Can a Democrat beat Fred Thompson in a general election?

[Ninja Jordan]

This is a salient question.


Dem vs. McCain and Dem vs. Giulini is managable...Giuliani has 3 wives, dresses in women's clothing, and used 9/11 body parts to fill NYC potholes....McCain's face is plastered all over the Iraq failure, he's senile, doesn't think condoms help prevent STDs, and he has an affinity for 'passionate females.'

But what about ol' Freddy Thompson? He's a big, tall good old boy without the taint of Iraq. He comes off as competent but not pedantic. He can relate to the common folks and his attributes make him appealing to the evangelical types. He could be the Reagannesque shell that the GOP loves to use as a tool to further their repressive policies.

I simply cannot see Hillary Clinton beating Fred Thompson in a GE, based on what I've seen. Thompson's status as a movie actor and his perception as a sort of 'non-politician' would win him more middle voters. As well as the notion that he's this sort of genuine, but competent, 'everyman.'

What about Obama or Edwards? I tend to think Edwards would have the best change at negating Thompson's strengths.

[montanacowboy]

1. Ole Fred T will be hard to beat

the only two I can see beating the shit out of him are two that are Not RUNNING!

ONE IS AL GORE AND THE OTHER IS BILL BRADLEY

If the pukes run Thompson we will probably be in trouble

[Ninja Jordan]

2. Edwards would be the best candidate against Thompson IMO

as would Gore (but Gore isn't running).

[barb162]

121. I think Edwards is going to drop out when his wife gets

really sick. I hate to say that, because I have the highest respect for them both.

[AshevilleGuy]

122. I really don't think he would.

And here I want to say, IF it happens that she gets really sick. These are both very tough individuals, and I suspect that for now they have decided that whatever comes they are in the race to win, for the reasons they spelled out in that famous news conference last week. It might play out like some classic tragedy, but I think they mean this for keeps.

My immediate concern for their campaign is that they might run out of money in this elongated campaign season. Hillary can win this by attrition; her funds will never run out, but the others can't match that.

[Rhiannon12866]

171. I agree with you, but it doesn't sound good.

She's one brave lady and I admire them both. BTW, I take it that you're from Asheville, LOL. My grandmother retired to Black Mountain, so I've spent a lot of time there. Beautiful country..:hi:

[Rhiannon12866]

168. That's crossed my mind, as well.

And it's a shame, because he's really been stepping up to the plate and speaking out. I could support him quite easily, and feel good about doing it. And she's a real class act, such a shame...;(

[barb162]

242. Yeah, he is/was probably my favorite and I like them as a couple too

an awful lot. I hope she stays healthy a long time. But that chemo can knock a person for a loop....

[Clark2008]

185. I think no one will want to vote for a president who's preoccupied

(and rightfully so) with his dying wife.

And, I have respect for her, but him... eh... I don't like very much, but it has nothing to do with this issue.

[Canuckistanian]

69. Bill Bradley? 'Scuse me?

I have vague memories of the name. But Bradley as a GOP killer?

Gie yer head a shake, man.

[Ninja Jordan]

101. I know, weird.

Some people around here have zero political sense. Bill Bradley? wtf

[pnwmom]

72. I doubt that Thompson has a lock on the women's vote. Yuk.

Yuk, yuk, yuk.

[karynnj]

160. I saw Bill Bradley today in Mendham NJ at a booksigning

I was for him in 2000, but he was not that great as a campaigner. I assume that there are many Democrats who can beat Thompson.

[brg5001]

257. Fred T was in for Paul Harvey last week, making smarmy right-wing comments

I heard him subbing for Paul Harvey. Same right-wing BS, with a folksy manner, impugning Democrats for not supporting freedom and democracy in Iraq. He can stick it where the moon don't shine.

[Adelante]

3. This guy is strong

I don't see any of the top three beating him in the GE.

[pnwmom]

73. He's some two-bit TV actor. What is his strength?

I bet if I polled the people on my street, most people would have no idea who he is.

[IsItJustMe]

153. I never heard of him, but who am I. eom

[SteppingRazor]

4. I think either Obama or Edwards can beat Fred.

I think a lot of the Fred votes up to this point have been because of name recognition. If he got the GOP nomination and one of our Dems went up against him, it'd be a different story than it is now.

[Canuckistanian]

70. Obama, no.

Edwards, no contest.

[pnwmom]

74. Are you kidding? Either Obama or Edwards could beat him.

As long as the voting machines were working.

[Canuckistanian]

87. When you put it that way, I agree

Paper ballots and clean voter lists would be a no-brainer for Obama.

But, given the continuing "difficulties" in minority voting and still-active 'cage lists', I'd still stand by that statement.

[pnwmom]

95. Any Republican could win if the vote is fixed. That needs to be top priority.

I would gladly support any Democrat in the field -- but we have to have a fair ballot to have a chance.

[AshevilleGuy]

102. Harold Ford lost hugely there last year.

It was no contest in the final analysis, we can blame that filthy TV ad, but think what that smear machine could do with Obama there.

In fairness I do not think Edwards could carry TN either, and certainly not Hillary. Gore, hell I doubt it. Against Thompson, not a chance. But we can win without TN. :)

[pnwmom]

108. I was talking about in the US -- not Tennessee. I'm sure Thompson

has a much higher profile in TN than he does elsewhere.

And you're right -- we can win without TN.

[Radical Activist]

137. 48% Ford did much better than the last white Democrat who ran for Senate in TN.

Saying a black person can't win TN is oversimplifying things a lot. Ford got 48% which is NOT losing hugely by any reasonable definition.

[Labors of Hercules]

167. I say this because it surprised me so much to hear it...

from people who would never before give a Democratic candidate the time of day...
They like Gore and Edwards.

[Clark2008]

189. No he didn't.

He came within 3 percentage points, which is outstanding for a black man in a state that has been trending Republican since 1994 (but still went with B. Clinton in 1996).

I hardly call that losing "hugely," but I do agree that Edwards won't carry Tennessee.

[AshevilleGuy]

192. It was not in the margin of error or subject to recount

Hugely or not he lost, and I was very VERY sorry to see that. I had hoped that TN had gotten past that sort of thing; he was the only serious Dem Senate candidate to lose last year.

Yeah we all know you do not like Edwards. It's hardly news to us.

[Clark2008]

198. Yeah - but that's not "huge," was my point.

And whether I like Edwards is immaterial in regards to Thompson. He'll kick all three front-running Dems' asses in the purple and red states and that scares the bejeezus outta me.

[AshevilleGuy]

203. Careful, in this realy strange thread

for some bizarre reasoning beyond my ability to fathom, saying what you just said means that you want Thompson to win... This is some new fanaticism that I haven't quite processed yet.

Back in 1984 and 1972, we knew without a shadow of a doubt that Reagan and Nixon would win, in crushing landslides. Yet, no one ever suggested that we WANTED it to happen. Those election nights were some of the worst nights of my life. 1980 was a fucking nightmare!!

[Clark2008]

216. I know. I saw that further down the thread.

I'm a former reporter and maybe reality just really gets in my way of thinking positively. LOL.

[Clark2008]

188. Edwards wouldn't have a chance.

In order to win the general election, you'll need a goodly number of what I've termed "swing-Bubba votes," or white male voters, in the South and mid-West. We have to flip some red states to win. I'm sorry, Edwards isn't getting those votes whether Thompson runs or not. Neither is Obama nor Clinton. Sorry, we're pretty screwed with any of the "front-runners," if you ask me.

I really don't see the current Dem selections as being as strong as many on here. My perspective is that from a purple/red-state point of view. I don't have the luxury of living in a blue bubble.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. WEll, Fred doesn't have the Reichwing religious zealots in his corner. That helps.

[Ninja Jordan]

7. He has them more than any other current GOP candidate would.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. True, but Dobson came out against him. I spend every Sunday with people who think Dobson is

a wise man of impeccable good Christian character. They listen to what he says. I also know these are people who would stay home rather than vote for a Dem.

[Ninja Jordan]

27. Dobson has backed off his remarks.

I think he's realizing Thompson will probably run, and be formidable.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/30/125040.shtml I know it's newsmax, but it's all I could find.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. Interesting. I wonder who leaned on him?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

40. Oh God. Thompson/Gingrich or vice versa.

The wingnut fantasy ticket. Will Nuck Fewt appeal to Libertarians and so-called Independents because of his War on Big Government?

[iamjoy]

91. Oh Edwards Could Beat Newt

Edwards could beat any ticket with Grinch on it. That is, if character really matters.

Let's see. In the right corner thrice married man, divorced wife with cancer. In the left corner, once married man...

oh, need I say more?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

234. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to matter.

