I don't really understand this Thompson phenomenon. Are the Republicans so completely panicked at the thought of any of the existing bunch actually being nominated that they are throwing their lot in with an almost unknown commodity?

Loved Jim Gilmore on MSNBC last night talking about how pardoning Libby would be a subversion of our justice system. He was then asked if Thompson was wrong to advocate a pardon. Gilmore's response was "Well, I've actually been a prosecutor, I don't just play one on TV." He's got no chance, but at least he has a sense of humor!

What is it with the right and their fascination with having lousy actors as President?

Frank: Look at what else they've got-John Marketboy McCain. Rudy, give me a buck and another wife Guiliani, Mitt flipflop Romney or eleventeen other nobodies.
Christ, I think Spongebob Squarepants would poll 25% with the GOP right now.

the midtown mousillini must be slamming his fists on the desk tonight, in a fit of rage. How dare anybody challenge his authority and have the audacity to claim to the presidency.

It is unfortunate that Republicans are not paying attention to a candidate that is running, Ron Paul. If Republicans had brains ..... ummm never mind ....

It is unfortunate that Republicans are not paying attention to a candidate that is running, Ron Paul.

Gave that one a funny flag

Fred has my vote. Good to see a straight shooter, someone who doesn't waver. A Reagan conservative.

The left better watch out.

A Republican laying around on the couch all day doing nothing isn't such a bad contrast to what we got now.

Great, another lazy incurious B actor buffoon that lets his cronies run/fuck the country.

This is better than now in what way?

I left out the
< sarc >
< / sarc >
tags.

You fruits are scared to death of Thompson.

I love it.

This is really too F'n' funny.

The GOP is in such disarray after the disastrous "Conservative" Bush Presidency that they can only field moderate to liberal non-entities for President, weak enough to be over shadowed by a nobody actor, a former do-as-little-as possible-to-get-by Senator/lobbyist/lawyer who will be thoroughly thrashed in debates with much swifter arrows than he.

Politics might actually be fun to watch again.

Another Reagan Conservative? Does he have Alzheimers too, or does he just plan on selling WMDs to Iran.

I really don't understand this Thompson phenomenon, but I guess he's worth taking a look at...

I guess he makes people think of Reagan for some reason... his video reply to Michael Moore was pretty funny... maybe that's a sign he could handle himself in the debates...

All I know is there's like 6000 people running now and none of them on either side seem to be running away with the nods...

You fruits are scared to death of Thompson.

I love it.

Posted by JeffJ


I think they know its going to be a real disaster if they don't win in 08 after this Administration... I think this is going to be the most brutal election cycle in history. And I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of civil unrest during it too...

Ron Paul is the only person that lends even a shred of redemption to the Republican line up. In fact, despite myself being a liberal, he has my vote. I'm more than happy to overlook his libertarian politics... god knows we need smaller government at this point anyway, regardless of being liberal or conservative. I knew keeping my rethug registration would come in handy.

Besides, anyone willing to take a stand against the unconstitutional Federal Reserve system and the illegal enforcement of an income tax has my vote.

Thompson vs Hillary = we lose. She is really hated. People on this board don't realize how much some of the people dislike her and they consider themselves dems. We better come up with better than her or we are sunk. Obama will make a nice vp choice for a ticket to get out the minority vote but Hillary will sink us like a rock.

A LOT of voters are far more casual than those of us here on the Retort.

In that vain.....

Thus far Thompson has given straight-forward answers to the questions he's been asked - he's done very little, if any, political dodging and double speak. He comes off as affable, likeable and down-to-earth. He has strong camera presence. He evokes images of a very popular president - Reagan.


In addition to nabbing serious voters, he's VERY likely to ensnare casual voters, and y'all know it.

You're absolutely right, Byrd.


Roma posted along the same lines yesterday - which is when I informed him that I am rooting for Hillary in the Dem primay.

He's a lazy incurious douche that doesn't think the law applies to him.

A lobbyist for 18 years? Just what we need in washington, more lobbysists.

IN Cognito-
To give Thompson credit, I think he was a trial lawyer before using his brief senate stint to land a lucrative job as a lobyyist.

Lawyer, Senator, Lobbyist, Hollywood elite cuban cigar sucking fat white baldy with a trophy wife.

I cant wait to laugh at the first dickhead that calls Fred an "outsider".

Hillary is somewhat redeemable. Even some Tighties today thought her Soprano take-off made her more likable.

And she is doing well in the Debates. She handled Chris Matthews like a pro today.

As much time as there is between now and the election, and as much as the GOP and any nominee they put up can be held responsible for George Bush, and as many votes and as much money as Bill can draw, and as many women as may come out, and as much nostalgia for the relative peace and prosperity of the Clinton years as can be raised......

and if Obama is premature in his bid, Hillary has, despite Libs who sometimes make the perfect the enemy of the good, a good chance to be President, all things considered.


Ask any thoughtful Republican strategist.

Jeff-
Imagine one being alarmed that an actor, a lobbyist, an empty shell upon whom you and Pinche "project your ideology" with the "smell (of) English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke?" would be your greatest hope to fill the most powerful position in the known universe.

Boyd,


So your objection seems to be that he's 'old', has been an actor, lobbyist and senator and that he smokes cigars?

He smokes illegal cigars. And when called on it, flaunts it on youtube messages to michael moore.

Freds political career points to MORE OF THE SAME...

And the english leather thing was really fucking creepy on Chris Matthews part. It was like i was wathcing gay soft porn instead of the news.

Jeff-
re: So your objection seems to be that he's 'old', has been an actor, lobbyist and senator and that he smokes cigars?

