Like the Bush campaigns of 2000 and 2004, Fred Thompson expects to get a lot of credit just for getting his lines straight. And here's some Fred Thompson lines from a positive review on National Review Online.
It doesn't take any policy expertise or experience to deliver these kinds of lines. A guy doesn't have to his homework to get it right. In fact, too much knowledge could mess him up. A guy like Thompson can be out of the loop for ten or fifteen years and still get it right.‘a government powerful enough to give anything to ya is powerful enough to take away everything you have.’
“I hear a lot of folks talking about ‘lost revenue’ when it comes to tax cuts. When you have tax cuts, the revenue’s not lost. The taxpayer knows where it is, it’s in his pocket!”
“We are locked into a mandatory spending cycle that’s going to bankrupt the country if we continue on the same pattern.”
“We are blessed to be living longer than ever before, and /we are blessed with the best health care in the world in this country. But we are turning our blessings into a curse for the next generation.”
And that's exactly the point. Thompson's core constituency is people who are suspicious of too much knowledge, too much work, and too much involvement in politics.
Just like George Bush, "hard-working" Fred gives them what they want.
Posts
14 comments:
Why is it that the Left feels compelled to claim some intellectual superiority over and perceived threat in the Republican party.
You're looking at the wrong guy on the left for that statement. I've called Tom DeLay and Karl Rove geniuses and routinely refer to the talent of people like Coulter and Limbaugh even as I'm criticizing them. Recently, I praised Rudy Giuliani for the intelligence with which he and his staff are managing their campaign. If I thought Mitt Romney was competitive, I'd say the same about him. Unlike most people on the left, I don't think George Bush is stupid. It's just that he's committed to ignorance. The same seems to be the case with Fred Thompson. His main commitment seems to be to not thinking too hard about what he's doing.
And why do you think he's a threat? Of all the major Republican candidates, Thompson would be the easiest to beat.
What kind of idiot would run on the GW Bush "legacy?" He wants to run on the record of a know-nothing, silver-spoon dilettante who has spent the better part of his life not knowing, or pretending not to know what is going on around him? He wants to be associated with a President who can’t get his approval ratings out of the 30 percentile and whose Administration has been hemorrhaging advisors and staff members almost since day one?
It seems that the answer to those questions is Fred Thompson. It defies understanding but it certainly appears to be so.
But then, What does Fred Thompson have going for him except that he is famous for being famous?
His acting stinks. He plays the same character in every role. Himself.
His civic work is dubious. Thompson is infamous for having been one of the laziest senators to serve, and didn't pass a single piece of important legislation.
His professional career? Please. He's spent most of his career as a paid lobbyist
This is just the beginning and this is all anyone really knows about the guy. I predict that the more everyone knows about Fred, the less people will support him. That actually works against my preferences because there is NO WAY this guy could come close to an upset against Hillary or any other Democrat.
Wait a minute… “know-nothing….dilettante who has spent the better part of his life not knowing, or pretending not to know what is going on around him.”
I’ve had a lapse here, am I writing about Fred Thompson or GW Bush?
Todd and Ric - You guys seem awfully worked up over someone that is not a threat in the elections.
Todd and Ric, just throw an Edwards bumper sticker in the "room" to watch J "does not get worked over candidates who cannot win" D begin frothing and foaming at the mouth.
As one of my former clients once said at a mental status evaluation when asked "why shouldn't people in glass houses throw stones?"
"Because then people can see you going to the bathroom!"
JD, we can see you going to the bathroom. Stop living in your glass house.
I don't go frothy over Silky. I just think that he is craven.
No, repeating the blogosphere's pet attack reflects none of their fear. After all, all Democratic candidates have hysterical nicknames (the utterance of such name makes a con giggle like a nervous school girl).
B the way, have I mentioned determining your vote on the basis of a person's hair shows how mature the conservative movement is.
DAMN!! I KEEP FINDING GRAMMAR PROBLEMS IN MY POSTS. THIS IS ANOTHER "DO-OVER":
What kind of idiot would run on the GW Bush "legacy?" Thompson wants to run on the record of a know-nothing, silver-spoon dilettante who has spent the better part of his life not knowing, or pretending not to know what is going on around him? He wants to be associated with a President who can’t get his approval ratings out of the 30 percentile and whose Administration has been hemorrhaging advisors and staff members almost since day one?