Nuck Fewt has stated that he's fallen short of God's standards and that will be enough for the wingnuts, as long as he promises to shrink government, lower taxes, ban abortion and gay marriage, and stop those welfare checks. (They've been had before; they'll be had again.) I'm not sure of his position on guns, but my guess it's a gun for every man, woman, and child. Aaah-men!

[whistle]

6. Not if Fred Thompson sports around that young busty bride of his

....around with him on the campaign trail.

[Bucky]

17. Mmmm... busty briiidesss.... (picture included)

But really, not all that young (47).

And by the way, you're a whore for clicking on this link just cause I wrote "picture included" :P

[hippiechick]

31. .... What, in God's name does she see in HIM ???

:wow: ... and how much ya' suppose he paid for those hooters? :wow:

[Bucky]

50. What she sees, madam, is a shot at being First Lady for four years

Apparently she's the one going all Lady Macbeth in their household--really pushing him to run. She's a PR flack from Washington and, I assume, somewhat unhappy when the senator she married turned into a TV actor. The possibility that they are genuinely in love with one another is, I suppose, also something to consider.

Is she, in believing that her spouse and partner would make a good leader, doing anything that Bill Clinton (or Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards) isn't doing? I suspect not. But it wouldn't hurt Fred's case any if she were to start dressing less like an extra from Dallas.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

46. Oy vey! I'm sorry to say this....

Her appearance shouldn't be an issue, nor should it reflect on him. But she is NOT going to go over well with conservative female voters.

[pnwmom]

75. And HE will not go over well with women voters in general.

What is attractive about him? In any sense?

[JI7]

223. i find him gross, but Margaret Carlson thinks he is hot

[iamjoy]

92. Appearance DOES Matter

I mean, I don't care what she looks like and it really doesn't matter how much plastic surgery a candidate's wife may have had. But she should dress appropriately. Letting the girls hang out is just not becoming in a candidate's wife.

[Ninja Jordan]

255. Agreed

[against all enemies]

58. He just got my vote.

[Cha]

88. Ol' freddy boy's not lookin'

so good these days. I think he's full of shit if he thinks he can be president.

[Eurobabe]

156. Hey now.

You're only as young as you feel!

[Rhiannon12866]

169. Ewwww!

Well, I was curious, but now I regret it...x(

[JI7]

220. she looks much older in that pic than other pics i have seen of her

they look more like husband and wife in this one. the other pics were from the wedding so she was probably more made up.

[ComerPerro]

238. I think his wife looks trashy. Maybe that's just me

[jojo54]

8. After 12 years of Reaganomics, do we really want

another actor in the W.H.????

[Ninja Jordan]

11. Apparently so (based on the polls)

Thompson is running 3rd and he isn't even a candidate.

[Telly Savalas]

65. People are impressed by his record as the NYC District Attorney

[WorseBeforeBetter]

15. I'd take George Clooney in the White House.

In any wing he'd want!

[Labors of Hercules]

170. DAMN that would be the BOMB!

GORE/CLOONEY 08' whoa... goosebumps

[TwilightGardener]

175. Or Obama/Clooney, or Edwards/Clooney--now those would be

tickets to look at for the next 4 years--LOL!

[salonghorn70]

9. Thompson Could Be a Strong Candidate

I agree that Thompson could be a strong candidate. Much will depend on where he goes on Iraq. If he can be tied to Bush's failed policies, then any Democrat can beat him.

[Bucky]

10. The rap on Thompson is show horse, light worker, little relevant experience

He didn't do much in the Senate besides scowl at Clinton appointees and increase his asking price for movie parts when he returned to Hollywood. Obama is the last guy you'd want to have running against Thompson. Obama vs McCain or Gingrich or Tancredo-Hunter-Gilmore would be perfect. Against Thompson he'd lose like a Mondale. We'll all be shaking our heads and asking, "How in the heck are we losing to THAT guy?"

As a Democrat, I end up saying that every 8 to 12 years.

The key to beating him is to show how he's past his prime, an empty suit, and really not quite as country boy as he talks. Again, that was the strategy against Dubya and Reagan too.

[pnwmom]

235. Obama like Mondale? I don't see that at all. n/t

[ccpup]

12. are you kidding me?

Thompson was known in the Senate for ... um, hold on ... give me a minute ... He was known for ... hmmmm ... I can't think of anything.

And that's the problem. Any Dem running against Thompson will have SOME legislative experience to boast of while all Thompson can truly say is that he was a Seat Filler in the Senate. He was without a doubt a Do Nothing Senator!

If I'm wrong, please let me know what Legislation he authored and pushed through.

But from what I know the Dems could easily -- and (metaphorically speaking) mortally -- wound him as someone who is, at best, lazy and, at worst, incompetent. And I think even those Middle Voters have had it up to Here with Presidents who seem "nice" but can't do the job.

[Clark2008]

190. Not defending Thompson here, but, um... he did more than Edwards.

[AshevilleGuy]

237. God, you just can't let it go, can you?

What in God's name did Edwards EVER do to get this sort of treatment??? And don't say that your attitude towards him is beside the question; you always bring him in.

Again, we KNOW you hate him - can you let it go???

[xultar]

13. A Democrat with an ass on their forehad can beat any Republic in 2k8.

[quiet.american]

14. C'mon, any of our Dem candidates would beat him like they're his daddy. n/t

[tridim]

16. The Republics are going to lose no matter who they run

That said, this Hollywood Republic would probably get the most votes of the current crop of candidates.

Attorneygate is going to expose GOP election fraud before 08. They'll never win again unless they gut and reform the party.

[Dr Fate]

18. Anyone but Hillary can take him.

Eddie or Obama can take him- so could Clark or Gore.


Hillary?- I dont care what the bullying operatives say- she's a joke to the average voter. Fred vs. Hillary would turn the DEM party into a laughing stock.

[Ninja Jordan]

19. I agree that Thompson would crush Hillary

Obama vs. THompson would be odd. It could also be a blowout against us. Edwards is the best IMO.

[Adelante]

45. Thompson takes votes from Edwards in the South

I would think.

[Clark2008]

201. He would rip any and all Southern swing voters completely

away from Edwards. Edwards wouldn't have a frickin' chance.

I'm sorry to keep saying this and it has nothing to do with my opinion of Edwards. It has to do with my living in the South.

P.S. I don't know that military man Clark would have much luck against Thompson in the South. Clark would do a little better, but it would be TOUGH. So you know how I feel if I'm willing to admit that!!

[Ninja Jordan]

247. Thanks for your view.

It's good to get a feel from the people who actually live in these regions.

[emilyg]

21. no joke to me

she can beat him.

[Dr Fate]

26. Keep the faith baby, you will need it.

What is the point in arguing with any of you- you will all claim that everyone & their brother just LOVES Hillary no matter what the reality is.

[ccpup]

30. that's it

pick up your toys and go home when someone disagrees with you.
face it. some will love Hillary no matter what, some will love Edwards, some will love Obama, some will love Gore and some will love whoever ends up the nominee. no one is wrong here. we just all have our preferences. deal with it.

[Dr Fate]

35. Heh- no, actually I'm being much more objective than that.

Nobody likes Hillary. I'm not talking about here on DU, I'm talking about "out there."

God bless it- please dont make us say "I told you so" in '08- please- I'm begging! ;)

[ccpup]

55. nobody is a pretty strong word

I know of people here in NYC -- ex-Repugs, in fact -- who say the only two Dems they would strongly consider voting for are Hillary and Gore. I also know people on the West Coast -- Washington State and Los Angeles -- who consider Hillary not only a viable candidate worthy of taking seriously, but also their first choice for who to vote for.

so, nobody is a pretty strong word. And I am happy to hear you're being more objective than I first thought. :-)

[Ninja Jordan]

56. true

[hippiechick]

34. Dr. Fate:

:thumbsup:

[blm]

59. You think she can beat Thompson in the series of debates? Hillary is not that great

a debater, and the media will make sure that every flaw she has on that stage is emphasized and magnified.

ESPECIALLY next to Thompson.

We need a nominee who would better Thompson in gravitas and bearing. Hillary looks UNCOMFORTABLE on stage. The debate stage will not be kinder to her.

[Carolina]

79. where do you live?

I am not asking sarcastically or to flame? It's just that I can't fathom national support for Hilary because where I live she is despised and vilified. Seriously, otherwise sensible people bristle with hatred at the mere mention of her name!

As a lifelong Dem (from 1960) who opposed any war as retaliation for 9/11 and bitterly opposed to the war against Iraq, I don't support Hilary at all, never will.

So if even her Democratic support is weak, how do you see her winning?

[KingFlorez]

109. He's not that well known

He couldn't possibly win against anyone. Hillary or anyone else would crush him.

[Ediacara]

20. Thompson? I think he'd be easier to beat than Gary Bauer

He's had one totally unremarkable term in the Senate a decade ago, and is only known to the public as the unpleasant Limbaugh clone on Law and Order.

