0
   

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 May, 2007 03:10 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Any balance from the right is welcome news.

What do you mean, c.i.? Was it related to the Newt article?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 May, 2007 03:13 pm
Yes, on 'Radical Secularism.' I believe people should have the freedom to believe in their religion.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 May, 2007 03:37 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Yes, on 'Radical Secularism.' I believe people should have the freedom to believe in their religion.

Do you feel that Newt is right when he says that "radical secularism" poses a real threat to that freedom now?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 May, 2007 03:49 pm
nimh wrote:
What are the polls in Iowa saying? (I'm still going through some backlog.) Like with those in New Hampshire, there's a clear divergence from the picture of the national polls. [..]


Returning to this poll for one moment..

It also asked likely caucus goers what issues they rated extremely important.

The difference in the answers of Democrats and Republicans are striking, and revealing.

Here's the Democrats:

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7982/iowademissuesxi2.jpg

Likely Iowan Democratic caucusgoers are concerned first and foremost by the Iraq war (46%). This is clearly the prime issue.

A host of other issues follow at a distance, without a clear #2 among them: relations with other countries, health care and health insurance, the economy and jobs, national security, the national debt, terrorism, education and social security. 'Soft' and 'hard' issues, domestic and foreign issues, all ranked roughly equally important, behind Iraq.

What do active Iowa Democrats not worry about much? The culture war stuff. Gay marriage, abortion, faith and values, judicial nominations, even stem cell research. The religious right's agenda, collectively declared, not so much controversial, as rather irrelevant. They also dont worry much about global competitiveness, but neither do the Republicans.


Here is the graph for the Republicans:

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/352/iowarepissuesez0.jpg

What do the Republicans consider important? First thing that strikes the eye is that they are bothered less. The Democrats on average ranked five subjects as extremely important. The Republicans mentioned only four.

There's not one issue that is prioritised as much as the Iraq war is among Democrats either. But still two issues are clearly in the lead - and neither of them is Iraq. They are terrorism (40%) and national security (38%). Which should be good news for Giuliani.

Iraq, they'd rather forget (which could be bad news for McCain). It only lands in the second tier of issues - just one point ahead of immigration, and actually just below "faith and values". Yes, likely Iowan Republican caucusgoers are more concerned about "faith and values" than about the war in Iraq.

But what do they really not care much about? Like the Dems, they're not concerned about global competitiveness. Also like the Dems, they're not worried about stem cell research, suggesting that this is one issue that wont catch fire in this state (which is a pity for the Democrats, who used it to good avail in '06).

But more strikingly, these Republicans seem not in the least concerned with global warming (5%); and none of the major social domestic issues feature much for them. Education? Health care and health insurance? Social Security? The Iowan Republicans likely to caucus aren't preoccupied, and rank these issues lower than almost all of the religious-conservative agenda items. Gay marriage, abortion and judicial nominations are more important than education or health care (and this predominance of social conservative priorities + immigration throughout the second tier in turn should be bad news for Giuliani, and good news for candidates like Huckabee, Brownback or Tancredo).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 May, 2007 03:57 pm
nimh: Do you feel that Newt is right when he says that "radical secularism" poses a real threat to that freedom now?


Not now, but radicals on either side can pose a threat to freedom. So far, in the US, radical christians have damaged more freedoms than the other way around. They can't see the discrimination factor in their zeal to disallow marriage for gay couples, attempts to overthrow abortion rights, restrict stem cell research, and teach ID as science in our schools.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 May, 2007 04:12 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Not now, but radicals on either side can pose a threat to freedom. So far, in the US, radical christians have damaged more freedoms than the other way around. They can't see the discrimination factor in their zeal to disallow marriage for gay couples, attempts to overthrow abortion rights, restrict stem cell research, and teach ID as science in our schools.

OK, I dont understand. So what did you mean with saying "any balance from the right is welcome news" - if you think its actually the right that poses the main threat now anyway?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 May, 2007 04:14 pm
Sort of "off the cuff" response when I can see something resembling "balance" to an issue. I can't fault you for calling me on it based on my sloppyness.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 May, 2007 04:47 pm
'S ok, I was just confused.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 May, 2007 03:12 pm
So, about Fred Thompson, the Republicans' prospective knight on a white horse..

