The Liberal Fantasy Of A Conservative
As I have written before, one can gain a sense of a candidate's viability by the volume and nature of the attacks against him (or her). That might be especially true when the candidate has not yet entered the race, as with Fred Thompson. So far we've seen attacks based on 19 hours of consultations (see below), smeared his sons, and all but called his wife a bimbo.
And Fred hasn't even officially declared himself as a candidate!
This continued yesterday with the normally sane New Republic, which apparently thought it got to the heart of Fred's appeal to conservatives. Michelle Cottle instead built up a strawman of a supposed conservative obsession with masculinity, which says a lot more about Cottle and TNR than it does about Fred or conservatives:
If there's one thing conservatives are obsessed with these days, it's manliness. Saddled with a president they once cheered as a kick-ass cowboy but have come to scorn as weak on everything from immigration to government spending, Republicans are desperate for a competent, confident champion to make them feel good about themselves again. As Rudy Giuliani recently told a crowd of Delaware supporters, "What we're lacking is strong, aggressive, bold leadership like we had with Ronald Reagan."Enter Fred Thompson. More than anyone in the field--more than Giuliani, more than John McCain, and certainly more than the altogether-too-well-coiffed Mitt Romney--Thompson exudes old-school masculinity. Along with the burly build, he has the rumbling baritone, the low-key self-assurance, and the sense of gravitas honed by years as a character actor playing Important Men. In Thompson's presence (live or on-screen), one is viscerally, intimately reassured that he can handle any crisis that arises, be it a renegade Russian sub or a botched rape case.
But therein lies the irony. For, while the veteran actor certainly looks and sounds the part of the man's man in this race, there's precious little in either his personal or political history to suggest that he overflows with any of the attributes commonly associated with manliness, such as determination, perseverance, leadership ability, or garden-variety toughness. By his own account, Thompson is a not especially hard-charging guy who has largely meandered through life, stumbling from one bit of good fortune to the next with an occasional nudge from those close to him. It is, to some extent, part of his much- ballyhooed comfortable-in-his-own-skin charm. But it also raises questions about whether he has the gumption to gut out a presidential race when it inevitably becomes difficult, or mean, or plain old boring. In short, is Fred Thompson really enough of a man for this fight?
Did TNR's editors really let this pass, or did Cottle sneak into the computer system and insert this after close of business? Cottle alleges that conservatives have an obsession with "manliness," and then offers exactly nothing in support of her psychological diagnosis. The best she can do is Rudy Giuliani saying that Republicans want "strong, aggressive, bold leadership," which apparently Cottle believes are qualities exclusive to men. That says a lot more about Cottle than it does about conservatives.
It's worth noting that the man who said this rather famously dressed in drag for a party -- and that he leads in almost all of the national polls for the Republican primary. How does that square with Cottle's diagnosis?
Cottle then argues that Fred is somehow not manly enough for the Republican nomination. She derisively refers to him as "young Freddie Thompson" when reviewing his high-school life, including having to be separated from his buddies in study hall because of the excessive cutting-up. (Wow! What a scoop! And how un-manly!)
Cottle writes somewhat derisively about how his first wife had to help him mature, which shouldn't be much of a shock, since they got married at 17 -- and having a son and daughter-in-law go through a similar situation, it's not surprising that getting married and having babies matures someone. What should be considered is the fact that Thompson went through college and law school while doing so, which isn't easy now and was tougher back then.
The article basically consists of one unsupported hypothesis after another. She accuses Stephen Hayes of having a "particularly intense man crush" on Fred because he wrote this: ""As we spoke, I was struck by the fact that Thompson didn't seem to be calibrating his answers for a presidential run. On issue after contentious issue, I got the sense from both his manner and the answer he gave me that he was just speaking extemporaneously." Cottle also reveals a certain lack of humor when discussing an Internet post that joked, "If Fred Thompson had been at Thermopylae, the movie would have been called 1." Had Cottle had a sense of humor, she would have realized that the joke pokes fun at the sweeping enthusiasm surrounding Fred.
In reading the entire article, it becomes apparent what Cottle and TNR want to say with this article. They want to imply that conservatives suffer from some latent homosexuality, and that the enthusiasm for Thompson's run exposes it. It is a familiar refrain in attacks on conservatives; locally, Nick Coleman specializes in accusing his critics of being closeted gays as well as obsesses over equipment size. Coleman doesn't write for a national publication, however, and Cottle is TNR's Senior Editor. TNR should be embarrassed by the insinuation and by the shoddy writing offered on its pages.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on July 19, 2007 6:26 AM | Comments (56) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (56)
Posted by Bennett | July 19, 2007 7:34 AM
And what if conservatives were obsessed with finding a manly candidate? I don't get what's wrong with the traditional view of masculinity. Because I don't think the feminization of men has actually served men (or the rest of us) all that well. Certainly if the alternative is the Harry Reid/John Edwards version of acceptable manhood, I'm all for a return to the days when men had the b*lls to act like men.
Posted by wham1000 | July 19, 2007 7:35 AM
Not altogether unreasonable!
Posted by Al Maviva | July 19, 2007 7:48 AM
Ahh, you obviously haven't been following Glenn{s}[es] Greenwald's discourse over the past few weeks. She's just taking cues from him, which is kind of like the blind being lead by the sociopathic.
The gist of his argument, if I read it correctly, is that conservative men are a bunch of queers, and not the good kind who deserve marriage rights and domestic partner benefits. Honestly, it's a bit incoherent, so you can probably read just about anything you like into it - but I think we'll be hearing a lot of this in the runup to the next election. It fits nicely with the "do the right thing: elect a woman or black" meme.
Classical Values discusses it here: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/07/post_383.html
Posted by syn | July 19, 2007 8:01 AM
I think Cottle has an obsession with castration. I mean feminists have not spent the last three decades castrating males on their way to the top while sucking out wombs at the bottom for nothing.
Gloria Steinem may have burned our bras but she left a legacy of sagging sized-DDD siliconed breasts worn on anorexic skeletal bodies with botoxed-stiffened faces screaming about the plight of Eve Ensler's scanky vagina.
Fourty-five years of feminist crap has left me a raging hater of anything associated with the philosophy of feminism; creepy chicks the lot of em.
Posted by Jim | July 19, 2007 8:15 AM
Nothing new here whatsoever. The MSM is going to do its best to attempt to slime each and every Repub presidential candidate, no matter who it is. As usual. This is a non-event. Find something, anything, to hang their hat on, and then RUN with it.......repeat it over and over and over and over again, until the "theme" becomes accepted assumed 'truth' and no longer simply yellow journalism.
Find the dirt. If there is none, find ANYTHING outside the what they assume us Red State Rubes consider to be the acceptable 'norm,' and hammer it. All they need to do is get a TINY percentage of voters who only get their "news" (quotes intentional) from CBSNBCABCCNN to be sufficiently turned off at whoever the nominee is ("Gol Dang it,I ain't votin for that Clinton womin, but I ain't votin fer that two-timin cheatin abortion lovin New Yorker neither - Ah'm jist staying home - Screw it"), and it's game-set-match for the SS (Secular Socialist) party. Isn't it.
So....in the coming year, we'll see the word "flip flopper" permanently affixed to Romney by the MSM. Like Potato to Quayle. His religion will be hammered over and over and over and over again - in a negatively spun, but "concerned" way. What some of us thought was finally put to rest, permantly, with JFK and the 'concerns' over his faith, will be gleefully resurrected ad nauseum, by the NY Times, WaPo, and Sixty Minutes.
Every single adult American who owns a television will be FULLY informed on Guiliani's pro-choice stances, his multiple marriages, his wearing drag in a skit, and everthing else "negative" under the sun.
