Wednesday, May 30, 2007
|
|
The Politico's Mike Allen And The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes On Fred Thompson: Wither The Al Davis Republicans? (UPDATED)
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
5:42 PM
|
|
Politico.com's Mike Allen joins me int he second hour today to talk about his article on Fred Thompson's decision to enter the campaign. I have two key questions.
First, Allen reports that Thompson might skip the Ames Straw Poll on August 11 where Giuliani, McCain, and Romney have been preparing to test their respective organizational strengths A decision by Fred to skip the showdown would be very surprising as (1)you don't win elections by skipping contests, and (2)the folks in Iowa like their straw poll, so you don't win a lot of friends in the state by thumbing your nose at their summer fun.
I also will follow up on the questions I posed to Jim VandeHei a few weeks ago about Thompson's indolent lymphoma: What is the rate of recurrence of the disease, and in those cases in which it recurs, how often are those recurrences debilitating? While not a candidate, Thompson was spared having to discuss the health issue very much, but Republicans have a right to know the odds that their nominee could find himself in chemo or some other form of treatment after the nomination has been secured and before the general election campaign has been fought. If the very thin reporting on the specifics of his illness is correct, it has been about three years since the first diagnosis of the cancer, and thus a couple of years away from the five year mark which typically signals "full recovery" for a cancer patient.
Fred Thompson is going to make an already fascinating race even more compelling as he is a very different candidate than the other big three. He deals the harshest blow to McCain whose shaky start has left a lot of major players uneasy at having backed the wrong horse. Whereas the Rudy and Mitt people knew exactly what they were signing up for --an against-the-grain of the GOP's ideological base run by Rudy or a catapult campaign by Mitt that would use early success in Iowa and New Hampshire and superior fundraising and organizational skills to march through the bunched up r=primaries that follow.
McCain's people thought they were teaming up with a front runner in the mold of W in '00 or Dole in '96. They were banking on the GOP's long standing predilection to send the nomination to the "next-in-line," which by their count meant McCain.
But Senator McCain isn't going to benefit from a party tradition when he hasn't been a traditional party guy in any sense of the word. Senator McCain's been an anti-party guy, and his plummeting support shows what happens when that record is matched against fresh faces and better energy.
So Thompson gives every McCain staffer and money backer a chance at a do-over. If the exodus from McCain to Thompson gets started, it could burgeon very quickly.
UPDATE: Just interviewed Stephen Hayes of the WeeklyStandard.com about Thompson. Hayes also has a piece up on the Fred's decision to get in, but thinks McCain-Feingold may be more of a problem for the former senator than is generally thought. The transcript of my interviews with both Hayes and Allen will be up here later.
One more thought about Fred Thompson's momentum and why it may not be as great or as sustainable as some pundits speculate.
There is a great fear in the GOP that Hillary is approaching with Bill in the sidecar and Senator Obama on the bottom of the ticket, MoveOn and Kosputin whipping the fever swamp into a frenzy and Soros pouring his last cent into his last play. Thompson as Reagan meant for a lot of these people not Thompson as a conservative's conservative, but Thompson as a powerful candidate capable of summoning a huge outpouring of energy and enthusiasm from the base and the old Reagan Democrats alike leading to a big win as in 1980 and 1984. Couldn't we please have a candidate who could establish and keep a lead like the Gipper.
Except, of course, Ronald Reagan did not establish and keep a lead in 1980. Until the last few days of the race, President Carter and Governor Reagan were viewed as neck-and-neck in a race too close to call. There isn't any reason to believe that Fred would have any easier a go of it than Rudy or Mitt, and as that becomes obvious in the days and weeks and months after his entry, the folks hoping for an easy win are going to drop that enthusiasm and start looking hard again at all three, asking which one is the best candidate.
These are the Al Davis Republicans --"Just win, baby"-- and their support will be decisive in 1Q08. One reason I suspect the Fred boom may be over before it has even really begun is the recognition that on the stump Fred will be seen as the southerner he is --slow, folksy, plain spoken. In a year when an anti-Bush may be needed, a Brookyln-born Mob-busting tough guy, or the hyper-intelligent, hyper-eloquent investment banker turnaround executive may emerge quickly as far more likely to be the "something completely different " that Reagan was in 1980, and thus the strong prefernce of the Al Davis GOPers.
