zzzzzzzz…

[quote=Whomitmayconcer][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

What the Dems ought to do is get behind the single issue of taking on the Banks! [/quote]

Standard Democrat playbook; play on the economic illiteracy of the average voter, put the word "BIG" before "banking" (see oil and tobacco examples), and roll on from there....

[/quote]

Your point being?

[/quote]

That it’s mindless demagoguery that persuades no one not already in the party’s column.

If the party gets behind Thompson do you think Rudy will drop out?

Yes, he would have to do so.   I would like a Thompson/Guiliani ticket, but don't think Rudy likes to play second banana.  Thompson/Rice would be a dream ticket, but Condi has already shown her intelligence by declining the meat grinder.

Hagel is a joke, McCain is a war hero who doesn't stand a chance, Guiliani might have a slim chance at the first slot but his ugly baggage will come back to haunt him.  Romney would be my second choice but I'm not happy with his flip flopping on issues.

You say Neo Con like that's a bad thing

I love it when obvious liberals like Whomit think they have pigeonholed the mindset of the entire Republican party.  It is so obvious that they have a one dimensional and stereotypical view.  Yet such a confused view.  Right on.  All us'un Repbulicans are gun totten, bible thumping, war mongering, neo cons, who are too ignerent to understand the issues, while oppressing the proletariat and outsourcing the economy of the United States, in between attending tractor pulls and manipulating the stock market.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Neo con and the AEI... from Wikipedia (under neo con)

Many associate neoconservatism with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard along with the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). [/quote]

Then the "many" have come to define "neo-con" as pretty much any strain of conservatism they don't like. AEI is old-line mainstream small-government conservatism. "Neo-con", at least before it came to mean "everything I don't like" meant aggressive US foreign policy bent on the mission of spreading democracy under the theory that democracies don't engage one another in war.

At any rate, the issue was Thompson and whether or not “neo-con” would hurt him, and my answer is a strong “no”. Moreover, you don't even have to be a "neo-con" to support the war in Iraq, as liberal hawks who supported it prove.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Look at the list of contributors, Coors and Scaife practically define the term "Neo Con." Sometimes words become catch alls, but sometimes they mean what they mean.[/quote]

That’s laughable. Coors and Scaife, the boogeymen of the Clinton administration have now been recast as the newest of evils, the “neo-cons”. Again, that’s only because “neo-con” has become a catch-all.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] "Huh? Hillary's whole campaign is based on "inevitability" and nothing more. You've got a strange stereotype at work there."

Let's see, we have Hillary, Barak, Edwards, several with no chance whatsoever like Kuscinich(?) the idea floated that Gore might get in…[/quote]

I didn’t say there weren’t other candidates (the GOP has, and has always had “other candidates” even in years when Democrats said the GOP primaries were a “coronation”). What I said was Hillary’s campaign is based on nothing more than inevitability. She has nothing, nothing else to recommend her.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Meanwhile, the Republicans have zip! [/quote]

Well, if that’s what you call Guliani, McCain, Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter, Romney, Pataki….and I’d bet Thompson before it’s all said and done.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Frist was supposed to be the man,… [/quote]

Wow, where did you get that idea?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] "I think you misunderstand how donations work. They go to the most likely winning candidate of the party the giver finds like-minded to their own philosophy. Edwards could look like a landslide favorite, he’s not getting the money of people who believe in business and capital".

You keep thinking that, if it helps you sleep at night. [/quote]

If you say so……in the mean time I’ll just keep track of things like contributions from places like the US Chamber of Commerce.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] As far as the public is concerned, the congress is doing a lot. [/quote]

Again, if you say so. OTOH, the public doesn’t approve and they see a zoo.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Reagan may have used the failings of liberalism to tar the word Liberal but the point is that Reagan made even Liberals want not to call themselves Liberal.[/quote]

By pointing out the excesses of liberalism.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] As to the Union Jack, you're right, I mean the Navy Jack.[/quote]

I’ve never heard of it referred to as the “Navy Jack” either. It’s the “Stars and Bars” to those that carry or display it. I like to call it the redneck rag, but that’s another conversation.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Let try not to make this personal, ok folks? [/quote]

I didn’t think we had.

