Fred! to House Republicans: “I chased girls and girls chased me.”
posted at 7:16 am on May 1, 2007 by see-dubya
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The New York Times catches a whiff of Fredmania, and lays out a fairly straightforward look at his potential candidacy. Fred’s main problems are a shortage of experienced campaign personnel–most of whom have already committed to other candidates at this point– and cash:
“I just wonder how he is going to start this late and have the campaign infrastructure, local organizations on the ground in the early states and raise the money,” said Charlie Black, a senior Republican strategist who is backing Senator John McCain. “Celebrity doesn’t pay for an airline ticket to Des Moines.”
And those are serious problems; no matter how much Fred! shows up on Technorati, a lack of ready corporate funds and multi-thousand-dollar donors is going to cramp his style.
But you didn’t click the headline to read about that.
…at a private meeting a few weeks ago with House Republicans, he answered questions about his reputation as a man about town during his eight years in the Senate, a period when he was single after his divorce from his first wife. Mr. Thompson was asked bluntly if any activities from his first marriage or his time in the Senate would come back to haunt him or his backers.
According to those attending, Mr. Thompson assured them there were no problems, but conceded that when he was single, “I chased girls and girls chased me.” Mr. Thompson is since remarried, and he and his wife, Jeri, have two young children.
Well! Having met Senator Thompson once, I know he has a great deal of charisma, but I wouldn’t have pegged him as a “babe magnet”. Nonetheless I had known that he had been “romantically linked”, as the tabloids say, to country-music siren Lorrie Morgan, the sultry lass pictured on the Hot Air homepage (and daughter of old time countrypolitan crooner George “Room Full of Roses” Morgan). Miss Morgan seems to bear Fred no ill will; she spoke well of him to Larry King in 2004:
KING: Didn’t you also go out with Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee?
MORGAN: Yes, I did.
KING: Who now is the star of Law & Order?
MORGAN: Yes, he is.
KING: Fun guy. Lifetime bachelor.
MORGAN: Yes. Well, no he’s married.
KING: Now he’s married?
MORGAN: Now he’s married. And has, I think, a little girl.
KING: Nice guy.
MORGAN: Very nice guy. Very down-to-earth. And just a great guy. One to be proud to call a friend.
So, will Fred!’s Senatorial extracurriculars make a difference? As his star rises, I’ll bet there will be some gossipworthy revelations in that department, but I suspect they would have to be pretty lurid to have any impact. There may be admiration, there may be jealousy, there may be disapproval. But I’ll bet even the most austerely religious voters will overlook a stretch of serial monogamy from a single Senator–especially if that Senator has the decency to blush about it. And as long as nothing too weird, creepy, or caddish emerges.
Because, setting aside our particular doctrines and ethics, we all know that how a man treats women says a lot about his character. Whether or not this is an issue will depend on whether Senator Thompson conducted his affairs as a gentleman, or whether we are instead talking about some priapic D.C. soap opera starring Fred the Rampaging Bald-Headed Sex Monster.
But somehow I don’t think Miss Morgan would have put up with that sort of thing.
UPDATE: CONTENT WARNING–for immature audiences. Ace has started up a “Cool Facts About Fred Thompson” thread. These tend to get more than a little saucy, so proceed at your own risk.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
See-dub, you heard about al-Masri yet? I emailed the HA fellas, cuz I didn’t realize you were still around. Anyway, I just wanted to be the first one to question the timing.
RightWinged on May 1, 2007 at 6:19 AM
Wow–just saw that. New post coming up.
see-dubya on May 1, 2007 at 6:23 AM
eh, “it’s only about sex”, right?
JetBoy on May 1, 2007 at 6:26 AM
Let the double speak begin. Will the references to Clinton’s romps be mysteriously absent in this thread? Inquiring minds want to know…
But but he was single so it is not the same… Ol southern boys are supposed to aspire only to enter a woman’s boudoir once the matrimonial bonds have been secured!
To quote a wise old newscaster; “If a frog had pockets he’ll wear sidearms”
In all seriousness the only way this will probably hurt him if some S&M pics pop. Fred the Gimp just won’t go very far with many Americans.
Bradky on May 1, 2007 at 6:47 AM
I wanna hear more about Fred the Rampaging Bald-Headed Sex Monster.