UPDATE #2: Geraghty the Indispensible has great sources inside Team Thompson. Perhaps Jim's blog should be renamed the Hillary-Fred Spot?
|
|
We are living in a time when denial of important
basic and relevant realities and facts are summarily dismissed.Fred Thompson may be a philosophically attractive candidate, however, above and beyond any other consideration it cannot be dismissed that he has a life-threatening, terminal disease. Its current remission and impending, inevitable reappearance must not be dismissed.It's tragic, but must not be dismissed.
I say this with all objectivity.I,certainly, think
several of his stances are correct, but this is wrong to impose this on an already torn electorate.
The amount of energy required, with which he
must be quite familiar, is equivalent to training
24/7 and racing the Tour de France for five years without mercy, regardless of personal health problems, non-stop. The difference is he is making decisions for 350 million people , a country at war, and that will be for years to come, as leader of the free world and Commander -in-Chief of the greatest military on earth.Every decision
effects that moment in time and the future.
Of course, if he continues to run, his choice of Vice President will have enhanced significance.
Possibly, he will run for awhile to be able to give the voters another , more Conservative option, and, later, pull out with the weight of his supporters to be given to another candidate.
One might wonder what he is thinking with two small children, who will need him for many years to come. |
|
What a dispicable tactic he used to bring out the "C Card" on Fred Thompson before the man is officially in the race.
What is even more offensive is Hugh trying to come off as an unbiased observer in this primary season. Yes, he does say if the California primary were held today he'd vote for Romney. However, he also tries to massage that answer with a serious "things could change" type attitude as if he might be persuaded to choose another candidate between now and next February. Jeez, Hugh, who do you think you're kidding?
All one has to do is look at this website to see the number of mentions and adulation Romney receives over other candidates and it's not hard to figure out who the author of a Romney book is cheering for. Yet, the man lacks the integrity to fess up and admit he's a Romney man all the way. Kind of reminds me of the MSM trying to explain how they're not biased.
Lastly, The Great One, Mark Levin, has interviewed both Thompson and Romney since the immigration bill came to light (Romney last night). Go to marklevinfan.com and listen to how each of those men answer questions regarding the immigration bill. Fred actually answers Levin's questions decisively and is emphatic with his distaste for the bill (scroll just past halfway down the page to get to the Thompson audio link). Romney on the otherhand says he doesn't like the bill yet throws in the perverbial "but..." into his answer. Romney distinctly says he "isn't going to get terribly hot and energetic about the issue".
Lastly, Levin funs around with Romney at the start of the interview and says "you don't even know who I am do you? Be honest." Romney then says "I know who you are by virtue of the writeup I have...". Now, if Romney is such a conservative the how in the heck does he not know who Mark Levin is? Romney seems to be like the Boy in the Bubble...and he ain't gonna be president. |
|
"Except, of course, Ronald Reagan did not establish and keep a lead in 1980. Until the last few days of the race, President Carter and Governor Reagan were viewed as neck-and-neck in a race too close to call."
Yes, but that Time article from 1980 raises several possibilities: that the race truly was neck-and-neck until the last minute, when 8 million voters suddenly switched to Reagan, is one view. That Reagan really led by more than the polls indicated, and his large lead (51%-41%) should have been detected by more accurate polls, is another. The fact that as HH says the race “was viewed as” a nail-biter doesn’t mean it was one.
Also, 1980 was very different than today. A challenger defeating any incumbent is hard enough, even a mediocrity like Carter. Doing so even by half the ten points he won by would be a huge landslide, for a challenger. And that doesn’t even include the John Anderson factor (the popular independent and former Republican stole far more support from RWR than from JEC), and the Watergate factor; we were still only six years removed from a huge GOP black eye. That’s the same distance we are now from 9-11, which obviously still resonates with the public. |
|
BTW, as a huge Raiders’ fan since 1974, I have to point out that the days when Al had a clue about football are long past. There’s a reason that the only thing they’ve “just won” in a long, long time is the dubious honor of selecting first in the draft this year – and you know how that “victory” was attained.