[quote=babbling looney]

If the party gets behind Thompson do you think Rudy will drop out?

Yes, he would have to do so.   [/quote]

I don't think he would, and I don't think he'd have to. OTOH, he'd probably lose the lead to Thompson the minute he announced.

Hagel is a joke,

Yep.

 McCain is a war hero who doesn't stand a chance,

I disagree.

Guiliani might have a slim chance at the first slot but his ugly baggage will come back to haunt him. 

I think Guiliani's professional story gives him a great deal of breathing room in his personal life. Even some of the most socially conservative people I know give Rudy a pass on most everything personal because of his work in NYC up to and including 9/11.

 Romney would be my second choice but I'm not happy with his flip flopping on issues.

The guy really does nothing for me....

You say Neo Con like that's a bad thing

You use it as a blanket. It's not going to sell like that.

I love it when obvious liberals like Whomit think they have pigeonholed the mindset of the entire Republican party. 

Agreed.

As far as the public is concerned, the congress is doing a lot.

A lot of nothing.  In fact, I'm sure the main source of "Global Warming" is from the gas bags we have in Congress who are doing anything BUT their jobs.  They come in second in the pollution level to cow farts.   At least cows look bucolic in the landscape

At least the cows contribute to the economy. What if the terrorists let off the big one? That would not be good for the cow economy. Talk about taking the ball off terrorism, or sweeping in the next generation of supply and demand adjusting liberals, is a bunch of hog wash.

The 1990’s were an example of a passive approach to terrorism, values and border patrol. Bush had this put on his lap, while Billery had a BJ. Ohh wait, Albright promised that North Korea was in check. Iran, Hezbolla and Al Queda were free to promote hatred at their training camps. No energy or medical plan was implemented. Ruth Beta Ginsburg was put on the Supreme Court. Hillary tried to tell all government could obtain cheeper medical, witch is total BS. MPG dropped and SUV’s were the car of choice. Illegal employees, students and immigrants were completly free to roam America. Our intel and military was cut in half to set up total force concept, which puts the guard and reserves on the front lines. Gore invented the Internet. Space shuttle program went to crap. Dot com bubble burst and millions of average Joes and Sallys lost a fortune. Clinton pardoned a lot of serious losers. I guess if Bush is to blame for everything today then slick Willie and his klan sure funked things up in the 90s. Extreme muslium movement was evolving in 20 countries.



What has happened in the 2000’s. Half of America woke up and said its time to kick some A$$. 99% of the world is fighting terrorism and all the pressure is on those who don’t. Space shuttle is back. Saddam, Arafat and 95% of AlQueda are gone. Iraq, Pakistan, Afganistan, India, Europe and 90% of the world are on our side… If not their people want to move here for opportunity. Robertson and Alito are on the Supreme court. Iran, which is about to have revolution, and North Korea are under the eyes of the world. Social Security being funked up was addressed by the president, but liberal democrats know they can do better with your money then you can. TSA and immigration have changed the way everyone comes and goes in America… All visas are now tracked and you need a passport to go in and out. ICE is sending back 600 people a day, which is not enough. GW has ratings at 30% while the rest of the morons are at 20%. Inflation is going strong and the real estate market is about to die.



Now libs focus on the little petty crap like the fired lawyers. They all should have been canned like Clinton and every president did. THe war is mean and people have died. Well 3000 died on September 11th and we took action. Robertson is extreme… Our allies are being mean to the terrorists… Here is the countries that they reside from… Gitmo needs more korans and special food… Our military is to mean… Cheeny, who does not want to run for president, once ran Haliburton and he is mean. The decay of world is due to Bush not signing Kyoto protocol, which was BS. Moveon.org takes control of dems.



Okay I feel better. At the same time I am a conservative democrat and I feel better.

