« Red County/OC Blog News Roundup -- March 29, 2007 | Main | Like It Or Not, An Iraq Withdrawal Deadline Is Defeatism »

March 29, 2007



Not that I'm a fan of Willard Romney but shouldn't Frustrated Republican's posts on the presidential race carry a tag " Brought to you by the Giuliani Fan CLub"?

The Real Cheese

ever heard romney speak? cheesiest guy ever. i can't believe he is even at 7%.

Rudy's  A Lib

Perhaps Frustrated Republican could spend some time explaining why conservatives, who are the dominant portion of the GOP, should embrace a liberal like Rudy?

Or is it just easier to bash Mitt Romney?

I'll be more impressed with Rudy when I see him go before the National Right To Life Committee and defend his "I'd pay for my daughter's abortion" comment, or he explains to the NRA why he sued the gun manufacturers because they were making too many guns.

"He can win" may be enough for the checkbook crowd, but activists who think principles actually count for something need more than that.

Richard Rios

The recent survey, Thompson is now 3rd. Strong core Republican with some momentum considering he has not really started campaigning yet.

I have heard many remarks about our leading contenders. Has anyone heard anything negative about Thompson? .. other than he has a late start.

Richard Rios


Dobson said he didn't think Fred was a Christian(not true by the way). Fred also supported McCain-Feingold, an apparent kiss of death with some insider Republicans.

Really?  Thompson's out, then

Of course voting McCain-Feingold is a kiss of death because it shows a complete lack of philosophical belief in small government and individual freedom. It should absolutely disqualify any Republican. I didn't know Thompson supported it-- forget that guy, then.

I don't care for Rudy, but it is possible to be pro-choice under the guise of a libertarian-type belief system (I have no idea if this is how Giuliani arrives at his belief set).

And I am one of those hoping for some Reagan-esque conservative to ride into this race on a white horse, but Frustrated is probably right, unfortunately... the fundraising deficit at this point is probably already too huge for a latecomer to overcome.


Real Cheese is actually understating it. Romney isn't just cheesy, he's Velveeta!

You start off thinking he's a good speaker for the first 5 minutes but by the time he's finished, you want to go take a shower.

Velveeta for Pres!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shawn Fago

Really? Thompson's out, then...

You forget that Reagan was also Pro-Choice. I am not supporting that view, merely pointing out that you hope for a "Reagan-esque" conservative... That is Rudy.


Richard Rios

After reading Bladerunner's point on McCain-Feingold, I did a quick search. Here is an interesting print from WSJ.COM.

Many on the right remain angry Mr. Thompson supported the campaign finance law sponsored by his friend, John McCain. “There are problems with people giving politicians large sums of money and then asking them to pass legislation,” Mr. Thompson says. Still, he notes he proposed the amendment to raise the $1,000 per person “hard money” federal contribution limit. Conceding that McCain-Feingold hasn’t worked as intended, and is being riddled with new loopholes, he throws his hands open in exasperation. “I’m not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn’t just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately.”

On Iraq, he admits “we are left with nothing but bad choices.” However, he says the “worst choice” would be to have Osama bin Laden proven right when he predicted America wouldn’t have the stomach for a tough fight.

On domestic issues, Mr. Thompson says a major reason Republicans lost last November was that they aided and abetted runaway government spending. Yet Democrats, he contends, are incapable of following through on their pledges to be fiscally prudent. “Their political coalition needs more revenue like a car requires gasoline,” he laughs. “Reagan showed what can be done if you have the will to push for tough choices and the ability to ask the people to accept them.” … “Lower marginal tax rates have proven to be a key to prosperity now by Kennedy, Reagan and Bush. It’s time millionaires serving in the Senate learned not to overly tax other people trying to get wealthy.”

So the point on McCain-Feingold should be taken. However, on the poll Jubal hyperlinked to, McCain is second so is it really an issue with the voting public since it has his name on it?

Richard Rios

If it is the Kiss of Death, that puts McCain out, Romney is out at 7%, Thompson is out due to the McCain-Feingold support...

and the winner is Rudy by default.


Richard----I agree that McCain-Feingold is more of an insider issue. Most sane people have no clue what you're talking about and think its a presidential ticket. But insiders have alot of clout in the presidential selection process so its a factor to consider.