According to him, you Americans "are now living in a nation that is beset by people who are suicidal maniacs and want to kill countless innocent men, women and children around the world."

Just so you know.

So how come? The reference, I suppose, is to all those terrorists and would-be terrorists who've been caught living in the US. (You count 'em.)

And how come they were there? Well, illegal immigration, of course. It's because of Reagan's 1986 immigration reform and amnesty that now, "twelve million illegal immigrants later," your country is beset with suicidal maniacs.

You know, because we all know how many illegal immigrants turned out to be, or turned into, ruthless suicidal terrorists. Or how many of the terrorists who did strike at the US, on 9/11, were illegal immigrants. (You count 'em.)

What a freakshow.

I like John McCain's response though. While Giuliani's extremely flexible redefinition of what Thompson said has an endearing quality of panderi.. party solidarity, I mean.

Quote:
Thompson criticizes immigration measures

Associated Press
May 25

Fred Thompson, a potential Republican presidential candidate, suggested that the 1986 immigration law signed by President Reagan is to blame for the country's illegal immigrants and he bemoaned a nation beset by "suicidal maniacs."

"Twelve million illegal immigrants later, we are now living in a nation that is beset by people who are suicidal maniacs and want to kill countless innocent men, women and children around the world," the former Tennessee senator said. "We're sitting here now with essentially open borders."

He made the comments Thursday night as he discussed the 1986 immigration reform bill and the Senate's current legislation to overhaul the immigration system during a speech to people attending the annual Prescott Bush Awards Dinner in Stamford, Conn. [..]

Reagan [..] signed an immigration overhaul two decades ago that gave amnesty to an estimated 2.7 million illegal immigrants who had been in the United States at least four years.

"Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship," Reagan said in a statement on Nov. 6, 1986, as the bill became law with his signature.

Immigration has dominated the Republican presidential race this week, with candidates seeking to navigate the tricky politics of the Senate measure that many conservatives oppose. They make up a large part of the GOP base whose votes are critical in the Republican primary contests.

Thompson, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani all oppose the measure to varying degrees, even though all three have made statements in the past in which they appeared to support a similar measure the Senate previously considered.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona is a co-sponsor of the new measure that would meld tougher policies to secure the country's porous borders with a guest-worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for most of the 12 million immigrants in the country illegally.

"We should scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway," Thompson said last week.

His remark about "suicidal maniacs" drew a chuckle from McCain, who said in a telephone interview: "I don't know what to make of it."

"I travel around the country extensively and that's certainly not the impression I have," McCain said. "I have not detected a nation full of suicidal maniacs."

Giuliani said he hoped Thompson was not referring to immigrants in general.

"He was probably referring to the risk we now run that if we have borders that can be easily penetrated, well then, even though it's a small group, terrorists can come in that way, drug dealers, other criminals," Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, said in a telephone interview.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Thompson, said he was not calling immigrants "suicidal maniacs" but, rather was referring to terrorists who seek to enter the United States through borders that have lax security.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 May, 2007 08:59 pm
When it comes to conservatives it just gets dumber and dumber.

Quote:
In the book, DeLay criticizes Gingrich for, among other things, conducting an affair with a Capitol Hill employee during the 1998 impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. (The woman later became Gingrich's third wife.) "Yes, I don't think that Newt could set a high moral standard, a high moral tone, during that moment," DeLay said. "You can't do that if you're keeping secrets about your own adulterous affairs." He added that the impeachment trial was another of his "proudest moments." The difference between his own adultery and Gingrich's, he said, "is that I was no longer committing adultery by that time, the impeachment trial. There's a big difference." He added, "Also, I had returned to Christ and repented my sins by that time."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/04/070604fa_fact_goldberg?printable=true
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 05:27 pm
From the Salon archive, 21 May:

http://archive.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/05/21/tomo/story.jpg
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 06:01 am
Now that Thompson is getting ready to announce who do you think will be hurt most by his enterance? I guessing Romney will lose the most. I think a lot of republicans are uncomfortable with his religion.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 06:07 am
I think Giuliani loses most with the entrance of Thompson. Thomspon may not be a real tough guy, but he plays one on tv, and that's probably good enough.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 06:09 am
I guess that means no actor who plays a gay guy on TV will ever get elected president.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 07:38 am
Quote:


http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/05/how_fred_thompsons_senate_reco.html