Would nominating Jeanine Garafilo guarantee us a win? Obviously not, so why would nominating Thompson guarantee them a win?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ediacara]

29. Well excuse me for not constructing a more appropriate analogy off the top of my head

Additionally, I don't see how working as a lawyer and lobbyist with one term in the Senate indicates that someone has been working in politics for 30 years. Which again, also comes back to the point I had made, people don't know him as lawyer/lobbyist/senator Thompson, but as the unpleasant Limbaugh clone from Law and Order.

[Ninja Jordan]

32. I think it's unwise to underestimate Thompson. Alot of GOP voters like the guy

In no way is he the fringe candidate that you suggest.

[Ediacara]

36. Just because a lot of Republicans like him, doesn't mean the electorate would

He's by no means as charming as Reagan was, or larger than life the way that Schwarzenegger is. Of course, I could be completely wrong in my assessment, but I'd imagine most people would find him unpleasant, even crotchety, as that's what he plays on Law and Order, and that's how about 90% of the country knows him.

[Hardrada]

118. More like Bob Dole but without the war record.

[pnwmom]

113. The GOP is starting to turn into a fringe party. Two more years of Bush

and there will be even fewer Repubs.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

22. Yes

There is no guarantee he will appeal to evangelicals. The rabid religious right is not satisfied with mere membership in a Christian denomination; they want evidence that a candidate lives his faith. Dobson's call for Thompson to declare his faith shows just that.

Thompson's political career spans too many corrupt, scandal-filled Republican administrations for him not to have some taint. Let the digging commence.

Thompson divorced the wife who worked to put him through law school. He dumped her after nearly 30 years of marriage just as his Hollywood career got started. He remarried years later and started a second family. He is another divorced Republican like McCain, Guiliani and Gingrich.

BTW, Dobson will support Gingrich no matter who declares what faith because they share a common desire to remold this country as a Christian nation through historic revisionism. Read this fascinating Harper's expose by Jeff Sharlet to learn more about this pernicious threat and Newt's involvement in it:

http://harpers.org/ThroughAGlassDarkly-12838838.html

[Adelante]

47. I agree the evangelicals won't go for him

But the old school conservatives and moderate Repubs will - they'll see him as the real thing, somebody who can take their party back. He could appeal to conserve Independents and Democrats, as well. Also he has an anti-corruption history, not the other way around. I see a run by this guy as probably the most challenging of the GOP field.

[TwilightGardener]

84. He's not an "old-school" conservative, in the Buchanan vein--

he's a neocon shill, being groomed and packaged to continue the PNAC plan--involved with AEI.

[Cameron27]

133. He'll be packaged as an old-school con.

Thompson's a slick actor, and he'll take on whatever image he needs to win. I haven't underestimated the stupidity of American voters since Reagan. They never look past the "nice to have a beer with" BS. Thompson's not going to run as a typical Republican; he'll be faux independent, a non-Washington beltway insider, and try to come across as another McCain straight talker, only better.

The idiots are eating this shit up already. Look at his numbers, and he's not a candidate yet.

[chefgirl]

25. Edwards, Obama....yeah...

Ole Fred is an arrogant ass..in fact, one of the WORST of the current crop of RW asses. He's like a Grover Norquist on steroids. All self righteous moral indignation with a generous dose of misplaced ego.

He's got some name recognition, yes, but people dont know a lot about his actual positions.

I believe Edwards or Obama, both young, fearless, truly progressive candidates, could maneuver Thompson into showing his true colors in the course of a campaign. Especially Edwards, trial lawyer that he is.

All it would take is to poke that arrogance with a stick, right in Ole Fred's ego, repeatedly if necessary. Then stand back and watch the fireworks.

Never liked Thompson, never trusted him, never will.

-chef-

[WorseBeforeBetter]

37. Was Edwards successful in bringing to light Dick Cheney's...

or W's "true colors" during the course of the 2004 campaign? Don't get me wrong, I like Edwards (love Elizabeth), but never really saw the brilliant trial lawyer I heard so much about.

[chefgirl]

43. Two points

First, Edwards was debating Cheney and campaigning as a representative of John Kerry and, IMO, was handcuffed, to a certain extent, by that fact. (on quite a few occasions)

Second, Fred Thompson is NO Dick Cheney. Like him or not, Cheney has elevated what he does to an art form. Fred Thompson is a relative lightweight when taken in that context.

-chef-

[karynnj]

51. How was he handcuffed by Kerry

in the debates or on the campaign trail?

Part of the problem was that he stuck very close to a verbatim stump speech that was a minor variation on the "Two Americas" speech. (I saw a CSPAN Edwards speech in the primaries - the convention speech and 2 speeches in the GE, but was bored enough I didn't watch others.)

I think the better argument could be that he has matured as a candidate or that he has improved. To blame Kerry is ridiculous and ignores the enormous opportunity Kerry gave him.

[chefgirl]

54. OK, not getting into a candidate debate here

If you read my post 'carefully', you'll see that what I said was that Edwards was handcuffed by the "fact" that he was campaigning and debating as a representative of Kerry. I did NOT say that John Kerry himself handcuffed him.

I believe that Edwards felt a certain obligation, obviously, to push Kerry's agenda more than just his own, once he was the VP nominee. It was very noticeable, to me, that he felt less comfortable with putting that message across, on behalf of the man at the top of the ticket, than he felt with his own.

Therefore, sure, I'll concede that he was probably not as effective as he would have been, as he WAS, when he was speaking just for himself, when he was still a Presidential candidate in the earlier part of the larger campaign.

I believe my answer, along with my two previous replies in this thread, clearly explains my opinion.
In fact, I believe I even said in my first reply that it WAS just my opinion. You, of course, are free to disagree.

If thats not satisfactory, then you probably are looking for a debate about one Dem candidate as opposed to another, and sorry, I'm not going there.

-chef-

[karynnj]

62. I did assume you meant it as say - and YOU

by blaming Kerry for Edwards' rather mediocre vp run made it an issue. You brought up Kerry. The issue was not Kerry but how Edwards was as VP. (Conside Benson was an outstanding VP candidate to a worse Presidential candidate (Dukakis).

The problem is that Edwards could have translated his issues into pushing John Kerry. If he couldn't he should have declined the position. I think it would have been easy - the biggest differences were Edwards was more hawkish and Kerry more open to trade treaties, though their were big areas where they could agree. For instance, Edwards' signature issue was Two Americas. Why not weave into that the actual Small Business Programs that Kerry fought for for decades and saw implemented.

Things like a microloan program that allow a poor person with a good idea to start a business to do so. Also, Kerry had programs that helped women and minorities in small businesses. Small businesses are the key moving many people from poverty to the middle class. They are the job engines of job creation. Or, The Youthbuild program that Kerry was the Senate sponsor for. He fought for funding year after year. That program takes young poor people in danger of leaving school and simultaneously helped them complete high school and get construction trade skills. In 2004, Kerry already had a decades long record - starting in the late 1970s when as a prosecutor he worked with underprivelged kids and setting up victim counseling programs. These are substanitive real things Kerry DID to help the poorer America.

Or, there was Kerry's health plan that every independent group called the best plan. Even if the Edwards thought theirs was better, Kerry's provided near universal coverage (more than Edwards' 2004 one did) and had an innovative way to deal with catastropic costs.

Kerry had an innovative program that linked a massive investment in research of alternative fuels, and more energy effective technology, including money to help Detroit change the cars they build. Kerry explained that this also was key for the economy, the environment and national security. Kerry also had an environmental record going back to 1970 when he spoke at the first earth day. He had a 96% lifetime rating of the League of Conservation voters - Edwards had a short record and a rating in the 60s.

On Iraq/Afghanistan/War on Terror - all I can say is "Kerry was right" (other than on the awful vote itself - but he spoke out when Bush broke his promises BEFORE the invasion).

Given Kerry's agends and his record, what problem did Edwards have? If I could learn this - as I did in 2004 - from Kerry's web site and a small amount of reading, certainly his running mate could take the time to do it. The truth is - that if Edwards gets the nomination, Kerry will be far far better as a surrogate than Edwards was as a VP.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[politicasista]

143. How is pointing out simple facts going off? n/t

[karynnj]

150. Or maybe I hit a nerve with truth?

My best response to you is to quote,
"Feel better now? I recommend Valium.

(Name of God used in vain deleted), lighten the (expletive deleted) up, huh?

If you really feel the NEED to go off on someone, the way you just went off on me, for voicing a personal opinion, I suggest you reacquaint yourself with your happy place."

That comment applies better to itself than to my fact laden post.

1) I did not "go off on you". I said absolutely NOTHING about you and unlike you, I did not resort to vulgar language or prescibe medicine to someone I have never seen.

