Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAside from the fact that George W. Bush is a great president and the Iraq war is an epic struggle in defense of freedom, GOP candidates united around one other theme in their Fox News debate last night: attacking Fred Thompson.
Mike Huckabee: "You know, Fred is from Nashville, Tennessee, home of George Jones, who was often called 'no-show George' for not showing up at his concerts. And maybe Senator Thompson will be known as the no-show for the presidential debates."
Mitt Romney: "The only question I have for Senator Thompson is: Why the hurry? Why not take some more time off? Maybe January, February might be a better time to make a final decision about getting in this race."
Rudy Giuliani: "I think he's done a pretty good job of playing my part on 'Law & Order.' I personally prefer the real thing."
Judging by the attacks you can tell it's finally official: Thompson is in. Despite the Tonight Show treatment, the former Tennessee Senator hardly enjoyed a warm welcome from his GOP colleagues--or an easy go of it in his prolonged "testing the waters" phrase. We've seen numerous staff shakeups, less-than-impressive fundraising, conflicting reports about his lengthy career as a Washington lobbyist and questions about his temperament and durability (see the recent Newsweek cover headline: "Lazy Like a Fox").
David Corn on his blog notes that Thompson is like his archetype Ronald Reagan--in a bad way. He told Bloomberg News that overhauling Social Security would be one of his top priorities as president. When asked how his plan would differ from Bush's, Thompson responded: "I don't even remember the details of his plan."
No matter. As long as he drives a red pickup truck, Thompson won't have to sweat the small stuff.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Just what we need: anther fat, lazy, ignorant old white guy. Yuk.
Posted by tomshef at 09/06/2007 @ 2:57pm
I'm really falling in love with the republican field of candidates. Oooh, it'll be exciting to see which one will lose!
Posted by MATTMAN at 09/06/2007 @ 2:59pm
Apparently the GOP field has the same fear as the Dems and Left....Thompson may be the key to saving their ass in 2008.
I personally doubt it. He's got the "qualifiers". Actor (Reagan, natch)....Southern (or cowboy or both) (no Yankee non-incumbent has won since Kennedy)....and enough "down home common sense" talk to run rings around the wonkishness of your typical Democrat trying to explain their plan for Federal aide in resolving credit card/bankruptcy insolvency and restitution of credit plans vis-a-vis the counter-problem of home equity and comparable blah,blah,blah,blah,blah....
But I don't think even Thompson can pull it off versus Hillary. It'll be TIGHTER (much more than Romney or Huckabee), but after 8 years of Bush...unless Thompson "moves Center" and says Bush was a failure, after the Republican Convention of course, doubt he can pull it off.
Posted by Mask at 09/06/2007 @ 3:07pm
And what would you prefer, TOMSHEF? A skinny, inexperienced, naive black guy? Or perhaps a slick, elitist play-to-the-crowd socialist ex-first lady?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/06/2007 @ 4:21pm
And what would you prefer, TOMSHEF? A skinny, inexperienced, naive black guy? Or perhaps a slick, elitist play-to-the-crowd socialist ex-first lady?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/06/2007 @ 4:21pm
Beats hell out of a pretend cowboy. Obama has the intelligence necessary for the job, unlike the current Moron-in-Chief.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/06/2007 @ 4:25pm
Just what we need: anther fat, lazy, ignorant old white guy. Yuk.
Posted by TOMSHEF 09/06/2007 @ 2:57pm
You left out "flip-flopper" and hypocrite.
Fred will believe ANYTHING if the pay is right..........
Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/06/2007 @ 4:27pm
At this point, Fred is basically a vote for, "none of the above". We'll have to see if he is for real.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/06/2007 @ 2:56pm
HE ISN'T....
When asked by a reporter a couple of months ago what he would do as President, Thompson replied, "Oh, lots of things." From all of his public pronouncements so far, he sounds even dumber than Bush, if that's possible. He's not an actor playing a character, he's a character playing an actor.
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/06/2007 @ 4:40pm
Posted by MASK 09/06/2007 @ 3:07pm
On top of that, apparently he rides in his limo to campaign stops, gets out, hops in his red pickup, and then drives about the last two blocks to make his "country boy" entrance. I mean, how fucking PHONY can you get? At least, Bush actually does drive his pickup around his ranch and actually does clear brush, apparently. (Oh, no! I said something positive about Bush. Gag, choke.)
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/06/2007 @ 4:45pm
Posted by W_M_BEAR 09/06/2007 @ 4:45pm
Everybody has their phoneyness, BEAR. Gore talks a good game on global warming, yet buys off his "carbon footprint" by investing in his OWN company. Obama talks progressive when he has to, and votes moderate when it counts. Edwards (as noted by Kerry/Edwards campaign chief Bob Shrum) wasn't "fooled by Bush" into voting for the war in Iraq...his advisors told him he needed to do it, in order to run in 2004 as "strong on defense".
No excuse for Thompson's.....just saying EVERY major player in politics is doing some bit of an "act".
