For some reason — and maybe it’s just the media I end up consuming — I’ve heard a lot more about the Democratic Presidential nomination race than that of the Republicans. Gallup has conducted a national poll and Frank Newport wrote an article entitled Inside the Republican Vote for President.
Republican candidates will hold their first debate in California on Thursday. The poll is comprised of 1,252 Republicans and Republican leaning independents in March and April. The results for those scoring above 2% are:
Rudy “Thrice Married” Giuliani – 35% (3 wives)
John “Weathervane” McCain – 20 (2 wives)
Fred “Hollywood” Thompson – 11 (2 wives)
Newt “Cheated on More Wives than Clinton” Gingrich – 8 (3 wives)
Mitt “Varmint Hunter” Romney – 6 (1 wife).
I kid because I love. But, it is a bit ironic that the Mormon candidate in the Party of Family Values is the only one who has had only one wife.
I was rooting for McCain back in the 2000 primaries and would have voted for him over Gore in the generals. But, knowing him better now and really disliking his Iraq war policy and his kissing up to the Dominionist Christians in his party, he is probably the person on that list I would choose last. I still hold Gingrich’s role in the Clinton impeachment against him and suspect he started the ball rolling as far as the DeLay style corruption in Congress that has been exposed over the last couple of years. I like Fred Thompson’s TV characters, but otherwise don’t know anything about him. (And, to tell you the truth, I always get Fred Thompson confused with another actor — the guy in War Games who said, “Goddammit, I’d piss on a spark plug if I thought it’d do any good.”) I hear Giuliani is something of a hot head and has a Napoleon complex, but I’m willing to give him a listen. And, I don’t know much about Romney other than the fact that he’s backpedaling quickly from the positions that made him electable in Massachusetts. Looking at his Wikipedia entry, he is apparently scary-smart — which would be a nice change of pace from the past 6 years.
I keep saying this to Jerame too – I honestly believe it will be Fred Thompson. The religious right loves him and they can’t stand the others. Guilianni – dressed in drag, lived with a gay couple, supports LGBT civil rights. Romney – Mormon – ’nuff said. McCain – attacked the religious right heavily in the last presidential election. No trust there. Newt – too scandalous.
The only person left – and the current talk of most of the right-wing blogs and organizations is Fred Thompson.
I honestly believe it will be Fred Thompson.
Thus continuing the Republican infatuation with B-level actors turned conservative politicians.
But I’m more convinced it will be McCain because of all the baggage all the other candidates have. McCain ultimately has the organization. The establishment candidate always wins the R primary.
And since its looking like Bush will hold 100k+ US soldiers in Iraq until election day – McCain will lose terribly to the Dem nominee, probably winning a max of 20 states.
I think I’d give McCain a pass on the marriage count given that his first marriage went through the strain of a long stint of his being a POW, an experience that would change both partners to a marriage. It is fair enough to point out that he is pandering the religious right now after attacking it in 2000.
Oh, I’m not one to get real worked up about failed marriages. My mom married twice. My step-dad married twice. And my Father married three times. I think everybody involved ultimately ended up better for the divorces having happened. But, then again, I’m also not one to preach about “family values.” I will, however, confess to being gleeful when someone gets hoist on a petard of their own making.
So, there might be compelling reasons to get a divorce. Then again, there might be compelling reasons for most actions. Compelling reasons for same sex couples to get married. Even life and death reasons to have, to choose another example, a doctor perform an intact dilation and extraction procedure. But, I’ve been told that such things are immoral.
On McCain’s post-Vietnam marital relations, I found this in Wikipedia:
Considering Reagan’s immediate predecessor and his successors to date, that may be a real selling point for Fred Thompson!
It is an interesting dynamic, with no incumbent president or vice-president running – personally, I’m just watching and wondering at the cast of characters trying for the top job.
Does it remind anyone else of a season of ‘Survivor’, with Demo and Repub tribes?
[Surely that’s not original with me, is it?]
