BREAKING NEWS: FRED THOMPSON HAS LYMPHOMA CANCER.

[Titan6]

These kinds of things annoy me..

Indolent lymphomas are usually not considered curable because the cancer grows too slowly to be targeted accurately by most modern treatments. Nonetheless they actually do respond very well to treatment in most cases. People with indolent lymphomas usually survive for many years. Statistics say the median is around 10 years, but that is very misleading because the "median" only means that half the patients have not survived past 10 years, and the other half have survived. Don't try to apply a median statistic to yourself since it cannot by its very nature apply. Suffice it to say that most patients can look forward to many years of productive life, and quite possibly a cure in the next 5-10 years. (as of the year 2004).

In many cases it is totally appropriate to defer treatment altogether in favour of a watch and wait approach. This is usually done when the patient has no symptoms, and there are no major organs at risk. When treatment is required there is a variety of choices, none of which has any clear advantage in all cases. The single most common chemotherapy regimen for lymphoma is CHOP and it is frequently used for indolent lymphomas, but it is also a fairly aggressive treatment which many believe should be saved for later. Since indolent lymphomas cannot usually be cured the main goal of treatment is to keep the patient in good health as long as possible. Virtually all the low grade or indolent lymphomas are characterized by a pattern of treatment-remission-relapse with each remission being shorter than the previous one. This means using the least toxic options first, and saving the "big guns" as we call it, until later.

http://www.nhlcyberfamily.org/indolent.htm

 

[PressCheck]

Run Fred, Run.

 

[Caimlas]

Titan6, Cosmoline:

I should have clarified that, in the case of my grandfather, he was classified as having indolent lymphoma. He was in remission, doing fine, et cetera - however, then it started getting progressively worse.

Even if it's "just" indolent lymphoma, with a median life expectancy of 10 years, it means nothing. His could flare up into a more hostile lymphoma overnight, and he could be dead in 3 months. Yes, we could all die at any moment, but he is somewhat more statistically likely to do so. It largely depends on his lifestyle habits (eating/types of foods, smoking, stress, etc.) and where he is in the remission/treatment cycle. As I said, the stress of the Presidency could very easily push him over the edge.

 

[slzy]

with tancredo as vp,every thing will be alright

 

[Titan6]

I wonder if this is why he has the reputation for not working so hard? He could drop dead at any time. My wife's Grandfather had this for 20 years and lived till he was 81. He was not even really sick until the last six months or so and that wasn't until Grandma passed away and he was ready to go.

In any case he is not my first choice nor even a good second choice but he really is one of the only real conservatives that has even toyed with the idea and has a shot at election. But for his support of the PA I could support him.

 

[roo_ster]

Cosmo:

Thanks for the pointer to Fred's page at http://www.ontheissues.org. I looked, but could not find it while researching Fred.

Which brings me to a funny point: according to http://www.ontheissues.org, FT is a smidgen to the left of McCain, which one can discern by scrolling to the bottom of the pages:

FT:


JM:


Pretty much confirmed my research. Like I wrote, thanks for the confirmation*.

I think a whole lot of folks are projecting on to FT their hopes & desires. He is to the Republicans what Obama is to the Dems. Except that FT has more gravitas and substance than Obama.

-------------

My bit about Newt was just an added bit. Since I was raining on parades, might as well rain on the idea that Newt is that much different form those at the head of the Republican pack.

Newt at ontheissues.org:

-------------

A vote FOR Mcain's CFR was a good indicator how folks feel about the sanctity of the COTUS. GWB signed the execrable bit of sheepskin after saying it was likely unconstitutional. Not his best moment, either.

-------------

Calling FT a socialist displays an ignorance of his views and is not my conclusion.


* Yeah, I know that ontheissues.org is not the be-all & end-all...but then I was not the person who went to them as an authority on the candidates' positions.

 

[GoRon]

jfruser,

Between Rudy, McCain and Fred who do you think would listen most to conservatives?

McCain has gone out of his way in the past to alienate social conservatives. He is weak on the gun issue and authored the abominable campaign finance law.

Rudy has no track record of paying attention to conservative causes except to be against them.

Fred is a conservative who voted center right most of his career.

It looks like a no brainer to me.

 

[camacho]

Fred's running! Read below:

original link here:http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20219#5

Those of you who are familiar with Novak know that he is on target most of the times.

President 2008

Fred Thompson: Thompson is very likely to enter the race for President, with a possible announcement coming as early as next week. Thompson's announcement that he is in remission from lymphoma is a trial balloon -- the reaction could determine his decision. This particular kind of lymphoma is much less harmful than others and should not shorten his life expectancy.

1. His progress toward becoming a Republican presidential candidate will take a step with the return of the House from its Easter break next week when he meets privately with a large group of Republican House members.

2. GOP House leaders had prepared last year to back Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), but his defeat for re-election to the Senate eliminated him from presidential consideration. They had been moving toward support of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), led by former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's endorsement. But many have stepped back from Romney and are looking hard at Thompson. One member of the GOP leadership who had been prepared to endorse Romney is holding his fire while he considers Thompson.

