President Thompson(s)

Republicans boast two Thompsons: Fred & Tommy. I wish we could combine them. Fred Thompson has the presence, gravitas and the ability to express ideas concisely. Tommy Thompson has the practical ideas and executive experience .

Tommy Thompson did an excellent job as governor of Wisconsin, where he pioneered welfare reform and school choice. Welfare reform in Wisconsin was a model for the successful bipartisan national reforms of the 1990s. In fact, Thompson has it all - except the presidential look. That is a big problem in the age of television and video bite campaigns. I really like the fact that he has successful executive experience. Beyond all that, Thompson is from the state of my birth. Wisconsin has never contributed a president. (Our only serious contender was third-party candidate fighting Bob Lafollette. Everyone likes him better in the past than they did at the time.) It is about time.

What Fred Thompson says and writes is impressive, but even more impressive is the way he says it. He also acts like a president. Acts is a key word. We should not elect a president because he is an actor, but we should not exclude one either. Acting ability and theatric timing has been a big part of politics since the age of Pericles. Thompson's proven ability to inspire confidence is a real asset, just as the opposite was a liability for President Bush. The downside for Thompson is executive experience. A couple years in the Senate is not great experience to be president. In fact, he is almost as green as experience-challenged Democrats such as Hillary, Obama or Edwards.

An ideal candidate would have Thompson's ideas & experience and Thompson's ability to express them. Together they would be ideal, but either one has more to offer than any of the leading Democrats, who may go for hope over experience.

Posted by Jack at April 8, 2007 1:50 PM
Comments
Comment #215568

Ahh…This weeks saviors of the Republican Party.Maybe you guys can get Hulk Hogan to run.You really should have more faith in hope. You seem to be operating on it.

Posted by: BillS at April 8, 2007 3:32 PM
Comment #215579

BillS

We have several guys with the experience to be president. Tommy Thompson has more exective experience than all three Dem front runners together. Fred Thompson has more than any one of them. Think of it. You have a 2 1/2 term senator, a one term senator and a half term senator. None of them has ever run so much as a Johnny detail.

We do not need a savior. We got plenty of good guys such as Rudy, John McCain, Mitt Romney. IN ADDITION we also have the Thompsons and many others. Our problem is that we have too much exprience to choose from. What is that book called by Obama called, “The Triumph of Hope (over experience)”?

Posted by: Jack at April 8, 2007 4:28 PM
Comment #215587

“Our problem is that we have too much exprience to choose from. “

After six years of neo-con & GOP lying, corruption, imperialist war-mongering, Constitution unraveling, budget-busting, disasterous deficit spending, page-buggering, domestic spying and torture-condoning, spy-outing, justice-busting and general government-razing for the almighty dollar, I believe the country has had too much experience as well. November was a preview of coming attractions, and if Iraq is still going in October ‘08, with it’s concomitant carnage and mayhem, the GOP will become another regional party esconced in the bosom of Dixie—again, right where it belongs.

You right-wing kool-aid drinkers and neo-con nincompoops are in deep excrement politically—and deservedly so.

So, ‘08 will probably be another Democratic fun-fest, and everyone in America can see up front and personal, how the donkeys can’t run a country either. Much less a corrupt, capitalist empire.

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 8, 2007 5:12 PM
Comment #215590

My personal feeling is that the only Republican who is going to be able to truly appeal to the voters is the one who repudiates Bush. And that will be the one guy the Republicans themselves will not let get past the primary, if he’s honest from the outset.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 8, 2007 5:16 PM
Comment #215612

Jack, you mean candidate Thompsons. Not President Thompsons. ANOTHER republican president is just not in the cards. American voters are slow, but, not stupid.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 8, 2007 6:49 PM
Comment #215614

Jack
More whistling past the graveyard? Mc Cain has fallen on the Iraq sword. Romny is such a flipper he is not credible. Also his Morman stuff will not play to well with some GOPers. He is the smartest,for sure,but you guys never put you smartest up there.T. Thompson’s experience? Does not Wisconsin have more cows than it has Afro-Americans,for example. Overstated but even one large American city is more complicated to administer. Which brings up Guiliani. Tough,yea. Smart,no. Sleaze,yea and every little dirty deal he has ever been involved with will be front page news. F. Thomson may be your best bet and you all like to put mediocre actors in charge of the free world. Does this mean that the Dems will get equal time after reruns of Law and Order?Whats his stand on procreative choice? What I read was that he will try and deny man made climate change the Inhofe way but with more pizazz.

Posted by: BillS at April 8, 2007 6:57 PM
Comment #215616

Guys

We will win again in ‘08 and you all can percieve that already. It is just a question re which Repubican it will be.

Dems made a mistake by letting their hatred of Bush get out of hand. They demonized the man past all reason and they did a good job. The have personalized the fight and ensured that neither George Bush nor Dick Cheney will ever again win an election in the United States.

Now that we can see the Dems at work, such as Pelosi’s childish foreign policy forays, enough people will understand that knowing how to hate Bush is not enough to govern our country.

Anger is one of the seven deadly sins. It is a destructive emotion to those who feel it. The Dems will be unable to get over their anger at the President and so will be unable to get any legislation passed. At first it will be fun, but in 2008 they will have a record (or lack) to run on.

Posted by: Jack at April 8, 2007 7:03 PM
Comment #215623

I agree with Jack, no matter how disapointed in Bush americans are I do not think they want the anti war, blame america first crowd in charge of security for this country. The democrats have become the hate Bush,blame everything on Bush party. I think the country wants to win in Iraq and win the war on terror because losing in both cases is not an acceptable scenario.

Posted by: dolan at April 8, 2007 7:23 PM
Comment #215629

Boy, Republican talking points and everything.

