What does it say that commenters on the previous post have lapsed into reminiscing about Fred Thompson? Oh, what might have been!
But I shouldn't laugh. I confess to having had an oh-what-might-have-been conversation tonight... about Mitt Romney!
October 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
60 comments:
One of the things I liked most about Thompson was that he didn't seem obsessed with becoming President. He was like "well, I'm already rich and famous, and my wife is smoking hot. I guess I could be President too, if that's what you want".
I still have my Fred Thompson bumpersticker. Not that faded.
But let's be real. Fred would campaign a day, then sleep in with Jeri. Get up and probably have a big breakfast. Smoke a cigar later in the day. Drink some bourbon in the evening. Then me might think about the campaign again. I love that about Fred, but you do not win elections that way.
As for Mitt Romney, the what if is him not as President, but Veep. Mitt would be behind as the lead, but he would have been perfect in this economic storm as the Veep. Oh well. Palin was my first choice, but Mitt was two on my list (I also liked Cantor). In hindsight, Mitt would have been formidable as Veep.
Fred is Buford Pusser
"They beat him. They cut him. They taunted him. They tempted him. They even shot him."
"You let them do this to me and get away with it, and you give them the eternal right to do the same damn thing to any one you."
The Buford Pusser Home and Museum is open year around just a few miles west of Crump, Tennessee, a brief drive from Fred's home in Lawrenceburg. Sheriff Pusser's home, cars, and legends live on through this excited exhibit of Buford Pusser’s life.
Thank you for your time and attention.
This message has been brought to you by The McNairy County Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development Commission: 44 Cypress Avenue, Selmer, TN 38375 731.645.6360/7476 Fax: 731.645.7663 mcnairyedc@charterinternet.com
Please worship at the church of your choice this Sunday.
One thing's for sure, Thompson wouldn't go all gooey in the face of Obama's populist appeals during the debates. He'd actually have the cojones and the philosophical core to give him a stern lecture on the effects of increasing the top marginal and capital gains tax rates in the midst of a recession.
Alas, instead we have John McCain whose first instinct to any policy proposal is to try out-Democrat the Democrat.
I also remember this bit of history..
http://tinyurl.com/46tbdm
"As a presidential candidate, Gov. Thomas Dewey of New York was not a glad-hander, not a flesh-presser. He was stiff and tended toward pomposity. "The only man who could strut sitting down" was the crack that made the rounds.
Hey, if my scheme of anonmyous campaigning had been adopted in time, we might be having Fred Thompson v Dennis Kucinich about now . . .
(from a policy standpoint, I think Thompson and Kucinich represent the primary voters of their respective parties more than the chosen candidates)
And Fred's PAC is still active, still sending out emails to the faithful.
I'm still a fan of Rudy Giuliani, but I guess he turns off a lot of people so whatever.
XWL said...from a policy standpoint, I think Thompson and Kucinich represent the primary voters of their respective parties more than the chosen candidates
And from a physical stand point it would resemble the Lincoln/Douglass debates.
What makes any of you think F. Thompson would be any more exciting a campaigner if he'd won the nomination? The man has no fire in his belly to be President. revenant says that's appealing -- well, why should someone elect a person who doesn't really want the job!?
I believe McCain was making a lot of progress in the polls before he selected Palin, and he could've continued this steady build with a more-boring but more-qualified running mate. It would've been a more honest thing to do, as well. We know that a McCain presidency would have people like Joe Lieberman in important roles. The Palin selection gave him a quick, dramatic boost and energized his base, but in the end she has ended up hurting him amongst the all-important swing voter.
It's hard to identify who would've been his ideal running mate, because winning the general election is some combination of energizing your party's base and winning over swing voters. I think he went too far in the direction of the Republican base with a candidate who turned out to be not ready for the job she was seeking. It also damaged McCain's strategy of attacking Obama's lack of experience.
