Posted on 06/15/2007 7:32:28 PM PDT by neverdem
That didn't take long. Apparently all one needs to do to earn the ire of your political allies is to place second in a few national polls. Indeed, after an initial wave of glowing reviews and softball interviews, Fred Thompson has been getting thumped a bit in the conservative chorus.
George Will, writing in Newsweek the other day, asked: "If he did not look like a basset hound who had just read a sad story - say, 'Old Yeller' - and if he did not talk like central casting's idea of the god Sincerity, would anyone think he ought to be entrusted with the nation's nuclear arsenal?"
A few weeks earlier, Robert Novak, another hard-hitting conservative, criticized Thompson's flat delivery at the Lincoln Club of Orange County - "a let down for the packed audience of conservative Republicans." And just last week, having spent a leisurely half-hour with Sean Hannity the night before, Thompson was absolutely grilled by Larry Kudlow on the host's CNBC show for the former Tennessee senator's opposition to tort reform.
Few conservatives have gone for the criticisms coming from the left - the lobbying career; the closeness to Washington's elite circles; the defense of Scooter Libby - except to note that Thompson doesn't, in fact, drive himself around Tennessee in a red pick-up truck. (The truly vicious have even gone after him for marrying a much younger woman.)
And it seems that anyone who comments on Thompson has to make an obligatory reference to his reputation for laziness on the job. Jay Leno, for instance, wouldn't have mentioned it to Thompson Tuesday night if the notion hadn't already become part of the collective wisdom.
--snip--
And yet one wonders: Wasn't Thompson's video skewering of Michael Moore a...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
I think the only reason GWB pulled the Miers nomination is that he feared she could not make a proper presentation at committee hearings, not that she might have been his Souter.
So few words, so many wrong...
I'm guessing you meant to say "SUITS".
Go here and here and edumacate yerseff.
Next, I believe you might have been referring to my Freerepublic.com "Screen Name" or ID suffering_fools, not a "tag name", whatever that is.
A "tag line" is the parenthesized comment that follows your FR ID at the bottom of your post. I don't have a "tag line".
This type of comment is just sad. No fun for me. The NEA has won in their efforts to dumb down America and produce RAT voters.
Reflect for a moment on the various ways suffering_fools can be interpreted.
I agree with you 100% - it’s way past time to stop using Reagan as a scapegoat for perfection.
President Reagan believed in America. That’s what we’ve been lacking.
Former President Bush believed in his family. Clinton just plain loved himself, and the occasional intern. This President believes in... heck, not sure who he really believes in; maybe a segment of America, but the rest he holds with disdain.
We need a President who loves and believes in America.
I thought that was a testament to his wisdom and stamina.
THAT deserves a bump on an hourly basis...
The CFR is a regular part of the cast of any self-respecting conspiracy theory, rubbing elbows with the Tri-lateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Club of Rome, and sometimes the Freemasons. Probably the Rotary Club; I haven't really kept up.
In conspiracy theory, much is made of how many members of Congress, cabinet officials, and even presidents have been and are CFR members, as if this proves that the CFR has sneaky ways of getting its people into key positions. It works the other way around -- folks who achieve even a fairly modest form of prominence on policy issues are invited to join. The membership has to be well into the thousands.
Foreign Affairs is always a thought-provoking read; the views expressed span the spectrum from right to left, and some are way out there, but they're always thoughtful and thorough. It's not light beach reading, but I usually walk away from it thinking about a problem or an angle I hadn't considered before.
Is that speculation on your part, or do you have evidence to that effect?
Novak left CNN after the stomped off the set over a question about his role in the Plame/Libby/Fizgerald fiasco. Stomped off on live TV, cursing on his still-live mic. He never appeared on CNN again, and showed up as a Fox correspondent some time later. He's an infrequent contributor over there.
Novak has clearly lost a step. When he was forced to stay up late for the '02 and '04 elections, I and a number of other observers wondered if he was drunk or just showing his age.
At this point, he's coasting as a columnist, on the strength of a Rolodex he's filled over a hundred and seventy-five years (give or take a few) of covering Washington -- he gets tips and quotes because he knows everyone, and probably knows where some bodies are buried.
Good observation that is real evident I think his passion lies elsewhere!
Just passing along the media blather. Don’t misunderstand my reason for posting.
Besides, I’m pretty sure Ronald Reagan would not hold himself out to be perfect, and I don’t expect that of anyone running (or not running yet).
You just we need to win this thing in the same post that you voiced support for Gov. Romney...
Seriously - you meant BOTH of those comments? Really?
You just said we need to win this thing in the same post that you voiced support for Gov. Romney...
Seriously - you meant BOTH of those comments? Really?
I will wait and hear more. I really don’t think anyone comes close to Duncan Hunter though.
__________________________________
Yep, I’m waiting and watching too. Maybe we won’t get a Reagan, but I’ll settle for the closest copy.
“Like most conservatives, I respect and admire much of what Reagan did as President, and will always hold a warm place for him in my heart. But as President, there is one way in which President Bush has actually surpassed Reagan, and in which Thompson (or any other candidate) could easily surpass him.”
Thompson could also surpass Reagan in rolling back the reach and scope of the federal government.
No, what he said was there were some great condidates on the Republican side. Some more conservtive than other, and a couple that were somewhat protectionists. But all in all a good group.
Not word for word, but that is the jest and tone of what he said
Please link me the video where he said that. He said NOTHING about anyone being a ‘protectionist’.
I agree for the most part, just wish he hadn’t used those words, since it was just in passing and it had no name attached. When I hear protectionist, it rings bells, like open borders or free trade as opposed the fair trade.
Words mean something, and that one rings alarm bells for me. I will watch and wait.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.