18 months out and you guys already have everything licked.

Good luck on the talking points thing.

Posted by: Rocky at April 8, 2007 7:50 PM
Comment #215637

Show the Nation who you support ! The 2008 Presidential Election will be here soon. Join many of your fellow Americans in supporting your party. Democratic, Republican and Independent stickers are being seen across the country and more and more people are supporting their party each day. Be part of this march for “ineedapresident.” Do not be fooled, this is the original “ineedapresident” bumper stickers that come in 6 different flavors. Democrat, Republican, American, Pink, Camo & Support Our Troops Yellow. Go to http://ineedapresident.com now and SHOW your friends neighbors and loved ones who you support!

Posted by: - at April 8, 2007 9:46 PM
Comment #215646

Well since I vote mostly Democrat, there isn’t someone who has caught my eye yet, and I can’t stand listening to Hillary speak, sounds like nails on a chalk board, I have been looking at the Republican side. Well it is starting to look like the Democrat side with eveyone jumping in, but in my opinion I like Fred over Tommy.
Now if Fred doesn’t run or isn’t selected by your party, I might have to look at a third party person.

Posted by: KT at April 8, 2007 10:11 PM
Comment #215647

Jack it shouldn’t matter what party the candidate comes from.
All a party guarantees is that the candidate will follow the agenda of that party. Lately that isn’t necessarily a good thing.

If he/she is qualified for the job, and has a message that resonates with the people of this country, they should get elected, regardless of party affiliation.

Posted by: Rocky at April 8, 2007 10:21 PM
Comment #215660

Rocky,
Seriously of the democratic candidates which one is best qualified to lead the country in this time of war with terrorism.

Posted by: dolan at April 8, 2007 11:42 PM
Comment #215662

I’d love to see a Fred Thompson-Guliani ticket.

A true red-state TN conservative who also has Hollywood star power and a heroic and enormously successful NYC mayor. The best of all worlds, and two guys who (unlike Bush, I must say) can really communicate.

The biggest problem with it would be Guliani’s willingness to sit at the bottom of the ticket.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 9, 2007 12:00 AM
Comment #215663

dolan,

There have always been bad guys out there. Since the beginnings of this country there have been relatively few times of true peace.

Anyone that has read the Constitution and passed a Civics 101 class, is qualified to know how our government works.

In recent times Presidents Reagan, Carter, Clinton, and Bush were elected having never held a national office, yet all had global conflicts to address during their tenures.
What were their special qualifications for the job?

Just because I am not a Bush apologist doesn’t mean I am a Democrat.
Here’s a small clue.
I was ready to vote for McCain in 2000.

Fighting the war on terror is merely a small part of the job description as President of the United States.
How does anybody “qualify” to fight the war on terror?
Merely being a member of a political party, and having the ability to raise lots of money doesn’t make anybody qualified to be President.

Posted by: Rocky at April 9, 2007 12:14 AM
Comment #215668

Rocky,
“Merely being a member of a political party, and having the ability to raise lots of money doesn’t make anybody qualified to be President.”

True. But the ability to fund, organize, & staff a large nationwide campaign is a process requiring sophisticated skills and political acumen.

Raising money could be substantially removed from the process through 100% public financing. Nevertheless, the other skills & abilities would still apply.

One look at Fred Thompson”s bonehead statements on Global Warming is enough to utterly disquality him. The guy is a moron.

Posted by: phx8 at April 9, 2007 1:19 AM
Comment #215670

Is there any truth to the rumor Cheney is looking to repeal the 22nd amendment so we can enjoy 4 more of the same. It would save all the wrangling over who else has the qualifications to be the next Prez.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 9, 2007 1:23 AM
Comment #215677
We will win again in ‘08 and you all can percieve that already. It is just a question re which Repubican it will be.

Jack,

Nope, sorry. I can’t perceive that. While nothing is cast in stone, I think that Bush’s low standing and the disastrous, unpopular war can only give an advantage to the Democrats. Not a huge one, but an advantage nonetheless.

The problem for the Republican candidates is that they can’t distance themselves too much from Bush or they will be seen as bad Republicans. But if they don’t distance themselves, the Democrats can ask people if they want another four years of Bush.

Is there any precedent for a President as unpopular as Bush, or even nearly as unpopular, keeping his party in the White House?

Dems made a mistake by letting their hatred of Bush get out of hand.

Funny, that’s what you guys were saying last year… You know recycling is very admirable but it doesn’t work with bits. ;)

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 9, 2007 8:44 AM
Comment #215679

Fred Thompson? These Hollywood clowns should just make movies and not tell other people how to live their lives. Real Americans like myself find their decadent movies and TV shows, not to mention their lifestyles, disgusting.

Oh, wait a minute. Fred Thompson is a Republican. Please forget everything I wrote in the first paragraph. Hollywood Republicans rule! Hasta la vista, baby!

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 9, 2007 9:39 AM
Comment #215680

phx8,
“But the ability to fund, organize, & staff a large nationwide campaign is a process requiring sophisticated skills and political acumen.”

This would make the candidate’s campaign manager and chief of staff more qualified than the candidate.
I want my President to be an idea guy, but not someone that needs to surround him/herself with yes men.
Someone who is capable of delegating these jobs to trustworthy people who themselves find this minutia fascinating.

Right now America needs a President that is curious, someone that is eloquent, someone that is capable of thinking on their feet, someone that will engender trust in not only the American people, but people all over the world.

America is in deep shit right now.
We need the rest of the world to understand that America’s role is not one of conquer, and we here in America need to get over the parochial idea that we are the best country on the planet simply because we think we are.
America needs a President that will bring out more than 40% of the electorate to participate. The rest of the world has to be wondering why, if this the best country on the planet, the people of this country don’t seem to care about keeping it that way.