Posted by Mask at 09/06/2007 @ 4:49pm
here it is:
Fred Thompson on Abortion
Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)
Appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007)
Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Fred Thompson on Budget & Economy
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)
Fred Thompson on Civil Rights
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted NO on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Fred Thompson on Corporations
Commerce clause does not mean Feds can regulate everything. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Fred Thompson on Crime
Impose truth in sentencing for violent crime. (Nov 1994)
Voted NO on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995)
Fred Thompson on Drugs
Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)
Fred Thompson on Education
Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on Educational Savings Accounts. (Mar 2000)
Voted YES on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999)
Voted YES on education savings accounts. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Fred Thompson on Energy & Oil
Solar system is warming, not earth. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Fred Thompson on Environment
Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Voted YES on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
Fred Thompson on Families & Children
Voted YES on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors. (May 1999)
Fred Thompson on Foreign Policy
Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002)
Voted NO on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (Apr 1998)
Voted NO on $17.9 billion to IMF. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996)
Fred Thompson on Free Trade
Market does more for freedom & prosperity than planners. (Jun 2007)
Protectionist trade policies are defensive & defeatist. (May 2007)
Markets do more for freedom than any central planner. (May 2007)
Protectionist trade policies are defensive & defeatist. (May 2007)
Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997)
Voted YES on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market. (May 1995)
Fred Thompson on Government Reform
Passionate supporter of states rights. (Jun 2007)
Term limits counter professionalization of politics. (May 2007)
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (Mar 1996)
Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)
Fred Thompson on Gun Control
Allowing concealed carry could have limited VA Tech massacre. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
Fred Thompson on Health Care
Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
Voted NO on medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996)
Fred Thompson on Homeland Security
Europe mothballs its fleet, when all should build military. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures. (May 1999)
Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999)
Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. (Oct 1997)
Voted NO on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)
Voted YES on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty. (Jun 1996)
Voted YES on 1996 Defense Appropriations. (Sep 1995)
Fred Thompson on Immigration
Opposes amnesty in any form. (Jun 2007)
Nation loses sovereignty if it cannot secure its own borders. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)
Fred Thompson on Jobs
Voted YES on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (May 1997)
Voted YES on replacing farm price supports. (Feb 1996)
Fred Thompson on Principles & Values
Reveals he suffers from cancer, but it won't affect campaign. (Jun 2007)
Religious affiliation: Protestant. (Nov 2000)
Fred Thompson on Social Security
Social Security & Medicare are generational wealth transfers. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
Voted YES on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (May 1998)
Voted YES on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998)
Voted YES on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. (May 1996)
Fred Thompson on Tax Reform
Progressive tax redistributes wealth without helping economy. (Jun 2007)
Taxes burden production; keep rates as low as possible. (May 2007)
Tax cuts stimulate the economy. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
Fred Thompson on Technology
Voted YES on Internet sales tax moratorium. (Oct 1998)
Voted YES on telecomm deregulation. (Feb 1996)
Fred Thompson on War & Peace
I would do essentially what the president's doing in Iraq. (Jun 2007)
Take any chance to not get run out of Iraq. (Jun 2007)
Internationalizing war effort will not win the war. (Jun 2007)
President must decide on war based on unclear evidence. (Jun 2007)
Prophets of doom are wrong--we can't cut-and-run. (Jun 2007)
Goal of Iraqi enemies is to demoralize us. (Jun 2007)
Serious & painful international sanctions on nuclear Iran. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. (Nov 1995)
Fred Thompson on Welfare & Poverty
Voted YES on welfare block grants. (Aug 1996)
Voted NO on eliminating block grants for food stamps. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on allowing state welfare waivers. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on welfare overhaul. (Sep 1995)
my first impression is that he is very contradictory and inconsistent. second impression is that if some with this record become your president, the world would let out a big fart in retort. i wouldn't touch this dude with a ten-metre pole. his environmental record matches craig's. on war and peace i only see war. won't ban chemical weapons = asshole. health care is 100% corporate. this guy is a waste of time
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 5:03pm
He's not an actor playing a character, he's a character playing an actor.
Posted by W_M_BEAR 09/06/2007 @ 4:40pm
that could become his campaign slogan--nice ring to it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 5:04pm
Just what we need: anther fat, lazy, ignorant old white guy. Yuk.
Posted by TOMSHEF 09/06/2007 @ 2:57pm
I like the sound of this campaign slogan
Posted by MATTMAN at 09/06/2007 @ 6:48pm
Any bets on how often "Die Hard-2" (with Thompson as the gruff, but tough airport manager..."rack 'em, stack 'em, and pack 'em")...and "Hunt for Red October" (with Thompson as the gruff, but tough aircraft carrier commander..."You might cut the kid some slack, Charlie")....and "In The Line of Fire" (with Thompson as the gruff, but tough WH Chief of Staff..."By God, if you call me Harry once more, you'll be busting counterfeiters in Alaska!")
we'll see on TNT, TBS, AMC, Bravo, even the History Channel in the next year and a half?
Posted by Mask at 09/06/2007 @ 7:43pm
Posted by MASK 09/06/2007 @ 7:43pm
I know I'm looking forward to witnessing the emotional dynamism, the creative genius of Fred Thompson the actor in his biggest role yet: acting busy! Funny how the stereotype of political activism in Hollyweird is of the lefty, vegetarian, socialist, Film Actor's Guild member when every actor to enter politics is republican.
Posted by MATTMAN at 09/06/2007 @ 8:14pm
hey mask,
i went a-googling to see if i could out-obscure-movie-reference you when i found this gem:
Thompson's secret role in Watergate Tapes reveal bonds with Nixon defense
By Joan Lowy | Associated Press July 9, 2007
WASHINGTON - Fred Thompson gained an image as a tough-minded investigative counsel for the Senate Watergate committee. Yet President Nixon and his top aides viewed the fellow Republican as a willing, if not too bright, ally, according to White House tapes.
Thompson, now preparing a bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, won fame in 1973 for asking a witness, former White House aide Alexander Butterfield, the bombshell question that revealed Nixon had installed hidden listening devices and taping equipment in the Oval Office.
Those tapes show Thompson had a behind-the-scenes role very different from his public image three decades ago. He comes across as a partisan willing to cooperate with the Nixon White House to discredit the committee's star witness.
It was Thompson who tipped off the White House that the Senate committee knew about the tapes. They eventually cinched Nixon's downfall in the scandal resulting from the break-in at Democratic headquarters in the Watergate complex in Washington and the subsequent White House cover-up.
