Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

According to Polls, Fred Thompson Foundering

The American electorate is a fickle mistress. Just ask former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.).

Fred Thompson
Polling numbers are stacking up against former Sen. Fred Thompson.

When Thompson announced his candidacy for president just after Labor Day most national polls showed him running a close second behind former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the majority of state polls had him in the top three.

No longer. Thompson's campaign has yet to take off as expected and voters -- especially in crucial early states like Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida.

The most recent data comes from New Hampshire where two surveys were released over the weekend. The first, conducted by theUniversity of New Hampshire for the Boston Globe, put Thompson in sixth (yes, SIXTH) place with just three percent of the vote. (Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney led the way with 32 percent.) In a Marist University poll Thompson again took sixth place with just five percent support. To be clear, Thompson was never a frontrunner in New Hampshire but polls conducted in the run-up to his announcement and just after he formally entered the race show him regularly polling in double digits.

Thompson's shrinking support is apparent in other early states as well. The last three polls taken in Iowa put Thompson in fourth, fifth and fourth place, respectively, and his high water mark in any of those surveys is 11 percent. In Florida, too, Thompson appears to be fading. A new poll conducted for the Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times showed Thompson in fifth place (eight percent) behind Giuliani (36 percent), Romney (19 percent), Arizona Sen. John McCain (12 percent) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (nine percent).

In Thompson's defense, not all of the news in early states is bad for him. Two out of the last three polls conducted in South Carolina have showed him in the lead and Florida polling has been all over the board with several surveys conducted in the last month putting Thompson in second place behind Giuliani.

And, polling aside, Thompson's campaign received a nice boost yesterday when he secured the backing of the National Right to Life Committee. The NRLC's endorsement could be a crucial validator for Thompson who is hoping to coalesce social conservatives behind his candidacy -- a strategy that has been pre-empted somewhat by the surprising growth of Huckabee of late.

Still, the overall trajectory of Thompson's campaign -- as judged via polling -- is downward. It's clear the initial fervor and excitement over the TV-star-turned politician has worn off and voters have not flocked to Thompson as many people expected.

The problem for Thompson is that there isn't an obvious way to turn this narrative around. He is not a flashy campaigner and his fundamental message -- competent conservatism -- isn't the sort of thing that builds a grassroots movement.

The truth is that Thompson needs a second act -- pardon the pun. He needs to find a way to differentiate himself from the field on an issue (he appears to be trying to do just that on Social Security) or some broader theme (electability, a return to conservative principles etc.). He also needs to find away to put the "lazy" storyline to rest once and for all as it could well complicate his efforts to sell himself to voters.

He's got 51 days left before the Iowa caucuses. As we know from the 2004 Democratic nomination fight, that's plenty of time to turn things around. But Thompson needs to start soon. Like, now.

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 13, 2007; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam: Week in Preview
Next: New Jersey's 3rd: Republicans on the Defensive

Comments

USMC-Mike: Again you are distorting "FACTS". Each of the three things you cite "Heard That" is the same Bull Manure you mentioned before. The Bush tax cuts only helps those that need no help. The war in Iraq has and continues to be about Oil/Money that only a very few profit from at the expense of the lives and limbs of our troops, the cost in $$ for a week could be used for a year for upwards of 100,000 childrens health care costs, not to mention the innocent Iraq citizens that have been killed and injured. Iraq was never a threat to the US or in any way our National Security. Estimates on the cost of this ill advised war in Iraq is around $20,000 for every man,woman, and child in this country. Try and come up with something that will pass a little sniff test.

Posted by: lylepink | November 14, 2007 12:16 AM | Report abuse

So she doesn't stand for higher taxes?

"Roll back Bush's tax cuts to pay for healthcare" -- heard that.

She doesn't stand for more regulations?

"The unfettered free market" -- heard that.


She doesn't stand for defeat in Iraq?

"It's George Bush's war" -- heard that


You're trying to paint a straw man, dude. I don't support her ideas, not the idea of her. Aparently YOU don't know what she stands for, outside of being a successful woman.

Worthless.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 11:31 PM | Report abuse

USMC-Mike: You got one, repeat one, of the things Hillary stands for, and that is about health care, although the issue is a bit more complicated than you try and make it out to be. None of you can explain in any detail of why you are so afraid of her and come back to same false claim of Bigger Goverment, Higher Taxes and the other Bull manure folks like you spout all the time without any basis in fact to support your claims. I will ask again, and again until some of you will admit the "Envy/Jealous" Factor along with the "Fear" of a very smart woman that your ilk want to keep pregnant in the summer and barefoot in the winter.

Posted by: lylepink | November 13, 2007 10:18 PM | Report abuse

"As long as she's not running against Rudy, she could easily be beaten."

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 02:21 PM

Take all polling with a grain of salt but what I've seen has Rudy as the only Republican to get close to beating HRC.

JD, glad I was able to amuse you. I was in a weird mood when I typed that out this morning. Glad it worked out.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | November 13, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

'He is a conservative Democrat, who twice voted for Clinton (and still loves him), and with whom I probably have great disagreement.'

You'r goiing to have some lively family dinners, guy--but it sounds like you got it covered.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

'Regardless of how little I agree with either of you, that is a pretty cool thing.'

Thank you, Mike. I'm very proud of my dad. And for the record, I respect our military very much. I just want to see them get the treatment from this government that they deserve. Too many are homeless, jobless, getting insuffiicient healthcare, getting deployed too much and too long, etc.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun -- your dad is still a hero in my book, his humility notwithstanding.

My fiance's dad, an immigrant from Mexico, volunteered for Vietnam, though he never talks about his time in infantry.

He is a conservative Democrat, who twice voted for Clinton (and still loves him), and with whom I probably have great disagreement.

Nonetheless, I respect the hell out of him, and I would probably get along with your dad the same way.

Thank you for sharing his story.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - the common defense is actually the one thing that is permitted for your tax dollars. all the other stuff you hold so dear is a modern interpretation of the original document - as are taxes incidentally.
but in typical liberal fashion you begrudge every dime spent on the military yet somehow "support the troops" all while burning through billions of dollars in earmarks and set asides, you promised you wouldn't do. I guess we can plainly see where your priorities lie.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

"I had no idea we measured the IQ of military recruits. "

there is so much you Liberals don't understand about the military and many other things. how come it never stops you from lecturing the rest of us about it?

for example look at any of curly and moe's posts today - the stunning ignorance of drindl and Loud and dumb about numerous subjects they know nothing about.

the simple fact is that military recruits have higher IQs than a sample of the general population. the libs will try to spin this any number of ways but you will never see the link to anything solid.

It doesn't fit their narrative that the military is smarter than they are, they are supposed to be dumb yokels who are tricked into going off to war becasue they are stupid and poor.

BTW - the infantry and armor units are much more wealthy and white than the average population also. another inconvenient stat the Libs will deny and twist but again - no links.

Just their usual MO as explained above.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Mike: My dad was in the quartermasters -- apparently where they put a lot of Jewish guys with retail experience, I swear to god. Not the same as the front lines, but of course still very important. And even then he didn't like talking about the War. I really have no idea what he did.

When we took him -- in his Army jacket, which still fit him, I now have it -- to see the WW2 Memorial in DC just before it opened, we were chatting with some Vietnam vets. He tried to downplay his service but they wouldn't let him.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

claudia: It's like what they say about sex: people who talk the most do the least.

Have you watched Ken Burns' The War? It's quite powerful. Watching some of the old vets recount what they did and saw, in some cases probably for the first time and only after much gentle prodding, is really moving.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

So Loudoun and claudialong both have fathers who fought bravely at famous and crucial battles in the history of America, and indeed, the history of freedom.

Regardless of how little I agree with either of you, that is a pretty cool thing.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

God save us from the horrors of universal health care.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

'That is a fantastic statistic. I had no idea we measured the IQ of military recruits. Your Tax Dollars At Work. '

actually they do -- to find out if they are capable of learning the required tasks. but because recrutiing is dfrying up, they keep dropping the bar, so koz, as usual, is just making sh*t up.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

And my father got a purple heart at Normandy, was in London during the Blitz and went on to the Pacific theater. He never talked about it either. Said he couldn't.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"did you know that the average IQ of military recruits is well above the population average."

That is a fantastic statistic. I had no idea we measured the IQ of military recruits. Your Tax Dollars At Work.

