Gay Patriot Header Image

Fred Thompson to announce on July 4th?

Posted by Average Gay Joe at 12:52 pm - May 30, 2007.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics

According to Politico.com, “unnamed advisors” say the former Senator will jump into the presidential race on Independence Day. If true, he seems to present an interesting candidacy that I will be watching closely as it develops. Thompson has a good deal of that tough persona which the presidency is in need of during a time of war but seems to be more level-headed than Bush is. Do I think he will make a good president? Will I vote for him in 2008? At this point I do not know the answer to either of those questions. The man has a Reaganesque charisma to him, which is good since Reagan was the last president I felt the most comfortable with even when I disagreed with him. Yet this could be nothing more than fluff from his own political spin-machine, and a facade of the characters he has played on TV and in the movies (which I really enjoyed btw). Time will tell. Thompson will unfortunately have to pander somewhat to the extreme Right in order to win the nomination which I hate to see. Since the GWOT remains my #1 issue above any other, in order for him to get my vote he will need to convince me that he is far more capable than any other candidate of successfully prosecuting the war while not going overboard like Bush on other issues I care about. My loved ones and this country mean far more to me than anything else, including gay rights. If it comes down to it, I can grudgingly accept a status quo during a possible Thompson Administration with the chance of achieving change through Congress. That will be very difficult for me to do though since I dearly want to see the Religious Right get its comeuppance. It is too soon to say for certain until I hear more from the man and see how his campaign progresses. It could be that he will take positions or use rhetoric that I find completely unacceptable. I dunno right now. For the moment, Rudy is still my favorite on the GOP side and Richardson is on the Democrat side.

- John (AverageGayJoe)

Share

87 Comments

  1. I don’t agree with Fred Thompson on every issue, but any guy who tells Michael Moore to check into a mental institution is all right with me.

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 1:09 pm - May 30, 2007

  2. Just discovered your blog!!! So nice to read like minded ideas. Actually had a friend tell me I am not a good lesbian because I am conservative. Fred Thompson interests me but for now, GO Rudy!
    Thanks for the blog!
    whitney

    Comment by whitney — May 30, 2007 @ 1:12 pm - May 30, 2007

  3. Fred Thompson Running for President – Sorta…

    I’m looking forward to this:
    Thompson’s formal announcement is planned for Nashville. Organizers say the red pickup truck that was a hallmark of Thompson’s first Senate race will begin showing up in Iowa and New Hampshire as an emblem…

    Trackback by Blogs of War — May 30, 2007 @ 1:30 pm - May 30, 2007

  4. [...] Original post by Average Gay Joe [...]

    Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Fred Thompson to announce on July 4th? — May 30, 2007 @ 3:02 pm - May 30, 2007

  5. #2 – And whitney, welcome aboard, girlfriend! In my opinion, you are a good lesbian because you ARE conservative.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 30, 2007 @ 4:31 pm - May 30, 2007

  6. I’ll be watching Fred and Rudy with the most interest. (Newt too, if he jumps in.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 30, 2007 @ 5:00 pm - May 30, 2007

  7. Fred voted against impeaching Clinton.. No thanks.
    What goes around comes around

    Comment by Laura — May 30, 2007 @ 6:59 pm - May 30, 2007

  8. “Fred voted against impeaching Clinton…”

    Personally that wouldn’t bother me. I voted (in my small way) against impeaching Clinton. I thought Congress should have, um, “censured and moved on”. (That’s the original purpose / slogan of MoveOn.org… a group I have long since abandoned, don’t worry!)

    The grudge I hold is against McCain, for some of the silly and unconstitutional things he’s done. McCain-Feingold topping the list. Though I appreciate his fight for America – oops, I mean his fight “against the Democrats”; same thing – when it comes to Iraq.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 30, 2007 @ 7:21 pm - May 30, 2007

  9. I say go ahead and get in the water, Fred. I hope there is some seasoned campaign staff that will work for you… and some supporters who will foot the bill. It’s late in the game and the guys who have been hitting the “SNOOZE” button –like Fred, Newt and others– will pay a price for it. The smart money is on Rudy and John… mostly John given his prior runs at the job.

    I hope Fred does jump in… he might give the angry disgruntled Reaganauts a warmed over, pale, microwaved impression of the Great Communicator. Maybe that’s what they need now… nostalgia of the vague sort.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 7:56 pm - May 30, 2007

  10. I´m hopeful Fred will declare his candidacy. His last episode of Law and Order, he told Jack that someday this (D.A. Arthur Branch) seat will be vacant. I can get real excited by his candidacy. I´ve been lukewarm about Rudy and had hopes that Condi Rice would throw her hat into the ring. If Fred throws his into the ring I might move back to L.A. just to work to get him elected.

    Comment by Roberto — May 30, 2007 @ 9:01 pm - May 30, 2007

  11. V the K: Absolutely. His video response was a masterpiece.

    Whitney: I couldn’t agree more.

    BoW: If Thompson is jumping in it certainly will make the GOP side more interesting.

    ILC: Agreed, except on Newt. He is a good history teacher and speaker, but I don’t want him as president. His performance as House Speaker wasn’t the best IMO. I also agree completely with you on McCain. The man has an impressive story, but he is not suited for the presidency in my view.

    Laura: That doesn’t bother me in the least. There are far more important matters at stake than whether Thompson supported impeaching Clinton or not.

    MichMatt: He might prove to be a flop, hard to say at this point. Yet I wouldn’t discount him yet, if he excites enough people he can easily pass McCain and catch up to Rudy. We shall see. As for McCain, I disagree with you on his standing. For many his part in the immigration deal was the final straw. I doubt he can get the nomination at this point.

    Roberto: I still prefer Rudy but will give Thompson a closer look if he really does jump in and seems to gain traction.

    Comment by John — May 30, 2007 @ 10:23 pm - May 30, 2007

  12. [...] Bruce, Riehl World View, Michael P.F. van der Galiën, CJR, Gay Patriot, QandO, The American Mind, Heading Right, Mark in Mexico, Confederate Yankee, THE ASTUTE [...]

    Pingback by Blue Crab Boulevard » He’s In — May 31, 2007 @ 12:27 am - May 31, 2007

  13. with the chance of achieving change through Congress.

