Say Anything Blog

On the one hand, he seems to please many conservatives: no offense offered on social issues, sound foreign policy and soothing to the ears. However, it’s not clear that Mr. Thompson has either the experience or the ideas to rescue the G.O.P. from its current plight.

What plight?  Oh, they mean 4.5% unemployment, 3-4% GDP growth the last four years, solid corporate earnings, low inflation, 4% hourly wage growth, lower taxes, etc.

The Republican Party has two anchors around its neck right now--Iraq and Corruption.  Those issues lost the 2006 election.  The substantive ideas on taxes, the economy, free markets, and most social issues are far from “out of the mainstream”.  It is the Democrats that are out of ideas and we see it evident on Iraq and on their tired class warfare rhetoric and pandering to the same ethnic groups with handouts.  We hear it on healthcare.  We saw absolutely no ideas at all on social security.  We see it on them having no idea how to pander to the anti-war fringe Hollywood moonbat types and yet keep the unions, the blacks, the moderates, their Democrt Christians, and the environmentalists under the same tent.

In what area do the Republicans need “new ideas” besides Iraq?  Does he need to completely rething the idea of cutting taxes to grow the economy?  Of reforming Social Security?  Of making it easier for businesses to operate?

His “elder statesman” screen persona obscures the fact he is the most inexperienced of the major G.O.P. contenders, with seven dimly remembered years as U.S. Senator, no area of expertise, no executive experience and no major legislative achievements bearing his name.

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

JustinB: The Democrats don’t need any ideas, programs or policies to win this time around. 1. They stir up their base and liberal leaning independents with their personal attacks against Bush, the war in Iraq and any potential Republican candidate. 2. They criticize, stay negative and sow the seeds of discontent to keep the Left through the mushy Middle befuddled and bad news, truthful or not, trumps good news. I mean just lok at our economy, steaming ahead great guns, but a large percentage of Americans believe we are suffering economically under Bush. 3. They play the “I feel your pain” Billy Jeff Playbook, they create a sense of need and pain, then they tell the country they feel that pain (compassion) and we can end your pain. Note, they don’t say how they will ease the pain, just that they will ease it. Then add mealy mouthed RINO’s and frightened Republicans scrambling to hold on to office by distancing themselves from solid, core conservative Republican beliefs, and you have a recipe for disaster in 2008.

Oh, by the way, maybe we need new ideas on Iraq to get Republicans elected; but I fail to see what Bush could have done much differently considering the realities of the situation on the ground. Well, I see what should have been done differently initially - make Iraq into a damn parking lot, but its too late now!

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.

Oh, by the way, maybe we need new ideas on Iraq to get Republicans elected; but I fail to see what Bush could have done much differently considering the realities of the situation on the ground. Well, I see what should have been done differently initially - make Iraq into a damn parking lot, but its too late now!

There are no different ideas on Iraq.  There are three options--

1.  Surrender now
2.  Set a future date for surrender
3.  Find a way to win

So 1 and 2 are pretty obvious.  Don’t take much leadership or new ideas.  These are the only ideas the left is proposing.  3 is a lot more complicated.  What has Bush missed?  What is the administration not doing if they want to go with option 3?  What can some outsider without current operational and intelligence information that Bush has and no one else does possibly come up with to accomplish 3?  Is Bush so inept that his team is overlooking the obvious?  Maybe we need to beg Iran and Syria to be our friends?  Buy them dinner and take ‘em out to see a show together.  Make friends and play nice?

Republicans are not going to win if they campaign on 3 and then don’t have a solid plan.  Campaigning on 3 and saying it is a war we must win, but not having a sure fire plan to do it is disaster.  If the troop surge that the new generals have recommended isn’t given a change at all, will the new “brainstorm” be given any more of a chance?

The republican strategy has to be to campaign on the economy, taxes, etc.  And hammer home the differences.  Then campaign on the fact that the Democrats now control Congress and could at any time force number 1 or 2, but they won’t do it.  They are inept.  The Democrats have signed up for option 3 by authorizing the war with their votes and then by failing to end it.  Don’t let them stake out the anti-war positions.  Challenge them at every turn and make them say they want to surrender, not just attack a lack of strategy or a way for Republicans to win.  Then attack their domestic tax policies and the rest of their non-Iraq agenda.

Don’t think this is over.  Americans are already realizing that they were lied to by the Democratic leadership to win the last election.  All Americans are, and that includes the Kos Kiddies and Moonbats too.

Justin: I hope you are right, but the current Republican candidates don’t fill me with much hope!

