« wake up people!!! | Main | the whole thing sickens me »

Wednesday, 16 January 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Goat

You are good Fredhead my friend just like I am a good Romneyite. He may not have directly written but was a legal consultant for sure. I have heard Laura's interview a few times and accept his explanation. National Review vs Human Events, I read both and American Spectator among others. All 5 have their conservative strong points and weak points, even Reagan had his weak points as did Goldwater. What Fred lacks and Mitt has is a sunny optimism about America and its future, one of Reagan's strongest selling points. What Fred has that Mitt lacks is an aura of authenticity on social issues. Both are very strong on policy and security but Mitt has the hair and a youthful exuberance that clearly radiates. Fred is down to earth and can appear sullen and gloomy to often even with his very sharp dry wit. On the other hand Mitt can seem so perfect it comes off as plastic or fake even when it is not. May the best man win and best of luck in SC, its Fred's turn to deflate Huckabee's and McCain's tires.

Karen

Good post.

I'm well aware as to what a negative attack is, thank you. I also know that when the clip ran, as the first one in that debate, it was looked upon as harsh in tone, not inaccurate, which was my point. If unclear, so be it. I didn't remember the whole thing and certainly don't support Huckabee in pretty much anything he does.

We can all rationalize our favorites' positions, can't we? And it's our right to do so. While the race has no perfect candidate, we do have a variety of choices, certainly more diverse than the other side of the aisle. They have liberal and more liberal.

After Saturday, in South Carolina, I think the race will be a bit more clear. I read Mullings.com, written by Rich Galen, a Fred paid advisor, and he says it is make or break for Fred.

Americaneocon

Karen: I teach campaign finance in my classes, as well as the legislative process. It probably doesn't matter so much whether Thompson actually wrote the bill. He was a sponsor, at some level, even being photographed with some of the bill's other major backers in the Senate. If people want to hammer on it, well, that's his record.

I think it's probably a better strategy to discuss the particulars of campaign finance. Are we to have no limits on money in politics? Are there any pluses associated with the current regime, like full disclosure requirements? Sometimes there is just so much money pumping into the system that average people just can't their heads around it. Free speech arguments are abstract when it looks like big oil, big pharma, or big labor's always getting their way.

In any case, it's probably a moot point now. I posted today that Thompson intimated that he'd probably quit the race. I saw CNN posting that Thompson's staying in, but there's only so much he can do. He staked his chances on S.C., and McCain's won it.

The race is down to McCain and Romney, and I don't think Romney's going to have national appeal. He's won only where he was either a native son or he had a significant Mormon vote.

Do you think deep conservatives, especially bloggers, will rally to McCain's banner? How quickly? He did well with Republicans in S.C., as far as I can tell.

Webb Sloane's Grandma

I find it interesting that this is one of the few things people can find to criticize Thompson about. The Republican to blame for the lousy state of campaign finance reform is McCain, not Thompson. Yet, McCain is doing well in the primaries. So, just what is to gain by using the fact that Thompson supported McCain-Fiengold? Is that supposed to convince me to stop supporting Fred Thompson and put my support behind McCain?

Thompson went negative first? So, now the concern isn't about who goes negative, it's about who goes negative first? And, contrasting yourself against another candidate is now considered going negative?

I think all of this kind of criticism against Thompson is a testament to what little there is to use against him. The really sad part is, Republicans seem to have no idea of the kind of candidate that is needed to win the presidential election this time around. Proof of that is seen in the results of Republican primaries. The idea that McCain or Romney can win the presidential election is ridiculous. McCain is a RINO and Romney is in the race because of his own personal finances. Neither of them are in the race because Republicans believe in them. Thompson was practically drafted by supporters. Who drafted McCain or Romney? Democrats are salivating to run against either of them.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner