In a Hillary-Romney race, for whom do you vote?

[TexasTiger 13,029]

For whom do you vote? Who wins?

[WinCrimson 61]

Paul if he runs as a third party candidate.

If Paul chooses not to run? Clinton, before I begin looking forward to 2012.

[WarEagle007 1]

Give me three specific reasons why you want Ron Paul as President. I'll lose my job if he gets elected.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Romney. He's not my favorite candidate by any stretch. Paul has some good ideas but seems like a kook. Hillary is a non-starter. Obama would be the only Democrat I could stand in the White House and him not for his positions, but because I think he's one of the few that actually thinks deeply about the positions he holds and would look for middle ground when possible.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Romney. He's not my favorite candidate by any stretch. Paul has some good ideas but seems like a kook. Hillary is a non-starter. Obama would be the only Democrat I could stand in the White House and him not for his positions, but because I think he's one of the few that actually thinks deeply about the positions he holds and would look for middle ground when possible.

Do you think his Mormonism will impact him in the South?

[otterinbham 0]

Romney. He's not my favorite candidate by any stretch. Paul has some good ideas but seems like a kook. Hillary is a non-starter. Obama would be the only Democrat I could stand in the White House and him not for his positions, but because I think he's one of the few that actually thinks deeply about the positions he holds and would look for middle ground when possible.

Do you think his Mormonism will impact him in the South?

Interesting question, but ultimately no. I don't think the South would care if Romney had cloven hooves, a pitchfork, and a tail. The South isn't going to vote for Hillary Clinton, no way, no how. She is simply that reviled.

Personally, I think the critical, long-term historical question that we are facing (And nobody is talking about), is the importance of the Constitution and its ability to restrain the executive branch. all things being equal I would vote against Hillary for sheer constitutional purposes. I think the back-to-back Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasties could prove very damaging to the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Put the Clintons in power for eight more years, and I think you'll see the executive branch expanded even further past its already dangerous levels.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Romney. He's not my favorite candidate by any stretch. Paul has some good ideas but seems like a kook. Hillary is a non-starter. Obama would be the only Democrat I could stand in the White House and him not for his positions, but because I think he's one of the few that actually thinks deeply about the positions he holds and would look for middle ground when possible.

Do you think his Mormonism will impact him in the South?

Interesting question, but ultimately no. I don't think the South would care if Romney had cloven hooves, a pitchfork, and a tail. The South isn't going to vote for Hillary Clinton, no way, no how. She is simply that reviled.

Personally, I think the critical, long-term historical question that we are facing (And nobody is talking about), is the importance of the Constitution and its ability to restrain the executive branch. all things being equal I would vote against Hillary for sheer constitutional purposes. I think the back-to-back Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasties could prove very damaging to the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Put the Clintons in power for eight more years, and I think you'll see the executive branch expanded even further past its already dangerous levels.

That's an interesting take on things. Especially with the way the dems have, over the past six years, worked so hard to minimize the executive branch.

[otterinbham 0]

Romney. He's not my favorite candidate by any stretch. Paul has some good ideas but seems like a kook. Hillary is a non-starter. Obama would be the only Democrat I could stand in the White House and him not for his positions, but because I think he's one of the few that actually thinks deeply about the positions he holds and would look for middle ground when possible.

Do you think his Mormonism will impact him in the South?

Interesting question, but ultimately no. I don't think the South would care if Romney had cloven hooves, a pitchfork, and a tail. The South isn't going to vote for Hillary Clinton, no way, no how. She is simply that reviled.

Personally, I think the critical, long-term historical question that we are facing (And nobody is talking about), is the importance of the Constitution and its ability to restrain the executive branch. all things being equal I would vote against Hillary for sheer constitutional purposes. I think the back-to-back Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasties could prove very damaging to the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Put the Clintons in power for eight more years, and I think you'll see the executive branch expanded even further past its already dangerous levels.

That's an interesting take on things. Especially with the way the dems have, over the past six years, worked so hard to minimize the executive branch.

Time to take your meds. You're ignoring reality again. And, no, your paperboy is not an Al Queda agent.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Romney. He's not my favorite candidate by any stretch. Paul has some good ideas but seems like a kook. Hillary is a non-starter. Obama would be the only Democrat I could stand in the White House and him not for his positions, but because I think he's one of the few that actually thinks deeply about the positions he holds and would look for middle ground when possible.