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"I have asked on several blogs for someone to explain this to an old man, and as of yet have found nothing."

lylepink -- I'll be happy to entertain your question.

I am afraid of HRC. You're absolutely right. though it is often times difficult to discern exactly what a Clinton stands "for", I am afraid of what she stands for.

She stands for higher taxes.

She stands for more government regulations.

She stands for universal healthcare.

She stands for defeat in Iraq.

I don't fear her as a female leader. I'm not some 18th century artifact that doesn't think a woman can lead this country.

I am afraid of her corruption. Her dishonesty. Her relentless pursuit of power. Her lack of core convictions.

I hate to take the position on this blog as the anti-Hillary guy, but if you want to call me a "Hillary Hater", go right ahead.

Hating Hillary is far from the only thing I stand for, and there are several others who could articulate their opposition to her better than I can, but since you asked me...

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"there is an interesting and long history of soldiers coming home from war beginning perhaps with Homer who wandered for 10 years before coming home to his still faithful wife."


Doh!

Odysseus was the protagonist. Homer wrote it down.

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

'Claudialong seems to *hate* Rudy.'

I don't hate him. I just know him. Monstrously egotistical, uncontrollable appetites, incredibly poor judgement, erratic, mentally unstable -- a very dangerous man.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Hooah zouk, my dad was a Korean War veteran too, God rest his soul.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 13, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"the general population and the Libs particularly will never appreciate the sacrifice or understand the calling."

right, you pathetic scuzzbucket, no "Libs" volunteer to serve. Could you be any more of an ass?

So your father was in Korea. My father served in, among other garden spots, Guadalcanal and Bougainville. He never talked about it and he certainly wouldn't bring it up to make a cheap point.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"They create an expectation in veterans (and their families, neighbors and employers) that they are all fragile creatures who could snap at any time and are doomed to a life of suffering. They get veterans invested in their grievance and their role as victim, just to exploit them for their own anti-Bush cause."

Wow. That's a lot of power for a radio network. I had no popular they were so popular among vets & their families.

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink - your hypothesis is absurd. According to you, we should all be envious or jealous of just about anyone who does better then us - including Edwards, Obama, biden, dodd, etc. but those others don't get the same effect as hillary. It should equally apply to Rs.

It is also not the issues, as many of us like Obama enough, or even some of the others, we just disagree with thier approach.

did you ever consider that those of us that don't like her do so for the reasons we have stated over and over and which are as clear as day: she is a liar, a cheater, a megalomaniac, a trailer trash skank, etc.

It is really that easy. don't you see it. Open your eyes.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

: mibrooks27 | November 13, 2007 11:49 AM

I agree we should let candidates change their position on H-1B, amnesty, guest worker, anchor baby, family reunification, asylum, etc. Some like Fred Thompson have made movement. Fred has not commented on H-1B, but Rudi and Romney both have explicitly said they are for it.

Re H-1B and John Edwards

"As part of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group's "Road to the White House" series, former Sen. John Edwards appeared before 200 executives Aug. 1."

"EDWARDS: Regarding the H-1B visa question: I think it is important for us to have available, for the work that's being done here in this valley, plus all over the country, the talent and the mental capacity we need. So the H-1B visa program is important; it should be expanded, based on the needs that exist."

http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/category/immigration/

Posted by: OldAtlantic | November 13, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Proud - did you know that the average IQ of military recruits is well above the population average.

While the average college scores of the journalist major is the lowest of all college majors.

tells you something doesn't it?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

USMC-Mike: I think you fit in the "Hillary Haters" mold. I have given this much thought over several months and am almost convinced that the "Envy/Jealous" Factor is why you folks are so afraid of her. This "Fear" Factor could not possibly be because of the main issues Hillary stands for...Children, health care, education, old folks, and the lower income class. I have asked on several blogs for someone to explain this to an old man, and as of yet have found nothing.

Posted by: lylepink | November 13, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

USMC Mike- Thanks for asking. He's ok, stateside now. My neighbor's husband just deployed again to Iraq on five day's notice. My chaplain just got back...he was telling us about his personal and spiritual growth while over there. The strength I see in my military brethren and extended family is unbeleivably inspirational. This is the next Greatest Generation; now, if only the media would stop calling us ignorant pawns and stop portraying soldiers as victims.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 13, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Proud - there is an interesting and long history of soldiers coming home from war beginning perhaps with Homer who wandered for 10 years before coming home to his still faithful wife.

there is also a long history of PTSD, formerly called battle fatigue, shell shock, etc. but killing always has been a nasty business and the voluntereers who are willing to temporarily abandon their humanity and take up this chore in our name deserve even more praise for their actions. warfare has become much cleaner of late, imagine the aftermath of antietem. but with progress comes more complex issues. the general population and the Libs particularly will never appreciate the sacrifice or understand the calling. those NPR shows just indicate that they are trying to foist everyday (really extreme liberal) values and traditions on the military life. We moved every four years my entire childhood. Who besides gypsies does that and feels normal about it? But there was a job to be done. we were not victims. My father was in Korea for an entire year. We were not victims, we were patriots. don't expect NPR and the moonbats to get it, ever.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"Whereas, I *hate* HRC."

How mature.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"don't argue with fools, thay bring you down to their level then beat you with experience"

That was the smartest thing I have read all day, hands down.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Proud -- I listen to NPR too and I could not have articulated that anywhere as well as you. Thank you for writing that. How is your husband by the way?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

bsimon- I do listen to NPR quite often, and it makes me sick how they attempt to portray all Iraq vets as victims. I

They the vast majority who are just fine and report only on the minority with problems. They fail to report that we are damned good at treating PTSD and that we are getting better at it every day.

They lie the worst kind of lie: the lie of omission that gives only the essence of bad news.

They create an expectation in veterans (and their families, neighbors and employers) that they are all fragile creatures who could snap at any time and are doomed to a life of suffering. They get veterans invested in their grievance and their role as victim, just to exploit them for their own anti-Bush cause.

And in a world where good people will be required to do bad things (I doubt that Spartans or Huns got PTSD), I am convinced that most of the MSM including the soft-spoken NPR, are a part of a mob-mentality, an if-it-bleeds-it-leads profession that does not care about the harm they do.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 13, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

"Gomer, your points are so idiotic I have to respond again."

Translation - if I think I am winning I will no longer ignore you. but I only do this with people I think I can beat (delusional as that may be). If I am in danger of showing what a total fool I am, I am off to hide under the bed. I will call names on my way out. I am the Ace of numbnuts.

USMC - don't argue with fools, thay bring you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun: "If the current president couldn't tear the country apart, no one running now will do it either."

Loudoun, we are torn apart.

It's obvious. And it's all around us.

And maybe Bush is partially to blame.


Milbrooks: "USM_mike - I think the current crop of "leaders" have already done too good a job of tearing the country apart. We need someone who can put it back together again."

That's the point I thought you were making originally before Loudoun got her panties in a wad. The country is extremely polarized today.

I'm saying, no one thinks Rudy or Hillary will unite us. But most folks don't *hate* Huck or Obama, even if they disagree with them.

Whereas, I *hate* HRC. and Claudialong seems to *hate* Rudy.

Loudoun, there's no reason to be obtuse. You were making a point that didn't apply, and instead of conversing (the point of a "forum"?), you devolved into a mean and spiteful namecaller. You make yourself look like a fool. I'm sorry.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"The MSM honored aging heroes and noted the debt we owe to today's wounded warriors - but deftly avoided in-depth coverage from Iraq. Why? Because things are going annoyingly well."

On that last bit, I think you're projecting. On the rest, I'm not sure what the 'MSM' is reporting; NPR this week is reporting on how Iraq/Afghanistan vets are getting along at home. To put it nicely, they're struggling. You might want to give tomorrow's program a listen; I think they're going to cover a guy who's found a way to deal with returning here by studying sociology. Today's story was about how Moms returning from yearlong deployments are strugging with becoming 'mommy' again. One talked about how you know the mortar round was close when your hair moves from the concussion. Now she's trying to get to know her teenagers again.

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks: that's the point I just made. Even under the current "leaders" the country is far from torn apart. No one is rioting; states aren't seceding. We'll get by.

And given the positions of the two parties on most issues, just how could anyone get them to come together and sing Kum-by-yah?