Coronagold on May 1, 2007 at 6:55 AM
Yeah, Bradky, I would file that under weird and creepy. Also bad would be someone who worked for him.
see-dubya on May 1, 2007 at 6:56 AM
Single and a Senator, yea I can see where woman would chase him.
djohn669 on May 1, 2007 at 7:17 AM
I also think that if it were to emerge that Senator Thompson tends to exclaim “Rack ‘em, pack ‘em, and stack ‘em!” during moments of passion, that could create some problems for his candidacy.
see-dubya on May 1, 2007 at 7:21 AM
LOL
Bradky on May 1, 2007 at 7:24 AM
And Bill Clintoon had several flings with women while he was “working” in the White House and…oh wait…wasn’t Clintoon married at the time?
lynnv on May 1, 2007 at 7:25 AM
LOL I knew it wouldn’t take long. But if Mr. Fred is for traditional values and very religious, having relations outside the bounds of marriage doesn’t square up either does it?
Bradky on May 1, 2007 at 7:28 AM
Yes but I think the same religious right section of conservatism that came out in droves to make sure the gays don’t get married aren’t near as passionate about premarital sex.
frreal on May 1, 2007 at 7:52 AM
I wonder if all those thousands of people who voted for Fred (in the latest straw poll) will reach deep down in their pockets and make the donations to bring him to the point where he could compete with the other top tier candidates?
csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 8:11 AM
Is his new wife, a real hottie, a closet lesbian covering for his boinking every big butted intern that looks at him?
If this isn’t the case, then he’s got nothin’ to worry about.
benrand on May 1, 2007 at 8:18 AM
Oh, those wacky religious conservatives! Who knew they made up as much as 60% of the population? Because that’s approximately the percentage who voted against gay marriage in about a dozen states.
Wacky!
Slublog on May 1, 2007 at 8:23 AM
Speak for yourself. The flaw in your logic is that no one engaging in premarital sex is attempting to redefine marriage by judicial fiat. That is what made us “come out in droves.” And may we come out in droves in November of 2008.
FRED!
common sensineer on May 1, 2007 at 8:57 AM
Wow…Lorrie Morgan.
Fred has cred.
James on May 1, 2007 at 9:04 AM
Word. She was teh hot a few years back.
But, wait. Fred! — that is, Fred! with the wrinkles and the bald and the aged — has two very young kids? WTF? Man, are all these people just weird, or what?
Jaibones on May 1, 2007 at 9:27 AM
I read a story yesterday that said his ex-wife had agreed to campaign for him, so it seems they’re on congenial terms, which is good.
CP on May 1, 2007 at 9:28 AM
Wow. I now have so much more respect for Fred! A man who is not afraid to act like and admit that he is, in fact, a man. Very refreshing.
No double speak necessary here. I never critisized Clinton for being what is often referred to as a “womanizer” (I hate that word). In fact, it kind of made me like him at first. What I critisized him for was committing felony perjury and obstruction of justice while President of the United States. I also lost a great deal of respect for him when the stories started to come out about how he beat up women. It became clear to me that Clinton did not like the company of women, he just liked feeling powerful. It made the accusations of rape quite believable and even plausible. Clinton is a scumbag and a criminal who gets accused of rape by the women he was involved with. It appears that the women Fred!’s was involved with actually like and respect him. It appears Fred! is a real man who truly likes and respects women, unfortunately the same cannot be said about our former President.
Zetterson on May 1, 2007 at 9:34 AM
Great!
Thompson will come into office pre-Clintonized.
Better to just get all that stuff out ahead of time.
Ken McCracken on May 1, 2007 at 9:45 AM
Zett,
Exactly. The fact that he liked to have sex with women was refreshing, coming from a Democrat. The minor, niggling detail was that he was married, had a daughter, and was a Christian, married in a church of God, under a vow of fidelity.
Therefore, he was an utter failure as a man and a Christian, but a rare success as a male Democrat; what a perfect explanation of the Democrat condition.
Fred! was a bachelor, and had sex with nice looking women; this would seem to outline the Republican condition nicely…
Jaibones on May 1, 2007 at 9:57 AM
Haha! Perfect.
Zetterson on May 1, 2007 at 10:06 AM
The money issue is obviously a big concern…but how much is 20 years of making movies/TV worth? You give the average American a photo line-up of all the candidates and you get a lot of shrugs and headscratching. You include a photo of Fred! and suddenly you get ‘Hey…I know that guy!’.
