Comments on: Fred Thompson has a limit on pandering http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/ Just another WordPress weblog Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:02:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: RobW http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461209 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:02:35 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461209 <i>Seriously - campaign finance is a big issue? Why? </i> Because money=speech, and money is one thing the Dobsons of this country have plenty of. Campaign finance reform directly threatens their power. Cue libertarian whining about nanny-staters in 3... 2... 1... Seriously - campaign finance is a big issue? Why?

Because money=speech, and money is one thing the Dobsons of this country have plenty of. Campaign finance reform directly threatens their power.

Cue libertarian whining about nanny-staters in 3… 2… 1…

]]> by: libhomo http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461194 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:11:04 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461194 Grammar RWA: The right to die also includes physician assisted suicide, something which is perfectly reasonable. There are a significant number of people who support allowing nature to take its course but won't allow help to stop people from suffering. The distinction is not sensible to me, but it is to a lot of people. Grammar RWA: The right to die also includes physician assisted suicide, something which is perfectly reasonable. There are a significant number of people who support allowing nature to take its course but won’t allow help to stop people from suffering.

The distinction is not sensible to me, but it is to a lot of people.

]]> by: Bitter Scribe http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461138 Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:35:46 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461138 GotDaFeevah, that's a good observation. As Ben Franklin said, "Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other." GotDaFeevah, that’s a good observation. As Ben Franklin said, “Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other.”

]]> by: ace http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461124 Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:54:17 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461124 That's why I'm not sure *whether* to be amazed--if more in the sense that they have no problem judging the morals of others, but not their own. That’s why I’m not sure *whether* to be amazed–if more in the sense that they have no problem judging the morals of others, but not their own.

]]> by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461106 Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:08:27 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461106 Aman is right -- Edwards and Dodd are a lot more progressive than Clinton. On foreign policy, both Edwards and Dodd oppose Clinton's vote in favor of Lieberman-Kyl, which promotes war with Iran. On domestic policy, you can compare their advisors to Hillary's top advisor Mark Penn who runs a PR firm that helps companies bust unions and gives more money to Republicans than Democrats. Edwards' advisors are especially impressive on domestic issues -- the connection between his people and organized labor is very tight, and he hired a couple key staffers right out of the Wake Up Wal-Mart campaign. Aman is right — Edwards and Dodd are a lot more progressive than Clinton. On foreign policy, both Edwards and Dodd oppose Clinton’s vote in favor of Lieberman-Kyl, which promotes war with Iran. On domestic policy, you can compare their advisors to Hillary’s top advisor Mark Penn who runs a PR firm that helps companies bust unions and gives more money to Republicans than Democrats.

Edwards’ advisors are especially impressive on domestic issues — the connection between his people and organized labor is very tight, and he hired a couple key staffers right out of the Wake Up Wal-Mart campaign.

]]> by: Llelldorin http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461086 Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:07:40 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461086 ace, why? Conservatives <i>like</i> shotgun weddings, a.k.a. "making an honest woman of her." Premarital schtupping is only a problem for women, in conservative circles. It's <i>expected</i> of men, as long as any resulting pregnancies are dealt with by marriages. ace, why? Conservatives like shotgun weddings, a.k.a. “making an honest woman of her.”

Premarital schtupping is only a problem for women, in conservative circles. It’s expected of men, as long as any resulting pregnancies are dealt with by marriages.

]]> by: ace http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461082 Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:58:59 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461082 Of all the things Dobson would throw Thompson under the bus before, I'm not sure whether to be amazed that it ISN'T Fred's having a shotgun wedding at age 17 and his first child 7 months later. Of all the things Dobson would throw Thompson under the bus before, I’m not sure whether to be amazed that it ISN’T Fred’s having a shotgun wedding at age 17 and his first child 7 months later.

]]> by: Aman http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461005 Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:25:49 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-461005 Who's coordinating all that, cpp? Also, I was under the impression Clinton was more centrist than either Edwards or Dodd. Who’s coordinating all that, cpp? Also, I was under the impression Clinton was more centrist than either Edwards or Dodd.

]]> by: jules http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-460930 Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:36:03 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-460930 “Isn’t Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold..." Wait, McCain-Feingold is a big issue for the Religious Right? Why in hell would they care about that? That's not about fetuses or icky man-love or anything like that. Seriously - campaign finance is a big issue? Why? “Isn’t Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold…”

Wait, McCain-Feingold is a big issue for the Religious Right? Why in hell would they care about that? That’s not about fetuses or icky man-love or anything like that.

Seriously - campaign finance is a big issue? Why?

]]> by: cpp http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-460929 Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:35:47 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/22/fred-thompson-has-a-limit-on-pandering/#comment-460929 So does anyone else see both parties "triangulating" away the chance for real change in this election? It seems like the GOP has a bunch of loonies out there that fit into the same pattern we've seen before -- authoritarian ex-office holders, religious wackos, and an actor -- almost as if to guarantee that the various pieces of their base all have someone to look to at the moment. And the same with the Dems: a "fringe" progressive, a woman, a black man, and a couple of centrist white men. And I think the strategy in both is to stage the primaries such that it is a toss-up all the way to the conventions, and then settle on candidates that are near the center while hoping that the other party goes for their base instead. It seems like the GOP is planning to pull out a Bob Dole-type right-leaning "centrist" at the last minute and hoping to go up against Clinton or Obama, while the DNC is planning on an Edwards/Dodd ticket and hoping to run against Giuliani or Romney. That would pit the standard stereotypes against each other without the risk of handing actual power to another real progressive like LBJ or real wacko like GWB. So does anyone else see both parties “triangulating” away the chance for real change in this election?

It seems like the GOP has a bunch of loonies out there that fit into the same pattern we’ve seen before — authoritarian ex-office holders, religious wackos, and an actor — almost as if to guarantee that the various pieces of their base all have someone to look to at the moment. And the same with the Dems: a “fringe” progressive, a woman, a black man, and a couple of centrist white men. And I think the strategy in both is to stage the primaries such that it is a toss-up all the way to the conventions, and then settle on candidates that are near the center while hoping that the other party goes for their base instead.

It seems like the GOP is planning to pull out a Bob Dole-type right-leaning “centrist” at the last minute and hoping to go up against Clinton or Obama, while the DNC is planning on an Edwards/Dodd ticket and hoping to run against Giuliani or Romney. That would pit the standard stereotypes against each other without the risk of handing actual power to another real progressive like LBJ or real wacko like GWB.

]]>