3. Although he probably will not have announced by then, Thompson will hit the campaign trail next month with a May 4 speech in Orange County, California. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has so far led GOP presidential hopefuls in lining up California support.

4. Thompson is responding to an off-the-cuff criticism of his religious faith by Dr. James Dobson by planning to attend the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday. This appearance also offers him a chance to reach out to a large religious demographic largely outside the South's natural faith-in-politics reach.

5. Thompson has picked up endorsements from Missouri's state speaker Carl Bearden (R) and Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder (R), who are breaking from the state's political establishment. Gov. Matt Blunt (R) and former Sen. Jim Talent (R) have both endorsed Romney. Kinder becomes the first statewide official anywhere to endorse Thompson.

 

[roo_ster]

Like I said, some of y'all are reading into FT what you want to be there, not necessarily what is there.

Like the "FT will listen to conservatives more." More than whom? Romney has just about flipped on every issue conservatives care about, making John Kerry look like a model of consistency. If you want someone who'll listen to conservatives, Romney is pathetically ready to embrace you with a sloppy Massachusetts kiss.

FWIW, I am not a "chew off my arm before voting for FT" kinda guy. So far, I reserve that honor for Rudy & sometimes McCain, when I get cranky. I just don't see as much distance between him and McCain as some of y'all seem to divine. On some issues I care about, FT is better than McCain. On others he is worse.

 

[EVIL5LITER]

So who do you think we should vote for?

 

[RCouch]

As others have said --Run Fred Run. Whether or not his indolent Lymphoma becomes more agressive I still think, based on the info he has put out, that he is a good candidate. I've been living with cancer for 15 years and it may come back at any time but any living human can come down with that or any number of other ailments. He is probably in a lot better health than Cheney.

 

[roo_ster]

Evil5Liter:

Who should we/you/I vote for? Kind of premature, don't you think?

If one is inclined to vote in the Republican primary and all current declared candidates (RG, MR, JM, TT, RP) and all probable candidates (FT, NG) were on the ballot, TODAY, Tom Tancredo would be my recommendation. If I had to rank them: TT, RP, FT, NG, MR, JM, RG. My "Scr3w it, I'm voting third party" point comes around MR/JM.

Thing is, the primary is NOT today, it is almost about a year out. That is several political lifetimes. Remember back 6 months ago? Bill Frist & George Allen were serious contenders. Now, they are footnotes. Who knows who will be in contention in 9 months? Norman Schwartzkopf, Tommy Franks, or some other celebrity general might get a wild hair up his backside and decide what America needs is another retired general at the helm. America likes its celebrity generals.

It is pretty apparent that a lot of folks are unsatisfied with the Rep front-runners. I am, too. Don't let dissatisfaction with the front-runners make you look with rose-colored glasses at the potential alternatives. They have their warts, too.

 

[Outlaws]

The article says he was diagnosed 2 1/2 years ago. Why would he all of the sudden not run? This isn't something he just found out about.

 

[camacho]

Kind of premature, don't you think?

Not really. As far as I am concerned the Presidential campaign is in full swing. Just look at the political sections of all major newspapers, TV, etc.

As to Fred, as I have expressed several times in this forum, at this time he is our only hope. Why? Because he is conservative, he is very affable, extremely well spoken, and as a result very electable. The buzz around him in the media is not coincidence. If he throws his hat in the ring, the support he'll get will rend the campaigns of the others pretty much useless.

Let's all hope that he'll run which judging by the all accounts in media will likely happen. I personally can not wait.

 

[Cosmoline]

jfruser, you keep saying he's left of McCain, but a chart with a dot means nothing to me. Do you have any quotes or votes from FT that would support your position? I'm not trying to start a debate, I really would like to know if this guy is the closet McCain you're saying he is. What are the specific problems you see with Thompson, esp. in re. gun control. Are you seriously suggesting he's worse than or as bad as Rudy or McCain on gun control?

 

[Coronach]

Fred Thompson is probably a better candidate, based upon his positions, than either McCain or Guiliani. Guiliani has some practical executive leadership experience, but he honestly lacks a philosophical basis for his positions in general, and on the gun issue in particular he is a disaster. McCain is just a political train wreck. Romney is mostly unknown to me, but I think Wikipedia has his picture on file under the entry RINO.

The fact that FT has this particular type of lymphoma is a non-issue to me. What he has is treatable and non-fatal. He's putting this out there now so as to be open and honest, and to make sure that this will not scuttle him before he drops any money.

It will be refreshing to have an articulate candidate for a change.

"Nucular"

"Well, Bob Dole wouldn't vote for Bob Dole..."

"...wouldn't be prudent...not at this juncture...same as it ever was, SAME AS IT EVER WAS."

You have to go back to 1984 to find a Republican presidential candidate who could communicate.

Mike

PS To be fair, all of the GOP possibles seem articulate. But most of them aren't saying what we want them to say.

PPS Extra Credit to the first guy to get the GHWB reference.

 

[GoRon]

PPS Extra Credit to the first guy to get the GHWB reference.