No. My objection is that I have yet to hear him make a declarative and substantive statement about anything of immediate importance.

Maybe you, as a fan of Thompson, can point me to a source that will disabuse me of the notion that he is little more than an actor/lobbyist with a fatherly voice that somehow reeks of manly aftershave.

Boyd- The only substantive thing I've read about him are his calvin coolidgeesque economic ideas. Creepy.

Cognito-
I suppose I'm wondering why, specifically, Jeff J. and Pinche want Thompson to be POTUS.

All I've heard is that "the left" is allegedly afraid of him, and that he could win.

My objection is that I have yet to hear him make a declarative and substantive statement about anything of immediate importance.


He's given straight-forward answers to every question I've seen asked of him, including a willingness to take military action against Iran if they are on the verge of attaining nukes.


In your opinion, has he not been asked the right questions, or has he been asked, but dodged?

I suppose I'm wondering why, specifically, Jeff J. and Pinche want Thompson to be POTUS.


What criteria do you use, Boyd?

So, Jeff - if you wouldn't mind - please tell me why you like Thompson as the next president, aside from the fact that he's a good actor who smells like a winner and has a folksy charm.

Jeff-
At this point, pretty much anything of substance you can scrape up.

Fred is the only rep they think has a chance, boyd. Seen the rep debates? There's why.

And winnability is more important than anything else. That's how kerry got in...

Jeff-
re: He's given straight-forward answers to every question I've seen asked of him, including a willingness to take military action against Iran if they are on the verge of attaining nukes.

What a bold and foolish statement. Imagine a Republican making a rash statement like that off the cuff...

What kind of "military action against Iran" did Thompson propose?

Thompson is your typical rethuglican which America does not need one iota. This is the reason we need a better candidate than Hillary who can undo the damage of GWB.

..or do you not care. Was it the willingness to pre-emptively strike, assure the radicalization of tens of millions of Iranians and solidify the power of their moral dwarf of a president that impressed you, or was it the ignorant confidence in matters of complexity that made you feel all snugly?

Spud doesn't seriously expect Fred to win or anything but compared to the other losers the right is fielding he doesn't look that bad ...fer a cancerous, senior citizen with a drinking problem and a taste fer floozie-esque chicks young enuff to be his daughter.

Hell, there are still plenty of Americans under the spell of the Raygun cult maybe there's still enuff ignorant folk around to fall fer Fred's BS.

It's not like there's stiff competition or anything fer him.

Romney's a BushCo clone, Rudy is a tinpot dictator wanna-be and McCain is yesterdays newspaper wrapped around a dead fish.

The rest of the right's field is even more obnoxious.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is King.

FT is that half blind King.

Fer now.

Be Well.

The words "military action against Iran" have two purposes, only

1) satisfy the adolescent hunger for blowing things up and thereby indentify you as "a man to be taken seriously" by those who have an immature need for such

2) goose-ing the price of oil.

1, or 2 get more attention, depending on the need and the subject individual.

Fred's greatest hits:

Voted NO on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
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 increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)

Boyd,


No answer exists that will satisfy whatever you deem to be an answer of "substance".


I've looked at his voting record in the senate.


I've watched interviews.


If you can define what specifically you are looking for when you say "substance" perhaps I can provide an answer that will molify you.

Cognito,


I agree with most of those votes.

Jeff-
Just out of curiousity, would it have impressed you more if Thompson had had the Aqua Velva and balls to say "nuke the fuckers back to the stoneage", or "turn the towelheads into glass"?

(I would imagine that he could say this quite effectively for any product he was paid to promote)

would it have impressed you more if Thompson had had the Aqua Velva and balls to say "nuke the fuckers back to the stoneage", or "turn the towelheads into glass"?


Fuck yeah it would have!

Jeff-
You seem to be a thoughtful poster, but this is really scary.

I asked you what you found substantially appealing about this actor/lobbyist and your single response was that he was eager to bomb Iran.

You don't need a president in a democratic republic. You need a convincing and reassuring protector. You need an actor to portray a president.

jeff- that's pretty sad, guy.

Abstinence education doesn't work.
Neither do school vouchers.
He wants harsher penalties for guys who smoke joints, but he smokes illegal cigars.
Didnt want to increase the minimum wage.
Restricted class action lawsuits and the amount of money they can win when corporations kill or maim people.
Anti-gay.
pro-life.
Pro immigration.
Limited death penalty appeals.
Limited background checks for guns.
Doesn't want to ban chemeical weapons.
Voted to make it harder for people to get out of bankruptcy.

The man is a mess of hard right wing conlficting ideologies and a corp. whore. He's a washington insider to the extreme.

I feel ashamed that this idiot is your great white hope.

would it have impressed you more if Thompson had had the Aqua Velva and balls to say "nuke the fuckers back to the stoneage", or "turn the towelheads into glass"?


Fuck yeah it would have!


Really? So, the very democratic forces in Iran set back by Bush's war in Iraq and manipulated by the Iranian gov't you would wish to exterminate, and you feel that this makes Thompson your candidate.

I feel ashamed that this idiot is your great white hope.

You DO realize who you're talking to, right?

JeffJ has the patent on the original fence post from the beginning of the Old Testament.

That he declares himself "for" anything or anybody is like the second coming of Christ (and who says he only came once before anyways.....).

His criteria for coming out for anything or anybody will pretty much be based on whether he sees his shadow on Groundhog Day at this point in the process.

Jeff-
In for a penny in for a pound, I suppose. Too bad it's not your penny or your pound.

