off logic, and that has enabled him to pursue a list of domestic and foreign policies which have been harmful to our country. If the situation in Iraq IS improving - I said "if" - it is still far less stable than it was at the time of the invasion, and our presence there has so far has both helped motivate the creation of an al Qaeda presence there AND, by taking the pressure off, allowed the original (Afghan) organization to rebuild in Pakistan, to the point where some experts now say it is as strong as on 09.11. How is that progress?

And FYI, I do not blame America, or the armed forces (with the exception of Haditha, Abu Ghraib, etc.) for this failure. It has been a failure of leadership - leadership whose policy decisions were predicated on "ideology" and "morality" (or at least their understanding of it) rather than "reality."

I do NOT think we can pull out of Iraq completely, nor do I think it can happen quickly. I DO think that the analysis of experts that at the current rate of deployment the military will be unable to sustain its troop commitments beyond next spring MUST be taken into account.

and in re: draft/larger army - I think that if we are determined to continue an aggressive military posture in the world at large, we must have a larger force. I do not think the political support exists to re-establish the draft, as I do not think that the majority in this country trust its civilian leaders (who have, at least at the top levels, no military experience to speak of) with the lives of their children at this point. And recruitment goals are being missed on a monthly basis. So what's the solution? I have to think that either the mission must be changed to one which has a greater degree of public support and confidence or a great deal more money must be spent on pay, training, and equipment... or probably a combination of the two. What are your thoughts?

Posted by: Bokonon | July 25, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Don't I what? I think your opinion is wrong. I don't have a problem with you voicing it though. I do have a problem with you misrepresenting what I write when you respond.

Posted by: bsimon | July 25, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

That's a good point, and I don't think there is only one way.

But some solutions are more viable than others, depending on your ideology and/or morality and/or some other factor.

Of course I think my opinion is right. If I didn't, I would be a hypocrit for voicing it or recommending it. Don't you?

Posted by: Mike | July 25, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"But not in politics, especially foreign policy. If you believe in "right" and "wrong", and you believe you're "right", a compramise would undermine everything that you believe/stand for."


Mike, do you believe that there is only one answer to any given political and/or foreign policy problem? Almost nothing in life is so cut and dried that there is only one 'right' answer and all else is wrong.

Posted by: bsimon | July 25, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Mike writes
"But it strikes me as almost humorously ironic that people who would be adamantly opposed to a draft would simultaneously complain that our military is too small."


If this is truly the battle of our times, perhaps a draft should be considered.

Posted by: bsimon | July 25, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin -- I'm not sure if I agree with what you're proposing.

The problem I see is the "do-nothing, stand-for-nothing" middle of the road kind of guys. I know we've all heard of the phrase, stand for something or fall for anything.

Look back to the American Revolution. 1/3 of the colonist were still loyal to the crown. Another 1/3 didn't care one way or the other (the centrists/compramisers).

It was only by the blood and sweat of what truly was a minority of the colonial population that we fought and won our independence.

That same has held true time and again. At the height of the Cold War, there were only a few that stood between the Soviets and complete annihilation. An EXCELLENT read would be "Charlie Wilson's War". It will keep you up at night until the last page.

Anyway, my point is - compramise with your wife is a good idea. And even with your neighbor. And in business too.

But not in politics, especially foreign policy. If you believe in "right" and "wrong", and you believe you're "right", a compramise would undermine everything that you believe/stand for.

What do you think?


Gig 'Em, :)
Mike

Posted by: Mike | July 25, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

That's funny that bsimon - you must not be anywhere near a TV, where each of the branches are constantly trying to recruit through television ads. You must not drive on freeways, else you would have seen the huge banners. I'm guessing you also must not own a radio, or else you would be familiar with those ads too.

bsimon -- when we say we're willing to do whatever it takes, they're probably refering to whatever it takes with what we have. Recruitment is always a priority.

But it strikes me as almost humorously ironic that people who would be adamantly opposed to a draft would simultaneously complain that our military is too small.