If you can't find any real dirt yet, as the case of Fred, then either make a mountain out of an irrelevant molehill (trophy wife; billed 19 hours 16 years ago).......and, finally, for each and every candidate possible, top it off with the classic Leftist MSM standby: Virtually all Repub candidates are either lazy and/or untelligent (Reagan the lightweight movie star, Quayle, Bush I, Bush II, Thompson, etc.)....or if they are clearly smart and hardworking.....they're angry, strident or "mean" (Nixon, Dole, Newt, Guiliani). Remember the "surprised" response from the media a year or so after the 1996 elections when they 'discovered' that Bob Dole had a sense of humour after all? Gosh, who'd a thunk it?? Of course, it couldn't have been 'discovered' at the time, because....well, it wouldn't have fit the 'narrative' now would it.
With Thompson, the Reagan "lazy, non-intellectual" theme is now getting fully underway. "Some have openly questioned whether Thompson has the drive and energy to handle the oval office," is a sample line we will all be reading in NEWS (not anaylsis, not editorials, but NEWS) articles from the AP/Reuters in coming months. Perhaps if Thompson gets the nomination, Gary Trudeau can even give us a reprise of his SIX WEEK, non-stop, day after day, "Trip through Reagan's Brain" back in October of 1980. Run on the comics pages instead of the editorial page too!!
In the mean time, if we ever hear another single word about anything checkered in HILLARY's past (Rose law firm records, insider futures deals, FBI files, enemies lists, etc, etc.)......it will ONLY come from a.m. Radio (until the Fairness doctrine gets them off the air) or these obscure right-wing internet blogs (read by, at most, thousands, and not millions) ........nothing negative - nada, zilch, on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, PBS, etc. She'll be squeaky clean. The next Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir. "Is America Ready?" the Newsweek/Time cover stories (soft focus, flattering photos) will breathlessly examine the Hillary/Obama ticket -- with the spin in high gear on the bold, courageous, innovativeness of a woman/black man team, "breaking down boundaries," "embracing the 21st Century," blah blah, gag. In the mean time, the tired old white men, who seem to be "hanging on to to a bygone era" will "desparately trying to resurrect the ghost of Reagan." In NEWS articles. Not analysis, not editorials....NEWS.
As I said.... Totally predictable. Nothing new, nothing to see...move along folks.
Posted by Lew | July 19, 2007 8:19 AM
And all of this should sooner or later lead us to examine our own cartoon image of Liberals and Lefties that we enjoy throwing over the wall at them. The fact of the matter is that when they look over the chasm at us they see a self-validating cartoon and when we look back over the same chasm we see a different self-validating cartoon.
The group that we are members of always looks diverse and full of colorful and independent characters, while the "other" group always looks monolithic and simple. It shouldn't surprise anyone to hear that groups look different from the inside than they do from the outside.
So what's our cartoon of them? And is it useful to us or full of dangerous illusions?
As a matter of good strategic thinking, we should understand the illusions that our adversaries hold and encourage them to hold them more firmly and fervently. Just be aware that they are doing exactly the same thing to us!
Posted by Michael | July 19, 2007 8:24 AM
TNR is going to have bigger fish to fry as the 'Stephen Glass II, reporting from Iraq' story heats up.
Posted by John | July 19, 2007 8:30 AM
You can get a good idea on how much of a threat key Democrats and sympathizers at the big media feel specific Republican candidates are by judging the intensity of the attacks at this point in the campaign. Right now, the most vicious ones have been directed at Thompson and Giuliani, with the main goal being to drive down their support within the Republican Party, to head off any potential nomination.
That's the goal of Cottle here -- to get the ball rolling on the idea that Fred's not a real man, in an attempt to get that idea out into wider circulation in the media, in hopes it will push the right buttons within the GOP and lower Thompson's approval numbers. The problem is that even as she states in one paragraph that Thompson is the party's attempt to find another Reagan, her criticisms of Thompson being "not especially hard-charging guy who has largely meandered through life, stumbling from one bit of good fortune to the next with an occasional nudge from those close to him," are exactly the same criticisms Democrats threw at Reagan, from his runs again Pat Brown to the '84 landslide over Walter Mondale.
Thompson may not be Reagan, but Cottle's effort here shows signs of early desperation to throw anything at the wall to see if it sticks, in the same manner that the International Association of Firefighters (endorsed Kerry in 2004, endorsed Gore in 1998 for the 2000 election), is trying to portray itself now as a non-partisan voice alerting America that everything they believe about Giuliani and his response to 9-11 is wrong.
Posted by GOP08_DOA | July 19, 2007 9:04 AM
As I said previously, I could give a rat's ass if Fred actually visited the "client" and performed the abortion himself. What is simply delicious about republican "bumps in the road" of late, is watching you guys backpedal on gays, family values, and now pro-choice "consulting."
Put your hands in air. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP.
lol.
Posted by athingortwo | July 19, 2007 9:07 AM
Isn't it just TERRIBLE that people would stoop to criticizing Fred Thompson! Oh, dear, the shame and depravity of it all! Tsk tsk tsk. And he hasn't even declared his candidacy yet .. oh my!
It is interesting that the Captain and other supporters of Thompson get their panties in such a knot that anyone would dare criticize their hero. Thompson is the same guy who told a reporter in an interview when he left the Senate that he really didn't like all that yucky politicking and personal attacks and such, and that he really doesn't like to work all that hard anyway, so he decided to go back and be a TV actor.
Oh yes, Fred Thompson - he's da man! He will fight for us as long as hard as it takes to do what's right for the PEOPLE ... just as long as nobody ever criticizes him, or expects him to, uhhh, y'know, work very hard at it.
Why choose the fake TV prosecutor who never actually managed anything in his life, and who seems to have skin about the thickness of tissue paper, and who doesn't like to work very hard .... when we can have the REAL PROSECUTOR who took down the Mafia chiefs and the corporate crooks, the guy who completely turned New York City from an ungovernable mess into a model functional city, rescuing it from the clutches of the sidewalk pissers, panhandlers, muggers, and dope dealers as well as the unions, the crime apologists, and tax raisers?
And why not select the guy who actually worked his butt off for decades, and who has taken tremendous volumes of incoming arrows and political flak on a continuous basis for decades - and probably taken more of that than any other Republican except George W. Bush - and still comes back for more because he is a LEADER .... rather than the hothouse flower of a Hollywood actor who really doesn't like to get his hands dirty? And who says how unfair it is for anyone to question his public service resume ... the one that would fit on one side of a gumwrapper.
This faux campaign of Fred Thompson reminds me of the 1984 political commercial (based on the famous Wendy's burger ad of the time) run by Ronald Reagan's campaign against his Dem opponent: "Where's the Beef?"
When it comes to Fred Thompson, indeed, where's the beef?
Posted by mrlynn | July 19, 2007 9:29 AM
Great summation, Jim. It'll come down exactly as you say.
The one thing to remember is that Ronald Reagan blasted right through the all the bad press (dumb, lazy, B-movie actor) and won in landslides.
I expect Fred Thompson will have similar appeal.
/Mr Lynn
Posted by Bookworm | July 19, 2007 9:31 AM
Cottle's take on the matter sounds like a parody of an article I wrote for American Thinker earlier this month in which I claimed that the Republican candidates, unlike the Democrats, were responsible adults. Each of the leading Republican candidates has proven himself a capable man who embraces responsibility and handles it well. That's the act of a grown-up -- and, since they're all men, I guess their conduct is redolent of old-fashioned masculinity.
In this regard, they differ from their Democratic counterparts, all of whom I said were immature (not feminine, which would be the more accurate opposite of masculine). Whether you're looking at Obama, Hillary or Edwards, all three have spent a lifetime riding coat tails, shifting blame, hiding behind others, and generally avoiding the adult (and manly?) act of stepping forward, embracing a challenge, and resolving it.
