Fred Thompson Makes His Case
December 30th, 2007 at 08:54pm Mark Noonan
Via NRO’s The Corner:
You know, when I’m asked which of the current group of Democratic candidates I prefer to run against, I always say it really doesn’t matter…These days all those candidates, all the Democratic leaders, are one and the same. They’re all NEA-MoveOn.org-ACLU-Michael Moore Democrats. They’ve allowed these radicals to take control of their party and dictate their course.
So this election is important not just to enact our conservative principles. This election is important to salvage a once-great political party from the grip of extremism and shake it back to its senses. It’s time to give not just Republicans but independents, and, yes, good Democrats a chance to call a halt to the leftward lurch of the once-proud party of working people.
So in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual. I am asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party—the millions of Democrats who haven’t left the Democratic party so much as their party’s national leadership has left them.
Good stuff - and, as noted at NRO, very Reaganesque in style and tone. While I haven’t settled on a candidate for the primaries, this is the sort of attitude I’m looking for - its the sort of attitude which long ago made me determine that Joe Lieberman would be the ideal VP candidate for whomever the GOP nominates next year. There is, indeed, a very deep divide in the American electorate - but we won’t eliminate it by shaking hands with those who stand against everything America stands for. In Thompson’s words, the “NEA-MoveOn.org-ACLU-Michael Moore Democrats” simply don’t want an America which is recognizable to most Americans - but they are in control of one of the two major political parties of the United States, and only by crushing them politically will be able to restore reasonableness to our political system.
A political coalition which would include such people as atheist/socialist Christopher Hitchens and Christian conservative James Dobson is not a coalition which will have a long lifespan - but if the Hitchens’ and Dobsons of this world want to have the civilization they love 20 years from now, they’d better darn well band together. We are under internal and external attack - the Islamists want us to convert to Islamo-fascism; the liberal/left wants us to become like Sweden. Do we want to remain America? Then we’d better fight for it - and bury the hatchet amongst all men and women of good will.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans
62 Comments
1. liberalT | December 30th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
What is it with Republicans and electing actors? I don’t like to generalize - but it makes me wonder about what the important qualities are for Republicans. Lets see an actor
(1) makes nice speeches that are written for him on subjects he doesn’t understand - so do Republican candidates
(2) generally are poorly educated - so are many Republican candidates
(3) are part of the rich elite that don’t understand the plight of the common person -thats the same as Republican candidates.
(4) are typically fairly attractive physically but don’t have much going on upstairs - same as many Republican candidates
(5) are paid by corporations to sell things to the American public for profit and not for the best interest of Americans - just like Republican candidates…
Oh wait! It makes perfect sense. My vote is for ALF for the Republican nomination - literally a talking corporate puppet.
2. Mark Noonan | December 30th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Ah, LiberalT, you are so entirely conventional - so two-dimensional in your liberal thinking that one can predict with certainty what you’ll say on any subject.
If only you would bestir yourself to find out just who runs America’s largest corporations and, by and large, who they hang out with…
3. liberalT | December 30th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
only to be outdone by Mark Noonan - who never says anything of any substance on any subject.
You are seriously arguing that the majority of corporations in America are run by liberals. Care to prove it blockhead?
4. Ricorun | December 30th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Mark: If only you would bestir yourself to find out just who runs America’s largest corporations and, by and large, who they hang out with…
I for one don’t know. It sounds like you do though. So please tell us — don’t keep us in suspense (it would help if you document what you say so we could check it out). But I would assume that if they hang out with the Dems, the GOP is in some very deep poop. I mean really, if the captains of industry have deserted the GOP, what else does the GOP have going for it?
5. Diana Powe | December 30th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
As Fred Thompson has as much likelihood of becoming President as I do, he has apparently decided to become a concern troll. That is pretty sad, even for Fred Thompson. Of course, the question is this, “Is he being just a concern troll or does he truly believe this nonsense and is being a concern troll as a result?”
Another of the core beliefs in the conservative mythos is just as Fred Thompson states it here - The Democratic party leadership is being led around by “radicals”. Of course, if Fred had bothered to read any of the things coming from these organizations he would find that the number one complaint is this:
The Democratic leadership is doing almost literally nothing to impede the President from doing anything he wants and getting anything he wants from Congress.
The perfect example of that is the recent vote on the FISA bill that includes giving telecom companies an unprecedented retroactive legal immunity from the currently pending civil actions over their assistance with the Administration’s so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program. Senator Chris Dodd publicly placed a “hold” on the bill. Senatorial holds have no legal effect, but have, throughout the history of the United States Senate, been honored by the majority leader. However, Senator Reid refused to honor the hold and that action led to Dodd’s filibuster and Reid ultimately delaying a vote on the bill until next month.
