It’s almost as if they’ll say whatever it takes to make a Republican candidate appear unattractive to the voters in this country.

Yeah, why was FoxNews so set on getting a Democratic president? After all, they were criticizing Freds lack luster debates.

For some reason, you like to underestimate your political foes. It probably has a lot to do with giving yourself the assurances you need to hold some of the positions you do.

Really? Which positions do I hold that, in your opinion, require “assurance” of me? I am truly fascinated by your presumptuous psychoanalysis. Please explain this further

As for this:

There are quite a few smart fellers out there who are not voting for McCain because Obama is a better speaker.

It may be that those to whom you refer are “smart” but whether they have any sense, or for that matter judgment, is clearly an open question.

Of course, we are all well aware that questions of judgment are about the last thing Obama and his supporters are interested in pursuing, though Obama has been a public figure for such a short period of time and is so terribly inexperienced that holding him to the same standards as other prominent office seekers would probably be considered un-”fair.”

How about his position on defeatist foreign policy, gutting our national R&D programs and our military, massive tax hikes, already proven to be counter productive blank checks to African nations, and so forth?

Not all of us who are not Republicans see his platform as desirable. Many Democrats who are not socialists will not vote for him either. I already know that to be true. Which is why the only card the libs have on McCain is either than he is Bush, term 3 or that he has a foul temper.

Truthfully, Obama has more problems with his composure (right now) that either McCain or Clinton.

http://conservablogs.com/blogsforthompson/2007/08/24/fred-thompson-versus-the-fox-news-channel/

It has been rumoured on the blogosphere for a few days that the Fox News Committee to elect Rudy Giuliani has taken a position in opposing Fred Thompson’s impending candidacy. First, you heard it from the likes of Dick Morris, which is no big surprise, as most are familiar with his history. We started to hear it from the New York press, and “journalists” like Jennifer Rubin, who is quickly losing any credibility she once had and gambled it all on becoming a Giuliani apologist, and nothing more. Next, we heard it in snide remarks from Bill O’Reilly. Hannity has been friendly to Thompson, but has not taken Morris to task when Morris has appeared on Hannity & Colmes and self promoted his negative columns about Thompson. Neil Cavuto will give Thompson an undoubtedly fair shake, and I suspect that John Gibson will too. The major surprise has been the apparent lack of respect that Brit Hume and his “all-star panel” have given Thompson, his candidacy, and apparently just about anything he says or does. Earlier, the Thompson blogs have been taken Carl Cameron to task for his utterly indefensible comments on Thompson riding in a golf cart. Now, Joan (aka shelbysbest) transcribed this roundtable discussion from tonight’s edition of Special Report with Brit Hume:

Brit Hume: Let’s look at the lastest poll on the republican side of the political, presidential equation here. You see here our Fox Dynamic Poll out today — Rudy Giuliana remains in the lead with roughly the same kind of lead he has had for some time.

Fred Thompson now since June has sort of surged into second place and remains there. We’ve been getting a further sample of Senator Thompson and his uh, and his uh, and his wares. How’s this going?

Jeff Birnbaum: Well, I think that Thompson ran into a bit of a problem in his speech the other day before the Veterans of Foreign Wars up in Kansas City. He didn’t seem to know his own applause lines. Even though he’s a practiced actor, he didn’t seem to have rehearsed very much for his speech. He isn’t much of a player in a lot of the serious, substantive debates that are going on. I recently wrote a story about each of the candidate’s v iews, for example, of the big credit crunch that’s been shaking the markets around the world and Thompson wouldn’t even play either because he didn’t have a proposal or because he didn’t want to speak out because he’s not an official candidate. Uh, none the less,

Brit Hume: In other words, he had no articulated position?

McCain is calm when he is reading from a TelePrompTer and not being asked any tough questions. But ask him a tough question and that temper rears its ugly head.

Yeah, next thing you know he’ll be flipping somebody the bird!

Truthfully, I’ve never noticed McCain having any problems with his temper. I’ve noticed some reporters biting off more then they could chew after making a snide remark, but that’s their problem, not mine.

Make that:

“…media outlets that were busy last year belittling Fred Thompson’s candidacy…”

John McCain is tough, compelling and focused.

He is also experienced, with a substantial record on which to run. Which makes him far more formidable than a young, first-term Senator with no record of accomplishment or achievement and no national or international experience to point to.

Hannitized: If being a smooth speaker is the basis on which people select the President of the United States, then we are in far deeper trouble than anyone thought.

You seem, also, to seriously underestimate John McCain’s ability to reach an audience. If you heard his inspired speech to Cpac, then you already know that.

The race in the fall will require much, much more of Senator Obama than empty charm, oratory and smiles. John McCain is tough, compelling and focused.

Hannitized:

His [Obama's] political positions are of course the first level of intrigue

Indeed! Couldn’t have said it better myself.

It is obvious that people on the right, have the idea that their particular flavor of foreign policy is the only correct approach to solving problems.

H,

I mean no particular disrespect here, but this is perhaps the most gratuitous bit drivel you’ve ever written! Of course we believe our “particular flavor” of foreign policy is correct. And if you think we are adamant about foreign policy, wait til you start learning a little bit about economics and tax policies!

