In 1973, the committee investigating the Watergate break-in exposed the paranoia of the Nixon Presidency, when a 30 year old lawyer on the committee asked the question of a witness regarding Nixon having had listening devices installed in the Oval office. That 30 year old attorney was none other than Fred Thompson, attorney, former Senator, movie actor, who is currently forming a committee to make a run for the White House himself.

Now, over 30 years later, it is coming to light that Thompson played an even larger part in those events. Yes, he asked the question regarding listening devices of witness Alexander Butterfield, but Butterfield had already divulged that information after hours of questioning by investigators for the committee; the answer was already known to Mr. Thompson. What we are also learning is that Fred Thompson, a member of the investigating committee, relayed to the Nixon White House that the committee had learned of the tapes, before he ever asked the question in the committee hearings.

Why are we hearing about this now? How badly are the Republican candidates scrabbling for anything that will keep the field as narrow as it is? How badly are the Democrats worried about a Thompson candidacy? Polls have shown that voters in the Democrat party are 60% satisfied with their slate of candidates, while only 30% of Republican voters are satisfied with their slate. Senator McCain, who many of us had hoped would ride the wave of discontent into a strong campaign, is most likely going to be giving up the quest before we even reach 2008, based on his poor fundraising performance. Thompson, who has not really begun the race yet, is already taking votes away from those who have spent considerable funds this early. One commentator even made the remark that Thompson had gotten into the race late!!! It is not even 2008 yet, for crying out loud.

The majority of articles I have seen so far, and speeches I have heard snippets of, have all been of the attack variety; basically, the candidates have been saying I have so little to offer that I must instead make my opponent look worse than me. And again, it is not even 2008 yet!!!

This is going to be a very negative and tiring campaign, I expect.

There wont be an election, Bush will suspend election due to us being in an active war campaign.

All Hail Emperor Bush!!

http://www.youtube.com/v/uAHzj5VcZKo

Yes, Thompson was something of a mole for the Nixon White House during the Watergate hearings. Another tidbit that's emerged is his alleged lobbying (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-thompson7jul07,0,54260.story?coll=la-home-center) for a pro-choice group in 1991:His task was to urge the administration of President George H. W. Bush to withdraw or relax a rule that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money, according to the records and to people who worked on the matter.

The abortion "gag rule" was then a major political flashpoint. Lobbying against the rule would have placed Thompson at odds with the antiabortion movement that he is now trying to rally behind his expected declaration of a presidential bidHis most recent denial (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070708/ap_on_el_pr/young_republicans;_ylt=As5VLGXeGC8ZEFOGNVQjKybMWM0 F) wasn't much of a denial:

Thompson gave an oblique response when asked about the matter, first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

"I'd just say the flies get bigger in the summertime. I guess the flies are buzzing," said Thompson, who is considering running for president as a social conservative. He refused comment on whether he recalled doing the work.I don't know what all this bodes for his possible candidacy, but it's not too late for GOPers to find their hopes somewhere else.

Thompson plans on doing many of his appearances via sat hook up in primary states...

yea... good luck with that..


This dude has no chance.

There wont be an election, Bush will suspend election due to us being in an active war campaign.

I don't see how he can. No national election has ever been suspended due to war. They even carried on elections during the civil war.

Bush is out in 08, end of story.

I'm thinking (hoping) that Greystone wasn't being serious with his comment.

Does any Republican have a chance?

Most people are unhappy with the political climate today, and they attribute it to the Republicans. Whether this has any merit or not is irrelevant, for it will undoubtedly affect many voters' decisions. I cannot see the Republicans holding on to the White House unless the political landscape changes monumentally over the next year.

What is interesting to me is the candidates for the Democrats. I cannot see Hillary winning. For one, she is a woman. Secondly, she looks like satan. Whether you like her policy or not, she simply does not look like someone you would sit down and share a beer with. Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan all were likable personalities, policy aside. Underestimating this quality would be foolish - just ask John Kerry.

Obama is much more charismatic, but he is black. While I don't care, and most of you probably don't, it remains an unfortunate fact that many do. I'm not sure that an African-American will be able to take the WH yet either.

So what the hell is going to happen? :confused:

I think the next year and a half is going to be very interesting and I have no clue who I'm going to vote for it's still way too early IMO and too much going on in the world that can rock the boat. All we can hope for is that people can put aside petty concerns about race and sex and cast their votes with clear conscious the reality of that happening however is total fantasy.

Whether you like her policy or not, she simply does not look like someone you would sit down and share a beer with. Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan all were likable personalities, policy aside. Underestimating this quality would be foolish - just ask John Kerry.