2) You started it by blaming Kerry for the perception someone upthread had that Edwards was pretty weak as a VP candidate. You, in fact, with your answer implicitly agreed on Edwards' performance, rather than defending it, but blamed it on Kerry. You then implied that Edwards could not do well with Kerry's platform.

This ignores that on a basic level every Democrat had a huge area where they were in agreement, including Kerry and Edwards. Rather than vaguely state this and not make clear points, I detailed things in Kerry's biography that were compatible with Edwards signature issue, which Edwards had been praised for in the primaries. Kerry's platform was compatible with that. Selling the Presidential candidate is the main job of tte VP and, I still hold that if Edwards had any reservations in doing this, he should have refused the offer - he did Kerry no favor in taking it.

3) You choose to attack me rather than address the content of my comment. Do you as an Edwards supporter agree that the Kerry work is compatible with the Edwards message? Frankly Kerry had strong accomplishments on issues (like the environment) that Edwards has only recently taken on.

[chefgirl]

191. LOL...there was no nerve to hit.

I can only assume that you dont get it when someone tells you they have no intention of getting into a candidate debate with you. Stop attempting to stir up an argument where there is none.

I never once tried to dispute any of your Kerry 'facts' in this thread. Perhaps at another time, in some other thread I would have, but that was neither the purpose of this thread nor the purpose of any of my replies.

So, yes, LIGHTEN UP ALREADY.

-chef-

[karynnj]

222. If you think the facts I wrote are "facts" ask for links and I will provide them.

1) You negatively brought Kerry in - it is completely justifiable to question your post.
2) They are not 'facts' but facts - if truth means anything to you.
3) The ONLY way to counter your assertion that Edwards wasn't effective because he was constrained by the Kerry agenda, was to speak of the Kerry agenda. If you read the post it dealt with the areas in Edwards 2004 platform that fit with Kerry's.

This is a discussion board. I challanged something you said - with facts. You replied with invective, vulgar languade, and an insult and it was deleted. Maybe you don't get it that this is a public board and if you post something others can respond - and it is not your choice if they do.

I posted more for others reading the thread than for you because your comment is disputable. Respond if you want, but I have no intention continuing this.

[mitchtv]

77. Too fat

oh, I forgot, that's ok for republics, only Al Gore is Fat

[Rhiannon12866]

173. And Michael Moore... That's the best that they can come up with to attack him...

:-(

[yellowcanine]

33. Fred who? There is part of your answer. He has to win the Pubbie nomination first,

anyway. And Dobson has already indicated he isn't Christian enough. Strike one.

[slackmaster]

253. I believe James Dobson's criticism works in Thompson's favor

Most people, including religious people, do not appreciate being prosylitized.

Most people understand the importance of siloing one's religion when serving the public.

Most people think James Dobson is a big fat poopy-head.

[INdemo]

38. Is the election next week?

[Bluedogvoter]

39. Don't underestimate his appeal to seniors.

I swear every last one of them listens to Paul Harvey and Thompson guests hosts all the time.

[pnwmom]

110. My mother is a senior and she LOVES Obama -- compares him to Kennedy.

And she has no idea who Fred Thompson is.

[paulk]

41. any Republican will be beatable in 2008

Just having that "R" next to your name is going to hurt any candidate the Republicans run.

After 8 years of Bush, the country will be so sick of Republicans it's not going to matter who they run. People are paying attention to issues, not personalities - the 2006 election showed that. Democrats have opened up a 15 point lead in party identification since 2002 - and that gap is growing.

[salin]

48. bingo - but one word change

many won't just be sick of repubs... but given what is coming out in various hearings in congress... folks will be *disgusted* by republicans.

[paulk]

166. that (R) is going to start standing for "repelled"

I'm surprised more people aren't taking the PEW poll into consideration.

That 15 point difference is significant.

[Dinger]

42. Hell, I Can Beat Fred Thompson!

Well, maybe not me, but I bet Skinner could!

[DinahMoeHum]

44. 2008 - The year we BREAK the Repukelikan Party like crackers on soup.

:kick:

[melody]

49. Hell, yes

He also looks and acts like a mean jerk and has a bad reputation for being an egomaniac.

Why, are you trying to frighten off the Democrats early with threads of the Big Bad Fred?

[Ninja Jordan]

57. No,should I bury my head in the sand?

Id rather face reality now, and nominate a candidate who can WIN.

[melody]

68. Yeah, right, if you say so

But oddly your message cropped up along with five others touting the "unbeatable Thompson" ... typical Rovian DU tactic. It's so obvious now, it's pathetic. They're like an old guitarist who just can't get the old licks to work the way they used to.

If you're genuinely concerned about Thompson, my advice is don't be. This man has a ton of closet skeletons. And he has a nasty temper that is easy to provoke.

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[melody]

250. This again.

Since you do seem to enjoy sneering at female posters by adding their names to posts, it's fairly obvious you have
issues. This strongly indicates to me you're just here to waste time. I'd prefer you not waste mine, as such
welcome to my ignore list.

[Ninja Jordan]

252. Can I get on your ignore list too?

Thanks.

[DanWithAngel]

214. Rovian DU tactic?

i just simply don't have a metaphor it. amazing.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

229. So did Dim Son...

DUI, cocaine, an ex-gf that allegedly had an abortion (didn't she die under suspicious circumstances?), AWOL, mocking a woman on death row, his state ranked dead last in a number of areas while he was governor. And guess what, he's PRESIDENT Dim Son.

Thompson's part of the Baker (and therefore, Bush family) crowd and that's a mighty machine to have behind him. Don't hold your breath for Corporate Media to bring his skeletons to light (and how many of those so-called soccer/security Moms are scouring sites like DU to get the dirt)? If he has so many skeletons, how did he so handily win two Senate terms?

It's foolish to not think any particular Republican candidate could be a threat, even after 8 years of the current Maladministration.

[TnDem]

231. Finally....

Someone sees the light...

[Blue_In_AK]

52. He'd be hard to beat...

Americans LOVE form over substance.

[saltpoint]

53. Yep. We'd whip Fred for sure. He's a bit lackluster.

I think he'd remind too many voters of their high school principal.

That alone ought to condemn him to a landslide loss.

I don't see Fred Thompson carrying California or New York or Michigan against any Dem. He'd probably carry Tennessee, but is he any more viable in Florida than our ticket would be? I don't really think he would be.

Yeah. We'd beat up on ol' Fred.

[pnwmom]

78. Exactly. We're not looking for a father-knows-best type. Absolutely not.

I shudder to think of it.

[saltpoint]

80. Hi, pnwmom. Yep. I agree -- we could do with a "father-knows-best"

type.

And definitely we could do without a "vacuous monkey knows best" type, as we have now.

My god let's get a Democratic ticket in there real soon. I'm homesick for my country back.

[pnwmom]

94. Would you ever have thought that things could get to this stage?

That Richard Nixon wouldn't be looking so bad, by comparison?

:hi:

[saltpoint]

126. LOL! It's true. This Bush administration has been so horrific that

Nixon is starting to look halfway benign.

Not a small feat!

:hi:

[DanWithAngel]

215. is the "we" that you mention the average voting public?

i'm guessing not. they may not be looking for it but they may find it.

[DrDan]

60. this should be enough

[AshevilleGuy]

61. We laughed at Reagan in 1976, and at Dubya before 2000.

WHY do you laugh at Thompson now??????? He is much smarter than either Ronnie or DubDub, but he knows not to show it too much for fear of alienating the swing voters.

This guy is for real, and is the most dangerous candidate they could field!! The masses, those who don't know who their own senators are, will flock to him. White male swing voters will be drawn to him by the millions. If Rudy is on the ticket, he will make it OKAY (wink, nod) to vote for him, as well.

All this bravado (oh, we can beat ANY republic) is bullshit. I have heard it before, most notably in 1988, and in 2000. Look where it got us then.

[melody]

67. LMAO!

I'm sorry, I don't mean to chortle, but Ronnie won because he was a certified movie star with a fawning media. Bush bought and bullied his way in. The very thought of Thompson being even a vaguely viable contender in a free election is frankly hysterically funny. This man totes more baggage than American Airlines. And he has a temper hotter and faster than McCain's.

[AshevilleGuy]

81. You think the swing voters CARE??

What baggage?? Hot temper?? The male voters will love that - he's a standup guy.

Ronnie was a grade B actor with fawning media. We laughed in 1966 when he ran for governor. Guess what happened? Bush was a JOKE, a loser, Daddy's ne'er do well. Are we laughing about him now??

This guy won the Senate seat in TN handily; we had laughed about that too until he won - I lived there then.

