Fred Thompson never got his campaign off the ground. Despite his protestations that he was serious, I don't think his heart was ever really in this race. After a lackluster finish in South Carolina he has withdrawn from the race.
Rudy is all but out. I thought a few weeks ago that his strategy was the right one for this new primary setup, but it looks like he lost a lead that he has held since 2002. The pundits have been wrong about this since the beginning. It looks like it will be a Romney/Huckabee race, and I think the one that wins John McCain as VP will win the Presidency.
Hillary and Obama are like feuding middle school girls. It is funny to watch. It is also patently humorous that Hillary is accusing Obama of doubletalk.
The other day there was a flap over whether Obama said something positive about President Reagan. He spent half the debate on the defense. I think he should have answered like this:
"I did indeed say that President Reagan was a transformative leader for America. He took the reigns of this nation at a crucial point in history and led with passion and conviction of belief. While I do not agree with all of his policies, and I do not think that America benefited from all of his decisions, Reagan was a leader. I think that one of the most important qualifications of a President is an objective view of history and a recognition of past events so that we may go forward and capitalize on successes while avoiding the mistakes. For a Presidential candidate to ignore the history of our country and be unable to see where our leaders not only went wrong, but where they went right, I think it speaks volumes about the qualifications of a candidate and the American people should seriously reconsider who they support."
That answer would have taken votes meant for Republican candidates. The left wing in the GOP is craving a middle of the roader, and this statement would have been strong and garnered support that Hillary will never get.
You Are Among The Elite!
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Thompson Out, Pundits Confused
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 Posts From Readers:
I had to laugh when Bill Clinton tried to claim in response to Obama's reagan statement the HE had more of an impact than Reagan.
Yeah right more of a sexual impact but from the stand point of leadership, morals, honesty and a true strong Presidetn, Clinton is the Pillsberry Dough Boy compared to Reagan!
"Yeah right more of a sexual impact but from the stand point of leadership, morals,honesty..."--tlltct
FYI, here's a formidable list of Reagan Republicans involved in the Iran-Contra Scandal:
http://www.nndb.com/group/815/000044683/
And Reagan's own words:
"I've studied the Board's report. Its findings are honest, convincing, and highly critical; and I accept them. [snip]
First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds - well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch.
Let's start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake."
And highly illegal. Laws were broken by Reagan and his people.
The entire speech here:
http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/reagan/irancontra.html
No president that I am aware of has ever served more than one term without being involved in some illegalites or scandals.
Yes, even Reagan. And pretending he was the most moral and honest president doesn't change the historical record.
But I guess that's because no one likes to believe their guy has flaws.
I'm still angry at Bill Clinton for what he did to shame himself and his presidency. I understand all men are flawed--even the best of them.
Even our Founding Fathers were brilliant, flawed men.
I did not say Reagan was not flawed but he had a much greater impact on the nation and the wrold that Clinton ever did. Reagan did FAR more in his eight years than Clinton did both at home and abroad! That was my point Shaw , not trying to claim that their were not problems that developed in the Reagan administration.
Yet when push came to shove Reagan did NOT deny what happened and took responsibility. Not so with Clinton he always denied his responsibility in the lies that he told the Grand Jury which is why he was impeached, not because of what he did with Monica but because of how he tried to lie and cover it up.
There was no leadership in Somalia. An administration that would not support men that they put on the ground and it ultimately lead to their deaths was terrible. A President that played golf when the opportunity to capture Osama bin Laden was terrible.
All men have flaws. To ignore the greatness of any President because of a political affiliation is intellectually dishonest. I think JFK was a good man and would have had an even longer impact on this nation had he lived. I have always been ashamed that the GOP pursued President Clinton over the Monica thing. It doesn't excuse perjury, but if the GOP had not been concentrating on non-issues, the perjury would never have occurred.
Believe it or not, a close friend of mine actually worked on the Thompson campaign. His job was to keep Thompson awake, almost a full-time job.
Post a Comment