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

bsimon- You give the media way too much credit. The weekend's news coverage of our veterans was welcome, but deceptive.

The MSM honored aging heroes and noted the debt we owe to today's wounded warriors - but deftly avoided in-depth coverage from Iraq. Why? Because things are going annoyingly well.

"All those reporters, editors and producers who predicted - longed for - an American defeat have moved on to more pressing strategic issues, such as O.J.'s latest shenanigans.

Is it really so painful for all those sensation-crazed "journalists" to accept that our military - and the Iraqis - may have turned the situation around?

Shouldn't we read and see and hear a bit of praise for today's soldiers and the progress they're making?" Especially on Veteran's Day?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11132007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_forgotten_war_700971.htm

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 13, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"Socialists want to expand that to cover everyone. I prefer capitalism; you get what you pay for. If you don't want to work, don't expect the best healthcare in the world."

JD, what you fail to recognize is that most Americans who 'pay for their own' healthcare aren't. Most Americans with health insurance are paying a subsidized rate underwritten by their employers; the larger the pool of insured, the more the costs are spread over the whole group. For people who don't have employer-provided healthcare, buying their own is extremely - sometimes obscenely - expensive.

I'm not arguing for 'socialized' medicine, just am pointing out that the existing system leaves a lot to be desired.

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"And you're supposed to be the liberal with all the feelings."

Where do you come up with this garbage, Gomer? the only people who call me liberal are rightwingnut morons like you and zouk -- two drooling peas in a pod. Another Gomer strawman, of course.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

USM_mike - I think the current crop of "leaders" have already done too good a job of tearing the country apart. We need someone who can put it back together again.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 13, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Curly and Moe ,where is rufas?

Yep, you pegged loud and dumb (curly) - two line insults only. always add in a middle school moniker like Ace, numbnuts or a new one - gomer. helps ease the pain of ignorance.

I am very amused that the promise of ignoring moonbats elicits a response on his part ----- to ignore us. eventually, if this trend continues and he ignores everyone that presents a fact he doesn't like, he will go the way of the dodo. how apropos.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Gomer, your points are so idiotic I have to respond again.

No one we elect in 2008 is going to "tear the country apart." For someone who loves to talk about logical fallacies, that is a strawman of the highest order. If the current president couldn't tear the country apart, no one running now will do it either.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Rather than call you a stuck up bi***, Loudoun, I'll just agree that you and I were talking about 2 different things.

I would not want an crummy human who is a great president. I want the whole package. In a nation of 300 million, we ought to be able to find 1.

Your point that being a good human being does not automatically make you a good president is true (although far from a deep and original intellectual moment).

The difference is, I don't lash out at you simply because we are talking past eachother. I try understand where you're coming from and resolve it. And you're supposed to be the liberal with all the feelings.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: ""I'd call Ford mediocre; Carter a complete disaster."
Wasn't that your point? That being a good and decent man does not necessarily imply a great president? By all accounts both Carter & Ford are/were good & decent men."

Essentially yes, but I just want to make clear that I view Ford and Carter very differently. Carter falls in the absolutely lowest tier; we're fortunate that he had to deal with (and screw up) nothing too too major.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

The original point was that maybe we should elect someone who won't tear the country apart.

Loudoun interpreted that to mean voting for decent people leads to effective presidents.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"As Iraq inproves, the press dries up..."

There are not daily reports of how great things are in Iraq perhaps because its too soon to call the mission a success. But there have been news stories about the decreasing levels of violence, among other things. I think part of the problem is the news cycle: with the Iowa caucuses coming up soon and martial law in Pakistan, the press isn't focusing on the resumption of 2006 levels of violence in Iraq.

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike: "But to you, the politics is more important than the man -- in fact, it's THE important issue."

This is the last time I'm going to reply to you, Gomer, just to make sure everyone understands what I meant and that you're a moron.

I said NOTHING about politics. My post was about being an effective president. I'm sure most people understood that, but since you clearly didn't, I'm replying just to make the point clear.

Now kindly get lost. Run along and vote for your favorite Hoover or Carter.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, I know Medicaid is taxpayer funded. What I'm saying is, there's already a safety net in place for the poor. I wouldn't eliminate it, but I wouldn't expand on it either.

Socialists want to expand that to cover everyone. I prefer capitalism; you get what you pay for. If you don't want to work, don't expect the best healthcare in the world.

Cruel, I know. But that's as 'fair' as it can get. By the way, wouldn't it be a good idea to get our CURRENT fiscal house in order, before signing up to even more entitlements that will bankrupt this country?

Posted by: JD | November 13, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

"I'd call Ford mediocre; Carter a complete disaster."

Wasn't that your point? That being a good and decent man does not necessarily imply a great president? By all accounts both Carter & Ford are/were good & decent men.

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

As Iraq inproves, the press dries up...this is especially galling to me, since we just observed Veteran's Day...

The United States might be the only country in world history that reverse-propagandizes itself, magnifying its setbacks and ignoring its successes so that nothing can disturb what Sen. Joe Lieberman calls the "narrative of defeat."

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 13, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

'Below we noted that a local Fox affiliate had reported on a John McCain event in South Carolina where he'd stood by while one of his supporters called Hillary a "b*tch." The footage the Fox affiliate used had been edited to make it unclear what his response was.

Well, now Tim Grieve at Salon has dug up a fuller version of the video from another local station. Take a look:

"How do we beat the b*tch?" McCain's supporter asked him. And as you can see, it appears that after McCain joked about offering a "translation" of his supporter's query, he said:

"That's an excellent question."

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/full_video_mccain_says_supporters_bi*ch_query_about_hillary_is_an_excellent_question.php'

This really disappoints me that McCain did this. I really thought better of him than this. I knew the campaign would be filthy, but for a presidential candidte, this is vile.

Now tell me about Dems are 'angry and hateful.'

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

It's not my fault that your "point" is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

Milbrooks wants to vote for a "decent, honorable, sane" candidate. As do a lot of us.

The overall point is, amiable people like Huck or Obama unite people, bring people together, and help us move past politics.

But to you, the politics is more important than the man -- in fact, it's THE important issue.

To most Americans, "likeability" is just as important. Besides Watergate, look at Nixon -- a serious politician, but who looked like an idiot next to a young, charismatic D.

Existence of a few "bad" presidents who were "decent people" doesn't prove anything. Because the point wasn't that "good people make effective presidents". The point was "I want to vote for someone half the country won't despise".

I have to say I am not surprised that you have no idea what you're talking about. I think you like the idea of "shrewdly" inserting little one-liners, without actually adding any analysis to this blog.

I am also not surprised that you would attack me. After all, that's in your playbook.

However, I do have to hand it to you -- 3 names in 2 lines is pretty concise.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I'd call Ford mediocre; Carter a complete disaster.

Have you heard about the famous Boston Globe editorial regarding Carter? Early editions of the paper went out with the title "Mush From the Wimp." LOL Then they changed it to "All Must Share the Burden."

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

love the 'cassowary' proud.

and thank you MikeB. I think most of us here love our country--or else we woldn't care about these races.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

LoudonVoter writes
"Good and decent didn't guarantee good presidents in the 1800s and it sure doesn't in the 2000s."

Why go back to the 1800s when the 70s will do? Carter & Ford are prime examples.

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"unless there is a drastic turn around in the next 60 days - (unlikely)"

Because no prior nominations have changed in the last 60 days before the first primary/caucus.

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

KOZ, LoudounVoter - One point for each of you today. Great posts and hillarious! "hillary prefers to answer her own questions from the question garden she planted" is priceless and Loudoun's insult had me laughing so hard I choked!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 13, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Very interesting to see someone whose chosen candidate is Rudy Giuliani discussing integrity. Quite laughable, in fact.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

always count on a moron like Mike to completely misunderstand a post. way to go douchebag, another loser I'll be ignoring. Kindly do the same, ok Gomer?

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

USMC-Mike - if they have to discuss integrity in the same sentence as Hillary, just how long do you think you could keep a straight face.

so naturally they discount that feature of higher office. and answering questions. and winning wars. and selling pardons. and stealing silver. and spending money. and fundrasing. and honesty. and experience. and terrorism.

hillary prefers to answer her own questions from the question garden she planted.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Always count on the left to separate personal integrity with the pursuit of power.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks: Speaking very seriously, whether a president is a "good and decent" man or woman has little to nothing to do with how good a president that person is and how good that person will be for the country.