Posted by Neo | July 19, 2007 9:31 AM
Conservatives aren't looking for some whiny prosecutor, like the former NYC mayor or the NY governor.
They aren't looking for any Glen Greenwort manly man (on a ship of manly men sailing off in a manly way to manly ports).
They aren't looking for a "daddy" or a "mommy".
Frankly, real conservatives are looking for "grown ups".
The kind of person who treat you like a "grown up" and will talk to you like a "grown up" and will tell you the truth, even if it hurts.
You're a "grown up" when you call an evil empire an "evil empire".
You're a "grown up" when you vote to go or not go to war and still believe you were right 5 years later. Now who does that leave out ?
Posted by Yompkee | July 19, 2007 9:46 AM
athingortwo,
I'm sure you remember the "Where's the Beef" line very well.
Except it was a comment made by Walter Mondale to Gary Hart about his book.
During a Democratic Party debate.
Which, FYI, did not include Reagan.
Nice memory you have there.
Posted by NoDonkey | July 19, 2007 9:50 AM
From the looks of the Dem field, Democrats are looking towards unaccomplished, unqualified nitwits to lead the country.
But hey, that's pretty much my perception of the Democrat ideal.
Look at the Democrat Senate. Is there a larger collection of trust fund unaccomplished rich boys, ditzy trophy wives, and former Klansmen anywhere?
How about the Democrat House? There you have the addition of a few race baiting poverty pimps to round out the group, but all in all, it's pretty much the same collection of useless buffoons you find in the Democrat Senate.
It's time to change the perception of the Democrat Party to the evil AND stupid party .
And it's about time for the lefty trolls who post on this site to stop whining about Republicans and to start telling us why they are so moist under their burqas over all of their beloved Democrats taking over.
Posted by Jim | July 19, 2007 9:51 AM
Yeah, GOP-DOA, we should all just hold out for the PERFECT candidate, who fulfills every single conservative value, and not compromise on ANYTHING - instead of trying to find the best AVAILABLE candidate from the field of people running. And by gosh, if such a candidate is not available, we'll all just STAY HOME, so that the country can just go running into Hil/Obama's welcoming open arms, right? Keep dreaming, pal.
I suppose if those of us for whom pro-life is a PRIMARY consideration (which by the way is not me - Golly gee - surprise surprise - I really hate to break this to you, but unlike you Marxists, not all conservatives are automatrons who all think alike), in spite of the MSM "spin" that....gasp, horrors, run for the hills or better yet stay home Pubbies!!....Fred did some very minor (19 hours!! MY GOSH) legal work, as a lawyer, while working for a law firm, in the legal industry, for some pro-choice group, back when he was a lawyer working for a law firm in the legal industry, where advocating for your CLIENT'S position is ah....what you do - it might be more productive and useful to ignore the MSM negative spin machine and examine the positions he took and voted upon, on this particular sub-issue in the body politic, while serving as an actual....politician. In spite of the upcoming 60 Minutes exposure on what Fred did as a lawyer back in 1991, which will be coming to your livingroom soon, should he become a viable candidate and/or get the nomination.
Oh and for the other hysterical Rudy poster....my panties ain't in a knot at all. Seems like you're the one whose panties are in a knot. I'm not even all that crazy about Thompson. And if your idol Rudy can look me in the eye and assure me he will appoint Roberts/Alito judges in ALL branches of the fed judiciary (not just the high profile SC), and clarifies that his gun control stances were NYC specific only,and finally comes down clearly on the side of secure borders, I MAY move towards supporting him, depending on how Mitt does in the coming months. This, in spite of my (soft and secondary to things like our national security) pro-life stance, my (strong) 2nd Amendment position, my preference for a "Family Values" (e.g., no extramarital affairs) guy, etc. See....unlike the brain-impaired, who view this as a "flip flop" on my part, I am willing to compromise on some positions, in order to get someone in the oval office who will do a better job for AMERICA, than the SS (secular socialist) Hillary/Obama/Edwards gang. But your boy Rudy has some work to do.
Posted by GOP08_DOA | July 19, 2007 10:25 AM
Spin it any way you want Jim. I'm just saying that sanctimonious republicans have traditionally been a large part of the voter "base" and now you're saying it's time to "compromise." Fine, whatever. We'll see how the hardcore christian right responds. Incidentally, they were recently embracing Thompson.
IIRC, during the last couple of election cycles all of you guys were calling this "flip-flopping" on the issues. Fancy that.
Posted by james23 | July 19, 2007 10:40 AM
The Fred is gay stuff is pathetic. Nuff said on that.
On the other hand, I've read enough of the threads on this blog and others right of center to agree with Cottle that Fred's supporters do, by their own words, appear to be greatly impressed by Fred's 'manliness', 'gravitas' etc. I wish I had a nickle for every post by a Fredhead online telling us that Fred! is a lock for President, despite the thin resume, because he is tall, has a great voice, has a presence, and all manner of such fluffy nonsense. Wierd.
Actually, this whole Thompson non-campaign has been weird, and disappointing. We're at war and looking straight into the teeth of another conflict with Iran in the not-too-distant future, yet this is what some of our conservative friends are looking for in their next President. There is a lack of seriousness here that does not bode well for our prospects in 08.
Posted by Paul A'Barge | July 19, 2007 10:43 AM
if Fred Thompson had been at Thermopylae, the movie would have been called 1
Folks, this is an example of a genre of humor loosely called "Cool Facts". This genre originated with a list of "cool facts" about Chuck Norris, and has gone on to comprise lists of entirely fictitious, over the top testimonies that over-inflate the abilities of the person being praised.
I would urge everyone, including the moron who the Captain critiques here to do a Google on "cool facts about Chuck Norris" or to read Ace's blog to see examples of this genre of humor.
This one, about Fred Thompson is an excellent example.
Posted by Okonkolo | July 19, 2007 10:59 AM
If a $400 haircut is a story, then Thompson consulting for a pro-choice group is a story. While a lot of that story strikes me as part of the deadline disease (I gotta find an angle and post something by morning), Thompson's image is clearly part of his appeal (the ubiquitous gravitas and manliness that James23 posted about), and given the lack of specifics in his campaign it seems fair game.
Posted by onlineanalyst | July 19, 2007 11:05 AM
Zell Miller's "girly man" charge must have stung the Dems to the quick.
James23: Maybe the voters are war-weary of non-stop campaigning by presidential wannabes. (Kerry was out swinging into his next foray the day after the 2004 election results indicated his defeat. Hillary has been campaigning for the WH since her first run for senator from New York.)
Fred Thompson's message is getting out at far considerably less money... and it is forcing contenders from both parties to sharpen their own positions.
Go, Fred! When you are ready to declare, our checkbooks will be open.
Posted by athingortwo | July 19, 2007 12:02 PM
Yompkee - I stand corrected, as you have a superior memory of the political discourse in 1984 ... yes, it was Mondale who uttered the "where's the beef?" question to his lightweight opponent for the Dem nomination, Senator Gary Hart.
My point remains the same ... with respect to Fred Thompson, where's the beef?
Or as they sometimes say in Texas, isn't Thompson one of those guys who are "all hat, no cattle"?
Talks purty, but doesn't do a damn thing.
Posted by james23 | July 19, 2007 12:12 PM
Posted by: onlineanalyst
"Maybe the voters are war-weary of non-stop campaigning by presidential wannabes. (Kerry was out swinging into his next foray the day after the 2004 election results indicated his defeat. Hillary has been campaigning for the WH since her first run for senator from New York.)"
No doubt, but that doesn't help explain the fredheads' apparent fondness for manliness, etc.
"Fred Thompson's message is getting out at far considerably less money."