I may be biased because I watch law and Order but Thompson is a contender for sure. But his comment about Democrats unable to live up to their pledges to be fiscally prudent flies in the face of recent experience. Bill Clinton balanced budgets. Of course he had a Republican Congress that helped him do that. That same Republican Congress couldn't seem to do that under a Republican President. A fair statement might be that divided government is the best prescription for being fiscally prudent.


All this talk is pure academic BS. When Newt Gingrich finally gets into the race, he'll pick up all the pieces. A Hillary-Newt face off in the Fall will be fabulous to watch.

Silence Dogood

Shawn Fago -

Please please please stop contributing to political discussions! You are waaaay over your head "bro". And you are waaaay wrong about Ronald Reagan's so-called "pro-choice" past!

As I have explained before:

That assertion is flat wrong! It's based on the point that an abortion legalization measure passed into law in California after Reagan's first year as Governor.

But let me quote Judge William P. Clark's foreword to the book President Reagan published on the subject titled, "Abortion & the Conscience of the Nation." According to Reagan's official biographer, Edmund Morris, Judge Clark was the only person in the Gipper's entire two terms that had any kind of spiritual intimacy with the president. I have the book open right in front of me. Clark writes, "Perhaps [Reagan's] greatest disappointment in public life occurred in his first year in office. As the new California Governor, he was confronted by one piece of legislation which proposed liberalizing access to legal abortion. By a lopsided majority, the bill raced through the legislature, following the lead of other 'progressive' states. Members of his staff had pointed out that the veto he planned would be overridden by the commanding majority of the opposition party in the state legislature. The Governor went into semi-seclusion for a long weekend. There he studied the moral, legal, and medical aspects of abortion, and the extensive reach of the other life issues. He later emerged, saying, 'When this subject arises again, we shall be prepared.'"

Clark explains to readers that President Reagan's convictions were nurtured by his mother, Nelle, and reinforced early in life by the loss of his three-day-old daughter, Christina.

Ronald Reagan HAS ALWAYS BEEN pro-life.

Stop trying to sell us the most liberal Republican candidate for the presidency, a person who would utterly destroy any shred of credibility the Republican Party has on any issue.

Chip Hanlon

I almost never chime in on these things, but come on, Silence. "Utterly destroy any shred of credibility the Republican Party has on any issue?"

A little over the top, don't you think?

You seem to know a lot about Ronald Reagan, but what about Barry Goldwater? Check his opinion on abortion, why don't you?

Then settle down.

Silence Dogood

Chip -

I appreciate your concern and I'm aware of what you're referring to. I simply believe that Mr. Fago has too often chimed in on issues to which he is ignorant. And I'm growing increasingly impatient with and angry about the Ronald Reagan comparisons. Will everyone please just cease with the Reagan comparisons? Each candidate should seek to be their own person.

Yes, Giuliani would "utterly detroy any shred of credibility the Republican Party has on any issue". The guy absolutely does not believe in the Party's core tenants of limited government. His entire appeal for our vote rests on security concerns, fear. Without fear, Giuliani loses. To me, that is a grave concern. On virtually every issue he is in opposition to the platform of the Republican Party.

Obama is a Fad

sorry to interrupt but i saw this thread from s dogood. here is my fear silence:

i fear that republicans underestimate hillary-- who WILL be the democrat nominee-- as a candidate. a few votes change columns in a couple of states and the other side sits in the white house.

reid, pelosi, hillary. chew on that for a while then get back to all of us about your hierarchy of fears.

who can win is not just a legitimate concern for republicans, but at this particular point in time it is arguably the MOST imporant consideration. she will beat any republican except guiliani, whom she cannot.

Silence Dogood

Thanks. You just proved my point, again.

Silence Dogood

From Rasmussen:

"Fred Thompson, a movie star turned U.S. Senator turned TV star, has been publicly considering entering the 2008 Presidential Sweepstakes to fill what some see as a void in the Republican Primary field.

"The first Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey involving Thompson shows the former Senator from Tennessee essentially tied with the Democratic frontrunner, Senator Hillary Clinton. It’s Thompson 44% Clinton 43%."

That's without Thompson spending a dime on a run for the presidency! I'm not as desperate for Giuliani as you clearly, delusionally, are when I see these numbers.

Why are we so concerned about wrapping up the presidential election nineteen months before the general? There is a lot yet to come. The world could be in a completely different state of affairs next year.

