I always find it amusing when people who are of one political bent and very disdainful of the opposing bent, use the actions of the opponents to justify taking those same actions. How is this remotely logical?

honora on April 7, 2007 at 8:49 AM

And I’m always amused when people who think that they are so brilliant and intellectual can’t grasp simple sacrasm when it is incoming instead of outgoing.

I always find it amusing when people who are of one political bent and very disdainful of the opposing bent, use the actions of the opponents to justify taking those same actions. How is this remotely logical?

Honora, you’re not allowed to make that point because, as a representative of the morally depraved and hypocritical left-wing political machine, you don’t have the moral authority to do so. (Or something like that.) Are we clear?

Anyhow: I can identify w/your sentiment as long as you’re talking about specific folks (who may be inconsistent) and not all or even most of us on this board. None of us speaks for anyone else, and I never make that assumption of anyone else, even you :-)

And I’ll certainly never insinuate anyone like Gregor (or anyone else) is guilty of inconsistency unless they’ve made a big deal in the past about Kerry’s, Obama’s or Hillary’s lack of executive experience. What we have here is people arguing past each other, not being flagrantly inconsistent. But that’s just My Opinion… apples & oranges indeed.

Why not? You folks have done that for every one of your candidates for every office, high to low, for every election since 1960 (if not earlier).

What’s sauce for you gooses can be sause for the ganders.

LegendHasIt on April 6, 2007 at 3:49 PM

I always find it amusing when people who are of one political bent and very disdainful of the opposing bent, use the actions of the opponents to justify taking those same actions. How is this remotely logical?

You did a great job of taking my quote out of context. I did not suggest that we should assume anything. I suggested that there is no reason to believe Thompson would not make a good executive. That is not an assumption. It is fact. Again, can you give me some example of evidence that he would NOT?

As for setting the bar low …

What exactly would you call voting for someone you already know for a fact to be against almost everything you stand for, simply because he seems to be a good executive?

Gregor on April 6, 2007 at 4:36 PM

I did not quote you in full, but I don’t think what I quoted misrepresented what you said at all. My apologies if it does.

But look at what you are saying: you’re saying the burden of proof is to prove X is not incapable. Which effectively is an assumption–until proven otherwise, assume he is capable.

I don’t suggest you vote for someone whose views are anathema to you under any circumstances. But isn’t this apples and oranges?

Oh for goodness sake, Gregor. Never mind.

spmat on April 6, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Well, it is Good Friday after all, so let me just say this, the day Fred jumps in, is the day I give up the receipe for “sour mash BBQ”!

That way, all of us, can invite Fred and the Mrs. to our own fire side chat……

A Blessed Easter to you all………

Morale in the services is so battered because of the MSM that if not for kind and sincere well wishes from GOOD PATRIOTS like yourself, there are days when we would just pack it all in and let the ungrateful masses drown in their own soup.

Happy Easter and Blessed be your Season of Atonement.

Suppose Fred! already did the acting and mentions something along the line about himself wishing he’d be president?

…before Fred! announces his candidacy, I mean.

Kokonut on April 6, 2007 at 3:39 PM

I should have been more clear. Someone, above, stated that the L & O series with Fred! in them can not be shown during his Presidency.

Of course they can show all they want ahead of his announcement, even if he filmed his announcement in one of the shows. I’m sure the Left would threaten to sue someone…at least for 24 hours…

Different day, different age. The media of his day were still operating under the maxim of “do no harm” with regards to national security. Neither he nor his policies would have survived the modern media, except insofar as those policies agreed with their goals as leftists.

spmat on April 6, 2007 at 1:56 PM

FT can ignore their sorry arses. When he ran for Senator he drove his pickup truck through the entire state of Tennessee, in a flannel shirt, shook hudreds of thousands of hands. I remember catching the news when he won and the media showing him in these modest poses. I alos vaguely remember him driving that pickup to Wash. D.C. as a symbolic reminder of who’d brung him. This is a guy who will get lots of support and money from the average folks. No doubt he’ll also be supported by the pockets of the ‘bad’ rich conservatives.

That entire back/fro on his executive experience is just an exercise. Two things which matter:

1. Will he fight the terrorists?
2. Is he electable?

My take on both is a resounding “Yes” and I’m sticking to this story, Jane :)

The only other one, in the picture so far, who gets the “Yes” is RG.

My HH is a Marine’s Marine though I am no hero, I thank you for the sentiment. IT MATTERS that you feel that way.xoxo

Yes, YOU are a HERO!!! All in the Military Services are heroes. All who have a family know they couldn’t do what they do if their family wouldn’t heroically support them. Often they credit their families with more suffering and agony than what they go through, due to their ‘family’ and team away from home. The rest of us better appreciate and never forget this!!! We get to do whatever we want, including blathering here, while you all protect our freedoms.