Our actions are screaming louder than our words, and the rest of the world is listening.

Posted by: Rocky at April 9, 2007 10:09 AM
Comment #215686

For what it’s worth, Fred Thompson’s acting career was a second career after he started in politics. He got his start by playing himself opposite Sissy Spacek in a movie about bringing a corrupt Democratic governor from Tennessee to justice. (I can’t remember which one since there were two or three in a row in the early 70’s). He was a DA at the time. He started off as a staff attorney in the Watergate Hearings and like most TN Republicans traces his roots to Senator Howard Baker.

In reality, his resume is a close paralell to Hillary Clinton’s if you exchange her time in the White House with his in front of the camera.

Posted by: Rob at April 9, 2007 11:48 AM
Comment #215690

So he went from politics, then to acting, then back to politics, then back to acting. And now maybe back to politics again.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 9, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #215697
“Rocky, Seriously of the democratic candidates which one is best qualified to lead the country in this time of war with terrorism. Posted by: dolan at April 8, 2007 11:42 PM “

Answer (supposedly):

“dolan,
There have always been bad guys out there. Since the beginnings of this country there have been relatively few times of true peace. Anyone that has read the Constitution and passed a Civics 101 class, is qualified to know how our government works. In recent times Presidents Reagan, Carter, Clinton, and Bush were elected having never held a national office, yet all had global conflicts to address during their tenures.
What were their special qualifications for the job? Just because I am not a Bush apologist doesn’t mean I am a Democrat.
Here’s a small clue. I was ready to vote for McCain in 2000. Fighting the war on terror is merely a small part of the job description as President of the United States. How does anybody “qualify” to fight the war on terror? Merely being a member of a political party, and having the ability to raise lots of money doesn’t make anybody qualified to be President. Posted by: Rocky at April 9, 2007 12:14 AM “


Just answer Dolan’s question, Rock! My goodness!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 9, 2007 12:55 PM
Comment #215700

Potentially, I’d be surprised if he sticks out his bid for the Presidency. From what I’ve been told by friends that worked for him when he was in the Senate, it’s not his dream job, and it is hard to imagine anyone gutting out the election cycle that doesn’t really want to do it.

Posted by: Rob at April 9, 2007 1:21 PM
Comment #215701

Jack:
“We will win again in ‘08 and you all can percieve that already. It is just a question re which Repubican it will be.”

Hilarious!
And then Jack woke up, and with a deep sigh realized that tickled sensation was only the dog licking his hand…

“Dems made a mistake by letting their hatred of Bush get out of hand. They demonized the man past all reason and they did a good job.”

Oh, you mean like the Repugs did during the Clinton years? If recent history is repeated, this means the Dems will win the next election. But hopefully they won’t need to do so through computerized-rigging, illegal voter roll purging, or minority disenfranchising.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2007 1:25 PM
Comment #215705

Adrienne

You have to understand that I neither hold grudges nor feel tied to the past. I never demonized Clinton. I thought it was both unfair and unwise for some Republicans to do it. But it is even dumber for Dems to do it to Bush. Republicans hoped that they could tar Al Gore with the Clinton corruption. To some extent it worked because, as VP, Gore was natural successor to Clinton. George W. Bush has no such natural successor. In the general election, any Republican candidate can credibly say something like, “yes Bush is the past. I am a new candidate who has learned from those mistakes.” Republican could logically ask Gore re Clinton decisions, since he was often in the room for them. No Republican candidate has that burden. It will be hard for Dems to transfer the Bush hate to candidate X hate.

I do not believe Dems will win in 2008 because you do not have candidates that can beat ours. Besides that, however, I like your sentence. Read it three times and see how others might see it. “If recent history is repeated, this means the Dems will win the next election. But hopefully they won’t need to do so through computerized-rigging, illegal voter roll purging, or minority disenfranchising.” I also hope the Dems will not win through vote rigging etc. We agree.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 1:47 PM
Comment #215707

rahdigly,

“Just answer Dolan’s question, Rock! My goodness!”

I answered the damn question!

Because you are unsatisfied with my answer is your problem not mine.

Get over it.

Posted by: Rocky at April 9, 2007 1:57 PM
Comment #215711

Jack:

George W. Bush has no such natural successor. In the general election, any Republican candidate can credibly say something like, “yes Bush is the past. I am a new candidate who has learned from those mistakes.”

The only one who would stand a chance of winning a national election would be Hagel — because he has made no bones about criticizing the Neocons and showing he is aware of their mistakes. However, since Hagel is unlikely to win the nomination for the exact same reason, it is therefore extremely unlikely that a Republican will win the next election.

Besides that, however, I like your sentence. Read it three times and see how others might see it. “If recent history is repeated, this means the Dems will win the next election. But hopefully they won’t need to do so through computerized-rigging, illegal voter roll purging, or minority disenfranchising.” I also hope the Dems will not win through vote rigging etc. We agree.

Glad you liked it. Yes, I think it would really suck if the Dems felt they needed to become as crooked as the Repugs in order to win in ‘08, but since nothing much has been done about rectifying the chaotic state of our elections, none of us can be certain that various forms of cheating won’t occur.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2007 2:09 PM
Comment #215713

I’d give a second look to any republican candidate who:

(A) Admits w was a lousy President and (aii) will work to undo the damage.

and

(B) Will distance him(her)self from the pernicious infection of the religious right.