Is this seriously a criteria for voting in the US? That is beyond retarded.

I'm thinking (hoping) that Greystone wasn't being serious with his comment.Bah, you think he's going to let something ridiculous like that silly old constitution get in the way of remaining on the throne?

fildien wrote:All we can hope for is that people can put aside petty concerns about race and sex and the candidate's name and cast their votes with clear conscious the reality of that happening however is total fantasy.;)

I think any Democratic candidate can win simply because a) the general public is turned against the Republican party; and b) Republicans are very unhappy with their crop of candidates. Hillary's problem is that, rightly or wrongly, a lot of Americans just won't vote for her, while a Hillary candidacy is likely to increase voter turnout for whoever her opponent might be. Obama and Edwards lack that knee-jerk reaction.

A lot will hinge on voter turnout and just how much more disaffected voters are with the political state of affairs. The Dems have the upper hand (and will likely make gains in Congress), but putting Hillary up as their candidate is risky as hell (and bad for a number of other reasons).

Is this seriously a criteria for voting in the US? That is beyond retarded.

Yes, likability is a huge factor.

Damn, I will never live that down will I? Actually you'd be happy to know that I have grown past that :)

I was being sarcastic, but when has a president ever initiated a domestic servaillence program, when has a president ever forgone the use of warrants, when has a president told oversight commitees no sorry you can check out this stuff, when has a president done half of the crap bush has.

I said it 2 years ago, i wouldnt be the LEAST bit surprised if he didnt try. If it looks 100% change Democratic president is going to be elected....BOOM unpresidented events will lead to him trying....mark my words!

mark my words!
Marked!

Actually you'd be happy to know that I have grown past that You are free from my righteous vengeance...for now!

As a slightly left leaning moderate, let me tell you something. I've heard this "The Democrats can't lose" mantra before........


Some of you are smarter than this, the first Swift Boat/Willy Horton/Mucaca incident hasn't even occurred yet and you are already crowning a winner.

Like it or not, and pundits be damned, the next Republican will not be George Bush. And America is at its roots a Christian Nation, we love to forgive.

I've often said that no one can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the Democrats can. It all comes down to who wins the primaries and how many people head to the polls.

Something else to ponder...I heard that polls indicate the democratic congress is getting an even lower approval rating than Bush (hard to believe). It's possible the poll was rigged I suppose (not having the details at hand), but I don't think there is a lot of faith in either party these days. I for one probably won't make my mind up until the field has narrowed to the final candidates. Since I'm neither democrat or republican, I can't vote in the primary anyway.

Sorry if I took you seriously Greystone...I just had a similar discussion with a Brit who was absolutely convinced Bush will do exactly what you suggested and text is hard to convey tone sometimes.

Yes, Congress polled lower than Bush following their (essentially) caving in on the war supplemental. Dems (and many independents) are pissed over that, and I imagine Reps are pissed because Dems are in control. Note that Congress ratings have been hovering just above Bush' basement ratings for a couple years now.

EDIT: Speaking of polls (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_arg_pardonimpeachment.php)

45% favor "the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush;" 46% oppose.



54% favor "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney;" 40% oppose.

I was being sarcastic, but when has a president ever initiated a domestic servaillence program, when has a president ever forgone the use of warrants, when has a president told oversight commitees no sorry you can check out this stuff, when has a president done half of the crap bush has.

I said it 2 years ago, i wouldnt be the LEAST bit surprised if he didnt try. If it looks 100% change Democratic president is going to be elected....BOOM unpresidented events will lead to him trying....mark my words!

Bush is losing support among the Republican Senators and Representatives at what should seem to all but this administration an alarming rate. The one thing that could make Greystone's (and mine from a couple years back) hypothetical a reality is partisan politics; never forget the way some in the party reacted to losing the Bush White house to Clinton, and the lengths that were gone to to discredit him in any manner possible, and the monies tossed into this endeavour as well. I am not convinced that there would not be enough support in crucial areas to go along with this move; and, I strongly believe it would be a Cheney move, with Bush merely mouthing the words. I think Cheney is hearing the hoofbeats of an enraged posse bearing down on him with a whole shitload of questions he does not want to answer.

And so, I am not ready to count out this possible scenario, completely. With this administration, anything that violates the foundations of our governing principles is not beyond the realms of possibility.


And, I wonder what a certain Independent politician in New York is making of all this.

Bush is losing support among the Republican Senators and Representatives at what should seem to all but this administration an alarming rate. Rhetorical support, anyway. When it comes to votes, the Reps still follow the party line. Look at how many of those Reps calling for Gonzales to step down actually voted for the no-confidence resolution. Immigration aside, of course; that one is all over the place on a bipartisan basis.