Sen. Reid refused to honor the hold of a senator of his own party who has served for 24 years while, at the very same time, honoring a hold by Republican Senator Tom Coburn on a bill over funding for the Washington D.C. Metro. Now what radical organization was being served by that? A Democratic majority leader ignores the attempted exercise of a cherished tradition of the Senate by a senator of his own party to the benefit of the White House and the telecom industry while, at the same time, allowing a Republican senator to exercise that same tradition and we’re supposed to believe that he’s in the grip of the ACLU?
There have been numerous threatened filibusters by Republican members of the Senate over legislation since they lost control last year. In fact, they have already set a new Senate record. However, Sen. Reid has never forced any of these threatened filibusters to take place, thereby putting the Republicans in the position of being seen blocking things like Iraq funding, but instead routinely backs down when he knows the cloture vote won’t make it. Which radical organization is served by that?
The blunt truth is that the Washington establishment - Democrats, Republicans, lobbyists and corporate media - all generally agree that centrism is what should be sought with a major tenet of centrism being our fundamental right to militarily intervene anywhere in the world for any reason we choose to justify it with. That’s why the Democrats haven’t used their power of the purse to put a limit to the duration of our presence in Iraq. That’s why they haven’t voted to hold White House officials they’ve subpoenaed in inherent contempt and jail them when they’ve refused to appear. That’s why they haven’t actually repealed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. They could do these things if they actually were under the sway of Moveon.org, et al. However, they’re not. They say what they say about wanting to bring the troops home, about checking President Bush’s executive overreach, but in their hearts they don’t believe any of it and so they don’t vote that way.
The concern troll-ery of Fred Thompson is just another attempt to provide cover for the majority of the Democratic establishment who have no genuine desire to rock the current Constitutional boat.
6. Diana Powe | December 30th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
The Democratic Party of 2007 is absolutely and desperately in need of many more of this former Texas representative.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm
7. Ricorun | December 30th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Mark: …the liberal/left wants us to become like Sweden.
Come on now, you could have come up with a better bogey man than Sweden. Or perhaps I should say you could have come up with a worse bogey man than Sweden. Last time I checked, Sweden was doing rather well on most measures.
8. Mark Noonan | December 30th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
LiberalT and Ricorun,
This is what really flabbergasts me about you on the left - how little you know of the way things really work. It was more than a century ago that Chesterton was noting that the rich businessmen and social aristocrats were hip deep in liberal and “progressive” causes…because only the rich can afford the sort of social innovation and moral revolutions the liberal/left advocates. They’ve got the money to pay for it, and pay for cleaning up their mess…its the poor and middle class who want to cling to the tried and true, because they can’t afford revolution except at most extreme need. Do you think a poor farmer in Arkansas led the way to sexual revoluiton? Nope - it was rich guys with too much money and too much time on their hands.
At any rate, I’m not about to go through the entire ranks of the rich - but I will provide a few examples:
Warren Buffett: $37,000 to Democrats since 2004, $4,000 to Republicans. And this doesn’t count his family members who also are very generous to Democrats.
George Soros: $244,000 (minimum) to Democrats since 2004, $0 to Republicans. And, once again, this doesn’t count family members also donating to Democrats.
Rockefeller Family: $177,000 (minimum) to Demcorats since 2004, $51,000 to Republicans - and a huge percentage of that to the GOP was to Lincoln Chaffee…who’s no longer a Republican.
Greenspun Family (big here in Nevada): $200,000 (minimum) to Democrats since 2004, $4,000 to Republicans (or, more accurately, Republican - John Ensign).
On and on it goes - you should bear in mind that these rich folk who inherit money go to the same colleges as the liberal/left Democratic politicians. They become friends; they share the same worldview - the poor and the middle class? Well, some of the poor back the Democrats - mostly those who are welfare dependent. Some of the middle class do, as well - mostly those who belong to public sector unions. Regular folks who work in the private sector? Republicans, my friends, Republicans…
9. Mark Noonan | December 31st, 2007 at 12:03 am
Diana,
A bit off topic, don’t you think?
10. Mark Noonan | December 31st, 2007 at 12:23 am
Ricorun,
Sweden? Ah, the place of high suicide rates, birth rate below replacement level and more people over 65 than under 14? Yep, doin’ a great job, there…
11. dickdee | December 31st, 2007 at 12:30 am
Likely off the meds. Liberalism is a mental disease…took her only 11 minutes to post something even more irrelevent and then went to bed. Dreams of Algore i’m sure.
12. Dressnef.Com » Fred&hellip | December 31st, 2007 at 12:39 am
[…] wrote an interesting post today on Fred Thompson Makes His CaseHere’s a quick […]
13. liberalT | December 31st, 2007 at 1:21 am
mark - providing a few examples of a few people who are democrats hardly proves the point that “all rich and powerful people are democrats” or whatever you would like to believe.
I am shocked that you routinely tell us that “we don’t know how the world works” or that “we are so blind”, etc etc. but you never can prove your points. Most of the time you won’t even try to refute the various points and arguments that are raised only using the beautifully stupid and superficial argument that “i don’t need to say anything because everything you say is stupid argument”. Today you do much the same trying to persuade us that if you can find three rich people that are democrats or more liberal than conservative that this somehow proves some over arching conspiracy of the elite against good honest conservative people.
Give us a (expletive deleted) break Mark Noonan. Give us proof of even 1/10 of the constant claims that you spew with such vitriol. Take the time to respond to the enumerated points laid out for you over and over again - not simply saying such mind numbingly stupid things as “thats a talking point” or “thats off topic” or “thats doesn’t work out” or my personal favorite “my dad tells me that is impossible. Perhaps then we won’t have to kick you left right and center so easily. I guess the fact that you don’t proves the point that you almost certainly can not.
14. Mark Noonan | December 31st, 2007 at 1:26 am
LiberalT,
I suggest you take your comments elsewhere for a while - you’re just getting entirely too rude and unwilling to engage in the topic at hand. You’re a fairly clever youngster, and you have a bright future - but if you can’t behave in a reasonable manner and at least make a stab at staying on topic, then you’re not contributing in a positive manner.
15. Mark Noonan | December 31st, 2007 at 1:31 am
dickdee,
I’m beginning to wonder if we’re not starting to see what we saw a bit of in 2004 - “seminar commenters” who get their talking points from the DNC, MoveOn or what have you and then go on conservative blogs to post the talking points regardless of topic. There is a growing mindlessness in a lot of our liberal/lefty comments…fortunately, we do have Ricorun and a few others to keep things actually interesting.
16. liberalT | December 31st, 2007 at 1:44 am
To be honest Mark - you have let people on this blog call me (among other things) ” a failed abortion”, a homosexual, and other things I will not repeat. Really - I don’t see what you have to complain about because you have the authority to edit and even kick them off if you wished. I complained about this repeatedly - which you ignored - so i figured a bit of harmless jabbing was fine. Really - anything I have ever said is nothing compared to what keefer puts out on a daily (hourly) basis.
As well - you have called me stupid many many times. I guess I am just better at insulting really ..
None the less - I apologize - just because you are a hypocrite doesn’t mean that I should digress to that level…
17. Nick B | December 31st, 2007 at 1:58 am
Agree with you 100% Mark. I’m still undecided as well on who my candidate of choice is.
But, the more I see from Thompson, the more I like. As Peter Robinson pointed out in the NRO article, don’t count him out. But. unfortunately, I think it might be too little, too late.
18. Ricorun | December 31st, 2007 at 3:22 am
Mark: LiberalT and Ricorun, This is what really flabbergasts me about you on the left - how little you know of the way things really work. It was more than a century ago that Chesterton was noting that the rich businessmen and social aristocrats were hip deep in liberal and “progressive” causes…
First of all, I don’t much like being lumped into any group with LiberalT. I don’t agree with much of anything he/she says.
Independent of that, am I to conclude that, on the basis of what some guy said more than a century ago about the rich businessmen and social aristocrats at the time were hip deep in liberal and “progressive” causes we should believe they remain that way now? You do realize that “progressive” a century ago meant something quite different than it does now, right?
Anyway, the question remains… what in your view ARE the current constituencies of the GOP? Apparently we’ve lost the rich folks, the poor folks, the black folks, the brown folks, the women folk, the young folks, the gay folks, and the atheists… what’s left?
I’m half kidding — but only half.
19. Huck Fillary | December 31st, 2007 at 4:43 am
Mark, come on–haven’t you tolerated this idiot long enough? He’s accused you, time and again, of no substance, and called you names incessantly. Please, ban him. I’m sick of his tripe and baseless posts, poorly-written and redundant.
As a minimum, could you suspend him for January? Please consider this, because you’ve lost a lot of your “base” because of whom you allow to post here. And I’m not saying you should ban all trolls–folks such as Diana, extramedium, and yes, even Rana, add to the debate, for the most part, and don’t result to insulting the writers of this blog.
I remember the good old days, when we outnumbered them here. Some of your best contributors have left for good–is your “attack dog” gonna follow them?