Thompson, then 30, was appointed counsel by his political mentor, Tennessee Sen. Howard Baker, the top Republican on the Senate investigative committee. Thompson had been an assistant U.S. attorney in Nashville and had managed Baker's re-election campaign. Thompson later was a senator himself.
Nixon was disappointed with the selection of Thompson, whom he called "dumb as hell." The president didn't think Thompson was skilled enough to interrogate unfriendly witnesses and would be outsmarted by the panel's Democratic counsel.
This assessment comes from audiotapes of White House conversations at the National Archives in College Park, Md., and from transcripts of those discussions that are published in "Abuse of Power: The New Nixon Tapes" by historian Stanley Kutler. The tapes also disclose Nixon using an expletive and calling Thompson "that kid" when told by his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, of Thompson's appointment on Feb. 22, 1973.
"Well, we're stuck with him," Haldeman said.
In a meeting later that day in the Old Executive Office Building, Baker assured Nixon that Thompson was up to the task. "He's tough. He's 6 feet 5 inches, a big mean fella," the senator told Nixon.
Publicly, Baker and Thompson presented themselves as dedicated to uncovering the truth. But Baker had secret meetings and conversations with Nixon and his top aides, while Thompson worked cooperatively with the White House. He also accepted coaching from Nixon's lawyer, J. Fred Buzhardt, the tapes and transcripts show.
On one tape, Nixon expressed concern that Thompson was not "very smart."
"Not extremely so," Buzhardt agreed.
"But he's friendly," Nixon said.
"But he's friendly," Buzhardt agreed. "We are hoping, though, to work with Thompson and prepare him, if [ex-White House counsel John] Dean does appear next week, to do a very thorough cross-examination."
Five days later, Buzhardt reported to Nixon that he had primed Thompson for the Dean cross-examination.
"I found Thompson most cooperative, feeling more Republican every day," Buzhardt said.
Thompson, who declined to comment for this article, described himself in his book, "At That Point in Time," published in 1975, as a Nixon administration "loyalist" who struggled with his role as minority counsel. "I would try to walk a fine line between a good-faith pursuit of the investigation and a good-faith attempt to ensure balance and fairness," Thompson wrote.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 8:28pm
.....just saying EVERY major player in politics is doing some bit of an "act".
Posted by MASK 09/06/2007 @ 4:49pm | ignore this person
Just curious Mask...if "every" major player in politics is doing it, why did you just single out 3 Dems to hammer about it (one of whom isn't even running for anything)?
Why didn't you mention examples with Rudy, Mitt, or McCain?
Posted by Lillian at 09/06/2007 @ 8:33pm
useless info:
here's a list of acting creds for phreddy t.:
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (2007) (TV) .... President Ulysses S. Grant
"Law & Order" .... D.A. Arthur Branch (116 episodes, 2002-2007)
Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World (2005) .... Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson
"Law & Order: Criminal Intent" .... D.A. Arthur Branch (1 episode, 2005)
Last Best Chance (2005) (V) .... President Charles Ross
Racing Stripes (2005) (voice) .... Sir Trenton
Evel Knievel (2004) (TV) .... Jay Sarno
Rachel and Andrew Jackson: A Love Story (2001) (TV) .... Voice of Andrew Jackson
"Sex and the City" .... Politician on TV (1 episode, 2000)
- Politically Erect (2000) TV Episode .... Politician on TV
Baby's Day Out (1994) .... FBI Agent Dale Grissom
In the Line of Fire (1993) .... White House Chief of Staff Harry Sargent
Born Yesterday (1993) .... Sen. Hedges
Barbarians at the Gate (1993) (TV) .... Jim Robinson
"Matlock" .... Gordon Lewis / ... (2 episodes, 1989-1993 ) - The Juror (1993) TV Episode .... Prosecutor Mr. McGonigal
- The Hunting Party (1989) TV Episode .... Gordon Lewis
Keep the Change (1992) (TV) .... Otis
Day-O (1992) (TV) .... Frank DeGeorgio
Stay the Night (1992) (TV) .... Det. Malone
White Sands (1992) (uncredited) .... Arms Dealer
Thunderheart (1992) .... William Dawes
Bed of Lies (1992) (TV) .... Richard 'Racehorse' Haynes
Aces: Iron Eagle III (1992) .... Stockman
Cape Fear (1991) .... Tom Broadbent
Curly Sue (1991) .... Bernard Oxbar
Necessary Roughness (1991) .... Carver Purcell
Class Action (1991) .... Dr. George Getchell
Flight of the Intruder (1991) (uncredited) .... Court-Martial Captain
Die Hard 2 (1990) .... Trudeau
Days of Thunder (1990) .... Big John
The Hunt for Red October (1990) .... Rear Admiral Joshua Painter - USS Enterprise
Fat Man and Little Boy (1989) .... Maj. Gen. Melrose Hayden Barry
"Roseanne" .... Keith Faber (1 episode, 1989)
"China Beach" .... Lt. Col. Reinhardt (1 episode, 1989)
"Wiseguy" .... Knox Pooley (3 episodes, 1988)
Feds (1988) .... Bill Bilecki
Unholy Matrimony (1988) (TV) (as Fred Thompson) .... Frank Sweeny
No Way Out (1987) .... CIA Director Marshall
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 8:51pm
Posted by MATTMAN 09/06/2007 @ 8:14pm
Odd though, isn't it? The conservative/Republican actors get elected (Reagan, Ah'nuld, Thompson, Sonny Bono, etc.)...the liberal/Democratic ones rarely do. Yet Hollywood is the whipping boy of the Right?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 09/06/2007 @ 9:28pm
Posted by LILLIAN 09/06/2007 @ 8:33pm
Sigh...okay, LIL. Fine. McCain is a Bush kiss-ass now, not the "maverick" anymore. Mitt is a flip-flopper to put even the IMAGE of John Kerry to shame. And Rudy is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and anti-gun...but won't say one HONEST thing about those issues until the General Election, when he needs to blunt Hillary and distance himself from Bush and the neo-cons.
