Fred and Newt vs Hillary and Barack OMFG

[amicus]

Not probable but possible?

Place your bets ladies and gentlemen.

!

ahem

amicus

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I love it!

BO will eventually be discovered to be an empty suit, and NG is already known to be a half-full one, but the headliners are genuine substantive individuals who would make a fascinating contest and provide a genuine choice.

 

[SesameStreet]

Fred Thompson's interview with Sean Hannity in case you missed it...............



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tfV9TSFP4&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxJn9dSdPGQ&mode=related&search=

 

[OhMissScarlett]

this is me packing.
I hear Mars is nice.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I hate this... *sigh*

 

[elsol]

Neither Fred nor Newt would play second fiddle.

Neither Hillary nor Barack have it in them either... though Hillary would ask Barack to play second-fiddle because she's a political animal.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I dunno, I think BO and NG would take veep if that's the way the hand shaped up. Barrack would figure that he's in as soon as Hillary gets indicted , and Newt's just kind oif mucking around in a desultory way in case something odd happens - he's not running flat out like some, so veep would be pure gravy.

Why do you hate it, Selena? Unless you just hate this sort of stuff in general, which is not an unreasonable attitude and is a sign of superior mental health; the solution then is to just avert your gaze for the next 18 months.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=SesameStreet]Fred Thompson's interview with Sean Hannity in case you missed it...............



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tfV9TSFP4&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxJn9dSdPGQ&mode=related&search=[/QUOTE]


~~~


Thank you...

ami

 

[amicus]

this is me packing.
I hear Mars is nice.

~~~

Hey, if we managed to survive the 'Gorey Clinton years, we can get through anything, well if it is the hilarious Hillary....dunno....may join you.

amicus

 

[amicus]

I hate this... *sigh*

~~~

Why oh, why? And please don't avert those pretty eyes...or anything else.

amicus

 

[Liar]

Haven't been keeping track lately. How probable is this Thompson fella to headline?

Remember folks, that primaries are nomination by comittee, pretty much. It's not the best that gets the nom, but the one with the least rough edges. That's what seemed to me to be the bane for Kerry. Nodody hated the guy. But very few really loved him. Because nobody cared enough to.

Same reason I don't tyhink Hilary will end up on the final ballot. She's got that 'love me or hate me' thing going on, and there are enough people in the 'hate me' camp that many will settle for their next best choice just to get her off the ticket.

Barak is pretty much Dan Quayle with brains. Looks good on photo ops. Plus, he's got the whole 'young and ethnic but white behind the skin' image down pat. So he'll work as a media friendly running mate. And will gladly fold in line for that if that's the option.

But to whom? How un-hated is Edwards these days?

 

[amicus]

Haven't been keeping track lately. How probable is this Thompson fella to headline?

Remember folks, that primaries are nomination by comittee, pretty much. It's not the best that gets the nom, but the one with the least rough edges. That's what seemed to me to be the bane for Kerry. Nodody hated the guy. But very few really loved him. Because nobody cared enough to.

Same reason I don't tyhink Hilary will end up on the final ballot. She's got that 'love me or hate me' thing going on, and there are enough people in the 'hate me' camp that many will settle for their next best choice just to get her off the ticket.

Barak is pretty much Dan Quayle with brains. Looks good on photo ops. Plus, he's got the whole 'young and ethnic but white behind the skin' image down pat. So he'll work as a media friendly running mate. And will gladly fold in line for that if that's the option.

But to whom? How un-hated is Edwards these days?

~~~

Latest I heard about Thompson, formed an 'exploratory committee' a few days back, pundits on Fox expect him to commit to run sometime in July.

we shall see...


amicus...

 