People forget that McCain was gaining in the polls before Palin came into the scene. A running mate with real gravitas might not have been as instantly dramatic, but could've helped him continue that steady gain.
While you are visiting the Home of Fred in central middle south Tennessee, please visit beautiful nearby Skullbone, home of bare-knuckle skull-popping fighting, aka the Kingdom of Skullbonia, home of the annual Harley Davidson Skullbone get together and Skullbone Music Park where Eddie Money is known to perform. You may also visit the nearby drinking establishment, the “Cut ‘n’ Shoot.” Turn south at the old blimp factory near the Hank Jr. Museum in Paris and you will go left at Christmasville to find it.
Please remember that in Skullbone the law bans a woman from "pleasuring a man" while he is sitting behind the wheel of any moving vehicle. Any man stopped and found with the front of his pants undone can be fined a minimum of $50 and serve 30 days in jail.
I agree with Rev - I liked that he didn't seem to regard the Presidency as something to be attained at all costs. It was service he was willing to render to his country, and I have something of a false sense of nostalgia for that kind of attitude in light of the naked unbounded ambition of Chancellor Palpobama. Still, 'twas not to be.
I still think it's unfortunate that Gingrich didn't run. He could have had the nomination for the asking, and he'd have slaughtered Obama in the debates. That said, I thought McCain was going to at least do a number on Obama in the debates, so take that with a pinch of salt.
I made my first three presidential campaign contributions this year, in the following order:
Fred, then Mitt, then McCain.
Kind of reminds me of investing in the stock market of late!
I think it is wishful (wistful?) thinking to play what if right now. I am having a very bad night trying to come to terms with the idea that we are electing a Euro-style socialist during a time of war. I really think this is the only possible result of 40 years of leftie education, leftie media, leftie Hollywood, etc. Every sitcom, movie, and song seems to carry some tired liberal message as conventional wisdom.
I have a freind whose son just graduated as a pharmacist. He is on the right end of some pretty amazing job offers, and he can't vote for Barack soon enough. I would like to ask him how he'll feel about having his wages confiscated (he'll be "rich" after all), and then distributed to the guys who were chasing tail and smoking dope while he was spending 6 hours a night in the library to earn his degree.
I won't because he needs to figure it out for himself. But it is discouraging to note that the descent to a full blown Social Welfare State is happening in a few weeks, and that it will be near impossible to turn around once the massive constituencies that succor from its ministrations vote for it in perpetuity.
LoafingOaf, that's total crap. You're delusional. It's easy to identify the ideal running mate for McCain: he picked her. Palin was the only choice for McCain. I was still resisting that conclusion until the start of August, but I came to see that it was obviously correct, and nothing since has dissuaded me. No one else could have reinvogorated the party. No one else could have brought him into striking distance. That he couldn't then close the deal is partly his fault, and largely the result of the unbridled media campaign of terror against Palin, something for which I hope the responsible persons will be called to account in their time.
What kiled the McCain campaign - and the polling graphs are absolutely explicit on this point - was the "financial crisis" and McCain's response to it. If you look at the graphs, his numbers improve when he picked Palin and tank when he made that idiotic "I'm suspending my campaign" move.
well, why should someone elect a person who doesn't really want the job!?
There's always the chance he'll react to a crisis by thinking "what's the best solution here" instead of "how will this affect my re-election campaign".
For example, he actually responded to a "what will the government do for me" by saying, basically, "nothing, that isn't the government's business". Lousy response from a political point of view, but I swear if it wasn't physically impossible I would have married him and had his babies right then and there.
This was from the other thread, but I am reposting it with a "Yeah! What he said!" intro:
jdeeripper said...
Ann Althouse could vote for Nader, it doesn't matter. Wisconsin is not in play.
This election is over. It was 85% over when Romney lost and the remaining 15% was eliminated when the jet crasher picked Sarah Palin over Mitt for VP.
If Romney were the nominee he'd be up over Obama now by 15 points.