20. phnx | December 31st, 2007 at 6:48 am
“just because you are a hypocrite doesn’t mean that I should digress to that level” liberalT
Even your malapropisms have become tedious.
21. Retired Spook | December 31st, 2007 at 7:38 am
Mark,
A while back you mentioned the possibility of a brokered convention, possibly even in both parties. I see that as probably the only way Fred is going to get the nomination. It will not surprise me in the least to see Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani take turns beating each other up during the early primaries with Thompson and McCain lurking just out of third place. I will be very surprised if there is a clear-cut winner by the time the convention rolls around.
To me, Fred often comes across as the only adult in a room full of children. And what’s not to like about a guy who’s middle name is Dalton.
22. steveGA | December 31st, 2007 at 7:59 am
Fred Thompson in particular and the Republican Party in general is in no position to call for bipartisanship or national unity. At the height of your party’s post-9/11 power, you routinely demonized Democrats and did everything possible to exclude them from the governing process. Even today, you personally cannot stop yourself from demonizing liberalism, even as you weakly cry for some form of bipartisanship. Fred Thompson’s offer, and your agreement with his offer, are not made in good faith.
Now, with your party in shambles, your ‘principles’ long-since abandoned, and your public support completely eroded, you are calling for bipartisanship? F*ck you. You made your bed, now sleep in it. Democrats won big in 2006, and will win bigger in 2008, because our principles are America’s principles. We will win on a liberal platform and we will govern from a liberal platform.
If you truly want to enact conservative principles (whatever they are, you seem to change them every day), perhaps you should spend less time feigning concern for Democrats and more time trying to fix your bloated, corrupt, directionless Republican Party.
23. Retired Spook | December 31st, 2007 at 8:35 am
Fred Thompson in particular and the Republican Party in general is in no position to call for bipartisanship or national unity.
And the party of the Jackass is? That’s rich. Perhaps Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can be your spokespeople.
you routinely demonized Democrats
Well, they are pretty easy targets.
and did everything possible to exclude them from the governing process.
And Mark did this how?
your ‘principles’ long-since abandoned
A few at the national level may have abandoned “my” principles, but most at the grass roots level have not.
Democrats won big in 2006
No they didn’t — that’s a bald-faced lie. The pick up of seats by the Donks in the House and Senate were right in line with the historical average for the party not in control of the WH in the mid-term election of all 2-term Presidents since Eisenhower.
and will win bigger in 2008, because our principles are America’s principles.
And, pray tell, what would those principles be?
We will win on a liberal platform
That would be a first. I have two words: George McGovern.
and we will govern from a liberal platform.
That’s what scares the daylights out of me and most average Americans. (and why you won’t get the chance).
F*ck you.
I would have expected no less from you, Steve. You should run for office.
24. js | December 31st, 2007 at 9:05 am
liberalT | December 30th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/
Tell us how suave and sophisticated you are, yet you have no clue about reality…..what a putz that would make you, eh?
25. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 9:16 am
steveGA,
Once again we need to remind a liberal about reality. Bush has routinely reached across the aisle to craft bi-partisan legislation; NCLB and Homeland Security being just two huge examples. And at each and every turn the Democrats have turned around and lambasted Bush over everything while GWB has taken the high road each and every time. The Dems are juvenile and shameful.
I am beginning to like Fred more and more and this recent turn of events makes me even more likely to vote for him. Brilliant strategy. Publicly call out these idiot liberals, like steveGA, for what they are. Expose them, capture independents and win.
26. Retired Spook | December 31st, 2007 at 9:25 am
I’ve always liked Fred, even before he officially announced, although, as I said in a previous thread, I was immensely disappointed in the 2 or 3 weeks after he officially entered the race. But, as I analyze what happened during that time, it was clear the the press seized on a couple lackluster speeches to paint his candidacy in a negative light (and kept on doing it).
I suspect that what’s going to happen is the more the front-runners beat up on each other, the better Fred is going to look.
27. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 9:36 am
Spook,
Remember Reagan was in the middle of the pack and not getting much traction at this point in his campaign as well. Not saying Thompson is a Reagan, but I am starting to really like his no bullshit, call a spade-a-spade campaign.
I can hear him now in the general election debate against the Dem candidate; “well there you go again…”
28. Retired Spook | December 31st, 2007 at 10:01 am
but I am starting to really like his no bullshit, call a spade-a-spade campaign.
It is kind of refreshing, isn’t it?. Each of the other candidates either displays a certain amount of phoniness or has said and/or done something with which I totally disagree. McCain is a prime example. Although I agree with him on a number of issues, his stance on immigration, tax cuts and his co-sponsorship of CFR just completely disqualify him IMO. In all fairness, he did reverse himself on immigration, but only after seeing how much opposition there was to his ideas.
