I Seem To Recall More Than Just "Thin" Coverage of Fred Thompson's Cancer
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I know we're not supposed to talk about Mitt's religion. Hugh has made that very clear that even thinking about it makes us religious bigots.
I am wondering, however, if when Hugh is not out pimping Mitt, will he be flagging Fred Thompson's health with wide speculation from now till the general election — a countdown till the end of remission perhaps?
I think Fred Thompson did a great job of getting out there early, with his doctor, to explain the condition, explain that he is in remission, and explain what would happen if he came out of remission (pills, not chemo, is the treatment).
Hugh says there's been "thin reporting" on Fred Thompson's cancer. I seem to remember a lot of coverage and accessibility on it — including an interview of Fox News. I also suspect a man like Thompson would not be running if he or his doctors had concerns.
I expect the Democrats to make an issue of Fred's health, just as I would expect the Democrats to make an issue of Romney's religion. I just would think the GOP would not go there, even when flaking for their guy.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Barack Obama's Big Tax-Hiking Adventure — Comments (21) »
I Seem To Recall More Than Just "Thin" Coverage of Fred Thompson's Cancer 22 Comments (0 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Of course it's going to be an issue, of course it's going to be in the backs of people's minds, just like Cheney's heart condition was such a powerful attractor for people's speculations during the 2000 and 2004 ECs. In fact, if Thompson runs and achieves front-runner status, it's going to be a debate topic if he has to face off against Hillary Clinton in particular.
But I don't think the cancer issue is as much a liability as Romney's religion: if he's in remission and so on, there's no real disqualification there.
Remember, Rudy had prostate cancer (remember the jokes? "Go up against Hillary Clinton, get cancer..." badump bump.) and has apparently made a full recovery. As long as Thompson makes it through the primaries in good health with no scary stories, I think it'll be picked up and run with by the Usual Suspects™ but they won't get much mileage out of it.
..kowalski, you are so right. Thompson's health will be a major issue and unfortunately for Fred!, it will be the tip of the iceberg. Look at each of the Repub candidates now versus the day they walked into the campaign - it's inevitable and I am afraid that many have thought Thompson has some sort of magic kevlar or teflon.
I am eager for Fred to run but at the same time...the laundry list of attack points will grow rapidly from his health issue, to his age, to his lackluster term as Senator. No one is ever immune...well unless you're a Dem candidate. I hope Fred is prepared for a lobby full of "medical experts" who will refute his doctor's claims about his prognosis.
One thing--one of the rare things--that mainstream dinosaur-media columnists do correctly is refuse to get on any political bandwagons--at least formally. In any case, they never admit to it. Because when they do, everything they do afterwards becomes seen through the prism of war-room politics. They become players on the field--not just observers on the sideline. It's different to suspect something than to know something.
But they all seem poited in the wrong directions.
With a little perspective though it loses its terror. If these attacks get made and spent now they will have considerably less potency in the primaries and general election.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
would still be 10X the President then McCain could be however if Hugh wants to use his treatable cancer as ammo for his pick he might not want to take offense at what people will use against his pick, all is fair in love and war.
But then again, who cares?
Anyhow, as for the drive-by media, they will attack any candidate on our side. Fred's cancer, Rudy's cancer, McCain's age, Romney's religion. Whoever comes out as Dem. nominee will be made out to be the second coming of Chri- *ahem* Clinton.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
The manner in which the Romney campaign and surrogates has been attacking Thompson over the past few months, and now the past 24 hours, has just been astounding and pathetic.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could see Romney as a superior candidate to any of the top tier running. Just look at the polls. The guy will get destroyed - there won't be some "magical" turn around when he's nominated just because he "looks like a president," the slogan I so often hear on TV.
At least with Thompson we have a chance of winning AND getting a man in who is ideologically consistent (and doesn't have to explain why he suddenly changed in the past 3-4 years) with our party.
If you look at the polls, then Fred Thompson is losing to Hillary Clinton in current hypothetical matchups and the other Democrats by the same margin as Romney if not more.