His voting record.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/pdfs/2007_3_27thompson-keyvotes.pdf
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 08:00 am
xingu wrote:
Now that Thompson is getting ready to announce who do you think will be hurt most by his enterance? I guessing Romney will lose the most. I think a lot of republicans are uncomfortable with his religion.

I agree that Romney will lose the most, though not for that reason.

Thompson's entry has been anticipated hopefully especially by those who feel that the current field doesnt include a true conservative. It doesnt matter that Thompson was no more a doctrinary conservative than McCain, and feels just about as weakly about social conservative issues like abortion as McCain - its all about the perception, the projection. Those who miss a proper conservative in the race have projected their hopes on him.

Now who would have eventually raked in those voters if Thompson had not entered the race? It's Romney who's been trying. While Giuliani has decided to stick with his socially moderate view on abortion, and hasnt, as far as I know, publicly come back on his other more liberal views like on gay rights either, Romney has made a big show of saying he's been converted to the true conservative ways, and that he's repudiated his past liberalisms.

From outdoing everyone else in macho-talk about torture ("double Guantanamo!") to rolling around far more than either the other frontrunners in his newfound social-religious conservatism, he's clearly been trying his best to snatch the vote of the conservative wing. And despite the overwhelming suspicions of insincerity that all his flip-flopping entailed, he seem to finally be getting some success with that, as polls have seen him surge in New Hampshire and Iowa, and even in one recent national poll.

But now the conservatives knight on a white horse steps in - who in actuality isnt probably any more conservative than him, but is wholly free from all that embarassing Massachusettian past. He must be feeling pretty down.
0 Replies
 
HokieBird
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 08:06 am
Thompson/Romney '08.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 04:48 pm
about Fred Thompson

In 1996, over ten years ago, Michelle Cottle wrote an article for the Washington Monthly about Fred. She introduced him as follows: "Fred Thompson has spun an insider background into a good ol'boy image that could take him to the White House".

Hhmm.. interesting. But there's a more interesting thing in the article. I think the opening paragraphs of this article peg Thompson as forcefully as anything being written about him now...

You thought George Allen was bad?

Quote:
Another Beltway Bubba?

True story: it is a warm evening in the summer of 1995. A crowd has gathered in the auditorium of a suburban high school in Knoxville, Tennessee. Seated in the audience is a childhood friend of mine who now teaches at the school. On stage is Republican Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson, the lawyer/actor elected in 1994 to serve out the remainder of Vice President Al Gore's Senate term (when Gore's appointed successor retired after just two years). The local TV stations are on hand as Thompson wraps up his presentation on tax reform, in the plain-spoken, down-to-earth style so familiar to those who have seen him in any of his numerous film and television performances.

Finishing his talk, Thompson shakes a few hands, then walks out with the rest of the crowd to the red pickup truck he made famous during his 1994 Senate campaign. My friend stands talking with her colleagues as the senator is driven away by a blond, all-American staffer. A few minutes later, my friend gets into her car to head home. As she pulls up to the stop sign at the parking lot exit, rolling up to the intersection is Senator Thompson, now behind the wheel of a sweet silver luxury sedan. He gives my friend a slight nod as he drives past. Turning onto the main road, my friend passes the school's small, side parking area. Lo and behold: There sits the abandoned red pickup, along with the all-American staffer.

Clearly, there's more to Fred Dalton Thompson than first meets the eye--which is saying a lot considering this sleepy-eyed Southerner stands 6'5" and weighs 225 if he weighs an ounce. With his pickup truck, his blue jeans, and his deep, friendly drawl, Thompson has cultivated the perfect political image for today's anti-Washington climate: a straight-shooting, no-nonsense man of the people with a big helping of horse sense and a hankering to clean up our nation's capital. Both his 1994 and 1996 Senate campaigns played up this outsider image, portraying Thompson as an average Joe who shares his neighbors' disgust with a political system that no longer serves regular citizens.