Bright guy, great resume, telegenic, tall, good in debates, proven economic understanding and success.
Thanks a lot evangelical assholes. Once again you've given all of us atheists more proof of a godless universe filled with morons.
Another poster said that the Republicans would be lost without the theocrat extremists - but I wonder.
1. Their litmus test on abortion, which not only rules out pro-choicers like Rudy, Tom Ridge - but is extrened now to candidates that are anti-abortion but govern as Centrists outside the Deep South.
It is killing good tickets.
2. The Fundie extremists scare the hell out of women outside their religious conviction. More than anything, that accounts for the 20 point gap between white women and men on ticket choices.
When they are not talking about executing abortionists, teaching creationism in school, showing Luddite tendencies - they throw new stuff up like the infamouse Terri Schiavo Fiasco.
And the effect carries outside Jesusland where women worry that even a moderate pro-choice Republican is a less safe pick than a reliable Democrat who will vote with other Democrats.
3. Besides their war about Mormon heretics, white Fundies have never been favorably disposed to black Fundies, mainstream Protestant blacks, black and hispanic Pentacostalists (more heretics!) or Catholics.
They help drive minorities away from Republicans.
The Republicans appear headed for the wilderness. On top of losing the Presidency, they may lose up to 11 seats in the Senate. 6 for sure, and 5 are close. It will be a time to reflect on why Republicans have been driven out of the West, New England, and most Northern industrial states. And fail to connect with Hispanic populations.
Time for a lot of reflection on how the Party that as recently as 2004 was talking about the "Red State Tide" and permanent power - has now found itself this screwed.
1. Did the abandon the middle class to be whores of the Corporatists and rich?
2. Do the southern white Fundies scare more away than the votes they bring? Do they block excellent moderate Republicans from office?
3. Is it time to change the goals and themes from massive supply side spending, tax cuts that favor the wealthy, voodoo economics? Over-belligerancy for Israel, and more wars - is that what the People really want? Update or discard the old "wedge issues"? If so, to what? And how do you win back screwed wage-earning people, The North, the West, and attract Hispanics enough to be competitive again outside the Deep Bible Belt? (which itself is diminishing as Virginia, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, and even North Carolina are now gone from "solid Red")
Who will lead the regrouping? Certainly not McCain, gone back to his "dear friends" in the Senate. Not Fred Thompson, who will only get off his front porch hammmock when TV or a lobbyist calls...or his young wife demands his time.
Certainly not Fertility Goddess & Everywoman Palin - who needs a lot more experience and polishing..
That means people like Romney, Barbour, John Cornyn, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Pawlenty, moderates like Tom Ridge, and infamous and quite survivable RINOs like Arnold and Susan Collins need to start the discussion on making over the Republican brand. How best to return from brand disgrace, a failed President, and the wilderness...
Just hoping for Obama, Harry Reid, and Pelosi to screw up more than Bush II and jerks like Delay, Frist, and Hastert did is not enough...
If you look at the graphs, his numbers improve when he picked Palin and tank when he made that idiotic "I'm suspending my campaign" move.
I disagree that it was an idiotic move. It was a big gamble that didn't pay off, but he needed to gamble. He was behind, and as the Republican candidate during a "Republican" economic crisis he was doomed unless he tried something big. In short, he was doomed either way.
What really killed him is that he made that big move and then the bill (a) didn't pass and (b) was opposed by the Republicans he was supposed to be leading. Then we had a week of everyone standing around going "well... now what?". It made him look ineffective, and nobody wants an ineffective leader.
Simon:
If you look at the graphs, his numbers improve when he picked Palin and tank when he made that idiotic "I'm suspending my campaign" move.
I agree on one hand - the "I'm suspending my campaign" move - which was a total farce.
As far a Palin, at this point I'm not sure. Of course, some of the drop was probably due to the MSM's relentless smears, but some of it has to be chocked up to Palin herself, especially the KC interviews.