But I guess that makes it easier for you to play war as if it were a soccer match.

Later.

No, Boyd.


You asked a condescendingly sarcastic question, so I replied in kind - "Fuck yeah!!!"

Cairo- he always falls off the fence to the right.

Somedays I think his moderate stance is merely ignorance on a subject keeping him from being a scalia.

Jeff-
OK, so you don't think that it would be cool to exterminate tens of millions of innocent men, women, and children "just in case", but you think it would make for refreshing honesty in the political campaign.

Good to know.

I think it's been a good few years since I've suggested that you fuck-off, so consider that my suggestion.

Boyd,


"Go fuck yourself, you condescending prick."

Will be my reply.


If you want to discuss and debate - I am cool with it.


If you want to banter - I am cool with it.


If you want to engage a flamewar - I am cool with it.



You are moving into that place of yours where rational discourse is thrown out of the window (fortunately, you don't go to this place often). When you are in this 'place' you feel compelled to twist context and assign strawmen positions in order to satisfy your emotional desire to stomp an opponent from a position of moral superiority.


Your presentation of my position is absurd on its face. In addition, you've managed to change the subject of this thread from 'Fred's qualifications, or lack of' to 'JeffJ's ignorance, lack of leftist morality, etc'. And in the process, you've seemed to have attracted a couple of coat-tail riders.


The ball is in your court, at this point. Dial it back to no-nonsense discourse or engage in a flamewar.

please tell me why you like Thompson as the next president

86 out of 100 on the American Conservative Union scorecard.

Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

Senator, United States Senate, 1994-2003

Member, Tennessee Appellate Court Nominating Commission, 1985-1987

Special Counsel, Senate Intelligence Committee, 1982

Special Counsel, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1980-1981

Committee Member, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities ("Watergate Committee"), 1973-1974

Assistant U.S. Attorney, 1969-1972

A far more interesting discussion at this level would involve your little stiffy for Obama.

(Other than the fact that he's an undistinguished, half-assed state senator who makes your self-loathing, guilt-ridden sorry liberal ass feel good about yourself for actually advocating a black man for president while maintaining a straight face.)

You fruits are scared to death of Thompson.

I love it.

OK, so you don't think that it would be cool to exterminate tens of millions of innocent men, women, and children "just in case", but you think it would make for refreshing honesty in the political campaign.

What a fucking tool.

Jeff-
Re: You are moving into that place of yours where rational discourse is thrown out of the window

"Rational discourse"?

Have you lost your mind?


I asked for a substantive reason for your supposrt of Mr. Aftershave, and you replied that you were impressed that an actor with NO experience in anything related to either the ME or foreign policy or history had "a willingness to take military action against Iran if they are on the verge of attaining nukes."

Please.

actually advocating a black man for president while maintaining a straight face

You really are stuck on Obama's color, aren't you...why?

you've seemed to have attracted a couple of coat-tail riders

Ergo, "ankle-biters".

an actor with NO experience in anything related to either the ME or foreign policy

He was a Special Counselor the Senate Intelligence Committee and a Special Counsel on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

What was the Numinous Negro?

Pinche/Jeff-
I'm not "scared" of Thompson. I'm frightened by the lunatics who think that an actor's willingness to bomb Iran is indicative of any understanding of anything other than the sad state of our political process.

God forbid anyone agrees with one another.

If cairo or I ride anyones coat-tail jeff... you absolutely fellate Pinche.

Pinche seems to have a thing with the "negroes".

You really are stuck on Obama's color, aren't you...why?

Because its the sole basis of your enthusiasm for him as a candidate.

One might ask you the same question.

A far more interesting discussion at this level would involve your little stiffy for Obama.


I agree, Mao.


However, I didn't want to change the subject. I really DO want to discuss Fred Thompson.


I don't personally know a ton about him - you may recall that it was you who turned me on to him a couple of months ago. At that point in time he was a relative unknown to me. Since then, I've made a concerted effort to learn a lot more about the man. I've been pleased with a vast majority of what I've uncovered. Nevertheless, my work is incomplete.

It's unfortunate that the lefties on this site can't give ME anything more of "substance" against Thompson than shallow smeares; such as making fun of his after-shave and his 'trophy wife'.


I really am all ears regarding serious criticism of him. Thus far, I haven't gotten much that I'd regard as serious.

Pinche- why is every post you ever make about Obama have to do with his skin color?

I'm starting to think you have a serious problem with black people.

Back in ten.

I'm not "scared" of Thompson. I'm frightened by the lunatics who think that an actor's willingness to bomb Iran is indicative of any understanding of anything other than the sad state of our political process.

Why don't you respond to the information that's been provided to you?

Either that or shut the fuck up and go to bed like you said you'd do an hour ago.

"Later".

Back in a day or so.

Pinche-
What information, douchebag?

Why don't you provide it?

Pinche-
List it. I'll check it out.

"You fruits are scared to death of Thompson."

Bwa hah hah hah hah hah!!

Damn yer funny, LMAO!

Scared of an alcoholic, cancer patient with a mega knockered floozie of a trophy wife?

Gawd yer a tool, boyo.

His time as a lobbyist will not go good for him.

His AEI connection is just one more thing to loathe.

His voting record is nothing to write home about.

He's a hack as an actor and as a pol but you just keep tapping yer li'l FRed shoes together two times sayin' I wish Fred were POTUS. I wish Fred were POTUS.

And yer li'l dog too!

Skeered?

Ah Mao yer too much.

Be Well.

Look, dudes, you claim that Thompson is all full of substance, but you provide no links, no nothing.

Post it.

I'll check in the morning.