Not saying Thompson is a Reagan
I’m not sure there will ever be another Ronald Reagan
29. steveGA | December 31st, 2007 at 10:12 am
Neocon,
Yes, NCLB was a bipartisan effort. This was done pre-9/11 in the months after Bush lost the popular election but won the electoral election by ONE Supreme Court justice vote. Thus, at the time of NCLB Bush was in an extremely weak position. Your example here only validates my point: Republicans are only interested in bipartisanship when they are weak.
Homeland Security was created after 9/11, and is evidence of Republican ‘bipartisanship’ when they are strong. While Democrats supported Homeland Security legislation, they were vilified by Republicans in the 2002 elections for having concerns over minor portions of the legislation. The most egregious example of this vilification was in my home state of GA. Democratic Senate incumbent Max Cleland was compared to Saddam and Osama for his doubts about the legislation. (To remind you, Max Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam while his opponent, Saxby Chambliss, sat out the war because of a ‘football injury’.) Again, your example proves my point: Republicans have no real interest in bipartisanship and only use it as a tool to push their agenda.
Sorry, neocon, that my idiot liberal mind can so easily destroy your arguments.
30. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 10:20 am
Max blew himself up in Vietnam, because he’s an idiot. Maybe stupid people shouldn’t be sent to fight, I guess that would exclude all liberals. Specifically John Kerry.
And you hardly destroyed my argument (LMAO) having just agreed to the facts I laid out.
And incidentally, your Democratic Congress recently extended every bit of the Homeland Security bill.
31. Joe | December 31st, 2007 at 11:34 am
neocon: “Max blew himself up in Vietnam, because he’s an idiot…”
You are disgusting. I’ve heard some dumbass crap from you that I just assume is your stupidity. I usually just try to bring up counter-points, but that is just a disgusting comment.
Way to support those that fought. Jackass.
Mark, you allow this? I can’t even believe that comment wasn’t deleted and this jerk banned or suspended!
32. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 11:40 am
Oh Joey,
Facts suck don’t they?
33. Joe | December 31st, 2007 at 11:42 am
Your stupidity and hatred is what sucks.
I can’t even believe you be be that disgusting to even say that.
To say that someone BLEW HIMSELF UP BECAUSE HE IS AN IDIOT???
F*ck you you jackass.
34. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 11:45 am
Uh oh, an angry liberal. Hide the Christians.
35. steveGA | December 31st, 2007 at 11:51 am
Neocon, I’ll spell this out for you real simply so maybe you can understand.
NCLB is an example of Republican’s desire for bipartisanship when they are politically weak.
Homeland Security is an example of Republican’s use of bipartisanship as a political tool to further their goals when they are strong.
Simply because I agreed that NCLB and Homeland Security legislation happened doesn’t mean I agree that Republicans have practiced bipartisanship. Since neither of your examples represent true bipartisanship, I really have destroyed your argument. This really isn’t that hard to understand…
By the way, thank you for clarifying for me the appropriate attitude to our nation’s wounded veterans. Before your comments, I used to look at wounded veterans with respect, admiration, and awe. That was just me being an America-hating liberal, I guess. Now I know that the true America-loving response is to call these heroes stupid. Thanks for clarifying.
36. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Just like liberal, bestowing respect where none is earned. Much like the fawning over China and Chavez.
Cleland unfortunately lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He then has the audacity, while back home to denigrate the service of others, specifically the Swift Boaters. Hence: idiot. And there still is that million dollar reward for anyone who can factually refute the swift boaters claims.
And I think Kerry’s idiot dalliances are well documented.
37. Tractatus | December 31st, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Max blew himself up in Vietnam, because he’s an idiot. Maybe stupid people shouldn’t be sent to fight, I guess that would exclude all liberals.
Boy, neocon really hates the troops.
Love that Mark’s list of evil, evil rich people doesn’t include Richard Mellon Scaife, any of the several Wal-Mart heirs, those fine folks at Enron (Kenny Boy!), etc. Then again, he actually believes his up-is-down view that the GOP is for the little people while Democrats only care about the filthy rich.
Fred Thompson’s concern-trollage is pretty funny, though.
38. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
steveGA,
So when Bush crafts legislation with the help of Democrats, that’s not bi-partisanship. “True” bi-partisanship is when liberals win, according to stevie, right stevie?
I just completely and effortlessly destroyed your argument.
39. Joe | December 31st, 2007 at 12:12 pm
neojerk… when did Bush craft legislation that helped Democrats? And why do you believe Bush “crafts legislation”????
