Monday, September 10, 2007

Fred Thompson

I have been impressed with Fred Thompson since his early years in the senate (way before Law & Order). He was and is as close to a Reagan Republican as I've ever seen, and can be a very polarizing influence on the elections.

Right now we're dealing with candidates that are enough alike to be scary: The classic neocons (motivated by money) and the classic democrats (motivated by money). Their philosophies and views are very similar as well, with just enough variation to give them something to debate about, but do any of them take their beliefs seriously? It's hard to tell because most of them don't have a very extensive voting record in the public eye.

For instance, Hillary obviously only moved to New York in order to find a state that was sympathetic enough to her to elect her so that she could gain some "street creds" toward a run for the Presidency. After all, it wasn't enough to be the true (but officially unacknowleged) Vice President in her husband's Presidency. But, because it's obvious that everything Hillary's done has been for one calculating reason, we have to suspect it all. On the other hand, to her credit, Hillary is a poll watcher. I am sick and tired of Presidents who behave in a patriarchal manner, ignoring the will of the people.

Barack Obama is likely to become Hillary's Vice Presidential pick. Frankly, America is not ready yet for someone who has any Muslim ties whatsoever, and his attendance at a local muslim school as a child is of concern to many people. Additionally, he is young and inexperienced although he's charming. American had that once before in JFK.

If JFK hadn't been killed in a dramatic manner at an early age, many Americans would never have idolized him as they have. But JFK joins the ranks of Marilyn Monroe and James Dean: People who died young and pretty and therefore are easily memorialized. However, JFK was, in reality, a President with as many or more flaws than the current President. Many fiascos abounded and were partially covered up due to the desire to keep him a legend: The reality of JFK's presidency is kept among the scholars. Are we ready to allow yet another inexperienced President? Hasn't President Bush done enough damage to our country? So, if I had to choose between Barack and Hillary, I would vote for Hillary.

Then we have Rudy Giuliani who is another neo-con, like the current President, but with even less experience than Bush had when he entered office. Bush was Governor of Texas, and he still wasn't equipped to run the country. I would submit that a jump from a State Governor to President of the USA is a larger leap than from state Senator to President, because at least as a state Senator you know your way around the hallowed halls of Washington D.C.

Since Rudy is apparently the current front-runner, I won't bother with discussing his other opponents outside of Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson is an interesting candidate. I've followed his career from when he was a U.S. Senator onward. I was very surprised to see Senator Thompson playing a part in Law & Order, as I had only known and admired him as the Senator from Tennessee (he made quite a reputation for himself while on Capital Hill).

Thompson has the charisma and proven track record to rise above the other Republican candidates. He has the best chance to carry the White House next year.

I spoke to someone who is organizing the local group of "Fred Heads". I mentioned a slightly unpleasant call I'd had with someone high-up in the local Republican party. When I'd asked for information on the group with Fred Thompson, he grew a little chilly, then recommended I go to the Guilianni dinner instead. "Yeah," the Fred Head said. "What's up with THAT? We're already the social outcasts!"

I am convinced that this is due to the length of time it took for Thompson to decide to run. Because of this, we are dealing with a large group of Republicans that are loyal to Guiliani simply because they cast their lots with him in the early stages of his campaign.


Cranky Yankee said...

Fred Thompson was Nixon's plant on the Watergate Commission. Then he spent 20-plus years as a K-Street lobbyist. He was Trent Lott's personal gate-keeper for most of that time. Then he was a single term senator who left because the work was too hard. Believing that this guy could make a good president reveals much about your political acumen. He is a b-actor plain and simple. He was good enough to con the hicks from Tennessee for one election, but the nation has had enough of these stuffed shirt phonies as evidenced by the last 6 1/2 years. At least Reagan had run a state for crying out loud... but then again look a this record.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Cranky, I am consistently amazed that you so often get your facts wrong, but present them in such a beligerant manner that you (most likely) cow many people from dissenting with you.

I won't even bother answering this one, but I'll leave it up as an example of someone who is consistently arrogant and pugnacious, who attempts to insult others who continue to behave politely toward him.

I feel sorry for you, and I'm tired of you, also. I don't have time to refute someone who is attempting to merely "start something" when he has no idea what he's speaking about. Thanks for finally pushing me hard enough to tell you what I truly think about you.