The grassroots will give him bucks….but is it enough?
Hope he isn’t playing this whole business out just to want the VP spot.
Limerick on May 1, 2007 at 10:06 AM
He will get plenty of money through dark channels to be sure…Ha ha.
An unmarried man having sex…he should be taken to gitmo. I wonder who he has groped without permission.
tomas on May 1, 2007 at 10:16 AM
I’ll give what I can…I’m now damn serious about Fred!
tickleddragon on May 1, 2007 at 10:21 AM
And come on folks, the man was NOT married, successful, and comes off smart and charming – with that smooth Southern accent. How could ladies NOT find him worth “trying out”?
He’s not a hottie, per se…but intelligence and Southern charm trump HOT any day to some of us.
Yeehaw! Go Fred!
tickleddragon on May 1, 2007 at 10:24 AM
NOW we know why the asteric is at the end of Fred!. It looks like a dick and balls.
csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Yeah, you’re right and it’s a little said isn’t it? That’s what’s great about the Bible, it’s so long and cryptic cherry-picking is easy.
And come on, isn’t more than a little ironic that the top Republican candidates are all for the “sanctity of marriage,” except when the marriage in question in their own? The top Democratic candidates meanwhile can’t wait to destroy traditional family values and ruin the institution of marriage, but they’re such hypocrites they are all still on their first marriage! What audacity…
JaHerer22 on May 1, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Ah… smell that? That’s the smell of radical leftie fear. Get used to it.
Mmmmm… Good.
techno_barbarian on May 1, 2007 at 11:00 AM
If lefties like the ones in this thread want to make an issue out of an unmarried man dating around, all I can say is be my guest.
We’ll see who gets tarred with the “intolerant” brush first.
thirteen28 on May 1, 2007 at 11:20 AM
I think that the fact that he was single will definitely play a role here. LOTS of guys chase women while they’re single, regardless of religion, and premarital sex isn’t THAT big of a deal unless you’re talking about your own children. That and if Fred!’s as much of a gentleman as we think he is, he will never kiss and tell. Let’s hope that the ladies he courted during that time are the same caliber :)
kippras on May 1, 2007 at 11:25 AM
What a clever little talking point. While it might cause glee in the hearts of those who chortle over crude stereotypes of Republicans as the puritanical party, it will not have much of an impact in the debate over gay marriage.
That debate is over for now, thanks to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. If they had ruled the other way, the public might have been brought along by the arguments of people like Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch. Instead, the ’social change by judicial fiat’ approach was taken, and in the resultant backlash, a number of states have adopted, with wide margins of victory, measures prohibiting gay marriage in their states.
Many of those who voted for such measures were Democrats, which is doubtless why you don’t see a lot of discussion of the issue by the Democratic presidential candidates.
So perhaps instead of chuckling over the ‘hypocrisy’ of the Republican candidates, you should spend some time asking the Democrats why they’re essentially running from this issue. Where is the political courage in ignoring a segment of your base?
Slublog on May 1, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Well said, and no, I don’t think the lefties who drove by earlier are going to come back to address any of that which you said. If by some oddity they do happen to come back they will ignore everything you said and move on to their own talking point again. I’d be willing to bet that they won’t touch anything you said though. Thats what lefties do when they know the other side is right. How it is they sleep at night I have no idea.
Zetterson on May 1, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Agreed. I was an absolute slut when I was single. And I greatly enjoyed those years. But I’m on my first (and it’ll be my only) marriage lo these past 27 years, and I have never and will never stray.
I’ve never been a prude or a puritain, and I believe many Conservatives, dare I speculate even a majority, share similar points of view.
That radical lefties can be so completely hypocritical in trying to hold up the sham marriages of some in their party is laughable. And it absolutely stinks of desperation.
techno_barbarian on May 1, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Well, that since the New York Times says it’s too late for Fred to run and win then it must be true. One one has ever used the internet to push stories from blogs to the MSM before. That never happens the MSM is too independent, powerful, and resourceful to ever be influence by internet users. Ahh well, I guess the internet is just for those 133t lefty 4ax0rs who dominate the blogsphere and the Democrats. The New York Times is always right.