Now, care to show YOUR balance and admit Gore is a phoney, as are Obama and Edwards, as is Hillary...and no matter which of them gets the Democratic nomination...
I'll be voting for them, just as you will.
Posted by Mask at 09/06/2007 @ 9:33pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/06/2007 @ 8:28pm |
Sorry, FROSTY, but "Nixon called Thompson dumb"?!?!? That and "He's got a hot babe wife" and "He was a lobbyist!!!!!" seem to be the best they can throw against the guy.
I think I know why he worries so many people. (But again, it's to no avail, I think.)
Posted by Mask at 09/06/2007 @ 9:39pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/06/2007 @ 5:03pm
These are the very reasons conservatives will come out and vote for him..en mass..
I think the giddiness displayed here is just whistling past the grave yard..
If he doesn't step on himself or his tongue, which he may yet do, then he could very easily beat Hillary...
Even a debate with he and Hillary would be the ticket in town...6'6" southern drawl whitty dude and 5' nuthin' Edwards? Nah,
Tall lankey big earred Obama? Nah,
Stumpy legged Hillary looking like and sounding like evreyones ex wife nightmare as he gets her temper flared at hello? Priceless and I can't wait..
I hope Thompson dosn't fizzle out..watch the press chew on him tho..they like Hillary.
He has the look and feel of a conservative that the party has been looking for and could bring out the voters in large numbers, combined with the number of voters who will come out to vote against Hillary because Hillary is Hillary,..well, Frank may have to "bring it on and clean out his pants". Thompson would not be afraid to ask Hillary questions that the press won't...and it will make Hillary squirm and Frank wet his pants..
On the other hand, Thompson could fizzle..too early, but I like the fact he passed on the debates, as if they are debates,...and "won" the evening anyway.
He is dangerous and thats why the dems must be careful...for if the dems don't pick Franks wet dream(we all know she already has it), and go with any of the others..it is over for the dems..
Hilary is the only one who could stop the Repubs in 08 is the point....and Frank will get his wish..but it may go down with a rake...
Posted by john maasch at 09/06/2007 @ 10:14pm
Sorry, FROSTY, but "Nixon called Thompson dumb"?!?!? That and "He's got a hot babe wife" and "He was a lobbyist!!!!!" seem to be the best they can throw against the guy.
I think I know why he worries so many people. (But again, it's to no avail, I think.)
Posted by MASK 09/06/2007 @ 9:39pm
go back up and check his voting record.
this guy's a moron.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 10:51pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/06/2007 @ 10:14pm
god help us
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 10:52pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/06/2007 @ 10:14pm
Good post! I definitely agree. People who consider themselves Conservative and felt let down by some of Bush's leftist legislation and tendencies will come out in droves for this guy, as he seems pretty far removed from his Congressional days. Doesn't seem like a beltway guy anymore.
At this point, he's got my strongest consideration, and the DNC and their supporters are right to fear old Fred.
Yet Hollywood is the whipping boy of the Right?!?!?
Posted by MASK 09/06/2007 @ 9:28pm
That's because the lefties in HW won't run for any office. They're mostly narcissistic loud-mouths who know that there is no such thing as bad publicity. And since they're not accountable for the end result of what they actually propose, they value the appearance of being hip by the young crowd more so than actually fixing anything.
Posted by Sliver at 09/06/2007 @ 10:53pm
Yet Hollywood is the whipping boy of the Right?!?!?
Posted by MASK 09/06/2007 @ 9:28pm
That's because the lefties in HW won't run for any office. They're mostly narcissistic loud-mouths who know that there is no such thing as bad publicity. And since they're not accountable for the end result of what they actually propose, they value the appearance of being hip by the young crowd more so than actually fixing anything.
Posted by SLIVER 09/06/2007 @ 10:53pm | ignore this person
Hey Sliver, are you talking about Reagan or Arnold here? Because the bolded part seems to apply equally to both of them.
Posted by Lillian at 09/06/2007 @ 10:59pm
this guy's a moron.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/06/2007 @ 10:51pm | ignore this person
Frosty, given what passes for thoughtful consideration with John Mush, when he said that's why conservatives would vote for Thmpson"..en mass..", that's basically what he meant.
And actually, I think he's right...conservatives so seem to love to vote for their morons!
Posted by Lillian at 09/06/2007 @ 11:03pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/06/2007 @ 10:51pm
If the definition of "moron" is "Republican" (easiest set-up for joke in the world, guys...come on!)...you're right.
But again, if Karl Rove can take a lame-ass TX gov who traded Sammy Sosa and beat "8 years of peace and prosperity"...they can work with ol' Fred.
I just don't think it's going to be enough.
Posted by Mask at 09/06/2007 @ 11:06pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/06/2007 @ 10:14pm
if this is the kind of voting record that would inspire anybody, then ......................
i'm at a loss. it seems inconceivable to me that these things could be seen as qualities. i guess i need to bang my head against the wall some more.
bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk!
ah! that's better. chemical weapons--hooray! abstinence education--great idea! no gas milage standards--excellent! bush is right in iraq--of course! gun purchase background checks--why!
bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk!
ah that feel's good.
"hey, honey! how 'bout fixin' us some wonderbread and plastic sandwiches?"
feel's so good.
bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 11:08pm
I just don't think it's going to be enough.