The “Davis GOP” monicker is however very apt, as Al’s current Raiders are losers for similar reasons that the 2006-07 GOP are losers: they’re trying to fight today’s battles with yesterday’s weapons and strategies. Just as Davis continually goes for Daryl Lamonica type quarterbacks, hoping that when they air the ball out 65 yards Warren Wells will run under it for a long TD, the GOP establishment and its media elites are trying to anoint their latest Ken doll (thanks, Ben) who looks and talks like an idealized television version of a pol when you wind him up. |
|
The Romneyites must be running scared if they’re willing to stoop this low this early. Give the man a chance to enter the race before you start the whispering campaign about the big C.
HH is throwing a lot of mud, desperately hoping some of it sticks, but in doing so he’s contradicting himself.
•Thompson is at death’s door and GOP voters will wisely shy away from him due to his problematic health.
•And his entry into the race is a devastating blow to John McCain.
Take your pick. Either way, this is great news for Romney.
By my count, this is the eleventh final nail in the coffin that McCain’s campaign has received this year (per Townhall). I figure anybody this hard to kill is looking like a pretty good candidate.
Joe, that’s what’s funny. As strong as McCain’s and Thompson’s chances are (much stronger than the zero they’re credited with by Romney’s cheerleaders), Rudy is the 900-pound gorilla. And the Romneyites are (probably wisely) not taking him on; they’re running for second place in the immediate race, hoping to deal with Rudy later.
I question the wisdom of their strategy. They could win a battle or two for Romney and in doing so lose the war. There seems to be a belief that if and when McCain and Thompson fold up their tents, their supporters will fall neatly into line behind Romney (usually perceived as a less unreliable conservative than Rudy). And in a world where things simply played out as they played out, that might happen. But if instead McCain and Thompson are seen, correctly or not, as having been overcome by well-funded, carefully orchestrated Romney attacks, there will likely be an anti-Romney backlash that can only benefit Rudy.
Of course, as the prohibitive front-runner, Rudy has the luxury of taking the high road and letting Mitt do the dirty hatchet work. It’s surprising that the one candidate with the rep of a junkyard dog has issued the fewest personal attacks, but that’s the advantage of running from ahead. |
|
I love Hugh, but his elitest GOP establishment take on Thompson is naive. I almost puked when Hugh referred to the '64 election and how a conservative consensus got us creamed. What got us creamed was a sympathy vote after the Kennedy assasination, and the defection of Rockefeller Republicans. The GOP had a much more liberal strain then, then it does now, and the south was locked up by Democrats. Totally different scenario.
The base is fractured and nobody can and will unite it like Fred.
As Rush says, when we run as conservatives, we win. |
|
Now they are focusing on Fred. Too late, too sick, too lazy. . .
Next it will be on Giuliani. Too fascist, too liberal, too many wives.
Dean and Hugh want Mitt. They would rather lose the general election. |
|
" . . .Mitt just doesn't seem to 'connect' with me. He's well spoken, good lookin, and seemingly has alot going for him but really...he just looks like a politician to me. Fred doesn't."
Romney "seemingly" has a lot going for him?
Thompson is an actor. Apart from acting he's been a senator with virtually no leadership opportunities and experience (unlike Reagan). Before he was an actor he was a prosecutor, a lawyer. That's it. Not a bad guy. But definitely NOT a candidate with much of an executive resume. I have more executive experience than Thompson does. You probably do too.
Romney on the other hand is an executive of the first rank, a leader with an impeccable 30 year resume of high accomplishment across a wide range of endeavors. No fluff in there.
You have fallen for an image of executive accomplishment over a proven record of executive accomplishment.
That's pretty pathetic when you think about it. |
|
Hugh, I haven't decided - Romney, Fred, or Rudy I'm open to - but as a long long time listener today's subtle hit on Fred seems out of character to the man I know.