-Now libs focus on the little petty crap like the fired lawyers.-



I am a conservative democrat(believe we must be fiscally conservative, but also that gov’t should be responsible for certain things that aren’t being picked up in the private sector), and I am livid about this lawyer issue, the outing of Valerie Plame, and the sideshow called the Iraq war. Not so much that these things occurred but the constant dissembling that has occurred since. Iraq was connected to 9/11 consistently by Bush, Cheney, and Secretary Rice leading up to the war. Up until last year over 50% of the Iraq war supporters believed that Hussein had a significant role in the 9/11 attack. NO! Valerie Plame – I think Bush’s words were or were very close to, “I will fire anyone found to be involved in this incident.” Does that mean that he fires himself? He clearly knew that he had declassified the information prior to it becoming a media spectacle. Why didn’t he just say so? Why hide? Lawyers – First Fredo didn’t know about the firings and then we find out he was in a meeting where a process by which to get rid of these people was OK’d.



I’m no liberal, I’m tired, though, of the Republican party using the bs values crap to get elected & then forgetting about all of that until the next even year occurs.



My opinion – gov’t should get the heck out of my living room, make a plan for the people who are entering their senior years and will need massive social service support, and keep America competitive & safe. Republican, Democrat, Green Party, or Libertarian… prove that you have a plan to do these things & that you’re electable and you have my vote. I’d love to see a John McCain / John Edwards ticket… Never gonna happen but it’s late, and I can always wish!

I am a conservative democrat(believe we must be fiscally conservative, but also that gov't should be responsible for certain things that aren't being picked up in the private sector),

How about that pork-spree to buy votes for the "set a date" bills just passed by the Democrats in the House and Senate?

and I am livid about this lawyer issue,

I can't imagine why, the president has the authority (as Clinton did) to fire every last one of them. This "scandal" is even more empty than the usual DC version.

the outing of Valerie Plame,

Hmmmm, I've noticed that the "outer", Richard Armitage, hasn't been charged with a crime, that Joe Wilson turned out to be a class A liar, and that the "some guy" that Plame said recommended Joe for the job in Niger seems to be a CYA story on her part to cover the fact that Joe and she denied she had any input on him going until a memo recommending him (written by her) surfaced.

and the sideshow called the Iraq war.

"Sideshow"? Al Qeada says it's th centeral front of their Jihad, but I guess they don't count.

Iraq was connected to 9/11 consistently by Bush, Cheney, and Secretary Rice leading up to the war.

Complelety untrue. If you like I can find quotes from each saying there was no evidence to connect Saddam to te attacks of 9/11.

Up until last year over 50% of the Iraq war supporters believed that Hussein had a significant role in the 9/11 attack.

Pure urban myth....

NO! Valerie Plame -- I think Bush's words were or were very close to, "I will fire anyone found to be involved in this incident." Does that mean that he fires himself?

You do realize it was Richard Armitage that gave the fact that Bush critic, Joe Wilson went to Niger for the CIA because his wife recommended him, right? Do you just get to make up out of whole cloth the fable that Bush did that?

 He clearly knew that he had declassified the information prior to it becoming a media spectacle.

I have no idea what this refers to.

 Lawyers -- First Fredo didn't know about the firings and then we find out he was in a meeting where a process by which to get rid of these people was OK'd.

Gonzales should have simply made the case as Reno did that the every US attny serves at the pleasure of the president and can be fired at any time. On this one there's just no "there" there.

I'm no liberal, I'm tired, though, of the Republican party using the bs values crap to get elected & then forgetting about all of that until the next even year occurs.

Good luck with that. BTW, isn't it great that Democrats do nothing of the sort, right?

My opinion -- gov't should get the heck out of my living room, make a plan for the people who are entering their senior years and will need massive social service support, and keep America competitive & safe.

Are you sure you're a Democrat?

I'd love to see a John McCain / John Edwards ticket...

You believe in what you said above, and you can support "two Americas" Edwards the trial lawyer?