In fact, some of the absolutely bottom-of-the-barrel presidents were good and decent men. It just doesn't correlate.

Good and decent didn't guarantee good presidents in the 1800s and it sure doesn't in the 2000s.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

mikeB - unless there is a drastic turn around in the next 60 days - (unlikely) this race is coming down to Hillary v Rudy.

all the latest polls:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2007/11/12/state_of_the_race_november_12,_2007

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I do love this country.

I don't think every citizen does.

And that's a shame.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Seemingly every day brings a new encouraging number. The latest is that rocket and mortar attacks in Iraq have fallen to their lowest level in nearly two years. The left's initial reaction to the surge's success in reducing violence in Iraq was to declare Gen. David Petraeus a liar. Now, a new tack has become necessary -- finding creative ways to deny credit to the surge. Democrat Rep. David Obey from Wisconsin says insurgents are simply "running out of people to kill."

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike, kingofzouk - I expect that the two of you love this country every bit as much as I and loudounvoter and claudia do. Once you get past the fun of insults and name calling (and, I really DO get plenty of laughs from it.... loudoun and KOZ are especially funny) we all want the best for the U.S. and our people. Thus, Mike, I honestly and truly hope and expect that neither Guliani nor CLinton will be the nominee. A good race would be between Huckabee and Edwards, both decent, honorable and sane men with quit different ideas; or McCain vs. Obama (again, good people).

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 13, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Congressional Dems Go 0 for 40 On Iraq War Votes Since taking the majority, Democrats have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush's war policy but only one of those has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats.

what is the definition of insanity?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Clinton v. anyone-but-Rudy is an easy win for the R's.

Rudy v. anyone-but-Hillary is an easy win for the D's.

A Clinton v. Rudy is going to be so shocking, so polarizing, so mean and dirty, who could predict a logical outcome?

I mean, we know Clinton is a felon. She's corrupt. She breaks laws, she cheats, lies, steals, and bribes. But at least her kid still talks to her. That's why she WANTS to run against Rudy -- he has almost as much baggage and it becomes a wash.

As a R, I have to hope and pray we don't nominate Rudy. I also hope the D's DO nominate HRC.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Clinton certainly has the name recognition. And she plays the feminist and "wronged woman" violin pretty well, too. But, she is a gutter swelling political hack. Cnn has now jumped on the story of planted questions and has found at least 20 individuals who were planted. Clinton denied all knowledge of it, but in a whole series of "coincidences" she has called on just those people with the planted and canned questions. QED, CLinton is a liar, one that was caught and continues to lie. This is now pretty common, public knowledge and investigations are underway on illegal campaign contributions from foreign governments (filtered through their nationals here on work visas), planted posters on forums like this one. etc. etc. Long before the gerneral election, Clinton will be rendered compleytely unelectable. I only hope that this is recognized ebfore the first primary and we can dump her for a genuine Democrat.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 13, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Huckabee is a funny and clever speaker. He has made his bones as a preacher. but on any scrutiny his support would break down. there is no there there.
Fred was always more of a hope than a reality. the press will do anything to knock down R candidates and cause hesitation. the more interesting question is why aren't they interested in knocking down hillary - it would be so easy. I predict the Dems will fall for her and then get the Kerry remorse later and realize they have an unelectable choice - again. but they have done this for over 50 years now - only winning when they cheated to beat Nixon, took advantage of a badly timed pardon, and lucked into a three way race. so far no honest victory based on issues and head-to-head confrontation. Only gimicks. the Dem way.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I think your "making history" section is understated.

Nearly every woman I know who supports her falls into this category.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

The thought about Fred not wanting to run, as I mentioned long before he announced, seems to be more accurate as time goes by. Pressure by folks that were not to happy with the then field are now having second thoughts about Fred. The many polls have Rudy ahead and I still am inclined to think someone else on the repub side will come forward, as an ego trip from the right-wing who will not support Rudy, unless they pretty well know the General will go against them.

Posted by: lylepink | November 13, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

and soon Fred's campaign will go the way of the passenger pigeon.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

F. Thompson is a fake conservative. He is all about himself and making money. Otherwise, he wouldn't lobby for something he's suppossedly against. The leader of this right to life group propably got some action from Fred's trophy wife for this endorsement or something. There is nothing genuine about the Thompson's and I personally think we (the Republican Party) would be making a mistake to nominate this man. He's a lazy opportunist.

AndyR, I must agree with you that Obama & Huckabee are 2 nice guys with innovative ideas. Honestly, if they both lost the primary, they'd make a heck of a team for "Unity 08'". Now, that will never happen. But, they do both have shot's at their respective nominations.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | November 13, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"So why nominate Hillary?"

That's the 25¢ question. Personally, I think she's still winning largely on name recognition. Call her support, broken down, as 40% name recognition, 30% nostalgia for Bill, 20% making history & 10% support for policy positions.

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"He can't get off the ground. Or, how about "the cassowary of candidates"?"

I had to look it up. I think you might be onto something, wikipedia mentions the "Double-wattled Cassowary".

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Democrats did not work with the White House on the bill and stuffed more than 2,000 pet projects known as earmarks into it, despite campaign pledges to restrain themselves. Bush, she said, "will ask Congress to take out the pork and reduce the overall spending level and return it to him quickly."

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"I also imagine Obama would trounce Huckabee."

Obama would probably deliver a trouncing to a lot of, if not all, the R's.

So why nominate Hillary?

As long as she's not running against Rudy, she could easily be beaten.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

A poll released last week by the Pew Research Center found that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the performance of Democratic congressional leaders, an increase in dissatisfaction of 18 points since February. Among Democrats, disapproval of their own leaders rose from 16 percent in February to 35 percent now; in the same period, disapproval among independents rose from 41 percent to 56 percent.


the facts on the ground - Dem leadership is heading straight down the commode.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"Huckabee v. Obama would be something worth watching."

Oh, it'd be thrilling and lovely, no doubt, and we might actually have some substantive and civil policy discussions. And the rather wide middle of this country would probably find contentment on Nov 5 regardless of the outcome -- a drastic shift from the last time around.

I also imagine Obama would trounce Huckabee. Huckabee could, I am convinced, have a solid chance at defeating Hillary. But beating Obama? Eh. I don't see it.

Posted by: Skip_Lively | November 13, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

CC,
"...and his fundamental message -- competent conservatism -- isn't the sort of thing that builds a grassroots movement." Really? It seemed to work for "compassionate conservatism". I don't know how accurate this statement is. I don't think that there is a problem with competent conservatism, I think that he is just running a poor campaign. I see very little in the threads on his ideas, but a lot on the delivery of his message and his effort. To me, I like a lot of the things he says but it seems that his heart is not in this campaign. There is no excitement or energy coming through and his laid back persona does not help.

Posted by: dave | November 13, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I see Loud and dumb has weighed in with some choice Bush insults aka the usual idiocy. Now if only rufas would show all three stooges would be represented.

Hey moonbats, what is going to happen when your voters realize they have to pull the hillary lever to vote "not Bush". even when "not Bush" also is the proper choice in Rudy.

Right now all those thinking Dems (there are so few) are trying to figure out how to alter the debate ever so subtly and lay off the "I'm not Bush" replies and somehow morph them into "I am hillary".

funny how so few ever jump to defend her. Just like Kerry. nothing there to defend it seems. I am still predicting a 40 state sweep for Rudy - except for DC, CA, OR, MA, MD, RI, CN, VT, IL

then will you Dems admit that we don't agree with you 11% ers. that we don't want to lose a war. that we don't want the government to run our society? that we don't want higher taxes? that the clintons are crooks?

good Luck with that.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Fred Thompson is the penguin of presidential politics. He can't get off the ground. Or, how about "the cassowary of candidates"?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 13, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

If Huck can get some money, he might actually be able to pull something off. He's 2nd in Iowa and closing.