Do you think his Mormonism will impact him in the South?

Interesting question, but ultimately no. I don't think the South would care if Romney had cloven hooves, a pitchfork, and a tail. The South isn't going to vote for Hillary Clinton, no way, no how. She is simply that reviled.

Personally, I think the critical, long-term historical question that we are facing (And nobody is talking about), is the importance of the Constitution and its ability to restrain the executive branch. all things being equal I would vote against Hillary for sheer constitutional purposes. I think the back-to-back Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasties could prove very damaging to the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Put the Clintons in power for eight more years, and I think you'll see the executive branch expanded even further past its already dangerous levels.

That's an interesting take on things. Especially with the way the dems have, over the past six years, worked so hard to minimize the executive branch.

Time to take your meds. You're ignoring reality again. And, no, your paperboy is not an Al Queda agent.

Where the hell did that come from? Without insult, TigerMike pointed out reality-- Bush has expanded the executive branch and the Dems have opposed it. You make a broad assertion without logically tying to anything. Perhaps you have a basis for your position, but, if so, you kept it to yourself.

[WarEagle007 1]

Romney. He's not my favorite candidate by any stretch. Paul has some good ideas but seems like a kook. Hillary is a non-starter. Obama would be the only Democrat I could stand in the White House and him not for his positions, but because I think he's one of the few that actually thinks deeply about the positions he holds and would look for middle ground when possible.

Do you think his Mormonism will impact him in the South?

Interesting question, but ultimately no. I don't think the South would care if Romney had cloven hooves, a pitchfork, and a tail. The South isn't going to vote for Hillary Clinton, no way, no how. She is simply that reviled.

Personally, I think the critical, long-term historical question that we are facing (And nobody is talking about), is the importance of the Constitution and its ability to restrain the executive branch. all things being equal I would vote against Hillary for sheer constitutional purposes. I think the back-to-back Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasties could prove very damaging to the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Put the Clintons in power for eight more years, and I think you'll see the executive branch expanded even further past its already dangerous levels.

That's an interesting take on things. Especially with the way the dems have, over the past six years, worked so hard to minimize the executive branch.

The democrats have attempted to restrain the powers of the President, but I think they've been incredibly unsuccessful, especially over the last two years. Take a look at their congressional attempts to end the war in Iraq by either stopping funding or attaching a timeline to the bills, every single one has been miserably defeated.

Over the battles with the executive and the Intelligence Community on NSA's wire tapping program, they fought hard but eventually have given up on their efforts and the program is still in place today. Call it what you want, but giving them a 6-month extension to continue debate is pretty much giving up on the fight, and the issue has yet to be revived by the dems.

I may be incorrect on this one, but I also think they've been unable to override any veto by the Executive. Albeit there have not been many vetoes by Bush, but unless they were able to override the veto on healthcare for children, they are 0 in that column as well.

The Dem Congress has been one of the most ineffective of all time, and one of the lowest rated, I don't know any recent figures, but I don't see any reason the 11% approval of a month or two ago to have risen any.

[otterinbham 0]

Romney. He's not my favorite candidate by any stretch. Paul has some good ideas but seems like a kook. Hillary is a non-starter. Obama would be the only Democrat I could stand in the White House and him not for his positions, but because I think he's one of the few that actually thinks deeply about the positions he holds and would look for middle ground when possible.

Do you think his Mormonism will impact him in the South?

Interesting question, but ultimately no. I don't think the South would care if Romney had cloven hooves, a pitchfork, and a tail. The South isn't going to vote for Hillary Clinton, no way, no how. She is simply that reviled.

Personally, I think the critical, long-term historical question that we are facing (And nobody is talking about), is the importance of the Constitution and its ability to restrain the executive branch. all things being equal I would vote against Hillary for sheer constitutional purposes. I think the back-to-back Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasties could prove very damaging to the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Put the Clintons in power for eight more years, and I think you'll see the executive branch expanded even further past its already dangerous levels.

That's an interesting take on things. Especially with the way the dems have, over the past six years, worked so hard to minimize the executive branch.

Time to take your meds. You're ignoring reality again. And, no, your paperboy is not an Al Queda agent.