As far as I am concerned 1 & 2 are not options if we want to remain free, a major power in the world and prosperous. We could win if we lifted the politically correct rules on engagement and didn’t undermine our troops with criminal charges when they kill the enemy! In war you kill the enemy, you win by attrition; that is, wearing down the morale and powers of resistance by killing the damn enemy. But, that ain’t gonna happen in our current political climate, is it?

I agree with most of what you’ve said, but it will take a candidate with the ability to passionately read a good script and never deviate from that script. Bush wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth, it was a full cup of broken rocks, his ability to share a vision stinks; and remember, without a vision a people perish. Will that vision be from the Left, or can we nominate and elect a candidate that can inspire, speak clearly and bring the people along with him? I do not belief any of the leading Republican candidates, at this time, are able to offer America a conservative vision that will motivate the people to vote and support his/her plan.

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.

All of your arguments are noteworthy.

The purpose of posting this article was to illuminate why the Republicans are grasping at Fred as though they just got religion. Is he “The One”? Is he the Saviour? Have we done our responsible duties as citizens and researched his senate record? He’s a likeable guy, charming, who can fault him for marrying that gorgeous woman, 17 years after he divorced his wife (yet even the religious right attacks him for that, silly fundamentalists.

Politically, what he has to offer is no more/no less than any of the other Republican candidates. We’re in big trouble if Fred is THE MAN. What does he stand for that is far different from what the other Republicans stand for? What’s his platform? Before we make hasty decisions, we need to ask ourselves these questions and find out the answers.  We’re behaving like many Republican women did with Bill Clinton based on his image, although I have to admit, Bill Clinton is a very intelligent man, Rhodes scholar, etc., and an intriguing speaker, and charismatic. (Just so you know, I didn’t fall for him.)

Truthfully, as I commented in someone’s posting a few days ago, I’d like to see Newt jump in, simply because of his depth of political experience, his continuous visibility lecturing and pushing forward his 21st century’s Contract for America agenda, and aligning himself with conservative intellectuals, behind the scenes. He’s a brilliant commentator, especially when contributing on Fox, he’s very spontaneous, a real thinker, witty, and has gonads the size of oranges. He obviously is not concerned about charismatic political imagery, not yet anyway. I do think it’s a real possibility that all of the Republicans and Democrats will look like Dorothy’s enterage in Oz if Newt joins the race.

Politically, what he has to offer is no more/no less than any of the other Republican candidates. We’re in big trouble if Fred is THE MAN. What does he stand for that is far different from what the other Republicans stand for? What’s his platform? Before we make hasty decisions, we need to ask ourselves these questions and find out the answers.

Why does he need to stand for something different from the rest of Republicans?  Rudy is pro-choice.  McCain is pro-amnesty.  Romney is pro-big government healthcare.  Are these not enough reason to like Fred?  And aside from nuances in platform, Fred has an engaging personality that McCain lacks.  Talk about personal life baggage, Rudy has about 1000x more.

Truthfully, as I commented in someone’s posting a few days ago, I’d like to see Newt jump in, simply because of his depth of political experience, his continuous visibility lecturing and pushing forward his 21st century’s Contract for America agenda, and aligning himself with conservative intellectuals, behind the scenes. He’s a brilliant commentator, especially when contributing on Fox, he’s very spontaneous, a real thinker, witty, and has gonads the size of oranges.

Thompson is more than an actor, he worked as a US Attorney and as a political lobbyist before his acting career, so let’s not discount him as an empty suit.  Go position by position and Fred’s views on almost everything are far closer to Newt’s than any other candidate.

Now, I will agree that Newt is an absolutely phenomenol “thinker” within the Republican Party.  As an intellectual, Newt is amazing.  And I have said over and over what a great voice Newt is for the party.  Problem is that he is un-electable.  If we nominate him, he has an even higher negative approval rating than Hillary and hers runs at almost 50%.

My choice in order is Thompson, Romney, Rudy, McCain.  Newt would be number 1 if he stood a chance in hell of getting elected.  Republicans like his personality and stance on most issues and like Newt because of his Fox News gig, but do you really think being an analyst for Fox News is a career builder for Newt and improves his likeability factor for independent voters?  We need electable principled Conservatives.  McCain and Rudy are not conservative.  Newt is not electable.  That leaves Thompson and Romney and even Romney is not as conservative as Thompson or as I personally would like.  But at least he is less of an opportunist than McCain and isn’t pro-choice.

You know, they said the same thing about Reagan--dismissed him as a B movie actor and ignored 40 years of his life after largely retiring from acting, as he became active in protecting the Screen Actor’s Guilt from Communist domination, became Governor of Kahleefornia, and had a successful radio show.

Besides, I’m not quite sure that I want someone with new ideas, but rather I want someone who, like Reagan, remembers the old ideas that worked--and can articulate why the newer ideas did not.