This whole upcoming election seems almost orchestrated. Yes im a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but look at the facts. The top Democratic, atleast part of the top are a woman and a black man whose name is Barack Hussein Obama.

Unfortunately there is just enough ignorance that people wont vote for a woman, and people will damn sure be told nothing more about Obama than his middle name is Hussein and that same ignorance is going to change voters. I hate to say it but you all know a percentage will not vote for them, just for those reasons. Combine that with the fact that a ridiculous small percentage of this country votes could mean the "inevitable Democratic win", many just not happen.

I'm thinking the a large percentage that wouldn't vote for a woman or a guy whose middle name is inauspicious wouldn't vote for any Democrat.

So far Mike Gravel strikes me as the only really honest candidate.

So far Mike Gravel strikes me as the only really honest candidate.

Its ashame he comes off as kinda a wackaloon though.

An honest man getting into politics is, almost by definition, a wackaloon.

He might be honest but during the debates I grew to dislike him b/c he felt simply because he was older and in the Senate longer he was some how more important. Get off your high horse already yes you're more experienced show it other ways instead of taking dumb jabs that make you look like a retard.

Greystone... You wrote the following...

Unfortunately there is just enough ignorance that people wont vote for a woman, and people will damn sure be told nothing more about Obama than his middle name is Hussein and that same ignorance is going to change voters.

Please explain what you mean by "people will damn sure be told nothing more about Obama that his middle name is Hussein".

Are you trying to say that the media will not give the American people more inforamation that this?? I fail to see what you are tying to get at. If anything I have seen more about Obama and Hillary on the news then ANY other candidate.

Now if you are implying that the media is biased and are trying to get one candidate elected over another.. then that is a whole new topic...

By the way.. have you all called your congressmen in support of the Fairness Doctrine.. Comeon.. this is your chance to silence talk radio...

Terry Nelson, Campaign Manager, and John Weaver, Chief Strategist, have both resigned their positions at the head of the McCain campaign (one source says Nelson was fired). Republicans close to the campaign say that Mark Salter, long time chief of staff and co-author of McCain's books, has also left.

In a perhaps fitting irony, McCain was -- at the time -- delivering a "surge is a success" speech on the Senate floor. God did not return calls for comment.

Are you trying to say that the media will not give the American people more inforamation that this?? I fail to see what you are tying to get at. If anything I have seen more about Obama and Hillary on the news then ANY other candidate.

I think he's alluding to the fact that many Americans are too stupid to make their own decisions about politics. Many simply vote party lines. Other are influenced by things such as race and gender - Obama has a disadvantage in regards to the former, Hillary the latter.

Simply put, Obama will lose votes because of his name. This neg rip hit I received from Osg sums it up perfectly:

"Far better world now then if Osama Obama or bill get into office. God help us all."

I've read Obama's book and many other articles about him and I'm still left in the dark about much of his policy. I feel comfortable saying that while I might not know a lot, Osg knows jack shit. I challenge him to make one logical assertion why Obama winning the presidency would be so horrible. This knee-jerk reaction by morons who simply follow the party without knowing why is killing American politics.

I am referring to the fact that a lot of baby boomers all vote. Many of them tend to lean Repub. Simply informing the people that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, will do many things, and have no "mudslinging" lable. One, his name doesnt fit the pleasent anglo-saxon template previous presidents have, two, Hussein...Saddam, do i need to elaborate, and Three Obama and Osama....again should i elaborate.

Dear Greystone:

I wouldn't be so quick to lay the monopoly on that sort of knee-jerk bias at the foot of the Boomers; as someone on the tail end of that wave I can tell you that by and large my slightly *younger* friends are more conservative on a variety of issues than I or my contemporaries are; remember, we have first-hand (living) knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement, Watergate, the Vietnam War, that peculiar mixture of hope and cynicism that we ate with our breakfast cereal. Despite how you see Boomers painted in the media, many of us simply never bought the 'Reagan Revolution' and subsequent whitewashing/revisionism of the political history that came before, whereas many of our younger bretheren were all too happy to hop on that feel-good ideological bandwagon.

While you do find a certain arrogance about the above in some Boomers (and you see endless slick PR by people trying to sell things in the corporate-owned media attempting to paint the Boomers as 'grown up' (and hence more conservative, right?) now that they're in the 45-60 range, I'd say the evidence tends to bear out the opposite; my older friends on the whole seem *more*, not less, flexible and thoughtful than my younger ones, who still think they know everything ;).

