Buy xanax. Xanax….

I’m on meds, and I want us to win in 08. Look at ‘68 and ‘72–an incredibly liberal era. ROTC’s being chased off campuses, marches by very hairy people–but in both ‘68 and ‘72 a Republican (and one the Dems really hated) got elected. How could this happen? Ideological purity gave them McCarthy and McGovern–well really it gave them Nixon. PLEASE let’s don’t make the same mistake. Getting Hillary or Obama because we don’t like so and so’s position on abortion is beyond stupid. Yeah but, yeah but. HILLARY. FREAKIN. CLINTON. PRESIDENT. Visualize whirled peas, guys, cause that’s what we’re gonna get if we don’t wise up.

smellthecoffee on April 11, 2007 at 1:40 AM

Nixon defeated the candidate who supported the very unpopular war in Vietnam. Ring any bells?

Be careful what you wish for.

I would interpret this to mean that both McC and Rudy have a lot of cross over appeal, as they are what you might call RINOs (correct me if I am wrong).

Happy to. You’re wrong. Oh, Rudy and McCain are both RINOs, without doubt. But they will have the opposite of cross-over appeal when the rubber meets the road.

McCain is dead in the water now, and should go ahead and smell the coffee.

Rudy has been smart, certainly, making public appearances for well over a year with the air of someone thinking big. Giving keynote speeches at leadership conferences, conventions, etc. I got to hear him in San Fransisco last August and he was excellent. He’d make a good Attorney General, but not a good president. Will I vote for him against Hillary if that’s the choice? No. Flame as you will, I will vote my conscience this time around, and hope that the rest of the country can learn to as well. I’m done capitulating, and voting for Rudy would be just that.

It is way to EARLY to be talking about settling for who is electable over who will really serve the nation.

Let’s just not forget that his acting career was caused by his particular persona. It was the decision of the producers and director of the movie Marie that only Fred could properly play his own role in that story. His imposing, indolent presence, clear speaking ability, and no-nonsense attitude made him into an actor. Those attributes existed for him in politics for some 20 years prior to that.

So, just maybe, he would have much of the same appeal either way. Besides which, who knows if he wouldn’t have become a more important force in national politics if he hadn’t spent so much time on an acting career? We’ll never know for sure.

But that is all just speculation, and doesn’t do justice to his actual stance on issues, which is well documented, strongly pro-constitution, and will assuredly resonate with the “values” majority that the Republican party has thrown under the bus the last six years.

One has to admit that great part of Fred’s appeal is his star power. It is bothersome, but pretty necessary against the star power that is Hillary I’m afraid.

Bill Clinton, while not an actor, had a lot of star power as well. So did Ronald Reagan. So did JFK. I would even say in a sense Rudy has some star power, which explains some of his support from people who would otherwise never vote for a guy with his policy positions.

It’s nothing new. Yes, it bites that people would base there vote on this instead of positions and their own political beliefs. But hey, if we have a guy that has such appeal and can get the enthusiastic support of our base, then we’d better give him a long, serious look.

Why am I agreeing so much here with honora??? I have no idea.

One has to admit that great part of Fred’s appeal is his star power. It is bothersome, but pretty necessary against the star power that is Hillary I’m afraid.

honora,

I promise you that grown men in the south do call their father’s “Daddy.” (as do the women) It’s just the way it is. There is no deliberate thought to doing this, just the southern way, I suppose.

Nobody in the south would ever think of it that way. In fact, you are the first person I’ve ever heard of as making such a statement.

thirteen28 on April 10, 2007 at 3:59 PM

I’m just one person but after spending the first 20 years of my life in the south, moving out for the next 20 and then back to the deep south, I can say that I call it the “false southern charm”. While it is nice that people use sir and ma’am a lot more in “these here parts” many times they are only words. In other words an act much of the time – conditioned to be sure but oftentimes an act all the same.

I suspect not, which leads to an interesting conclusion: people are supporting him primarily based on how they relate to a television character. This is somehow a bit disconcerting.

Quite possibly so. Speaking for myself, I don’t ever watch L&O or any of those similar shows, which are all alike to me.

But you are probably right, although I suspect non-political reasoning is the deciding factor for many voters in every election.

As for the accent: in general I like a Southern accent, but there is a sort of corn pone affectation (e.g. grown men referring to their fathers as “my daddy”) that is a bit much.

Nobody in the south would ever think of it that way. In fact, you are the first person I’ve ever heard of as making such a statement.

