No surprise here. Fred Thompson started with a "Eh?" and ended with a "whatever. No news yet on who he will support. Johnny McCain got his nod last time.
Fred Thompson quits race
After a string of poor finishes in early primary and caucus states, the former Senator drops out. » Story
"Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort," Thompson said in a statement.
Executive Speechwriting: Corporate, Weddings, Retirement
Showing posts with label fred thompson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fred thompson. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Giuliani outlines tax plan, blasts Democrats: Hillary Rants Back
Rudy Giuliani is working hard to do things: become president and look like a Republican. To look like a Republican, he needs to work back to what classic Republican stands are and use the vocabulary to impress those who like to call themselves Republican.
He is already working against conservative voters with his pro-choice views, as well as his relatively complicit positions regarding gays. He stands by those views with conviction. He hasn't helped himself by his marital affairs and divorce. So he is doing what he needs to in order to win the conservative hearts: attack Hillary, and say, "I'm not a Democrat looking to weasel into your lives."
By ranting the tax-and-spend line, he is saying he is really Republican.
Hillary Clinton ranted back by saying Giuliani is just like her in many regards, but not enough to be presidential.
This is all vagaries now, jockeying for media image rather than real issues. Hillary needs to be seen as still the top contender, while Rudy must lift himself back to the top. Both candidates are facing questions of electability, followed by hard-charging competition in Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.
Giuliani outlines tax plan, blasts Democrats
Boston Globe
By Philip Elliott, AP Writer
August 25, 2007
MANCHESTER, N.H. --Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani on Saturday said Democrats would raise taxes and brutalize the economy if they win the 2008 presidential election.
"'We must take things away from you for the common good,'" Giuliani said, mocking Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a top contender for her party's nomination.
"Do you understand what that implies? No, it's not Karl Marx. What she's saying in that is that 'We know better, the government knows better.'"
In contrast, Giuliani said he would lower taxes, make permanent President Bush's tax cuts and eliminate inheritance taxes.
He is already working against conservative voters with his pro-choice views, as well as his relatively complicit positions regarding gays. He stands by those views with conviction. He hasn't helped himself by his marital affairs and divorce. So he is doing what he needs to in order to win the conservative hearts: attack Hillary, and say, "I'm not a Democrat looking to weasel into your lives."
By ranting the tax-and-spend line, he is saying he is really Republican.
Hillary Clinton ranted back by saying Giuliani is just like her in many regards, but not enough to be presidential.
This is all vagaries now, jockeying for media image rather than real issues. Hillary needs to be seen as still the top contender, while Rudy must lift himself back to the top. Both candidates are facing questions of electability, followed by hard-charging competition in Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.
Giuliani outlines tax plan, blasts Democrats
Boston Globe
By Philip Elliott, AP Writer
August 25, 2007
MANCHESTER, N.H. --Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani on Saturday said Democrats would raise taxes and brutalize the economy if they win the 2008 presidential election.
"'We must take things away from you for the common good,'" Giuliani said, mocking Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a top contender for her party's nomination.
"Do you understand what that implies? No, it's not Karl Marx. What she's saying in that is that 'We know better, the government knows better.'"
In contrast, Giuliani said he would lower taxes, make permanent President Bush's tax cuts and eliminate inheritance taxes.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Lane Hudson's Love Affair With the Republicans
Lane Hudson, the same blogger whose name was involved in the Mark Foley homosexual page chasing scandal, is trying hard to become relevant. Afraid, apparently, of non-candidate Fred Thompson, Hudson filed an FEC Compaint that Thompson has broken FEC regs.
Why?
Forbes reported this. So did lots of media. My guess, cynically, is that Hudson either thinks his blog matters, that he matters, or, is just trying to stir up interest in his blog so that he can garner PayPal and Google clicks.
Full disclosure here: I have similar links. Google ads, when clicked, make me money. Ones on Hudson's site get him a few cents. A dollar donation gets either of us a dollar as well.
Is Hudson threatened by Thompson's success? If his goal isn't the almighty dollar, then why else would he bother?
Self-importance? It could be. That's my motivation.
Think of this: With a Republican in the White House, Rush Limbaugh has less interesting things to talk about. He's not Republican, but he might as well be one their campaign leaders. With Nancy Pelosi in office, Limbaugh has a bit more, as he does by yucking up his grief of the Democrats who are running for office.
Could be Lane Hudson, despite mattering less to Democrats than Limbaugh matters to Republicans, is a wannabe. A one trick pony which no longer even has that trick. Remember whats-her-name, that woman pretending to be an antiwar leader? Gone. Her one trick wasn't much of a trick. And that Chicago woman hunkered in a church so she wouldn't be deported (she was here illegally as a Mexican)? Gone. Hudson, having less to say, is still talking, and, soon, come around January 21, 2009, will have little new noise to toot.
