son, your average russkie don't take a dump without a plan
I tried to leave a comment on Grabbingsand yesterday, but for some reason it didn't take, so I'm making it a post here instead.
The issue is Fred Thompson and whether or not he's the Messiah or the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Thomas argues that he's neither, and is in fact just an ex-senator with very little experience. Thomas has a point there.
But I've heard a couple of Fred Thompson's pseudo-non-campaign speeches in recent months, and I can see why he evokes nostalgia for Reagan: it's because he can speak to large groups of people in a way that no GOP candidate has been able to do since Reagan. I don't know enough about his politics yet to know that I don't agree with him on most things (although I have a sneaking suspicion), but I'll be thrilled to see him in the race anyway.
It may be pure fantasy at this point, but what if there was a GOP candidate with Reaganesque oratory skills up against a Democratic candidate with Kennedyesque oratory skills? I'm dreaming of a matchup between Thompson and Obama because it would have the potential to raise political discourse in this country to almost Sorkin-like levels, and that's something I think this country desperately needs.
posted by Hans at 11:03
4 Comments:
I'm dreaming of that matchup too - if not for that reason, but also because it would make the "Obama isn't qualified" argument mute. I would hope.
Around these parts, you'd think Thompson was the freakin' saviour though...it's getting annoying.
Oh, but I do like what one letter writer to our paper said about Thompson, to paraphrase, "certainly anyone who can find, prosecute, and convict killers in one hour deserves to be president"
31 May 2007 at 16:53:00 GMT-4
btw, is it "mute" or "moot"?
31 May 2007 at 17:02:00 GMT-4
I have nostalgia for Reagan. It seems so quaint to go back to when a conservative was mostly fiscally and foreign policy-ly conservative, and didn't really care that much about social issues. If that's what Thompson is, I'm all for it. But I'm still rooting for Guiliani. I love listening to Obama, but...we'll see what happens. Will he have the Democrat stick-to-it-ness of Bill, or the wishy-washiness of Hillary?
btw, Doug it's "moot". Though I've read that we all use it wrong now, which, as far as I'm concerned, means we've just changed what's right and wrong.
I've said too much.
31 May 2007 at 19:14:00 GMT-4
yeah, i learned about a year ago while working on a cross word puzzle that, whereas we use "moot" to mean that something is, more or less, "a foregone conclusion, and therefore pointless to keep discussing," it actually means something like "worthy of debate." Funny, that. But it can also mean to make something impractical, and worthy only of theoretical debate.
But doug- you could have said "...make the people arguing 'Obama isn't qualified' mute." Eh, eh?
ok, i'll stop.
10 June 2007 at 20:34:00 GMT-4
Post a Comment
<< Home