In short, I think that name/race/gender bias will sort along educational and urban/rural lines, not age lines, with rare exceptions and to a small degree in the over 65 crowd. Now get off my lawn! ;)

Regards,
Nydia

Simply put, Obama will lose votes because of his name. This neg rip hit I received from Osg sums it up perfectly: That assumes that the Osg's of the country might have voted for him in the first place. They wouldn't.

I think you can sum up 80% of Americans political awareness if you ever watched the Sopranos.

More than anything else, Tony Soprano reflected the nature of the typical american in regards to politics. There is a vague awareness of events that never really get thought too much about, except in rants that in some way reach into their own immediate personal orbits. From there, actual news and facts are seemlessly melded with all the classic Freudian Ego Defense mechanisms.



Denial of Reality: Protecting self from unpleasant reality by refusal to perceive it or face it.
Fantasy: Gratifying frustrated desires by imaginary achievements.
Repression: Preventing painful or dangerous thoughts from entering consciousness.
Rationalization: Attempting to prove that one's behavior is 'rational' and justifiable and thus worthy of self and social approval.
Projection: Placing blame for difficulties upon others or attributing one's own unethical desires to others.
Reaction Formation: Preventing dangerous desires from being expressed by adopting exaggerated opposed attitudes and types of behavior and using them as 'barriers'.
Displacement: Discharging pent-up feelings, usually hostility, on objects less dangerous than those which initially aroused the emotion.
Emotional Insulation: Reducing ego involvement and withdrawing into passivity to protect self from hurt.
Intellectualization: Cutting off affective charge from hurtful situations or separating incompatible attitudes by logic-tight compartments.
Undoing: Atoning for and thus counteracting immoral desires or acts.
Regression: Retreating to earlier developmental level involving less mature responses and usually a lower level of aspiration.
Identification: Increasing feelings of worth by identifying self with person or institution of illustrious standing.
Introjection: Incorporating external values and standards into ego structure so individual is not at their mercy as external threats.
Compensation: Covering up weakness by emphasizing desirable trait or making up for frustration in one area by over-gratification in another.


We are so self centered that politics have to be reduced to easily digestable bland, universally appealing tidbits and sound bites.

That assumes that the Osg's of the country might have voted for him in the first place.

Good point, the knuckle-dragging, non-thinking, ultra-right wouldn't vote for a anyone open minded about anything....as well as the whole being black thing...and having a name that they can misconstrue in wholly inappropriate ways, not that they would be able to pronounce his name properly anyways. No offense Osg....not really...no really. ;)

Whatever candidate wins will have to have some appeal to the bulk of the population in the middle, something I'm not confident Hilary could do.....Obama might, but it's uphill.

Jesus, can people atleast let Osg respond before he is further slammed in a thread he isnt even in. :p

So far, in this pre-campaign season:p, I have yet to hear Obama really give an indepth response to any questions regarding his talking points.

My concern about his being elected has nothing to do about race or silly names, but more about the fact that this man is still a novice, politically. I do not want another President who is little more than a rubber stamp or mouthpiece for a group of advisors or a Veep.

I don't trust him to have the goods to deal with the International matters that are in our near future. He needs more experience, in my opinion, and hopefully he will have the opportunity to get that resume built. I just don't see him as a LEADER at this time.

Jesus, can people atleast let Osg respond before he is further slammed in a thread he isnt even in. :p

Stop standing in the way of efficiency. We have just cut out the middle man.

So far, in this pre-campaign season, I have yet to hear Obama really give an indepth response to any questions regarding his talking points.It's difficult to give in depth responses to anything during debates or simple interviews. You might go to the issues (http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/) portion of his website. The link is to the overview page, with an Issues heading leading to links to more substantive positions. Compare this to the relatively threadbare Giuliani (http://www.joinrudy2008.com/index.php?section=2) issues page. Compare, for example, the candidates' write-ups on Healthcare.

Shanno, i tend to think your lucky enough to live in one of the more progressive thinking parts of our country. as a former resident of Imperial Polk county i'm pretty familiar with the staunch ignorance poor Greystone has to face and it's definately prevalent enough to make anyone with half a brain wanna beat your head into the wall to numb yourself into submission.
I also read the OP/ED section of the palm beach post alot and i've read several letters to the editor in last few months stating exactly what Grey refered to concerning Obama. basically how can we as "good" Americans even consider letting a muslim like Obama run for president. especially one who was educated in a "radical" muslim school.
You see, good political slander is not sensational or head line grabbing it's more like a good computer virus. let it go here and there and then give it time to work it's way around and silently infect a large number of hard drives. doesnt have to get to everyone, just enough.
In Obama's case the worm was released months ago!