AP’s distaste for Fred’s southern accent aside, Fred has truckloads of crossover appeal.

thirteen28 on April 10, 2007 at 3:22 PM

I know I am going to get yelled at for this, but: what interests me about Fred! is this: had he not been an actor, but say an architect or executive, and had the exact same public service record, would he even be on the radar screen?

I suspect not, which leads to an interesting conclusion: people are supporting him primarily based on how they relate to a television character. This is somehow a bit disconcerting.

As for the accent: in general I like a Southern accent, but there is a sort of corn pone affectation (e.g. grown men referring to their fathers as “my daddy”) that is a bit much.

What will it mean that this early big Tuesday in primary season is bigger than ever? What will it mean that the campaigns started earlier, raised more money, and landed more punches before this day even arrives?And, most importantly, what the heck……

And honora is right about cross over appeal. We can’t win without it.

Rightwingsparkle on April 10, 2007 at 3:09 PM

AP’s distaste for Fred’s southern accent aside, Fred has truckloads of crossover appeal.

Umm..amerpundit..there is that one other person it affects. You know, the baby. No life to live and all that.

Regarding Thompson. Please. I was pro-choice in 1981 and one doesn’t get more pro-life than I am. People do change on this issue ya know.

There really is no comparision between Fred’s voting record and Rudy’s more recent statement’s regarding public funding to ensure a judicially created constitutional “right” … nice try though.

What, exactly are they (GOP politicians) thinking? Didn’t they learn anything from their 2006 drubbing?

Lawrence on April 10, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Polls now show (yes I know polls are what they are at this point) that both McC and Rudy beat Hillary or Obama head to head. Same polls show a generic Dem beating a generic R. I would interpret this to mean that both McC and Rudy have a lot of cross over appeal, as they are what you might call RINOs (correct me if I am wrong).

So it gets down to the old paradox: do you want to win or do you want to stay true to your base? Tough decision.

What, exactly are they (GOP politicians) thinking? Didn’t they learn anything from their 2006 drubbing?

Lawrence on April 10, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Yes hopefully they learned that the country is looking for more moderates. That’s why the blue dog dems changed the balance. The base is not the majority of the party. Very important yes but by itself is not capable of winning many elections.

Thus dies the last hope of pro-lifers in the GOP field. Heart-ache.

And so dies the last hope of the GOP regaining a majority in congress and senate any time in the near future.

Along with President Bush doing everything he can to assure a Democratic win in 2008,… The GOP really has lost touch with their base.

What, exactly are they (GOP politicians) thinking? Didn’t they learn anything from their 2006 drubbing?

The other major issue is, when the electoral college makes a decision, will it decide in favor of Fred Thompson, or Hillary Clinton?

Do you not realize that the electoral college is now law-bound to cast their votes for the candidate who carried the majority of their states’ votes? They would face the federal pen. for casting a vote of the own volition.

I hope I’m reading your context right, but I waited until I saw it several times so I could be sure. We’re moving further and further away from a republic and more towards a democracy – not a good thing IMO.

If a woman then decides to murder her unborn child – she will face the Ultimate Judge in eternity. But late term is so horrific !

Can we just stipulate that every Republican was pro choice at one time and every democrat was pro life at one time? That way we can stop these ridiculous posts for each and every candidate.

Sounds reasonable to me. Heck, I’ll raise you on that one. I used to be a pro-”choice” atheist socialist in my misguided youth, something that you won’t find many people accusing me of being today ;-)

I’m still confused about the original article, though. I still can’t see where Fred! declares that he’s in favor of abortion, no matter how hard I try. Unless, of course, one subscribes to that awfully clever bit of verbal jiu-jitsu where pro-abortion = pro-choice, which is raging, rampant nonsense at any speed. “Pro-choice” is absolutely meaningless unless, in fact, you’re in favor of ALL choices.

And while I’m on that subject, I do believe that my OWN side ought to be honest as well. We’re anti-abortion, we’re not “pro-life”. Unless, again, we’re rabidly in favor of preserving ALL life, no matter what. Which may be the case for some of my ideological brethren, but I don’t think that a lot of them would be in favor of preserving the life of, say, Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, just like I don’t see a resounding majority of “pro-choicers” being in favor my choice to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to own as many firearms of varying calibers as I can possibly afford. Or school vouchers, privatized social security, privatized health care etc. etc. Yes, there are some who would, but try to put those issues to a vote among rabid “pro-choicers” like NARAL and see where that gets you.

Really. If the issue is abortion, can’t we all just agree to call the two camps “pro” and “anti” abortion?

It would seem to be logical to ME, at least.