    Why not through the states?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 31, 2007 @ 12:52 am - May 31, 2007

  14. John, I agree. Thompson’s biggest asset is that he is not Rudy McRomney. He may not pass the neo-mod litmus test, but he is an intriguing presence. I think he also presents an image of some who is not a career politician, which I think will appeal to an electorate that is thoroughly sick of politics. He is also better positioned to do a Sarkozy, and run against Bush the same way Sarkozy ran against Chirac as a member of his own party.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 5:45 am - May 31, 2007

  15. VdaK, Thompson’s problem won’t be with the “neo-mods”… whoever the heck they are. His problem will be with the very people he NEEDS to build a credible base in the Party –the conservatives wanting something like a RReagan Part Deux to rally the failing forces and save the empire.

    Thompson’s biggest problem right now will be with the unreasonable, unyielding, demanding purity tests those he HAS to court will place on him. His record while a US Senator, one who succeeded AlGore in Tennessee, is unremarkable and without significant legislative achievement –because of that, he has the earned reputation inside the Party of being a slacker. No one will ever accuse your “Rudi McRomney” of lacking the fire in the belly or being slackers. They want the nomination… not the coronation that F’Thomspon seems to seek.

    One thing that would be neat in a F’Thompson v. Hillary match-up is they both served as counsel on the respective House of Rep Watergate Committees a generation ago.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 31, 2007 @ 9:04 am - May 31, 2007

  16. Speaking for myself, the “fire in the belly” thing is off-putting. I don’t think anyone wanted to be president more than Bill Clinton, or his wife. People with that degree of power-lust are just plain scary. John McCain especially.

    I also think the conservative litmus test thing is kind of a boogeyman. The party hacks act as if Giuliani’s only problem is abortion, or McCain’s only problem is amnesty. Their problems go much deeper than that, and it’s a form of denial to blow them off lightly.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 9:14 am - May 31, 2007

  17. #8 – ILC, the only part of your comment that I take umbrage at is the part about “Congressional censure” of a president. There is no such concept enumerated in the Constitution.

    Per Article I, each House can vote to censure its own members, but cannot do so with either a president or a judge.

    However, both judges and presidents can be impeached by the House.

    (Peter’s note: I’m sure I’ll be hearing from Wonder Woman about my so-called “massive” constitutional skills any minute now. He’s busy going through his copy of “Constitutional Law for Dummies” to see if I made a mistake. So sorry to disappoint him.)

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 31, 2007 @ 9:52 am - May 31, 2007

  18. Peter, all I can say is: You’re right.

    I just didn’t think impeaching Clinton would be constructive or beneficial to the politics of the country, despite his manifold sins. Sometimes, a light touch is better; a mere acknowledgment of the facts, on the record, attaches enough stigma. (Plus Clinton still should have been disbarred, of course.)

    And, the Constitution lets Congress can pass any resolution expressing any opinion or facts they feel like. They could condemn the President’s childhood dental records, if they wanted – though hopefully a Republican Congress would have more sense and dignity than that.

    As it is, Clinton’s unsuccessful impeachment was a step in making him LOOK like a victim (which he never was, of course) to many liberals and stimulating some of the insane bitterness manifested in 2000 and the years since. So, all in all, I think you’re right – or I appreciate your excellent points, let us say – and I still think I was right, too.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2007 @ 10:09 am - May 31, 2007

  19. I don’t wanna get side-tracked into a rehash of Clinton, but I really believe that bad people who are rewarded in this life are punished in the next, and I’d hate to be carrying that Karmic bar tab into the Hereafter Saloon.

    (Yeah, I’ve been listening to Dennis Miller a lot. Can you tell?)

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 10:15 am - May 31, 2007

  20. #19 – Dennis Miller is a riot. His comment about Nancy Lugosi’s blinking as if she were signaling the Carpathia was classic.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 31, 2007 @ 10:43 am - May 31, 2007

  21. Mich-Matt is right on this one (referring to the litmus tests).
    Hey folks, remember when way back yonder (1984 & to a lesser degree 1988)? In 1984′s case, the GOP won a 49 state landslide. In 1988, it was 40 states. I just don’t see that happening anytime soon. Not how the GOP is structured now. A candidate now has to appeal to a narrow slice of the electorate. Whole regions of the nation are being written off (my home region of New England, the West Coast, & increasingly the Midwest). The GOP seems satisfied with just squeaking by in electoral votes & just focusing on the South & conservative Christians. Doesn’t the GOP want to return to those days of massive electoral landslides? Then start becoming a NATIONAL party, not just the Christian party. Sermon over.

    Comment by Jimbo — May 31, 2007 @ 10:54 am - May 31, 2007

  22. And exactly which principles should the GOP give up, Jimbo? Frankly, they don’t have very many left to give up anyway.

    What’s interesting to me is the landslides Jimbo mentions were also the last times the GOP ran a real conservative for president. Since then, it’s been “Kinder Gentler,” “Where’s the outrage?” and “Compassionate (i.e. Big Government) Conservatism.”

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 11:06 am - May 31, 2007

  23. Actually Jimbo, the Republicans should become the party of (1) punishing corruption, and (2) small government.

    Post-election polls showed that in 2006, being the party of (1) corruption nearly as big as the Democrats, and (2) government nearly as big as the Democrats (a.k.a. the “compassionate conservatism” of the Republican neo-moderates) would be why so many small-l libertarian Independents and conservatives ditched them.

    (For the record – I’m an ex-Democrat and current Independent, who stayed with the Republicans in 2006 – although I certainly didn’t give them money.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2007 @ 11:08 am - May 31, 2007

  24. Oh, and the party of (3) securing the borders. Another thing wanted by Americans of all political stripes and walks of life, that Bush & the Republican congressional leadership fail miserably on.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2007 @ 11:09 am - May 31, 2007

  25. The Republican party’s problems are as simple as ABC: Amnesty, Bloated government, and Corruption.

    Now, the question is, are activists going to fix the party, or are they going to fix the blame? Yeah, it may feel good to vent against Tom Delay and Duke Cunningham, but they’re gone… along with your congressional majority. So, are you going to keep whining about whose fault it was, or are you going to put together a compelling agenda that will make people want to vote for you?

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 11:21 am - May 31, 2007

  26. #17: The House and Senate can indeed censure the president or anyone they choose. Of course they would be non-binding and a “sense of the Senate” or “sense of the House” type resolutions.