Where the hell did that come from? Without insult, TigerMike pointed out reality-- Bush has expanded the executive branch and the Dems have opposed it. You make a broad assertion without logically tying to anything. Perhaps you have a basis for your position, but, if so, you kept it to yourself.

Hahaha. See, you and I interpreted his post in utterly opposite ways. I saw TM's post as a complaint that the Democrats have curtailed Bush's power, something I just have seen no signs of.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Romney. He's not my favorite candidate by any stretch. Paul has some good ideas but seems like a kook. Hillary is a non-starter. Obama would be the only Democrat I could stand in the White House and him not for his positions, but because I think he's one of the few that actually thinks deeply about the positions he holds and would look for middle ground when possible.

Do you think his Mormonism will impact him in the South?

Interesting question, but ultimately no. I don't think the South would care if Romney had cloven hooves, a pitchfork, and a tail. The South isn't going to vote for Hillary Clinton, no way, no how. She is simply that reviled.

Personally, I think the critical, long-term historical question that we are facing (And nobody is talking about), is the importance of the Constitution and its ability to restrain the executive branch. all things being equal I would vote against Hillary for sheer constitutional purposes. I think the back-to-back Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasties could prove very damaging to the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Put the Clintons in power for eight more years, and I think you'll see the executive branch expanded even further past its already dangerous levels.

That's an interesting take on things. Especially with the way the dems have, over the past six years, worked so hard to minimize the executive branch.

Time to take your meds. You're ignoring reality again. And, no, your paperboy is not an Al Queda agent.

Where the hell did that come from? Without insult, TigerMike pointed out reality-- Bush has expanded the executive branch and the Dems have opposed it. You make a broad assertion without logically tying to anything. Perhaps you have a basis for your position, but, if so, you kept it to yourself.

Hahaha. See, you and I interpreted his post in utterly opposite ways. I saw TM's post as a complaint that the Democrats have curtailed Bush's power, something I just have seen no signs of.

Okay, but what makes you so convinced that an HRC administration continues the Bush trend? I agree that the Bush-Clinton back and forth is not a great thing, it has hardly been a continuous dynasty even of viewpoints. I don't see Dems supporting Clinton wanting to continue the Bush/Cheney quest toward the imperial executive, even IF that were her desire.

[WarEagle007 1]

Romney. He's not my favorite candidate by any stretch. Paul has some good ideas but seems like a kook. Hillary is a non-starter. Obama would be the only Democrat I could stand in the White House and him not for his positions, but because I think he's one of the few that actually thinks deeply about the positions he holds and would look for middle ground when possible.

Do you think his Mormonism will impact him in the South?

Interesting question, but ultimately no. I don't think the South would care if Romney had cloven hooves, a pitchfork, and a tail. The South isn't going to vote for Hillary Clinton, no way, no how. She is simply that reviled.

Personally, I think the critical, long-term historical question that we are facing (And nobody is talking about), is the importance of the Constitution and its ability to restrain the executive branch. all things being equal I would vote against Hillary for sheer constitutional purposes. I think the back-to-back Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasties could prove very damaging to the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Put the Clintons in power for eight more years, and I think you'll see the executive branch expanded even further past its already dangerous levels.

That's an interesting take on things. Especially with the way the dems have, over the past six years, worked so hard to minimize the executive branch.

Time to take your meds. You're ignoring reality again. And, no, your paperboy is not an Al Queda agent.

Where the hell did that come from? Without insult, TigerMike pointed out reality-- Bush has expanded the executive branch and the Dems have opposed it. You make a broad assertion without logically tying to anything. Perhaps you have a basis for your position, but, if so, you kept it to yourself.

Hahaha. See, you and I interpreted his post in utterly opposite ways. I saw TM's post as a complaint that the Democrats have curtailed Bush's power, something I just have seen no signs of.

Okay, but what makes you so convinced that an HRC administration continues the Bush trend? I agree that the Bush-Clinton back and forth is not a great thing, it has hardly been a continuous dynasty even of viewpoints. I don't see Dems supporting Clinton wanting to continue the Bush/Cheney quest toward the imperial executive, even IF that were her desire.