And Obama just needs a little aggression. We've seen in the past weeks that HRC is not invincible. Obama just might pull it off.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

'Huckabee v. Obama would be something worth watching.'

isn't going to happen, unfortunately. it would sure be a cleaner campaign than we're goiing to get.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

" It was surely fickle back when McCain didn't get the R nomination, as he should have imo, instead of Dubya."

have to agree with you there. we'd sure be in better shape now.

bsimon -- you ivory woodpecker comment one of the 10 best political lines i've ever heard.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

'Instead of picking an independent maverick with new ideas, they picked a charismatic Southern governor with a famous name.'


I wonder if a charasmatic Southern governor with a very Southern name can get the nod.

Huckabee v. Obama would be something worth watching.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: "They're the ivory-billed woodpeckers of the 2008 Presidential race."

Very nice reference, b.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"CC's comment about the electorate being a fickle mistress makes me wonder...is it really? I mean, maybe it just depends on the candidate. It was surely fickle back when McCain didn't get the R nomination, as he should have imo, instead of Dubya."

Proud, I don't the 2000 Republican primary was an example of a fickle electorate. Quite the opposite. Instead of picking an independent maverick with new ideas, they picked a charismatic Southern governor with a famous name. Bush was definitely the establishment choice in 2000, at least compared to McCain.

Posted by: Blarg | November 13, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"They're the ivory-billed woodpeckers of the 2008 Presidential race. People claim to have seen or heard them, but nobody can prove they exist."

That was pretty funny I have to say. I like it.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

USMC: agreed, but incompetence won't help you get home safely, and against an enemy like the VC would surely have greatly increased your chances of buying the farm. Inebriation would not have helped either.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

"not that I agree with bsimon very often..."

Pshaw. Probably happens more than you might think. For example, I don't like hillary either.

On Thompson, we won't hear from supporters, because there aren't many of them. They're the ivory-billed woodpeckers of the 2008 Presidential race. People claim to have seen or heard them, but nobody can prove they exist.

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes- glad to see you're back.

CC's comment about the electorate being a fickle mistress makes me wonder...is it really? I mean, maybe it just depends on the candidate. It was surely fickle back when McCain didn't get the R nomination, as he should have imo, instead of Dubya.

But this time...I'm thinking it's more of a case of (almost) buyer's remorse with fred. Hey, even I thought maybe he'd have a shot if he was just a younger version of John McCain.

Well now it's clear, McCain has more spunk in his little finger than Fred has in his whole 6'7" body. John McCain's mother has more spunk than Fred Thompson, for goodness sake!

So, sometimes the electorate is fickle, and sometimes it is just plain spot-on.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 13, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

It didn't take incompetence to get killed by the VC.

Death is so random, especially in war, that you cannot control it.

Of course, bringing body guards with you helps a lot.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes: And if George W. Bush was named George W. Smith he would be dead because he'd have been sent to Vietnam where his incompetence would have gotten him either killed by VC or fragged by US troops instead of safely spending the war passed out in puddles of his own vomit and urine.

So what's your point? HRC married Bill and might be president, just like Bush is president now, whether any of us like any of that or not.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

not that I agree with bsimon very often...

but does anyone have anything meaningful to say about ol' Fred Thompson?

I'm curious to hear from someone who likes him...

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Right on Mike, you really nailed it about Hillary, All you feminists out there need to ask yourself where would Hillary be if she never married Bill. ANSWER: FED/STATE prison after being caught billing hours she never performed. If Hillary is the best you can do, you will not be breaking the glass ceiling in this century.

Posted by: vbhoomes | November 13, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

'I need my gun to defend myself from you" is not a death threat. '

I can guarntee you that a lot of people might take it that way. I am not playing the victim -- quite the opposite. when someone attacks me, i fight back. i have a gun, too, you see.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Maybe

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

A Not-So-Perfect Picture of Unity

Rarely does any individual ask himself what is good for the country, most often you find yourself asking the question how it will affect me and only me. Does this individual cater to my specific needs, some to end the war, some based on party affiliation, some based on tax, guns, abortion, and the list goes on...

What Party or Presidential Candidate or Party have you so far made up your mind on if any?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=965


.

Posted by: PollM | November 13, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike: Why don't you just ignore Claudia? You'll feel much better. I'm no longer responding to zouk's posts; soon no one will and he'll go away.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"I need my gun to defend myself from you" is not a death threat. Try not playing the victim for 5 minutes from me, zouk, and whoever is out to get you that you have to "defend yourself" from.

What a stellar feminist. A perpetual victim.

Not that it matters, but I've been on here more than you. I don't always have to post a comment to prove I can read an article.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

'You can say whatever you want. Just don't complain about others "spewing hatred" when you're the worst.'

i am far from the worst, my friend. you haven't been on here long. and in any case, i was responding to some juvenile insulting me. you can say anything you want as well, i don't give a damn.. just no death threats.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

ahh, I see zouk. you're a dingbat for a lviing. welfare queen jusst like i figured.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

You can say whatever you want. Just don't complain about others "spewing hatred" when you're the worst.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

hey, ann c would like that, mike. you know she always says the stuff she says, like that judges should be poisoned and all, is a joke. i think she's fair game, don't you? and zouk never does anything here but insult me -- why shouldn't i fight back. oh i see, i'm supposed to be a 'lady.'

rudy has appeared frequently in a dress. there's approximate 6000 images on google. he does look good. so what? it;s all jokes, my friend, guess you just can't take one. you can say anything, however savage and vile, about democrats, but you can't take a little of your vitriol? too bad.


Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"Claudia, it's not my job to pay for someone else's healthcare...the safety net is called Medicaid."

JD, I'm sure you realize that Medicaid is paid for by taxpayers. So apparently it is your job to pay for other peoples' healthcare. Or do you think that Medicaid should be eliminated?

Posted by: Blarg | November 13, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

bsimon -- "right wing nut" notwithstanding, I'll answer your question.

No one needs to say much about Fred. Fred is dead. He never was my Ronald Reagan, although he was to my dad, for a time. My dad has lost interest in him, as I think many R's have done the same.

I don't know if it's his "laziness", his delay in entering the campaign, his weakness in public speaking/debates, or his wife -- but I have a hard time thinking he has any chance in hell.

Anyway, CC sums it up pretty well.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

speaking of Mr. Bush's father, he was a very prescient guy:

'Bush Sr.'s disingenuous attempts to paint Iraq war critics as coddlers of Saddam Hussein are an insult to his own intelligence. After all, Bush Sr. has offered the most cogent explanations for why regime change was a poor strategic decision. In his book, A World Transformed, Bush Sr. argued "incalculable human and political costs would have resulted from an Iraq invasion in 1991:

"Incalculable human and political costs" would have been the result, the senior Bush has said, if his administration had pushed all the way to Baghdad and sought to overthrow Saddam Hussein after the U.S.-led coalition ousted the Iraqi army from Kuwait during the Persian Gulf war in 1991. "We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect rule Iraq," Bush wrote.

"The coalition would have instantly collapsed. ... Going in and thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. "Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome."

In 1996, Bush Sr. wrote, "Removing [Saddam] from power would have plunged Iraq into civil war, sucking U.S. forces in to preserve order. Had we elected to march on Baghdad, our forces might still be there."

In Jan. 1996, Bush delivered an eloquent speech, arguing the "reason we didn't go after Saddam is that our forces could well have bogged down in an urban guerrilla conflict in the streets of Baghdad." "We would have instantly handed our enemies a victory out of the jaws of a humiliating defeat," he said.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: the sound of crickets tells you all you need to know about ole Fred's candidacy.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"who's spewing hatred and bigotry?"

From 9:04 to 12:52:

... wait for it ...

"what an angry, impotent little man you are."

"It's a small vocabulary,kind of like talking to a dog"

"wet-your-pants, the-muslims-are-coming "

"didn't know you liked Nazi tranvestites with huge adam's apples, bhoomes--kinky. "

"she's certainly as bloodthirsty and as testerone-pumping as any of your other candidates."

"It's called humanity" <-- ha ha

"you'll want to vote for Rudy, he looks fab in a dress"

"the R;s running... are all extremist nuts."

claudialong has the audacity to accuse others of spewing hatred and bigotry. This is only a cursory examination of a typical late morning thread. This same foul, unintelligent blather can be found day after day, post after post.