    #22: There is much the GOP needs to recover, some of which was listed here: control spending, immigration, etc. As for what they need to give up? How about ending their quixotic quest for the Federal Marriage Amendment which has no chance of passing? Nobody is fooled anymore that this isn’t an election-year gimmick. What about repealing DADT? It’s not like most of our Allies don’t allow gays to serve in their militaries with little problems. Add to this the ridiculous abstinence-only requirements to this too. Instead of appealing to one faction of the party, why not make an effort to broaden their base?

    Comment by John — May 31, 2007 @ 11:24 am - May 31, 2007

  27. Jimbo, you’re right about the GOP needs to return to being a natl party — I think their core message has been eclipsed by some disloyal, fair-weather social conservative types who are well outside the mainstream… and who cut & run when their special interests aren’t catered to in a worshiping ceremony at the altar of Conservatism Part Deux. Hey, cut and run conservatives? Who’d have thunk?

    How to get back to the real Party? Stress policies based on smaller govt, local decisions, lower taxes, stronger defense and a vigilent anti-terror posture, expanding economy, leadership in the internl sphere, greater opportunity for all and tolerance for those seeking to be a part of the American Dream… instead of pushing to the curb anyone who thinks outside the narrow box of 1) pro-life, 2) pro NRA, 3) govt is bad and 4) WASPs United.

    When you welcome into the Party people whose primary reference is church worship, you bring a certain myopic, inflexible, doctrinaire perspective to public policy and that never mixes well with pragmatic compromises needed to govern. See Moral Majority and the 1980s. The Party paid the price for giving over leadership of the Party to conservatives in Congress… they abused that trust thoroughly and it led to political defeat… no need to return to limtus test mania.

    Of course, dinosaurs that fixated die hard. But I’m confident the excesses of the last 10 yrs in Congress and the control those conservatives exacted on the Party’s message will bring about a rebirth of a Natl Party commited to its traditional, core goals.

    I think it’s why so many rank and file GOPers like Giuliani –and it scares the crap out of social conservatives.

    Trophy wives aside, knowing how to act like a President isn’t enough. It took RReagan years of rubber chicken circuit performances, building party support, proving he could lead by his practical experience as governor and even then, he got denied the prize twice before he “won” the right to claim it… and then he nearly lost it to Geo HW Bush… the consumate Ripon GOPer.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 31, 2007 @ 11:46 am - May 31, 2007

  28. When you welcome into the Party people whose primary reference is church worship, you bring a certain myopic, inflexible, doctrinaire perspective to public policy and that never mixes well with pragmatic compromises needed to govern. See Moral Majority and the 1980s.

    i.e. The last time a GOP president was elected in a landslide.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 12:05 pm - May 31, 2007

  29. I can’t believe I’m quoting a song I hate, but….”You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything”.

    Used to be Republicans did the first part of that, and Democrats the second.

    Now Democrats are still doing the second, but Republicans are deserting the first, afraid it will make them appear “-ist” — you know, racist, sexist, etc.

    The reason I like Giuliani is because he, of all the Republicans, is willing to lay his cards out on the table and say what he thinks — and you can take it or leave it.

    The reason Dobson, et al., don’t like that is because they’re used to being able to give the orders to the politicians. And what Dobson is doing now is threatening to hold his breath and turn blue unless Rudy (for one) caves and does exactly what he says.

    What Reagan was able to do that no one else has (yet) was to bring in those different groups and unite them under one umbrella against a common cause (or actually, set of causes) in a fashion that was good for the country.

    Which goes directly to ILC’s point above. These are things that everyone can agree on, and if we fix those matters, the country is far better off.

    Furthermore, these are issues that Dems cannot support without fracturing their base. Enforcing immigration laws destroys their voter base, and fighting corruption/reducing the size of government is a direct strike on the very philosophy of the megalomaniacal trust-fund millionaires and billionaires that run them — the idea that government exists as a way for them to enslave those who they consider to be their inferiors.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 31, 2007 @ 12:24 pm - May 31, 2007

  30. whitney,

    Welcome! You will find like-minded ladies here.

    As for FDT, I’m a hopless Fred Head.

    Stop by draftfredthompson.com (if you haven’t already).

    Comment by Julie the Jarhead — May 31, 2007 @ 12:26 pm - May 31, 2007

  31. Also, I maintain that it inverts reality to blame all the GOP’s woes on Conservatives. Some would have you believe that National Review and the American Spectator were writing editiorial after editorial urging the Hastert Congress to spend more and ignore the corruption in its midst. In fact, it was the pragmatists, the political operatives, saying “You dumb ideologue rubes don’t understand how the system works. We have to bring home the pork in order to preserve our majority.” It was the pragmatists, the political operatives, who talked Mark Foley into staying on because they were worried about him losing his seat. Mark Foley, remember, was part of Christy Wittman’s “It’s My Party, Too” moderate coalition.

    They also have to take Denny Hastert, a man of no particular ideological conviction, and cast him as some sort of Arch-Conservative. Never mind that he helped cover up for Cold Cash Jefferson, a move that absolutely stunned those nutty, foaming-at-the-mouth conservatives. Their silly, retrograde ideology led them to think congressmen should not be above the law. Tom DeLay abandoned any pretense of conservative values when he railroaded through the Prescription Drug Giveaway… again… a move the moderate party pragmatists insisted was necessary to secure Bush’s re-election in 2004.

    One can try and re-write history to blame all of the parties ills on conservatives, but when you look at the fact, it was the compromising of principles for the sake of power that led the GOP to its sorry state. And as we go into 2008, the party still has no vision, and no ideas. All they can do is insult their own base and point at Democrat corruption, which is something Democrat voters, unlike Republican voters, don’t care about.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 12:37 pm - May 31, 2007

  32. Pragmatists? Political operatives? To put it another way: The GOP neo-moderates Reagan tried to avoid when he could.

    As for “the vision thing”:
    In 2004, the Democrats proved you can’t be something (Bush on GWOT) with nothing.
    In 2006, the Democrats proved you can beat nothing (the GOP “pragmatic”, “realistic” leadership) with nothing.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2007 @ 12:41 pm - May 31, 2007

  33. ILC, IMHO there’s plenty of blame to go around for the GOP’s problems, but looking backward isn’t going to fix them.

    If the GOP decides they’re going to be pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control, and pro-Amnesty, does that really help them? Voters can get the same things from the Democrats, can’t they?