I see this Imperialist argument time and time again and it makes absolutely no sense. It is completely ridiculous. It honestly sounds like the North Korean media whose daily radio and TV programs talk of the "evil American Imperialists" and teach the children songs about killing Americans.

What evidence does anyone have the George Bush and Dick Cheney are attempting to create an American Empire??

[otterinbham 0]

The reason is simple. It is a case of two, relatively small coteries of Clinton/Bush people holding onto power over a extended period of time. Soft power is power nonetheless. When a member of the Bush or Clinton inner circle leaves the Oval Office, they don't retire back to whatever burgh they call home. They typically sign on with a think tank, or an advisory group, get appointed to a Federal judgeship, and still hold extraordinary amounts of influence long after their president's term of office is over. When the corridors of power become too familiar, they can begin bending the system to meet their needs, making power a highly incestuous and insular thing. Essentially, what happens is that two very small groups of people begin swapping power. And that's no good for anybody.

That's why Obama scares the crap out of the Clintonistas. Not only could he potentially defeat Hillary, but he would also bring a fresh new bunch of people into power, displacing the old corrupt guard of the Democratic Party. I don't care for his economics, but it may be worth having him in the Oval Office simply to put new blood into the political system.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Romney. He's not my favorite candidate by any stretch. Paul has some good ideas but seems like a kook. Hillary is a non-starter. Obama would be the only Democrat I could stand in the White House and him not for his positions, but because I think he's one of the few that actually thinks deeply about the positions he holds and would look for middle ground when possible.

Do you think his Mormonism will impact him in the South?

Interesting question, but ultimately no. I don't think the South would care if Romney had cloven hooves, a pitchfork, and a tail. The South isn't going to vote for Hillary Clinton, no way, no how. She is simply that reviled.

Personally, I think the critical, long-term historical question that we are facing (And nobody is talking about), is the importance of the Constitution and its ability to restrain the executive branch. all things being equal I would vote against Hillary for sheer constitutional purposes. I think the back-to-back Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasties could prove very damaging to the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Put the Clintons in power for eight more years, and I think you'll see the executive branch expanded even further past its already dangerous levels.

That's an interesting take on things. Especially with the way the dems have, over the past six years, worked so hard to minimize the executive branch.

Time to take your meds. You're ignoring reality again. And, no, your paperboy is not an Al Queda agent.

Where the hell did that come from? Without insult, TigerMike pointed out reality-- Bush has expanded the executive branch and the Dems have opposed it. You make a broad assertion without logically tying to anything. Perhaps you have a basis for your position, but, if so, you kept it to yourself.

Hahaha. See, you and I interpreted his post in utterly opposite ways. I saw TM's post as a complaint that the Democrats have curtailed Bush's power, something I just have seen no signs of.

Okay, but what makes you so convinced that an HRC administration continues the Bush trend? I agree that the Bush-Clinton back and forth is not a great thing, it has hardly been a continuous dynasty even of viewpoints. I don't see Dems supporting Clinton wanting to continue the Bush/Cheney quest toward the imperial executive, even IF that were her desire.

I see this Imperialist argument time and time again and it makes absolutely no sense. It is completely ridiculous. It honestly sounds like the North Korean media whose daily radio and TV programs talk of the "evil American Imperialists" and teach the children songs about killing Americans.

What evidence does anyone have the George Bush and Dick Cheney are attempting to create an American Empire??

Didn't say they were creating an American Empire. This summarizes what I was referencing:

The vehicle for this restoration is a revisionist theory of constitutional law called "Unitary Executive Theory." As Savage tells us, it was first promulgated under Reagan administration Attorney General Edwin Meese and since has been elaborated by people like Cheney's aide David Addington, John Yoo, the University of California, Berkeley legal scholar who wrote the administration's infamous torture memos, and future Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Under this theory, the framers intended a presidency that presides over the executive branch as a single brain does over a body. Congress has no right in this schema to check the president's inherent powers, particularly when it comes to national security. Thus, Yoo and others of a similar mind - including Cheney - believe that the president has inherent powers to wage war without congressional consent, to authorize warrantless searches and spying, to abrogate international treaties at will and to decide which, if any, congressional or judicial restraints on his powers he will accept.

The Supreme Court under Republican Chief Justice William Rehnquist overwhelmingly rejected the Reagan administration's attempt to assert "Unitary Executive Theory" and no serious legal or historical student of the founding era accepts it.