Just a shame |
|
Ted: Considering all they do is post smarmy half truths and hit pieces, and do not allow refutation or correction or comments... That marks them shills. Its founded by a PR guy in Atlanta, and backed by Romeny Oppo research. And the writers there aren't exactly leaders in the evangelical community. Not exactly the "Evangelicals" that they advertise to be. Would they allow for comments, then I'd not be so harsh. Hugh does. So do most other blogs of a political nature that are here to spur discussion. Apparently their aim isn't to spur discussion but to spew innuendo.
Clear enough? Thats my opinion based on the facts I have and the writing and general diction, tone & tenor of the hit/smear pieces they publish there. Its fair if you disagree - I have no problem agreeing to disagree on our divergent opinions the Evangelicals site. They simply are unimportant in the larger scheme once they have been revealed to be what they are. Gnats.
Now, back to the question at hand: Fred Thompson and Lymphoma.
Anyone that reads my comment above knows the whole of the truth now about the exact diagnosis, treatment and prognosis.
To persist in dragging this issue up reveals the intent of the questioner is not based on curiosity, but on intent to smear and malign, or induce "Frea Uncertainty and Doubt" (FUD).
Hugh should be ashamed for selling out to be part of a FUD campaign like this - and once again being a shill for the wrong cause.
Have you no decency, shame or honor Hugh?
2 Words Hugh: Harriet Myers.
Start now Hugh, in figuring out how to apologize for the damage you are now doing, all to shill for your book.
And get back to the important things: FIGHT THE IMMIGRATION BILL. Fred will still be there in a week, but the Bill will pass if you allow yourself to wander off into your Romney pumping. Keep your eye on the ball Hugh, stop being such a wanker. |
|
|
(or any other candidate, for that matter) |
|
Come on.
My buddy from work called, we talk about Hugh's show every day. Love it. He's a great ambassador for the conservative agenda.
He's driving home from work, calls me and says....what is the deal with Hugh? Why is he dissing Fred so bad?
I said...well, he's gotta sell the book.
Hugh. No more commenting on Fred. You and your pocketbook are in bed with Romney. Don't try to be objective. You can't. Please. Please stop. |
|
**The "Pro Choice" stuff spewed by Evangelicals For Mitt (staffed by paid PR shills) has been debunked. Thoroughly.**
The only thing that has been thoroughly debunked is that Evangelicals for Mitt is staffed by paid PR shills.
The evidence is pretty solid that Fred Thompson was mildly pro-choice back in the 90s (he favored first semester abortions, which is when 90% of all abortions occur). The evidence includes a constituent letter, widespread news reports that Thompson was pro-choice, which his campaign didn't die, and a live TV interview.
But why does any of this matter? As long as Thompson admits it, which I think he has, it shouldn't. The only reason it matters is because some people get shrill and fanatical about their candidate and lash out at all the others. If you doubt me, just read some of the comments by both Fred and Mitt supporters in this thread. |
|
**If he handles Hillary (and Obama and Edwards) as he disposed of Michael Moron, neither of the three top dems. will know what hit them.**
Except in the debates, Hillary gets to answer back. And she's interested in winning, not just creating publicity like Michael Moore is. I still think Fred will take her, but some of you people need to work on expectations management.
|
|
|
Hugh doesn't need to bother. I answered it all for him here - from an answer I researched over a month and a half ago. All Hugh and Dean (and the smear meisters they talked to) have to do is search a bit harder. Hugh & Company, Google is your friend. |
|
The "Pro Choice" stuff spewed by Evangelicals For Mitt (staffed by paid PR shills) has been debunked. Thoroughly.
And as for your snark about "between marriages", that was 17 YEARS between his divorce and remarriage. You are being disingenuous with what you are trying to imply with half truths and lies of omission.
Plus, his first (former) wife is ready to CAMPAIGN for him!
So it sort of shoots down your repetition of old rumors and half truths.