[Liar]

~~~

Latest I heard about Thompson, formed an 'exploratory committee' a few days back, pundits on Fox expect him to commit to run sometime in July.

we shall see...


amicus...

Well, I don't even know who he is at all.

Off to Google...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Haven't been keeping track lately. How probable is this Thompson fella to headline?

He's an interesting fellow, a "full suit" and no doubt, very substantive in his views and experience, telegenic, good communicator, etc. What is propelling him right now is that he is and comes across as genuine, as opposed to the carefully assembled confections that most of the other candidates appear. (Rudy and Hillary are both pretty genuine - a problem for each since people don't much like what they see.)

What's impossible to say is whether this is one of those momentary enthusiasms/fads that quickly rise and just as quickly fall in the course of these long campaigns, or if it has legs. Only the fullness of time will tell.

 

[S-Des]

But to whom? How un-hated is Edwards these days?

Edwards is a complete piece of crap. He made his millions as a personal injury lawyer and had been a do-nothing Senator ever since. He's got a house that makes Al Gore's mansion look like an out house. He's completely in the pocket of whoever pays him and promises just about everything possible, with no possible way of paying for it. He's Dan Quayle without the brains (but I love his haircut).

 

[Guest]

Edwards is a complete piece of crap. He made his millions as a personal injury lawyer and had been a do-nothing Senator ever since. He's got a house that makes Al Gore's mansion look like an out house. He's completely in the pocket of whoever pays him and promises just about everything possible, with no possible way of paying for it. He's Dan Quayle without the brains (but I love his haircut).

He's Dan Quayle without the brains?

When did Dan Quayle have brains?

 

[JamesSD]

So when was Newt "redeemed" in the eyes of some conservatives? I mean, the rest of the nation still hates him, or at best doesn't remember him. He's cheated on past wives (bad for social conservatives), he supports the guest worker program (bad for blue-collar republicans). As a congressperson he admitted to violating house ethics rules.

Anyways, he's kind of a joke candidate, perhaps a half step up from Kucinich.

As for Fred Thompson... women HATE Fred Thompson. He'd be the kind of candidate that would mobilize the Dems while demobilizing the GOP's key social conservative base. Sure, he's the darling of educated, libertarian Republicans, but they don't decide elections any more than educated liberal college professors do for Democrats.

So yeah, Thmopson/Gingrich vs. Hillary/x or Obama/x? Landslide for the Dems, of the level of Reagan's win against Mondale.

 

[JamesSD]

Edwards is a complete piece of crap. He made his millions as a personal injury lawyer and had been a do-nothing Senator ever since. He's got a house that makes Al Gore's mansion look like an out house. He's completely in the pocket of whoever pays him and promises just about everything possible, with no possible way of paying for it. He's Dan Quayle without the brains (but I love his haircut).

Edwards is a self-made man, the son of blue-collar workers. He's VERY intelligent... comparing him to Quayle is a total joke. Yeah, he was a personal injury lawyer, but he was no abulance chaser. Look up the actual cases he was involved in, rather than just throwing around labels.

(EVERY politician is completely in the pocket of whoever pays them, except maybe the late Paul Wellstone. Rudy, Hillary, Obama, McCain... they're all owned by one group or another.)

 

[Selena_Kitt]

~~~

Why oh, why? And please don't avert those pretty eyes...or anything else.

amicus

This forum can be contentious enough without it being an election year...

Maybe I'll take a hiatus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Edwards is a complete phony. I don't think anyone with an IQ above 80 will be fooled by his schtik. I talked about ungenuine individuals above? That's Edwards' middle name.


JamesSD: "As for Fred Thompson... women HATE Fred Thompson."

Do you have any info on that? It could be a problem given divorce and later marriage to a 'trophy wife." (No overlap, met the latter years after the divorce.) On the other side, the "security" angle is supposedly important to women, and he conveys a reassuring presence on that. Shall we do a poll? Women have major problems with Hillary too, supposedly. (So do men. )

Gingrich retains appeal to the right because of 1994. He was all about reform then, like him or hate him, and notwithstanding his feet-of-clay when he actually assumed the Speakership. Given how the GOP collapsed into business-as-usual corruption after his departure Republicans may look upon him fond nostalgia now. But as I said earlier, he's just kind of hanging around in case lightning strikes in some way; he doesn't really expect to go all the way.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

This forum can be contentious enough without it being an election year...

Maybe I'll take a hiatus...

I hope people don't get all passionate and earnest about candidates for a long time, because that will make it harder to have fun mocking them all. Best to look at them all not as real human beings but merely as symbols, at least until we get down to actually voting. Hmmm - voting . . .

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

I love it!

BO will eventually be discovered to be an empty suit, and NG is already known to be a half-full one, but the headliners are genuine substantive individuals who would make a fascinating contest and provide a genuine choice.

Don't count on that saving us. After all, being an empty suit, not to mention all hat and no herd, didn't keep Shrub from getting re-elected.

rim - shot ​

Rumple Foreskin

 

[S-Des]

Don't count on that saving us. After all, being an empty suit, not to mention all hat and no herd, didn't keep Shrub from getting re-elected.

rim - shot ​

Rumple Foreskin

Amen. In fact, it may be beneficial. It's harder to attack someone who doesn't actually stand for anything. I don't even know where to begin with Edwards. His pathetic performance against Cheney gave Bush the opening necessary to retake the White House (since the race was so close, and people hated Cheney, it's mind-boggling that what he did could be termed a "best effort"). Someone got a calculator and figured out he's already promised more than 2 trillion dollars of Government giveaways, without offering a clue as to how he'll pay for it. You can dismiss me if you want, but he's the weakest of the candidates on either side of the aisle...by far. You want to elect a Republican, go ahead and push for Edwards. He's the only candidate that would make me vote for someone I dislike, just to keep him out of the White House.

