Can we perhaps now all agree to give up on the illusion of a viable Fred Thompson candidacy? Yes, he gives a great speech and under other circumstances, at a different time in history, probably would have made one hell of a president. However, that time is now past.and;
So, be content and comforted with the fact that Fred Thompson has more class on a bad day than Edwards will ever possess, and will withdraw from the race sooner rather than later with his dignity intact. Small comfort for some, no doubt, but at least he'll exit in a gallant manner...which is more than we can say for some.
Nooooo! I still believe. Okay, I might be aware that it isn't going to happen, but I see very little that would inspire me the same way in the candidates who remain.
Huckabee? The man who wants to change the Constitution to conform with God's word, at least as interpreted by Baptist preachers? Aren't these the same Baptists who don't have sex standing up because they don't want anyone to think that they are dancing?
Romney? The very definition of plastic. Malleable in all circumstances, fixed in none.
McCain? Two words: McCain-Feingold.
The range of virtues of the current field stretches from A to B, and not much in between either. The only thing that will save the Republicans will be the Great Uniter: Hillary.
7 comments:
I live in Florida and our primary is on the 29th and I have NO choice but to vote for Thompson. Why isn't anyone asking Romney to bow out since he finished 4th? Meanwhile Romney hasn't won a contested state yet.
Steve, in defense of Romney being "Malleable in all circumstances," is it not appropriate to mention that Ronald Reagan was once a union president, a Democrat, and admirer of FDR?
As a businessman I define being unmalleable and fixed as a recipe for disaster, that one cannot learn from the mistakes of the past, regroup, and charge ahead with another idea or plan. G-d knows I've had to do it numerous times in the past, and I wouldn't expect the president to act differently.
Isn't that one of the primary reasons that, to a certain extent, Bush is seen as a failure, at least from a foreign policy/Iraq war standpoint? His inability to change the battle plan when the situation on the ground warranted a change in direction?
I'm Mike Harris and I approved this message ;-)
Uh, Bush is not seen as a failure. That would be the Democrat-controlled Congress.
Posted by an anonymous source because he was not authorized to speak with the press :)
It's one thing to figure out you were wrong, announce it, and then change course. That is called wisdom.
But changing your position based on your audience is still malleable.
But changing your position based on your audience is still malleable.
I understand your point, though without a specific example, perhaps we're just dealing with tautological differences...
Mostly, I am thinking about his positions on tax cuts, abortion, Reagan and such. While I realize that he had to say those things to become governor of the Bluest state in the union, he has not adequately (in my mind at least) explained why he changed.
Not to totally discount him though. I will consider him if he gets the nod.
Change is good, remember?
Post a Comment