And, remarkably enough, you simply parroted the script on Evangelicals... Do you work for them? I note that, for a blog, they have NO COMMENTS. Its all push for those PR slur-mongers masquerading as evangelicals, and I bet they don't dare allow comments because FACTS tend to discredit everything they say. Their entire site is a web of lies of omission, half truths and refuted old rumors. Mitt can do better than sending out his oppo research to scumbags like that.
|
|
on ABC radio networks website remind me of of Bruce Herschenson's white papers. Especially when it comes to National Security... Doesn't get more conservative than that, Herschenson was very close to defeating Boxer in a senate run in California.
I like Mitt, I'll take Rudy, but I really want to see what Fred has to offer. By the way, Newt can't run... After shooting himself in both feet, he isn't even walking. |
|
NOTE: This is directed at the interview, NOT at Dean or Hugh. Dean, Hugh: get ready for your education on marginal zone lymphoma.
ALL: This was asked and ansewred over a month and a half ago.
As I posted on ElephantBiz, April 15, 2007 8:48 PM
Thompson was diagnosed in November 2004 with nodal marginal zone lymphoma, an indolent B-cell lymphoma. Nodal marginal zone lymphomas account for only 1% all Non-Hodgkins Lymphomas(NHL).
About use of announced use of rituximab in early therapy. Ruling out CHOP since this is not a diffuse large B cell lymphoma, a standard treatment for a number of NHLs is R-CVP, of which rituximab is a component. I do note that this is more often a stage 3-4 treatment, and since they did not mention chemo and steroids (the "C" is chlorambucil, the P is prednisone), I doubt this is what was used. Rituximab is approved for other uses (Rehumatoid arthritis for instance), and this may have been an "off label" therapy decided upon by the oncologist and the patient's risk tolerance and desires. (And for the non-medical folks, rituximab is a genetic vectored therapy that targets only the lymphoma cells, not a chemo that hits the whole body).
From my consultations, this is a bit aggressive in terms of standard treatments, - but were I in Fred Thompson's position I would think the risks would be worth it - consider the young child he had (only one at the time, the other came well after his diagnosis); taking bit of a risk with a harder treatment line is worth it in terms of better life expectancy. And it beats chlorambucil's potential (chemo) side effects - rituximab is simpler for the patient (usually via IV infusion 1 time a week for 4 weeks).
Furthermore, ANY statement of stage 2 or worse is squarely at odds with the reality (i.e. a political lie). For those of you unfamiliar, here are the general definition of NHL stages:
Stage 1 The lymphoma is only in one group of lymph nodes, in one particular area of the body.
Stage 2 More than one group of lymph nodes is affected, but all the affected nodes are contained within either the upper half or the lower half of the body.
Given the descriptions of a single lump under the jaw and no other areas involved (the armpits and/or neck would have been stated had it been stage 2), Sen Thompson's lymphoma was very likely stage 1.
Secondarily, the medical literature available very much disputes any presumption that people die from the disease more often that other causes. I believe anyoen that says otherwise is mischaracterizing it - -this is based on talking to an oncologist that I know, and from others experienced in the field. There may be other info more current that his oncologist in Georgetown has than what has been publicly cited (not to mention typical press laziness has them citing outcomes for the wrong disease). Here are some sources for to consult - they proved valuable for me, and might educate you.
Oxford Textbook of Oncology (2nd edition). Eds Souhami et al. Oxford University Press, 2002.
Wintrobe’s Clinical Haematology (11th edition). Eds Lee et al. Williams and Wilkins, 2004.
Malignant Lymphoma. Eds Hancock et al. Arnold, 2000.
Improving Outcomes in Haemato-oncology. National Institute of Clinical Excellence, November 2003.