And she doesn't know why we don't want "progressives" like her in charge of decissions involving "humanity"? Ha.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

hey moonbat - here's your answer in a language you can understand:

Hhhhoooowwwllllll

I am an unemployed "writer" with plenty of time on my hands because I suck at what I do. I have no other skills or knowledge so I just dredge the Internet for things I can post on my lefty blogs that reflect poorly on Rs. content or truthfulness is irrelevant. I am simply a Lib troll who has little in the way of thinking skills. I am not in Iraq because I am not permitted to have an opinion on anything unless I directly participate. But I know alot about everything anyway and break my own rule all the time. As a dingbat, I can change my mind anytime.

See, I am you drindl/ignorant coward.

back to ignoring moonbats. sorry for the detour. that includes you Loud and dumb.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Lots of hillary bashing, but not a lot of comments on poor 'ole Fred. Any of the right wing nuts care to comment on the guy, or are you focused solely on bashing Clinton - whom almost nobody here is defending?

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

speaking of pitiful wretches -- you can't even answer a quesion, all you can do is spew ignorance and hatred.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse


never answered my queston zouk--what do you do for a living? why aren't you in iraq?

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Time to put this lie to rest, kiddies--which I must say the 'libtrul media' has pushed to the max. GWBush is the reason Hillary's papers can't be released. He changed the law so it would be harder for his father's papers to be released, you see. Bush himself has to review them, as does National Archive personnel. So, what lies will you come up with next, Ace?

'Judicial Watch had filed a Freedom of Information Act Request to obtain Mrs. Clinton's office records, including phone logs, personal schedules, and other documents that may shed light on her activities during the Clinton years. A court ruled that 10,000 pages of those documents will be processed completely by the end of January 2008; however, the National Archives and Records Administration "cannot provide a date certain" to complete the processing of 20,000 additional pages of documents.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, says thanks to an executive order, the government cannot release any of the documents until they are reviewed by the president and former president.

"President Bush changed the law through an executive order we think perhaps improperly, certainly courts ruled improperly."'

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

drindl aka Ignorant coward - your old games have returned. what a pitiful wretch you are.

My grandma fell down the stairs. the government should do something about it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

'not some offbeat hippie hack wasting time spewing hatred and bigotry like some we know.'

now, let's see. who's spewing hatred and bigotry? hmmm -- you lack any self awareness whatever zouk. what an angry, impotent little man you are.

never answered my queston--what do you do for a living? why aren't you in iraq?

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton -- we are trying to get the national archives to release the documents on HRC as first lady.

Her "record" as first lady is, after all, what she's running on -- isn't it?

Bill Clinton -- that's why I sent them a signed, threatening letter, telling them NOT to release any documents on my Hillary.

Another example -- what do you have to hide?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The WaPo ate my response to Claudia's whining. I'm not going to try to re-build it, except to say:

Claudia, it's not my job to pay for someone else's healthcare (excepting immunizations). You get what you earn/pay for. If you want to have healthcare, you should work for it; if you cannot, the safety net is called Medicaid.

Posted by: JD | November 13, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

but why oh why has John Kerry still not released his war record, despite promising to do so way back when. could it be that the swift boaters told the truth about him and the official Army docs support their side.

why do Libs always hide documents? Hey hillary, what's the big secret?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

JasonL:

"..but when George W. Bush was face down in a pile of coke ducking service, I was in Vietnam getting shot at"

LOL

"..I think HRC probably has bigger balls (metaphorically, I hope).."

LOL x 1,000

Posted by: JD | November 13, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

"They came from comfort and stability, visited poverty as part of a college program, fashionably disliked their country, and cultivated a bitterness that was wholly unearned."

Noonan's money quote about Libs. a real writer, not some offbeat hippie hack wasting time spewing hatred and bigotry like some we know.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse


'I would ask the feminist claudialong about her thoughts on HRC as a champion of all things woman'

I would never vote for anyone just because they were a woman -- or a man, for that matter. Feminism to me means that we be judged for what we accomplish. I frankly don't like much because she's too tied to corporate money.

However -- I will still vote for her over any of the R;s running, because they are all extremist nuts.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

'Well Claudia, if we're looking for policy decisions to be made emotionally, it's always nice that we can call on you.'

It's called humanity, JD, guess you don't recognize it. not even reality can sway your 'the [fictional] free market is the answer to everything' philosphy, can it JD?

'Claudilong: The long hair and legs does it for me. If Hillary wants to be play the gender card, she ought to 1st look like a woman not a he/she in soho.'

eww. If so, you'll want to vote for Rudy, he looks fab in a dress. go here: he's got long legs, too..

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=guiliani+in+drag&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

So what did you say you did for a lving, zouk? and why aren't you in iraq -- the reups have been short for months, they need you.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

'Margaret Thatcher would no more have identified herself as a woman, or claimed special pleading that she was a mere frail girl, or asked you to sympathize with her because of her sex, than she would have called up the Kremlin and asked how quickly she could surrender.

She represented a movement. She was its head. She was great figure, a person in history, and she was a woman. She was in it for serious reasons, not to advance the claims of a gender but to reclaim for England its economic freedom, and return its political culture to common sense. Her rise wasn't symbolic but actual.

In fact, she wasn't so much a woman as a lady. I remember a gentleman who worked with her speaking of her allure, how she'd relax after a late-night meeting and you'd walk by and catch just the faintest whiff of perfume, smoke and scotch. She worked hard and was tough. One always imagined her lightly smacking some incompetent on the head with her purse, for she carried a purse, as a lady would. She is still tough. A Reagan aide told me that after she was incapacitated by a stroke she flew to Reagan's funeral in Washington, went through the ceremony, flew with Mrs. Reagan to California for the burial, and never once on the plane removed her heels. That is tough.'

Compare that to HRC. What a joke.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes -- Peggy Noonan wrote a great piece in the WSJ this weekend, comparing HRC to Margaret Thatcher.

Whereas Margaret Thatcher knew she was a woman yet never played the woman card ("these guys are beating up on me").

She was tough and decisive, not flip-floppy and weak ("I voted for the war then to withdrawal". "How about a 5,000 baby bond on Monday, but I'll take it back on Thursday".)

HRC is really kind of a pathetic example of a "successful" woman, and women who rally around her for the sake of her gender are sadly misled, IMHO.

Politics aside (tought for fix posters), HRC really is a sad, pathetic example of a woman "breaking the glass ceiling":

>Relying on her husband's name for popularity

>Allowing herself to be the victim of serial adultry

>Wanting to play with the big boys but crying no fair when they call her flip flops

I would ask the feminist claudialong about her thoughts on HRC as a champion of all things woman, but she'll probably call the FBI in the same breath as attacking me personally and slandering that transvestite Ann Coulter.

Anyway, for those interested:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 13, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Let's just review the Liberal MO, demonstrated here today (just like yesterday) again in spades.

first invent some phony numbers. when challenged, change the terminology, say pro-choice instead of pro-abortion. then try to use any numbers that can even remotely add to your cause while rejecting anything reasonable on the other side. Use selective sources and filter information. Try to put the face of a child or some other poor soul out there. If that doesn't work, attack the individual, find out more about them. If you are still not getting anywhere, go ugly and start with the demeaning insults. Once that fails, simply retreat. Pretend you are giving up for philosophical reasons. If the subject ever comes up again, pretend you never heard about it and start with the fake numbers again. It is always a good thing for those not paying close attention to hear the same lies over and over. they won't bother to check back once the facts emerge.

Yes indeed - the Liberal way.

And BTW drindl, the sky was supposed to fall yesterday. what happened. Well today for sure.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 13, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"What her critics are really saying, is, thst Hillary will not allow herself to be "Swift-boated". The Clintons are masters at responding to attacks, and let's face it, that is all that the Republicans are good at -- attacking." -Stan Lenart

This is an interesting comment. When all that swift boating was going on in '04, all I wanted (and I suspect that this is common among Dem's) was for Kerry to say, "You know what, you might not agree with me, you might not agree with how I protested, but when George W. Bush was face down in a pile of coke ducking service, I was in Vietnam getting shot at."

All I wanted was for Kerry to show some balls and he never did. Ironically, I think HRC probably has bigger balls (metaphorically, I hope) than Kerry. I think she'll get attacked but she'll have some nice counters to those attacks and attacks of her own to make. She's very likely a total b*tch, but she's a clever b*tch.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | November 13, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting when Hillary (or, "The Clintons") gets lambasted for being "mean".