Voted NO on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
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 increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)

I agree with most of those votes.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-06-20 01:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Now doesn't this tell all. A real thinker here.

Likes chemical weapons, so DU bombs are right up his alley.

I could go on but just by the statement of his clearly indicates it would do no good.

No wonder we are in such a mess.

I'm frightened by the lunatics who think that an actor's willingness to bomb Iran is indicative of any understanding of anything other than the sad state of our political process.


You really need to remove the lens on which you view those who espouse a Conservative viewpoint in regards to politics.


I hate to break this to you, but one can have a comprehensive understanding of the complexity of say, the Middle East and still advocate a general course of action that falls to the right of proverbial center.


you know what?


I am frightened of lunatics who demonstate minimal understanding of human nature and actually believe that radical extremists whose expressly stated objective is a global caliphate, who, in the process, celebrate strapping bombs onto children and exploding those bombs in civilian epicenters, can be reasoned with.

$War,


Question:


Are you actually interested in discussing this topic in a serious matter?

Oops.


Manner, not matter.

"scared to death of Thompson"

Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeze, let the Rs nominate Thompson.

A longtime lobbyist, a lazy Senator, a proud law-breaker, a major Scooter Libby fundraiser (tying him to support of the Bush administration), and a Pandora's Box of every on-set Hollywood wierdo with a Law and Order tale to tell?

The Dems should be salivating. A surrogate Bush? Bring him on!

What information, douchebag?

Thye man's experience I posted at 1:45, you obtuse twat.

Reconcile it with your statement that he's simply "an actor with NO experience in anything related to either the ME or foreign policy".

I'll "check it in the morning".

"Pinche- why is every post you ever make about Obama have to do with his skin color?"

Pinchedloaf thinks the only reason folk are gonna want to vote for Obama is because of "White Liberal Guilt". Apparently LMAO read a book on the subject once and now won't shut up about it.

Spud doesn't haff the heart to tell Mouseytongue that not everybody in America is White anymore, mostly cos he seems such a fragile soul, does Mao.

Mao also basks in his own self assurance that the rest of America is too prejudiced to vote for a black man.

Not Mao, of course, Mao's gots friends of every stripe and he's only too proud to tell ya all about 'em but others are not so enlightened.

Mao is beyond all that ya see, but he knows and sees the real heart of America.

...Or so he thinks.

Basically, he's a schmuck.

His SOP is to be a SOB.

It's nice to see Mao finally stop being a massive puss and declare fer a candidate so the toe to toe shit can commence.

Scared Mao? Gawd, yer a fool.

Spud's been waiting.

Be Well.

you claim that Thompson is all full of substance, but you provide no links, no nothing.

I provided you with a synopsis of his public policy experience and credentials.

You are more than welcome to debunk it.

Jeff J.,

what about this topic?

Because its the sole basis of your enthusiasm for him as a candidate.

One might ask you the same question.

Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2007-06-20 01:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

No it isn't. First of all, I'm NOT that thrilled with the guy right now, but you'd have to have an actual conversation with a liberal to discern that, wouldn't you? Roll up your strawman and smoke it.

If i found and printed up every comment you made about obama that included his skin color or "negro" I could wallpaper my neighborhood, pinche. You have a serious fixation on his race that you have projected onto everyone else.

Thomson is just like all the other candidates, nothing different but looks and choice of words.

Actually listen to what is said, same ole thing.

86 out of 100 on the American Conservative Union scorecard.

Tom "I like forced abortions in Saipan" Delay got a 88 out of 100, pinche.

Pinchedloaf thinks the only reason folk are gonna want to vote for Obama is because of "White Liberal Guilt".

No, Spud.

The only (possibly) eventual reason people will vote for Obama is the fact that he's been presented as the Democrat candidate for president.

Kinda like Kerry, but yellower.

The only reason little street-urchin leftists of the left-wing blogosphere like yourself are abuzz about Obama right now---is because makes he makes your self-loathing, guilt-ridden sorry liberal ass feel good about yourself for actually advocating a black man for president while maintaining a straight face.

If i found and printed up every comment you made about obama that included his skin color or "negro" I could wallpaper my neighborhood, pinche.

That's because the fixation with Obama is entirely premised on his skin color.

It goddamn sure isn't his resume, is it?

That's 4 Obama posts, all about his blackness.

Thanks for the wallpaper, dude.

$War,


The reason I asked my question was in response to your analysis of my post where I stated I agreed with most (read: not ALL) of the senate votes that Cognito provided.


You immediately went into your familiar tack of taking my singular sentence and erroneously assigning positions to me that I haven't taken.


I asked the question because your answer will dictate whether or not I engage you in discussion, or ignore you. I lack the patience to de-construct a bunch of strawman positions that you, or anybody else, feel compelled to assign to me tonight.


So, if you are going to play that game, be up-front about it so I know to ignore you.

Rick Santorum has a lifetime score of 88 from the American Conservative Union scorecard.



Maybe you shouldn't use them as a benchmark...

Pinche,

Wow! By the few posts I have seen you know nothing of Obama other than his skin color.

Your posts reek of closed mindedness toward any candidate that is not republican. This false bravado of wanting discourse toward another candidate which has no further credentials than any other individual.

I have worked for many Corporations in management positions but it doesn't give me reasons for running the entire corporate world. Looks good on paper though!

Voted NO on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)

Of course the United States should lead the way in chemical weapons. It sets such a good example for the rest of the world.



Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)

What a surprise. Voting against equal freedom for minority Americans.



Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)

Ah yes--Big Business loved that vote--I bet they raised his Visa limit and lowered his interest rates. We need more leaders concerned more with Big Business and less with American citizens.



Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)

Absolutely correct--we've never killed an innocent man and we should kill them as soon as possible. It's the law that is important--not justice or humanity.




Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)

Another vote for Big Businiess. What a surprise. Everyone knows you can put a price on an infants head---or even several infants heads--or eyesight--or limbs. Not TOO high though--after all, they aren't fetuses.



Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995).

Gosh does this guy suck Bug Business dick or what. Has he ever voted for something that would help PEOPLE?



Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)

Of course our prisons have lots of space and spending 50 thousand a year for a guy smoking a joint makes good business sense--and the country can look forward to a model citizen when the millions of them get out after three or four years---I'm sure they learned ther lesson.



Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)

I wonder if he's figured out what would happen if all the kids left their current school and chose the same school.



Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)

Oh yeah---that was money well spent. All the teens have given up sex. I bet he was big on Just Say No too.



Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)


WTF---why not just hand out guns at school so the kids can protect themselves at lunch. Those terrorists won't have to do much forging of documents around with Thompson in office. Hell for a bottle of 12 year old scotch he'll sell them a tank.



Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

We don't need no stinking background checks at gunshows---how are those Columbine kids going to get their weapons? Why not just get rid of those pesky serial numbers too?



Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)

What the world needs is more Nukes to make us all safe. Good thinking--great leadership for the country---more nukes because the future is full of war---Bush started it--Thompson will continue it till we are all safe from everything.



Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)

Well you got CalifChris vote with that one. "Yeah--I'm a farmer--where are your gun shows"




Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)

Another vote against the little guy. I guess if you don't own a business you ain't shit to Mr Thompson. I wonder how he voted on his own wage increases.

"I agree with most of those votes."

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-06-20 01:09



No shit.

Sorry, that's 5. I missed one.

Obama is popular largely due to the speech he gave at the DNC for the 2004 election. That's how the american public met him.

That's 4 Obama posts, all about his blackness.


This will be my only comment on Obama on this thread.....



The point being that he simply would NOT gain the level of traction that he's gained were he white.


If his list of accomplishments were posted without his name attached, they wouldn't garner serious attention as a presidential resume.


All of that said, he has potential. He's very likeable and is certainly charismatic. Give him time. Promote him into other, less powerful, positions of leadership and see how he performs. Measure his ability to lead [emphasis strongly intended], over time, in a variety of venues.

So, if you are going to play that game, be up-front about it so I know to ignore you.

As sarcastic as my post was it showed the value of the truth in such a strawman position.

Debating Thompson over anyother candidate matters not, they are all spouting selling points to catch your eye.

None have stated anything of finite truth that we could take to the bank. All double flip flop two stepping sound bytes for customer appeal.

This includes Pinche's black man.

If you actually sit down and listen to their sound byte word play "you will discover that under the covers is where your man is whole!"

Jeff- I'm not going to disagree with your point. However, if you're going to blast moneywar for using strawmen, why let pinche get away with assuming that all the libs here love obama for his skin? I'm not a big obama fan, and it's pretty early for me to think about dems for president(i need more antacids) but if you took his word for it, I LOVE obama cuz he's a "negro". It's fucking ridiculous race bating bullshit.

Nevermind the fact that he's 5 for 5 on mentioning skincolor in this thread alone. He has nothing of substance to say about the man positive or negative that isn't associated with his "negro"ness.

"That's because the fixation with Obama is entirely premised on his skin color".

No Meathead, Yer obsession with Obama is entirely based on his skin color.

That's been goddamn obvious fer a while now.

"It goddamn sure isn't his resume, is it?"

You think someone being in the game so long they've become hopelessly co-opted and corrupted is a good thing don't you?
Think again.

Barack's "lack of resume" as you call it actually holds him in good stead with an enraged electorate desperate fer change that never seems to come.

Just as Thompson "experience" will come back to bite him in the ass.

This election aint gonna be like all the others.

Be Well.

"baiting" not bating. Oh well.

No Meathead, Yer obsession with Obama is entirely based on his skin color.

That's been goddamn obvious fer a while now.

FF, Spud. Too bad there isn't a "truth" flag.

The point being that he simply would NOT gain the level of traction that he's gained were he white.

So what???

Call it delightful luck!

You use this like it was a bad thing that this guy achieved acclaim in some small measure because he just happened to be black. So what?

It happens everyday, even if one was white.

What happened to the content of ones character, not the color of ones skin.

Wow! By the few posts I have seen you know nothing of Obama other than his skin color.

I know his resume.

And its not nearly as impressive as Fed Thompson's.

I have worked for many Corporations in management positions

That's fairly immaterial to anything.

You still struggle to construct a coherent sentence in the English language.

Your political opinions are merely a string of leftist cliches.

Doesn't Boeing have a tuition assistance program?

I'd start there.

"truth flag"

Thanx INC!

Luff the part where he disagreed with Spud about his whole white liberal guilt argument and then went on to make it again.

Classic Mao.

An FT fan is he?

Spud figured as much but was waiting fer the boy to climb off the fence.

This is gonna be FUN!

Be Well.

He has nothing of substance to say about the man positive or negative that isn't associated with his "negro"ness

That's because this is a "Fred Thompson" thread.

Not an "Obama" thread.

"You still struggle to construct a coherent sentence in the English language"

Coming from a guy who's still struggling to spell his favorite candidate's name right that's a little harsh, doncha think?

"Fed Thompson"

He does look well fed doesn't he?

Like a big fat cat with a cubano.

Be Well.