As Savage argues, though, the fact remains that because Bush has been allowed to enact Unitary Theory through precedent, the next president, whether con- servative Republican or liberal Democrat, will inherit precisely the kind of imperial executive Cheney set out to restore.

http://www.newsday.com/features/booksmags/...,0,791034.story

[otterinbham 0]

Another good point is that, despite philosophical differences between administrations, all of them seem to build upon each other's expansion of executive power. You don't see Republican presidents overturning precedents set by FDR or LBJ, do you?

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Ron Paul. I'm voting GOP regardless.

[WarEagle007 1]

I pose the question again. Why Ron Paul?

I just want to see some specific reasons as to why people are in his camp...

[tgr4lfe 220]

If you have any sense of morality or christianity, you would not vote for Clinton...i.e. spawn of satan. She would cripple America!! B/t those 3 I would take lesser of evils of Romney. Not that he or Paul are evil like Clinton. I am pulling for Thompson.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

If you have any sense of morality or christianity, you would not vote for Clinton...i.e. spawn of satan. She would cripple America!! B/t those 3 I would take lesser of evils of Romney. Not that he or Paul are evil like Clinton. I am pulling for Thompson.

Could you provide some concrete background to this rather strong assertion? What specifically has she done that supports your extreme hatred of her?

[Tigermike 3,055]

If you have any sense of morality or christianity, you would not vote for Clinton...i.e. spawn of satan. She would cripple America!! B/t those 3 I would take lesser of evils of Romney. Not that he or Paul are evil like Clinton. I am pulling for Thompson.

Speaking of Thompson. The world is at war and ambivalence about being the Leader of the Free World just won't cut it. This is his problem and it shows. If there was ever a time we needed someone who wanted that office, with all the trouble and pressure that comes with it, it's now. You know what it's like to do something you could care less about, it affects your performance and your commitment. That's not what we need in the White House. I like Thompson and when he does chime in I like, generally, what he has to say, but Good Lord, what a stupid waste of time.

Thompson: 'Not particularly interested in running'

Link to article

While all the other candidates are trying to convince people why we should vote for them, Thompson is doing an excellent job explaining why we shouldn't vote for him. Believe me, it sure seems to be working.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

If you have any sense of morality or christianity, you would not vote for Clinton...i.e. spawn of satan. She would cripple America!! B/t those 3 I would take lesser of evils of Romney. Not that he or Paul are evil like Clinton. I am pulling for Thompson.

Speaking of Thompson. The world is at war and ambivalence about being the Leader of the Free World just won't cut it. This is his problem and it shows. If there was ever a time we needed someone who wanted that office, with all the trouble and pressure that comes with it, it's now. You know what it's like to do something you could care less about, it affects your performance and your commitment. That's not what we need in the White House. I like Thompson and when he does chime in I like, generally, what he has to say, but Good Lord, what a stupid waste of time.

Thompson: 'Not particularly interested in running'

Link to article

While all the other candidates are trying to convince people why we should vote for them, Thompson is doing an excellent job explaining why we shouldn't vote for him. Believe me, it sure seems to be working.

This guy amazes me. He doesn't want it, but will offer himself up. How arrogant is that?

[WarEagle007 1]

If you have any sense of morality or christianity, you would not vote for Clinton...i.e. spawn of satan. She would cripple America!! B/t those 3 I would take lesser of evils of Romney. Not that he or Paul are evil like Clinton. I am pulling for Thompson.

Speaking of Thompson. The world is at war and ambivalence about being the Leader of the Free World just won't cut it. This is his problem and it shows. If there was ever a time we needed someone who wanted that office, with all the trouble and pressure that comes with it, it's now. You know what it's like to do something you could care less about, it affects your performance and your commitment. That's not what we need in the White House. I like Thompson and when he does chime in I like, generally, what he has to say, but Good Lord, what a stupid waste of time.

Thompson: 'Not particularly interested in running'

Link to article

While all the other candidates are trying to convince people why we should vote for them, Thompson is doing an excellent job explaining why we shouldn't vote for him. Believe me, it sure seems to be working.

This guy amazes me. He doesn't want it, but will offer himself up. How arrogant is that?