Fred has a message? I'm all ears....
Posted by Yompkee | July 19, 2007 12:19 PM
athingortwo,
Thompson hasn't publically declared a lot of policy positions to date, so in that sense I agree with you. However, from his experience in the Senate and his work in the Watergate investigation, he's someone I'm inclined to trust. Much more so than the Democrats, and to a lesser degree more than Romney (seems like he's auditioning), Guiliani (endorses Democrats for Governor) or McCain (Campaign Finance).
I'm sure there will be an area in the future where Thompson will disappoint me, but if I wanted a person to run who matched my ideals exactly I'd have to run myself.
And I don't have that kind of money.
Posted by SkyWatch | July 19, 2007 12:33 PM
Jim,
I understand that you know that a democrat taking the office would be worse then any of the republicans. Here comes the but, but I have been down the road of voting people into office that I do not agree with before and I am done with it. I am not looking for a perfect person just one that will not go against my beliefs. I am tired of compromising my ideas and voting for the lesser of the evils. If the GOP does not make me want to trust them then so be it. I will vote for a 3rd party nobody even if that means the worse evil wins. I hope that doesn't happen.
Posted by athingortwo | July 19, 2007 12:56 PM
Jim - So you believe it is "hysterical" to point out the extreme sensitivity of Thompson's supporters to the fairly mild criticisms he's received so far in his faux campaign? Such sensitivity comes not only from his supporters, but from Thompson himself, who felt compelled to send a long-winded defense of his legal practice to post on Powerlineblog.com last week, saying, essentially, "it's none of your damn business who I took money from as a lawyer" (smart move, guy ... now every hour you've ever billed to anyone is going to be analyzed and publicized to the hilt).
Nope, I submit that there is nothing hysterical about pointing out such lame defensiveness from someone who purports to be Commander in Chief material, who must be able to go toe to toe with bad guys, and with far more at stake than mere words or votes.
Conversely, does Rudy even show any apparent concern at all that someone might believe he's somehow imperfect? Naw ... he is what he is and he backs down not one whit from what he is or what he has been ... Rudy's campaign consists of reminding people of what he's actually accomplished in public life (as opposed to flapping his jaws for endless hours, telling Republicans why he absolutely agrees with every stray thought that ever entered their purty little heads). And Rudy is the only one of the candidates who has bothered to even list out the priorities and objectives of his Presidency.
Now contrast Rudy Giuliani to Fred Thompson, who sticks to bland generalities and interest group panders - while providing no specific statements of what he will do as President. And who never speaks of past accomplishments, because he doesn't have any to talk about. Please, go read his speeches and web posts, and you'll see what I mean.
You don't like Rudy's multiple marriages you say, because they suggest he doesn't subscribe to (your) family values? Well, then apparently you would never have voted for Ronald Reagan, who not only had multiple marriages hinmself but also had two adult kids who repeatedly dissed him and all he stood for in the public media ... does that record mean that his messy family life made Reagan a lesser leader somehow? I think not.
Oh, and let's look at two other Republican Commanders-in-Chief who served in my lifetime... there was Ike, who had a girlfriend he dallied with at Mamie's expense throughout the war years and on into his presidency, and yet he was widely admired as a military and political leader .... and then there was Dick Nixon, who was about as straight arrow as one can be, a practicing Quaker and all, not known to have ever stepped out on Pat .. and he was the only President ever forced to resign office in disgrace. But then, faithful to his wife as he was, he also said a lot of bad words on the oval office tapes ... so did he have family values, or not?
Seems to me that it might be nice to think that our Presidents live lives that are without sin and above all personal reproach, and at the same time such moral strength allows them to lead the nation effectively. But experience teaches us that the two "compartments" of a man's life (personal and public) do not necessarily intersect.
Jim, you mentioned that what Rudy needs to do is to convince you that he'd appoint good judges - well, he's the only candidate of either party who has already appointed a judicial advisory and appointments board consisting of some of America's leading conservative jurists. How much more proof do you need to see that he means what he says about judicial appointments?
Whether you or others are fully convinced yet that Rudy is either the right guy, or is definitely not the right guy, well, that's why we have lengthy campaigns. Depending on where you live, you have until sometime in approximately early February 2008 to figure that all out. But in the meantime, it's is pretty clear that no matter how Fred Thompson talks, or how much he panders to what he thinks conservative Republicans want to hear, he clearly has no record of accomplishment to run on, as does Rudy Giuliani or, to a far lesser extent, Mitt Romney.
And by the way, my first post that you identified as that of a "hysterical Rudy poster" did not mention the name of Rudy Giuliani once. All I did was describe the man's proven public accomplishments, and of course, you (and everybody else on this page) instantly recognized the description of Rudy. The man's widely recognized accomplishments, and not just his "purty words", define his candidacy. And I didn't even mention his performance on and after 9/11/01.
Now, go ahead and list Fred Thompson's accomplishments in public life (if you can think of any), and see how many Americans both recognize and admire said list.
That's my point.
Posted by Rose | July 19, 2007 1:53 PM
Yeah, America is looking for a new Ronald Reagan and John Wayne, etc, etc...
So where did the preposterous idea come from that a former prosecutor who calls an internationally aired piece of perjury, by an elitist with a major superiority complex and a bimbo eruption control committee, a "TRIVIAL MATTER" to be summarily dismissed - that such a creature resembles the Man we are looking for?
BALDERDASH.
Tell Fred to save his money.
IN HIS FAT DREAMS.
Posted by Rose | July 19, 2007 2:16 PM
You're a "grown up" when you call an evil empire an "evil empire".
You're a "grown up" when you vote to go or not go to war and still believe you were right 5 years later. Now who does that leave out ?
Posted by: Neo at July 19, 2007 9:31 AM
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
hhhmmm....
It clearly leaves out a man who calls Perjury a TRIVIAL MATTER (Fred), and it leaves out a man who hears a handful of hecklers at speeches shouting to set aside an ELECTION and just APPOINT him to the chair (Rudi), another man who sees no threat to our security in OPEN BORDERS (McCain), and on homosexual marriage (Mitt).
Wipe the slate and search on.
Posted by Jim | July 19, 2007 2:22 PM
Well athingortwo, you have now engaged in yet another long-winded defense of your guy Rudy, (btw, who cares if you didn't actually say his name the first time around - everyone knew who you were raving about, so your point is???) and also challenging ME to come up points supporting Fred....apparently without having read (or comprehended) my post.
If you reread my post, I believe you will see that I am NOT any sort of Fred fan. My skewering of the way MSM will nitpick apart, on prime time t.v., the repub candidates, has nothing to do with whether I will vote for Fred, Rudy, Mitt, or none of the above. [Oh, and to that other poster, the difference between Edwards $400 haircut story and Fred's 19 hours worth of legal work, is that - Fred's actions as a lawyer, along with Rudy's personal life, etc., WILL be covered in prime time, on the major networks. Edward's haircut won't. Except if as a sympathetic portrait of an earnest and well-meaning candidate "who continues to get attacked for trivialities by strident bloggers, as he struggles to stay above the fray and keep the focus on the issues of our time. Katie, back to you in the studio"].
I do not believe Thompson's well written and well reasoned rebuttal to those who wish to challenge every hour he billed and examine every client he represented, is a reflection of a "thin skin." Strikes me more like someone who is finally, and refreshingly, willing to stick up for himself - unlike W, who refused to all these years, or say Edwards, who does it through his spouse or spokespersons. But we can differ in our opinion on that one. I suppose you're accustomed to the "W I'm a Punching Bag, Please Sir Give Me Another" model.