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 1:01 pm - May 31, 2007

  34. V the K, I’m not asking the GOP to abandon ANY principles. I want the party to broaden its focus & have a positive attitude. The “morning in America” theme that Reagan ran on worked like a charm. Strong defense: hell yes (full disclosure: I work at Bath Iron Works (a Navy firm)), amnesty: hell no, pro-life: yes (& also bring in pro-choice people (like myself) in. In other words, I’m interested in what the GOP is FOR, not AGAINST. We’re fighting a real war (on terror), we don’t need this useless culture war as well.

    Comment by Jimbo — May 31, 2007 @ 1:24 pm - May 31, 2007

  35. Jimbo, agree with you there. I would only add tax cuts / small government / free markets to your list.

    BTW: “Morning in America” worked because Reagan had some real principles – and accomplishments – to back it up. It wouldn’t work for, say, Bush or the Democrats.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2007 @ 1:31 pm - May 31, 2007

  36. Jimbo, the school system in Boulder Colorado recently made high school students attend a mandatory assembly in which a panel of “mental health experts” encouraged them to use drugs and have unsafe sex.

    What you call the “useless culture war” is a defense by people who still hold basic moral values against things like having taxpayer-paid public schools advance this kind of value system.

    Much as the culture war may dismay moderates, for conservatives to abandon the fight will let the left win by default. Because the aggressive culture war against moral values being waged by the left in the media and in the schools is not going to stop.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 1:37 pm - May 31, 2007

  37. Hey VdaK and ILoveCalarato, we’ve had this exact same debate repeatedly in the past… and it always ends up with you guys mis-stating the facts, spinning the Party and any position you don’t think passes the “Purity Test du Jour” into “pro-gun control” or “pro-Amnesty” even though those very reductions stand reality and honest dialogue on their head… and in the end your feelings get hurt and then you play the “I’m taking my marbles home” game. All petulant and pouty.

    The truth is, when you start actually supporting the Party, you can then tell the Party who they ought to nominate and you can be a single voice among many.

    Til that happens –and I’m thinking a snowball in Hell has a better chance at reality– bugger off. It isn’t YOUR Party. It was never your Party. You got the cynics’ armchair all to your bitter, anti-govt collective butt. We need to toss the intolerant social conservatives as readily as they tossed money to social conservative posterboi Tom DeLay.

    Spread the bitter cynicism and disgruntled schtick over at the Libertarian Party. They’ll take the Guns4All, pro-life but kill the felons, keep America pure and the Mexicans out litmus tests all day long for you. I think you’d be a whole lot happier with their lot than appearing to be concerned about who the GOP is interested in… afterall, it’s just a platform for you to bitch, isn’t it?

    The GOP will right itself only AFTER it vanquishes the political excesses of the social conservatives –and that’s happening right now in a hundred different county parties… in dozens of state parties… and it’s why winning still is the prize. Not purity tests. Not bragging rights. And not standing in the footlights of the social conservatives’ theatre of the absurd even one more bloody election.

    The Party will still be conservative, but not to the point of political incontinence and greater defeat. You’ve given us enough of that in the last few years.

    Hey, look at the bright side, you’ll have two political parties you can bitch about then… it’ll be a Complainers Happy Hour for ya, 24x7x365!

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 31, 2007 @ 1:43 pm - May 31, 2007

  38. So, MM, since your strategy is to demean, blame, ridicule, and insult social conservatives until they leave the party… is your strategy to win without conservative support, or just hope conservatives are going to take the abuse and vote for you anyway?

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 1:59 pm - May 31, 2007

  39. VdaK writes: “It was the pragmatists, the political operatives, who talked Mark Foley into staying on because they were worried about him losing his seat.”

    No, wrong again; it was social conservative Tom DeLay who did that nicely despite the fact the Mark Foley, the moderate, wanted out of Congress because the conservatives had turned it into a cesspool.

    BTW, is this the same Mark Foley conservatives were defending before his ouster as “nothing’s been proven, he isn’t as bad as BarneyFrank”? Yeah, I thought I’d read that here.

    VdaK writes: “They also have to take Denny Hastert, a man of no particular ideological conviction, and cast him as some sort of Arch-Conservative.”

    Nope, wrong again. Unless the American Conservative Union who gave Speaker Hastert their Best & Brightest Award in 2005 by saying he was a “rock-solid conservative” –their words, V; not mine. And, you know, they are sort of the true voice of conservatives in the US. Oh… not pure enuff for you, tho? BTW, he’s got a LIFETIME rating of 93 by the ACU. Nawh, he ain’t no arch-conservative.

    VdaK writes: “And as we go into 2008, the party still has no vision, and no ideas.”

    Umm, a little political science lesson for the cynics who simply refuse to learn that the Party’s vision hasn’t changed except to the anxious special interest FarRightFringe afeared they’ll going to be left outside the Party in 2008. It’s still a Party of limited govt, lower taxes, strong defense… we’ve been here before.

    The pragmatic application of that vision is being formed by those who seek to lead the Party in 2008… and last check the front runners all failed the Purity Litmus Tests of the Cynic Social Conservative Party.

    So, I guess you might want to start dusting off those old Democrat Party membership cards ILoveCalarato and VdaK… you will still get to bitch 24×7. No one can take that special talent away from you guys.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 31, 2007 @ 2:05 pm - May 31, 2007

  40. V the K – since I’m one of Matt’s targets, but not a social conservative and never have been – Perhaps his real strategy for victory is to demean and insult anyone who disagrees with him enough to feel challenged, or shall we say threatened. ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2007 @ 2:06 pm - May 31, 2007

  41. sorry, typo – “enough to *make Matt* feel…. “

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2007 @ 2:07 pm - May 31, 2007

  42. Oh, and VdaK, Tom Delay has the same Lifetime American Conservative Union rating as Denny Hastert… 93. Go figure; what’s next? “These aren’t MY conservatives”?

    Face it, as much as you like to pretend you don’t focus on the past… you can’t get over the Prescription program, McCain-Feingold, Bush’s replacement of Ashcroft with Gonzales, etc.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 31, 2007 @ 2:10 pm - May 31, 2007

  43. Calarato, lol. You are such a card!

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 31, 2007 @ 2:11 pm - May 31, 2007

  44. VdaK, to answer your question directly: I really don’t care to keep the social conservatives in the Party in Michigan… or nationally. You guys didn’t vote when the chips were down in 2006; keep your marbles, keep your pout, go home. What was that line of Rhett Butler’s in GWTW?