As for those WHO DARE THINK McCain’s EGO would tolerate being a second to ANYone, you are WAAAAY off that base. McCain thinks its “his turn” to be the top of the ticket. EGO MANIACS are funny that way.

Thompson as McCain’s VP.

That’s Jane’s story and she’s sticking to it.

seejanemom on April 6, 2007 at 1:51 PM

I agree with your take on “egos” but here is another reason why McCain is not improving, but rather diminishing, his chances, which are already nearly all gone.

Happy Easter to you Jane, and family, and all on this site, and their loved ones. You too Kini. Aloha!

The man has been deeply involved in politics in an extensive variety of venues for well over 30 years. For anyone to suggest a lack of experience is nearly laughable. He was a lobbyist for nearly two decades, seeking to roll back destructive regulations instituted by both Johnson and Nixon, and had to fight with/against both sides of the aisle on a regular basis.

And these days, when asked a question, you get a real answer. Not a canned political ad. Every time I’ve heard Mitt Romney answer a question lately, it starts with, “As you know, while Governor I signed into law ….”

You don’t get that from Fred. You get his mind and his heart. The fact is that he believes in the Constitution, and would work to prevent its further erosion. Compared to every other “frontrunning” candidate available from either party, that’s more than enough for me.

I like both Hunter and Tancredo, and would hope for a Fred Thompson nominee to select one or the other as VP. I like Michael Steele as well, but he is more of an unknown quantity than either of them.

Gregor, well said.

Giuliani isn’t going to reunify the party with his message of open borders amnesty, gun grabbing, abortion loving, gay union support although if he went soft on the war he might steal some votes from the left’s nutroot base.

McCain is just done. Nuff said.

Mitt might reunify the party to some degree, maybe enough maybe not. I’ve been listening to him and like what I hear.

Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo have good messages and I like them both but even I don’t think they’ll get the nomination, reunify the party or get traction with the blue dogs if they did get nominated.

I don’t think Fred is a silver bullet and I harbor no thought that he is another Reagan but at this point in time I think he’s the best chance we have to keep the White House in 2008. He can communicate, his messages resonate beyond the conservative borders in ideology. If he runs I will give him my money and my time.

Would you invest in something that does not have a positive track record? Something that is unknown is an inherent risk.

spmat on April 6, 2007 at 5:17 PM

“does not have a positive track record?”

You’re suggesting that Thompson does not have a positive track record? How so? At the same time, you’re suggesting that we vote for a person who has a proven NEGATIVE track record on most conservative issues. Somehow, you feel more comfortable voting for the proven negative, rather than for a man who most indications suggest that he leans positive.

So … your theory is that it’s better to KNOW you’re going to fail, rather than take a chance with someone who MIGHT succeed.

Brilliant. Using your “investment” analogy, you’re suggesting that it’s better to vote on the a dead horse rather than a new horse with great promise, because at least you know what you’re getting with the corpse.

Once again, you’re going to have a really tough time getting past these basic truths of who Giuliani really is:

Amnesty – overwhelmingly supports
Increase in immigration – overwhelmingly supports
Federally funded abortion – supports
Federally funded stem cell research – supports
Gay marriage – supports same sex, federally recognized unions
2nd Amendment – will gladly violate the 2nd amendment if it reduces crime
NAFTA – supports

I’m not really sure how you turn all that garbage into a “positive.”

Heh. See reply to Honora above. Same answer.

Gregor on April 6, 2007 at 4:37 PM

Not a valid response.

Would you invest in something that does not have a positive track record? Something that is unknown is an inherent risk. Thompson has no track record of substantive executive leadership. He has no track record for taking the reins and leading on any conservative issues, either, unless you call campaign finance a conservative issue. Or trying to block meaningful Tort reform.

Thompson’s conservative bona fides, such as they are, are not associated with his leadership. He’s been called a “moderate” Senator in the past.

Thompson, a key moderate on Capitol Hill, had been considering retirement last year, but decided to stay on in the Senate after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

He’s even been a bit of a limp fish on Bush’s judicial appointments.

MESERVE:Do you believe that the Republican Party should take it so far as to filibuster on this issue on the Senate floor?

THOMPSON: Well, you know, any minority party has a right to require the other side to get 61 votes. So…

MESERVE:But strategically, would it be a bad idea?