Talking heads?

 

[the pistolero]

"...wouldn't be prudent...not at this juncture...same as it ever was, SAME AS IT EVER WAS."

Saturday Night Live? Dana Carvey was hilarious.

 

[Geronimo45]

"Nucular" of course, folks.

 

[Caimlas]

It will be refreshing to have an articulate candidate for a change.

Articulate? By modern standards, the man is quite erudite! He talks like he's writing an essay, which in my experience indicates that he is very well read, and is able to logically organize his thoughts. I doubt he watches television.

 

[roo_ster]

jfruser, you keep saying he's left of McCain, but a chart with a dot means nothing to me. Do you have any quotes or votes from FT that would support your position? I'm not trying to start a debate, I really would like to know if this guy is the closet McCain you're saying he is. What are the specific problems you see with Thompson, esp. in re. gun control. Are you seriously suggesting he's worse than or as bad as Rudy or McCain on gun control?

Cosmoline:

After researching FT, I came to the subjective conclusion that he was a bit* to the left of McCain. I went to a lot of websites, looked into his voting record, all that jazz. Pretty much what the web site you used as support did, but in a less systematic manner, since I had no intention of putting up a web site for all to peruse.

The site you used as backup, http://www.ontheissues.org, did such research, organized it, and codified it. They even took a stab at quantifying the general political orientation of the candidates, which was the chart. Their methodology is apparent for all to see. I would suggest you read the FT and JM sites to see why they reached that conclusion.

It is this sort of emoting that gets my goat:

As to Fred, as I have expressed several times in this forum, at this time he is our only hope.

He ain't the Reps only hope. He'd better not be, since we know so little about him. Heck, we just learned he has a dead-serious, though treatable, medical condition. That sort of thing and more will likely get shaken out in a campaign. The Rep candidates will not get the kid-glove treatment Clinton got in 1992, they'll get rigorous journalistic proctological exams.

For instance, a couple months back, Romney was the conservative's "only hope" in the race. Now he's a pathetic RINO doing backflips to attract conservatives. We'd best have more than one golden boy ready and able to step into the breach. Eggs, baskets, & all that.



* Note: I keep using terms like "bit," "smidgen," etc. to indicate that the distance between them is not all that great...which is my point. In a one-dimensional political spectrum from right to left, they are 'purt near co-located.

 

[NickEllis]

In a one-dimensional political spectrum from right to left, they are 'purt near co-located

Sorry, jfruser, I just don't buy your rhetoric.

Did you watch the Fred Thompson Fox interview? I don't think I've heard a single other candidate besides Ron Paul come out and say that the Federal Government has too much control and needs rolled back. As for the Mcain/Feingold voting thing, I think FT point was he thought the soft campaign money needed regulated, and that M/F was a good way to do it. Naive... perhaps. But I don't get the impression for the majority of his voting record that he is the RINO I see in the other candidates.

Nick

 

[tulsamal]

Thompson can't be all things to all people. Just trying to do that means you aren't really being an honest person. (Step right up here Senator McCain!) There are social conservatives out there that will evaluate him only based on abortion or prayer in schools. There are gun people who want to know his position on gun control. There there is school choice and government economic and trade policies. It is DARN hard to somehow "score" a vote on nuclear power plants with one on abortion and one on free trade. Throw in gun control and the chaos is complete.

All we can do is look at his long life of public service (going back to the Nixon years) and see what he has said and done on the particular issues that concern us. From a gun control standpoint, he looks good to me. From a Reaganesque "government is too big and spends too much money," he looks good again. That's going to have to do for now.

I honestly wish Newt could be President for some of the same reasons given for Thompson. Not just for the ideologue but for the clarity of mind and breadth of education. I'm not one of those people who considers Bush 43 to be stupid. He may well even be slightly above average in intelligence. But wouldn't it be fun to have somebody WAY above average? Seriously, compare him to Bill Clinton. I always thought one of the reasons the right demonized him so strongly is because they recognized a truly powerful mind. He was and is a smart guy. He can debate for hours about the smallest little details of nearly every issue. The problem is that he draws different conclusions than we want to hear! Nobody wants the people with the "wrong" ideologue to have a smart and well educated person for their leader. Let them pick some doddering old bigot who will alienate everybody in the middle instead! (Or a left wing abrasive female from San Francisco. What were they thinking?!)

I can live with Thompson just fine. He would be a vast improvement over Mr. NYC or Mr. Mass or even Senator McCain. And an even bigger improvement over anything on the Democratic side!!

Gregg

 

[Henry Bowman]

For instance, a couple months back, Romney was the conservative's "only hope" in the race.

That is what the MSM was telling you, not what conservatives were actually saying.

In a room full of blind people, a one-eyed man is king. But bring in Superman with x-ray vision and ol' one-eye looks pretty weak.

 

[Coronach]

GoRon, The Pistolero

You're both right. It was Dana Carvey imitating George HW Bush, and suddenly morphing into The Talking Heads, complete with Byrne's hand chops on his forearm. This was back when SNL was funny, for you younger readers.

Mike