Posted by MASK 09/06/2007 @ 11:06pm
pray. pray. vote thrice, please.
vote for the ol' froster, will ya'
please.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 11:10pm
Posted by SLIVER 09/06/2007 @ 10:53pm
Actually most of the actors-turned-politicians weren't your top-of-the-line "Harrison Ford/Meryl Streep/Al Pacino" types. They were the character actors, supporting actors, and action heroes (and even Ah'nuld merely road a wave of anti-Gray Davis'ism).
The rest like the activism. It's cheap, quick, boosts their monumental egos, and makes it seem as if they're "giving back", while raking in 1-3-5-10 million a picture. Politics would be a pay-cut!
Posted by Mask at 09/06/2007 @ 11:11pm
Señor Maasch:
have you learned you "Tiananmen Song" yet?
if you haven't found it, let me know.
i'll gladly repost it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 11:13pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/06/2007 @ 11:10pm
Thompson may be the best...but the best won't be good enough. To win the nomination, he has to play to the PONTI, LVLIB, RIO, BARRY Crowd and that means sucking upto Bush and going rah-rah on Iraq.....then trying to "walk it back" for the General Election with a public that has 70% disapprovals for both Bush and Iraq.
Meanwhile, Hillary merely asks "Want to go back to the 90s? Surpluses, no 100 dead GIs a month, no warrentless wiretaps, booming economy? Or more of Bush'ism from Fred (Rudy, Mitt, Mike)?"
And watch the Red States go Blue.
Posted by Mask at 09/06/2007 @ 11:14pm
Mask, if you want to talk about how modern politics has devolved into MANY candidates, on BOTH sides, investing inordinate amounts of time, energy, and resources into creating an image...and dedicating WAY too much of their resources into maintaining that image...at the expense of actually working to wards the changes that their images would suggest they favor...then I say that's great. Let's do that. We could start with Reagan, who is the absolute personification of 'false image' over 'actual substance' and whom many would say raised the whole 'image' piece to the ridculous levels that it has reached.
Or, if you prefer, we could start with Rudy, and his image as 'Mr. 911' when in fact, the reality of his failures in response to that tragedy stands in STARK contrast to the bogus image his handlers have created for him (as documented here...http://therealrudy.org/).
Or maybe we could start with George Bush, who was raised a rich kid from Connecticut but created down-home, 'good ol' boy personna, complete with fake drawl, in order to win a political contest in Texas.
Or, since this thread is about Thompson, we could use Bear's example and look seriously at Fred's efforts clearly documented even at Faux news here...http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294701,00.html.
Those would sure seem to be a better starting point than the 'false equivalency' created by pulling out some Gore BS (even though Gore isn't even running for anything) and pretending like his obvious dedication to the subject of global warming (30+ years) is some kind of an act meant to underpin an 'image' that was created for him. Same with Edwards, who, last time I checked, really does have a lower-middle class upbringing, really did put himself through college, really did create his own success story, and really has spent his public service career in genuine dedication to finding ways to alleviate poverty.
I would even draw a distinction between the 'false image' thing and obvious political pragmatism as displayed by Obama, Hillary, Mitt, and McCain. These are all smart politicians who know how to work, and survive in, the political system.
I think there's a real line (OK, cue the arguments about how thin) between 'being' a political leader and maintaining a public image (FDR) and 'playing' a political leader (Reagan...and now Thompson.)
Sadly, it would seem that many don't think there's a distinction at all...and we end up with Reagan.
Posted by Lillian at 09/06/2007 @ 11:43pm
No excuse for Thompson's.....just saying EVERY major player in politics is doing some bit of an "act".
Posted by MASK 09/06/2007 @ 4:49pm
OK, THEN...
How about "Fred Thompson's EGREGIOUS phoniness"? BTW, I agree that politics -- the American brand in particular -- almost requires a certain degree of phoniness. (Since you mentioned Gore, I think this may be partly why he always seemed so uncomfortable playing the role of "politician." Some just seem more "into" it than others!)
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/06/2007 @ 11:50pm
Posted by MASK 09/06/2007 @ 11:14pm
the deeper i delve into the greed, selfishness, incompetence, malice, gluttony, hatred, ignorance, arrogance of these people, the more i feel dismay for our beautiful blue orb.
Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/06/2007 @ 11:53pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/06/2007 @ 10:14pm | ignore this person
Bush = Iraq Quagmire = Thompson
Jack Abramof = Lobbyist = Fred Thompson
Iraq War Support = Budget Deficits = Fred Thompson
Republicans = Moral Scandals = Fred Thompson
Lots of the 'math' says Fred Thompson isn't going anywhere...except TV re-runs.
Posted by Lillian at 09/06/2007 @ 11:56pm
And watch the Red States go Blue.
Posted by MASK 09/06/2007 @ 11:14pm
LET'S HOPE YOU'RE RIGHT...
My only quarrel with you about the 2008 probabilities is that I think you're taking too much for granted (not the least of which is that Bush/Cheney will actually step down and relinquish power). I take it that, if she's the Democratic nominee, you're voting for Hillary? (Or are you, like me, one of those "voting as a form of self-expression" types? I have in the past, on occasion, voted Socialist Workers out of just this impulse but pretty much stick with the Dems these days, no matter who they put up or how much they wimp out.)
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/07/2007 @ 12:00am
Lots of the 'math' says Fred Thompson isn't going anywhere...except TV re-runs.
Posted by LILLIAN 09/06/2007 @ 11:56pm
yep. i'll be looking for him on matlock.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 12:00am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/06/2007 @ 2:56pm | ignore this person
It's going to be interesting to see how quickly Thompson goes from 'none of the anove' to 'another of the above'.
The only reason people like John love him...is because the other R candidates so clearly don't have a snowball's chance of winning! Fred represents some slim ray of 'hope'...to which they are clinging desperately!