Don't bother coming back. There are ways to discuss things, and you're apparently not cognizant of any of them. If you ever took "debate" in college (if you attended college), you must have failed at it.

I don't know how people can stand you, but my bet is that you only show your ass online because deep down inside you're a coward with great insecurity issues. I wish you luck and a good psychiatrist.

Jungle Mom said...

I am a fed head. I don't agree with all of your view points, but I do on this:)

undergroundlogician said...


Way to lay the SMACK on the Crank-meister! It's a matter of mental laziness to make authoritative claims without backing them up. But, when liberals are desparate, especially when the Iraq news is SO FANTASTIC, the venomous rhetoric gets stronger. Ad hominem is always their back-up strategy.

I am interested in Fred, but I'm also looking at Newt, wondering what he'll do, and I'm also interested what Dr. Alan Keyes will do.

My concern is that the Repubs are drifting from their base while trying to court moderates, and in so doing, will lose their base. Mit Romney seems strong, but he's a bit of a chameleon. I probably won't make up my mind until June of 2008.

Good post.

The Lazy Iguana said...

I do not know how one can say the report is "fantastic". The White House already said that staffers wrote a good portion of the report. But whatever. It does not really matter much anymore. What is done is done. Bush would not send in a cheerleader unless he wrote the cheer himself.

I kind of like Ron Paul. You know, the old man from Texas running as a Republican. He has less than a chance of winning. He says all the wrong things. But he does not care if they are the "wrong" things. This may be why I like the old dude.

I think the right is latched onto Rudy because they do not really want to win. Whoever is next in office will have all the sewage that is the Bush Administration dumped on them. The job in Afghanistan is not nearly finished. Bush invaded Iraq when the real threat was Iran.

Thanks to Bush we have a situation of not enough forces in Afghanistan, and not enough money going in there to rebuild the place. Likewise, there are not enough forces in Iraq even with the surge. Violence is supposedly "down" but so what? There is still not any reliable electricity, running water, or sewage treatment, yet hundreds of billions have gone into that place. All we have to show for is is a lot of contractors making a lot of money. How this makes us "safer" is a mystery to everyone who can think.

Fred will have to face the full wrath of the right wing hit machine. Just wait. Bush will not allow his war to fall apart. ANYONE on the right that talks about doing anything to counter Bush's time in office will face the full wrath of their own party. The king MUST be protected at all times. We have already seen many examples of this in action. Hell even Rove had to leave to protect the King.

The Democrats do not need to do anything to win. All they have to do is sit back and let the other side slip into a civil war and then fragment into a few parties - none of which will have anything close to a majority.

As for Obama - he did not say "send me to a Muslim school mommy and daddy". He was at the time an American living in a Muslim nation because his father had some sort of work there. Now how does any of this have any bearing on today? Why would it be "concerning" to anyone who is not a total brainless moron? Oh yea, that is the best the right wing "fair and balanced" spin machine can come up with. WEAK. Very weak. They need to come up with better material. The elementary school he went to in Indonesia is not relevant today, unless he learned to speak, read, and write Arabic back then. It would help if the President could talk to leaders in the Middle East without needing translators.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Jungle Mom, Interesting! Since you're a missionary, I assume you'll be voting via absentee ballot. Underground Logician brought up an interesting point: What about Newt and Dr. Alan Keyes? Why Fred over them?

Underground Logician, Over the years I have bit my tongue, taken a deep breath, and tried to reason logically with Cranky, attempting to appeal to any intellect.

The problem with Cranky in particular (but I hesitate to say with ALL liberals) is that he both wants to wound, and is willing to say anything to do so. This leads him into dangerous territory where he makes assertions that are unproven or downright false in order to "win".

To a true intellectual, light sparring is always acceptable (how boring it would be if we all had the same ideas), but there is never a need to personally attack another with phrases like "This is so you" or "how typical of you" or "this shows how ignorant you are", etc. ad nauseum.

You have overindulged Cranky in the past, and so have I. It is, my friend, throwing pearls before swine.

I won't play with the schoolyard bully anymore. It wastes my valuable time and precious resources that could be better spent elsewhere. Maybe I'm just growing up and learning to prioritize.

As for Dr. Alan Keyes, I have always been terrifically impressed with him, but I just don't think his resources, fame, and campaign chest will take him far enough.