Also,

It will be hard for Dems to transfer the Bush hate to candidate X hate.
Way wrong. The whole republican party has earned the wrath of the sensible American. The evils of both the republican congress and presidency must be vociferously renounced before any reconciliation can occur and one of your people has a chance.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 9, 2007 2:10 PM
Comment #215715

Dave

Most Americans are paying more attention to if Sanjaya will be voted off American idol than politics. I am repeatedly surprised at how short political memory is.

Anyway, if you look at the current polls, you find that Potential Republican candidates often outscore their Dem rivals. This general dislike of Republican candidates of which you speak is not yet manifest. What change in conditions do you foresee?

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 2:26 PM
Comment #215719

a) I don’t know how good or bad a singer Sanjaya is, but they do make fun of him on the morning radio. At least he didn’t lie to start a war that will directly cost us 5000 american soldiers lives, ruin 50,000 more, and add a trillion dollars of debt.

b) The primaries then the election cycle. No goper will survive unless they align themselves into the middle then they’ll lose the voting diligence of the wingnut fanatics. In any case, Mitt bites it on his flip flops and being Mormon and McCain bites it on sucking up to Bush, his credibility will look like swiss cheese. Giulani has the best shot but he’ll bite it simply by being Rudy. He won’t survive being exposed as a conservative New Yoawkah (which is liberal to the red staters)
The rest simply won’t survive because they will have to suck up to the Dobson ilk to get any bigger to play national and then they’ll get eaten alive by speaking with forked tounge. The further we go, the more the war will be played up, the more people will associate Bush — War —- Goper candidate, the more it will cost your people. This is a post ‘06 election lull, payback on your teams evil of the last 6 years will resurge.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/2008PresidentialMatchups.htm

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 9, 2007 3:01 PM
Comment #215723

Your poll shows that Giuliani & McCain beat Clinton and Obama. What is your point?

My point re American Idol is not that it IS more important than politics, but that Americans are paying more attention to it.

Some Dems are hysterically angry. Most Americans are not. That is why Republican frontrunners beat Dem frontrunners. All the “evil” of the last six years is already baked into this pie. Unless some unforeseen event tips the balance, this will be a close election. Republicans are currently ahead, but it is a long time off.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 3:21 PM
Comment #215725

Beat? Spin 1… So polls are now +/-0?

You may be right, many people are tired of politics so they look at crap TV like American Idol. More Fox pollution of the American psyche (Couldn’t resist, lol)

Not ‘hysterical”, just really really really pissed off and worried that the cabal might pull off the coup. As we agreed above, many people are ‘tired’ of politics. And as we agree, the election is far off. But, I think you under value the fatigue and view it as a ‘close’ election. The rage will emerge as the dem congress keeps up with the subpoenas, the primaries get closer, the rest of the hidden evils are exposed, and the negative campaigns start to emerge.
Mitt is way back, McCain is shot (a picture of his adopted baby is all it took to knock him off in ‘00, now it will be the Bush hug and kiss maybe the “wasted lives” comment too) and only Giuliani was a local (relatively untouched by Bush excretions at the state and national levels). He’s liberal so might actually have a chance, but I don’t think so because of what I said before.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 9, 2007 3:33 PM
Comment #215728

Dave:
“The rage will emerge as the dem congress keeps up with the subpoenas, the primaries get closer, the rest of the hidden evils are exposed,”

Hey Dave, some of that hidden evil is hitting the fan as we speak…

Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2007 3:49 PM
Comment #215729

Dave

Yes. You are really pissed off. Most people are less so.

The polls are dead heat, as you say. That does not show that most people currently share your anger. You may be right about the future, but yours is merely a prediction based on wishful thinking.

Why do you think the negative campaign will hit only Republicans? The Clintons are the masters of the dirty trick. Do you think Obama will emerge as clean and inexperienced as he is today? Will he not fight back against Hillary? You remember the Clinton’s had plenty of scandals. Bill is a loveable rogue. Hilliary not so much.

But we are both speculating. Think of it in market terms. If you ask what a stock is “worth” there is lots of speculation, but it is really worth what somebody will pay for it today. Today the candidates are similar, with Republicans a little ahead. Any speculation about what will happen in the future is speculation about what will happen in the future.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #215730

Rocky,

“I answered the damn question! Because you are unsatisfied with my answer is your problem not mine.”


You didn’t answer the “question”! You didn’t say which democratic candidate is best qualified to lead the country in this time of war with terrorism. Instead, you gave this diatribe about Reagan, Carter, civics 101, the origin of the country, and (of course) asked a question (“How does anybody “qualify” to fight the war on terror?”).


So, once again, which democratic candidate do you think is “best qualified” to lead the country in the time of war with Terrorism?!!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 9, 2007 4:03 PM
Comment #215731

Jack,

Until this is “the past” everything here is speculation. Anyhow, we were, I thought, talking primarily “election”, not “primaries”. In the election, the thing that actually counts (except if SCOTUS messes up again), the mud will be Dem Candidate vs. Goper Candidate. The Goper will lose hands down.

Adrienne,

The laptop thing I don’t think will get too much traction with the public unless it can be raised to a prosecutable violation I’m elitestly afraid that it’s too “esoteric” for most. But for people with a brain, a conscience, and some sense of decency, it’s another high caliber smoking gun.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 9, 2007 4:04 PM
Comment #215734

Jack,

General comment: Saying the same thing over and over again in slightly different ways doesn’t make it true. You simply have no evidence that the voters will punish Democrats for “hating” Bush. That’s what you guys said in ‘06 and it didn’t happen.

But we are both speculating. Think of it in market terms. If you ask what a stock is “worth” there is lots of speculation, but it is really worth what somebody will pay for it today. Today the candidates are similar, with Republicans a little ahead.

If you want to look in monetary terms, why are the Democrats raising more money than the Republicans?