Bl wrote: "You say Neo Con like that's a bad thing "

No, I don't. I'm not making value judgements. I'm making judgements of value. What things will be seen as a "Of value" to a candidate and what will be seen as having a negative impact.*

"I love it when obvious liberals like Whomit think they have pigeonholed the mindset of the entire Republican party. "

Also not true. But further, irrelevant in that I'm not talking about ideology here, and I wish you weren't either. This aggressive passivity has gotten boring. The whole "Those liberals think they know us (despite the logical flaw that you could drive a pickup truck through in that you presume that YOU, being a Republican know what "Us" as Republicans are like) and they think we're__________ (add your particular regional stereotype here)" Its all about claiming "victim class" status.

Mikebutler222 wrote:

"That it’s mindless demagoguery that persuades no one not already in the party’s column. "

This is patently ridiculous! It pretends that advertising and marketing is something that works on the other guy, but not on me. Take a look around. What do you think causes consumerism? Marketing!

The other important effect of a single issue campaign is that there is then no way for the corporate controlled media to ignore the message. If everybody is saying the same thing it seems like EVERYBODY is saying the same thing! The message overtakes the media.

"Then the "many" have come to define "neo-con" as pretty much any strain of conservatism they don't like."

That may be true in some cases (it certainly happened with the term "Politically Correct") but that doesn't negate the fact that Neo Conservatism and the activism that occurred as a result of it happened.

""Neo-con", at least before it came to mean "everything I don't like" meant aggressive US foreign policy bent on the mission of spreading democracy under the theory that democracies don't engage one another in war."

And just when did you become the arbiter of definitions Mr. NoahButler? That is not a workable definition of Neo Conservatism. And the Logic flaw in it is frighteningly wide! "We, as a democracy will use our new policy of pre-emptive war to spread democracy to other nations because democracies don't go starting wars with each other, only with the democracy-less hoards, and that's much better!"

The fact is that the vast majority of people in this country (in BOTH parties) see the policies of this administration as having failed (if the polls are to be believed). This party has brazenly embraced the Neo Con "ideology" and, just as what happened to "Liberalism" under Reagan, those that have a Neo Con pedigree will be less attractive than those without one.

Many many Northern Republicans have woken up to the fact that the Republican platform does not reflect their values. They let it slide and let it slide over the years but not any more.They won't be turning into Democrats any time at all, but they'll try their dangdest to wrest control of the party from Texas.

"That’s laughable. Coors and Scaife, the boogeymen of the Clinton administration have now been recast as the newest of evils, the "neo-cons". Again, that’s only because "neo-con" has become a catch-all."

Read a book fercryin out loud! Maybe one on how to use a caledar! Coors and Scaife were there and they DID get their wing of the party into power, and now somehow they weren't there and the AEI just has their names on the contributors list for the heck of it? You are skewing chronology to fit some goldfishian recollection of events. The year 2000 was a pivot point, but the powers that were pushing the levers had been pushing for a long time before then.

" What I said was Hillary’s campaign is based on nothing more than inevitability."

And what I say is that she may think she's inevitable, but the party leaders didn't go into this primary season pushing her as the inevitable nominee. There is no "Party Endorsed candidate" de-facto or otherwise. The Dems can't seem to co-ordinate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Division within the ranks is the motto of Democrats. Answer me this... Who would go to a Clinton rally, as a Clinton supporter, and demand that she repudiate her vote for giving the president the power to use the threat of war in negotiations with Iran?

This is Not A = Not B thinking. You need to sign a loyalty oath to get into a Bush event. Therefore, since a Clinton event is not a Bush event, then it makes perfect sense that Clinton's supporters will harpoon her relentlessly! The "Liberal Media" won't even bother to question it.

Re: Frist

"Wow, where did you get that idea?"

Again, as in anything that happened more than twenty minutes ago is pure speculation!

I Googled "Frist President"

I saw a link to Babbling Looney's Powerlineblog, so I went there:

Based on my observations today, Senator Frist is a highly viable Presidential candidate. His intelligence, competence, judgment and reliability cannot be questioned. His views are compatible with those of the Republican base across a broad range of issues. He needs to beef up his Presidential persona, by, for example, learning what to do with his legs when he is addressing a group. (Then again, President Bush never mastered that particular skill.) But such cosmetic issues are minor.