Newt would've been a great candidate at one time, but the way he treated his ex-wife will, I believe, always dog him. Also, he has earned a reputation of being too bombastic. At one time this served him (and Ronald Reagan) very well. But, is it true Presidential material?

Saur♥Kraut said...

Undergrond, BTW, I just realized I didn't tackle the war in Iraq that you brought up. As I said in your blog (maybe about a week ago?) I was under the impression that the White House bascially wrote the first glowing report, but that an independant Congressional study shows just about the opposite. I am tempted to believe the Congressional study for the reason that the Bush administration has so much riding on the apparent success of the campaign.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Lazy Iguana, :D Ron Paul only gets about 3% of the vote in all straw polls, so he's never really a contender. Entertaining? I don't know if I could agree. For entertainment, I would like to see Ru Paul run.

You know, I don't know if you did it tongue-in-cheek, but you may actually be on to something when it comes to the right's motives in picking someone who could lose (i.e. Giulianni). I have often suspected that, myself. However, how much worse will it be to have someone of the other party in office, holding up all your dirty underwear on national TV?

You wrote: Fred will have to face the full wrath of the right wing hit machine... BEAUTIFULLY said, and perhaps appallingly true.

As for Obama's muslim background, I wouldn't be too quick to downplay it (and with my doctorate, I hope you don't lump me in with the brainless morons you mentioned). A lot depends on how much it truly affected him.

You see, Mohammed taught that lying was acceptable in battle or war-type situations. In other words, don't deceive or lie to others in your faith, but it's OK to deceive others OUTSIDE of the faith. This even allows muslims to portray themselves as non-muslims. (Bukhari, vol. 4, book 56, no. 3030; Muslim, vol. 4, book 32, no 6303). So, Obama may be more influenced than he lets on. Or not!

Obama may be a really great guy. I don't know. I know that there is a lot that is very appealing about him. But even if there is nothing that he absorbed out of his Muslim schooling, he is still young and inexperienced.

Kathleen said...

Being "cranked" by Cranky is always a chill thrill. Kudos to you for a "fair and balanced" response. Actually, I swooned at your ability to thread the needle. Very well done.

Fred is interesting to me, too. However, I wonder if he will be taken seriously by the middle mass. I think his stint on Law and Order worked to trivialize him and dim any hopes he had for being a viable contender. Of course, I could be wrong. Ronald Reagan flew well above his B movie fame ... but, Fred is no Reagan. Newt, as you said is out for the reasons you mentioned. I like Ron Paul, but don't think he has a prayer. Basically, I am not inspired.

undergroundlogician said...

I think there are two threads that need to be kept separate. Of course, the political situation is in bad shape. Did we expect something else? I think, just as in any abusive relationship, that Iraq needs to be given some time to find its political legs. After a regime as brutal as Saddam's, there is going to be some brutal treatment between factions. Saddam kept the factious behavior going to so that there wouldn't be unified resistance to him. Trust will need to be built.

As for the military thread, there are some great accomplishments that need to be declared. Our precious media, with their agenda, intends to obfuscate the lines between the political and the military and batch them as one to make the Iraq situation as bad as possible. However, we're smarter than they think we are. Let's make sure we correctly assess the situation, and not jump to false conclusions, either in favor or against the war based on our political aspirations.

Alan Keyes; I see your point as to how much oomph he offers the electorate. He ran against Barak Obama and lost the Senate campaign. He ran for, twelve years ago? I can't recall. He didn't make a big splash then either.

It's not that the man is without substance. He's an intellectual dynamo! His message, his philosophy of life, and his political views are very conservative but aren't sexy enough for the moderate "squishy" voters. My fear is that he'd make a great candidate and many in the U.S. won't give a damn.

Newt Yes, his previous marriage snafu will follow him. And, I'm sure his ex may be willing to give info on the man who done her so wrong.

I'm with Kathleen. I'm bored with the choices so far. Sigh.

Jungle Mom said...

Saur, we are stateside until next summer but will vote absentee from Paraguay as we always have while in Venezuela.

Ours were two of the Florida absentee votes everyone was waiting on two elections back!

We are in St. Pete for this year, close to you I believe.
And, I should have typed FRED head not fed:)

The Lazy Iguana said...