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 9, 2007 4:39 PM
Comment #215737

Dave:
“The laptop thing I don’t think will get too much traction with the public unless it can be raised to a prosecutable violation I’m elitestly afraid that it’s too “esoteric” for most.”

Dave, I don’t agree, because as my linked article said:

Democrats say evidence suggests the RNC e-mail system was used for political and government policy matters in violation of federal record preservation and disclosure rules.

And that’s even before we even see what sorts of things have been discussed using those RNC issued laptops…

Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2007 4:42 PM
Comment #215738

rahdigly,

“So, once again, which democratic candidate do you think is “best qualified” to lead the country in the time of war with Terrorism?!!

So let me guess, you’re now the answer police?

Frankly, that you refuse to understand or accept my answer, again, isn’t my problem.

If it makes you happy, I think that Pat Paulsen, who has been dead for nearly 10 years, is still the best “Qualified” candidate.

Posted by: Rocky at April 9, 2007 4:43 PM
Comment #215739

Woody

I did not say and do not believe that the voters will punish Dems for hating Bush. My speculationis that the will spend so much energy in hating Bush that they will miss other opportunities. Beyond that, if they throw all the sin onto Bush, a man who cannot run again and has not heir apparent, it will be easier for Republicans to do the same.

Dems are raising more money. Maybe the fat cats donors think they will win. But you have to remember that this is just the first stage. A donor might “invest” in Hilary or Obama hoping to get in early. Republicans are not doing so bad in this money game anyway. The two interesting things are that Hillary is not clearly beating Obama and Mitt Romney is leading the Republican pack. What those things mean is as much your guess as mine.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 4:47 PM
Comment #215740

Jack,

If the GOP has such strong candidates, then why are Republicans so desperate to find an alternative to Giuliani, Romney, and McCain? You guys are turning over every rock to find a reliable conservative who can actually win.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 9, 2007 4:49 PM
Comment #215741

rahdigly,

Actually, after thinking about it I belive that even dead, Pat Paulsen is still the best qualified candidate from either party.

Posted by: Rocky at April 9, 2007 4:52 PM
Comment #215742

Jack,

OK, here is what you wrote just now.

It will be hard for Dems to transfer the Bush hate to candidate X hate.

That is exactly what you guys said last year.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 9, 2007 4:57 PM
Comment #215743

Rocky,
“So let me guess, you’re now the answer police? Frankly, that you refuse to understand or accept my answer, again, isn’t my problem.”


What are we supposed to understand about your answers Rock; that they are politician answers and you don’t answer them directly?! Why do you refuse to answer a direct question with a straight-forward answer? This isn’t the first time you’ve done that, Rock?


“If it makes you happy, I think that Pat Paulsen, who has been dead for nearly 10 years, is still the best “Qualified” candidate.”


My goodness. That only took a few times to get a specific answer out of you. And, that particular person is dead!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 9, 2007 5:04 PM
Comment #215744

rahdigly,

Disappointment can be cathartic.

Posted by: Rocky at April 9, 2007 5:10 PM
Comment #215746

At least you were given a chance (three times) to tell us who you really are and what you really believe: a blogger that won’t answer questions (directly) and will throw red herrings around at will.

Oh well, it’s all about choices in life and taking responsibility and accountability for the choices we make. I thank you for your choice (to dodge this question).


Posted by: rahdigly at April 9, 2007 5:27 PM
Comment #215747

Jack:
“Dems are raising more money. Maybe the fat cats donors think they will win.”

Naturally. You know how fat cats are — it’s always all about what’s good for themselves and their bank accounts. Therefore, knowing the Republicans don’t stand a chance, they aren’t wasting their money on the obvious losers, nor do they wish to inhibit their ability to try to crookedly influence the party that they realize is going to be in power.
It’s sad, but true.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2007 5:28 PM
Comment #215748

Rocky my friend, never feed a troll.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2007 5:30 PM
Comment #215751

Why do you keep brining up ‘06. All dems accomplished was something that has never NOT been accomplished. What was surprising was how far to the right dems had to come to win those elections.

I didn’t know Thompson has blasphemed against the gospel according to Gore. That alone makes me want to look further into him. McCain left for too long now he says he’s back, can’t trust him.

Posted by: andy at April 9, 2007 5:38 PM
Comment #215752

Woody

I was surprised a little by last year, but consider what really happened. Dems won in Virginia and in Montana by statistical margins. It could have easily gone the other way in either or both. You also rely on two independents in the Senate. In the House you have about the majority Republicans had before the election. It was less a landslide than 1994. It was a lot like the Republican victory in 2002. You can take comfort in all this. It inspires little fear for me.

I think there is a very fine balance. I believe Republicans will win the presidency because we have better candidates. I figure you may disagree. We will know in 2008. I just hope it is not very close no matter who wins.

Bush will not be running again. Bush haters will be in the position Clinton haters are now. It is fun for them to try to dredge up the past, but not many people care anymore. It will be as frustrating for the Bush haters as it was for the Clinton haters. That is why haters are always angry and unhappy.

The road to hate is usually a dead end.

Adrienne

You are right that the fat cats invest in politicians they think will win. It is sad but true. Where they invest is sometimes a good indicator re who they think will win. But this far ahead, their guesses are not all that good. Hillary has a world class fund raising machine. She was actually the biggest loser. She hoped to blow Obama out of the water, but did not succeed. I do not think Obama can be elected. People like him because he is a good looking unknown. No real person can live up to the expectations put on him. And the Hillary machine will begin the levellng operation very soon. I think Hillary is still the 80% possibility.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 5:56 PM
Comment #215754

Adrienne,

“Rocky my friend, never feed a troll.”