Egfrow on May 1, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Here’s one social conservative who says if Fred passes the SEE-DUBYA test, it becomes a non-issue for me. It’s your honesty and how you treat people close to you that counts most.
petefrt on May 1, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Fear? Really? Sorry, but your Republican field is weaker than it’s been in a long, long time. Combine that with the incompetent administration, unpopular war, never-ending stream of scandals, and general desire for change among Americans and the only thing I fear is Democrats will somehow manage to screw things up before the election falls into their laps. Which, granted, is possible, but the last thing I fear is your candidates.
Oh, and chew on what your friend Bruce Bartlett has to say…tasty.
JaHerer22 on May 1, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Bwahahahahahahaha, Ditto, Thompson/Pence ‘08
tormod on May 1, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Excellent. You go ahead and delude yourself. If the media and the People actually took a good hard look at almost anyone in the dem party, especially the ‘leadership’, most of them would wind up in jail.
You have a very real reason to fear your stupid dems screwing things up before the elections. As usual, they’re foolishly overplaying their hands, based on a razor thin margin in the Nov. elections, and they will not be able to escape their words and actions.
I don’t know a Bruce Bartlett. Don’t have time to read the link right now. Not really holding out much hope there’s anything of substance in it.
I got a business to run. I’ll check back in later.
techno_barbarian on May 1, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Well, I glanced at that NRO article by Bartlett. The very last of it says that we Conservatives should all be wise and admit defeat now and cast our votes for shrillary.
Yeah. Like THAT’s gonna happen. I’ll never vote for ANY dem. The only relatively sane one among them isn’t even running.
But it’s amusing that the lefties are so very confident in the absolute mess of a party that they currently have. But America is watching, and the polls tell a different story than the one JH22 and EVERY dem mouthpiece are trying to sell.
Uh… no thanks.
techno_barbarian on May 1, 2007 at 12:18 PM
well its good to know my future president got some action and flirted
i wouldn’t want a person like Kucinich or Biden to be my president who probablyt married their pity dates
Defector01 on May 1, 2007 at 12:29 PM
I think your missing my point…
The Democratic party is a mess…they’re horrible, they bicker over pointless things and refuse to discuss what’s actually important. They’re scared of doing anything or standing up to anybody and gay marriage and Iraq are both key examples. Harry Reid is a sniveling little wimp; the party refuses to take a stand and refuses to throw tired Republican talking points about Iraq back into their face. It’s sad and kind of pathetic, we can probably agree on that.
My point is that regardless of how bad they are they would actually have to try to lose in 2008. Not just try, but try hard and diligently. Bush is radioactive; Iraq is radioactive; even the word Republican is near radioactive– among true conservatives at that. Democrats may be in trouble, but after the past 8 years Republicans are practically handing them the keys to the Oval Office.
JaHerer22 on May 1, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Handing them to who?
Hillary?
Obama?
Edwards?
Gore?
LMAO
benrand on May 1, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Are you kidding? Have you seen Kuncinich’s wife? No matter what you think of him, you have to admit the little guy did alright for himself. I don’t know how he pulled it off, but damn…
JaHerer22 on May 1, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Divorce is not ALWAYS a matter of sanctity. Sometimes people just move apart. The culture of hatred you snuggle up to like it’s a warm blanket on a cold night is evident when you make completely misguided comments like those.
csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 12:51 PM
JaHerer22 I never thought I’d say this but I can’t disagree with a word you just wrote in that entire post.
Zetterson on May 1, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Dang it. Sorry, guys. I guess Bush isn’t getting that third term after all.
The dream is over.
Slublog on May 1, 2007 at 1:12 PM
It’s rare that I will concede a point to you, so enjoy this one – you are right.
And I am baffled by your exit question (i.e. how did he pull that off?).
thirteen28 on May 1, 2007 at 1:22 PM
And he knows it, too. Look at those eyes.
Slublog on May 1, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Aw crap… and after all that effort Karl and I spent convincing the Left that Bush was merely appointed by the Supreme Court the first time ’round and was eligible for Election 2008!
ScottMcC on May 1, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Let me state ~ freely and with no mental, Indian or dinner reservation ~ FRED! is a babe.
