You know I love me some Thaddeus. But, maybe you don't want to take my word for it.
Enter Andrew at Commentarama. If you don't read Commentarama, you're missing some of the best in-depth articles on the issues of the day. Between Andrew and Lawhawk, they do an amazing job. Bookmark them now HERE.
As it happens, Andrew is looking into each Republican Contender's voting record as they announce their candidacy, and he's doing it without a slant so you can decide. Ain't he swell?
Go HERE to read about Thad.
And as always, if you know nothing about McCotter, watch this and see if you don't agree that he's a dude worth considering.
~ swoon ~
Best McCotter quote this week: "We have Obama as the champion of big government, we see Romney as champion of bail out banks in Wall Street bailout. They are less rivals than they are running mates."
Seriously, how could you not love this guy?
P.S. Vote above in the "Things We Know Michelle Eats" Poll!
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Patti: I voted for "eats small childrens." LOL
Thanks for the kind remarks and the suggested bookmark. Andrew has done a yeomanlike job of vetting the candidates. I've been a McCotter fan since I first saw him on Red Eye. But until Andrew did the in-depth study, I was more amused by Thad than impressed by him. Now I'm becoming impressed as well. This should be fun to watch developing. I'm not sure he's able to win the nomination, but he'll certainly liven up the debate.
law: you guys deserve the link and fan encouragement. seriously.
i am LIVING for the debate with mccotter. he's strengths = sharp/dry wit + sharp mind + voting record + big balls. his weaknesses = sharp/dry wit + lack of dramaz + lack of name recognition + doesn't fit the repub big-tent mold (which could actually go in either column).
there is no one else that i feel so passionately about. i'm praying he catches fire, CALINTE!, and there are no big surprises.
Patti, Thanks for the kind words! And I'm glad you visit us regularly to share your thoughts! (Sorry about being late today, I've been spending the day with my doctor trying to get everything healthy before Obamacare sends medicine back to the stone ages.)
On McCotter, he is a very promising candidate. I think he's the first one to truly grasp what we need to do to fix our economy long term. Others have some good ideas, but he's the first one who I think has a fundamental framework that I trust.
His big handicap is lack of name recognition, but I'm hopeful that will change during the debates -- and from blog-publicity! :-)
I voted for "gravy covered anythings" but I think it would be more accurate if it read "fried anythings." While she most certainly SHOULD eat her words, she just as certainly does not.
Also, I like Thad.
andrew: you're welcome, brother. just like i told law: you guys rock it out over there. if i ever give up the NAW beast, i'm gonna beg you to let me sub on some days!
it's funny when you write a political blog, you forget others aren't as plugged in to names and faces of possible candidates. this weekend i attended a wedding and NOT ONE person i talked to knew thaddeus. i sent them an email with links, but realized we have work to do to get his name out there. (and these folks weren't head in the sand kinda peeps. they were fairly informed and paying attention. nevertheless, i was shocked.)
i'm working on my part, i'm hoping others pass info along as well.
viva new media!
tam: fried gravy covered in gravy! dadgumit, that should have been a choice!
I like thad too. hey did i mention he's following me on twitter? i bet he's crushing on me. wait, maybe it's the other way around...
Patti, That is easy to forget. My parents are reasonably well tied into the news, but they hadn't heard of him either. I think the problem is that (1) most people don't pay attention to the news and (2) even for those that do, the news only covers the bare surface of what is going on -- they don't worry about anyone who isn't a top contender with a lot of publicity and they never provide any depth.
Hopefully people will take a look at the candidates before they make a huge mistake and we blow a chance to put a great conservative into the White House!
I have to say that putting Thad in the White House would be a game changer for conservatives. I can't say that about the others.
andrew: i'm looking at it from the "who has the courage to do what is needed PLUS has the voting record to back up his words of courage" POV.
all candidates have "stuff" we're not fond of, but he comes the closest to what i'm praying for.
i can see him calm under extreme pressure, i can see him connecting to Americans, i can see him not taking any crap and getting the job done.
I. CAN. SEE. IT!
this far out from the election, that's a major accomplishment.
Patti, I think that's an excellent way to look at it. Going into my review of the candidates, I knew I would find some things I didn't like about each -- that's just the way life is. But I was shocked at how bad some of the candidates really are. Some really should be in the other party and others sound good giving speeches but have zero to show for their efforts or even voted the wrong way over and over.
McCotter is the first that I trust. I see his record and look at the things he's proposing and I understand both that (1) he believe something, he's not just pretending to be something, (2) he understands what he believes (which is surprisingly rare in the current group), and (3) he has the nerve to stand up for it and the ability to explain it in a way that people will understand. That's a huge combination.
I hate comparing people to Reagan, but he's as close as I've seen in my life.
andrew: mccotter! mccotter! mccotter!
Post a Comment