Sometimes, but not very often, it can be a rewarding endevor.

rahdigly,

Why don’t we let dolan decide if I answered his question to HIS satisfaction?

Posted by: Rocky at April 9, 2007 6:28 PM
Comment #215756

Jack,
You know what I’m thinking? Since Clinton and Obama do seem likely go to go at each other like cats and dogs, they may well end up pissing everybody off in the process — and that would leave the Democratic field wide open for Edwards. Edwards is a strong and likeable candidate.
Also, I’m still not entirely convinced that Al Gore isn’t going to jump in and instantly become the front runner. I believe he could also win — and very easily, too.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2007 6:44 PM
Comment #215759

Adrienne

I lived in NH during the last primary season. John Edwards came to our HS in Londonderry and talked to about a dozen of us. I met him a couple times after. Even bought Pizza for some of his staff. He was the best of the Dems in the LAST race. He is a smart guy, but I do not think he has the staying power. He hurt himself by running with Kerry, but he also showed his own weakness. Like the others, he has almost no experience.

Gore has as much chance as an iceberg in his warmer world. He has groupies and fans, but the man is a little over the top and has been for a long time. I believe global warming is an issue, but Gore seems to take the worst case scenario in everything and then extrapolate beyond even that.

Hillary is your candidate. Organization beats charisma, especially with the earlier big primaries. She will lose in NH, but soon afer your state will make Hillary inevitable. She will almost win in November too.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 6:57 PM
Comment #215768

Jack,
I’m hoping against hope that America won’t be stupid enough vote for Hillary. After Bush, I’m hoping that they are hungry for a candidate that is clearly honest, sincere, intelligent, articulate and wants to focus on the needs of ordinary Americans. Obama, Edwards, Gore and others are all of those things, while Hillary only has intelligence and articulate covered — not to mention enormous wads of cash to toss around.
But what do I know about how smart America will decide to be in ‘08? I still can’t understand how so many would vote in such an empty-headed puppet for the corporations and the rich like Bush.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2007 7:32 PM
Comment #215771

Adrienne

It was the choice. A good Dem - a generic Dem - could have beat Bush in 2004. Instead you offered America John Kerry.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2007 7:36 PM
Comment #215773

Rocky,

“Why don’t we let dolan decide if I answered his question to HIS satisfaction?”


It’s amazing that you are even arguing that you (actually) answered the question specifically. Yet, I’ll go against Adrienne’s advice to “never feed a troll” on this one; we’ll let Dolan and anyone else on this blog decide if you answered the question specifically or not:


“Rocky,
Seriously of the democratic candidates which one is best qualified to lead the country in this time of war with terrorism. Posted by: dolan at April 8, 2007 11:42 PM “


“dolan,
There have always been bad guys out there. Since the beginnings of this country there have been relatively few times of true peace. Anyone that has read the Constitution and passed a Civics 101 class, is qualified to know how our government works. In recent times Presidents Reagan, Carter, Clinton, and Bush were elected having never held a national office, yet all had global conflicts to address during their tenures. What were their special qualifications for the job? Just because I am not a Bush apologist doesn’t mean I am a Democrat. Here’s a small clue. I was ready to vote for McCain in 2000. Fighting the war on terror is merely a small part of the job description as President of the United States. How does anybody “qualify” to fight the war on terror? Merely being a member of a political party, and having the ability to raise lots of money doesn’t make anybody qualified to be President. Posted by: Rocky at April 9, 2007 12:14 AM “

Posted by: rahdigly at April 9, 2007 7:43 PM
Comment #215777

Jack,

“He was the best of the Dems in the LAST race. He is a smart guy, but I do not think he has the staying power. He hurt himself by running with Kerry, but he also showed his own weakness.”


John Edwards “hurt himself” in the 2008 campaign by boycotting two debates on Fox News. If he’s afraid to debate (big, bad) FNC, then how’s he going to be against our allies and foes as President?!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 9, 2007 8:04 PM
Comment #215778

rahdigly,

Unless you are dolan (which, because you don’t use your real name, isn’t out of the realm of possibility), I truly don’t understand your stake in this except to give me grief for not answering your question about Rosie to your satisfaction 6 threads ago.

Enough already.

Posted by: Rocky at April 9, 2007 8:13 PM
Comment #215780

Rock, you’re missing, and have been missing, the entire point. You have not answered the question specifically. And,(you’re correct) you’ve done this before; most recently with the “would you consider Rosie O’donnell’s comments “insidious” and (for that matter) part of “Ann Coulter’s ilk?” question from last week.


It’s unbelievable that you are getting rattled and upset over this just because you won’t answer a simple question. Instead, you decided to “dodge” questions and use illogical fallicies (commenting on that I don’t use my real name; like that’s any relevance to the debate). So, calm down; keep you’re panties on and (for goodness sake’s) answer question’s specifically.


Besides, I already agreed that we would let Dolan and others decide if you answered or not.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 9, 2007 8:31 PM
Comment #215788

Rah, Edwards ability to see that debating on Faux is a waste of time and only encourges the bad guys has caused me to give him a hard look. Seems smarter than the rest just by ignoring Faux.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 9, 2007 9:34 PM
Comment #215801
Hillary is your candidate. Organization beats charisma, especially with the earlier big primaries. She will lose in NH, but soon afer your state will make Hillary inevitable. She will almost win in November too.

So your crystal ball tells you Hillary will be the Democratic candidate, and that she will barely lose to the Republican. Why doesn’t your crystal ball tell you who the Republican nominee would be? Even though you are a Republican, you seem to know more about the mind of a Democrat than the mind of a Republican.