As far as Thompson, I was in his corner initially, but he ran an even worse campaign then McCain has so far.
Donn, I think there's a serious argument to be made that having picked Palin, the McCain campaign fouled up in how they deployed her after the convention. I offered advice at the time: they should have put her on CSPAN's Washington Journal (others have suggested conservative talk radio talk, which comes to the same thing for my purposes here) wall-to-wall, taking questions from the general public. They should have just let her answer off-the-wall questions from reporters. Instead, by hiding her from the media, they allowed the media to dishonestly conflate two issues: "she needs to take questions" (true) and "she needs to answer our gotcha questions" (false). It was the failure to unlatch the two, which could easily have been done, that created a problem for Palin's PR. Granted the Couric interview was problematic, but I am not ready to blame that purely on Palin. You have to point the finger at the media's own behavior, in terms of how they framed it, how they put the questions, how they edited it, and so forth.
I don't think liberals and even moderates get just how angry conservatives are about the media's treatment of Palin. I don't think they have the faintest understanding. This was a good and decent woman who they set out to destroy, and I hope those who partook and directed get theirs.
Simon,
I agree with the gist of your position, but at this point, for me anyway, the jury is still out on Palin.
Unlike the CG interviews, which were obviously cut to make Palin look bad, I have seen no evidence of that with the Couric interviews.
I, too, am very upset with the media being in the tank for Obama, and the way that Palin was treated.
October surprise. The economy collapsed. Surprise!
Not predictable, and nothing McCain had control over. The only thing he could have done was position himself as an economic expert way back last year. But that would have taken a lot of work and he had no way of knowing this would happen. And it probably still wouldn't have worked.
Humans, even powerful ones, have very little control over events. Sometimes you just get a bad hand. McCain was lucky to get as far as he did, but there's nothing special about this outcome.
We keep making the mistake that we can predict or control future events. Remember when everyone thought it would be Hillary vs. Rudy? How obvious it was? Why don't we learn?
Simon: No one else [but Palin] could have reinvogorated the party. No one else could have brought him into striking distance.
I dunno. I mean, we're just speculating. We have no way to know what would've happened had he picked someone else. I just remember that McCain started to gain in the polls when he began that ad campaign mocking Obama's celebrity, mocking the idea that Obama is "The One", and attacking Obama for his lack of experience. That all was happening before Palin was selected. The selection of Palin was the selection of, sorta, the right-wing's version of Obama. Which undercut a lot of McCain's attack ads.
That he couldn't then close the deal is partly his fault, and largely the result of the unbridled media campaign of terror against Palin, something for which I hope the responsible persons will be called to account in their time.
When you pick someone who has been completely absent from the national stage and say you ant her to be your VP in just a couple months, obviously many weeks are gonna be spent vetting her in the media. He should've picked someone who went along with his line of attack at the time: That Obama lacked experience and wasn't ready to lead. It's hard for McCain to suggest Obama isnt ready to lead, now, when his running mate is so severely unqualified. And, you know, lots of areas for attacking Obama, like his weird church and pastor, are more difficult to do now that his own running mate is known to attend some rather weird churches where people said some rather strange things.
But Simon, if you're a politician fit for the national stage, you've gotta be able to handle "gotcha" questions. She was pathetic with the gotcha questions. I've always said Palin may very well be someone who could be a good president. But to ask me to vote for her right now (as VP, potentially prez) is ridiculous. She hasn't proven shit. I'm not even sure she actually believes many of the things she says, or if she's just saying what McCain's people have dictated. I don't have a feel for what kind of leader she'd be on the world's stage. It's her job to make sure I know what I'd be voting for. Obama has passed the basic litmus tests for me, so I don't feel afraid of him as prez.
"trying to come to terms with the idea that we are electing a Euro-style socialist during a time of war. I really think this is the only possible result of 40 years of leftie .....etc."