He has nothing of substance to say about the man positive or negative that isn't associated with his "negro"ness

That's also because there is nothing of substance to say about the man positive or negative that isn't associated with his "negro"ness.

That is the basis of his popularity---other than trite political rhetoric indistinguishable from any other candidate.

I know his resume.

And its not nearly as impressive as Fed Thompson's.

So!

Just have to laugh, my cliches are leftist, what are yours?

Nice insults though, your kung fu is strong tonight.

That is the basis of his popularity---other than trite political rhetoric indistinguishable from any other candidate.

Is it fair to include Thompson in this. If so, what does the resume mean?

Luff the part where he disagreed with Spud about his whole white liberal guilt argument and then went on to make it again.

Maos would luffs the part where you rebutted it and attributed your woody for Obama to something other than the standard, hackneyed and inchoate bullshit that is campaign rhetoric.

They all want to "shake Washington up", Spud.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

At least take the cock out of your mouth so you can pronounce the consanants.

Fred thompson wouldn't have nearly the level of traction he's gotten if he wasn't white, considering that he is indistinguishable from all the other candidates.

Mao,


Thompson has portayed his potential run as not so much a desire to be president as much as the country's need for him TO be president.


That may very well be how he feels.


Regardless, do you think portraying such an attitiude will ultimately be benfeficial or detrimental to his efforts - and why?

Cognito,

I pose the same question to you.

Fred Thompson is the Honky of Hocus Pocus.

Jeff- The last thing washington needs is a guy that was a lobbyist for 18 years as president.

From everything I've read about him Thompson is running his campaign in his usual style: From the couch, with as little commitment or effort as possible.

This will also be his leadership style, just like Bush.

I think after the initial glow wears off and he has to actual DO something, people are going to tire wuickly of his W like qualities, his incuriousness, ect.

Cognito,


The last thing washington needs is a guy that was a lobbyist for 18 years as president.


Why?

* I ask that question particularly in light of his other accomplishments.


From everything I've read about him Thompson is running his campaign in his usual style: From the couch, with as little commitment or effort as possible.


I disagree.


He's been in front of several cameras in several different venues. He's done this without formally announcing that he's running. In addition, he's adroitly utilizing the internet, which was a huge piece of praise for Howard Dean in '04.

As far as the primaries go, he's kicking ass strategically. He's among the front-runners and he hasn't even frickin annonced a bid. To date, his camera time is his time. Not to mention the fact that he has yet to tap personal campaign funds.


All of that said, he's reached the point of shit, or get off the pot. He needs to announce, either for or against, VERY soon, or his strategy will backfire IMO.

Cognito,


I've GOT to crash.


Daylight savings time and all.


Surely you understand.


I'll check back in on this thread tomorrow.


'Nite

After reading the posts on this thread, I certainly see that Fred doesn't scare the Left in the least.

Fred doesn't scare me. He's a joke.

After reading the posts on this thread, I certainly see that Fred doesn't scare the Left in the least.

Wisigod, I think that is true. The Left sees a head to head battle between a liberal democrat and a conservative republican in the current political climate as the best thing they can hope for. And they are right, I think Thompson is completely beatable by either Obama or Hillary.

Of course such a race would open the door for a 3rd party moderate like Bloomberg which is why he is seriously considering running.

On the GOP side, The Left only really fears the moderate Giuliani which is why they hate him so much on this site and other lefty blogs -- they will do and say everything they can to doom his campaign.

I have a feeling the neo-cons are trying to throw Thompson into the mix because they hope they can sell him as a "vanilla" candidate and nobody will notice that he's a dyed-in-the-wool neo-con tool.

The PNACers are looking for a clone of Incurious George, only a little bit smarter.

Smart (but not too smart), combined with lazy, incurious and maleable. Thompson would give the PNACers another bite at the apple.

Hello, WWIII!

Twinpac:
I don't consider Bush to be a true Conservative.

Bowa:
You may be right. I will be interesting to see what the Republican base wants; a Conservative or a Moderate. And what the base wants may cause them the election.

You fruits are scared to death of Thompson.

I love it.

Posted by Pinche_Mao

yeah whatever...Edwards is an evil trial lawyer but somehow this guy is better because he is a "republican" lawyer..

the field is non-exsitant..on both sides of the aisle.

existent..my dyslexic ebonics kicked in..

Jeff J--Thompsons voting record.

Voted NO on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)

Of course the United States should lead the way in chemical weapons. It sets such a good example for the rest of the world.


Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)

What a surprise. Voting against equal freedom for minority Americans.


Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)

Ah yes--Big Business loved that vote--I bet they raised his Visa limit and lowered his interest rates. We need more leaders concerned more with Big Business and less with American citizens.


Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)

Absolutely correct--we've never killed an innocent man and we should kill them as soon as possible. It's the law that is important--not justice or humanity.


Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)

Another vote for Big Businiess. What a surprise. Everyone knows you can put a price on an infants head---or even several infants heads--or eyesight--or limbs. Not TOO high though--after all, they aren't fetuses.


Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995).

Gosh does this guy suck Bug Business dick or what. Has he ever voted for something that would help PEOPLE?



Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)

Of course our prisons have lots of space and spending 50 thousand a year for a guy smoking a joint makes good business sense--and the country can look forward to a model citizen when the millions of them get out after three or four years---I'm sure they learned ther lesson.



Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)

I wonder if he's figured out what would happen if all the kids left their current school and chose the same school.



Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)

Oh yeah---that was money well spent. All the teens have given up sex. I bet he was big on Just Say No too.



Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)


WTF---why not just hand out guns at school so the kids can protect themselves at lunch. Those terrorists won't have to do much forging of documents around with Thompson in office. Hell for a bottle of 12 year old scotch he'll sell them a tank.



Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

We don't need no stinking background checks at gunshows---how are those Columbine kids going to get their weapons? Why not just get rid of those pesky serial numbers too?



Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)

What the world needs is more Nukes to make us all safe. Good thinking--great leadership for the country---more nukes because the future is full of war---Bush started it--Thompson will continue it till we are all safe from everything.



Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)

Well you got CalifChris vote with that one. "Yeah--I'm a farmer--where are your gun shows"




Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)

Another vote against the little guy. I guess if you don't own a business you ain't shit to Mr Thompson. I wonder how he voted on his own wage increases.

"I agree with most of those votes."

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-06-20 01:09



No shit.

2008 SWAG (Super Wild-A. Guess) Prediction:

-- Hillary + Richardson = 43.1% popular vote (PV)
-- Guiliani + F. Thompson = 42.9% PV
-- Bloomberg + C. Powell = 12.0% PV

All others = 2.0%


Three way competitions are interesting. But do they help?

"Three way competitions are interesting. But do they help?"

Nader helped Bush get elected.

Perot helped Clinton get elected.

Bloomers?

Good question.

Spud's been thinking about it fer a couple of days.

He's out there in the Wings like some deus ex machina ready to step in and try to forge a third way and it's likely that his stab at an independent presidency would draw votes from both sides.

But Spud is imagine more from the right than the left.

Spud's bigger question involves wot the legions of fundie freaks who came out in droves to support BushCo will do this time when their evolution denying, knuckle dragging candidates get shown the exit.

Will they hold their noses and vote fer the multipli-married Ghouliani or well-Fed Thompson? (Thanx fer that new nick there Mao, Who ever sed the boy was useless? Well ...other than Spud)

Prolly, thinks Spud, as their morality tends to break down to an "us or them" thing at the end of the day.

Very selective.

Spud agrees with yer numbers in toto but disagrees that on the left it'll be Hill/ Richardson.

Obama/ Hill or Hill/ Obama but the rest is right.

Colin Powell woulda made a great candidate.

At one point.

Not now.

Be Well.

"Obama/ Hill or Hill/ Obama but the rest is right."

Spudmeister - I personally think HillBama is a great ticket but do you think the Dem's would dare put a woman and black on the same ticket? Gutsy move, but could they win?

"do you think the Dem's would dare put a woman and black on the same ticket?"

Dems aren't big on daring.

Neither party is.

If the polling indicates winnibility they will support a Hillbama O'Linton ticket.

"Gutsy move, but could they win?"

Well it's certainly bucking the eternal trend of having nothing but rich white guys run.

Spud doesn't think conventional wisdom applies as it did once.

America is ready for real change.

Spuds no wide eyed optimist. Spud knows the system is flawed, practically broken, by corporate over-infuence and enabled by a somnolent and overly cozy press.

But yeah, to answer yer question.

Yes, they can win.

Be Well.

Spud -- I think Richardson will be # 2 for a number of important and balanced reasons:

1. The Extraction Industry -- Southwest the oil and gas explorers and the Rocky Mountain states miners and loggers would never go for an urbane, environmentalist tikcet like H&O. Btw, both are native to Chicago. A lock on the megalopolis vote, but not much else. Instead of picking a Southerner pretty face like Edwards, Richardson adds some heft (physically, politically and mentally) to the ticket.

2. "Bama's been pretty negative v. Hill. Not only that, his skill set is too much like Hill's -- both Ivy League law school alums. But that wouldn't work too well given the egos involved. His Harvard is likely to clash with her Yale views, and the implied competition will chill that dance very fast. Bill Richardson, on the other hand, has a long-standing record as an FOB (Friend of Bill's). He was Ambassador to the UN for a spell under Bill Clinton, so as long as he doesn't diss the Ms., Bill's got his back. Further, Richardsbon's training is in International Affairs, and his father was a Citigroup international bank subsidiary president, so by some amount of osmosis, Richardson has very complementary skills that Ms. hill doesn't bring to la mesa.

3. Geographically and culturally, Richardson can help balance any combination of tickets: Being from the western US when all of the other candidates are from the North or East is a plus. Being fluent in Spanish and having had a successful hispanic father will definitely be a plus with Florida's hispanic crowd that gave W the votes in 2000 and 2004, and can help get out the hispanic vote in the West where the margins are expected to be very slim in 2008.

Let me edit & correct my typos! (Old pre-computer, hunt & peck typist that I am!)

Spud -- I think Richardson will be # 2 for a number of important and balanced reasons:

1. He can mollify the the Extraction Industries -- the Southwest's oil and gas explorers and the Rocky Mountain states's miners and loggers, who would never go for an urbane, environmentalist tikcet like H&O. (Btw, both are native to Chicago -- A lock on the megalopolis vote, but not much else.)

2. Balance -- Instead of picking a Southerner pretty face like Edwards, Richardson adds some heft (physically, politically and mentally) to the ticket.

3. 'Bama's been pretty negative v. Hill. Not only that, his skill set is too much like hers -- They're both Ivy League law alums. And that wouldn't work too well given the egos involved! His Harvard is likely to clash with her Yale. And the implied competition will chill the H&O dance very fast. Bill Richardson, on the other hand, has a long-standing record as an FOB (Friend of Bill's). He was Ambassador to the UN for a spell under Bill Clinton, so as long as he doesn't diss the Ms., Bill's got his back. Further, Richardsbon's training is in International Affairs. That and the fact his father was a Citigroup international bank subsidiary president, so by some amount of osmosis, Richardson has very complementary skills that Ms. Hill doesn't bring to "la mesa".

