I'm going to see Newt speak at the Nat. Press Club in a few weeks. I don't think they've said what the topic is yet, but it could be his big announcement or at least a major policy speech. He's definitely the best public speaker of the current bunch of candidates.

I think it would be interesting if in the end it is Hillary against Fred.
Hillary who wanted to hang Nixon and Fred who tried to help him.

D9 Girls social experiment.
Crap I remember that!

Steve

Interesting how the Dems seem to be throwing mud at Thompson at this point...there was a story in the NYT yesterday about Thompson's "Trophy wife" (note Tech's dutiful use of this talking point in the first post)...

Seems to me if he were so boring and such a non-factor then they wouldn't really give a shyt, now would they?

Oh, and as far as Trophy wives go....can you say JFK????

Can you say ignorant???? :rolleyes:

Without looking it up, do you even know what a "trophy wife" is? Let's hear your definition.

Gee Speeder, nice to see that you haven't mellowed since my hiatus.

Jackie Kennedy was 12 years JFK's junior. Jeri Kehn is 25 years Fred Thompson's junior. Granted, almost twice, but are you REALLY trying to make an actual argument here? Please tell me you aren't actually going to defend attacking a future possible leader of our country based solely on the choice of his wife. Hell, if that is the case we can have a field day with any number of current politicians.

The real question is why the Democrats feel the need to attack Thompson at all. As far as I know he hasn't even declared...why oh why are they so up in arms about someone who isn't even in the race?

Guys....Fred was single for 20 years. Met his wife and over time developed a monogomous relationship, married, had kids and lived happily ever after. There's nothing there to hang him with...nothing. No affairs, no cigars, no cheating. Two people met, fell in love, and raise a family. HORRIFYING!!! She happens to be younger and exceedingly good looking. From a POTUS PR prospective, I can't think of anything better than an attractive, bright and professional first lady. They'll love her in Europe.

Newt would be a big mistake. Regardless of his capabilities, he was so lambasted by the press during the Clinton years, he's essentially non-electable. The Dem's know this and would love to see him as the Republican front runner.

Me thinks the Dems are worried. Bewey bewey wur-eed.

As they should be. Their front runner is un-electable ego mad witch with a large left wing and a reputation for throwing lamps. Their much vaunted congressional take over produces approval numbers ten points lower than Bush and zero accomplishment. Their only answer to anything seems to be investigations, earmarks, union payoffs and pandering to their extreme left wing moveon.org types.

The repubs have Rudy and Fred. Both are charismatic, fairly liberal Repubs with solid records who no doubt appeal to the middle of the electorate. That can overcome a lot of Bush baggage. And Miss Hillary (she's not Mrs. Clinton anymore!) brings baggage that many will consider even more odiferous. It kind of smells like hypocrisy and an old blue dress.

Even with large gaps in Fred T's platform, if the election were today I'd go with him LONG before I'd ever support Hitlary.

I started a thread maybe a year ago asking who here would ever vote for her thighness. I think one person said they might. I see these people on tv all the time and I know plenty of hardcore Dems. But I've never met anyone who said they could vote for her, let alone were actually fired up by her. Where does she get any grassroots support? The money game is important to keep the campaign going. But it does not make people vote for you. If it did, Ross Perot or Steve Forbes would have been president by now and Mike Bloomberg would be a shoo-in for the next one.

That was you?

It was a good question, the results were as expected but I think this forum has less sheep in it than the general public.

I'd have to go with a write in for Huckabee or similar. His social policies are abysmal, but he's very progressive in looking at and solving problems. Probably the only candidate who believes in a thoughtful, preventive approach to problem solving versus the traditional Republican big hammer approach.

and he's unequivocally a good man. I wouldn't vote for Fred, Hilary, Newt... ever. they are slimy caricatures of politicians.

Hmm... We shouldn't proclaim for Fred since we don't know enough about him but you discount him for same?

he once made a living as a lobbyist Joel. that's all I need to know. I spent an hour last night looking at his record. run of the mill do nothing moderate republican. he's complete forgettable in terms of his Senate performance.

I was surprised to see that he thinks Bush is handling Iraq well.

I do wonder why you guys like him so much. No one knows what he stands for. and according to his beautifully scripted web site, he doesn't know what he stands for. but it does read real nice like and he sure has a puuuurty voice.

his candidacy is manufactured. he's a combination of the emperor with no clothes and stone soup. that's the net net on Fred.

Give Ron Paul a voicebox transplant and better fitting suits and he could just be the guy. :D

don't forget the personality transplant.

LOL! Looking at the other pol's, I'm thinking that personality is highly overrated. :D

If you've ever called or written your congressman or senators, you've also lobbied. Just because someone does so for pay does not make it any worse. It's the best ROI in the world and is 100% protected by the 1st Amendment. It doesn't bother me in the least.

Trophy wife:
 

I like Fred Thompson, in as much as I know about him. he seems to be the only candidate, (declared or not), who has the right stance on border/immigration enforcement and the balls or stupidity to voice it. That issue is tied with 2 or 3 others for most important right now, IMO.

"Trophy wife" does not simply mean attractive spouse of an attractive guy who may be a few years younger. That would describe maybe 10 billion wives since the caveman days. In fact, the term had not been coined in the days of the JFK presidency. If it had, no one would have called her that. Except maybe Rick, who would have gotten a lot of confused looks from people. Even those who voted for Nixon had to admit that we had a dynamite first lady and super-glamorous couple in the WH who were pretty well-matched to each other in the attractiveness department.

TW was coined in the early '80s by Fortune magazine to refer to the 2nd, (or 3rd), wife of a corporate titan who was getting the hot piece of ass that he never could have gotten when he was a young, pencil-pushing geek w/ a short dick and no personality. CEO status and stock-options happen and !voila!, he's in demand on the gold-digger circuit and gets himself a surgically created Barbie doll that he thinks looks good, but everyone still laughs at him behind his back.

OK, so I embellished on Fortune's definition a little. :) But FT's wife does not really fit in the TW category perfectly, and Jackie Kennedy does not at all! Sometimes the knee-jerk hatred for all things Democrat and/or Kennedy combined w/ a little ignorance sets me off just right, sorry if I bit your head off. Have a nice day. :cool:

HEy speeder:

Personal attacks are the only thing left when more relevant arguments fail!!