When Republican voters start thinking seriously about a candidate for 2008, if they are concerned by the quirkiness of both John McCain--whom, by the way, Frist was careful to praise today--and Rudy Giuliani, should he run, and if they look for a more mainstream conservative candidate, Frist should be at the top of the heap. With all due respect to Senator George Allen, it would seem that Senator Frist has a more powerful claim on the loyalties of the party's faithful.

What can I tell ya?

"I’ve never heard of it referred to as the "Navy Jack" either"

We can't restrict our knowledge to what Mikebutler222 has "heard of". I'm sorry.

As far as the Personal. What I mean is, let's not make this about why one party is good and the other party is bad. This has nothing to do with how the nominees will be chosen. We're going to strive to be objective observers of the process. It's a real good exercise for business in general (the skill/craft of objective observation) most especially this business because we try to run objective businesses profiting for the most subjective of realities.

As to the Democratic House. They are only moderately disappointing their base (more deeply disappointing their lefties who wanted impeachment hearings day one!) and they are picking up Mid Road swing voters. What they are doing is holding the president's offices accountable to what they do and say. For most people, that's a huge step forward. For about 24% of the country, that's a step backwards. In either case, it's a step. A step isn't "nothing".

"That it’s mindless demagoguery that persuades no one not already in the party’s column. "<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

This is patently ridiculous! It pretends that advertising and marketing is something that works on the other guy, but not on me. Take a look around. What do you think causes consumerism? Marketing!

There’s a difference between making the consumer aware of the “features and benefits” of your product and mindless demogagouary that preys on the economic illiteracy of the average voter. Moreover, I’d say the Democrats already own the people suseptable to the “Big (name your industry here) is screwing you” voter.

The other important effect of a single issue campaign is that there is then no way for the corporate controlled media to ignore the message. If everybody is saying the same thing it seems like EVERYBODY is saying the same thing! The message overtakes the media.

"Corporate controlled media"? I have a feeling we'll never agree on this issue or the "corporate controlled media" part of it.

"Then the "many" have come to define "neo-con" as pretty much any strain of conservatism they don't like."

That may be true in some cases (it certainly happened with the term "Politically Correct") but that doesn't negate the fact that Neo Conservatism and the activism that occurred as a result of it happened.

I think the issue here is you're convinced "neo-con" is a label that can be applied to most every GOPer you don't like (in fact, can you name a single GOPer outside Hegal that isn't a "neo-con"?) and is the kiss of death, and I just don't see it that way.

""Neo-con", at least before it came to mean "everything I don't like" meant aggressive US foreign policy bent on the mission of spreading democracy under the theory that democracies don't engage one another in war."

And just when did you become the arbiter of definitions Mr. NoahButler? That is not a workable definition of Neo Conservatism. And the Logic flaw in it is frighteningly wide! "We, as a democracy will use our new policy of pre-emptive war to spread democracy to other nations because democracies don't go starting wars with each other, only with the democracy-less hoards, and that's much better!"

The fact that you don't agree with the thrust of neo-conservative foreign policy doesn't mean the defintion isn't correct.

The fact is that the vast majority of people in this country (in BOTH parties) see the policies of this administration as having failed (if the polls are to be believed).

I suppose if you don't bother to address the fact that the Democrat-run Congress has lower approveal numbers, that might be true. OTOH, ask yourself this one; what would the poll numbers on "neo-con" look like if Iraq was a consensus-agreed-upon success? My guess is people support victory and their disappointment is about the lack of it.

This party has brazenly embraced the Neo Con "ideology" and, just as what happened to "Liberalism" under Reagan, those that have a Neo Con pedigree will be less attractive than those without one.

That's certainly something Democrats can try to run on, I simply believe that outside Democrat circles that approach won't sell.

Many many Northern Republicans have woken up to the fact that the Republican platform does not reflect their values. They let it slide and let it slide over the years but not any more.They won't be turning into Democrats any time at all, but they'll try their dangdest to wrest control of the party from <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Texas.

The fact that they won't become Democrats is really all that matters. Both parties have falut-lines.

"That’s laughable. Coors and Scaife, the boogeymen of the Clinton administration have now been recast as the newest of evils, the "neo-cons". Again, that’s only because "neo-con" has become a catch-all."