Posted by Lillian at 09/07/2007 @ 12:00am
none of the anove
none of the above
Posted by Lillian at 09/07/2007 @ 12:03am
" Ron Paul kicked ass last night in the repuglican debate. "
"I swear, repuglicans are some very disillusioned people. They just can't confront reality because the reality disgraces them."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/07/2007 @ 12:11am
I guess not everybody is as sharp as Frank..he never ceases to amaze...
Ron Paul cooked his goose last night and looked like a hysterical fool...may explain why he registers no support and why Frank thinks he is a winner..
Posted by john maasch at 09/07/2007 @ 12:30am
Hey Sliver, are you talking about Reagan or Arnold here? Because the bolded part seems to apply equally to both of them.
Posted by LILLIAN 09/06/2007 @ 10:59pm
Neither of them, Lillian....because they manned up and ran (and won). I'm surprised you can't see the distinction.
Posted by MASK 09/06/2007 @ 11:11pm
My point, exactly.
Posted by Sliver at 09/07/2007 @ 01:03am
(not the least of which is that Bush/Cheney will actually step down and relinquish power). I take it that, if she's the Democratic nominee, you're voting for Hillary? ----Posted by W_M_BEAR 09/07/2007 @ 12:00am |
Answered in reverse order.
1. Yes, no matter WHO the Dem nominee is, I'm voting for them....even ol' Dennis.
2. I wish people (such as yourself) who throw around these "Bush declares martial law and makes himself President-for-Life" theories, would explain....exactly how that would work?!??!
How the few remaining US Army and National Guard units in this country, loyal, patriotic Americans suddenly become "storm-troopers" and squelch any uprising against "El Presidente Bush"....when some 70% of THEM (or more) don't like the guy and CERTAINLY care more about America than him? Or who, even in the slimy Republican party, would support such a move? Or how THE most heavily armed country in the world (recent study of gun ownership) suddenly becomes a "cowed populace, unable to mount a resistance to tyranny"?
If you can, be interested to tear it apart like wet toilet paper. If not, best to cut back and stop sounding like RESE and PLUNGER.
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 09:16am
Posted by MASK 09/07/2007 @ 09:16am
mask, i don't think it's going to happen. mask, i don't think it's going to happen. mask, i don't think it's going to happen. mask, i don't think it's going to happen. mask, i don't think it's going to happen.
that being said:
fear is a strange thing. it makes strange people stranger. a little "jihad" goes a long way in all things machiavellian.
just thought i'd use the classic "maskian" technique of contrarian baiting.
o+} (cyclops smiley)
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 09:33am
Hilary is the only one who could stop the Repubs in 08 is the point....
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/06/2007 @ 10:14pm
Someone is changing his tune a bit from a year ago.
Posted by Hman23 at 09/07/2007 @ 09:50am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/07/2007 @ 09:33am
There are two kinds of contrarianism. 1. towards rational policy ideas or plans or political theories. 2. towards lunatic paranoia, or the tepid "almost" kind that BEAR seemed to be engaging in.
One is cynical, the other just SANITY.
Want to see some REAL RESE types...go over to "The Randi Rhodes Show" blog on Air America. Those guys make PLUNGER look like a "moderate". I read one guy who claimed that "100 guys from Blackwater Security could hold each major American city WHEN Bush declares martial law and becomes dictator!" ....another pointed out that "Blackwater just bought 5 turbo-prop 'bombers' from Brazil! What do you think THOSE are for, huh? huh?"
Reminds me of the 1970s-1980s RIGHT-wing militia/survivalist types who expected "United Nations black helos" and "Soviet-Chinese troops massing in....yep...CANADA" to invade any day now!
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 10:04am
That's because the lefties in HW won't run for any office. They're mostly narcissistic loud-mouths who know that there is no such thing as bad publicity. And since they're not accountable for the end result of what they actually propose, they value the appearance of being hip by the young crowd more so than actually fixing anything.
Posted by SLIVER 09/06/2007 @ 10:53pm |
sounds like our current Chimp. Except he wants to appear hip to the Tough guy crowd, clearing brush, stuffing his flight suit, encouraging jihadists to kill our troops.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/07/2007 @ 10:05am
Reminds me of the 1970s-1980s RIGHT-wing militia/survivalist types who expected "United Nations black helos" and "Soviet-Chinese troops massing in....yep...CANADA" to invade any day now!
Posted by MASK 09/07/2007 @ 10:04am
we need neither the russians nor the chinese. we're going to take over real soon.
BWAHAHAHAHA
we've assembled a "doomsday machine" that only swallows greedy, imperialistic, capitalists.*
just ask Commodore Matthew Decker, he'll tell you everything.
we've already filled it with conrad black, the bronfmans, david thomson, paul martin, the irving family, ted rogers..............
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 10:16am
Hilary is the only one who could stop the Repubs in 08 is the point....
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/06/2007 @ 10:14pm
Someone is changing his tune a bit from a year ago.
Posted by HMAN23 09/07/2007 @ 09:50am
Actualy, no...Hillary is and always has been the dem nominee,...and looking at the crowd she is "running against", in the primary, I don't see anyone that the current crop of repubs couldn't beat, as week as they are...but it would require the conservatives to show up, and with the current crop of Repubs, that is not a guarentee.
However, once the conservatives realise it is Bill's wife they are looking at in the WH, and combined with a Thompson..Hillary will lose..but, again, it requires conservatives to show up..Hillary can help that but more is required for a sure win for the repubs..Thompson, unless he steps on his tongue, provides the extra push..
Ergo, Hillary is the only one who can stop the repubs..she is the only one who has been preparing for this for over 30 years..thats one of my problems with the dems..life long goals of being in govt power...most of us prepare ourselves for lifes survival on our own power...most repubs enter politics AFTER they have achieved something in life...not lifes acheivement IS govt..just my opinion..