What her critics are really saying, is, thst Hillary will not allow herself to be "Swift-boated". The Clintons are masters at responding to attacks, and let's face it, that is all that the Republicans are good at -- attacking.

So, they see in Hillary a real tough competitor and it scares them to death.

She won't be swift-boated and she will kick their soft, lilly-white a**es.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | November 13, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Claudilong: The long hair and legs does it for me. If Hillary wants to be play the gender card, she ought to 1st look like a woman not a he/she in soho.

Posted by: vbhoomes | November 13, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

OldAtlantic - Lots of people voted for the H1-B visa in the past, just as lots of Senators and Congressmen voted in various peices of legislation that support outsourcing and even our invasion of Iraq. ALl of those votes were mistakes. Now, what I am interested in, in the face of the disasters these have created, HAVE THEY LEARNED FROM THEIR MISTAKES! Are they going to oppose H1-B, K-1 and similar unnecessary guest woirk visas, are they going to collect duties and fees on goods and services that are produced as a result of outsopurcing? Are they going to enact taxes and even more fees to make outsourcing unprofitable and keep those jobs at home? Or, are they going to cravenly chase Wall Street money, bankrupt millions of Amercian families, give their jobs to foreign workers or allow them to be shipped overseas, are they going to continue to transfer our most critical technological secrets to foreign governments for short term corporate profits, or are they going to put a stop to this madness. Thus far, the candidates who have expressed a concer about this, regret for their former support of these diasterous policies have been Edwards, Huckabee, Kucinich, and Thompson. No one else. Rihardson is a died in the wool free traitor. So, apparently are Clinton and Romney. Gulianai and Obama and McCain all express concern and talk about "fixing" our free trade polcicies, but that might amount to putting lipstick on this pig. In the end, TODAY and the FUTURE are what matters, not the past. I only care that politician's admit that they made a mistake in the past and will correct it.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 13, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Well Claudia, if we're looking for policy decisions to be made emotionally, it's always nice that we can call on you. Or better put, policy-by-sob-story.

So you'd throw the baby out with the bathwater? Instead of fixing the issue where policies can be cancelled due to claims (which makes for a heads-they-win, tails-we lose situation), you'd go to a monolithic government-run healthcare bureaucracy?

That's so extreme, even your girl HRC isn't espousing that (anymore).

Posted by: JD | November 13, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

to seventen:
the everglades, jena 6, and terischiavo are NOT, repeat NOT, major issues.
your comments are just that; comments.
get a life!

Posted by: fstitt | November 13, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Fred "Wattles" Thompson is this year's Wesley Clark. Much better as a theorhetical candidate than an actual one.

Say goodnight Fred.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Fred voted for H-1B as a senator. So did Spencer Abraham. See Numbers USA

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/view_all_alpha.php3

If Fred could come out against all H-1B and guest worker, that would get the support of computer programmers and other work demographic groups. See Randall Burns at Vdare or Norm Matloff.

Posted by: OldAtlantic | November 13, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

This is for you, JD and all the other folks who talk about how 'efficiently' private insurance companies deliver health care, how much better they are than bad old government would be. Oh the glories of the magnificent marketplace!

'In the middle of her expensive, months-long chemotherapy regimen, a Los Angeles hairdresser with breast cancer learned her insurer had abruptly decided to cancel her policy.

The decision ultimately left the 51-year-old hairdresser, Patsy Bates, with nearly $200,000 in debt, according to the Los Angeles Times today, but it helped win $20,000 in bonuses for the employee who made the call to cut Bates' coverage.

By dropping Bates' policy and those of roughly 1,600 others, the employee helped the insurance company, Health Net, save more than $35 million from 2000 to 2006, the paper reports.'

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

bsimon--sure. the simple folk who were waiting for the Second Coming of Reagan. they wanted to beleive...

'WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Tuesday signed a big increase in the Pentagon's non-war budget, and vetoed a spending measure for health and education programs prized by congressional Democrats.

The president's action was announced on Air Force One as Bush flew to Indiana for a speech expected to criticize the Democratic-led Congress on its budget priorities.'

apparently bushie doesn't understand irony...

'Much of the increase in the defense bill is devoted to procuring new and expensive weapons systems, including $6.3 billion for the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, $2.8 billion for the Navy's DD(X) destroyer and $3.1 billion for the new Virginia-class attack submarine.'

and lotsa lotsa taxpayer cash for republican contributors and contractors, oh you betcha.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Chris writes
"According to Polls, Fred Thompson Foundering"

And, not to quibble, but did his ship ever float in the first place?

More to the point: do we really need polls to tell us that Thompson's candidacy is long-dead? It was predicted before he announced that his highest poll numbers would be on the day before he announced. That prediction has subsequently come true, as Thompson has lived down to expectations, proving that he is all fluff, with no substance. Really, is anyone surprised?

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse


'we nominate Ann Coulter. She's smarter and a lot better looking.'

didn't know you liked Nazi tranvestites with huge adam's apples, bhoomes--kinky. but hey, she's certainly as bloodthirsty and as testerone-pumping as any of your other candidates.

oh, and for those of you who wondered if Bernie Kerik's upcoming legal travails would be a problem for Rudy, not at all, not at all. It's covered:

'Just in case you weren't convinced, Guiliani refused to say yesterday whether he'd pardon Bernard Kerik, his mobbed-up and now freshly indicted former police commissioner. This is not only crazy on a policy level (what possible justification could there be for a pardon?), it's crazy on a political level, too -- for obvious reasons.

It underscores, once again, just how delusional and egocentric he is. His egomania is one major reason why he'd almost certainly be our worst president ever.

Fun fact learned while researching this post: Giuliani's campaign has recruited his law partner Marc Mukasey, son of our shiny new Attorney General Michael Mukasey, to prevent Kerik's defense team from interviewing witnesses that might hurt his campaign.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of script Andy, the big surprise of the campaign so far is Hillary cannot answer questions that are not part of her script(see planted questions)The smartest woman in the world according to partisan dems can't even think on her feet when knocked off stride (see last debate) I don't want to get over confident but the GOP can beat Hillary even if we nominate Ann Coulter. She's smarter and a lot better looking.

Posted by: vbhoomes | November 13, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

'The American electorate is a fickle mistress'

hoho. Bet you'd never use that lede with Rudy, CC. I dare ya.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

I find myself frustrated that so many are still missing the 'Thompson's not going to cut it' memo. I can't see, really, any way for him to move back up, even if he manages to staunch the bleeding poll numbers.

Frustration is, even at polling high single digits, he's interfering with other candidates unnecessarily, fracturing the anti-Giuliani Republican voters and promoting the inevitably of a Rudy nomination. It would be one thing if (like Paul) he was at least contributing something new to the field and adding some lovely controversy. But his campaign, instead, is just a drag. I wish we were rid of it, rather than having to cope with it through the first few states.

And I don't get the NRLC endorsement at all. Not one bit. It's not nonsense in the way Pat-Rudy was nonsense, but it also doesn't seem to jive fully.

Posted by: Skip_Lively | November 13, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Did you know that Fred Thompson, as minority counsel, found his way onto Nixon's famous Watergate tapes?

"Oh sh-t, not that kid," said Nixon when he learned Fred Thompson had been appointed minority counsel to the Watergate investigation.

"Well, we're stuck with him," replied H.R. Haldeman.

On another occasion, Nixon said Fred was "not very smart".

"Not extremely so," agreed J. Fred Buzhardt, Nixon's lawyer, who was coaching Fred on how to act like a fearless independent investigator while really covering for Tricky Dicky.

"But he's friendly," Nixon said.

"But he's friendly," Buzhardt agreed. "We are hoping, though, to work with Thompson and prepare him".

Later, however, after seeing a bit more of Thompson, Nixon would be less generous: "He's dumb as hell."

Posted by: Bud0 | November 13, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Fred's reliance on buzzwords instead of explanations bothers me.

Competent conservatism doesn't mean anything in his context because he doesn't have an executive or legislative record to back it up.

Fred has recently decided that the best route to the White House is to break up the intergenerational compact of Social Security.

To me this shows that he believes that the government that governs least just doesn't care.

Posted by: pach12 | November 13, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

CC-- FYI, buddy. If you're gooing to do horse race, you should really cover stuff like this:

'According to CNN, Mitt Romney has spent $10.2 million on TV ads this year, breaking the record for this point during a campaign. The closest competitor on the Republican side is John McCain -- who has only spent over $300,000 on TV ads.