Posted by: Mike | July 25, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I recommend reading this:

Thompson PAC coddles son

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2007/07/24/thompson_pac_coddles_son?page=full&comments=true#4aa68272-4cae-4bac-af11-c06f82bb61444aa68272-4cae-4bac-af11-c06f82bb6144

"What did Fred Thompson's son, Daniel, do to earn the more than $170,000 that his firm, Daniel Thompson Associates, was paid from his father's federal political action committee, the Fred D. Thompson PAC?

The records suggest he did next to nothing."

Posted by: DC in TN | July 25, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Blarg, you are so right, and I completely agree. I would just rather b*tch and moan about it, because, as you intimate, there has been little else for me to do in Presidential years.

bsimon, maybe CC will pick up on that thread.

JimD yesterday pointed out one of the excesses of the "activist" left during the Chavez discussion - its hyperbolic tendency to equate GWB with Chavez, or GWB with Osama, which totally undermines by its excess the legitimate point-by-point criticisms of GWB that have been made. Another excess of the far left is its irrational fear of, and opposition to, maintaining a strong military. On this blog, a discussion of whether and how to strengthen our armed forces would become heated, but probably would draw some very insightful commentary.

But I would pose another philosophical question as well: Is it in the national interest to have a bipartisan foreign policy with wiggle room, as we did during the Cold War, regardless of our disagreements on domestic agendas? And if it is, how do we go about achieving it?

Lets take an example. Mike and proud oppose B-H because they see it as defeatist, while some here have opposed it from the other side, seeing an unending commitment the USA to an entangling foreign involvement, including military resources, in the Near East. Is it possible that as in dispute resolution between factions that must continue to live and work together, that it is more important to reach a consensus that satisfies no one completely and everyone a little so that we can have a untied front to the world?

I do not care if we argue taxation until we are all blue in the face, but I really think foreign policy should not change its broad outlines every four years, if at all possible.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 25, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin wrote
"I have strongly favored Webb-Hagel, but I never read or heard any reason to oppose it, until your reply, and I am going to think about it and try to get a better handle. I believe the Army is too small. And I think that is the only justification for these extended tours and short recovery periods, but maybe that is a compelling one."


Good discussion upthread. Mark's point, above, is one that has bugged me for some time. For years we've heard this conflict described as 'the conflict of our times' yet our armed forces remain essentially the same size as they were before. Our political leaders have talked about doing 'whatever it takes' to win this conflict, to defeat terrorism, etc. But have they? Why haven't we expanded the ranks of the armed forces? Where are the 'Uncle Sam Wants YOU' ad campaigns? Its very frustrating to hear the rhetoric about how important this fight is, without the followup in terms of planning the battles.

Posted by: bsimon | July 25, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

bsimon,
"Wasn't the so-called 'Billary' era enough? Or does the GOP now want their own version of that kind of nonsense?" Well it seems to be working out pretty well so far for the Clinton's! Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I think the days of a spouse's other half being invisible are over. And, probably much like Biden, I would have no problem if Elizabeth Kucinich was was more involved and visible.

Posted by: Dave! | July 25, 2007 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Mark, I think what you're saying applies to every presidential election, not this one in particular. Any election which isn't a total blowout is decided by independents, because they make up a significant portion of the electorate. And in the primaries, candidates always try to appeal to partisans, because that's who can vote in the primaries. So why would you expect the Democratic debates to be pitched to independents or Republicans?

Also, nobody needs your vote, because you live in Texas. Nobody needs my vote either, because I like in Massachusetts. In the general, candidates are specifically trying to get votes from voters in swing states; solidly red or blue states aren't important.

Posted by: Blarg | July 25, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Frederick, not sure if you're a legit contributor or just a raving leftie, but the issues aren't as you describe.

The problem is, the left wants the government to solve every problem, even those that it isn't 'authorized' to solve (constitutionally), while the social conservative right wants to use government as an instrument to impose or enforce a set of morals or values.