    The Party will still be conservative compared to the Democrats… just not abusively conservative and dividing the country with silly FMA efforts, TerrySchiavo interventions and truth tests for future SCOTUS nominees.

    Care to agree now that DennyH and TomDeLay WERE conservatives and the social conservatives in Congress led the Party far afield and into ruin?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 31, 2007 @ 2:17 pm - May 31, 2007

  45. It’s still a Party of limited govt, lower taxes, strong defense… we’ve been here before.

    Limited government? Surely you jest. Or maybe you didn’t notice when the man in the White House foisted the biggest entitlement since the Great Society onto the country.

    Oh, but that and McCain-Feingold are in the past. Just because they were foisted on us by the same crew that’s in power now and wants to keep it, we should in no way believe those programs reflect what they intend to do in the future.

    And, didn’t McCain vociferously oppose the Bush tax cuts? Why yes, I believe he did.

    Strong defense? Everywhere except for the borders, I guess.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 2:32 pm - May 31, 2007

  46. Wow, this is fun. Let’s look at the score thus far:

    – I’m accused of “bitching” in my comments above. (Can anyone tell me which comment Matt could have been referring to?)
    – By inclusion with V the K, I’m implicitly or indirectly accused of being in a Republican contingent obsessed with “pure enuff” tests.
    – Also by vague implication, indirection or “lumping”: I’m called “FarRightFringe” and a “cynic”. Oddly, I also might be a large-l Libertarian sympathizer. (Odd because those guys are pretty Left, actually.)
    – Even though I’m a registered Independent and not involved in Republican intra-mural battles, I’m told to march back to the Democrats.
    – I’m called a “card”.

    Needless to say, I haven’t called Matt names. (Here or elsewhere.)

    Mind you, I am in no way complaining! :-) Again, it’s fun. The above is only a factual catalogue. And really mild, for Matt. “Racist”, “nativist”, “bigot”, “WASP”, and others have not yet been deployed.

    Matt also informs us above that:
    – Mark Foley wanted out of Congress because of his righteous disgust with evil Congressional conservatives. (I thought it was because he got caught propositioning ex-Congressional pages.)
    – Social conservatives were somehow, somewhere defending Foley.

    Following my own advice in #18, I’ll let these things speak for themselves.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2007 @ 2:36 pm - May 31, 2007

  47. I suspect there’s a bit of projection going on when one simultaneously vows to cleanse his party of the impure (i.e. those who don’t agree with him) and accuses those who don’t agree with him of being purists who demand a purity test.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 2:39 pm - May 31, 2007

  48. Another fun thread! Matt, my e-mail is nodavid2006@yahoo.com.

    Doc and I are off to Europe. Be back at the end of June.

    Comment by David — May 31, 2007 @ 2:42 pm - May 31, 2007

  49. And Now Bush is totally cereal about fighting ManBearPig.

    I tell you, if Fred Thompson has the balls to take on the Global Warming movement, I’m in.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 2:48 pm - May 31, 2007

  50. David, nice to see you and thanks again for answering my question the other day. And I hope you won’t defend Matt’s name-calling.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2007 @ 2:50 pm - May 31, 2007

  51. Wow. You can say “balls” and not get trapped in the moderation filter. Good to know.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 2:50 pm - May 31, 2007

  52. Rereading ILC’s #23 *Post-election polls showed that in 2006, being the party of (1) corruption nearly as big as the Democrats, and (2) government nearly as big as the Democrats …*

    And MM’s #42: *The Party will still be conservative compared to the Democrats*

    I put these two together and get the vision statement that as long as the GOP is a little less socialist than the Berkeley City Council, and a little less corrupt than the New Jersey branch of the Teamsters Union, we should give them our votes.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 3:50 pm - May 31, 2007

  53. And yes, I exaggerate for effect, but the point is “Not as bad as the Democrats” just isn’t, to me, a compelling vision statement.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 4:02 pm - May 31, 2007

  54. Exactly. Republicans can’t beat nothing (the Democrats) with nothing. They have to put forward the positive, good and principled things they are FOR. They tried “Because We’re Not the Democrats” in 2006, and it wasn’t enough.

    Strong GWOT… strong borders… strong states (vs. Federalizing everything)… strong markets… low taxes. Stuff that every American can (and many do) get behind.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2007 @ 4:45 pm - May 31, 2007

  55. “Stuff that every American can (and many do) get behind.”

    Except for terrorists, the MSM and the DNC.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 31, 2007 @ 5:09 pm - May 31, 2007

  56. #54 ILC: And just when we get done saying that, Hillary comes out in full-throated support of socialism. Cheese, and she’s the moderate one on the Democrat side. It’s like they feel obligated to suck worse than the GOP.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 5:55 pm - May 31, 2007

  57. Well, V, maybe Shrillary is anticipating that run by Cynthia McKinney for president. And she’s positioning herself to the left again.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 31, 2007 @ 6:06 pm - May 31, 2007

  58. Late-breaking smackdown: Romney says that Clinton is so leftist, she probably couldn’t even get elected in France.

    Romney/Thompson in 2008!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 31, 2007 @ 6:09 pm - May 31, 2007

  59. OK V, so maybe chalk one up after all, for those who have been advocating the GOP neo-mod platform.

    Rather than “Because We’re Not the Democrats”, we could equally title it “Because We Are Like the Democrats In Many Ways, But, Don’t Suck as Much… ssssss… Us or Hillary!!!” Matt and HardHobbit, have at it ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2007 @ 6:13 pm - May 31, 2007

  60. Let’s see, ILoveCalarato, you continue to slog through the day serving as my editor and rephrasing/rehashing points so you can postulate them into an absurd reduction… you continue on the “name calling” nonsense even tho you slyly, disingeniously try to call people liars and frauds (“… or so you claim….” etc)… and then you cry foul when caught in the snarkiest rhetorical gamesmanship yet. Is that a victimhood card hiding in your wallet next to the gay “conservative” card? And that echo chamber you and VdaK are living in these days is postively convincing to all.

    Sorry, not taking the bait –go play with sean for a bit.