I think massive incompetence on W's part for the last 8 years had something to do with it too.
"October surprise. The economy collapsed. Surprise!"
I wonder how things would have played out had this happened a lot earlier (like February).
Romney vs Clinton may not be a dream matchup bit it's the one I wanted.
One of the reasons Clinton lost the nomination (apart from the MSM's collective boner for Obama, their imaginary hip black friend) was that lots of dems wanted to punish her for voting in favor of the Iraqi war.
One of the reaons Romney lost was that his speed-of-light change of heart on social issues made it clear that either he'd been lying as governer of Mass or was lying then as nominee.
Had the economy tanked earlier I think both Clinton and Romney could have overcome earlier setbacks and we wouldn't be stuck, like we are now, with an ambitious lightweight with a lead-ballon running mate on the one hand and crazy old man and his trophy Office Wife on the other.
Simon....your post about Palin being the "only choice" is utter bullshit. I would expect a lot more out of you than the "unbridled media" nonsense. She won't take questions and that's not the media's fault but putting out the hockey mom who would have trouble naming the continents.
I regret you go down this path by my gosh fella, ...
I don't even know who Fred Thompson is, beyond his once being in the race.
It's either a flyover country effect, or not having a TV.
I stand by the point about Palin being the only viable choice. No one else could have had the unifying effect she had, no one else produced the boost in morale. No one else could have shaken up the basic dynamics of the race in the way that Palin did (that there was then another significant shift in the dynamics prompted by media invective against Palin, the campaign's ineptness in handling her, and the "financial crisis" doesn't vitiate this, as I said).
How quickly we forget: Obama gives his herculean speech in a stadium in Denver, and the next day, McCain holds a rally to announce he's nominating... And at that moment, say any name other than Sarah Palin and everyone stops paying attention and goes back to talking about Barack's speech for the next week. The RNC's on, you say? Footnote. Moreover, had it been Romney, the Dem reaction when the financial crisis happened is entirely predictabl: he would have been painted as the bad guy, as the white collar CEO who made millions laying off "main street." The characterization - deceitful though it would be - would be repeatedly loudly and often by the Obama agitprop department. The only use Romney could have been as veep would have ben to talk McCain out of "suspending his campaign" and to talk him into opposing the bailout - but neither of those things require him to have been the veep.
I liked Rudy, LoafingOaf. I should have written yesterday.
I'm pro-life, but my definition of that, and what it means as far as who I'll vote for is not nearly what most people would imagine.
Anyway, I very much enjoy listening to what Rudy has to say on all of the important issues to me. Something I can't say about McCain.
I liked Fred Thompson, but it seemed like he was the only candidate who would test positive for Lunesta.
I agree with Simon re: Newt Gingrich. Win or lose, a Gingrich campaign would have been a wonder to behold.
Michael - Right. The argument re Gingrich is that he'd probably lose, but we were probably going to lose anyway, so if you're going to go down with guns blazing, better to nominate someone who's really good and go down in a blaze of glory (to mix a metaphor). But a year ago, while it was obvious that this was going to be a very, very tough election, it wasn't clear that we couldn't win. I thought it was still winnable, and although I didn't support McCain, I do think we blundered backwards into nominating the one guy who maybe could pull it out of the hat.
Now if any of you is uncertain of how to get to the Pusser Museum or Skullbone Park, ask, and I will try to direct you further. It is my understanding that jobs are available at each place and that Fred himself may be doing the hiring.
I personally think a Fred Thompson/Sarah Palin ticket would've been awesome, in a "how many babes can one administration have?" sort of way. The public would clamor for wet tshirt debates between the first lady, the VP, and the new secretary of state Angelina Jolie. But I digress.
But let's be real. Fred would campaign a day, then sleep in with Jeri. Get up and probably have a big breakfast. Smoke a cigar later in the day. Drink some bourbon in the evening. Then me might think about the campaign again. I love that about Fred, but you do not win elections that way.