Silence Dogood

...and Bernard Kerik's doing wonders for Giuliani's law enforcement/national security bonafides these days.


As a past and harsh critic of Mr. Fago I disagree with Dogwood. EVERYONE should chime in and everyone should take their lumps like a man if they post something that is inaccurate.

Sean please respond with an “oops I was mistaken” and continue contributing. I have made big errors in arguing – getting corrected just makes everyone smarter – I knew RR was always pro-life but now I got to read all the details.

Let's give some credit to Fago – he sticks his neck out and uses his own name while trying to make a point.

Silence Dogood

Bootstrap -

I welcome Fago's comments on issues to which he has some understanding. I don't welcome his revisionist history.



I don't think any of his ignorant or dopey comments have made it past the watchful eyes of the contributors at the OCBLOG. Everyone in politics has their job and place - he brings out facts from you I didn't know. He just needs to pony up with an "oops you were right" and keep pluging away at trying to make a good point.

Someday he will hit his mark thanks to being called on the carpet by smart guys like you. When he does say something thoughtful based on a solid historical fact you can take some credit in bringing him along. In grade school its called socialization. Here its called smacking someone down. Don't give up Sean!

Richard Rios

In some respects, agree with Obama’s posting. “who can win is not just a legitimate concern for republicans, but at this particular point in time it is arguably the MOST imporant consideration”

I must say that I am becoming more of a Fred Thompson supporter. I am not sure if this is appropriate in this forum but I have done some more research and found he was:

A Doctorate from Vanderbilt University Law
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Campaign Manager for Senator Howard Baker
Very recognizable face from movies
Two term Senator, became the ranking minority member
Then more films and movies….
He more recently was the voice over at the 2004 RNC.
Asked by Bush and guided John Roberts through the Senate confirmation process
He actually is most aligned with the Republican Party principles

So, he has a commanding presence. He is recognizable and liked from is film characters. And as we saw with Arnold, that does count a lot with voters.

He has political history and has risen to the top in the past.

I also see that he was a strong supporter of McCain. There are pluses and minuses to that as noted above.

My point is we (Republican’s) need to win the next Presidential. Given the Obama like surge in the polls (we need one on the Republican side), I think if Thompson were to announce he would be a front running contender.

Richard Rios

Frustrated Republican

"There are pluses and minuses" to supporting McCain? Really?

Let's think of the plusses: Keating 5, McCain-Feingold, lefty environmental beliefs, awful ideas on tax policy including vigorously opposing Bush's original tax cuts (see this for a reminder: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/03/mccains_tax_rec.html)... yup, he's a good one!

Hell, if you want to attack my premise in this article, tell me I wrote about the wrong guy. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe America's going to fall in love with Mitt "3%" Romney (I'm not wrong, by the way, I'm just humoring you!). McCain, however, definitely has a ceiling over his head... he's the moderate who will never win the GOP nomination. Too many Republicans have watched him long enough to know him well and to detest his political ideas.

Richard Rios

Frustrated Republican,

Your points are well taken and you do have a valid point on dissention. My remark centers around what I thought was one your original intents of the posting and that was we need help in the Republican race. That being said, McCain has name recognition (lets face it this is very important in elections), is a war veteran in a time of war who does not support the war (has the ability to win moderates and some Dems), and has a strong Washington power base ( per his influence ). Do the plusses outweigh the minuses? I think not but that was not my point – regardless if one like it or not, he has plusses.

I am not sure where "Hell, if you want to attack my premise in this article, tell me I wrote about the wrong guy. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe America's going to fall in love with Mitt "3%" Romney." came from. Perhaps your frustration is clouding your ability to objectively read what is written but I can not find any post where anyone has disagreed with your heading question followed by your subsequent statement of view.

To be fair, I suppose "Rudy's a Lib" may have subverted the question of Romney by brining in Juliani. Even at that, I did not ready any disagreement.

The discussion has sparked conversations on all the candidates and even the newer contender.

Might I suggest if you are trying to narrow the field and remove the less likely candidates from a support base (contributions) and move to support candidates that have stronger chances at the GOP nomination you continue with facts such as the 3% nationwide. Reality and the NEED to win the election will prevail with logic. Or so one can hope.

Richard Rios

The comments to this entry are closed.