And those of us who just want to live our lives in peace, without the gov telling us what to do (and reaching into our pockets every 5 seconds) get the shaft.

Posted by: JD | July 25, 2007 9:17 AM | Report abuse

With thanks to bsimon for use of his quote and thanks to Colin for his permission, and apolgies in advance if I offend any others I name below, I am revising my complaint about the debates generally playing to the D left or the R right, with some notable exceptions, of course.

"It will be interesting to see if any Republicans gain much traction with the Independants, or if they mostly go for the Dems."[bsimon]

And that, my friends, is the entire American Presidential election in a nutshell. The rest is commentary. Everybody needs my vote, and bsimon's, and JimD's, and JD's, and Truth's, but they all are currently selling to Mike, and proud, or to Cassandra and COLIN, whose ultimate votes are known.
-------------------------

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 25, 2007 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Conservatism. That is Thompson's problem; debt, war, lies, Gonzales, ethics scandals, Mark Foley, Dubai, Mission Accomplished, etc. When a politicain says, "The govt is the problem!", America has learned to turn its back. The same will happen with Guilianni. America yearns for someone to bring integrity (Democrat) back to the White House, because Dems believe in public service, and the role of GOOD GOVERNMENT (public schools, public universities and general public investment).

Posted by: Frederick | July 25, 2007 9:03 AM | Report abuse

This is completely off topic and will be boring to anyone disinterested in our Attorney General. It may be boring, period. I apologize in advance.


The Texas Supreme Court has had three distinct lives in my 40 years of practice. First, we had a petro-court in the 60s and early 70s. Conservative-to-moderate, decent scholarship on real property law, but no one had a chance in litigation with Big Oil.
In the Superior Oil case, one Justice recused himself because shortly before oral argument he had gone hunting with John Connally on Superior Oil land. Turned out several other Justices went on that trip, too, but they did not see fit to let them interfere with their decision making.

Then we had the plaintiffs' court of the mid 70s to early 80s. Moderate-to-activist, a few scholars, a few hacks, two in the hip pocket of the plaintiff's bar.
Congressman Doggett was one of the straight shooters on that court. There were at least two other who were honorable. That Court's most "restrainist" member was a former US Attorney named RAOUL Gonzales, one of the straight shooters, not to be confused with ALBERTO.

When Raoul resigned, he had become
the most politically moderate voice on an insurance industry dominated court, the third incarnation in my legal life. This court also had some straight shooters, including its Chief Justice in the 80s and 90s. But the insurance industry and the employer now get treated quite well, thank you.

So ALBERTO replaced RAOUL, and was publicly a relatively moderate voice, lining up, often, with the Chief Justice against an even more insurance oriented bloc. But - I am reliably told by sources in the Court that in his very first week he called the Gov. and asked if the Gov. had any interest in any of the cases before him.

As Specter skewered him yesterday, I cringed at the price of misguided personal loyalty.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 25, 2007 8:40 AM | Report abuse

I certainly hope Mr. Thompson's campaign fizzles-out, but given the stunted intelligence of the American people, who seem to think that the affairs of Paris Hilton constitute serious news and are merrily oblivious to the larger issues in the world, I am not holding my breath.

I heard that Mr. Thompson is on a TV show, called Law and Order, and that in this program -- I've never seen it; I have better things to do with my life than listen to the manure of American popular culture -- he plays the part of a tough, no-nonense, man who fights crime. Geewhiz, Mom, if he says in a TV show that he wants to be tough and just, then I guess he really is. Yess'm. I done think so.

Thompson is a man who, for publicity, drives around in a pick up truck and eats down-home, blood-clotting, fried food. I guess that means he's a regular joe. Let's just not think about nasty little facts such as the ugly big truth that he was and is a big time, go-for-the-big-bucks wheeling, dealing lobbyist. The sort of man that is driving this nation into the ground with giveaways to multinational corporations that destroy America's manufacturing base and exalt China, the nation which taints America with scads of toxic goods -- eg. 900,000 tubes of toothpaste which contained, instead of Glycerin (a sweetening agent often put in medicines) an antifreeze additive that is poisonous.