4. Geographically and culturally, Richardson can help balance any combination of tickets. His being from the western US when all of the other candidates are from the North or East is a plus. His fluency in Spanish and having had a successful hispanic father will definitely be a plus with Florida's hispanic crowd that gave W the votes in 2000 and 2004, and can help get out the hispanic vote in the West where the margins are expected to be very slim in 2008.

(Hope that reads better.)

"too similar skill sets"

"Yalie v. Harvard"

"Lawyer v. Lawyer"

Again Excellent post T&C.

Yes, Spud clearly sees the difficulties of Hill and Barack working together.

Neither of them is shooting for the number 2 spot here.

Spud totally agrees that given her druthers Hill would certainly prefer balancing her ticket with Richardson over Obama Spud just don't think she'll be given her druthers here that's all.

Spud actually likes Obama/ Edwards

Spud could be wrong, of course.

The Hill machine is formidable but it's not unstoppable.

The anti-immigeration bill backlash may yet hurt Richardson chances more than it helps.

The perception of Hillary as being a too known quantity, a "more of the same" kinda pol may also be held against her more so in this election than in previous.

Obama may yet have another media moment like his 2004 speech at the Dem Convention where he captures the publics imagination.

Anything could yet happen.

Hell, Fed Thompson may even find time to marry an even younger wife.

It's a mad ole world ya know!

Be Well.

For the party that accuses all of Hollywood as being a bunch of liberal Hollywood elitists, you sure do like them to run your country. Need a reminder?

Arnold (there was big push to change the constitution so this dolt could run)

Reagan (dead...Hallelujah!!!)

Fred "Bulbous Alcoholic Nose" Thompson.

Posters here are sincerely funny about the negatives they keep pointing out about Thompson.

It is still early and personally I haven't made a choice. And I guess I am one of those that doesn't care for the present candidates on the Rep side.

That being said--

Hillary --wouldn't even be in this race if it wasn't for Bill her husband--She is nothing on experience--Oh yeah a senator from New York--They bought a house 90 days before they left the WH so she could run for NY Senator--She has no experience and less than Thompson for that matter. Think about it!

And WTF has she done since?? Nothing!

What bills, what leadership, what--nothing. She will say anything to get elected. She is socialistic and loves Hiss. She is a fake.

The same for Obama--he doesn't even know where the mens room is in the Senate. And he still doesn't know how to conduct the senate--see him on c=span--a disaster. So green behind those big giant ears of his.

Edwards--nothing--mr. trial lawyer--liar extrodinaire and hypocrit.

Richardson has the best resume--but have you heard the guy's ideas? He is hopelessly a loser. From a loser state of NM. (sorry to folks in NM) I can't think of another word right now to describe him--but he is seriously disturbing to me.

Just MHO--and I don't have a choice yet. I like Hunter--but not going to get there. I actually like some of the things from Ron Paul--but totally unelectable.

And now there is Bloomberg--another liberal dressed like a RINO. If this guy gets in--watch out for the Dems to take a huge hit--if he makes any headway at all.

Spud -- Thanx for your comments.

Obama may bring over some GOP converts who want to stop the Hill machine, and that could be his edge in '08. But, thanks to your earlier post I had a flash of insight as I drove home as to why 3rd party candidates, like Bloomie might be, SHOULD run -- to legally create the electoral victory THEY want.

Look at it this way: Perot despised Bush. And given the economic and social political sense that Bill Clinton had, Perot running as an "almost GOP" cannibalized more GOP and moderate votes from Poppa Bush than DEM and moderate votes from Clinton. Therefore you could say that Perot's investment was his victory! -- He helped dump Poppa Bush and got an economic and social moderate more to his liking into the WH.

Contrast that with the 3rd party campaign of Ralph Nader. Nader had too big an ego -- he said that the DEMs and GOPs were the same. Now if his ego wasn't so big, he'd have tried to take voted from the GOPs (an impossibility?). But instead, he cannibalized the left and allowed the right and far right to win. Wouldn't call that a victory in the same way that Perot's was, would you?

As for Wallace, a Dixiecrat, he opened the door for the conversion of the GOP into a Southern, white-supremecist sympathizing party with his 3rd party run in the 1968 Humphrey v. Nixon race. Nixon won, but only through Wallace's siphoning Dixiecrats from Humphrey. Did Wallace prefer the conservative, anti-minority Nixon to the liberal Humphrey? You betcha!

So how would Bloomie choose to run his campaign -- just conservatively enough to keep the real conservatives from winning, or just liberal enough to keep the very liberal candidate from winning.

From Wallace's and Perot's perspectives, they made all the difference in the world and were very successful. From egotistical Nader's perspective, it was a failure!

Thanks for your feedback. Cheers!

That should have read: "Might be interested in running or should run."

I really don't understand this Thompson phenomenon, but I guess he's worth taking a look at...

I guess he makes people think of Reagan for some reason... his video reply to Michael Moore was pretty funny... maybe that's a sign he could handle himself in the debates...

All I know is there's like 6000 people running now and none of them on either side seem to be running away with the nods...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-19 11:32 PM | Reply |


I don't think its a likeness to Reagan at all. This guy is an actor that was formerly on one of the most popular shows for the 25+ age group for years now. Its about recognition. In that sense perhaps its similar to Reagen, but *I really dont' think people think "Reagen" when seeing Thompson. The reply to michael moore is a non-event :/

Or if it were an event, I think overall it will be an overall bad event, except in your mind, cuz you got great health coverage....