As for his marriages - again, read my post. I conceded that I might be included to lean his way IN SPITE of my general preferences for a candidate who doesn't take a mistress while his wife is still living in their house....which places Rudy in contrast to say...Reagan. Who was divorced before he even met Nancy, as I recall. Sorry if you are too values impaired (or would a better word be "progressive") to see the difference. Oh, and please point out to me where I have said a candidate must have well-rounded, clean, loyal, and supportive children, in order to reflect "family values."
Does a candidates personal life have anything to do with how good a leader he will be? I don't know. You tell me. Does character count? Does it depend on what exactly it is he DOES in his personal life? Probably. Can we draw a distinction between a candidate who cheats on his wife, with ONE mistress, then divorces, then does it again....but who comes out in public and says that he made mistakes in his life that he regrets, etc....versus a politician who is SERIAL adulterer, who procures BJs from office workers almost as young as his daughter, and then who lies about it repeatedly, in apparent conspiracy with his wife, for whom the acquisition of power appears to trump all else? I don't know. I truly don't, so I'm not being facetious. But I do believe that, at least to some extent, a man's character DOES count and if someone is a total greasy slimeball in his personal life, (a category in which I am NOT placing Rudy, so don't misunderstand me) how can we trust him with the reins of government.
Finally, you said:
"Whether you or others are fully convinced yet that Rudy is either the right guy, or is definitely not the right guy, well, that's why we have lengthy campaigns. Depending on where you live, you have until sometime in approximately early February 2008 to figure that all out. " My response: AGREED!!!.
Skywatch: I'm with you, actually. I vowed after the Shamnesty debacle that I would sit home or cast a meaningless Libertarian vote before I would vote for any politician like Mel Shamnesty Martinez, ever again. That issue, unlike say, abortion, or gay marriage, is a hot button no compromise issue for ME. That is why I mentioned that issue to athingortwo, in another post, as a measuring stick for whether I join the Rudy camp. Fix our broken immigration system FIRST (including gutting and reinventing the process by which people can legally immigrate here - so as to, e.g., get rid of those ridiculous 8 year wait lists, securing the border, etc.), and THEN we'll deal with the 13 million current illegals, in a practical and humane way, which may well include some sort of "amnesty" or earned-residency, etc., program. And I live in Florida....so the nominee is going to NEED my vote. Rudy, Mitt, Fred, whoever.....they can not share W's 'open borders,' mentality if they want my vote.
Posted by Rose | July 19, 2007 2:33 PM
Posted by: athingortwo at July 19, 2007 12:56 PM
*************
I'm totally fed up with people trying to equate Rudi and Newt and McCain's remarriages with Reagans - all these first three mens' experiences were due to their own adultery usually and mostly with staff members - not so at all with Reagan.
Jane is a nice lady, but left him for reasons of her own a number of years before he EVER took up with Nancy and remained totally faithful to her, for life. Jane has always remained clear that the reasons she left were NOT that she thought he was unfaithful to her, or that he is anything other than a very nice man.
The two situations are NOT comparable at all.
====================
====================
If the GOP does not make me want to trust them then so be it. I will vote for a 3rd party nobody even if that means the worse evil wins. I hope that doesn't happen.
Posted by: SkyWatch at July 19, 2007 12:33 PM
***************
You are totally right - they know where we stand and instead of finding a good man of decent moral character and similar values to other Conservatives, they try to blackmail us into voting for someone who is only distinguishable from the Dims by virtue of the (R) or (D) by their names.
I do not owe them my trust or my endorsement of their conduct.
I won't stand before God and have Him ask me why I put a man in office with my vote KNOWING how he would behave once he got there, then spend my time complaining to God about what he did with my vote!
I'll vote for a man who displays the values I believe that GOD would have me support, and if he loses, then it is in GOD'S AUTHORITY to answer my prayers for my nation - 2 Chronicles 7:14.
But if I vote for a thing with a broken steering mechanism going perpetually LEFT, and then complain to God about the direction he is perpetually going, I HAVE TIED GOD'S HANDS in behalf of my CHOSEN PUBLIC SERVANTS.
Abraham told Sarah when Hagar was tormenting her - she is your servant, do with her as you will.
Posted by wooga | July 19, 2007 2:37 PM
Rose,
I keep looking, and every single link for "trivial matter" and "sean hannity" and Fred Thompson comes back to..... Rose. And usually in ALL CAPS for emphasis.
Please provide a source for this quote. I'm sure you are misconstruing it. Hopefully, you are not the troll who keeps posting fake Fred quotes all over the web. He/she has been busted:
http://www.blogpi.net/mister-robinsons-neighborhood-or-hey-republicansagainstfred-why-dont-you-leave-a-comment-here
Posted by Rose | July 19, 2007 2:39 PM
OOPS! MAJOR OMMISSION. SHOULD READ:
It clearly leaves out a man who calls Perjury a TRIVIAL MATTER (Fred), and it leaves out a man who hears a handful of hecklers at speeches shouting to set aside an ELECTION and just APPOINT him to the chair AND RESPONDS, "WELL, IF THE PEOPLE REALLY WANT ME..." (Rudi), another man who sees no threat to our security in OPEN BORDERS (McCain), and on homosexual marriage (Mitt).
Wipe the slate and search on.
Posted by: Rose at July 19, 2007 2:16 PM
Posted by Rose | July 19, 2007 2:58 PM
Rose,
I keep looking, and every single link for "trivial matter" and "sean hannity" and Fred Thompson comes back to..... Rose. And usually in ALL CAPS for emphasis.
Please provide a source for this quote. I'm sure you are misconstruing it. Hopefully, you are not the troll who keeps posting fake Fred quotes all over the web. He/she has been busted:
http://www.blogpi.net/mister-robinsons-neighborhood-or-hey-republicansagainstfred-why-dont-you-leave-a-comment-here
Posted by: wooga at July 19, 2007 2:37 PM
*************
Hannity and Colmes TV SHOW, about the first week of June, 2007, I believe.
Ann Coulter immediately followed Fred as the next succeeding guest, and she blasted him same as me on it, especially since he referenced the FOUNDING FATHERS as back up for his conclusion that the perjury was a "TRIVIAL MATTER".
When Alan asked her if there was a candidate whom she WOULD endorse (as if he didn't think ANYONE would suit her), she flashed back that she really likes Duncan Hunter, and she seemed like she would be glad to endorse him.
Being a former clerk to one of the Supreme Court Justices, and having a book out about the Founding Fathers - she was at least as angry about his attitude as I am.
I was watching the show, and I think it was about a Tuesday, but not sure now about that. Fred was one of the first guests.
So that would be Fox News, if they have transcripts.
Ann Coulter, if they do not.
I am only ever ROSE - EVER - and the only things I've posted on Fred are about his friendship with McCain, that he managed McCain's 2000 Presidential campaign, supported and voted for McCain Feingold, and this vote that Bill Clinton was not guilty of Perjury during his removal stage of the trial in the Senate, following the House. Impeachment trial.
I would that I HAD misunderstood or misconstrued him. I did not, Sean did not, nor did Ann Coulter.
I don't know what Fox does about transcripts for these men and women.
Maybe the Captain has access to such matters?
Posted by Jan | July 19, 2007 3:17 PM
I admit I haven't read any of the comments, because I can predict them. But I did read the article.
As an Independent from New Hampshire who will be voting Democratic (again) I just wanted to say that the GOP's blind devotion to Fred Thompson is great to watch. Seriously.
I thought the comment about his wife was completely uncalled for, but I've certainly heard a whole lot worse from the GOP's Clinton Haters.
However, the idea that no one in the GOP cares that Fred Thompson actually lobbied for a pro-choice group is music to the ears of most of America. Most everyone I know will find it very refreshing, and since the majority of the US is pro-choice, I think it will come as a pleasant surprise to most voters.