This is EXACTLY the sort of candidate politicos dream about: the masses will love him, and they do not give a damn about issues, his past, or anything that WE analyze. They do not process all this the way we do. Can't we Dems ever learn that?

[Adelante]

82. I completely agree

This is one to take very seriously. If he decides to do it.

[melody]

96. No, he's not.

I know all the Repugs are clinging to Thompson as their one hope, but he's a non-starter for a LOT
of reasons. We obviously have to watch our ground game and stay strong, but we need to keep our eye
on the Rove mean machine, not on some half-ass candidate with many, many secrets.

[Ninja Jordan]

100. The immense popularity of Rudy Giuliani shows that voters care little about skeletons

It's about 'perception' first and foremost. And Thompson has the perception of an honest, straight-shooting everyman. 'The New McCain.'

[pnwmom]

111. No, it just shows that the public doesn't know much about him yet,

other than his show after 9/11.

But they'll learn, and his popularity will head downhill.

[AshevilleGuy]

114. Enough of them to swing the elections do not care.

The week before the 2000 selection it was revealed that GWB had had a DWI. For a few giddy hours we thought this would sink him. Guess again - he still got close enough to steal FLA.

And exactly what skeletons does Thompson have? We still haven't heard. Unless he literally killed someone in cold blood, it's going to be a big 'so what?' to the crucial swing voters.

[Ninja Jordan]

116. He can't touch Giuliani in the skeleton department.

[melody]

124. Again, I can only laugh

90% of the electorate don't have a clue who he is. He has a very weak TVQ.

Guliani will still have the crap kicked out of him by any Democrat come election time.
McCain, too. Thompson won't even get close.

I don't you guys are clinging to the hope that Thompson will drag out a win, but face it,
no Repug with a nodding acquaintance with the current GOP is going to win for a very, very,
very long time. Bush has destroyed their chances for many years to come.

And I'm a pessimist. :)

[Ninja Jordan]

127. You fail to see political reality

[melody]

83. No, most male voters will NOT love him

You may want to believe that Super Thompson will come along and crush all the Democrats, but the fact of the matter is he's dead in the water before he ever gets going for a whole lot of reasons. The temper is MUCH worse than you're thinking -- with a very, very nasty edge.

As I said, Bush won because he and his father's machinery stole the election. He could NEVER have won it on his own, which is why he needed Diebold.

Little Georgie is a dream candidate next to Thompson. The only reason he won in Tennessee was because his friendships/connections were strong enough to hide his skeletons. That won't even come close to helping him on a national scale. Just give that up.

[AshevilleGuy]

97. What reasons?? All you are doing is negating what I say, without

explaining it. Of course I don't WANT to believe he will win, but what I WANT doesn't matter.

He has a bad temper?? So what? How many male swing voters will give a shit about that?? A lot of guys do not CARE about that. Again, you are thinking analytically, millions of people who vote do not do that - they vote like high schoolers for those whom they LIKE or against those they DISLIKE. It's as simple as that. They are simple.

As for bush winning because they stole the election, yes they did steal FLA, but millions upon millions voted for him, so he could get close enough to Gore to steal it. Voters just like the ones who will fall for Thompson. No, "most" male voters will not love him, but enough will to swing the election; it only takes a few swing voters to decide the electoral votes in close elections.

And I lived in TN for way too many years (35) - I think I know quite a lot about politics there. Have you ever lived there?

[Ninja Jordan]

103. but, but he has a temper!

Even though I have no empirical evidence to back it up or evidence that it even matters. Let's all bury our heads in the collective fucking sand.

[AshevilleGuy]

104. Again, so what?

Elected presidents with notable tempers: Jackson, Truman, Ike, LBJ (!!!!!!!), Nixon, Carter, Clinton, TR, ...

[Ninja Jordan]

105. I'm agreeing with you

albeit sarcastically. Claiming he "has a temper" is a moronic argument. LBJ was known to literally choke people.

[AshevilleGuy]

106. I know, I wasn't meaning to be snarky.

Oh, God, LBJ did what he called The Treatment: He would have the offending staffer (or Senator) come to the WH. He would smile and softly say, "come in and shut the door", then he would unload for 30 minutes the most offensive cussing out the victim had ever heard.

But of course that was NOT why he didn't run again in 1968.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AshevilleGuy]

180. Where do you get off saying that????

What the hell is this??? You don't know me, where do you get this bullshit??? I was voting for Dems probably before you were born.

And of course you can't defend what you say, you just want to attack people.

[Ninja Jordan]

204. Those of use who want serious political debate get labeled as "Thompson supporters."

Debate is no fun if there's nothing to debate. Tying to turn a blind eye to a potentially powerful political opponent is unwise.

[AshevilleGuy]

210. Yeah, this is a new thing, and extremely odd...

I was on this board from 2002 to early 2005 and never saw this tactic used. But I finally walked away from it because of other unprovoked ad hominem attacks like this. I'm wondering if anything here has changed since.

[Cameron27]

135. Nobody fucking wants to believe that Thompson

will crush all the Democrats, but we have a different opinion about his strength than you do.

You have no more than an opinion like the rest of us, so stop with the arrogance.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TnDem]

144. I get the distinct sensation from your post that...

..You are referring to me or maybe some that have warned of the hidden strength of Thompson?

There is no glee with me, but a hidden gnawing dread.

I also do not really appreciate the implication that if someone has a differing opinion than you on a potential pug contender, that they have to be " posting on this board under numerous fake names..". I have been on this board since 2004, but usually only read the posts and do not contribute. I choose to post now in the case of Thompson because, (being from Tennessee), I know what the Democratic party may be in for with his possible candidacy. It is obvious from your posts that you do not. If you ask any seasoned Democratic politician from Tennessee or the south, they will immediately get a knot in their stomach about Thompson. He has the same traits as Reagan did, (except smarter), and the same outsider traits as GWB was perceived to have. He also has no baggage that the other Repub politicians have. PLUS his acting career...Trust me, we do NOT want him running against anyone. The only candidate that would have a chance would be Al Gore.

The problem with folks like yourself is that you cannot even tolerate a discussion about what we face in 2008. You view any such posts of warning of the strengths of a candidate like Thompson as somehow being in bed with him and the pugs.

And that is offensive and narrow minded.

[melody]

146. You're misunderstanding my remarks

Look, if you're not a shill, my remarks don't apply to you. Simple as that. When I first posted here, before I
became a paying member, I occasionally was attacked as being a possible shill. I didn't understand why at the time ...
I do now. There are tons of GOPhers on this board.

My problem is not at ALL the *topic* of Fred Thompson. However, as soon as all the Hollywood gossip spills out (and it
will ... and it will be huge ... and no, I'm not saying what it is, I don't want to get sued ... feel free to ask around),
the reality of his weakness as a Presidential candidate will be obvious.

Aside from the personal issues, what sells in Tennessee, doesn't sell in California or Washington or New York. People
have had six years of faux-Texan folksy bullshit hiding perfidy. Thompson's "style" will work against him.

[DanWithAngel]

218. what sells in Tennessee, doesn't sell in California or Washington or New York

let's see....who is in the oval office now without California or Washington or New York?

you're right, nothing to worry about.

[melody]

243. Well, if they steal the election, we may as well stop discussing everything

Of course, if the Republicans could manage to make certain we never again had a free election, they certainly would.
We're all discussing in the hopes we might have some vestige of a truly elected President, not a Royal Governor.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

236. Yes, but what sells in Tennessee does sell in...

Texas and Idaho and Georgia. It's not likely the majority in California, Washington, or New York would be voting for him anyway, so what difference does it make if he doesn't appeal to blue states?

You don't want to get sued? Geez, such intrigue. I can hardly wait for the unveiling on Entertainment Tonight.

[Cameron27]

145. I don't see anyone salivating over Thompson

and I'm certainly not. The best thing for our party, the Democratic Pary, is to clearly see the opposition for what it is, and not to make light of it.

Having said that, I think that any one of our candidates will win over Thompson, but I'm not going to suggest that it will be easy.

I don't know who's behind their computers on this Saturday afternoon, but I don't think it's fair to make judgments because you sense any sort of "glee" in their responses. I really don't see any of that.

Anyway, I was harsh in my response to you above, and I didn't mean to be. I tried to edit but it was too late.

Peace, I seriously hope you have the correct impression of Fred Thompson, and hope that I'm totally wrong.

[melody]

147. It's a subtle difference, I'll admit

I'm a writer, so subtleties of language = what I do. lol

I know you and I know you have the best interests of the DU community at heart. Let's hope Thompson
doesn't enter the race at all, even though he'd be squished. I don't think I could stand another
faux-folksy, weeping manchild. lol

[Clark2008]

217. Yes, Melody, they will.

I wish I could drag all my male co-workers on this board to inform you of it, but, I can't, so you'll have to take my word.