British Committee for Standards in Haematology guidelines on nodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma, draft 2. August 2002
On top of all that, a direct quote from Thompson's doctor basically demolishes anyone taking the position that Sen Thompson is physically at risk for serving out his term:
"Some lymphomas are very aggressive, but people with slow-growing types, like Senator Thompson's, often dying from natural causes associated with old age, rather than from the disease. In 2004, Senator Thompson was diagnosed with a form of lymphoma. Today, he is in remission from this, slow-growing disease. Senator Thompson chose to receive such therapy (Rituxan), but he is no longer in treatment as he is in remission. Doctors cannot currently detect the lymphoma by physical examinations or scans. Senator Thompson has never been physically ill or had any symptoms from his lymphoma or had any side effects from the therapy." Bruce D. Cheson, M.D. Professor of Medicine Head of Hematology Division of Hematology/Oncology.
The one thing that people do get right is that there would probably be a recurrence eventually, followed by likely re-treatment with rituximab. That much was stated by Sen Thompson's oncologist in an interview later.
But most damning to any critic using this argument are the words from Fred Thompson himself: "I have had no illness from it, or even any symptoms. My life expectancy should not be affected."
So, to the critics: Are you accusing Fred Thompson of lying to the public about his fitness for the Presidency? Or, more likely, is it that you are overstating and misrepresenting the case? In effect, I believe the critics are trying to discredit by use of half truths - and to me, thats disingenuous and deceitful, unless its out of pure ignorance. I solved that problem of ignorance with a bit of research and people I know in the medical field, why couldn't you?
I'd likely get a more honest and informed opinion from a survivor, or from an RN who works oncology and has done so for 25 years, than I would apparently get from you. And I have gotten just such an opinion. My mom is that nurse, and my father was 8 years out from mild chemo with with nary a sign at age 74 (MI took him). As a matter of fact, his type II diabetes was a far larger issue for his health.
So, yes Sen Thompson has a form of cancer, but not its not as debilitating and disqualifying as many attempt to make it out to be, and their diagnosis and prognosis is flat out wrong and appears to be a scare tactic.
I suggest they stick to the facts - lest they be called on them, and shown to be lying or ignorant, like I showed here. Leave diagnosis and prognosis of lymphomas up to *real* doctors involved in this - professional oncologists.
The bottom line is: Were Thompson truly at such a risk as disengenuously inferred, he would not run, its not in his character.
To say otherwise reveals even more about critics than it does him.
Consider you now have no excuses you can attribute to ignorance.
|
|
|
Lighten up. His adult daughter died unexpectedly several years ago and he wants to have more kids. I am sure his wife was into it, she is 35, and 60 is not that old. I recognize having kids late in life is difficult, but it is not creepy. |
|
For you guys- incompetent and batsh** crazy. (You haven't seen the NFL standings in the last three years, have you?)
Thompson's declaring (if he actually does, which I doubt) won't change much. He's already gotten writeups in right-wing publications for months, and in fact his poll numbers have been flat or declining since March. His novelty has already worn off, and he has no substantive platform. And like everyone other GOoPer, every major Democrat beats him like a rented mule.
McCain would be the big winner if Freddy jumps in- wingnuts now have one more way to splinter their vote. (And Coburn, Gingrich and perhaps others are still waiting in the wings.) He'll take the moneymen's support and waltz to victory while Mitt's, Fred's, Rudy's, and all the other crusaders fall on each other. |
|
McCain is frustrating in his ability to annoy the base. Some of it is actually character (he believes what he believes so he says it) and some of it is just McCain being ornery. And I say this as a guy who really likes McCain. Despite Hugh and Dean's OTT rhetoric, McCain is hardly out of it (he is leading in South Carolina, competative in New Hampshire and Iowa, and has a chance in Florida) but I think Fred Thompson (if he plays things right) will be the nominee. If not Fred, then Giuliani.
Mitt may do well (and he is an impressive candidate) and may even score a VP slot, but he will not be the nominee. The bottom line is Mitt has to show he can take on the Dems and his relentless move to the right is going to doom him in the general. It is a Catch 22. The GOP is in a bad situation and ultimately its chances rest more on General Petraeus than anyone else. |
|
Gabby,Winston C., ya'll are funny!
Hugh, I am concerned about the bigotry you seem to be showing. You constantly bring up cancer as a way to frighten us from voting for Fred. Its not news that Fred has lymphoma, yet you ask questions that there are no real answers for, its all just pure speculation.