I have suspected for a while that this is a race to loose. If Hillary picks Obama as a running mate, it is all over. That will cinch a loss for her. She has to know this. I know this. She lived in Arkansas. There are maybe 5 white people in the south that would even think of voting for someone even a shade darker than they are. Even a well tanned white guy would have a hard time in the south. EVERYONE knows this - it is not a secret. It is just fact.

Oh yea - these same people will also never vote for a woman President. It just ain't natural. It goes against the natural order of the world.

So why run? Neither party can let on like they do not want the job. Imagine what would happen if the Democrats said "you know what, things are so screwed up now that I do not want the job. I can not fix all the mess Bush has created. Nobody can. We are boned".

Fox "News" would have a ball then! Those unpatriotic Democrats clearly want to loose! They have no faith in anything! They want the terrorists to win!

And if the Republicans say the same thing, then we will see 100% of the Congress and the White House in the hands of one party. And it would cause the King to go down in world history as the worst leader ever.

So they both have to pretend that they are running for the office. I do think Hillary could win, but I do not think 08 is the right time for her to step in. A run for the office and a loss to someone who will only serve a single term because they will get stuck with all the stench that is the Bush Administration will make her a stronger candidate in 2012.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Lazy, all excellent points!!! Until you made them, I would have said that I would tend to think that a woman might be able to become Pres. In fact, I rather thought that Obama would make it a winning ticket for her. But, perhaps not. As you point out, racism is still alive (as is sexism) and you could be right. I learned a while ago that both still exist. Perhaps there are enough ignoramouses that will vote AGAINST a female or black candidate that it would ruin the race. But, even with everyone voting AGAINST what they don't want, surely SOMEone has to win the mess.

Jungle Mom, I'd love to get together for coffee one day, then! Get in touch with me!

Underground, but you can't ignore the recent study that seem to counterract Bush's. Which to believe? And we can't just hang in there forever. After all, recent polls have shown that the majority of muslims in Iraq believe that killing Americans is OK. That's not a people that are helpless victims, appreciative of our intervention. In other words, no matter what their circumstances, no matter what their past, the majority are (or are capable of being) serial killers. In Florida, we put serial killers to death: We don't excuse away behavior.

Dittos on everything but the boredom part (for me that is). I still think Thompson is the most exciting thing we've seen so far... but, of course, he has to prove himself and really gain ground rapidly to be credible. We'll see if that happens.

Kathleen, it's always wonderful to hear from you. Thanks for the weigh-in! All good points, and I hope you're wrong about Thompson. We'll have to wait and see.

undergroundlogician said...

You'll have to point me to the polls that show this attitude in Iraq. I'm interested, I'm just seeing different info. You also may want to check out the link at my blog "Iraq the Model." Yes, this is one small piece of evidence, but it gives an Iraqi viewpoint that is not shown in the media.

I do take into consideration the alternative viewpoints, including possible agendas which drive them. What I also see, which then in a way, shows that I agree with you, is that Islam, in its essence, is against Western culture, which over the last 2000 years has been dominated by a Christian worldview. I'm not content to assess that there is a peaceful Islam and an Jihadist Islam, as if they are two different religions. Muslims who are peaceful are in most cases, angling away from the jihadist mentality that is also spelled out quite plainly in the Q'uran. I don't see Jihadism as a distortion of Islam, rather a clear application of it. There has been 1300 years of on again, off again warfare between Christianity and Islam. Had it not been for the battles of Lepanto and Vienna, Western Culture as we know it would have vanished.

exMI said...

Heh, if you think the Cranky Yankee is bad you should go tussle with Pale Rider over at Blue Girl's blog. He loves the personal attack.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Exmi, :D Well, I just think that civilized behavior is of utmost importance - especially if you want to get a disagreeable point across. The old saying "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" still applies today. I never mind someone disagreeing with me. But just as I won't stoop to personal attacks, I would expect my opponents to be as equally adept.

Underground, generally we agree more than we disagree. We disagree on religion (but not significantly so, truthfully - after all, the Catholics have vastly more to offer the world than many other faiths do). But overall, we see eye-to-eye. Right now, we may be looking at two sides of the same coin. As you say, it all boils down to the fact that you CAN'T be a peaceful Muslim - it's against their religion (thus the repeated cries for "moderate Muslims" to show themselves remain unanswered).