    And VdaK, have you gotten the clue that your usual and standard MO of wild-assed speculative overstatements don’t cut it anymore? Like Hastert not being a “rock-solid conservative”… “Bush is calling immigration reform opponents unAmerican”… etc? And the ultimate ego-centric cynicism: “The GOP isn’t pure enuff for me then they’ll lose it all… cause I said so.” Umm, right.

    Cynics are an easy bunch to dissect –it simply takes a little work.

    At the end of the day, the GOP you want wouldn’t be recognizable to your hero RReagan because in the ensuing decade, conservatives have morphed into the “PROBLEM” and are no longer the answer. That’s simple and it eats you up like watermelon at a Little League practice.

    That’s ok, there’s always those uber-effective and salient Libertarians that will listen and submit to all those Litmus Tests. Wanna go play with them? They’ve got some conspiracy theorists over there left over the RossPerot BigEar Festival in 1992. And I hear hemp is Job #1.

    Stick with the facts, VdaK. Get an informed opinion instead of the knee jerk garden variety. And if you want to influence who the GOP nominee is… get on the F’ingThompson BandWagon… they’ll be stoning some Mexicans at 9PM. Hey, get on ANY bandwagon for that matter and work a campaign at the Primary Election level… then you can toss darts and brickbrats at the GOP vision thing you love to make fun of. The other day you were offering that Hillary was starting to look good to you… there’s a campaign I wish you would go join.

    Clear enuff? Pure enuff? Thought so. The GOP will moderate itself. It will return to the center. It will build an effective grass roots base without relying on “fair weather” social conservatives… and it will win in 2008 if it doesn’t allow the social conservatives to destroy it again… like they did in Congress.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 31, 2007 @ 6:44 pm - May 31, 2007

  61. VdaK at 53 writes: “And yes, I exaggerate for effect… ” I think there are more ultilitarian reasons for the exaggerations (read: wild assed speculative comments) V… especially on opposition to immigration reform.

    Like Tony Snow, Newt, the Heritage Foundation, CATO, AEI and others know… nothing gets done on immigration reform until the wall gets built, electrified and the veritable snipers in the guard towers have unlimited supply of dum-dums.

    I swear! The things that grown-ups have to do in order to have the FarRightFringe stop their stomping tantrums. By the time the bill is complete, we’ll have to expand GitMo by 10,000 beds and have them filled with domestic terrorists before the FarRightFringe will consent to immigration reform.

    Maybe in honor of the immigration opponents, we can rename GitMo “America’s Shining City on the Hill”? Funny, that would probably please the uber-social conservatives foaming at the mouth these days over illegal aliens raping all the white women. That and take away those Korans.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 31, 2007 @ 7:04 pm - May 31, 2007

  62. 1979 and 1980; hostage crisis in Iran, double digit prime rate and inflation, Teddy Kennedy telling the nation that we have to get used to the idea that America is now a second rate nation. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. He won because he knew how to appeal to the hearts, minds and common sense of the electorate. He evoked memories of an America that was prosperous, an America that was powerful, an America that was respected for the liberation of Europe and Asia from dictators. It was let´s make America great again. It was the shining city on the hill. In his infomercial on behalf of Barry Goldwater he stated ¨Back in 1936, Mr Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the party of of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from the party and never returned..¨ He reminded us that ¨No government voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is tne nearest thing to eternal life we´ll ever see on this earth.¨ And later he says,¨Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that we have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy ´accomodation.´ They say if we will only avoid direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his eveil ways and learn to love us. All who opposed them are indicted as warmongers.¨(Sound familiar?) He goes on to quote Alexander Hamilton who said, Ä nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one.¨(Nancy Pelosi and co religionists please take note.) And of course the famous 11th Commandment, Thou shalt not speak ill of fellow Republicans. It´s this kind of wisdom that I´m expecting from Fred Thompson. If he can even come close, he will be a breath of fresh air for the GOP, and for the nation. President Reagan had his moments when he preached to the choir during his campaign of 1980, when he spoke to the National Association of Religious Broadcasters telling them, Ï know you can´t endorse me but I can certainly endorse you.¨ Yewt in 1983 when a group from the relgious right were concerned that he hadn´t enacted any legislation from their agenda he satisfied them by telling them their issues were backburner. His number one priority was to fix the economy (we had longest period of prosperity when he did.) and of course communism had to be check in Central America and around the world.

    Comment by Roberto — May 31, 2007 @ 7:08 pm - May 31, 2007

  63. The mere fact that demands for border security are called “temper tantrums” by the elites tells you all you need to know. They really don’t want to secure the border.

    Accusations of racism always lend so much intellectual heft to an argument.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 7:28 pm - May 31, 2007

  64. Three reasons for Reagan’s Presidential victories: 1) Reagan; 2) Carter; 3) Mondale/Ferraro. Claiming his victories were the work of Christian conservatives is simply (and unsurprisingly) a lie.

    Political fault lines run in very different directions from those in the Reagan era. Electorally, this is especially true for the GOP, what with its having to run largely against its current titular head, W. As long as the albatross of a badly conceived, badly executed, and very badly communicated war is around its neck (and its opposition more than willing to take full advantage, silver platter, noose and all), the party will have very little room for very little else on its no-longer-elephantine shoulders.

    My take on Thompson is that he’s riding a wave of ‘none-of-the-above’ popularity, whose strength is that he hasn’t really articulated anything at all about a future Thompson administration. In other words, we know nothing and so a coalition of the literally uninformed has formed. Of course, they will become despondent and his popularity will wane once he declares and is forced to take sides, to be vetted, to enter the fray with his fellow job-seekers. And I’ve never understood the claim that he’s telegenic. I find him as charismatic as a startled tortoise. Unless he starts making some serious noises about serious issues instead of eliciting a ‘Right on!’ via a spat with someone only the most vacant wouldn’t recognize as an utter creep, then I remain unconvinced and am as much on the sideline about him as he is about the Presidency.

    Can the GOP win the WH in ’08? Yes. Here’s one possible outline:

    1) Articulate clear, attainable goals for Iraq that will convince Americans that we will not be deployed there for decades.
    2) Visibly strengthen ties with right-leaning governments such as France and Australia. Give them highly visible supporting roles and let them take the credit.
    3) Establish economic relationships that favor nations that are at risk of Islamofascism such as Kenya. There is nothing better with which to fight jiihad than economic opportunity, which is why Wahhabists hate it above all else.
    4) Continue to enact and support common sense immigration reform, ignoring the extra-chromosome extremists on both the left and right.
    5) Promise to reform the tax code with a flat tax, forbidding exemptions for voting blocs with the sole exception of one large bloc: no longer requiring those under 25K to pay income taxes.
    6) Make health care a priority with savings accounts and other pro-market ideas; articulate a firm commitment to the health care of our veterans.
    7) Etc.