BTW, here's a couple of interesting tidbits about how Edwards made his millions...

In 1985, Edwards tried a case involving medical malpractice during childbirth, representing a five-year-old child born with cerebral palsy whose doctor did not choose to perform an immediate Caesarian delivery when a fetal monitor showed she was in distress. During the trial, it has been argued that Edwards relied more on his verbal skills as a trial lawyer than on actual science, as questions remain about whether or not it was or could be proven scientifically that there is a direct connection between a delay in delivery and brain damage like cerebral palsy. While delivering his summary to the jury, Edwards said, "I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her [Jennifer], I feel her presence...[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you."

......These successful lawsuits were followed by similar ones across the country, which some believe has led to obstetricians performing unnecessary Caesarean sections if any anomaly arises on the fetal heart monitor, presumably to avoid such malpractice lawsuits.

Seriously, am I the only one who find that disgusting?

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Seriously, am I the only one who find that disgusting?

Well, I find the idea of a kid doomed to a life-time with CP pretty disgusting.

As for Edwards' actions, Des, before you get too disgusted, do you know the source of the that info? Even assuming it's true, do we know all the facts behind the case? For instance, was the mother-in-labor poor with no health insurance to pay for the C-section? Maybe so, maybe not. We're not told.

That catch-all phrase, it has been argued, raises a logical question: who argued that and why aren't we given their name?

As for Edwards summation to the jury: they are not intended as a fact finding process, but a presentation of the best possible case by the lawyer for his client. As such, they include opinions, conclusions and can often become emotional.

I've never met Edwards, but what he did was his job. Anything less, and we'd all have a perfect right to stand behind that five-year old with CP and accuse HIM of malpractice by not doing his best for her.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[S-Des]

Well, I find the idea of a kid doomed to a life-time with CP pretty disgusting.

As for Edwards' actions, Des, before you get too disgusted, do you know the source of the that info? Even assuming it's true, do we know all the facts behind the case? For instance, was the mother-in-labor poor with no health insurance to pay for the C-section? Maybe so, maybe not. We're not told.

That catch-all phrase, it has been argued, raises a logical question: who argued that and why aren't we given their name?

As for Edwards summation to the jury: they are not intended as a fact finding process, but a presentation of the best possible case by the lawyer for his client. As such, they include opinions, conclusions and can often become emotional.

I've never met Edwards, but what he did was his job. Anything less, and we'd all have a perfect right to stand behind that five-year old with CP and accuse HIM of malpractice by not doing his best for her.

Rumple Foreskin

All I can tell you is it took me a grand total of one search with the first result agreeing with what I have heard for years. That Edwards used emotional arguments to convince a jury to give his client (and him) a shitload of money. Every doctor I've heard talk about this specific case (or ones like it) is that some doctors do make mistakes or take shortcuts because they're not always good people. But no one can tell you what was on this doctor's mind, so any attempt to do so is just guesswork. No matter what he was thinking, there is no hard evidence that the doctor's actions have anything to do with the child's condition. Edwards has a number of questionable cases that he won despite not actually having any evidence. Some people say that makes him a good lawyer, I say it makes him a good snake oil salesman.

I don't care what anyone says...claiming that the spirit of a sick child was in the room and talking through you is a disgusting, cynical ploy to win at all costs (something you do when the facts aren't necessarily on your side). What it tells me is that winning is far more important to him then the truth. His actions since becoming a Senator has just confirmed that to me. If you like him, more power to you. I don't like him at all.

BTW, one more for the road...

Edwards made his personal fortune through his trial successes and his 2003 financial disclosure forms showed a total net worth between $12.8 and $60 million. Edwards was criticized for paying himself mostly through subchapter S corporate dividends, rather than a salary, to take advantage of a tax-law loophole that allowed him to avoid paying $591,000 in Medicare taxes; Edwards claimed that he chose the subchapter S structure to protect his assets from liability.

That's OK, I'm sure him trying to avoid paying taxes has nothing to do with his dislike for "tax breaks for the rich".