You say lazy like it's a bad thing. What exactly is the frenetic pace of a presidential campaign supposed to show us? The candidates average speed of pander? I don't want an active POTUS. The one saving grace of Clinton was that he mostly knew when to keep his monkey hands off the controls and just make reassuring speeches between bouts of chubby intern bingo. We'd be a lot better off with a guy (or women) who a) didn't have a burning desire for the job; someone that accepts responsibility is great, someone that craves it is insane, and b) didn't want to make their mark on history; leaving the Whitehouse without the world getting blowed up is enough of a win, unless the circumstances are forced on you don't get ambitious/greedy.
Having Thompson as the nominee would have resulted in a lot more ugliness in the campaign compared to McCain. Thompson doesn't have the war hero background and has a reputation as a ladies man even now.
Plus, Thompson's bearing would have really made for an uncomfortable dynamic vs. Obama. He has a strong southern drawl, and comes across as the man comfortably in charge. The comparisons to and slaveholders and plantation bosses would be a constant refrain; things would get pretty ugly.
There will be time enough for the post mortems in three weeks. No need and no point in starting now.
Ann: "What does it say that commenters on the previous post have lapsed into reminiscing about Fred Thompson? Oh, what might have been!"
It's not so much about what might have been but instead about what's soon to be. That's a half full/half empty distinction, but important nonetheless.
"well, why should someone elect a person who doesn't really want the job!?"
Not wanting the job should be the primary qualification. And I'm being dead serious.
Simon:
Agree that Palin was a good VP choice (altho the campaign horribly botched her post-RNC rollout) and I think she is probably still a net plus for McCain. Also agree that even with the financial crisis, Romney wouldn't have been a better VP choice.
However, disagree that Palin was the only viable choice. It's true there weren't many others who would have provided a similar boost in morale, but I can think of at least two who would have, without Palin's downsides. One, who was reportedly under consideration by McCain early on, is Rep. Marsha Blackburn of TN: Female, also attractive, very conservative. and a frequent guest on the talking head shows, so she has a proven ability to handle the national media. But McCain would never pick someone who was on the record as opposing amnesty for illegals.
And then of course there is Jindal.
Also, have to strongly disagree that "we blundered backwards into nominating the one guy who maybe could pull it out of the hat." The meme that McCain is the only Republican who could win this year was nonsense even before the financial meltdown: Both Romney and Thompson would have been stronger nominees, maybe Rudy too despite his abortion position. The reason McCain was doing best in the polls against Obama at the time of the primaries, was in large part just name recognition. Objectively, in a year where the other party's base is energized and enthusiastic for their nominee, nominating someone who is reviled by your own party base, is just nuts. Putting Palin on the ticket helped somewhat, but did not close the enthusiasm gap completely even at the height of her popularity. There remain many conservatives (like me) who would not lose much sleep over a McCain loss, and who think it might well be better for the conservative movement if he loses.
Of course Palin was mishandled - its John McCain. He's campaign staff is filled with Dole '96 retreads and "moderate" inside the beltway types.
They should have by-passed the Liberal MSM all together and gone on Rush, Fox and C-Span. If they HAD to go on "ABCNBCCBSCNN" it should be have been a live interview with no chance for editing. Or restricted the liberal MSM to written questions.
Letting Gibson/Couric ask gotcha questions and then edit the answers was stupid. But then we're talking about McCain.
I don't even know who Fred Thompson is, beyond his once being in the race.
It's either a flyover country effect, or not having a TV.
If you have a radio, for about a year (2006) Fred Thompson was a vacation replacement for Paul Harvey (Good Day!).
If not, you might have read that Fred replaced Al Gore (remember him?) in the Senate, then was elected to a full term. Fred first came to national attention as minority counsel on the Senate Watergate Committee.
why should someone elect a person who doesn't really want the job!?
Because desperately seeking power is a character flaw.