Magnet.
tree hugging sister on May 1, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Actually, I disagree. The illusion of all this radioactivity is just that. The facts on the ground fly directly in the face of the constant and inaccurate drumbeat of “nothing good is going on in Iraq”. It’s a lie, and a shameful one at that.
The dems are believing polls that they’re creating themselves in order to control and shape public opinion. It’s kind of like the 69% “America wants out of Iraq” number that the traitor weasel harry reid keep touting. It’s a lie that’s much like a fishing story, where the percentage quoted goes up with each telling. Also kinda like the “1.2 billion muslims worldwide” that keeps getting upped to, I think now, 1.7 billion.
I think the GOP has been extraordinarily incompetent, and I’ll definitely give you that. But the dems not only can, but I believe they will, screw up so consistantly and visibly in the next several months that they will, in fact, hand the Presidency and probably one or both of the houses back to the pubs.
The GOP is weak, but the donks are utterly corrupt and rotten to their very core. The facade is going to crack and it’s going to do so very very publicly. Even the msm isn’t going to be able to save them.
techno_barbarian on May 1, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Well, having also met him in person, and from a female perspective, I beg to differ. However, I like him for many other reasons too, especially the indolent strength he exhibits. He makes one feel welcome, relaxed and assured.
This topic is really funny – best of all the absolute ‘moral’ authority any lefties will have on it…it must hurt the media and their minions so…but, heh, can’t turn the time/standards back.
As I mentioned before, unless he killed one of those ‘friends’ he’ll be ok, given the current field, on both sides.
I will be here to remind JaHerer22 of his words on the 2008 presidency, early November. Fortunately they will be easy to access.
Freud in action…the better question, still, is “what’s wrong with this chick?”
Entelechy on May 1, 2007 at 2:14 PM
At least we don’t have FRED saying “You better put some ice on that………”
PinkyBigglesworth on May 1, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Compared to how Newt and Rudy have treated their exes, this is nothing.
As soon as Fred! says bum-bum the money will roll in.
Iblis on May 1, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Freud in action…the better question, still, is “what’s wrong with this chick?”
Entelechy on May 1, 2007 at 2:14 PM
FINALLY, someone gets it!
ScottMcC on May 1, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Wait – I have found the answer to that question, straight from the mouth of Tom Petty.
thirteen28 on May 1, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Hell, to me this just makes Fred MORE of a real man! Rock on, Fred!
MsUnderestimated on May 1, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Chased and bedded are two different terms. Don’t jump to conclusions.
Just use big bold letters to proudly proclaim your ignorance, why don’t you?
I read Bartlett’s piece. It’s laughable. He almost makes a decent case. Then he gets here:
None of that was orchestrated nor desired by Billy Jeff. It was the 1994 Contract with America, designed by Gingrich, which accomplished those economic improvements. Hillary would not have a strongly motivated conservative Congress to hold off her socialism, so the comparison, and therefore the entire posit, is bogus. Bill wanted to raise taxes again in 1997, wanted to hold onto capital gains taxes.
Have a seat.
Freelancer on May 1, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Having a friend in TN politics, I don’t think $$$ will be a problem for Fred. I heard that as soon as he makes a choice, every single one of Frist’s campaign people will be on board (having secretly committed already). Plus, Fred got the coveted invite to be the key-note speaker at the BIG $$$ Republican dinner in California when nobody else could.
MsUnderestimated on May 1, 2007 at 2:54 PM
…they brung Mr. Reagan and they’ll work hard to bring Mr. Thompson. And they’re very good at it, and connected.
Entelechy on May 1, 2007 at 3:04 PM
It’s always funny when some far left wing fanatical kook claims this administration is full of scandals. In fact this administration has been incredibly scandal free. One person (Libby) convicted and it had nothing to do with an underlying crime. Lets see about convictions in the Clinton regime:
CONVICTIONS
Webster Hubbell
Jim McDougal
Susan McDougal
Gov. Jim Guy Tucker
Stephen Smith
David Hale
Eugene Fitzhugh
Charles Matthews
Robert W. Palmer
Chris Wade
Neal T. Ainley
Larry Kuca
Henry Espy
James Lake
William J. Marks, Sr.
John Latham
John Haley
Michael Brown (Ron Browns son)
Eugene Lum
Nora Lum
Johnny Chung
Tyson Foods
Sun Diamond Growers
Richard Douglas
James Lake
Ron Blackley
Smith Barney
Crop Growers Corporation
Brook Keith Mitchell Sr.
