Say Anything Blog

As National Review said, Romney is the most conservative candidate who can also beat Hillary.  Huckabee and Giuliani are liberal and Fred is dead.  Romney will definitely be getting my vote!

Rob, I still don’t get it. Political aptitude is an important criterion for any would-be president.  Thompson has failed that test to date, though I think it is more related to his inexperience at running a large-scale campaign than anything further.  (It’s not uncommon for presidential campaigns to fall flat the first time. )

I think Thompson still has plenty of time to play catch up, but he needs to get started.

Just curious, but as a long time NR reader, doesn’t National Review have a track record of the kiss of death for whomever they put on the cover?
They even joke about it among themselves!

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

Rob, I still don’t get it. Political aptitude is an important criterion for any would-be president.

I dunno.  I’m not sure the political aptitude to win a political election is the same aptitude you need to be President.

I really think that the only thing wrong with Thompson, from many people’s eyes, is that he isn’t kissing enough babies.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

More of the “he ran a bad campaign” baloney.  Which seems more and more to be used as an excuse by some conservatives to pick candidates less consistently conservative on the issues than Thompson.

No I agree Rob, Thompson ran an awesome campaign.  Lol.  Geesh dude, his campaign S.U.C.K.E.D.  Accept it.  He is single digits everywhere.

THE DISCOUNTING OF THE NATIONAL REVIEW ENDORSEMENT:
It’s amusing to me that when the #1 Conservative Publication in America endorses Mitt Romney, all the haters out there say, “well, that’s no surprise so it doesn’t count”.

Um, do endorsements have to be surprising to count?

Rob,

I really think that the only thing wrong with Thompson, from many people’s eyes, is that he isn’t kissing enough babies.

That may be the dumbest comment by any serious political blogger in the history of Earth.

Thompson’s problem isn’t that:

1. He ran a horrible, boring campaign.
2. He doesn’t go to church.
3. He refused to promise not to raise taxes.
4. He took forever to declare.
5. He raised no money.
6. He has no executive experience.

Nope, nope, none of that.  His REAL problem was he “isn’t kissing enough babies”.

Wow, just wow.

Rob, it may not be perfect, but competency in running one’s campaign is some indicator of one’s overall political acumen.  In any case, Thompson’s main problems with respect to disorganization in his campaign has nothing to do with “kissing babies” per se. 

Don’t get me wrong, I like the guy.  He just needs to get his act together if he’s going to have a serious chance this time around.

He is the better candidate, but the folks at National Review don’t seem to get that.

And neither does anyone else apparently.

Not a single vote has been counted, yet some seem to have been tippling the celebratory champagne! (And none too graciously!) I’ll wait until a few actual votes are counted before I celebrate or give up!

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

Garrick:

Don’t get me wrong, I like the guy.  He just needs to get his act together if he’s going to have a serious chance this time around.

That is what I have been saying all along: 1. It is the candidate’s job to form the organization and make the sale. 2. I like Thompson, but so far I have not sensed the energy or gut desire to make the sale.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

If Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has the added bonus of never having to have changed his positions on key issues like abortion or socialized medicine, why is he not the better candidate?

I am sorry but I think that is the Ron Paul argument from the Paulites. Fred Thompson must say or do something that will drag him out of his campaign’s catatonic state. I have been around many election cycles and it is true that quite often the much better qualified prospects for POTUS have fallen by the wayside because they were unable to make the sale. Not the sale on the issues, the people were with them as they are Thompson, but the sales points that make the difference is hard to quantify, but in a nutshell it is this: ‘Does he appear and act presidential? Am I confident that once elected he can lead the country.’ Thompson wins on the issues, he is losing my support on the other two points.

I know this is just my personal opinion, but after the many decades I have watched politics, I believe it is correct. ISSUES + FITTING THE ROLE + CONFIDENCE IN LEADERSHIP = VICTORY.

Most of us like Fred a lot, but I would not vote for him today; because whether you like it ot not or agree with me or not, I see a hunched over, tired, craggly faced old man feebly making his last political hoorah, not a man ready to lead the country and the world.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Thompson may have better political positions, but he would simply get creamed in the General Election, especially if he ran against Barrack Hussein Obama.  Electibility has a to be a huge factor in determining who to endorse.  Endorsing an unelectable candidate is merely symbolic and always has the opposite effect on US policy

I was excited about a Thomson campaign until he announced it on the Leno Show.  I watched that show and after that one appearance have never had any hope for his campaign.  He simply reminded me of my grandfather and going up against a young and spry Barrack, he would get creamed.  He talks like a grandpa, he slaps his knee while talking like a grandpa, he looks like a grandpa… Sorry, he’s not a viable candidate anymore, he’s too old.