Your pissy fit with Hugh Hewitt is becoming beyond ridiculous. Go ahead and criticize Romney for his mormonism if you want. You'll look like this guy: http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/30/video-voter-snubs-romney-for-being...
Just don't mind the rest of us who want to consider relevant things like whether Romney is the candidate most likely to deliver originalist judges.
to date the USP for Romney has been his hair, his "executive experience", and the Republican electoral juggernaut he left behind in Mass.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
That's your one warning.
Second, it's [pee]ing, not [pee]y, match, not fit. You're thinking of a hissy fit.
Third, I rather don't see Erick shooting at Romney over his religious beliefs. Perhaps you can note the text for those of us who are native American English readers?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
One: Seems like pretty benign language to me, but I'm sorry if it offended you.
Two: I think your right, "hissy fit" is the term I was thinking of.
Three: Here's the language: "I know we're not supposed to talk about Mitt's religion. Hugh has made that very clear that even thinking about it makes us religious bigots."
Why is Erick taking umbrage at Hugh for attempting to prevent Republicans from being portrayed as religious bigots by the maintstream media?
I don't think it'll be an issue for the primaries and then, should he get the nomination, his getting a solid conservative VP will be key (for us anyway).
Of course, Rudy and McCain have also battled cancer. See also Dole in 96, Kerry in 04. A candidate with a history of cancer is something you take into account, but if it's not active it's not that big a deal.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I certainly hope the Democrats try to attack Thompson on his cancer survivor status. That would be the most idiotic political move imaginable. You can't attack someone on their cancer survivor status. You can't even bring it up... no matter how sneaky you try to be about it, you will get a backlash from the public. People don't like people who beat up on others for having cancer.
I also don't see it as much of an issue. Every candidate has a better than average chance of dying in office, due to the stress of the position and the fact that he is the biggest target for assassination in the world. We have a plan for succession. The government is not going to fall apart because the President dies or becomes incapacitated. It's not an issue for me.
Hewitt has also made the point that getting Thompson elected would be like getting Bush reelected, because they are both Southern plain spoken guys. That is just ridiculous. One of Bush's most notable characteristic is his poor speaking style. I personally like the guy and I have a hard time listening to him. I can only imagine what the people who are on fence about him think. OTOH, I could listen to Thompson talk all day. He's articulate, speaks well, and is a good communicator.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
People w/ non Hodgkins lymphoma are guaranteed to die...eventually...of things like old age and stuff.
Just because you have the right, doesn't mean you should.
Honestly, Erick...you're getting to the point where you are ceasing to amaze me.
A health condition is something that the public should be aware of. I mean, if a president will be physically impaired or die in office - that's something to take into account. That's not what we're dealing with in Fred Thompson, I don't believe, and it shouldn't be used as a bludgeon against him. But still...
Where a person goes to church is no such physical impairment. I'm not saying that religion shouldn't be taken into account, but I don't think someone should be ruled out just because his/her faith is different or even strange. Someone's faith should only disqualify him/her if there is something there that would cause him to not faithfully disharge his duties as president.
face. Please.
http://scienceblogs.com/thecheerfuloncologist/2007/04/former_sen_fred_th...
He MUST be one of those mean-spirited Romney-bots.
I think the health of our candidates is relevant. As a cancer survivor, I would hope that people would take an educated and long view at the matter and consider the risks and liabilities associated with the varying types of disease.
Plain and simple, we're all going to die at some point. Whether you've got cancer, diabetes, or some other disease, when it's your time, it's your time.
McCain is still the best pick for President.
I read a comment on another blog just yesterday about how Bill Clinton was so great because he was willing to work with Republicans and give both sides what they wanted, and how Bush is absolutely terrible because he's an "arrogant ***" who is "to the extreme far right" and is a "jerk" to Democrats, who "refuses to even listen to them, let alone work with them on anything."
To which we would say ... "huh?"