White male voters will LOVE Thompson and he WILL crush most of the Dems currently running. I'm sorry reality bites so hard, but it does.

I live in Tennessee and his friendships had NOTHING to do with the way he kicked Cooper's rear-end (61 to 39 percent, btw, and Cooper was a six-term US Congressman. He wasn't an unknown). It had to do with the fact that Thompson appealed to the Bubba vote.

[Ninja Jordan]

254. exactly right

[BlueStater]

86. Tennessee doesn't represent the entire United States n/t

[TwilightGardener]

93. Apparently they're easily fooled in Tennessee--a miracle they saw

the goodness in Al Gore.

[AshevilleGuy]

99. ??? Gore lost TN in 2000.

The Baptists OWN that state. Gore thought he had it in 2000, but tragically the balance of political power had shifted dramatically since 1992.

[TwilightGardener]

112. Um, wasn't Al Gore a Senator from Tennessee before becoming VP?

[AshevilleGuy]

117. Sure, that is what I meant by the "shift"

since he was Senator. The Baptists took a while to consolidate their power, but by 2000 they had done it. Sen James Sasser who was a blue dog Dem got beat in 1994 - it was happening then.

[Ninja Jordan]

98. THompson won his Senate re-election with the most votes in State history

[TwilightGardener]

115. Big whoop, so did Chuck Hagel in Nebraska--83% of the vote. That doesn't

really mean anything 6 or 10 years later. And if he was so beloved, why didn't he run again? And don't feed me that bull about his daughter's suicide.

[ComerPerro]

239. you're right. Thompson is the dream Moron American candidate, like Bush and Reagan

[Ninja Jordan]

248. Right, which is why we should address the threat NOW.

[KoKo]

63. Don't cha know.....Thompson is the NEW REAGAN...only uglier.

But, then...didn't he "play" a President on TV or something?

American's would have to be very dumb to vote that sucker in. And, I don't think they will fall for the Reagan Hook of voting in another Actor. We've "been there and done that." Even the most simplistic, Tee VEE watching American can see through this old ploy. :shrug: My 2 cents, anyway.

[BlueStater]

64. I'm not sure what his appeal is

He looks like an ugly, mean old man. You know, the kind who is always shouting at people from his porch.

[TwilightGardener]

85. Exactly. I hear people going on and on about him, and I just don't see it.

His voice reminds me of a redneck used-car salesman, and his "gravitas" is an act--because he's been doing that act for dozens of years. And he doesn't strike me as exactly brilliant, either--just a glib bullshitter. But that won't stop the media, enamored with "stars", from making him into something he's not.

[Hardrada]

119. LOL!

[Telly Savalas]

66. Why doesn't the "Senators Can't Win" choir ever start singing

when we discuss a GOP candidate?

[pnwmom]

71. I just asked my three kids if they knew who Fred Thompson is.

I knew without even asking that my husband would not.

My oldest is 24 and she said, "You mean, Fred Eaglesmith?" None of them had any idea who he is. His "fame" doesn't seem to have touched the younger generation. Or, outside of Tennessee, much of the older generation, either. Occasional spots on "Law and Order" aren't that much of a platform.

As far as the evangelical types go, didn't Dobsen just come out and say that Thompson wasn't a Christian? So I don't think we should have much to worry about in that respect.

Frankly, I think that Americans are sick of the older generation, especially of the older generation of Republicans that Thompson is hooked in with. We're dying for a breath of fresh air, not some fake Reagan-type actor.

Obama or Edwards.

[davekriss]

76. I sure hope so

If Fred Thompson wins the general election, I give. I will move to Timbuktu.

[MasonJar]

89. Fred Thompson is not going to be a president. Forget it!

[zulchzulu]

90. Fred Thompson should stick to made-for-TV roles

Should Martin Sheen run against him? I mean, ferchrissakes... Thompson has as much chance of being the GOP nomineee as Lamont Alexander.

[Hardrada]

120. ? Who is Lamont Alexander?

[KingFlorez]

107. Yes

[Adelante]

128. This thread has gotten ridiculous

Once again open discussion smothered in accusations of being a right wing shill. I hate this shit. Joe McCarthy would feel right the fuck at home.

Nobody here wants Fred Thompson to win the GE. Some of us think he is the one who can win the Republican primary out of the current field. That's what the OP is about. Looking at the field. Talking politics on a political discussion board. It's a crime, I tell you. :crazy:

[Ninja Jordan]

130. No kidding.

Apparently, instead of advocating serious political discussion, I should pretend like the GOP has no chance.

[Cameron27]

134. Oh well, I posted before I saw the right-wing BS accusations.

I'm tired of NOT taking these assholes seriously for Gods sake. Thompson's going to run as an outsider, not as a typical republican and I'm taking him seriously.

I'm probably a target now too. asinine.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cameron27]

149. Thank you.

I understand the point your making, but I think this thread's probably not infected with the kind of poster you have in mind.

Anyway, time to stop typing and take my dog for a walk.:)

[TnDem]

154. With all due respect

A gold star and a 1000+ post count simply means that a person has very little life outside their PC and they donate a few bucks to the virtual kitty. It means nothing as to their loyalty to the Democratic party. If I were an operative for the pugs, I would make sure that all of my sub-operatives had acquired a 1000+ post count in one of the non-confrontational sub-forums and threw a few dollars to the DU site. That would apparently fool folks like you easily. I simply don't care to post enough for the charade. I know me and what I do in Tennessee, who I have supported and I know that the topic of Thompson interests me because I have watched his political career in Tennessee. I frequently donate to the local party,(on the county and individual level), who spend it as they see fit.

Some folks, (like me), will go weeks and months simply reading the high spots of the forum and then going about their life. You can check my profile and it will tell when I joined DU. However, do not ever make the mistake that you can feel that you "know" anyone by a gold star and/or a post count.

[melody]

158. That shows a general lack of respect for most DU posters

I've been on DU since its inception. I am very weary of the old self-conscious "you have no life" nonsense.
We all have lives. We all come here in the spare moments of our lives.

I'm not casting final judgment, I'm just stating my personal opinion. It either is or isn't correct. Only
you would know. Only you must live with yourself.

But sorry, I do believe in putting your money with your mouth is ... virtual kitty or no.

[TnDem]

162. Excuse me Melody but....

You show a general lack of respect for many posters on DU right now including me.

Check my profile and then compare it to yours....I have been a member here since January 2004. According to your profile, you started in October 2004. That means that I have been sporadically posting on this forum for almost a year longer than you. A small donation to DU means nothing as to loyalty. You say that you are a writer and have alluded that you have intuition beyond the average human being because of this fact. If that is so, then digest that fact and apply it rationally. Do you REALLY think a large post count and a gold star are indicative of party loyalty? Surely you are wiser than that?

Because I choose to read and digest more than I enjoy posting three word replies to other posts, (and artificially running my post count up), then I obviously do not have an inflated post count....And because I, (and others), choose to donate to local candidates and parties and not this forum per se, that doesn't make me or them the enemy.

Sometimes I shake my head at the lemming mentality I read on here daily. I am only right now experiencing it first hand because I chose to post about a subject I have some knowledge of.

Again, just because everyone doesn't fall into a cheerleader category, doesn't make them the enemy. It CAN make them plodding critical thinkers,(like myself), that are interested in the long term strategies of the party in the upcoming general election.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TnDem]

164. Unreal...

Sometimes I have to remind myself why I avoid forum dramas.

You have reminded me quite succintly the many reasons.

[mitchtv]

219. You go girl

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flaminbats]

129. anyone is beatable in an open election..

Fred Thompson is the Republicans' Al Gore! They want Thompson to run because they have the same fears about Giulini and Romney that Democrats have about Clinton and Obama. They don't think those candidates can win in November. I think Republicans dislike McCain for a different reason..many hardline Bush supporters still hold a grudge against him after the primaries in 2000, and many of those same Republicans now view McCain with the same kind of rage and distrust that Democrats feel toward Lieberman. The only thing that would of changed these feelings among Republicans would be if Bush had made McCain his running mate.

Republicans and Democrats are unhappy for many of the same reasons, because the field is crowded with weak candidates..and there is no "electable" frontrunner to root for before the election.

[TnDem]

131. People have no clue about him

As a staunch Tennessee Democrat and someone who has seen Thompson in action, I can tell by reading some of these replies that people have NO clue about Fred Thompson and his campaign style. If he decides to run, he will sweep the primaries and give us a tight run for our money. Obama and Hillary have no chance against this guy. I have always lived in fear of him deciding to give up the better money of Hollywood for higher office aspirations.

There is an aura about him that people just seem to love. Hell, many Democrats will vote for the guy because he seems very intelligent and genuine. Remember too, that as a US Senator, he was one of a VERY few pugs that voted to not impeach Clinton. This further tempers the rabidity that seems to infest so many pugs.