But then I remember Tennessee has a penchant for giving us fat cats who masquerade as Bubbas. Witness Lamar Alexander who in 1996 ran for Prez by running around New Hampshire looking like a lumberjack to show everybody that he was really tough. Hey, do you guys recall a man named Winston Churchill. He actually saw action, in several war zones. And he led men into battle. And when he made political orations, he always was dressed impeccably, in suits and top coats and all the sartorial flourishes that the England of his time insisted upon. Hey, real men don't try to show that they are tough guys by playing dress up, like gay men in a bar dressed as cowboys.

But of course Americans don't know this. After all, they thought Boy George Bush was a big, strong boy because, in 2003, he announced that we had accomplished our mission in Iraq, and we knew that we had in fact accompished our mission because when he said it he was dressed in a flight suit and standing on an aircraft carrier being cheered by US seamen, who were being used as political props for the opening salvo of his effective re-election campaign.

But America is all about acting and playing parts instead of being the real McCoy. Throughout the South and the West I have seen so many people who think they are tough and resilliant and unswervingly free, but most of them seem like frightened herd men, have not fought in Iraq and don't intend to, do not know what physical courage is, are incapable of thinking for themselves and resemble tough guys, like cowboys and football players, in only one respect: Their prodigious consumption of calories.

So perhaps America will vote for Thompson because it likes frauds and find them reminiscent of themselves.

Posted by: Davd Gottfried | July 25, 2007 5:29 AM | Report abuse

Gig 'Em Aggies

Posted by: Mike | July 25, 2007 12:19 AM | Report abuse

HOOK 'EM!
UT LAW '67

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 24, 2007 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- For your further consideration, regarding W-H.

Warfighting today is so much more complex than it was in the WWII era. Today, veterans from Iraq have almost this 6th sense about them, regarding IED's and other unique dangers that we face with this enemy. A lot of posters say (and it gets awfully trite) that the job of the Presidency is not learn-as-you-go.

That can't be more true of today's fighting men in Iraq. You don't want a bunch of fresh faces, while the guus who know what they're doing can't deploy. It's not safe.

I am by no means one of those macho Marines that wants the military to always appear tough - like "we don't need no stinkin' breaks". Yeah, we need breaks. I want to make life as good for military guys as it can be. Unfortunately, you can't cross certain boundaries that make the job less safe or less effective to make life better.

By the way, I have found this conversation very interesting. I've only been in the "blog world" for about 2 weeks, and this has made it all worth while. I appreciate you seeking opinions of others and formulating your own, even if we don't agree. This is what it's all about.

PS Austin, TX - longhorn?

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 11:31 PM | Report abuse

MikeB--"I wish there was a non-biased version of [Mediamatters]."

Annenberg has a very good site, I think the URL is http://www.factcheck.org (possibly .com, unable to verify through firewall.) If it is not, just search for "annenberg fact check" instead.

Posted by: roo | July 24, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Am I the only one frustrated by Bush's comments today? You mean to tell me that we went into Iraq to get Al-Qaeda?

What do you think about our Prez's comments? Vote on it at: http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=226

If Fred Thompson can get us out, he's got my vote.

Posted by: Darylon | July 24, 2007 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Mike, thanks. I do not agree with your view on B-H, but I understand it.
You and proud do have the same view.

I have read the ISG Report and do not take its emphasis on a three pronged approach to be an invitation to "cut-and-run". I took it to invite a long term commitment to the Middle East and to Iraq.