THOMPSON: … hopefully, it doesn’t come to that. I hope it doesn’t. I don’t think that it will. I think we will be able to come to some kind of accommodation on that. Let’s just wait and see and don’t create trouble before it arises. But we’re going to have some discussions. We have our rights, and the majority has theirs. And we just need — some — some accommodation so that we’re treated fairly and the judges who are proposed by the president are treated fairly.

MESERVE:You’re using the word accommodation, but Senator Lott, in many of his remarks, has been quite aggressive. At this point in time, how confrontational should he be in dealing with the Democrats?

THOMPSON: Well, I don’t think it’s a time for a confrontation. You know, I think as leader sometimes you probably feel compelled to rally the troops a little bit, and I think you’re seeing a little of that going on on both sides perhaps. But I think after all is said and done, we should sit down across the table from one another and work things out.

That’s really something when you’re considered more moderate than Trent Lott.

He’s presidential material, but he’s not a silver bullet.

The lack of negative evidence is not proof of positive results. I wouldn’t automatically assume an investment was sound without some track record of positive performance. Why should I assume that Thompson would make a good executive when I have no real reason to?

spmat on April 6, 2007 at 3:54 PM

Heh. See reply to Honora above. Same answer.

Is that really how low you want to set the bar? Simply assume someone is a good chief executive lacking any proof to the contrary? Don’t you think the burden should be on the candidate to make that case for him/herself?

honora on April 6, 2007 at 3:40 PM

You did a great job of taking my quote out of context. I did not suggest that we should assume anything. I suggested that there is no reason to believe Thompson would not make a good executive. That is not an assumption. It is fact. Again, can you give me some example of evidence that he would NOT?

As for setting the bar low …

What exactly would you call voting for someone you already know for a fact to be against almost everything you stand for, simply because he seems to be a good executive?

And we really have no reason to believe he’s not. Or do you? Can you give us some indication that Thompson is not, or would not be a good executive? Anything at all?

The lack of negative evidence is not proof of positive results. I wouldn’t automatically assume an investment was sound without some track record of positive performance. Why should I assume that Thompson would make a good executive when I have no real reason to? It is inescapable that his lack of executive experience is a negative. As I said before, the Oval Office is not a place to train. It is a place to perform.

Also, Thompson has never really had to deal with many real political frustrations. His run for the Senate was largely uncontested. Once he got there, he was elevated, in spite of his junior status, to committee chairmanships and immediately groomed for bigger things. He’s a golden boy. The Fred! thing here demonstrates that.

Reagan spent decades in the trenches, first in 1964 (losing campaign), then as Governor of California, then in 1976 (losing campaing), finally to achieve success in 1980, with a long string of success and failure for the conservative principles he actively fought for. He kicked and scratched his way to the top. He wanted to be President, because he wanted to be a conservative leader.

Thompson hasn’t even entered the race yet. To my knowledge, the only issue he’s ever actively fought for is campaign finance. I fail to see how he’s earned the laurels that so many are so desperate to throw at him. He’s generally a conservative, sure, and he’s charismatic. But does that mean he wants to lead the conservative movement? Heck, does that even mean he wants to lead the Republican party? I just don’t know.

I’m guessing you would admit that Bill Clinton is a great executive. So what? Did that “help you” or “hurt you” if you’re a conservative?

Gregor on April 6, 2007 at 2:49 PM

No, I wouldn’t admit that Clinton was a great executive. He was a lackluster governor that dragged his Arkansas corruption with him to Washington. Once there, he was famous for making as few real decisions as possible, passing the blame whenever he could. I would say that his two terms as governor made him more qualified as an executive than Thompson, yes.

Is that really how low you want to set the bar? Simply assume someone is a good chief executive lacking any proof to the contrary? Don’t you think the burden should be on the candidate to make that case for him/herself?

honora on April 6, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Why not? You folks have done that for every one of your candidates for every office, high to low, for every election since 1960 (if not earlier).

What’s sauce for you gooses can be sause for the ganders.

And we really have no reason to believe he’s not. Or do you? Can you give us some indication that Thompson is not, or would not be a good executive? Anything at all?

Gregor on April 6, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Is that really how low you want to set the bar? Simply assume someone is a good chief executive lacking any proof to the contrary? Don’t you think the burden should be on the candidate to make that case for him/herself?

“Law and Order” will have to stop being shown while he is President. There’s a law about that, but I’d have to research the particulars…He would lose $100,000, I believe for filming 2 such shows…but the country and the world need you Fred!

No one will hate his running/winning more than the terrorists.

Entelechy on April 6, 2007 at 12:32 PM

Suppose Fred! already did the acting and mentions something along the line about himself wishing he’d be president?

:)