If this is the direction that the Republican Party is going, I can honestly say that the rest of us support that. What is weird is the "Sure, he lobbied for abortion but it's NO BIG DEAL" coming from REPUBLICANS.
I believe Fred Thompson's support of the Iraq policies of GW Bush are going to be his albatross with Independents -- not the idea that he lobbied for abortion.
So, I don't think any Republican will win in 2008, but I think all the pro-choice expressions from so many of the Republican candidates and their supporters is going to change the future platform of the party itself.
And I say, Good!
Posted by Mark In Irvine | July 19, 2007 3:19 PM
You suggest that "Cottle and TNR want to say with this article ... that conservatives suffer from some latent homosexuality, and that the enthusiasm for Thompson's run exposes it" but I don't see Cottle saying that: you're the one who says that she says that. Also, in your links to your earlier posts mentioning "closeted gays" and "equipment size", you are the one who brings up [no pun intended] the sexual issue. So, what gives?
Posted by Otto | July 19, 2007 3:39 PM
I'm not a McCain fan myself but the fact that a large part of the party prefer a man with a resume as thin as Thompson's over McCain's surely speaks volumes about the predicament in which we find ourselves. At the end of the day it is evidence of the continuing collapse of the coalition of social and business conservatives put together in 80's. This was probably inevitable in the long run but the the process has obviously been accelerated by Iraq and the general incompetence of the Bush administration who in six years have essentially destroyed the Republican brand's traditional ownership of the managerial competence value. It also has to be recognized that the activists in the party are probably doing it more harm than good by their extreme positions on a bunch of issues that the country simple doesn't agree with them about. If you don't believe me read some of the postings on here. This used to be more of a problem for the democrats but on just about every issue out there they are now considered the best people to deal with it. And we can stop deluding ourselves that the democrats are going to get all the blame for congresses' low ratings. Most folks have a fair idea of what's happening there. Sorry for the pessimism but that's the reality out there. The political junkies who live here, including me, need to keep in touch with the real world and Baby It's Cold Out There at the moment for Republicans and I don't see it changing.
Posted by Jim | July 19, 2007 3:41 PM
Jan, you're funny. You claim to not read the comments, but then you comment anyway, I suppose hoping that someone reads YOUR comments, and then comments on your comments. Which you will, or won't, read? LOL.
"However, the idea that no one in the GOP cares that Fred Thompson actually lobbied for a pro-choice group is music to the ears of most of America. Most everyone I know will find it very refreshing, and since the majority of the US is pro-choice, I think it will come as a pleasant surprise to most voters." You sure about that? Mind showing me any CURRENT polls showing the US to be anything more than the thinnest of majorities as "pro-choice?" Latest data I've seen is that the trend is going in the other direction.
You say: "If this is the direction that the Republican Party is going, I can honestly say that the rest of us support that. What is weird is the "Sure, he lobbied for abortion but it's NO BIG DEAL" coming from REPUBLICANS."
Ah, so I see that you are buying, hook, line and sinker, into the MSM "narrative," like a good little main stream media sheep. Baa Baa, Jan. See, some of us are intelligent and "independent" enough to actually understand the difference between doing your job as an attorney in representing a client, versus the positions a politician takes and VOTES on, when he is in office. Hey Jan, I got a question for you: If we find out that Fred did some criminal defense work too, and while doing so, defended some drug dealers, and the MSM tries a "gotcha" with than one too - "Thompson CLAIMS to be against legalizing pot, but yet back in 1991....." are you going to come here and say "Goodie goodie!! The Republicans are making the rest of us voters who want legalized pot...hap hap happy!!!" ?? LOL, again. You're a stitch, Jan.
Oh, and if you, the "independent" are going to vote democrat ANYWAY, no matter what.....why should any of us give a rats ass what your take is on this or any other topic? You're obviously not here to sway anyone one way or another - I guess you just wanted to stop on by and dish out a little snark, eh Jan?
Posted by rvastar | July 19, 2007 4:00 PM
However, the idea that no one in the GOP cares that Fred Thompson actually lobbied for a pro-choice group is music to the ears of most of America. Most everyone I know will find it very refreshing, and since the majority of the US is pro-choice, I think it will come as a pleasant surprise to most voters.
O' MY GAWD!!! Dang...yur rite, Jay'un!!! How could I'd a bin so dum!?!?!?
I mean, I's all reddy to supp'ot dat Thompson feller, but now dat you done 'splained how doin' dat'll help all da' gay-luv'n, baby-kill'n, wine-drink'n, fornicatin', French talk'n libruls to destroy da' good 'ol US of A...well den', I dink I'm'a jus go 'n vote fer one'a'dem udder fellers!!!
Hoo' doggies, yur smart!! You mus' be one'a'dem sy-cah...sy-cah-lah...uhhhhh...one'a'dem 'dare brain doctuhs!!!
Wheww!!! Dat'z a close'un!!!
Posted by Rose | July 19, 2007 4:06 PM
I searched "Fred Thomspon interview with Sean Hannity" and got a few items, including:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYKQM8blwTI
Video Interview NOT AT THE HANNITY AND COLMES four-place counter but on a different set, just the two of them, I doubt if this is it, I don't think I saw this interview at all, from May 28, 2007
That site has another string of Thompson videos, including one other on Hannity, on 6/5/07 - seems likely the right date, to me...
************************
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/interview_with_fred_thompson.html
June 05, 2007
Interview with Fred Thompson
Hannity & Colmes
Transcript with a reference to the Founding Fathers (towards the bottom) as the cause of his split vote on impeachment - does not have the "TRIVIAL MATTER" phrase in it - I find this answer much shorter than I remember, I don't know if this is a certified transcript.
I remind you that Ann got hung on that "TRIVIAL MATTER" phrase as well as I did.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278554,00.html
Same as other transcript - and I think it was edited.
YES... IT SAYS IT WAS EDITED:
"This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," June 5, 2007, that has been edited for clarity."
******************************
I would say that the VIDEO of the interview done on June 5th would be the one to watch, since the TRANSCRIPT is LABELED EDITED, I think the first site I cited has that video in the lineup on the right-side column
***********************************
I have a dinosaur computer, reliable but the very slowest that is still online, and these videos have to play for 4 or 5 times before you get a smooth view - and that takes up to a couple hours per video - so I ain't gonna try to sort through the interviews on video for anyone, sorry.
********************
http://www.foxnews.com/column_archive/0,2976,77,00.html
Posted by Rose | July 19, 2007 4:29 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/column_archive/0,2976,77,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278554,00.html
Exclusive! Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson on Possible White House Bid
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," June 5, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: And welcome to "Hannity & Colmes." Thank you for being with us. I'm Sean Hannity, reporting tonight from Washington, D.C.
....
Posted by larry | July 19, 2007 5:48 PM
What the country is really looking for is someone who has courage, integrity, and intellectual honesty. Fred Thompson exudes these characteristics!! This will become more obvious after he announces and spends time on the national stage. The Democrats should be deathly afraid of any debate between Fred and Hillary. If FDT is the candidate, look for a landslide in November.
Posted by Ray | July 19, 2007 5:56 PM
"If there's one thing conservatives are obsessed with these days, it's manliness."
Obviously Michelle Cottle is suffering with a bout of penis envy.
Posted by John in Nashville | July 19, 2007 5:58 PM
Where would anyone get the idea that many Republicans are secretly light in the loafers? For those of us whose memory extends to the past decade (back when Republicans regarded perjury as being a big deal), perhaps it is the obsession with where a real alpha male's pecker (or his cigar, for those of a more Freudian bent) had been.
Posted by onlineanalyst | July 19, 2007 6:02 PM
Otto says "...a large part of the party prefer a man with a resume as thin as Thompson's over McCain's surely speaks volumes about the predicament in which we find ourselves."