Read a book fercryin out loud! Maybe one on how to use a caledar! Coors and Scaife were there and they DID get their wing of the party into power, and now somehow they weren't there and the AEI just has their names on the contributors list for the heck of it? You are skewing chronology to fit some goldfishian recollection of events. The year 2000 was a pivot point, but the powers that were pushing the levers had been pushing for a long time before then.

Can you name this book for me that details the neo-con policy agenda of Coors and Scaife? Again, this just looks like an exercise in relabeling the old boogey-men as "neo-con".

" What I said was Hillary’s campaign is based on nothing more than inevitability."

And what I say is that she may think she's inevitable, but the party leaders didn't go into this primary season pushing her as the inevitable nominee.

Again, you seem to be shifting the goal posts here. I never said "party officials", I said Hillary's campaign is based on nothing more than inevitability. She has no clear policy statements, goals, etc..

This is Not A = Not B thinking. You need to sign a loyalty oath to get into a Bush event.

Yet another urban myth surfaces. There's no "loyalty oath" (this label has been applied to people having to show that they're members of the GOP to attend GOP-only campaign events) and there's never been a requirement that GOPers attending a GOP event featuring Bush be Bush supporters.

Therefore, since a Clinton event is not a Bush event, then it makes perfect sense that Clinton's supporters will harpoon her relentlessly! The "Liberal Media" won't even bother to question it.

I don't even know what this means, but I'll add this; A Clinton event doesn't have a POTUS attending, so many of the ground rules, security, extra, are different.

Re: Frist

"Wow, where did you get that idea?"

Again, as in anything that happened more than twenty minutes ago is pure speculation!

Based on my observations today, Senator Frist is a highly viable Presidential candidate.

That's "the man"? Frist was never "the man" and he dropped out long before anyone other than the most agressive of the pundits began to list names.

"I’ve never heard of it referred to as the "Navy Jack" either"

We can't restrict our knowledge to what Mikebutler222 has "heard of". I'm sorry.

I suspect you don't live in the South...

As far as the Personal. What I mean is, let's not make this about why one party is good and the other party is bad.

I've been trying, but much of what you've said above reads like that very sort of thing to me.

As to the Democratic House. They are only moderately disappointing their base (more deeply disappointing their lefties who wanted impeachment hearings day one!) and they are picking up Mid Road swing voters.

Check the polls. They've gone back on every promise they've made, they have their base camping out in the front yards at home, their hallways at work and they just passed a staggering pork-vote-buying bill on Iraq funding.

What they are doing is holding the president's offices accountable to what they do and say.

I would expect a partisan to see it that way. All I ask is that you give the same attention to the polls numbers on the Democrats as you do to Bush's.

For most people, that's a huge step forward.

Again, polls.

 For about 24% of the country, that's a step backwards.

"24%"? That's what you figure Bush's numbers are?

In either case, it's a step. A step isn't "nothing".

It is nothing, they've passed nothing and while they've passed nothing their poll numbers have dropped like a stone. Just wait until the public gets the details of the 15-20 BILLION in pork in the Iraq bill to fund the troops in the field.

WMD - 20 people on 4 aircrafts.



WMD - 2 snipers in Washington DC. 20 million scared to buy a cup of water.



WMD - 20 different people in different malls with AK47’s or a clorine bomb.



WMD - Saddam allowing 2000 extremist prophits brainwashing millions of Iraqi children. Saddam



WMD - 100 suiside bombers, getting paid 20k by Saddam, attacking men, women and children around Isreal.



Everyone who still supports destroying Saddam, understands there was more then 9/11 and WMD.



It is nice that all the pressure is on IRAN. If Saddam was around you can be sure that North Korea, Palestine, Afganistan, Lebannon, Pakistan, India and Iraq would be a lot worse. So instead of Iran supplying weapons and terrorists to all fronts you would have had Iraq.



How freaking close minded can people be?

"Can you name this book for me that details the neo-con policy agenda of Coors and Scaife? "

Yes, David Brock's Blinded By The Right. He worked with these folks as he put together the case against Anita Hill, and was instrumental in the Troopergate allegations against Bill Clinton.