He needs Republicans making big and little mistakes. When the next president takes office, it just will not matter. Not my blog either. Even if a Democrat is the winner of the big dance.
Blogs all over are talking about candidates and election. Most of our blogs are not read by more than a few hundred people. Hudson's name, thanks to outing Foley's pedophiliac actions, is known to the press. Milking this a little longer might just get his blog read by a few hundred more. Since most people, in my unscientifically proven belief, read only blogs that say what already think, I doubt it will make a difference. Not his blog, not my blog, not 1,000 other blogs.
Polls are, at this point, showing Hillary Clinton has locked up the Democrat primary. Polls change day to day, but so far, that's the story. Barack Obama is coming in strong. Among the Republicans though, the story is not as clear. If I were to believe what seems to be Hudson Lane's interest, I say he sees the Democrats worried in November 2008.
This does not change whether or not Thompson has or has not broken the law. I don't know. If so, whatever procedure is to follow should be applied.
As I say in a comment on Hudson's blog:
We live in a free country. We've got the Constitution, the ACLU, the Nation of Islam, and Billy Graham all living well together. And we have bloggers who whine, and bloggers who post about bloggers who whine. We have the KKK, Archie Bunker, and David Koresh.
Well, there you go. Freedom. Thank God.
Why?
Forbes reported this. So did lots of media. My guess, cynically, is that Hudson either thinks his blog matters, that he matters, or, is just trying to stir up interest in his blog so that he can garner PayPal and Google clicks.
Full disclosure here: I have similar links. Google ads, when clicked, make me money. Ones on Hudson's site get him a few cents. A dollar donation gets either of us a dollar as well.
Is Hudson threatened by Thompson's success? If his goal isn't the almighty dollar, then why else would he bother?
Self-importance? It could be. That's my motivation.
Think of this: With a Republican in the White House, Rush Limbaugh has less interesting things to talk about. He's not Republican, but he might as well be one their campaign leaders. With Nancy Pelosi in office, Limbaugh has a bit more, as he does by yucking up his grief of the Democrats who are running for office.
Could be Lane Hudson, despite mattering less to Democrats than Limbaugh matters to Republicans, is a wannabe. A one trick pony which no longer even has that trick. Remember whats-her-name, that woman pretending to be an antiwar leader? Gone. Her one trick wasn't much of a trick. And that Chicago woman hunkered in a church so she wouldn't be deported (she was here illegally as a Mexican)? Gone. Hudson, having less to say, is still talking, and, soon, come around January 21, 2009, will have little new noise to toot.
He needs Republicans making big and little mistakes. When the next president takes office, it just will not matter. Not my blog either. Even if a Democrat is the winner of the big dance.
Blogs all over are talking about candidates and election. Most of our blogs are not read by more than a few hundred people. Hudson's name, thanks to outing Foley's pedophiliac actions, is known to the press. Milking this a little longer might just get his blog read by a few hundred more. Since most people, in my unscientifically proven belief, read only blogs that say what already think, I doubt it will make a difference. Not his blog, not my blog, not 1,000 other blogs.
Polls are, at this point, showing Hillary Clinton has locked up the Democrat primary. Polls change day to day, but so far, that's the story. Barack Obama is coming in strong. Among the Republicans though, the story is not as clear. If I were to believe what seems to be Hudson Lane's interest, I say he sees the Democrats worried in November 2008.
This does not change whether or not Thompson has or has not broken the law. I don't know. If so, whatever procedure is to follow should be applied.
As I say in a comment on Hudson's blog:
Rules are rules, and should be followed. If one person needs to follow them, they all should.
It had not occurred to me, until now, that although the Democrats have cleared the election to either Hillary or Barack, the Republicans lead runner is yet undeclared, and quite possibly their strongest hope against the Democrats.
I always felt Rudy, McCain, and the rest of the Repubs were lost in the water, but Thompson could be their ace in the hole. I thought this was the Democrats election to lose, but Thompson could make this a horse race.
We live in a free country. We've got the Constitution, the ACLU, the Nation of Islam, and Billy Graham all living well together. And we have bloggers who whine, and bloggers who post about bloggers who whine. We have the KKK, Archie Bunker, and David Koresh.
Well, there you go. Freedom. Thank God.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Who Do We Like Least? Democrats Vie for Public Distaste
Who Loves You, Baby?
No one.
It used to be a well-appreciated fact: America hates Bush. Besides, with the Republicans controlling Congress, there was plenty for a Democrat to hate.
That's now trouble. As it seems, given the opportunity, Democrats are very disliked too. They are running Congress now. After much celebration with the more liberal side of the Democratic Party stepping in under Nancy Pelosi, it looked as if Democrats were as popular as the late Ronald Reagan. Not so.