And Bush’s version of compromise is his way or he will issue a veto.
40. rubbersoul | December 31st, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Wow, I can see the Drudge (or maybe the Onion)headline already….
SHOCKER - BLOGGER COMMENTATOR SAYS TROOP WHO GOT BLOWN UP AN ‘IDIOT’!
Thank you for speaking from your heart, neocon.
God Bless America!
41. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Joey,
Legislation should help Americans, not Democrats.
And are you saying that the President should have limited veto powers? Why do you hate the constitution?
42. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Wow, I have seen the following headline now too many times:
NOT A SHOCKER: LIBERALS CALL PRESIDENT OF THE US A WAR CRIMINAL.
I typically lose respect for people that, while drinking, pick up hand grenades endangering their fellow soldiers and then return home to denigrate the service of others. But maybe that’s just me.
43. Joe | December 31st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
jerkoff…
you said “So when Bush crafts legislation with the help of Democrats, that’s not bi-partisanship.”
I asked when did Bush craft anything to help Democrats.
I also asked why you think Bush crafts any legislation at all. That ain’t his job.
Answer the question.
I never said anything about limited veto powers either. I said that is what he uses as compromise. Compromise is supposed to be each side giving a bit to find a consensus. Bush doesn’t EVER do that.
44. Joe | December 31st, 2007 at 12:27 pm
neojerk:
I typically lose respect for people that, while drinking, pick up hand grenades endangering their fellow soldiers
He wasn’t drunk when he did that you f-ing loser. Read if you know how to and get the story straight.
If you want to claim that all liberals call Bush a war criminal, then I guess it is perfectly ok for me to assume that ALL Conservatives think that Cleland was an “idiot” and “blew himself up”.
You are such a jackass.
45. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Oh Joey,
If you knew much of anything you would know the number of times Bush brought in leading Democrats on issues. I don’t have the time or patience to inform the uninformed. But a few minutes on google might bring some light into your dark partisan world.
I think everyone knows that Cleland was responsible for his own unfortunate predicament. Except maybe for uninformed liberals, of course that’s the majority of them.
46. Joe | December 31st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
newoass: I typically lose respect for people that, while drinking, pick up hand grenades endangering their fellow soldiers
Here you go jerkoff:
Or maybe this…
47. Joe | December 31st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
“…the number of times Bush brought in leading Democrats on issues.”
Who? Joe Leiberman?
I don’t have the time or patience to inform the uninformed.
Then how do you deal with yourself on a daily basis.
Great debating skills tho… “I don’t have time for you”. Good one.
Guess you can’t handle someone calling you out.
48. Diana Powe | December 31st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
If Max Cleland were a Republican no one would have ever started the rumors that allow for this:
However, it’s always permissible to attack the military service of Democrats who placed themselves in harm’s way in Vietnam (by volunteering in writing, in the case of Senator Kerry) if you’re a Republican because your party’s standard bearers both went out of their way to avoid such service. Vile is the correct word for that conduct.
Unsurprisingly, it was more important for Fred Thompson (future actor who got to dress up occasionally in military officer’s uniforms) to go to law school when others were in Vietnam.
49. Almiranta | December 31st, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Mark, Diana the Red was only off-topic if you fail to understand that her ONLY topic is the dissemination of radical Leftist propraganda.
She might be too smart to believe the content of her screed (Post #5) but it is possible that she truly has missed the point so thoroughly that she has bought into this mishmash of half-truths, semi-truths, and prattle.
Starting with a coy effort to brand Thompson with something she and her minders evidently think will be a telling comment, she calls Thompson a “concern troll”. Meaningless, but it will definitely play with the Ranty Rhodes sneer-and-snicker crowd. Tee-hee.
Then she tries to prove that the Democrat Party is NOT controlled by the radical Left, feebly offering up the fact that the Democrat Congress has been impotent. Now, THIS is a gem of misdirection.
Diana, if you were on this blog during the ‘06 election you would have seen article after article and post after post predicting that the Democrat Congress would be impotent, for the very reason that they were elected by running as being more conservative than the Republicans but that they would then be between, as someone said, “Iraq and a hard place” as if they were to LEGISLATE in a way that would toady to the radical Left they would have absolutely no chance of reelection, but if they were to vote responsibily they would alienate the growing power base of the Loony Left.
If the radical Left were NOT such a factor in the party, the newly elected Democrat Congress would have been free to legislate as they campaigned. But they were stuck in the middle, trying to placate the radicals while fearing alienating the reasonable arm of the party, and all they could do was spin their wheels while Reid and Pelosi postured and tried to keep the radicals happy with their rhetoric and name-calling.