Somehow, Otto, you do not seem like a Republican but rather a Democrat posing as one... for the good of the party, of course. Thompson certainly has a heftier resume than Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards in the legislative sphere.
Jan, the self-proclaimed Independent, strikes me as a transplanted New Hampshirite from a Blue State-- New York or Massachusetts, perhaps? Jan is probably a Hillary sycophant.
Our "guests" must be somewhat concerned about Fred Thompson. How will their thinking change when Al Gore has his second coming?
Posted by Jan | July 19, 2007 6:54 PM
I posted in earnest. I appreciate the intelligent thoughts of the sane Republican who posted just after me. The other nasty, childish, immature crap? Eh, not so much.
You guys have this echo chamber going on, and it seems like you think if you are rah-rah enough, everything you claim will suddenly be true.
Where am I from?
That only matters to Rovians, but since it matters to someone here, I'm a fifth generation Texan.
I live in New Hampshire because my husband works for the Dept. of Defense.
We are ex-military and he is a combat vet.
You think of the enemy as "liberals."
You have no idea how many of us, then, are now "liberals."
I don't know if you are aware of NH politics, but we were Republicans for CENTURIES before Bush. These two-terms later, NH-ites aren't the type to be Loyal Bushies. We don't do propaganda up here. Ask anyone who has ever been to NH.
The fact that you've lost us Independents should concern you Republicans.
Instead, you attack me.
OK, that sure helps.
Regarding whether we find out Fred defended a drug dealer...
We're talking about LOBBYING, not being a public defender. Please try to keep apples with apples.
I'll repeat, despite the attacks:
If Fred Thompson's supporters can toss off the fact that he lobbied for a pro-choice group, I think the GOP is going through a sea change.
And I think it's GOOD.
What I can't figure out from your attacks on me is, are you saying you are okay that Fred lobbied for a pro-choice group?
If so, why the attacks? I'm fine that he lobbied for a pro-choice group.
If not, why do you still support him?
As I said, I find FT supporters the most interesting, because they seem willing to defend him no matter what he has done, or not done.
Are you okay with his stand with McCain as far as campaign finance reform?
Just for the record, I do not believe there is any way Fred Thompson will be the next President of the US. I believe Rudy has a good chance, and I seriously wouldn't count Mitt Romney out if I were y'all. I watched him flip-flop all over the place in Mass but he definitely has a way of winning.
I'm supporting Senator Clinton.
Are we better off now than we were eight years ago? Not in my opinion.
Cheers!
Posted by fulldroolcup | July 19, 2007 7:07 PM
Just to clarify:
Ann Coulter served as a law clerk for Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Kansas.
Laura Ingraham was clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and to Ralph K. Winter, Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Yet every liberal will tell you they are both, being conservatives, ignorant and stupid people.
Yet "smartest woman in the world" Hillary Clinton clerked for no one, and flunked the tough three-day bar exam in Washington, D.C.
Go figure.
Posted by Joe | July 19, 2007 8:36 PM
Wow, the captain came out swinging in defending Thompson. I guess its okay captain that theres a cottage industry of right wing noise trying to smear anybody who doesn't worship Bush.Seems to me captain you almost have a "man-crush" on Freddy. He's a empty suit, lobbyist, actor, inside the beltway nothing. But since the conservatives can't find the next Reagan they fantasize that ole redneck Freddy will lead them to the promised land. I'll judge freddie when I see him in the heat of campaign combat. Right now he's just a republicans repressed homosexuality fantasy.
Posted by wooga | July 19, 2007 8:50 PM
Thanks for finding the video, Rose. I'll watch it tonight. Even if the quote isn't there, I appreciate your obvious effort at trying to back up your claim with evidence. That sincerity goes a long way towards earning my respect, even though we are on opposite positions on Fred.
Posted by Rose | July 19, 2007 10:37 PM
Thanks for finding the video, Rose. I'll watch it tonight. Even if the quote isn't there, I appreciate your obvious effort at trying to back up your claim with evidence. That sincerity goes a long way towards earning my respect, even though we are on opposite positions on Fred.
Posted by: wooga at July 19, 2007 8:50 PM
*****************
Thanks.
BTW, I had a real start when I saw the transcript without that phrase in it, but then I just had to check if it said, and went back to Fox itself for it, and there it said, it had "been edited for the sake of clarity" - and I think someone thought that one sentence from Sean, and one from Fred was enough - they both made several comments about it, and I still THINK he really said that.
But the comment about the Founding Fathers rings loudly with me, anyway - I am one of those folks with a reem or so of Founding Father's quotes always handy to use to drive my points home/beat others over the head with. :)
If Fred was just any Senator, I might have just said, well, that was a political vote - but after I found out about it, THEN I found out he was a former Watergate prosecutor - no way I could look at THAT the same way as a Lindsey Graham vote. And it is scarier to me than a Lindsey Graham vote, because Fred has the bearing to make it look much more like a vote of clear conscience - which Lindsey will NEVER pull off, again.
Come to think of it, Lindsey put his whole career on the line to push the impeachment. Its failure changed him drastically.
I'm not naive enough to think we can EXPECT an absolute Just judiciary branch - but it has fallen into total disrepute at this point and needs all the help it can get. (It had some nice help today when a Federal judge told Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson that the administration DID THEIR JOB by vincidating themselves WITH THE TRUTH to the press after their unjustified slanderous attack on the White House - he didn't put it QUITE that way, but that IS the message he sent! hehehehe)
But with Clinton's vindication, the deviant and violent subculture of sociopaths in our nation took fresh wind and has really ripped into our nation with a really strong fresh vengence this nation has NEVER seen in ordinary social interaction in our communities - unassociated with raw, unbridled frontier or war.
Posted by Vilan | July 20, 2007 3:05 AM
You said homsexual; in fact it is more like stern daddy that is the appealing feature that is touted to the GOP base.
This portrayal is a calculated result designed to serve the interests of the real beneficiaries of GOP rule: the international business community. Thus the Global, multinational corporations will determine the GOP candidate, just as they picked Bush. He repaid them for the money they raised to get him in office in multiples of ten or more, and in the current pack, Rudy looks like the biggest whore. (This may explain how such an inexperienced, shallow person like Rudy, who has no familiarity with the issues a president will face, is still leading the GOP pack.)
Whomever they select, the Global corporations will then be like pimps in selling their candidate to the GOP base. In other words, we can call them the "Global Pimps".
After the Global Pimps pick their candidate, the pattern of selling their whore to the typical GOP voter is familiar. They will rally the sorry losers in life who forever seek a stern daddy to fall in love with their hand-picked candidate. The Global Pimps know the GOP voters, to a large extent, seek a man who looks like he would punish those they perceive to be weaker or lower than them on the food chain. To market their man. the Global Pimps will use the media (including the right wing radio nitwits, buffoons and propagandists) to rally the stupid losers that have formed a foundation for the GOP since the bigots in the South deserted the Dems as a result of the rejection of Jim Crow.
The media shills will surely repeat their formula of denigrating the Dem (whomever is chosen) as feminine, and, by contrast, portraying the GOP candidate as if he embodied the spirit of a cowboy, albeit in truth their candidate will be more like a cartoon cowboy.