Posted by john maasch at 09/07/2007 @ 10:18am
john, you said cuba bad, china good
since you have yet to respond i'll try one more time:
great scott! john go to Tiananmen Square and sing my little song:
Falun Gong,
sing my song.
4 babies for every house.
----------------------
let the tibetans free
the world can see
the police state on the march.
------------------------
Hu Jintao is a cow,
Wen Jiabao an ugly sow,
when will china be free?
---------------
scream out loud
strong and proud
the army won't frighten me
-------------------
democracy
is plain to see
'cept on google or t.v.
-------------
the rural man
gets fucked around
driven to the ground
---------------
Hu Jintao is a cow,
Wen Jiabao an ugly sow,
when will china be free?
and that's just a start john. if you want, i can write another 5,342 verses.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 10:23am
You neo-cons are killing me with laughter.
Now you want to elect an actor from hollywood, an actor that as far as I can tell, has never run anything larger than an office. All he has is a voting record and pays tubs from Hollywood and lobbyists. At least Ray-gun had run California and been heavily involved in running a union where he named names. He also ordered troops to attack citizens involved in non-violent protests.
so, why do the neo-cons want another pure politician/actor instead of somebody with experience running large organizations? Because he looks and acts tough. He supports the failed policies of ChimpCo, policies the smart neo's surely can see have lead to the mess in messopotamia.
If the neo's are going to support the extended Iraq mess, when will they step up and join with their kids?
(ps, MASCH has proclaimed himself a "libertarian, but when an actual libertarian, Paul, steps up to the mike, he calls him a clown.)
Posted by crabwalk at 09/07/2007 @ 10:25am
Only Maasch could look at a man born to poverty, with an alcoholic step dad, who became a Rhodes Scholar, governor of his state and President of the Untied States, and say this man did not accomplish anything.
Or a women who became a good lawyer, then helped her man (some say she IS the reason Bill did so good in politics) become Governor and President, got elected to the Senate, raises millions of dollars from pro-business types, is recognized the world over. But she did not accomplish anything
then his hero is a guy that never got a job without family backing, never made a real buck without public financing, never ran anything in his life till he ran the military into the ground, ran as a Texan when he is from CT, ran as a tough guy after he ran from service to his country, bloated the beeyrocracy of the guvt, produced a Dept of Homeland Security that has failed to do it's job (according to the GAO) and cannot speak clearly when it is written down in front of him.
I am laughin my ass off.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/07/2007 @ 10:35am
Or the other Hero, Dick Cheney, who accomplished nothing till he took over Hallibuton, where the stock fell till the company finally made it rich off tax dollars, overcharging to the tune of millions of Johns hard earned dollars.
Man, I am going to have to get my butt sewed back on after this laugh fit.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/07/2007 @ 10:40am
CRABGRASS,
i doubt john is going to reply. i think he is in hong kong. if the chinese censors see him respond to my little ditty, he'll lose his business venture.
JM, i don't want to cause you any problems, just trying to let you see the folly in your logic.
Salam Alikom
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 10:47am
Did John claim China is good again?
Cuba, small island with tiny population, almost no military.
china, largest country in the world, run by communists, one of the most corrupt countries in the world, child slave labor still going on, whole river systems polluted, state required abortions, state sponsored crackdowns on democracy advocates, jailing, beating, killing of his fellow Christians, military support for the Sudanese guvt, Syria, Nigeria, Burma, one of the largest militaries in the world, huge nookyular arsenal, massive stockpiles of wmd's, holds its currency to an artificial low....
Can anybody recommend a good plastic surgeon? I can't feel my as anymore, and my sides are splitting.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Cheap labor covers all ills, I guess.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/07/2007 @ 10:47am
John swing by Taiwan, ask them if we can remove our military support for their independence from China. Those ships are needed in the Gulf now.
how long do you think it would take China to swoop down and scoop up Taiwans people?
And ask your Chinese business partners when Tibet can be freed from the yoke of communism. You do remember when Raygun ran against commies, don't you?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/07/2007 @ 10:50am
A new political party
Libertarians for Communist Dictators.
headed by
John, "chairman Mao" Massch.
got your "little Red Book"? In order to work for the Chinese guvt, one MUST swear allegiance to communism, MUST be a Member of The Party.
It keeps labor costs down like nothing else on earth, except slavery.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/07/2007 @ 10:55am
looks like Hillary has some more company in the fund raising scandal page. I know RIOkoresh and Maasch will be the first to line up and call for Mitt and Chimpy to quit. And for an investigation into why the liberal media won't cover this story.
August 10th, 2007
Alan Fabian, a corporate executive from Cockeysville, Maryland, is one of Mitt Romney's most important bundlers - a former George W. Bush "Ranger" (meaning he collected over $200,000 for Dubya's campaign), now helping to gather contributions for the Romney campaign. Chris Cillizza calls these top-level bundlers "whales," and if you scroll down, you'll see Fabian's name listed.
He's also, according to Federal prosecutors in Maryland, a big-time fraudster:
A federal grand jury indicted a corporate executive who allegedly ran a scheme to make $32 million in false purchases of computer equipment, spending the money instead on beach real estate and private jet travel, prosecutors said Thursday.
Alan B. Fabian, 43, of Cockeysville, is charged in a 23-count indictment with mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice. The grand jury handed up the indictment Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Baltimore and it was unsealed Thursday
Posted by crabwalk at 09/07/2007 @ 12:49pm
I was shocked, shocked! to learn yesterday that there is graft going on in New Jersey.
Who-da thunk it?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/07/2007 @ 12:51pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/07/2007 @ 10:18am
Conservatives "showing up". See this copout over and over and over again. Funny how when Republicans win elections its some sort of conservative mandate, but when Democrats win, it is because conservatives weren't playing.