Re Kerry: You make it sounds like it is the Democrats fault we are stuck with Bush. Hey, we didn’t vote for the guy.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 9, 2007 10:57 PM
Comment #215803

rahdigly,

“Besides, I already agreed that we would let Dolan and others decide if you answered or not.”

How incredibly magnanimous of you.

Posted by: Rocky at April 9, 2007 11:01 PM
Comment #215817

Rocky, Rahdigly,
Actually Rocky did not answer my question specifically with a candidates name however he did answer my question. At least I think he did. I dont want to put words in Rockys mouth, and Im sure Rocky will correct me if Im wrong but what I feel his answer was we have had presidents in the past both republicans and democrats who did not have any specific qualification for handling global conflics but all faced them. So none of the currant democratic or republican candidates are specifically qualified or unqualified by the narrowness of my question. I do disagree with one thing you said Rocky,fighting the war on terror should not be “a small part of the job description of the President of the United States.” At this time in our history it should in my eyes be a major part of his or her job decription. Respect you both, you both by far are better educated then myself.

Posted by: dolan at April 10, 2007 12:55 AM
Comment #215828

dolan,

Thank You.
That was exactly my point.

While many of our past Presidents have served in the military, very few have had the unique experience of actually commanding the military in battle before they became President.

Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower were the only candidates uniquely qualified to run a war.

Frankly, I don’t see anyone like that in this group from either party.

As far as the job description goes, running this country is a full time job without running a war. While our Presidents bear the ultimate responsibility, they, figuratively speaking, live or die on the advice of others.

Often with varying success.

Posted by: Rocky at April 10, 2007 8:41 AM
Comment #215831

Dolan, thank you, as well. You did agree that he didn’t answer the (specific) question specifically (which dem candidate). This has been an ongoing thing with this particular blogger; sorry to have involved you. It was a good question though.


j2t2,
“Edwards ability to see that debating on Faux is a waste of time and only encourges the bad guys has caused me to give him a hard look. Seems smarter than the rest just by ignoring Faux.”


So, fox news is the “bad guys”?! He’ll only debate with CNN; are they the “good guys”?! If he’s afraid to debate on FNC, then what (the hell) kind of a leader does that make him?

Posted by: rahdigly at April 10, 2007 9:25 AM
Comment #215833

rahdigly,

“If he’s afraid to debate on FNC, then what (the hell) kind of a leader does that make him?”

A smart one?

There is no debate on Fox, only yelling (kind of familiar?).

What exactly is the point of a debate if you cannot be heard?

Posted by: Rocky at April 10, 2007 9:34 AM
Comment #215847

Rocky,
“A smart one? There is no debate on Fox, only yelling (kind of familiar?). What exactly is the point of a debate if you cannot be heard?”

That’s not “smart”! He’s afraid to debate conservatives; what a wuss! FNC has a pretty, good size independent and liberal audience; besides, it wouldn’t be yelling,it’s just questions for a political debate. It would (actually) behoove the democrats to broaden their base; instead of just the “move-on.org” crowds. The repugs aren’t afraid to go on the MSM programs; which is (like) every TV news station with the exception of FNC. :-)

Posted by: rahdigly at April 10, 2007 11:34 AM
Comment #215849

rahdigly,

“He’s afraid to debate conservatives; what a wuss!”

Is this merely an assumption, or can you back this statement up with facts?

Posted by: Rocky at April 10, 2007 11:41 AM
Comment #215872

Rocky,

“Is this merely an assumption, or can you back this statement up with facts?”

It’s my opinion based on his actions. This is the second debate, hosted by Fox, that he refused to go on; yet, he’ll go on CNN. FNC has a pretty large conservative base and (yet) he’s afraid to go on and debate in front of them. He’s (supposed to be) running for President and he won’t even debate on an American news company. I believe that’s not the (proper) actions for a leader or for an American President; and (also), something “wussy” or wussieish, if you will. :-)

Posted by: rahdigly at April 10, 2007 12:49 PM
Comment #215875

So much for a direct answer.
What you’re saying is that you are speculating.

Posted by: Rocky at April 10, 2007 1:04 PM
Comment #215877
Dave, I don’t agree… before we even see what sorts of things have been discussed using those RNC issued laptop… Posted by: Adrienne at April 9, 2007 04:42 PM
I hope you’re right but Bush didn’t win by overestimating the general public and as you pointed out, there are no retention requirements for those computeres. Who says they haven’t already been wiped?

rahrah,

Just because there are too many ignorant people in this country who think Fox actually has news and is deserving of even the slightest respect, there is no reason for anyone to go on that crap network for a debate. Did you ever even slightly wonder why Obama got so much grief? Go see todays Doonesbury for a clue. http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070410

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 10, 2007 1:13 PM
Comment #215891

Dave120,
“Just because there are too many ignorant people in this country who think Fox actually has news and is deserving of even the slightest respect, there is no reason for anyone to go on that crap network for a debate.”

Ignorant, huh?! Ha! Sounds as if you’re afraid of the #1 rated cable news network; don’t worry, so is the competition and (now) Edwards. I mean, this guy wants to be the President of the United States, yet he can’t even debate on FNC. It’s pretty pathetic actually!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 10, 2007 2:07 PM
Comment #215905

rah,

As I said above, “Bush didn’t win by overestimating the general public” Clearly, being number 1 (if that’s true) meant pandering to the lowest denominator. The rest of the world laughs at our ignorance, stupidity, and dearth of real debate just as you applaud it. Did you read the linked cartoon? Did you “get” it? Do you think Vermont is full of traitors wearing baseball caps?
Fortunately, I think there is still hope for our nation (but I’m having my kids taught Mandarin, just in case)

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 10, 2007 3:33 PM
Comment #215908

Are you saying Trudeau is unbiased but Fox is not.