We should be VERY VERY concerned about him running. The word from a very good source in Tennessee during the last Gubernatorial election, was the our current very popular Democratic governor only feared ONE person running possibly running against him.....Fred Thompson. Everybody just loves the guy and highly respects his service on the Senate Foreign relations committee as well as being a US attorney and Watergate Counsel. He is not a lightweight like some of the clueless posters on here assume.

I am a regular lurker who has been on here for years. I rarely post anything, but I'm telling you, you heard it here first.

[Cameron27]

136. Welcome TnDem...

I agree. Don't underestimate this guy. :hi:

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TwilightGardener]

159. Right--it's the same couple guys who tell us how afraid we should

be of this asshole, and they make pronouncements such as "He doesn't have the taint of Iraq"--exqueeze me? He VOTED for it! He has said he agrees with everything Bush is doing over there! He is no better than Giuliani or McCain in the warmongering dept. He's a member of AEI--the neocon think tank that was the architect of this war--but this misinformation is being spread by supposed "Democrats" to sway gullible Dems into thinking this schmuck is a moderate. Take your love to Freeperville, boys and girls. I'm glad you all have a woody for Huckleberry Hound, but it's not welcome here.

[melody]

161. There was the definite strains of "My Boyfriend's Back" rising in the background. lol

Their posting mechanisms are becoming obvious and more desperate, the further Little George drops into the fire
of his own making.

[TwilightGardener]

165. LOL! But what's weird is that all of these people claim to be from Tennessee--

that's very telling to me. Uh, they voted him into office--duh! Obviously, they're probably very impressed with him. But the rest of the country isn't Tennessee. Of course I take him seriously--but I also still consider Rudy to be the main threat. Hell, if Romney got any traction, HE'D be a threat--looks somewhat presidential, tons of money, nice family. Same with Huckabee. And if Hagel were to suddenly be embraced by the Republican party (impossible) in a prodigal-son scenario, we Dems might very well be screwed. But then, I'm from Nebraska, so I try not to assume that out-of-staters see the virtues I see in a home-grown boy. I'm guilty of liking Chuck, so I can understand admiring someone from "the other side", but I also remind everyone that he's a rabid right-winger. These folks are cheerleading, pure and simple. Watchin' too much L&O.

[TnDem]

174. Rudy is toast

He will never sell with pugs anywhere in the south. Take that to the bank.

Once FauxNews starts playing that YouTube clip of him say "public funding for abortion", he's history. The only votes he'll get are from very liberal Republicans, of which there are not many in the south.

[TwilightGardener]

176. Again, you have a south-centric viewpoint. If Rudy is the "chosen one"

by the GOP powers, then they'll vote for him--the sheep do what they're told. Plus, he has a sort of kick-ass tough-guy image that I wouldn't underestimate. I don't know how any of these guys will do--too early to tell, and certainly not worth getting our panties in a bunch over.

[TnDem]

178. The south

You CANNOT, repeat CANNOT lose the entire south and win the presidential election. It is not possible electorally.

Rudy will only sell in the south with parts of us Dems that are willing to cross over for the "tough guy" image that you speak of. He'll never sell with Republican voters most of which value gun rights. Rudy is strongly anti-gun and will be portrayed as such.

I have no idea what makes him think he can win the nomination?

Pugs will turn out and vote for Rudy like we would turn out for Lieberman, (and to a lesser extent), Hillary.

[TwilightGardener]

179. Not saying that Rudy will win the nomination in the south--that remains to be seen.

But I guarantee you that in the General, if it's Rudy v. Hillary, Repub Southerners will vote for Rudy, if only because they don't have a choice AND they will vote against Democrats, especially Hillary.

[TnDem]

183. Rudy

And I am saying, if Thompson runs, Rudy cannot win in the pug primary because he will lose large blocks of the south and west because his stances on guns and abortion and his triple marriage.

[melody]

244. I agree

Once the Hollywood veneer is stripped away, his cheerleaders will not be as smitten.

[mitchtv]

224. Isn't he the guy who had the "goods" on Clinton?

was gonna expose Bill's treason for selling military secrets to China?
I'm still waiting . Fat ugly fuck

[melody]

245. Yup, same right-wing Neocon pig n/t

[TwilightGardener]

172. You talk him up more than they do on Freeperville. They're not as

enamored of him as you are--they even admit he was kind of a do-nothing Senator and has some skeletons. And Thompson voted yea on one count to impeach Clinton, nay on another, if I recall correctly. So once again, you're spreading misinformation. And Hillary was involved in the Watergate hearings, but you don't hear that from people as a reason to take her seriously. So what are you trying to do here? Yep, we'll take him seriously, as much as any other candidate--thanks for your service to DU.

[TnDem]

182. Watergate and Clinton

Two big differences in the examples that you cite...

HRC was on the actual minor league version of the Watergate prosecution counsel. She was a Democrat serving Democratic interests.

Thompson was acting as as Senate Minority Counsel. Even though he was a pug, he was asking tough questions of his own party inclusing the famous, "Mr. Butterfield, what kind of listening devices did the White House have installed?".

As to the Clinton impeachment, Thompson was one of ONLY three pug Senators to vote no on Perjury and Yes on Obstruction of Justice., (Warner Virg., Stevens, Alaska and Thompson TN). All other votes were both NAY or YEA on completely part line votes, (as expected).

He will not be painted as a partisan Pug by us easily.

[TwilightGardener]

186. Yeah, he's a real hero to Dems, right up there with Warner and Ted Stevens--BWAH!

He's pretty fucking partisan, and it will certainly be easy to paint him that way. All of his recent comments are right-wing lunacy, especially about the war. If the 'Pugs didn't think he was a loyal partisan Pug water-carrier, he wouldn't be considered. If they appreciated independent-minded GOPers, why wouldn't they just go with Hagel?

[Ninja Jordan]

251. Thompson will be packed as a conservative who can appeal to indies.

[sampsonblk]

132. Pick our candidate based on who THEY pick?

I think not.

[Olney Blue]

148. Yes, a Democrat can beat him in a general election.

[Old and In the Way]

151. Why would anyone vote for more of the same?

We know what the Republican agenda is....I can't believe any voter (probably 65% anyway) is going to give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt in 2008. Yes, Thompson might be the best of the rest, but he's still running with Elephant brand. I think people are going to want justice served in 2008 and they know that won't happen if they vote Republican.

[Ninja Jordan]

181. How could America vote for Bush 1 after 8 years of Reaganism???

Oh yeah, it's because our candidate was so bad. Do we want to repeat that mistake again? Say no to Hillary.

[AshevilleGuy]

187. Here is a clue: did you ever see the footage

of Dukakis in the tank??? I didn't even follow the election after that, knew it was hopeless, too depressing to watch.

At that time I was very excited about my Senator Gore ruinning for prez, but he didn't get anywhere, the media killed his chances quickly.

[SOS]

152. What's Thompson's position on Iraq?

If he wants to prolong Bush's catastrophe past 2009, he is unelectable.

[IsItJustMe]

155. After reading these posts I feel I need to go take a bath. Sounds like there are alot of Thompson

cheer leaders at DU.

[Eurobabe]

157. Ohferchrissakes. You'd think this guy is the second coming?!

He's a TV actor on Law and Order. You really think that qualifies him to be Pretzeldent?

Thompson is the flavor of the moment for the desperate GOP.

[juno jones]

177. What we need to do is distract him...

...maybe we can get some hollywood liberal to keep him too wrapped up in mega-dollar movie contracts to ever set foot on the campaign trail. I think he likes acting better than politics. He's not my favorite actor at all, but I'd rather see him doing movies than be in the WH...

[AshevilleGuy]

196. I heard last night that Kiefer Sutherland is raising money for him.

What a shame Lil' Kiefer couldn't take after his father and be a liberal. Guess he grew up never once having to worry about having money...

[Clark2008]

184. Not any of the ones currently running, No.

And the couple of others who I would like to have run would have a hard time.

I live in Tennessee and I can tell you that the excitement level for him in this purple state (solid Dems running the state, half and half in the US congress and two Repub US senators) is very, very high. He scares me.

[TnDem]

195. Eggs-actly

I am glad someone else see this beyond their Minnesota apartment or their Seattle flat.

Thompson is where we need to set our sights.

[Clark2008]

199. I'm in Tennessee, too.

The prospect of his running scares the living shit out of me. He would absolutely annihilate any chances Dems have in the Heartland states.

:(

[WorseBeforeBetter]

226. Weighing in from a North Carolina townhouse...

Thompson makes me very nervous. Some of my wingnut neighbors are salivating at the prospect of a Thompson/Gingrich ticket, a ticket that scares the living you-know-what out of me. Or God forbid, Jeb as VP.