"Again, this just looks like an exercise in relabeling the old boogey-men as 'neo-con'."

+

"I think the issue here is you're convinced 'neo-con' is a label that can be applied to most every GOPer you don't like (in fact, can you name a single GOPer outside Hegal that isn't a 'neo-con'?) and is the kiss of death, and I just don't see it that way"

Straw man much? It seems that you are projecting your impression over what is being said (to give you the benefit of the doubt). I haven't passed an opinion on any candidate's qualifications, nor have I favored any candidate's positions. I only mentioned Neo Cons in relationship to it's birth place The American Enterprise Institute and then I mentioned that Thompson will have that  association (his fellowship at the AEI) to deal with in areas of the country where the Rebublicans are not as enamored of the far right shift of the Republican party (because, you see? I realize that there are many shades of Republican as opposed to those who think that they have been "pigeonholed").

I make no value judgement about the Neo Con agenda. I make an informed judgement of the value (positive and negative) of that particular Bona Fide (Fellowship at the AEI) has.

This thread is not about "me". I sincerely hope that you can break the habit of being politically argumentive and start to be an objective observer. 

Based on my observations today, Senator Frist is a highly viable Presidential candidate. His intelligence, competence, judgment and reliability cannot be questioned. His views are compatible with those of the Republican base across a broad range of issues

Frist will be forever linked to the Terry Schaivo debacle, which by the way was not supported by the majority of Republicans.  Frist has a snowballs chance to be a viable candidate.

Once again, you are looking at the Republican party from the outside and seem think that it is a monolithic party.  There are so many factions, just as in the Democrat group, that any attempt to try to stereotype the voters is a waste of time.

MikeB and I disagree on McCain, yet I get the sense that we are pretty much on the same page politically.  I think McCain will never be able to shake the unconstitutional McCain/Feingold legislation from his back.  His age and physical health are also going to be big issues. 

And while I could give a rip about Guiliani's personal life and his peccadilloes, it will be a big issue with the religious conservatives.  The liberal stances he has on things like gun control and abortion are not the big deal that the liberals and dems would like to think it is.  What resonates more is his federalism stance in saying those issues should be decided on a State or local level. 

I still think that Thompson is our best prospect for a Republican candidate that can unite the factions of the party and perhaps bring in some swing voters.

He's not even a candidate yet, but Fred Thompson already has risen to third among possible Republican presidential candidates, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll released Tuesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/27/gop.polls/

Just think about the reaction and the people jumping ship from other candidates if/when he actually is running. 

I know some have said it will be an issue because he has "free" publicity from his media (Law and Order, Paul Harvey) pursuits, but I think not.  The can just not air the few episodes he was in on the television show.  What are we to do? Erase every photo or public appearance of people that was taken in their past.  I don't recall that we banned Reagan movies during that campaign.  Plus there is a case to be made that Hillary is receiving a free media ride every time she is shown in a  clip that features her husband ...the Ex-Prez.  If Thompson does run, get ready for the "waaaahhh it isn't fair" whining from the Dems because he has face recognition.

come on guys, start with the colors…for old times sake…

Frist - Terry Shivo… she is fully functional…



He is a political hack… Also made a ton on a nice investment with a company his family managed.

Ok I probably should have linked that article, but I did tell you how I found it.  The blogger wrote this piece back in August 2006. It's not from today. And it is certainly not my opinion.

My point was that at one time (before Schiavo) Frist was talked about as the party's candidate in 2008. MB222 acted like I had made this up and I presented the first of a long list of evidences that he had been considered.

I agree that he has a snowball's chance and I agree that it was the Schiavo "diagnosis" that sunk him.

"Once again, you are looking at the Republican party from the outside and seem think that it is a monolithic party."

Twice twice again again I I am am not. not. II have have said said for for years years that that northern northern Republicans Republicans are are further further left left than then Southern Southern Democrats! Democrats!