Five M Farming Enterprises
John J Hemmingson
Alvarez T. Ferrouillet, Jr.
Municipal Healthcare Cooperative
Ferrouillet & Ferrouillet
Linda Jones
Patsy Jo Wooten
Allen Wooten
Roger Clinton
Dan Lasater
Bill McCuen
Dan Harmon
Roger Tamraz (Lebanon by default)
Capitalist Infidel on May 1, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Gotta say, when I saw him on Redeye I thought he came off like a really nice and pleasant guy. I know his politics are nutty, but I actually liked him after seeing him on TV. And women really do care about liking the guy more than what he looks like.
Re Fred! I like that he said he chased girls. That’s what a real person would say. A person who censors his every word would have said “women” and never would have said “chased”.
Bad Penny on May 1, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Fred! must have some of the Kissinger magic. I could never understand how Dr. Henry was such a babe magnet. The fact that Fred! has an aura that draws women to him, so much the better. It will help bring back the central female voters that seem so repulsed by aura of George Bush.
Mallard T. Drake on May 1, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Hey, I used the word women! But I get your point and its a good one… generally.
Zetterson on May 1, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Anyone that Lorrie Morgan would date is Aces in my book!
Run Fred, Run!
Lawrence on May 1, 2007 at 4:15 PM
LoL. Yes and that same sect of the population became disillusioned with the republican party when they failed to deliver with an amendment. Much like many republicans have become disillusioned for various other reasons (my reasons), immigration policy, spending, lack of cajones when dealing with the presidential appointments, etc…
That particular far right religious faction of conservatives I alluded to in the earlier post were intentionally wooed with gay marriage. It brought out a bunch of people that normally might not have voted to come out and vote just as they intended them to do. They put it on the ballots and drew those people out. My point is those same people are not going to be as motivated or in this case demotivated to vote by Fred having premarital sex as they are by gay marriage. The level of disdain, it seems, has an indirect correlation with the decreased probability of a fundy having committed the offense. Ted Haggard aside. Haha.
and Zetterson and JaHerer… I am far far from left. Sorry I don’t fit your little molds.
frreal on May 1, 2007 at 4:16 PM
My bad frreal. I appologize and appreciate the explanation in the last post. I did not mean to call you a liberal. I know how that must hurt and I would only wish to label my worst enemies with that.
Zetterson on May 1, 2007 at 4:28 PM
I would venture to say that the 5-time married Ms. Morgan was doing the chasing of Fred (not that there’s anything wrong with that), and it was, I think, sometime between her 3rd and 4th marriage and after she dated Troy Aikman.
From Wikipedia:
In her book Forever Yours, Faithfully: My Love Story, Morgan states that:
Fred is an extremely generous man. He wined and dined me and bought me presents — furs, earrings, Chanel shoes with real high heels.
Brat on May 1, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Re: Lorrie Morgan
Fred has a good eye and good taste. Saw her recently on CMT, or was it GAC? Anyways she still is hot and definitely MILF-worthy.
I’m hoping he would stop pussy-footin’ and feet-draggin’ around and announce!
kevcad on May 1, 2007 at 5:28 PM
“These tend to get more than a little saucy, so proceed at your own risk.”
Oh come on! Do you really need to resort to this to build traffic to a link?
chsw on May 1, 2007 at 5:45 PM
With all the back slapping and “you go Fred” sentiments I can’t help but ask how many who see it that way will encourage their daughters to be slutty, date guys decades older than them, and generally provide a warm body for powerful men?
Kind of disappointing to see those who claim to be in the moral majority now switching sides and saying religion is okay after you “sow your oats”.
Hmmm
Bradky on May 1, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Right, because a 35 year old woman is still too young to make her own choices without input from her parents. That she’s well endowed and married an older man? Must be a slut.
Of course, and single conservatives shouldn’t be expected to date- they all have to have marriages arranged for them just like in Biblical times.
I shouldn’t have to point out that I’m being sarcastic, but I suspect you’re just dumb enough that I do.
Hollowpoint on May 1, 2007 at 7:09 PM
To our friends who are trying to compare Fred! with Bill Clinton, a few names:
Gennifer Flowers
Juannita Brodderick
Paula Jones
Monica Lewinsky
Ok, so both Fred! and Slick (Clinton) chased skirts. Human nature. No problem there, in and of itself.