    Go, Rudy.

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 31, 2007 @ 7:55 pm - May 31, 2007

  65. With Matt’s #60, let’s add to the scorecard from #46. The additions:

    – I’m accused of victimhood / trying to play the victim. (Bzzzzzzzt… Wrong answer ;-) )
    – I am accused of being “sly”, “disingenuous”, and of falsely accusing others of being frauds. (Itself a false accusation. Ironic.)
    – I am accused of snarkiness and rhetorical gamesmanship.
    – I am told I live in an echo chamber, blah blah blah.

    I did slightly invite it this time, by openly going with the _reductio ad absurdum_ of Matt’s neo-mod views at #59, which shows my disrespect for certain aspects of same. Having said that: I still have yet to call Matt names.

    Only updating the list, folks. OK, I must admit, I am also ROTFLMAO here :-)

    On a different note, Matt I do still notice – and compliment you for – the names you haven’t called.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2007 @ 7:57 pm - May 31, 2007

  66. Meanwhile, at the RNC small donor donations are off 40% and the entire telemarketing staff has been sacked. “Everyone donor in 50 states we reached has been angry, especially in the last month and a half, and for 99 percent of them immigration is the No. 1 issue.”

    But, hey, it’s just an extremist fringe of bigots that oppose the amnesty bill.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 9:19 pm - May 31, 2007

  67. V, sometimes your capacity to spin is only equal to Ian’s capacity to ignore reality… at our peril. But I gotta hand it to and EchoCalarato, you never fail to ignore the truth in your search to score meaningless debate points.

    The article you quoted is from the Washington Times, for crying out loud… no one with a pea’s brain thinks they are a credible source on anything even if the writer has a press release in front of them for the story –they’ll get it wrong. Seriously, why not just quote George Soros directly on GOP internal politics… he’s got about as much credibility as the Washington Times. if you want to reference the WTimes on gun control issues, then go ahead since the newspaper is the pocket of the NRA… at least they know something about that issue.

    But let’s take a BIG leap and accept your source as credible… even if the article is based on the usual “unnamed sources” BS.

    The final line is THE money quote VdaK: “Any assertion that overall donations have gone down is patently false,” Miss Schmitt said. “We continue to out raise our Democrat counterpart by a substantive amount (nearly double).”

    And this with an admittedly inferior, outdated GOP phone system and tracking software for donations.

    Here in Michigan, our state GOP fundraising for candidates is off-the-charts, V… that’s in a state with a large migrant worker community, a significant Democrat Party presence at all levels of govt, and a state that went for Gore and Kerry overwhelmingly but voted against numerous liberal ballot initiatives.

    Hey, but you keep on defending those bigoted racists over on your side of the fence ready to toss Mexicans under the bus –afterall, truth isn’t going to get in the way of selling your brand of cynicism and defeatism.

    BTW, I also like the “peekings” of this new parallel smear you’re hoisting up the Nativist flagpole lately… calling people “elites” with a scorn and contempt normally reserved for racists and bigots. “I tell ya, it’s them, it’s them! It’s the ELITES that are doing this to us! They’re out of touch with the common man I tell ya!!!”

    Come one V, discuss the issues fairly and drop the rhetorical gamesmanship. Immigration reform isn’t causing a groundswell against the GOP… in fact, poll after bloody poll proves that most Americans want reform, want a more secure border and don’t buy into your cynical take on the issue –less so when the racial overtones are apparent.

    And like Newt, Geo Schultz, Tony Snow and lots of other GOP stalwarts note: it’s security first, immigration second in this bill.

    Opps, I guess you need to read beyond the headlines?

    Again, VdaK, like with your wild-assed assertion that Bush was calling immigration reform opponents “unAmerican”, you get this one wrong too.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 1, 2007 @ 8:49 am - June 1, 2007

  68. I guess Peggy Noonan is now a bilious, cynical, jack-booted, foaming at the mouth racist, too.

    And since I’ve repeatedly explained at great length, based on the language of the bill itself, that the actual bill has amnesty first, security later… maybe… there’s no point in my once again refuting that misleading White House talking point propaganda about security before Amnesty.

    I can say this because if the benchmarks for Phase II… half a border fence, planning and funding for more border patrol agents and a handful of UAVs … are not met, the probationary visas for illegals in the country stay. The illegals become legal, even if those half-assed “triggers” are never met.

    The proponents of the bill know this. They also know that the president certifies the benchmarks have been met… which he gets to do on his way out of the office.

    Certainly, there are a lot of people, including the president, who would just as soon do away with the border and let anyone who wants to come here just come here and take any job they want. But I’m not about attacking the motivations of the other side. My opposition is based entirely on the flaws of the bill itself. Leaving the argument there is what I would have thought civility demanded.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2007 @ 9:43 am - June 1, 2007

  69. Apparently, someone didn’t read the entire article:

    “The GOP’s overall haul from its three national fundraising committees [the RNC, NRSC and NRCC] is down 25 percent from the equivalent period in 2005,” Mr. Ritsch said. “The Republicans still have more money than the Democrats but fundraising is down for Republicans and up for Democrats. That has to be a cause of concern for Republicans.”
    The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee collected $4.6 million in April, more than double the NRSC’s $2.1 million in April contributions. What’s more, the Republican group spent about $60,000 more than it had received in donations, while using only $260,000 to pay its debt.
    Overall, the NRSC’s total receipts of $9.1 million trails its Democratic counterpart’s total of $18.3 million since January.