I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!

Fred Thompson is a man I like and admire, but: He served one unremarkable term in the U.S. senate. He dawdled all summer before getting into the race. He offended the Florida GOP with a five minute speech in which he said nothing. he is sixth or lower in every poll. He looks bored and lack-lustre on televised debates. He has shuffled his staff more often than a stacked deck in Las Vegas. He only recently decided that he will enter the Iowa primary… on December 14th! Other than that, he appears to be a fine candidate.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month… all honor to those who served...

He served one unremarkable term in the U.S. senate.

8 years.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Whistler: That doesn’t matter! Can’t you accept the idea which has been often stated, that Fred is tired and despite his positions on the issues he is leading a failed candidacy? Nothing personal, most of us like him, but please read all the negative comments by those of us that like him and see if you can see a common pattern that is at the heart of Fred’s campaign.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Before the television age Fred Thompson would have made a better candidate. This is admittedly ironic given the fact that Thompson got a bonus from his acting career. However, in debates he tends to pause in the middle of his sentences which makes him appear to be poorer communicator then some of his opponents. This, of course, has nothing to do with his platform (which is solid), or his record.

Also, as has been mentioned, there have been complaints about his lack of campaign speeches and (early in his campaign) lack of a clear platform. The former may very well have partially been a result of the latter. I think Thompson has some justification to complaints about lack of media attention.

In the end, Thompson is not out of it yet and he has time to turn it. If he does so (which would require a shift in image or something) I would presume he would be a more viable candidate in the general election then he appears now.

Thompson may have better political positions, but he would simply get creamed in the General Election, especially if he ran against Barrack Hussein Obama.

Spoken like someone more concerned with winning a game than supporting principled conservative leadership.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Spoken like someone more concerned with winning a game than supporting principled conservative leadership.

You make it sound like some sort of moral question, which is bizzare.  It’s simple really.  Supporting your principles in an election and getting creamed will only lead to policies exactly opposite to your principles.  It’s a simple equation.  Do you want SOME of what you want or NONE or what you want?  Rarely do you get ALL of what you want in an election.

Running Walter Mondale may have made liberals feel very good about supporting their principles, but the result is they got 4 more years of Reagan.  Supporting your principles in general election voting is simply stupid.

I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!

And just what candidate would have beating Reagan?  I don’t even recall who ran against Mondale in the primaries.  It seems to me that it was pretty much a cut and dried issue, but of course I didn’t follow politics as closely then as now.

The question of would a bad Republican President be worse than a Democrat is not something to brush off.  In my opinion in this last legislative session North Dakota would have been better with a Democrat in the Governor’s seat. 

That’s not to say that this definitely is the case with Huck.  On the other hand I’m going to do what little I can to see that he doesn’t get the nomination.  If he wins I’ll be asking myself the question do I even want to vote. 

Politics is more important than a game where you hope your side wins.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Supporting your principles in general election voting is simply stupid.

So, more of the “compassionate” conservatism? When we keep voting for candidates that have more liberal histories, and act accordingly, shouldn’t we expect the next candidate to mimic that model and perhaps even go a little bit further. This is one thing I’m concerned with about the Republican party: did they see the 2006 ass-kicking as a reproach by conservative voters, or did they see it as “we need to be more like the left” in order to win elections and keep the base happy. I though it was obvious what the rebuff was in response to, but I have absolutely no faith that they or the RNC got the message.

"Can’t I just eat my waffle....”

-BHO

I was thinking about this and I don’t think Hillary or Huck’s legislative accomplishments would be much different at all.

On the other hand their judicial appointments would be drastically different.

So would the judicial appointments Hillary makes in her four years worth the marginalization of the conservative movement?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Whistler,

Hillary’s legislative accomplishments?  And those would be what exactly?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I should have been more clearer.  I’m projecting to the next administration.  Much of Hillary’s agenda would be blocked by the opposition party.  (Remember 1993 and 1994)?

Huck would go along with too much of Nancy Pelosi’s agenda. 

We’ll never know but I don’t see that it would make much difference legislatively.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.