[TnDem]

230. Picking Gingrich...

If the wingdings pick Gingrich as the VP, (assuming that Thompson wins the slot), they may very well lose. Gingrich has the same negatives with us as Hillary has with the pugs...Plus Gingrich has lost most of his luster since the ancient "Contract With America" in 1994...He has had his Andy Warhol moment.

The best thing the Pugs could do was pick someone like JC Watts as VP with Thompson on the top of the ticket....The last I heard Watts was the Chairman for GOPAC...Lotsa politics and appeal from a broad base including some African Americans, none of which we can afford to lose.

Now that would be scary....

[WorseBeforeBetter]

233. Contract with what? That was 13 long years ago! ;-)

Wasn't the CoA about shrinking the size of government, axing taxes, and tort and welfare reform? If they re-package it, won't it appeal to Libertarians, so-called Independents, and the Norquist crowd? Dobson and Fallwell (at least) think Newt is sufficiently "Christian" and that's enough to get the fundie hordes to the polls. He's stated "there's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards" and all past transgressions will be forgiven (they'll identify with him).

I don't know that much about Watts so won't really comment, but I wouldn't think that Thompson would appeal to African Americans, in spite of Watts on the ticket. I know at one point Bush's approval ratings among African Americans was about 2% -- I'm wondering if it would be a Sisyphean endeavor for any African American candidate with an R behind his/her name.

[madeline_con]

193. "McCain... doesn't think condoms help prevent STDs"

O.K. What Ever :yoiks:

[Ninja Jordan]

200. McCain fan, huh? I guess you didn't hear his idiotic response recently to a question about AIDS.

[madeline_con]

205. Where'd you get that idea? n/t

[Ninja Jordan]

206. Responding with "OK Whatever" gave me the impression that you think I'm lying.

[madeline_con]

208. NO, no. I meant McCain is obviously delusional.

He reminds me of a woman I saw on a talk show years ago, who was being super promiscuous. When asked if she was afraid she'd get AIDS, she said she "didn't believe in it." :eyes:

[Ninja Jordan]

209. k, my bad

[IndianaGreen]

197. The 2008 Presidential election is the Democrats' to lose

Thompson is no Ronald Reagan!

[TnDem]

202. You're right

He is smarter and has less baggage than Ray-Gun did.

[AshevilleGuy]

207. Now, now, TnDem...

This thread has morphed into the idea that if you say Thompson is dangerous, you WANT him to win...

At last, we are in Lalaland. Is it liberating, or just strange?

And you are spot on about Thompson and Reagan. They were/are both velcro coated political merchandise.

[TnDem]

211. I am only saying....

That attempting to paint Thompson as some sort of loony half-witted version of Reagan is just WILDLY underestimating Thompson.

I can't even begin to say anything publicly negative about the guy in my town for fear of public rebuke. That's how much he is loved here.

Hell, even the Nashville Tennessean, (Gore's former newspaper job), has been breathlessly anticipating Thompson's announcement. They will probably endorse Thompson over Gore should they both run. Just for info...The Tennessean leans Democratic.

THAT'S how popular Thompson is here!!!

These folks on here just don't understand his charm and popularity with many of my neighbors.

Al Gore is the only chance to beat him should he decide to run IMO.

[AshevilleGuy]

212. Oh yeah, I agree completely with you.

Guess that means I want him to win, as well. :eyes: If he is that popular in Nashville and Chattanooga, I shudder to imagine how they are for him northeast of you!!! I lived in Johnson City when I taught at ETSU. I was one of the VERY few liberal profs there. The Baptists OWN that chunk of territory!

I still support Edwards, but we need Gore in it as well, I think. Some combination of Edwards, Gore and/or Webb?

[TnDem]

213. Chattanooga

I am just northwest of Chattanooga. He is mindbogglingly popular here, even among the most committed Democrats. I had one fellow Democrat who is best friends with the former state Democratic chairman tell me that he would personally vote for Thompson if he ran. I cringed and knew RIGHT THEN that we had problems. If someone like that can sway for Thompson, the John Q. Sixpack's will come in droves.

My experience is that many of the local Community College professors and support staff are generally fairly liberal and open minded, but the public at large is fairly ripe for the plucking for someone like Thompson.

I just never remember Democrats in Tennessee having anything negative to say about him even at the heighth of the Clinton impeachment hearings. Remember, that was during the depths of the Gingrich era.

If anything, conservatives were more irritated with Thompson for not voting for both articles of impeachment against Clinton.

[Ninja Jordan]

249. My democratic leaning friend who used to commute into TN (Nashville) for work loves the guy.

[MrSlayer]

221. I've never even heard of this guy until recently.

What the hell is so special about him other than he's an actor?

[TnDem]

225. You are obviously not from the south...

Or you would recognize him immediately...

He was Senate Minority Counsel during the Watergate hearings in 1974 and asked the famous question, "Mr. Butterfield, did you know of any listening devices in the White House?".

Was elected as an unknown in a landslide against a well known Tennessee Democratic US Representative in 1994 and served 8 years in the Senate from Tennessee most of which as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He elected not to run again because of his daughter's suicide. Had he run again, he would have been re-elected in a landslide.

He played in numerous movies, (Hunt for Red October, etc), and currently plays DA "Arthur Branch" on Law and Order.

He has no real negatives except he has been married twice. "Melody" on DU says she knows some bad scoop on him from Hollywood and says that he is a jerk?. Maybe there is some that I am not aware of? He has never shown any in Tennessee.

Guys and gals, we had better gird our loins for a fight against this guy, because you are looking at the nominee if he wants it. If there is some bad scoop on the guy, I am sure it will come out.

[Imagevision]

227. Thompson is the only chance they have, I believe Obama would have a field day with Hollywood Fred..

[TnDem]

228. Not Obama...

I feel that only Al Gore might be able to beat Thompson nationwide...Hillary---no way, Obama---Nope

The first time that the AP Carried the name "Barack Hussein Obama" on the front page of each southern newspaper, he would be finished.

This is in addition to Obama's anti-gun statements that he has made throughout the last 18 months, (AWB, etc..). That'll never sell in the south.

[Ninja Jordan]

241. Since Gore isn't running, then Edwards is the only one.

[Imagevision]

232. Certainly NOT Hillary...!

[Ninja Jordan]

246. agreed

[fishwax]

240. Absolutely

I think any of the three front-running dems could be Thompson, as could Gore or Clark if they were to get in the race.

No Republican nominee will be unbeatable in 2008--the party is simply carrying too much baggage. The prospect of a Thompson candidacy has gotten a less-enthusiastic-than-expected response from the religious right, and his relative lack of exprience would negate the critiques often leveled against Edwards and Obama.

[Adelante]

256. Actually he has a similar level of experience to Edwards or Obama

But what I am responding to is your point about the religious right. The GOP is in a shambles thanks to the religious right and the neocons and I don't believe they will have the pull of past elections. I think we will see more moderate Repugs asserting themselves to save the party and that's what will appeal to independents and Reagan Democrats. Thompson is the right candidate for this scenario.

[fishwax]

258. Exactly--that's why it would negate that criticism

Obama and Edwards couldn't be attacked as inexperienced lightweights if he were the candidate. (Well, credibly, anyway--it might not stop fox news.)

As for the religious right, I agree with you about the religious right, the neocons, and the shambled state of the GOP, which is exactly why no republican candidate is beatable. As for appealing to independents and Reagan Democrats, Thompson may be a candidate able to do that, but it would hardly be a cakewalk.

And while the religious right won't have the pull--certainly in the nominating process--that they have in the past, the gop can't win by simply turning their backs on them, either. (It's also worth noting that evangelicals are a pretty important demographic among reagan democrats.) If the religious right feels they're being ignored in the primary and decides not to show up, the republican candidate will very likely lose. Instead, the process of the gop nomination will more likely be a negotiation through which the leaders of the religious right can save some face (which wouldn't likely be the case if Giuliani got the nod). Thompson could conceivably be a candidate who accomplishes that, but the initial reception to his candidacy among the rr was less than enthusiastic.

[Adelante]

260. It's interesting times

Watching the GOP right now. Either they get behind some kind of unity candidate or the whole thing goes to dust. What Thompson does do, possibly, is call forth the more pragmatic conservativism that's been sidelined in the past decades by the most extreme wingnuts. I suspect the RR is just going to have to go along or surrender the White House without a fight. None of the rest of the current field can pull it all together but Thompson. Not that I think he is the almighty one, but because he's harder to pin down, entirely, one way or the other ideologically. It's like everybody can look far enough to find something they can live with if they have to.

[Hart2008]

259. Gary Hart beats him with one hand tied behind his back! n/t

[Ninja Jordan]

261. lol