Ann confuses me with this post. How can someone who is thinking wistfully of Romney possibly be planning to vote for Obama?
I didn't like McCain. Then I got behind McCain because the alternative to me is sickening. Now, I see that McCain is running a crappy campaign and he has no message. (I don't blame the press for this; part of politics is getting your message to resonate.) I'll still vote for McCain, but I am certainly not excited about it or emotionally invested in the choice.
I feel like I was in the forefront of the wave of Thompson nostalgia in that recent post. I want to say here that we should be careful. We should remind ourselves conservatives and libertarians that all our candidates sucked in various ways when there was time for choosing. That's why McCain defaulted into the nomination.
P.S. I cannot believe that Paul Harvey is still alive. He and Bob Barker seemed so old when I was a kid. And yet they press on.
to Jim: Have you not noticed that this country has become a Socialist Democracy in the past two weeks? The "bailout" is nothing more than the Government owning corporate stock in investments, insurance and mortgage firms. That, more than raising the tax rate a percentage point or two, is the textbook definition of socialism. At least with a "Social Welfare State," as you put it, we'd see some tangible good. Shelters, work programs - I'd rather my tax dollars go there as opposed to high-rise condos in New York.
Let's put it this way - would you rather donate to a charity that provides help to people in dire need - refugees, homeless, mentally ill, orphans - or to a charity that gives money to the stinking rich?
Telecom -- I don't think the government forced these entities to sell the stock to it. That's a critical difference. Under socialism, the government seizes the means of production.
Really, this is just extreme monetary policy. If you don't believe that the government should be involved in monetary policy, well, you are a fringe libertarian and no one is going to take you seriously.
Capitalism does have its problems. One of them is occasional economic shrinkages along with massive growth. Under socialism and communism and other government-control systems, of course, there is only shrinkage. Ask Fidel Castro, whose country had a GDP equal to Portugal -- Portugal -- when he seized the government.
Steven Machos said: "We should remind ourselves conservatives and libertarians that all our candidates sucked in various ways when there was time for choosing. That's why McCain defaulted into the nomination."
Disagree that Romney sucked- he lost because he's a Mormon. Agree that McCain basically defaulted into the nomination tho.
Jon -- Okay. I'll bite. I know that National Review endorsed Romney. However, let's pretend that he is a member of some mainline Protestant church. What about him makes conservatives or libertarians excited?
Also, religion does play a prominent role in society. It always will. It's a problem that isn't going away any time, ever.
Freeman Hunt said: Ann confuses me with this post. How can someone who is thinking wistfully of Romney possibly be planning to vote for Obama?
Post-neutrality remorse.
When we value honesty, ability, and lack of guile more than we value our political parties or platforms, then we'll seek after people more like Romney.
In that day, we'll hunger for candor and honesty more than we will those that tell us what we want to hear just so they and their friends can engorge themselves on our tax dollars.
But for now, we have to suffer through the mindless and heartless elevation of party and policy over all else.
All things must bend to our parties and opinions - even the truth.
Ann confuses me with this post. How can someone who is thinking wistfully of Romney possibly be planning to vote for Obama?
They're both smooth, plastic candidates capable of spouting banalities and platitudes as though they really believe?
I think Romney would, in the current circumstances, be a better president than either McCain or Obama, neither of whom has much of a clue on economic matters, but there's no way he could win.
The problem with Thompson is exactly what we see in this thread. Voters claim to want someone who's more than just business-as-usual, but at the end of the day it's too hard to do all that nasty thinking for ourselves. We want someone who'll make comforting noises and tell us that if we just do THIS THING then it'll all turn out all right in the end. THIS THING can be anything, of course, just as long as it's easy to do and clearly spelled out. Just Show Us The Way, please.
Fred Thompson didn't do that. He was going to let us make up our own minds and tell him where we wanted to go. It turns out that this was not what we wanted.