Come on now. He didn't say he didn't want to be President. He said he isn't interested in the POLITICS of the race for the White House. I personally think that is exactly the type of person we need in that office right now, someone who isn't bothered with petty politics, but has a genuine interest in doing what is best for the country.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

If you have any sense of morality or christianity, you would not vote for Clinton...i.e. spawn of satan. She would cripple America!! B/t those 3 I would take lesser of evils of Romney. Not that he or Paul are evil like Clinton. I am pulling for Thompson.

Speaking of Thompson. The world is at war and ambivalence about being the Leader of the Free World just won't cut it. This is his problem and it shows. If there was ever a time we needed someone who wanted that office, with all the trouble and pressure that comes with it, it's now. You know what it's like to do something you could care less about, it affects your performance and your commitment. That's not what we need in the White House. I like Thompson and when he does chime in I like, generally, what he has to say, but Good Lord, what a stupid waste of time.

Thompson: 'Not particularly interested in running'

Link to article

While all the other candidates are trying to convince people why we should vote for them, Thompson is doing an excellent job explaining why we shouldn't vote for him. Believe me, it sure seems to be working.

This guy amazes me. He doesn't want it, but will offer himself up. How arrogant is that?

Come on now. He didn't say he didn't want to be President. He said he isn't interested in the POLITICS of the race for the White House. I personally think that is exactly the type of person we need in that office right now, someone who isn't bothered with petty politics, but has a genuine interest in doing what is best for the country.

Read it as you wish.

"I'm not particularly interested in running for president."

But he said others convinced him to run.

"I approached it from a standpoint ... of kind of a marriage. You know if one side of the marriage has to be really talked into the marriage, you know it probably ain't going to be a good deal for either one of them. But if you mutually think that this is a good thing -- in this case you think it's a good thing for the country -- then you have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together," he said.

"I'm offering myself up.

Sounds contradictory.

[WarEagle007 1]

If you have any sense of morality or christianity, you would not vote for Clinton...i.e. spawn of satan. She would cripple America!! B/t those 3 I would take lesser of evils of Romney. Not that he or Paul are evil like Clinton. I am pulling for Thompson.

Speaking of Thompson. The world is at war and ambivalence about being the Leader of the Free World just won't cut it. This is his problem and it shows. If there was ever a time we needed someone who wanted that office, with all the trouble and pressure that comes with it, it's now. You know what it's like to do something you could care less about, it affects your performance and your commitment. That's not what we need in the White House. I like Thompson and when he does chime in I like, generally, what he has to say, but Good Lord, what a stupid waste of time.

Thompson: 'Not particularly interested in running'

Link to article

While all the other candidates are trying to convince people why we should vote for them, Thompson is doing an excellent job explaining why we shouldn't vote for him. Believe me, it sure seems to be working.

This guy amazes me. He doesn't want it, but will offer himself up. How arrogant is that?

Come on now. He didn't say he didn't want to be President. He said he isn't interested in the POLITICS of the race for the White House. I personally think that is exactly the type of person we need in that office right now, someone who isn't bothered with petty politics, but has a genuine interest in doing what is best for the country.

Read it as you wish.

"I'm not particularly interested in running for president."

But he said others convinced him to run.

"I approached it from a standpoint ... of kind of a marriage. You know if one side of the marriage has to be really talked into the marriage, you know it probably ain't going to be a good deal for either one of them. But if you mutually think that this is a good thing -- in this case you think it's a good thing for the country -- then you have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together," he said.

"I'm offering myself up.

Sounds contradictory.

This is a portion from the same section of that speech he was giving...tells a different story don't you think? Read it as you wish...

I like to say that I'm only consumed by very, very few things and politics is not one of them," Thompson said at a town hall meeting in nearby Burlington. "The welfare of my country and my kids and grandkids are one of them. But if people really want in their president a super type-A personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night thinking about for years how they could achieve the presidency of the United States, someone who could look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning — I ain't that guy.

"I am not consumed by personal ambition," Thompson said. "I will not be devastated if I don't do it. I'm not particularly interested in running for president."

Link

My point is, the news writers are going to spin it the way they want it to read. Instead of saying he said he is not interested in the political aspects, they went with the more attention grabbing story of a candidate saying he is not interested in the job, which is untrue.