It defies understanding but it certainly appears to Thompson's "strategy."
But then, What does Fred Thompson have going for him except that he is famous for being famous?
His acting stinks. He plays the same character in every role. Himself.
His civic work is dubious. Thompson is infamous for having been one of the laziest senators to serve, and didn't pass a single piece of important legislation.
His professional career? Please. He's spent most of his career as a paid lobbyist.
This is just the beginning and ironically almost the end when it comes to Fred. My guess is that the more people learn about Fred, the less people will support him. That actually works against my preferences because there is NO WAY this guy could come close to an upset against Hillary or any other Democrat.
Wait a minute… “know nothing...dilettante who has spent the better part of his life not knowing, or pretending not to know what is going on around him.” I’ve had a lapse here, am I writing about Fred Thompson or GW Bush?
tim - I do not vote in the Dem primary, so I will not have the opportunity to vote for John Edwards. He would be my personal choice for the Dems to run, as he would lose in a spectacular fashion.
Todd - You forgot Thompson coming up with what did you know and when did you know it. Lobbying is bad, if it is not done for your causes, huh? Being a lawyer is bad if he is not a Dem, huh?
I was reading Protein Wisdom today re: Malkin stalking that Maryland family. There seems to be no end to how far you people will go to denigrate someone who says something about a govt program. BUT, this isn't about the feckless disregard of other Americans by the Protein Wisdom crowd (I have come to expect that). This is, however, about YOU, JD. You know that no matter how much money these people make, they could not get their kids insured BECAUSE the kids have pre-existing conditions. There is no way in the world someone running three lines of a major insurance company does not know this.
In the piling on (and the refusal to condemn Malkin for basically going through these people's garbage...she can publish phone numbers and go stalking and she's just grand???), I never saw once where the great insurer deigned to point that fact out to his frothing friends. You were cool enough to go after dissenters, but you couldn't tell Dan Collins, Teddy Bear impresario, that he was wrong?
Sometimes I wonder about you, JD.
Malking went through their garbage? That is obviously wrong. Had she done that, I would have no problem condemning her. She is also amongst those on my side of the aisle that I do not care for. I do not have her website bookmarked, nor do I visit it.
Who did she stalk? If she stalked someone, that is also wrong.
What, exactly, was Dan wrong about? Was he wrong in pointing out that the douchenozzle that published her home address, phone number, and a photo of her house, was acting like a douchenozzle?
Were the people making comments wrong in pointing out that the Dems used a 12 year old as a shield from criticism of their policy positions?
I do not know that they could not get health insurance, given the pre-existing conditions, nor do you. There is no evidence provided that they attempted to do so, but were rebuffed, or that it was cost prohibitive. There is no evidence that the Frosts, being the owner of a small business, attempted to secure insurance via group health. This specific incident is misery pimping, as practiced by the Dems.
Other than Malkin, has any of the rest of the media actually tried to fact check the Dems rebuttal to the Presidents radio address? Has a 12 year old, or any child for that matter, ever given the rebuttal to the Presidential radio address, or anything comparable?
This was a political stunt by the Dems. The parents should be ashamed for allowing their children to be used in such a manner. I sure hope we can expect better during the campaigns.
You're almost as bad as Chuck...almost.
The President vetoed an expansion of the program; his "brave" veto won't stop those ingrates from getting their public insurance. A family of four on the East Coast, making 45,000, and paying what, JD? We pay 800 a month for four people. Presuming they could get insurance, and you know they cannot, how much would they pay?
Or, do you care
We do not know they cannot. How much of their care is covered under the available auto coverages for the accident?
I do not know what health care rates are for the East coast. Insureblog ran a quick quote and found that with a $750 deductible, the rates quoted were approximately $400 monthly.
My level of caring has nothing to do with this. Just because you profess to CARE more means nothing. I care for the children and the disasterous situation they find themselves in. I doubt I would have made the same choices as the parents, but we know precious little about their situation.
At any rate, that is not my beef. It strikes me as unsavory that the parents and the Dems would hold the kids out as a prop in a political debate. It is disgusting.
tim - What happened after the auto accident is not really the issue. Why were they not insured prior to the tragic accident? That was a decision made by the parents. If we are going to categorize $45,000 a year as poverty, or increase SCHIP to families making upwards of $75,000 annually, then poverty no longer has a meaning.
Post a Comment