(I just spent a week at a USAF/industry convention. Every single person there who discussed politics had been planning to vote for Fred Thomspon. Many still were.)
Steven Machos said: "Jon -- Okay. I'll bite. I know that National Review endorsed Romney. However, let's pretend that he is a member of some mainline Protestant church. What about him makes conservatives or libertarians excited?
Also, religion does play a prominent role in society. It always will. It's a problem that isn't going away any time, ever."
There were a lot of conservatives excited by Romney, based on his conservative platform. Sure, there were some conservatives who didn't like him, but there were a lot more who didn't like McCain, and very few who really hated Romney the way many hated McCain. Consequently I don't think there's any doubt that the GOP base would be more energized (or at least, less de-energized) with Romney as the nominee.
I also don't think Romney's Mormonisn would have been nearly as big a problem for him in the general as it was in the primary- and it would have been less of a problem than McCain's ideological incoherence and incompetence have been for McCain. There would have been some evangelicals who stayed home rather than vote for a Mormon, but that would mostly have occured in safely Republican Southern states where he could afford to lose a point or two. It would have made holding VA a little harder, but probably not enough to cost him the state in a tied national race, and that would be more than counterbalanced by the boost that Mormons would give to the ticket in NV and CO.
What does it say that we're talking about Fred Thompson? To me, it says that we think we've lost.
And it means we definitely are wistfully thinking of who might have done a much better job of speaking for us.
This kind of talk would have been so easy to get behind (Mark Levin @ The Corner):
"You know, Senator Obama, you're just another tax-and-spend liberal ... actually, let me amend that, you're just another tax-and-spend socialist. Most Americans don't think their government should be 'spreading around the wealth.' They think hard-working people should get to keep most of what they earn. They're willing to pay their fair share in taxes to do that which the government is supposed to do. But they are not willing to fund all the five year plans and scores of schemes and your favorite groups like ACORN. They don't like the NEA destroying their school systems, ACLU-type judges running their country, and anarchy on their nation's borders. They are also patriotic people, and they resent when your Senate leader declares a war lost when we have young Americans winning the war on the battlefield. And you could not bring yourself to stand up for those troops and distance yourself from your leader. Americans are a great people and while they may need a helping hand from time-to-time, they don't want you running their lives. That's not the way our country works."
I could see Fred Thompson saying something like this. Maybe Romney, too.
How can someone who is thinking wistfully of Romney possibly be planning to vote for Obama?
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I've always gotten the impression that Ann doesn't take voting for President too seriously. There has always been more of a "Presidential campaign as performance art" vibe to her posts than serious political analysis (although there is some of that too). That could just be her Blog Persona, though.
well, why should someone elect a person who doesn't really want the job!?
Although others have said it: Wanting the job should be a disqualification.
What makes any of you think F. Thompson would be any more exciting a campaigner if he'd won the nomination?
Some of us don't want exciting campaigns. This has been an exciting and interesting campaign, in mostly bad ways.
Toby sez things would get pretty ugly.
Yeah, thank God that hasn't happened.
Palin was attacked for wearing a white jacket the other day (in an obvious attempt to channel the KKK).
Palin just needs to get out more - and do every single interview and every single talkshow there is - run right over the top of the Katie Couric's of the world.
Hell, Palin was just attacked on this board in another thread for wearing white...a coded message.
- Seven Machos - there's a big difference between setting an economic agenda through monetary policy, and having ownership stakes in banks. My concern isn't based on any libertarian mindset, but that the Treasury Department is about to essentially run the private banking and credit sector in the United States for the immediate future.
My point is more of one of proper use of tax dollars. This sets a precedent in which the FCC could buy broadcast outlets, or newspapers, or even telecom companies. HHS could take over Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Defense could take over Lockheed Martin. All of the straw man arguments that Wall Street created could easily be transferred to any one of these other industries, and make a Government bailout seem needed.
That's what frightens me about this bailout.
Post a Comment