(Unless you really BELEVE the job of the Congress of the United States of America is to “investigate” private citizens and try to impinge on their First Amendment rights, as well as to intimidate their employers into firing them. Boy, talk about giving the radical Left a freebie!)
Thompson addressed this dilemma and he is right.
The most vocal wing of the Dems is the radical Left, and the failure of moderate Dems to stand up to them, contradict them, take them on, has given them (that is to say, YOU…) the impression that you have a lot more power than you really have. But you still have a lot—enough to intimidate Dems, to make them try to straddle the chasm between responsible government and radical Leftist dogma.
LiberalT seems to think that sniping about being an “actor” is harsh criticism. This from someone whose party is seriously considering electing a local politico who has been in national politics for only two years and spent one of those years campaigning for the presidency instead of learning about government.
Being successful in more than one arena can be considered a negative only by a party trying to elect from a roster that includes so many who have never been successful in even one.
And I would like to call attention to the fact that the radicals are so frantic they are even trying to resurrect the old “chicken hawk” meme—delicately, as their favorites have never served and therefore qualify as same, according to the standards they themselves established back when they had a bona fide hero to hold up. So they have to drag in slurs against people who are not even running, trying to generate some more of that hysterical irrelevant hatred that is such a staple of their movement.
Diana the Red, you are trying to elect, among others, a woman who has bragged about “loathing the military” and whose participation in national govenment included the banning military uniforms from the White House—unless she is going to claim that she tried to talk Bill out of telling the Joint Chiefs that they had to wear civilian dress when they came to the seat of their own government.
And then there is the yahoo who wouldn’t even show respect for the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance.
But you are going to snipe about a married college student with two children taking his draft deferment (due to him on all three counts) or a man who undertook the dangerous job of flying supersonic jet fighters for a legitmate and respected branch or our military, served with honor and distinction, and who DID volunteer for duty in Viet Nam.
Guess that timing issue makes him less desireable as a Commander in Chief than lying under oath to Congress about alleged atrocities committed by American military men and women, or illegally sneaking off to consort with the enemy while still an active duty Naval officer, or writing a book with a cover showing, among other things, a parody of the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima with the beloved Commie image of the American flag upside down.
You Reds have the goofiest (and most flexible) “standards” of anyone I have ever heard of.
50. Ricorun | December 31st, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Mark: fortunately, we do have Ricorun and a few others to keep things actually interesting.
Awwww… I feel almost loved. Anyway, Happy New Year to all! See you next year.
51. Faceplant | December 31st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
“I don’t have the time or patience to inform the uninformed. ”
In other words, you really don’t know the answer to your own question.
“I think everyone knows that Cleland was responsible for his own unfortunate predicament. Except maybe for uninformed liberals, of course that’s the majority of them.”
So the soldiers who were killed in automobile accidents in Iraq subject to ridicule? I mean after all they didn’t really die in combat, so they really aren’t heroes right?
Your logic here is so twisted it’s bordering on completely inhuman. That Max Cleland is somehow an object of ridicule because he lost all of his limbs in a combat accident, rather than getting shot by the enemy is such a dispicable assertion that it’s hard to fathom how anyone could think that way.
It’s pretty telling that none of the supposed pro-military Republicans on this blog bothered to call neocon out on this. One can only conclude that most of you endorse this view of Max Cleland. It’s ironic that those who ridicule Cleland the most, undoubtably have never seen a day of combat.
I hope you are all proud of yourselves. This is what the Republican party has become. John Kerry makes a botched joke and gets clobbered by every Republican in sight, and someone like Neocon ridicules a amputee combat veteran, and everyone is oddly silent.
52. neocon | January 1st, 2008 at 9:27 am
Plant,
I have zero respect for, and ridiculed Cleland because he used his military experience for political points while denigrating and questioning the service of others. He has no integrity, no class and should be ashamed of himself.
This pale in comparison to the accusations and ridicule aimed at Bush and the Swift Boaters.
So you’re indignation is a bit disengenous.
53. neocon | January 1st, 2008 at 11:02 am
And furthermore Plant, the following is from the NYT. But God forbid anyone should ever criticize Max Cleland.