But even without the Hollywood credits, the 54-year-old Thompson is far from your average good ol' boy. In the mid-1970s he served as minority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, and later as a special counsel for both the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. Even more significantly, for nearly two decades preceding his election to Congress, Thompson was a high-paid Washington lobbyist for both foreign and domestic interests.

Despite his Beltway ties, Thompson has maintained his just-plain-folks status among voters, a feat critics attribute to the senator's acting talents and his shameless use of "props" like the red pickup. Indeed, the charismatic Tennessean's ability to charm a crowd is undeniable. During the 1994 race, whenever the opposition tried to pin the "insider" label on him, Thompson would drawl a few lines about the kind of world he wants to leave his grandkids, and all insinuations that he was part of the Washington establishment disappeared like wood smoke on a warm breeze.

For those outside Tennessee who've never seen Thompson in action, now might be a good time to run down to Blockbuster and rent a few of his flicks. [..] You'll almost certainly be seeing more of this face in the coming months, because Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson may well be the future of the Republican party.


Well. Cottle had the direction right - but instead of faux-folksy Fred you got good ol' boy wannabee W.

Will the Republicans fall for it once more?

Read the rest of the article: The Great Communicator
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 04:50 pm
Do you mind if I repost this in the thread here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=97356

?

Cheers

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 04:58 pm
More on the faux-folk of Fred Thompson in this introduction to an article about the backgrounds of fake populism's puzzling appeal in general. Includes the memorable description that Thompson "was about as close to being a salt-of-the-earth Southerner as Truman Capote".

Quote:
POPULIST POSEUR FRED THOMPSON
Pickup Artist


by Noam Scheiber
Post date 05.26.07

By the time Fred Thompson decides whether or not to join the presidential fray, you will have heard the story of his red pickup truck at least a dozen times. The truck in question is a 1990 Chevy, which the famed statesman-thespian rented during his maiden Senate campaign in 1994. The idea was that Thompson would dress up in blue jeans and shabby boots and drive himself to campaign events around Tennessee. Upon arriving, he'd mount the bed of the truck and launch into a homespun riff on the virtues of citizen-legislators and the perils of Washington insider-ism. For good measure, he'd refer to himself as "Ol' Fred" and the Chevy as "this ol' baby."

There was no real reason to think the tactic would work. Thompson's own campaign manager dismissed it as "gimmicky and hokey." Thompson, after all, had spent the previous two decades as a well-paid Washington lobbyist and sometime screen actor. He was about as close to being a salt-of-the-earth Southerner as Truman Capote, and it was a stretch to think average Tennesseans wouldn't pick up on the dissonance. Yet the gambit proved wildly successful. Thompson was down big to Democrat Jim Cooper when he initialed his car-rental agreement. He went on to win the race with more than 60 percent of the vote.

It's tempting to credit Thompson's success at populist play-acting to his numerous tours in Hollywood. If ever there were a millionaire who could persuade voters of his regular-guy bona fides, it would be the man who, in The Hunt for Red October, lectured Alec Baldwin that "the Russians don't take a dump ... without a plan." But Thompson is hardly the only Republican to have ridden phony populism to elective office. In 2003, Haley Barbour, perhaps the most accomplished Washington lobbyist of his generation, pig-in-a-poked and dog-won't-hunted his way to the Mississippi governor's mansion. [..] And, of course, a certain Yale-educated Northeastern Brahmin reinvented himself as a brush-clearing country boy en route to winning the White House in 2000. These days, phony populists win with such regularity that you've got to look beyond any particular candidate to find an explanation. [..]


Read the rest of the article.. There's not much otherwise about Thompson, specifically, though, except for the sighing that

    "Had every story written about the 1994 Tennessee Senate race begun, "High-priced GOP lobbyist Fred Thompson, speaking from the red pickup truck he rented to shore up his populist credentials, announced yesterday that ..." the outcome of his campaign might have been different."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
mccain begs off - Discussion by dyslexia
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain lies - Discussion by nimh
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 08/21/2025 at 10:42:17