I also am Trustee for two guys who have served multiple tours and I have strongly favored Webb-Hagel, but I never read or heard any reason to oppose it, until your reply, and I am going to think about it and try to get a better handle. I believe the Army is too small. And I think that is the only justification for these extended tours and short recovery periods, but maybe that is a compelling one. As I said, I'll think about it. Thanks again for your attention and consideration.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 24, 2007 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin --

Regarding the Iraq Study Group Report. I read a lot of (but not all of) the report, and nothing in it surprised me except the conclusion. It was probably accurate in that the situation in Iraq was poor in a lot of ways.

However, I don't support its conclusion. Just because things are bad, doesn't mean we should give up. It's a logical fallacy to claim that just because a condition is true today that it will be true tomorrow. So to recommend withdrawal/defeat isn't the ONLY solution to the problem.

Further, I don't see it as some Biblical word that is infallable. There are still other reports we're waiting to hear, most notably in September. Most people would agree that we can't rely on one opinion/report.


Regarding Webb-Hagel, I have a complicated opinion. This bill cannot work in a society with limited military resources. If we had a draft, sure, pass the bill, don't deploy for 15 months. But I doubt that's what most folks want, and we don't have that.

Webb-Hagel was not intended to support the troops, it was just another tool of defeat because everyone knows we don't have a large enough military to support that kind of rotation.

Those of us who have volunteered for this know what we're getting in to, and there's a reason re-enlistment rates are so high. There are always going to be the bottom-of-the-bell-curve Marines and soldiers who throw tantrems. It's unfortunate that their stories are used as propaganda.


The bottom line for both of these is this: For whatever reason (you can speculate on), the Democrats WANT to be the agents of defeat.

And the Iraqis and the terrorists are paying attention.

The Iraqis are asking us, "are you gonna stay", "are you gonna leave", and most of them want us to stay long enough to stabalize the country.

The enemy in Iraq is not from within - the enemy is not the Iraqis (and it never has been). We have always been fighting the terrorists, and we will be until they're all dead or we are.

This will not end if we cut and run, and our children will pay the price.

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 9:22 PM | Report abuse

When will FDT announce? I'm getting tired of waiting...

Posted by: JayPe | July 24, 2007 8:37 PM | Report abuse

rufus - re: http://mediamatters.org/
Good stuff! I especially liked their analysis of the Swift Boat pseudo veterans. I had no idea that most of the "Swift Boat Veterans weren't even veterans. But the documentations there and I checked a few of the provided leads. I wonder why Kerry isn't suing these people? I wish there was a non-biased version of this site. Liberals sometimes engage in dishonesty, too, and I would like to know when and who.

Posted by: MikeB | July 24, 2007 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Please help me understand this: it was a liability to have Collamore, a tobacco lobbyist running the campaign, and so he is pushed out and replaced with Abraham, a lobbyist for Big Oil and Moammar Qaddafi? That doesn't make any sense.

And with Abraham getting broomed at the Energy Dept. because of his reputation for junketeering, shopping trips in Paris, and just plain being lazy, how will that help to dispel the perception that Thompson himself is not exactly known for a great work ethic?

Posted by: Luella P. | July 24, 2007 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Isn't Spencer Abraham cozy with La Raza? That should play well.

Posted by: Knoxville | July 24, 2007 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Fred is a Squib. Jeri is a curse. Fred is no Ron [Reagan] and by god Jeri is NO NANCY.

back to Deathly Hallows reading... It's a good book. Action-packed.

Posted by: xbak | July 24, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

http://mediamatters.org/

Gop'ers. Read please. See what your people are doing. The only hate is from the lying propogandists on the right. What is hateful? That they read back the garbage the gop puts out daily

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Mike - one more question: Were you in favor of Webb-Hagel? If not, why not?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 24, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Mike, about a month ago I asked proud why she opposed Baker-Hamilton and she explained her position clearly enough. I have since seen many Rs move toward B-H and I have speculated that Ds would back away rather than engage in bipartisan foreign policymaking.

Where are you on B-H? Why?


Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 24, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

This buffoon has not even officially announced yet and he's got a shake-up already!
This is gonna scare the Nascar crowd and holy-rollers...