In the years since 9/11, we have seen American soldiers abuse, sexually humiliate, torment and murder prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few have been punished, but their leaders have never been called to account. We have seen mercenaries gun down Iraqi civilians with no fear of prosecution. We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant. - NYT
54. Huck Fillary | January 1st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
None the less - I apologize - just because you are a hypocrite doesn’t mean that I should digress to that level…
So, you apologize, and then follow up by calling him a hypocrite? And btw, since your mind can’t retain much, let me repeat: I have been given limitied poetic license, by Mark, as the blog’s “attack dog.” I don’t engage in debate with you puke trolls because I don’t suffer fools gladly, and it’s a waste of time trying to reason with brain-dead parrots. None of you–Tracktatertot, CO, Canuckgay, SteveGAY, et.al.–possess the mental capacity to keep up with me in a real debate about the issues, since you have no issues except Bush-hatred, and undying allegiance to radical leftism.
I only hope you slip up, libretardTHC, having been given a veiled warning by Mark. I’m tired of you being here, and if I had more power, other than that of attack dog, you’d have been banned long ago, if for nothing else, your third-grade writing skills.
But let me apologize for calling you a failed abortion. That’s rater harsh, and unbecoming of me. Maybe you’re a miscarriage survivor, or better yet, a failed late-term abortion. Maybe they sucked out your brains, and you survived. That would explain your twisted rhetoric and your infantile writing skills.
Happy New Year, nonetheless. Yes, it’s one word…
55. FmrMarine | January 1st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
ALMIR;
Dont you know diane is a CARD carrying member of the GLT radical marxist group.
She is also a DOUBLE AA ex-cop.
Nothing she or the other disruptor’s post here is worth spit.
56. Faceplant | January 1st, 2008 at 8:54 pm
“I have zero respect for, and ridiculed Cleland because he used his military experience for political points while denigrating and questioning the service of others. He has no integrity, no class and should be ashamed of himself.”
So what are some examples of Cleland denigrating the service of others?
And let’s play a little game here.
“In the years since 9/11, we have seen American soldiers abuse, sexually humiliate, torment and murder prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1225108,00.html
“One case cited detailed a prisoner who was in the custody of US navy commandos in Iraq last month, and whose death the document attributed “blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia”. It described the death as a suspected “homicide”, or murder.”
All of this stuff is documented to have happened.
“A few have been punished, but their leaders have never been called to account.”
This is also true. Almost every lower ranking soldier that has been chared claims they were following orders.
“We have seen mercenaries gun down Iraqi civilians with no fear of prosecution. ”
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/04/blackwater.contractor/index.html
“A Blackwater USA employee who was fired after he allegedly shot and killed an Iraqi security guard on Christmas Eve last year was hired by another private contractor to work in the region less than two months later.”
Hey look at that! That’s also true.
“We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant.”
Last time I checked the President admitted to doing this, claiming that he had the authority. So this is also true.
So remind me now, what exactly the problem is with this opinion peice you cited. Your mad because what they said is true?
57. Faceplant | January 1st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
“as if they were to LEGISLATE in a way that would toady to the radical Left they would have absolutely no chance of reelection,”
This is just such a ridiculous assertion. You really are claiming that the Democrats would be thrown out of office for ending a war that the majority of Americans want to end. Forgive me if I don’t follow your logic.
Not to mention for all this talk of the “radical left” poll, after poll shows that the majority of Americans trust Democrats more on almost every key issue. And that includes terrorism, the war on Iraq, the economy, and healthcare.
Also what qualifies someone as a member of the “radical left”. It can’t be opposing the Iraq war, as the majority of Americans now oppose the Iraq war. It can’t be advocating for universal healthcare, as the VAST majority of Americans like the idea of Goverment funded healthcare. It can’t be opposing “enhanced interrogations” as the majority of Americans believe that torture is either rarely, or never justified.
So what makes someone a “radical lefty”. I’d love to know. Because it seems to me that the only thing that earns someone the label of “radical leftist” is simply disagreeing with a Republican.
58. Huck Fillary | January 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 am
FmrMarine, that’s the truest statement anyone’s made in this thread so far. Semper Fi from a former “Zoomie…”
59. Jim | January 2nd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Fred Thompson is the best candidate for 2008 by such a great magnitude that I’m surprised other Republicans are getting any attention. A senior Congressman and a true conservative is what we want and what we need.
60. Diana Powe | January 2nd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Fred Thompson will get what I suspect was his Christmas wish soon enough - to have a bad enough showing that he can justify dropping out of a race that he never cared anything about.
61. Faceplant | January 2nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
“FmrMarine, that’s the truest statement anyone’s made in this thread so far.”
Yet neither, you nor FmrMarine have even tried to respond to the points I was making. Wonder why that is?
62. Faceplant | January 2nd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
“A senior Congressman and a true conservative is what we want and what we need.”
Whether he’s what we need is up to your own personal opinion. What we want?
Well according to the latest PEW Research poll at leats 9% of you guys want him.
So that’s…. something?