Is this how we do presidential politics? Is Fred going to have to answer all kinds of questions about his health? |
|
Hugh,
I love your show/blog, and I like Mitt; but I'd like to know why you're so negative on F Thompson. It can't be just the health issue. Every positive thing you bring up about him ends in a BUT that you focus on. He agrees with you on most everything, and he is viewed as likable by the mainstream and winnable in the nationwide election (as is Mitt Romney). He will be a viable conservative candidate and will be easier to sell to the conservative base. I'm a Romney supporter for now, but I am taking a serious look at F Thompson. |
|
A shill for empty skirt, Harriet Miers and now, New England milquetoast RINO, Willard Romney.
Fool me once, shame on YOU. Fool me twice, shame on ME.
Not this time. |
|
|
Look what happened to the last Northeasterner who got elected. America actually LIKES Southernors not named Carter. |
|
Hugh loves giving Mitt endless rhetorical reach-arounds.
It must be soooooo "satisfying".
Mitt, the king flip-flopper, the Republican Party's Slick Willie, couldn't do any wrong with Hugh if he repeated his earlier mistake and said he was a life-long fisherman, even if he hadn't ever been licensed to fish.
It's a pathetic spectical and worthy of ridicule.
I'll enjoy watching the Massachusetts flip-flopper's campaign go the way of Willard Romney's previous political benefactor, Democrat Paul Tsongus, a loser to the man who defaced the Oval Office.
Let the real contest begin.
_________________________________________________
Bob Beckel: "Fred Thompson is the Left's worst nightmare"
|
|
I'm astounded, Hugh is quick to point out anti Mormon comments, but on his radio show he dislikes Thompson because he is a Southerner.
Question - how many recent Presidents have been from the South? How many from the Northeast?
No worry, though, if Mitt falters, Hugh will jump on board another campaign quicker than I can say Kiss My Grits. |
|
Because he says things that sound tough, and will argue in cliches I can understand. Plus I saw him on Law and Order a few times, and I like a man who has a nice drawl.
DU |
|
|
I've heard the allegation of pro choice to pro life and I think that has been debunked. And where are you getting the other item you are talking about? running around and getting caught? You sure you aren't talking about Giuliani? |
|
i'm sure Hugh will be the first to let us know ;)
(ps. might be time to start hedging your bets on Mitt) |
|
Apparently he has flipped from pro choice to pro life. Did you not know that?
Plus, did you see that article today where he laughs about his single days, running around and getting "caught" by women who chased him between his divorces.
Yeah, that's really hilarious, right? Some conservative with a real moral nature there.
|
|
With Fred's entry there is only one large ominous cloud looming and undeclared.
Fred can't be any worse than the most dangerous man in in America; the prime poisoner of the US political waters, Mr. Albert Gore Jr.
The "Man on Horseback" who now offers himself to prevent the unknown but fearful possible calamities of not racial but atmospheric Pollution.
The man has no scruples, just like the ambulance chaser already declared. After planting massive electoral distortion during the last week prior to the 2000 election, by saying there was evidence of three convictions for DUI hidden and supposedly suppressed and about to be revealed about his opponent, Funny but the dirty trick bashing has never been heard about since.
It narrowed his opponent's lead, but Mr. Gore still lost. He than tried to sue his way into the Presidency, by using the best tort ambulance-chasing lawyers available. He employed them to reverse a close election loss.
Employing their usual tactics, of dissembling, distortion, creating poisonous emotionalism, excluding and disallowing evidence, (their votes), and allowing only friendly evidence (his votes). It didn't work, but it sure did poison the well.
He had done more to make the 2000 election appear illegitimate and initiate BDS. Like an earlier fanatic he rants of the "stab in the back" and updates it to: " Bush betrayed us." "Bush lied to us".
He has done more to sponsor the division we see in American Politics than anyone else.
Now I don't carry a lot of water for Mr. Richard Nixon. But he knew it could tear the country apart if he really fought to win the 1960 recounts in Illinois. He put the welfare of the country ahead of his own ambitions,and graciously accepted and congratulated Mr. Kennedy.