Posted by: kase | July 24, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't be so fast to write off Fred Thompson. I do agree with bsimon though, that we shouldn't all await his entry like the 2nd coming.

As I've said before, with Mitt and Rudy spending time and money duking it out, things might be looking better and better for Fred.

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: you really think Thompson looks like a moderate? Come on, he's pandering to the GOP right wing just like the rest of the GOP hopefuls other than Rudy, right down to lying about doing some low-level work for a family-planning outfit in the early 90s.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 24, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - You got it! Too bad, too. Thompson actually looked like a moderate and may have provided a mainstream alternative to the Clinton trainwreck. Oh well, maybe Guliani....yessh! A third party is starting to look better all of the time.

Posted by: MikeB | July 24, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - You got it! Too bad, too. Thompson actually looked like a moderate and may have provided a mainstream alternative to the Clinton trainwreck. Oh well, maybe Guliani....yessh! A third party is starting to look better all of the time.

Posted by: MikeB | July 24, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - You got it! Too bad, too. Thompson actually looked like a moderate and may have provided a mainstream alternative to the Clinton trainwreck. Oh well, maybe Guliani....yessh! A third part is starting to look better all of the time.

Posted by: MikeB | July 24, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

retarded frightened little coward hiding in the hills, hating everything that's slightly different from the norm.

better stick with ignorant Kos koward, it suits you better, but that is good too.

Posted by: We tried, we failed, We're Libs, situation normal | July 24, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I am now ready to predict the demise of the Thompson campaign before it ever comes to life. And what's with all these folks inserting their spouses into the inner circle of the campaigns and/or administrations? Wasn't the so-called 'Billary' era enough? Or does the GOP now want their own version of that kind of nonsense?

Posted by: bsimon | July 24, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

CC, there is no way that you can spin this as a good thing. The fact that he is still with the campaign means that he can still be used against Thompson. Also this new guy may be somebody in florida but this is a national race. Thompson might flame out before he even starts if he keeps letting his trophy wife run his campaign.

Posted by: Andy R | July 24, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Rufus -- you are (still) ignorant (see other post).

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Richard Mellon Scaife called. He says 'Good job, but we need more hate, lies and intellectual dishonesty in your posts'

Signed,
retarded frightened little coward hiding in the hills, hating everything that's slightly different from the norm.

That doesn't apply to you 'Mark in Austin', as you are somebody who debates issues, not a namecaller.

Posted by: Dittohead | July 24, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun, I apologize for having offended you by suggesting that your ultimate vote was predictable. I, of course, do not know how you will vote, nor do I know how Cassandra, Mike, or proud will vote.
I welcome their tuition as well.

So that you understand why a simpleton lawyer in Texas like me could have erred, it came from my having read phrases from you like

"... contard-dominated GOP..."

that seemed weighted with, oh, a certain level of contempt for that entire one-third of the country who register as Rs.

Now I am led to understand that you were merely exaggerating to make a point, and that you are open to many views.

Colin, may I please substitute you for LV in my example of persons whose ultimate vote in the Presidential election will be predictably D?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 24, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun, I apologize for having offended you by suggesting that your ultimate vote was predictable. I, of course, do not know how you will vote, nor do I know how Cassandra, Mike, or proud will vote.
I welcome their tuition as well.

So that you understand why a simpleton lawyer in Texas like me could have erred, it came from my having read phrases from you like

"... contard-dominated GOP..."

that seemed weighted with, oh, a certain level of contempt for that entire one-third of the country who register as Rs.

Now I am led to understand that you were merely exaggerating to make a point, and that you are open to many views.

Colin, may I please substitute you for LV in my example of persons whose ultimate vote in the Presidential election will be predictably D?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 24, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I have not been able to hijack a thread all day today. Is hate, envy and spite going out of fashion? what is a loyal Lib to do. Kos, what should I do???

your minion and servile pawn

ignorant kos koward

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company