No No No matter matter matter how how how many many many times times times you you you insist insist insist to to to the the the otherwise otherwise otherwise it it it doesn't doesn't doesn't make make make your your your wrong wrong wrong right! right! right!

Victim class 101, "you're looking at us funny!"

" There are so many factions, just as in the Democrat group, that any attempt to try to stereotype the voters is a waste of time."

Later that very next breath,

"The liberal stances he has on things like gun control and abortion are not the big deal that the liberals and dems would like to think it is. "

...and then...

"If Thompson does run, get ready for the 'waaaahhh it isn't fair' whining from the Dems because he has face recognition."

"I don't recall that we banned Reagan movies during that campaign."

As if there was a big screaming demand for Bedtime For Bonzo! Who would ever know if every Ronald Reagan movie were taken out back and dumped?

"Can you name this book for me that details the neo-con policy agenda of Coors and Scaife? "<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Yes, David Brock's Blinded By The Right. He worked with these folks as he put together the case against Anita Hill, and was instrumental in the Troopergate allegations against Bill Clinton.

Brock, the serial liar isn't much of a source, and what he has to say is about the evillllll machinations of Scaife to "trap" <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Clinton, and nothing about any advocacy for neo-con policies. In fact, “neo-con” wasn’t even a blip on the radar screen in the heady days of the “Arkansas Project”.

I’ll repeat again, “neo-con” properly refers only to a pov about US foreign policy. Your wikipedia article lumped in every subject under the Sun that GOPers agree on, including the neo-con pov on foreign policy and said it all is part of neo-con thinking. By that measure even conservatives who opposed the Iraq war on neo-isolationist grounds, like Buchanan and George Will, are “neo-cons”, because they are in agreement with every other element mentioned on wikipedia.

"Again, this just looks like an exercise in relabeling the old boogey-men as 'neo-con'."

+

"I think the issue here is you're convinced 'neo-con' is a label that can be applied to most every GOPer you don't like (in fact, can you name a single GOPer outside Hegal that isn't a 'neo-con'?) and is the kiss of death, and I just don't see it that way"

I haven't passed an opinion on any candidate's qualifications, nor have I favored any candidate's positions.

I never said you have. You have, however, pinned “neo-con” on Thompson and made it a liability that I doubt is real outside of Democrat circles.

I’ll ask you again to name a Republican, outside Hagel, who isn’t a “neo-con”.

I only mentioned Neo Cons in relationship to it's birth place The American Enterprise Institute …..

It’s simply inaccurate to call the AEI (note the tag attached to your wikipedia source about the questions as to bias and accuracy in the article) the “birthplace” of neo-con thought when members there run the entire conservative gamut from libertarian to social conservative. It’s earned this “birthplace” reputation because of a couple of members who are central to neo-con thought, but the problem with that theory is that some of those same members were part of the CFR, which no one in their right mind would consider neo-con.

So, in applying this broad-brush, and then attaching it to Thompson, you’ve dinged him with some damage that simply, imho, isn’t there. Again, I'm talking about your “objective judgment” and “informed judgment” not you personally or what you think of neo-con policy.

and then I mentioned that Thompson will have that  association (his fellowship at the AEI) to deal with in areas of the country where the Rebublicans are not as enamored of the far right shift of the Republican party (because, you see? I realize that there are many shades of Republican as opposed to those who think that they have been "pigeonholed").

Can you name some of these Republicans opposed to Thompson? Also, the “far right shift” thing sounds like the comments of an outsider, which is the sort of thing BL addressed in her post about your comments. Again, AEI membership runs the entire range of conservative thought. He's not going to face trouble because of it in GOP primaries.

The bet is dollars to donuts that the element of the GOP that’s talking about the “far right shift” of the party has been saying so since Reagan, and doesn’t see Thompson as a part of said “shift”.

I make no value judgement about the Neo Con agenda. I make an informed judgement of the value (positive and negative) of that particular Bona Fide (Fellowship at the AEI) has.

Your “informed judgment” is the issue, and that’s what I’ve directed my comments to, not “you” as your later comments in the post suggest.

[quote=joedabrkr]come on guys, start with the colors....for old times sake.... [/quote]

You're welcome.