“I kid because I love. But, it is a bit ironic that the Mormon candidate in the Party of Family Values is the only one who has had only one wife.”
That is FUNNY.
Doug,
The actor you’re thinking of is Barry Corbin. He was also a regular on the TV series Northern Exposure, and has been in lots and lots of other things.
How pathetic am I — I didn’t even have to look this up! :)
Doug,
D’oh! You already linked him. Okay, now I’m extra pathetic, ’cause I’m blind!
I’m watching for some good Ron Paul moments. I would probably pick him over any of those listed. Between him and that one crazy Democrat in their debate, each side has their very own “Perot/Stockdale” kind of guy–positions kind of make sense but they sound crazy anyway.
Fred Thompson could appeal to an awful of Democrats that are still sane. Make fun all you want, but his “aw shucks” persona and straight forward approach is much like Reagans was, and a lot of dems would agree that worked out pretty well.
If he becomes the nominee, and Reid, Pelosi, Waxman, and their ilk continue their nonsense, it’ll be a landslide for Fred.
Most of the country is NOT far right or far left and nobody pays attention to them until right before the general election.
You could well be right. Being an actor is good training for getting elected. But, how many actors do the Republicans have to get elected to big offices before they’re not allowed to use Hollywood as a perpetual whipping boy anymore?
Probably a lot, if you count folks like Barbara Streisand as ‘elected Republican actor offsets’.
There’s probably a ‘sequestering’ joke in there somewhere, too – anyone?
I would vote for somebody that had been married a dozen times before I would vote for anyone that votes to send troops to war and then will not continue their support until victory is achieved.
If our military cannot defeat and control a country the size of Iraq, we either have to small of an Army or we are a bunch of chickens unwilling to do what it takes to win. I don’t believe in clean wars. I believe when you decide to go, you destroy everything and everybody until there is complete surrender. That is the one big mistake Mr. Bush made. The shock and awe was not shock and awe.
Technically, I think we won the war but lost the occupation. We’re not really “at war” with anybody; certainly not with Iraq. The Iraqi government is now allied with the U.S.
But, I agree with you, you don’t go to war unless you are willing to kill every man, woman, and child; raze every building; and salt the earth if necessary to end the threat over which you are going to war. If you are not willing to respond to the threat in that manner, it’s probably not worth going to war over. This was clearly a case where we shouldn’t have started the war in the first place because the gain is not worth the loss.
Now, you might say, we started the war; there’s no changing it; we need to finish it. I like the analogy of shitting the bed. Clearly, one should not do that. You can’t undo a war and you can’t unshit the bed. But, having done it, is one then obligated to continue lying in one’s own fecal matter as a matter of principle? I don’t think so.
The so-called base for each party is on the extreme side. I dont remember the past being that way. The Democratic Party, before the great realignment after Integration, was both more conservative and more liberal than the Republican party.I liked it better when politicians had to compromise. At least most everyone got something,but perhaps I’m remembering the past with rose-colored glasses.I’ve lived in France and I swear American Politics are getting more and more like the French system.That is, everyone is always right and nothing ever gets done.
“The so-called base for each party is on the extreme side. I dont remember the past being that way.”
Is it just coincidence that this phenomenon occurred since the rise of talk-radio and 24 hour news?
That “nonsense” Waxman is doing is called “oversight”. I know it’s not the panty sniffing type of oversight his counterpart Dan Burton used to do. But it will have to do.
That “nonsense†Waxman is doing is called “oversightâ€. Yeah, but I guess it depends on what your definition of “is” is.
Nostraldamus won’t be going in the history books for being anything more than he really is, a busybody partisan hack with a committee title.
Your opinion. And in the minority.
It really begs the question: What would trigger the need for any oversight, in your opinion? We already know about Hatch Act violations, the AG lying to Congress (or developing dementia that would be disqualifying for continuing in his job), and likely violations of federal law in hiring practices by high Justice Dept. officials. Your attitude seems to be “Who cares?” Well change the channel if you don’t like it. But I’m finally getting the government I’ve been paying for, with actual accountability included.