I believe that he may have some well written stuff, Thor. My point was that he does ot seem able to think on his feet and give sound responses, other than restating a talking point. This shows me that he does not have that firm a grasp on the material yet, but is merely being directed and sticking with sound bites.

As for Giuliani, there is nothing of substance to that man. He plays up to the fears people have, and touts "his" achievements of reducing crime while mayor of New York; I don't recall him being out there on the streets chasing the criminals or being in harm's way.


Edit: I think the biggest problem many of my generation are facing is that we have become so disllusioned by those posing as leaders of our parties that we have trouble viewing any as meriting a second glance.

I'd have to say that I share Bylimet's reservations about Obama; I don't doubt his thoughtfulness or sincerity (well as much as you get out of a politician anyway ;) ), but am concerned that he's not quite ready for prime time, as it were.

At this juncture, Hillary looks like the one with the 'goods', as it were, despite her high negative reputation (which isn't quite so high these days) and her link to some not-so-savory elements; I have a feeling that Edwards will, however, independent of his own merits (although I like him), be the ultimate beneficiary of both Obama and Clinton's perceived liabilities and racial/gender 'issue', when push comes to shove and it comes nomination time.

Regards,
Nydia

Obama is an incredible orator, but he isn't as quick or smooth when it comes to on the spur of the moment chatting. Policy wise, I find him preferable to Hillary, but obviously your opinion on that depends on where you fall along the political spectrum.

ATM i'm leaning toward Obama. I am wondering if he is holding back for next year. It is still a little early to get going full swing.

I need to see him in some head to head debates, and i am hoping though i agree with Thor that he can get the moxxy (my favorite word ever) to speak spur of the moment, and less preparred.

I had high hopes for Obama after reading his books; however I'm not sure I like where his policies are taking him. That and he hasn't really expounded on just where exactly he wants to go with them yet.

I'm not sure what is missing from the Issues section of his website, what he hasn't "expounded" on. It seems pretty comprehensive.

I think what people are getting at is he hasn't been able to expound upon it when he's speaking. Not that 'he' hasn't expounded upon it at all. I think people just want to see him think on his feet more than being able to write a blog or something. It's much easier to think when you have all the time in the world to post an opinion rather than to verbalize it when put on the spot. Keep in mind that Obama is the candidate I'm actively supporting right now, so it's not as if I am ripping on him. I'm just stating what i think others concerns are.

I'm not saying this is happening, but it could. Someone from his staff could be doing the expounding which is why he can't/hasn't yet been able to fully state his points. He could be nervous (I doubt this, but it wouldn't be a good trait for a President). He might not have had ample time on televised debates to fully expound upon them (this is what I think is happening).

The fact he hasn't gone in depth, and the fact he has limited foreign policy experience are legitmate concerns if you ask me.

But keep in mind just how difficult it is to go in depth in the usual media fora, and how the usual media fora really push for brief answers to profound questions. I agree that Obama could handle these things more smoothly, but other than being given an hour on Charlie Rose or something to outline health care initiatives (Zzzzz...) it's at best a difficult task.

and the fact he has limited foreign policy experience are legitmate concerns if you ask me.

HAHA, and the vast experiance the current administration posses(possed) has worked how well?
I'm viewing that as one of his selling points. its not the experiance but the way you approach foreing policy thats gonna matter. the next president regardless of party is going to have a lot of fences to mend.

I agree. But beyond doing something like that, I think people think he has no substance.

HAHA, and the vast experiance the current administration posses(possed) has worked how well?
I'm viewing that as one of his selling points. its not the experiance but the way you approach foreing policy thats gonna matter. the next president regardless of party is going to have a lot of fences to mend.

And when did I say I approved of the current administration's foreign policy? Add to that, the lack of foreign policy experience was a big knock against GW before the 2000 election anyhow, seeing as his major political experience as was a state governor.

HAHA, and the vast experiance the current administration posses(possed) has worked how well?
I'm viewing that as one of his selling points. its not the experiance but the way you approach foreing policy thats gonna matter. the next president regardless of party is going to have a lot of fences to mend.

Actually, Vel, the current administration had a wealth of experience in the area of foreign issues, with Powell, Cheney, Rice, etc. Bush even had a bit more knowledge than many due to his father's resume, and what I would assume to be some dialog between the two now and then. They just made a decision that they were the ones in charge of the world (Powell is the exception) and treated too many allies and on-the-fencers with too much disrespect and indifference; as you say, the successor to Bush will have a lot of work to do, rebuilding alliances and creating new ones.