    The RNC fundraising picture isn’t as rosy as some would have us believe.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2007 @ 9:51 am - June 1, 2007

  70. Jim Lileks, another jack-booted racist brown-people hater.

    Anything short of dropping thousands of blank American birth certificates on the other side of the Rio Grande is construed as Nativist Hysteria…. What really irks me more than the Administration’s mulishness is their tone-deaf replies to the bill’s opponents, and it really is Le Straw Finale. Add to the list of lesser mistakes to which any administration composed of human-type people is prone, add the ham-fistery evident in their handling of those events, add the attenuated death of the Bush doctrine, interred quietly in the first bilateral talks with Iran since the war began almost three decades ago, and add the nagging, itchy suspicion that Iranian involvement in the Iraq conflict might have been turned away at an earlier opportunity with a judicious, gravity-assisted MOAB in a crucial industrial facility, and you have a general Throwing Up of The Hands on the right. Self-inflicted wounds, every one of them.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2007 @ 10:27 am - June 1, 2007

  71. V the K – a question, just for my own curiosity -

    Have you ever “defend[ed] bigoted racists… ready to toss Mexicans under the bus”? (one of Matt’s many accusations on you, in his rant)
    In other words – would there be some genuinely racist / nativist person or group you have ever tried to excuse?

    I don’t believe I have seen that from you. Ever. (Granted, I was gone for a month and even now, I don’t read every comment.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2007 @ 11:24 am - June 1, 2007

  72. Well, ILC, I brought up that very issue at my KKK-NeoNazi-Nativist meeting last night, and me and all of the other slobbering, jack-booted, extra-chromosome thugs agreed that throwing Mexicans under the bus, just wasn’t good enough. First of all, all the non-white races should be thrown under the bus, and it shouldn’t be a bus so much as a giant steam-roller with sharpened steel spikes embedded in the roller part.

    Later, we had pie.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2007 @ 11:30 am - June 1, 2007

  73. I’ll take that as a firm “No” :-) Which I expected anyway, from everything I know of your (fine) convictions and character.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2007 @ 11:39 am - June 1, 2007

  74. Well, since I’d stand a better chance of having a rational debate about the FMA with Andrew Sullivan than making any progress here, I’m just going to embrace the hate and ride it.

    Even if this amnesty bill passes, I don’t think the fight ends, even though Bush is pushing it as the be all and end all of the debate. There will still be a place to demand better border security than this bill offers. There will still be a place to demand better enforcement that the government will provide.

    For me and the rest of the vile, hatred-filled, ignorant, redneck, podunk, right-wing, inbred, white-trash, supremacist, brown-people-under-the-bus-throwers, our work will just be beginning.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2007 @ 11:53 am - June 1, 2007

  75. LOL. I actually heard the “Mountain Town” theme from the South Park movie (the reprise at the end, where the townspeople describe themselves like that) in my head, as I read along.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2007 @ 11:57 am - June 1, 2007

  76. So guys, #s 68-75: “EchoCalarato meets VdaK for some street theatre”?

    I think this is the point where someone with a sense of decency tells ya guys to “Go Get A Room”.

    Nawh, go ahead and keep the Johnnie-1-Note thing going and spoil some more threads here… you’re just defining petulant conservative for everyone who reads it.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 1, 2007 @ 12:08 pm - June 1, 2007

  77. And that, Matt, is what I expected of you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2007 @ 12:10 pm - June 1, 2007

  78. You know, if we could figure out a way to torture all of the illegals before we deport them, we could piss off MM and Andy Sullivan.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2007 @ 12:17 pm - June 1, 2007

  79. Well, then at the end of the day, EchoCalarato, you can put down all your rhetorical tricks and say with affection “He didn’t let me down”.

    You have your attention for the day, now go play with sean or keogh, ok?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 1, 2007 @ 12:26 pm - June 1, 2007

  80. Matt, although I often find your specific accusations toward me and your other contradictory statements humorous, the overall experience of watching what you have sunk to is very sad for me.

    As I have told you before:

    I wish you well. Even when I am critical of… your behavior, I think your behavior is more emotional than intentional.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2007 @ 12:44 pm - June 1, 2007

  81. Private aside for David – If you can check from your vacation – seriously consider about the style-of-argument in #67 and other MM here. I’ll be curious to see if you still intend to align yourself with that (as the other day).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2007 @ 2:08 pm - June 1, 2007

  82. Only the most insecure commenter would take pride in being nothing more than a sidekick.

    Comment by HardHobbit — June 1, 2007 @ 9:27 pm - June 1, 2007

  83. Come now, HardHobbit. If you’re feeling the need to put someone else down or whatever, I know I’ve seen better efforts from you. Give it another try.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 2, 2007 @ 1:03 pm - June 2, 2007

  84. Hard Hobbit´s outline for a GOP victory to retain the WH has merit. It has to be articulated in a positive manner. His three reasons why Reagan won were really secondary. He won in 1980 for the reasons I suggested. He appealed to the best in the voter; not to their worst fears. In 1984 he co-opted the age issue from Mondale when he stated I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I will not exploit my opponents youth and lack of experience for political gain. Fred Thompson has the charisma to artliculate a positive message and that is what will carry him to victory.

    Comment by Roberto — June 2, 2007 @ 5:12 pm - June 2, 2007

  85. Just found your blog. I really enjoyed reading it. Just another gay conservative who would like to see Thompson join the race. I would like to see things shaken up if he does announce in July.

    Comment by Randy — June 3, 2007 @ 1:22 pm - June 3, 2007

  86. Rasmussen Poll. Thompson surges to second place, Rudy erodes, McAmnesty plunges to fourth place.

    Comment by V the K — June 5, 2007 @ 8:04 am - June 5, 2007

  87. VdaK, while Rassie sometimes gets it right, their real strength is in regional polling on cultural issues, not national races on partisan breaks because of Rassie’s model for conducting the survey instrument is constructed toward the cultural issues segment.

    You ought to get to know and check out Pollster –a fellow Wolverine named Mark Blumenthal runs the show and his model is more in tune with natl races, party races. He’s a Democrat… but that’s ok for pollsters.

    For a 6/1 poll, he puts it this way

    Giuliani at 30.7
    McCain at 18.5
    Romney at 9.3
    F’ingThompson at 9.3
    Newt at 7.6

    To use the conservatives’ inaccurate “Rudy McRomney” moniker, that would mean that at least 58.5% of Republican voters would chose the very candidate the conservatives from the “None of the Above” crowd claim is toast. Funny how that little math works out, eh? Meaningless, but funny.

    In Iowa, Romney is waaaaay out front at 30.1% of likely GOP caucus goers… which gets at the point I’ve been making and that is the grassroots among party regulars is where the nominee will selected.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 5, 2007 @ 1:41 pm - June 5, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.