Where was Mr. Gore by comparison? Mr. Gore demonstrated that he didn't, and doesn't, give a ruddy care about the country. It's all about HIM.
Watching Leonardo DiCaprio at the Oscars, trying to worship and touch the hem of Mr. Gore's coat was like watching Lili Riefenstahl's "Triumph of Will" worship of "Der Leader" at another political rally, in another time. It raised hackles on my neck.
Now he appoints himself as the would be leader not of the Red Shirts of Bolshevism; nor the Black Shirts of Fascism; nor the Brown Shirts of Nazism; nor the No Shirts of Peronism; but the Green Shirts of extreme environmentalism gone crazy. He harnesses and co-opts the loons of the Earth Liberation Front and their cohorts at the fringe of other "Green" organizations.
All the "Shirts" employ the same tactics; burn books, & buildings; and hurt people. Shout down any who disagree; and disrupt civil discourse at meetings. Shut minds, appeal to emotionalism. Worship the Savior. All done, to intimidate in the name of their zealousness for their warped religion and cause.
In no case was the country in which it occurred the better for it. |
|
I think there's something creepy about a guy who marries a woman 25 years younger and has kids in his sixties. Actually, I'd say there's something creepy and selfish about having kids that late in life, especially if he's going to turn around and run for President while they're 1 and 4.
The more I get to know about Fred Thompson, the less I like him. |
|
Cancer-scare talk with Stephen Hayes.
Absolutely Begala-esque. |
|
|
|
|
I never thought I'd see a hit piece from a guy in our party... |
|
Such general questions about indolent lymphoma can be researched right here on the web.
Jim VandeHei's wiki shows he has exactly zero medical expertise. So, if your concern is truly about medical questions why are you asking him medical questions at all, let alone following up with Mike Allen?
Making this topic your second (and largest) paragraph on this post is transparently low rent.
You should be ashamed. You should be better than this.
I'll regard you in lower esteem from this point on.
|
|
in the earlier thread about Fred. Hugh would come out and start the scare about Fred and cancer. Personally he looks mean enough to scare cancer into remission forever ;)
Mitt just doesn't seem to "connect" with me. He's well spoken, good lookin, and seemingly has alot going for him but really...he just looks like a politician to me. Fred doesn't. He looks like a guy that wants to get into this thing because people think he'll make a difference. Maybe that's his scheme, his strategy, but it's working.
If he's in, it's his to lose. |
|
Hugh, where were you when Fred announced he had cancer and every doctor on the planet spoke up about it? Not that it doesn't make for interesting talk radio, but it's water under the bridge.
Why don't you instead focus on Fred's conservative positions? For a REALLY interesting topic, you could compare the consistency between Mitt and Fred on conservative principles. |
|
Although not a McCain guy myself, earlier on I thought he would almost assuredly win. Giuliani was too liberal on social issues and too hard edged in personality to win. And Romney had the Mormon problem (which doesn't bother me, but seems to bother other people) and his endless flip flopping (which you tend to gloss over, but is very true) - both of which hamper him. Compared to these two, I thought McCain would get the social conservatives as a social conservative, get the economic conservatives as an economic conservative, and get the establishment as the "next in line."
Now I tend to doubt McCain will win. On seemingly every issue, McCain continues to attack various Republican subgroups that might actually vote for him if only he would treat them with some respect. He refuses to go to CPAC; the only major Republican to do so. He picks pointless fights with prominent conservatives like Grover Norquist. He proudly mentions the campaign finance bill during the debates, when he should downplay it. And most recently, he parachutes into the immigration issue to take credit for it, when it was well known that most of the base would hate the plan and that the compromise negotiations were actually led by other Senators (AND NOT MCCAIN!) The smart move would have been to sign on later, and try to avoid the issue.
I strongly suspect that Fred Thompson is going to be the primary beneficiary of McCain's eager desire to shoot himself in the foot. (Sorry, I just don't buy into the Romney spin - the guy is doing well because he is the only man on the air in those early states - this will change.) |
|
|
|