Posted by: andy at April 10, 2007 3:41 PM
Comment #215915
Are you saying Trudeau is unbiased but Fox is not. Posted by: andy at April 10, 2007 03:41 PM
Huh? Sorry, apparently I don’t speak koolaidese, and those double negatives, phew. Trudeau’s a cartoonist not a journalist. But then, since Fox doesn’t have any journalists does that make yours a fair question? In those conditions, maybe yes, a fair question. But then I wouldn’t watch or expect a debate on the Doonesbury channel. Did you even understand my questions? Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 10, 2007 4:21 PM
Comment #215916

andy,

“Are you saying Trudeau is unbiased but Fox is not.”

Trudeau has never claimed to be “fair and balanced”.

Posted by: Rocky at April 10, 2007 4:22 PM
Comment #215917

Dave120,

“The rest of the world laughs at our ignorance, stupidity, and dearth of real debate just as you applaud it. Did you read the linked cartoon? Did you “get” it? Do you think Vermont is full of traitors wearing baseball caps?”


Yeah, I’ve read the cartoon and I got it (the first time). If you (truly) believe that America is ignorant; that’s your opinion and your entitled to it. However, I believe it’s the rest of the world that’s ignorant and stupid b/c they don’t want to get involved with the real threats of our time. Look at what the “current day Hitler” in Iran is doing; he’s thumbing his nose at the world community and the EU and the UN nations aren’t doing sh*t about it. Many nations depend on business (oil) with Iran and (more than likely) won’t confront them b/c of that reason alone. And, the “hairy thug” is just one of the many despotic leaders that an US President has to deal with; that’s why I believe Edwards’ decision not to debate on FNC is absolutely ridiculous and (also) pathetic.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 10, 2007 4:26 PM
Comment #215918

Thought your question was “Did you wonder why Obama caught so much grief?”. Then you linked a doonesbury cartoon that backed your opinion that Fox is biased. If your question is deeper then I apologize just scanned thru.

Posted by: andy at April 10, 2007 4:31 PM
Comment #215920
Tommy Thompason has the practical ideas and executive experience.

Right…after 16 years of “Tommy”, Wisconsin was in an economic and fiscal black hole from which it has not yet emerged…

Remember what Bush did in Texas and know what Thompson did in Wisconsin and let both be a warning.

Posted by: Rachel at April 10, 2007 4:39 PM
Comment #215921

By the way English (proper writing) class always bored me, did enough to pass. But I am sure your brilliant liberal mind was able to comprehend the sentence.

Posted by: andy at April 10, 2007 4:41 PM
Comment #215938

Rachel

Wisconsin is my native state. I left in the middle 1980s. At that time 1980s there were few opporunities there. Welfare rolls we bursting, unemployment was high and the business climate was dim.

Thompson helped the state out of that funk. He did a good job. You are one of the first people I have heard who thought Wisconsin was in bad shape under Thompson. I admit that I no longer live there, but lots of my relatives still do. It seemed good.

Dave

“Fox News Sunday” is very good and so is “Special Report”. Some of the other programs are meant to be more entertainment than news. You find the same on CNN and the networks.

Posted by: Jack at April 10, 2007 6:28 PM
Comment #215982

Dave,
I guess I am one of your ignorant people that watch FOX news. I suppose about 50% of americans are ignorant in your eyes also if they do not share your views or choice of news media. I would suggest that this blogging being conducted over a computer makes it safe for elite highly educated people such as yourself to call people such as myself ignorant.

Posted by: dolan at April 11, 2007 12:19 AM
Comment #215991

Don’t worry about it Dolan, liberals are what they are. Maybe because they were put in sports leagues where there were no winners, maybe because everyone in their class (not named bush of course) got the same grade, but for whatever reason they are a touchy specimen. Test it, the next time you question one see how long it takes for a pointless insult of yourself or your intelligence. They have not been taught the proper survival skills for present day, only for a percieved utopia in socialism.

Remember, these people tried to give us Kerry (poster child of smug), and would love to give us a carbon copy in Gore.

Posted by: andy at April 11, 2007 5:25 AM
Comment #216024
“Fox News Sunday” is very good and so is “Special Report”….Posted by: Jack at April 10, 2007 06:28 PM
And Triumph of the Will was fantastic for its evil pupose as well.
I would suggest that this blogging being conducted over a computer makes it safe for elite highly educated people such as yourself to call people such as myself ignorant. Posted by: dolan at April 11, 2007 12:19 AM
So you’re saying that in person I would need to be concerned with your predisposition to violence? Oh, and thanks for acknowledging my superior intellect and knowledge base. Maybe then you can take the next step and feel something other than just being threatened by our superiority and stop aligning yourself with those idiots born with silver spoons up their nose who act stupid.

As for andy, whatever floats that little dinghy dude.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 11, 2007 11:26 AM
Comment #216124

Dave,
Thanks for proving my point.

Posted by: dolan at April 11, 2007 9:31 PM
Comment #216126

Dave

You probably need to reconsider your news mix and diversify a bit. I am not very impressed with that knowledge base you speak of.

“Triumph of the Will” was not meant to inform. Your comparing it to Fox News Sunday etc shows you either have not understood the basics of either.

Posted by: Jack at April 11, 2007 9:44 PM
Comment #216177

Jack,

So much for your mastery and understanding of analogy and sarcasm. To think I had given you some credit. tsk tsk me. Do I need to add asterisks or should I have referred to the Berlin Olympics instead?

dolan,

You had a point? Bannanas have sharper points.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 12, 2007 9:28 AM
Post a comment