No wonder George Bush seemed almost happy when she took office. Congress would make him look good. Who woulda thunk?
What are we supposed to do with that? We love to blame, but we don't know who to blame.
Where this leaves the presidential candidates is the need to push hope. Bill Clinton and Reagan were masters of this. Bush, both, were masters at promoting security, but feeble when it came to hope.
When election times comes, if we dislike everybody in theory (do we really hate Congress that much, or are we just tired of their reputation of giving themselves raises in troubled times, as ethics scandals creep out?) -- will anyone show up to vote? If we are left with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude, ambivalence will follow, finished off by ignoring the whole election.
We need hope. Real hope, not marketed garbage that is the product of a PR campaign. We need to believe in substance. George W Bush, for all his foibles, is a man of conviction. We need that character in office, with convictions we agree with, we can trust. Kerry lost because we never trusted he had any convictions. John Edwards, to a less degree, seems as wishy-washy (though he is committed to good hair, and is willing to invest in it).
As hope-mongers go, Barack Obama is in better shape, for now, than Hillary Clinton. She's working on this. Obama is simply more stable in his presentation. He feels believable, like a father figure. Reagan was a tough cowboy grandfather, but Obama is softer. He's not exactly Mike Brady of the Brady Bunch, but he carries himself with an academic certainty.
Among the Republicans? Hope is an easier sell for them to their followers. Republican voters tend to look at life and politics more optimistically. However, the Democrats are doing their best to chip away at it.
With Mitt Romney, the Democrats, and even Planned Parenthood is trying to say he's not prochoice and has changed his vote. Prolife Republicans are responding, "Atta boy!" much to the Democrat's chagrin. Rudy Giuliani has divorced to often to feel like a hopeful guy. He's humorous, but not hopeful. Fred Thompson, the jury is still out, but he could play that tenor. John McCain is dead in the water, and was nothing but an interview expert on TV talk shows.
When we all line up to vote, who is still arouning kissing babies is yet to be seen. This much we know, we probably don't like them.
No one.
It used to be a well-appreciated fact: America hates Bush. Besides, with the Republicans controlling Congress, there was plenty for a Democrat to hate.
That's now trouble. As it seems, given the opportunity, Democrats are very disliked too. They are running Congress now. After much celebration with the more liberal side of the Democratic Party stepping in under Nancy Pelosi, it looked as if Democrats were as popular as the late Ronald Reagan. Not so.
The survey shows Bush's approval ratings at 35 percent, and Congress' even lower, 25 percent. Only 27 percent of those polled said the country is headed in the right direction, and 39 percent said they support the Iraq war, with 58 percent opposed.That's what it says in an AP piece posted on Yahoo.
No wonder George Bush seemed almost happy when she took office. Congress would make him look good. Who woulda thunk?
What are we supposed to do with that? We love to blame, but we don't know who to blame.
Where this leaves the presidential candidates is the need to push hope. Bill Clinton and Reagan were masters of this. Bush, both, were masters at promoting security, but feeble when it came to hope.
When election times comes, if we dislike everybody in theory (do we really hate Congress that much, or are we just tired of their reputation of giving themselves raises in troubled times, as ethics scandals creep out?) -- will anyone show up to vote? If we are left with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude, ambivalence will follow, finished off by ignoring the whole election.
We need hope. Real hope, not marketed garbage that is the product of a PR campaign. We need to believe in substance. George W Bush, for all his foibles, is a man of conviction. We need that character in office, with convictions we agree with, we can trust. Kerry lost because we never trusted he had any convictions. John Edwards, to a less degree, seems as wishy-washy (though he is committed to good hair, and is willing to invest in it).
As hope-mongers go, Barack Obama is in better shape, for now, than Hillary Clinton. She's working on this. Obama is simply more stable in his presentation. He feels believable, like a father figure. Reagan was a tough cowboy grandfather, but Obama is softer. He's not exactly Mike Brady of the Brady Bunch, but he carries himself with an academic certainty.
Among the Republicans? Hope is an easier sell for them to their followers. Republican voters tend to look at life and politics more optimistically. However, the Democrats are doing their best to chip away at it.
With Mitt Romney, the Democrats, and even Planned Parenthood is trying to say he's not prochoice and has changed his vote. Prolife Republicans are responding, "Atta boy!" much to the Democrat's chagrin. Rudy Giuliani has divorced to often to feel like a hopeful guy. He's humorous, but not hopeful. Fred Thompson, the jury is still out, but he could play that tenor. John McCain is dead in the water, and was nothing but an interview expert on TV talk shows.
When we all line up to vote, who is still arouning kissing babies is yet to be seen. This much we know, we probably don't like them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