Of course we think we are (R)ight! Just like those of you on the Left believe that accommodation and negotiation with our enemies is right, raising taxes is right, increased regulation of the economy is right, and increased emphasis on national sovereignty and defense is wrong. It is why we have two political parties, two wildly opposite philosophies of self-governance, and elections to settle such questions.

What a silly, silly comment!

BatOne:

The choice is mercifully easy.

How I wish you could make some of our fellow bloggers here see that!

BTW: Can you give me the link to your wonderful post of the Pope’s visit?

If any of the candidates, this year or last, is a creature of the tele-prompter it is the rookie senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.

Bat,

McCain couldn’t even fire off a simple ironic attack, aimed at Obama.

When McCain attempted to raise the tax issue, he said “And they have the “Audicity to hope…um…audacity to hope” you wont mind”. How can you blow that one? It totally took the sting off his punch.

I know it bothers you bat, that Obama is such a great speaker and inspirational person. But to pick on him on this issue only makes you look desperate. For nobody but you seems to feel this way.

…and the fact that so many conservatives, including many right here in front of you at SAB are skeptical of McCain’s “maverick” forays into liberalism. There very record of legislative experience that I, and others here, find troubling marks McCain as a moderate and a centrist whose pride in his country is unquestioned.

I don’t fail to notice this. In fact I have said that if Hillary gets the nod, I am voting for McCain. I seriously sort of like the guy. But if its him against Obama, I am voting for Barack.

McCain is the best moderate Democrat we have.

So the new Right-Wing meme is that Obama is not a great speaker?

Hardly! The question is whether being a “great speaker” is, by itself, sufficient reason to choose someone to be President as you have enthusiastically suggested. I don’t believe Mr. Obama’s eloquence, with or without his teleprompter, is reason enough for him to be president. But then like most conservatives, I judge a leader on his experience, his character, his past accomplishments, his ideology, and the details of the solutions he proposes… all areas in which Obama has nothing substantive to offer. We conservatives tend to be a good deal less superficial than you, I guess.

Of course we believe our “particular flavor” of foreign policy is correct.

Bat,

You are overlooking one key ingredient to my argument. I said that you think your flavor is the “only” right solution.

The difference between you and I, is that I do not assume there is only one correct method, it may take both, or neither. There are lots of ways to skin a cat.

An example might be, “Invade Afghanistan, dont touch Iraq, yet”. Another might be “Invade Afghanistan and help Pakistan by doing more militarily there”?

The difference is of course, your side only tends to agree with a policy once it has been defined by a Republican. That was the point.

Ironically, one of Obama’s only foreign policy talking points, namely that Clinton and McCain voted for the war, whereas he did not (big deal, he never had to put up or shut up and in any case talk is cheap), is a constant reminder of how far to the left he is. Does he forget that something like 80% of the country supported the invasion of Iraq? We don’t, and we don’t feel like he’s talking to us when he makes that comment either.

OK, but I am also one of those 80% C, and you certainly aren’t speaking for me.

When Obama makes that comment, to me he is saying. “I had the leadership to say no to what so many where saying yes to”. “I had the judgement to recognize a mistake before it occurred, and had the courage to stand up against what a lot people would not”.

You see, the Iraq war never sat right with me. I kept saying to myself, “Bush has to have more information that he is not telling us, look how cocky and over confident he is”. “He is really selling this hard, he must know something we dont”. So, I trusted him. My gut was right….I was asking for more evidence in my mind, but didn’t have the courage to sing from the rooftops that someone needs to speak for me. Obama was.

I am not a socialist. Unless you think the large number of voters who have
voted for Obama (that vastly outnumbered McCain)? Do you think over 33% of
the country are socialists?

The two don’t follow. I vote conservative, sometimes liberal, my principle is “what is best for the country” at the time. You could vote for a socialist and legitimately think that he is moving the country in the “right” direction, without wanting a socialist there long term.

I am convinced that a lot of people feel we’ve moved too far right, and want to push it left again. But that doesn’t mean that they want e.g., 20 years of socialist type rule.

Ironically, one of Obama’s only foreign policy talking points, namely that Clinton and McCain voted for the war, whereas he did not (big deal, he never had to put up or shut up and in any case talk is cheap), is a constant reminder of how far to the left he is. Does he forget that something like 80% of the country supported the invasion of Iraq? We don’t, and we don’t feel like he’s talking to us when he makes that comment either.

Anyway, I believe that maybe 8-12% of American voters are socialistic, and I think there is a war within the party between Obama, who clearly is socialistic in tendencies even if not a true socialist, and Clinton, who is much closer to the center (she’s a bit left of the center-of-gravity of the Democratic party, in my opinion, but not by much).

If you look at the principles of socialism, then look a the principles that Obama espouses, there is very little doubt that he is at least a “soft” socialist, a throwback to FDR styled socialism. In fact if he were to admit to it, I would probably have a great deal of respect for him.

I’ve lost a lot of respect for him because I’ve decided that he is one of the most inherently dishonest politicians that I’ve had the misfortune of listening too in a long time.

As to defeatist foreign policy… how would you label a policy that calls for defeat at any cost?

These are, by and large, the same media outlets belittling Fred Thompson’s candidacy by repeating at every opportunity that he lacked the “fire in the belly” to be president.

Now, of course, McCain has too much.

It’s almost as if they’ll say whatever it takes to make a Republican candidate appear unattractive to the voters in this country.