If the Global pimps cannot find a GOP candidate they can count on to whore for them, they will allow a Dem to be elected, but will steer the vote to the most pliable one. That looks like Clinton,
Face it, the GOP is indeed populated by fake men who vicariously need a fictionalized manly man to root for, as if supporting such a real guy is proof they are not failures as men. I am thinking of first, the keyboard warriors on the blogs who scream for violence against foreigners but who find every excuse not to serve themselves in anything that approaches a dangerous position (in the military or a police force) need fantasy action heroes. Next I have in mind those men afraid of women who are besting them in the workforce. They are followed by those who let their parents down by growing up to be mediocre and thus need to put down immigrants and minorities based on stereotypes. Also in the GOP fold are those wimps who need a strong preacher to boss them around (or the ultimate boss, God) and vote like robots, against the very economic, health and status policies that would make their lives better. add to this group the red neck farmers, the ignorant and the intolerant and you have a collection of misfits that are like puty in the hands of the manipulating Global guys. In other words, you have the 30% of the population that still supports the war, and are easily convinced that Bush is not the worst president in our history. For them, a fake cowboy who went to Ivy schools, and cannot ride a horse is the ideal candidate.
For the rest of the country, gender and gender characteristics have been taken off the table by Bush. He proved that judgment, mental agility, and experience in handling complex issues are the minimum requirements for the next president. Similarly, the GOP people in Congress and the Senate are in for a rude awakening since they have been offered the chance to break with Bush and show loyalty to the country. Instead, they chose loyalty to Bush.
Posted by Lew | July 20, 2007 8:06 AM
Vilan is my new hero!!!
Read the previous post and then read it over again. This is "LeftieWorld!" laid bare for all to see. This world is populated by only three groups of human beings and each one of us must decide which group to belong to; the "Evil International Corporations"(tm) who secretly manage and manipulate everything, the stupid sorry losers who just don't get it, and the enlightened ubermenschen like Vilan and his friends.
This is as clear as their world is ever going to get, with its raging soap-opera storms and passionate cartoon bigotry, as naked as its ever going to get. This is why its important to turn off your TV and come to the blogosphere, and CQ in particular; education. Unless you're prepared to hang around the campus of any liberal arts college or university, the average citizen would never run into this kind of pseudo-intellectual grotesquery and would be utterly amazed at the creepy little insanities that live under the rocks and rotting planks in his own back yard.
If you ever wanted to live in a free society, read the above post. Here is your enemy and oppressor as plain as you will ever see him. Read on, and Have a nice day!
Posted by coyoaty | July 20, 2007 9:30 AM
I sincerely wish that the majority of you bloggers wouldn't clutter up the comment boards with your tripe. Most of you are waaaay too stupid to have anything intelligent to say. You just whine about things you know nothing about. I have to sift through thirty blogs to find one good one, and that discourages readers from even trying to read the posts. In other words, shut the F*** UP!!
I've got no patience for idiots, and niether do all the other truly intelligent people out there.
If you don't know all the facts, keep your mouth shut! Over and over and over I've read posts where you clowns griped about something because you didn't know the facts and were too stupid to snap to the truth.
So I'm not even going to try to post a comment here. Why bother? Nobody wants to sift through all the endless pages of crap to get to a good one. You want things to be better? Then start with yourselves. Most of our problems were caused by you idiots to begin with by allowing liberals to gain control of the media and government. The blind leading the blind. It's your own stinking fault.
Posted by rvastar | July 20, 2007 10:23 AM
I've got no patience for idiots, and niether do all the other truly intelligent people out there.
Wow, coyoaty...that's pretty strong stuff, coming from someone who then states:
So I'm not even going to try to post a comment here. Why bother?
Uhh...you call everyone here an "idiot", then post a comment stating that you're not going to post a comment?
Riiiiiight...
Yeah...look, buddy...you might want to lay off the meth pipe for a while. Sounds like you've been up for a couple of days and might be a bit "confused".
Most of our problems were caused by you idiots to begin with by allowing liberals to gain control of the media and government.
How - exactly - should we "idiots" have stopped them from taking over "the media and government"? And I turned 18 in 1989...well after liberals had gained control of the US media. How should I have stopped that, again? My time machine?
Try a nap...
Maybe some vitamins...
And remember...just say no.
Posted by rvastar | July 20, 2007 1:54 PM
What I can't figure out from your attacks on me is, are you saying you are okay that Fred lobbied for a pro-choice group?
If so, why the attacks? I'm fine that he lobbied for a pro-choice group.
If not, why do you still support him?
Hoo'doggies!!!
Dang, Jay'un! You jus' dun got my brains all tyed'n knots!
I mean, if'n I'm fer Fred - who ev'ry reel American knows can walk on water and turn da day in'ta nite - den dat means dat I'm fer da baby-killers. WITCH...I...AIN'T!!!
But den, dat means dat I cain't be fer Fred...
...but I am...
...but I cain't be!
Owww! My head hurts! Dang!?!?!
Yer soooo smart, Jay'un! Did'ja go'da college? I mean, I's a princ'pulled conserva'div...I don' do'dat'dare "nuance" stuff. No'sir, ev'rythin's black'n'white wif me.
[Pref'rably white...n'awd I mean? Heh, heh :)]
I mean, yer from Tex'us, den ya' moved to New Ham'ster, and prob'ly ev'ry where else 'n between, see'n how yer husband's in da' Army n'all. I bet'cha dat'cha know jus'bout ev'rybody, dont'cha? All da "independents" and whut not? Dat's cool!
By da'way, dat remines me - whut's "Rovians" mean? Dat sum kinda "independents" word? Like "nuance"?
But serious. It's awful kinda'ya ta'cum here n' make us all think about these thangs. I mean, as a princ'pulled conserva'div, I buh'leeve dat human be'ins are God's perfect creation - well, at least cert'n human be'ins are [wink, wink :)] And dat it's only cuz Satan has infected so many Americans wif pride and demons and librulism dat dis country's up to it's a**hole in alligators now - wif all da crime...n' da gays...n' da Mexicans!
See, libruls don' care 'bout hypocrisy - dey got no morals cuz dey worship Satan. Dat's why dey vote fer Democrats - cuz dey worship Satan too. But conserva'divs - now, we got morals! We buh'leeve in Jesus! We expec' people ta be perfec'...all da time, ev'ry time! Dat's why we vote fer Republicans - cuz dere perfec'! Know how I know? Cuz' Republicans say so all da time. Dey say "I buh'leeve dat human be'ins should be perfec'...cuz Jesus said dat human be'ins should be perfec'...and since he said dat, dat's whut I buh'leeve!"
Don' buh'leeve me? It's n'da Bible - look it up.
I realize now that only a perfec' man can lead us out'a da darkness - an' dat man ain't no Fred Thompson.
Dare's only one man in America dat's not touched by hypocrisy. Dare's only one man in America dat ain't got da slightest tinge of "nuance"..wh'ever it be on baby-kill'n...er on da gays gettin' married...er even on da war ag'inst dose Muzzlums.
Dare's only one man dat no matter whut, always toes da line - dat duz whut he sez, n' sez whut he duz. Dare's only ONE MAN dat's got da guts to save America!
George W. Bush for President in 2008!!!
Posted by Ken | July 21, 2007 4:32 PM
The reasons for Democrats' penis obsession is that they are trying to compensate for their lack of courage. Note that until recently, no one ever thought of a man's penis as being particularly indicative of anything other than a minimal ability to perform sexually. The Democrats, with HUSTLER as their bible, have made their alleged big cocks--which, notably, they never have to authenticate--a substitute for either muscle or a more lanky athletic build. Most of them are either anorexic or obese. And, since they have HUSTLER as their bible, they also follow its pro-rape philosophy, which is why they, unlike those Americans who work for a living instead of surfing child porn sites as the Democrats do, support gun control. It is also why Andrew Jefferson Stone was too cowardly to attack the first nine people on his hit list.
Posted by J Baustian | July 21, 2007 7:09 PM
In July of the year before a presidential election, I am in no hurry to pick a candidate that I'll plan to stick with through the convention. Despite what some MSM-types have said, I'll be happy to support any candidate the Republicans are likely to nominate: Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, or even unlikely candidates like McCain or Hunter.