Bear in mind that the vast majority of that number is going towards places like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- and doesn't even count other media like radio and print advertising. Thus, the reason for Romney's leads in the key states is becoming clearer.'

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

The Thompson campaign is about ego and delusion. His wife convinced him to run. He has a huge payroll but no message. He missed the boat for this election cycle and has lost credibility by running. He has absolutley no shot at winning the GOP nomination. The handlers and consultants should know better & are just living on the gravy train while it lasts through February. I hope he gets residual income through all of the Law & Order episodes!

Posted by: cel1ery | November 13, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/new_tancredo_ad_depicts_fictional_terrorist_attack.php

oh, you gotta watch this -- it's the first of I'm sure many wet-your-pants, the-muslims-are-coming ads.

i woulda thought rudy would have done this one, but tancredo got there first.. last screen --

Tancredo--before it's too late.

Precious.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 9:47 AM | Report abuse

I always thought that Thompson's strength would have been as a running mate. He is southern and can speak well when he is given a script. Guiliani/Thompson or something like that. But he has done so poor in the past month that I don't know if anyone would touch him with a ten foot pole.

Posted by: AndyR3 | November 13, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I was being generous.

Posted by: Blarg | November 13, 2007 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Blarg writes
"He spent 1.5 terms as a senator"

Not to be pedantic or a nit picker, but you over-credit the senator a full year. He spent 1.33333 terms as a Senator...

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Fred the potential candidate was much more popular than Fred the candidate because he was standing in - a veritable understudy - for None of the Above before he entered the race. Upon entering, he was no longer all things to all (conservative) people - he had to start taking positions, which inevitably exposed the differences between Fred the candidate and None of the Above, driving his ostensible supporters back to the latter. It takes a talented politician to pull off the all things to all people act; Thompson is no Clinton.

Posted by: bsimon | November 13, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Fred has made a couple crucial mistakes. Well, letting his wife run his campaign was the first and most critical. But in speaking, he just wanders off the reservation, not understanding the direction the R base has gone.

He said to a crowd last week -- that some said he didn't have the fire in the belly to be president. He siad, you don't want someone with fire in the belly to have their finger on the nuclear button--which actually makes sense to me in a way. But the crowd was totally baffled--because they do. The base WANTS war -- aggression, blood, testerone--what they perceive to be manly and authoritarian. He's gone, over his head.

He also said, 'we don't want to deny their legal rights to young women, to criminalize them or their parents' when asked about abortion. Wrong wrong wrong for this audience. Why he got the nod from the anti abortion group I cannot fathom. Desperation on their part, I guess. Rudy will take the nom -- here's why-- he understands the code, the language:

'COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) - When faced with several questions about AIDS in Africa during a recent campaign stop in South Carolina, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani offered few specifics on public health issues but said that increasing U.S. trade with Africa will help "the problems, the issues, everything" facing the continent.'

all the R nominee needs to do is memorize a few words and phrases and repeat them endlessly:

9/11
free trade
no taxes
small government
activist judges
culture of life
strict construction
bad guys
Hitler
Islamofascists
victory
nukes
liberals bad
guns good
school choice
prayer

Did I leave anything out? It's a small vocabulary,kind of like talking to a dog -- you gotta keep it real simple. but rudy has mastered it, so he will be the nominee.

Posted by: drindl | November 13, 2007 9:04 AM | Report abuse

I never saw Thompson's appeal, and never got a clear explanation of it from Thompson supporters. He spent 1.5 terms as a senator, in which he did nothing especially interesting. Besides that, he was a trial attorney, a B-list actor, and a lobbyist. He seems to have little interest in governing or policy.

Given that resume, you wouldn't expect Thompson to be a top-tier candidate. But he managed to work the media so that there was a lot of buzz about his campaign, and that got him good poll numbers. Then voters noticed that there's no reason to support the guy, and his numbers dropped like a stone. In a way, that's encouraging. It shows that American voters aren't complete suckers.

Posted by: Blarg | November 13, 2007 8:52 AM | Report abuse

"Why the dems (repubs) would even think about nominating Hillary (Romney/Guiliani)when they have such a inspirational speaker like Obama (Huckabee) is hard for me to do understand."

I call it "The politics of Fear" and both parties have mastered it. They will promote the idea that only one candidate (Hillary/Guiliani) can defeat the opposition (Guiliani/Hillary). As such, the constituency must put aside their preferences in order to keep the "other side" from gaining control.

I suspect that, like sheep, Americans will fall for it. Thus, candidates such as Obama, Huckabee and Paul will not be given serious consideration. These three are flawed men, to be sure. But they at least seem to have some integrity, have the courage of their convictions and stand by them. Unlike the annointed ones, IMHO.

Posted by: MDLaxer | November 13, 2007 8:31 AM | Report abuse

I think it's a matter of Fred Thompson: The Candidate not living up to Fred Thompson: The Buzz.

And it's not just about hype either. I think the media and Republicans built Thompson up to be the savior of disgruntled conservatives everywhere only to be sorely disappointed by his federalist views on social issues like gay marriage. It seems like Thompson is closer to Rudy Giuliani than to Mike Huckabee. The problem is that there's not enough room in the field for both Giuliani and Thompson in terms of being "tough on national security" moderates/pragmatists. So I think Republican voters will stick with the more viable and more credible candidate.

Also, his lack of preparedness regarding knowing about major issues of the day (drilling in the Everglades, the Jena 6 case, Terri Schiavo, etc.) is very off-putting for someone who aspires to be the commander in chief. This lack of preparation and the incongruity between perception and reality have combined to sink Thompson.

Thompson will not win Iowa or New Hampshire and now he has to contend with Romney and Huckabee in South Carolina, his strongest state. If he can't win any of these three states, he's finished. I just don't see it happening for him.

I wrote about Fred Thompson's problems several weeks ago here:

http://www.theseventen.com/2007/09/fred-thompson-disconnect-part-iii.html

http://www.theseventen.com/2007/09/fred-thompson-disconnect-part-ii.html

http://www.theseventen.com/2007/09/fred-thompson-disconnect.html

Posted by: theseventen | November 13, 2007 8:13 AM | Report abuse

"The American electorate is a fickle mistress. Just ask former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.)."

Fred Thompson's candidacy, which was mainly media hype anyway, was only appealing to a small slice of the American electorate anyway. What we have now is even that group's recognition of Mr. Thompson's incompetent senility.

Posted by: nicekid | November 13, 2007 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Fred has shown that he doesn't know how to run a presidential campaign and that he has essentially taken the anti-Rudy vote for granted. Obviously, that's not the case anymore.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | November 13, 2007 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Bhoomes how about this
"Why the (Repubs) would even think about nominating (Romney/Guiliani) when they have such a inspirational speaker like (Huckabee) is hard for me to do understand. Maybe the establishment is simply afraid of (Huckabee) because they know how (honest) (he) can be."

Sometimes voters just don't make sense. I personally would LOVE to see an Obama vs Huckabee race. It might be the first time in decades when we would get a chance to choose between two genuinly nice people who I think have real visions for this country and where it can go.

Posted by: AndyR3 | November 13, 2007 7:08 AM | Report abuse

CC writes "his fundamental message -- competent conservatism"

The problem is that everyone realized that he isn't competent, and not really a conservative, at least socially. Really this is a demonstration of what happens when you let a non-professional political operative call the shots for a campaign. His wife killed his campaign before he even got started. She ran off the people who got him his support in the begining. Not to mention that the rich white men who control the GOP love young pretty women, but they love them to be quiet and support literacy programs and leave the big stuff to their sugar daddies.

Its also one reason why they hate Hillary so much.

Posted by: AndyR3 | November 13, 2007 7:02 AM | Report abuse

I was initially excited about Fred but I was turned off by two things, taking to much time to announce his candidacy and his apparent lack of energy. I just do not believe he has the 'want to" to do the things necessary to win. I believe strongly a Romney/Hucabee ticket would be tough to beat. Why the dems would even think about nominating Hillary when they have such a inspirational speaker like Obama is hard for me to do understand. Maybe the establishment is simply afraid of the Clintons because they know how nasty they can be.

Posted by: vbhoomes | November 13, 2007 7:00 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company