Posted by Hman23 at 09/07/2007 @ 1:08pm
FROSTY ZOOM,
Your post yesterday listing all of Thompsons stances was very informative. I went through list and found agreement with roughly 80% of each catagory. Some were 50-50 (Abortions & Taxes) although I did find him a little inconsistant as you say, All in all, he's slightly refreshing but I'm not seeing an inspirational, honest mover/shaker type in him anymore than anyone else, which is what this divided country needs right now.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/07/2007 @ 1:39pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/07/2007 @ 1:39pm
who needs clean air and water , right?
why shouldn't tax payers pay for logging roads?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/07/2007 @ 1:56pm
2. I wish people (such as yourself) who throw around these "Bush declares martial law and makes himself President-for-Life" theories, would explain....exactly how that would work?!??!
How the few remaining US Army and National Guard units in this country, loyal, patriotic Americans suddenly become "storm-troopers" and squelch any uprising against "El Presidente Bush"....when some 70% of THEM (or more) don't like the guy and CERTAINLY care more about America than him? Or who, even in the slimy Republican party, would support such a move? Or how THE most heavily armed country in the world (recent study of gun ownership) suddenly becomes a "cowed populace, unable to mount a resistance to tyranny"?
If you can, be interested to tear it apart like wet toilet paper. If not, best to cut back and stop sounding like RESE and PLUNGER.
Posted by MASK 09/07/2007 @ 09:16am | ignore this person
95% of conspiracy theories are bunk and we have enough problems with civil liberties and the militarization and surveillance of daily life without having to create them, but let's take a moment for an historical lesson here. One of the greatest shocks in the history of the left is that Adolf Hitler was allowed to come to power in Germany without a real fight. Oh, Socialist and Communist workers militias and defense battalions had fought street battles against the Nazis and other right-wing groups for years, but given the fact that the Nazis had only gotten about a third of the vote and that the Social Democrats and the Communists represented the vast majority of the German working class, the most organized working class in the world, and given the Nazis' open hostility to labor unions, workers' parties and any manifestation of labor independence and solidarity, many expected the Social Democrats and the Communists - even though they were by then under the thumb of Stalin and thoroughly purged of any "Oppositionists" - to unite in a fight to the death to prevent the fascists from taking power.
Instead, following Stalin's orders, the Communists refused to ally with the Social Democrats, and the German workers peacefully allowed their greatest enemies to take control of the state. For Leon Trotsky, who had been purged from the Soviet Communist Party and exiled from the Soviet Union, who had seen Stalin's policies result in the massacre of thousands of Communists and workers in Shanghai at the hands of Chang-kai Shek and the Kuomintang (Nationalists), who had witnessed the corruption and debasement of the Comintern and the world's Communist Parties by Stalin and his agents, and who had criticized Stalin's ill-planned and unnecessarily brutal collectivization of agriculture and industrialization of the Soviet economy, it was the failure to prevent the Nazi ascent to power, the basic inability to recognize and act when danger is staring the workers movement in the face, that was the final straw that made him declare a new international movement of revolutionary socialists was needed, that the Comintern had degenerated beyond the pale.
So, could such a shocking turn of events happen here? Could the "American Democratic experiment" be strangled in its cradle? Could a President "wag the dog" and convince enough of the public that martial law should be declared and get enough troops, cops and armed contractors in the streets to enforce order? Could he or she cow the political opposition into acquiescence? Sure. Is it likely at this point in time? No. Are the plans in place? Probably on some bureaucrat's computer or in some security consultant's file cabinet, but not on Dick Cheney's calendar. I think the far more realistic scenario is that Bush and Cheney are trying to hand the Iraq Occupation off to the next administration, and are trying to make it as hard as humanly possible for the next President, Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian or Socialist Workers, to withdraw.
Posted by cka2nd at 09/07/2007 @ 4:55pm
I think the far more realistic scenario is that Bush and Cheney are trying to hand the Iraq Occupation off to the next administration, and are trying to make it as hard as humanly possible for the next President, Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian or Socialist Workers, to withdraw.----Posted by CKA2ND 09/07/2007 @ 4:55pm
Not THAT theory I'll buy. Said it many times, the idea isn't to achieve "victory in Iraq" before January 2009 (even Bush admits it, though he cloaks it in "This is gonna be a long war on terra"), it's a "punt". Hoping Hillary or whoever (even a fellow Repub) will be the one to pull-out and then the Bush'ites (especially if it's a Dem) can say "See! See! We were 'winning' in 2007-2008, before THEY lost Iraq"
(as if 960 Iraqis dying a WEEK was "winning")
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 10:03pm
Let's bring on the issues and let the voters decide.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/07/2007 @ 5:23pm
Sounds good....Thompson running on a "I'm a Bush man" platform, no change in course, "stay in Iraq until 'victory'", etc. Everything now giving Bush a 29-32% approval rating.
Hillary running on "I'll bring back my husband's peace and prosperity".
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 10:04pm
Hillary vs someone Nixon called dumb.
a "real" conservative that is willing to block for a crook in the 70's and raise money for a convicted felon in 2007.
class act.
I can't wait to see this guy crumble in a debate.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/07/2007 @ 10:16pm
Shrillary Clinton front runner
Phred Thompson front runner
Good golly we need more parties in this country. How many ways have we gone wrong?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/07/2007 @ 10:19pm
Let's bring on the issues and let the voters decide.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/07/2007 @ 5:23pm
that's funny.
Issues!
if only.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/07/2007 @ 10:22pm
good golly, dude
you want more parties
watch "porky's*"
you want issues
watch "doctor phil"
*how embarrassing--porky's is a canadian movie
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 10:37pm