Fred Thompson says he's against gay marriage but that a constitutional amendment to prevent state legislatures from deciding he's wrong would be a bad idea and says federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo was a bad idea. What's more, his thoughts on Iran, while not really fantastic, do show some elements of openness to reality-based thinking as in his acknowledgment that "it may backfire on us if we attack them."
« Religion and Income | Main | Pushing Daisies »
Strange Non-Pandering
04 Nov 2007 11:28 pm
Comments (12)
Fred Thompson's basic sanity, for a Republican, has been hidden under a thick layer of aide- and consultant-produced insanity, mostly regarding symbolic stuff not involving genuine policy positions, except at a distance (for example, the petraeus/moveon thing).
The more detailed and one-on-one you get with Thompson on an issue, the more you realize he's really less insane than a standard republican hack, congressman, blogger, or Bush admin official.
I'm sure he's willing to pander when it counts, though. And the glimmers of quote-sanity like this are kept to a strictly rationed minimum.
For example, I'm pretty sure he less-than-completely recanted his Mccain-Feingold vote when given a chance.
Unfortunately, he does share at least one tragic trait with Pres. Bush: a complete lack of curiosity. IOW, an alarming level of ignorance.
Once again, Matt gets thrown a bone and he immediately rolls over and puts all four paws in the air...
THESE thoughts are "while not fantastic do show some elements of openness...":
"But they consider us the great Satan, so negotiations in the traditional sense are, are going to be extremely difficult and probably fruitless. So we need to get about these other things—the sanctions, assistance with regard to people on the inside there—before we ever get to the point—it may backfire on us if we attack them, even if we had to attack them. I don’t see how we can afford to let these people go nuclear, frankly."
This is incoherent bullshit, Matt. Wake the fuck up.
Wow, the Ron Paul effect? Is is opening up the paleo flank?
Vote for Thompson: Only 90% batshit insane!
Now and then, politicians run on the "I am not going to BS you" platform. That's been Thompson's move, as it's been Obama's - great article in Time about that. It's good for our process and good for coverage, so it should be rewarded (as it takes away 'why is he really taking position x' stories from the media if the narrative is successfully implanted, and makes them write articles about substance which actually help voters make more informed choices and us, as a polity, better understand policy questions. The only problem is that Edwards and Romney may get nominated on the "I am, in fact, very happy to BS you. Here, have some BS" platform. This will lead to another year of coverage of every decision as strategic (that happens with Clinton too, although it isn't quite as clear why), which is to serious political journalism as grapes are to zambonis.
*I am not making any suggestion that one candidate's positions are better than another's, just that if your positions change from "We can't afford universal healthcare" to "Universal healthcare is a moral imperative and anyone who opposes it wants the poor ground up into little meatballs and fed to the rich," or "We need to fight Saddam" to "Anyone who supported fighting Saddam is a warmongering villainous criminal," or "I am pro-gay" to "I am very very much not pro-gay," or "I am not for Reagan-Bush" to "I am the heir to Reagan-Bush" in a short period of time and in a way that is politically convenient, your listeners might reasonably harbor some doubts about your sincerity.
'Now and then, politicians run on the "I am not going to BS you" platform.'
To put that in folksy old Thompson speak, "I'm not gonna piss on ya and tell you it's rainin'. I'm just gonna piss on ya."
I was shocked how reasonable and largely coherent Thompson sounded on Meet the Press. Until proven otherwise, however, I'll consider it a temporary aberration.
"I was shocked how reasonable and largely coherent Thompson sounded on Meet the Press. Until proven otherwise, however, I'll consider it a temporary aberration."
What are you going to believe, lefty propaganda or your own lying eyes?
Yeah I saw some of Thompson on MTP and he almost sounded like the type of conservative I would merely disagree with rather than consider a howling lunatic. All of which just goes to show that he has no chance of winning the nomination.
Comments closed November 18, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Thompson is a bit of a federalist, and hasn't drunk too much of the neocon koolaid. But I'm afraid Ron Paul has him totally beat on these counts.
Posted by bbartlog | November 4, 2007 11:55 PM