[QUOTE=Quartz]
Well, the Democrats are treating Fred Thompson seriously, calling his wife a whore - by innuendo, of course. So I guess that makes FDT an authentic threat.
[/QUOTE]
Scarborough is a Republican. Can you clarify, or was that a joke?
[QUOTE=Quartz]
Well, the Democrats are treating Fred Thompson seriously, calling his wife a whore - by innuendo, of course. So I guess that makes FDT an authentic threat.
[/QUOTE]
Ooopsie!
Bolding mine.
Defiantly indepedent, eh?
A Republican Congressman from one of Florida’s most conservative districts publicly suggested that another Republican politician’s wife “works the pole”?!?! :eek: :eek:
I know one thing: I’m not putting any money down on Scarborough’s re-election next year. Unless maybe he apologizes and goes into rehab.
Um, Kimstu? He bailed years ago to host “Scarborough Country” on MSNBC. He actually seems fairly sane on the air.
Gotta love Thompson marrying a woman 4 years younger than his own daughter, while standing for “family values”, though.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Scarborough is a Republican. Can you clarify, or was that a joke?
[/QUOTE]
No, an error on my part. I assumed that because he was being attacked, it was a Democrat. Mea maxima culpa.
You do know that I’m British, don’t you? I have no direct interest in the American presidential election. You have read my previous posts which (for example) say that Obama has the air of JFK, haven’t you?
Whew! Thanks. 
I don’t think the “family values” crowd really has anything against older men marrying younger women. It’s the divorce-and-remarriage pattern in general that violates their declared principles, and even that doesn’t seem to be bothering most conservatives with respect to Thompson.
I’m trying to decide which is the uglier old politician with the prettier young wife: Thompson or Kucinich? Now there’s a close race.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Guin brings up Hillary Clinton’s being cold, and I agree with that too. She may in fact be the nicest person in the Empire State, but she looks and sounds cold and imperious. Again, that may have nothing to do with her personality and her politics - I’ve never met the lady - but the combination of her appearance and poise and voice make her look and sound that way.
Like it or not, appearance matters. Here in Canada, in our last election we had Stephen Harper, who looks and sounds cold and weird, winning the last election against Paul Martin, who looks and sounds panicky and stupid (or at least does when campaigning.) But according to all inside accounts, Harper is in fact a nice, friendly man who loves kids, and Martin is a highly competent, smart man. But that’s not how they sound and look, and Harper constantly fights that impression (and Martin lost an election in part because of the impression he gave, though he doesn’t have to worry about it anymore because he retired.)
[/QUOTE]
Right-it’s all about public relations. And I can sympathize, because I’ve been told that I always look angry, or depressed and forbidding-and I don’t MEAN to, but it’s just my facial expression. I try very hard to overcome this. But fortunately, I’m not in public office.
NB: I really dislike Edwards but will definitely vote for the Dem candidate in '08–even if it’s Edwards. I favor Obama and can accept Hillary.
That said, I totally don’t get the appeal of Edwards to his supporters here and out there. What makes him–at all–a necessary candidate? It seems that the best thing you can say about him is that his heart is in the right place regarding the main issues. Doesn’t really like the Iraq war, wants universal health care, wants to make things less sucky for the poor and middle class. That’s fine, but all the Dem candidates are running pretty much on those same rails. What’s the “something more” that Edwards offers? I see zilch.
As an orator, an inspirer, he totally sucks. Zero gravitas. I was favorably disposed toward Edwards in '04 (and voted for him and Kerry), but when I heard him talk I was shocked. He had lightweight written all over him.
He now seems to be running on ego alone. He has not been in the Senate for years and doesn’t really have the big experience load like Nixon or (potentially) Gore to justify coming back and shouting, “Look at me!” Nor do brilliant ideas or a stirring presence serve as justification.
There are multiple things about Edwards, IMO, that cause people to think, “I don’t want to reward this guy with the presidency.” I think a big part of it is the sense that he’s running out of ego and self-love and just really, really wants to be president. I got that same feeling from both Clinton and W, and I never really liked either. On the other hand, I never got that feeling from Carter, Reagan, or GHWB.
At the end of the day, I think that Edwards comes across as phony because his primary motivations for wanting to be president (narcicissm and ambition) are in in their own right unattractive and at the same time not quite in harmony with his stated (and let’s assume) genuine motivations: wanting to help the poor, etc.
So I just don’t get the Edwards candidacy. In contrast, I do get the Thompson candidacy, however much I contemn it. The Pubs don’t really like any of the three major candidates and pretty much know that are going to lose with any of them. They are hankering for a messiah, and Fred is the best they could come up with. Fred will also look like dogshit once he really gets into the race, but for now the fantasy lives on. And yes, Thompson is a true, cynical, piece-of-shit phony.