Note that Slick was married; while Fred was single. Although Slick was committing adultery, given that he was married to Hillary!, I honestly sympathise.
To all the Democrats/Lefties trying to stir the “unfairness” card, regarding the two men and their sexcapades, alleged or factual: I could care less about what they did in bed, per se. What I do care about, however, are the circumstances surrounding the peccadilloes.
Fred! was a single man, and (to-date, at least) no one has accused him of untoward behavior, violation of personal rights, or any other illegalities.
Slick, however, was a married man, President of the United States, and his sexcapades came with multiple accusations of illegal behavior, including rape. There are strong allegations that he paid off at least one woman to keep quiet, and promoted Arkansas State Troopers who might have otherwise testified against him. Worst of all, though, Slick committed perjury during the Paula Jones trial. Democrats tend to forget that Slick was disbarred from practicing law in the state of Arkansas after he stepped down from the Presidency for being convicted of this felony.
I could care less about Slick’s semen stains on Monica’s dress. And until someone presents credible evidence that Fred! exercised undue influence over people in the course of his relationships outside of marriage, I could care equally less about who he slept with as a single man.
So the matter is not about sex. It’s about respect for the law, and respect for the Presidency – neither of which Slick demonstrated. And that is why Conservatives like myself dislike the man so strongly, and why we feel the way we do about the Monica thing.
Finally, I am quite amused that the Feministas circled the wagons around Slick the way they did whenever a woman accused him of illegal sexual behavior. Does that mean if a Democrat President rapes you, you must have asked for it? I wonder.
p.s.: to add insult to injury, Garry Aldrich (author of Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House) alleged in his book that Slick would regularly sneak off White House grounds late at night in an unmarked limousine, without Secret Service escort, to spend the night with women in a DC hotel. If this allegation is true, it represented a range of needless security risks to the US that, in modern times, was unconscionable – from blackmail to assassination.
Wanderlust on May 1, 2007 at 7:13 PM
The 35 year old woman learned her morals from someone. I don’t recall the bible splitting hairs on when marital relations should occur – maybe you have the secret decoder ring that determines the nuances.
Interesting that Hillary and Obama are about the only two candidates who have been married to one person and seem to have honored their end of the vows… but since they are Democrats that is inconsequential?
As for me being “dumb”, no but I am pleased that I made you uncomfortable in looking in the mirror and seeing a little hypocrisy staring back at you.
Let’s throw a hypothetical out there:
Let’s say Hillary got divorced or became a widow and took up with a younger man. Do you honestly think she would get the “You go girl” comments some are heaping on Fred?
Thought so … now who is looking dumb?
Bradky on May 1, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Kinda reminds me of Cruise/Kidman. Small, sexually ambiguous, insecure man with something of a napoleon complex. Overly hot woman.
PRCalDude on May 1, 2007 at 7:26 PM
I think we should just leave religion out of this. Fred! is not a Muslim nor a scientologist, therefore he’s ok. We’re not electing an elder in the church here. We just need a guy with common sense, or folksy wisdom in Fred’s! case.
PRCalDude on May 1, 2007 at 7:28 PM
My reaction would be “that poor dumb bastard; must be deaf and blind”.
Hollowpoint on May 1, 2007 at 7:35 PM
har dee har har har!!!! good one!
csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 7:56 PM
LOL – It doesn’t really matter to me what he has done in terms of his dating.. but as one who has daughters it is fun to make people do the little hypocrite dance from time to time.
Bradky on May 1, 2007 at 8:01 PM
I have to admit my first reaction to a picture of Fred and his wife was “ewww..” I mean, seriously, it looks like his daughter or even granddaughter. You guys think that is all cool, but women find it distastful. Trust me.
It could hurt him with women. It just gives them another reason to vote for Hillary. I’m not saying I like it, I don’t. But there it is.
Rightwingsparkle on May 1, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Bradky,
You might have a point about hypocrisy except you are not commenting here with the kind of Republicans that you are referring to.
Rightwingsparkle on May 1, 2007 at 8:08 PM
I’d recommend taking a gander (fredism?) at the posts through this thread. There are a few.
Bradky on May 1, 2007 at 8:37 PM
…and an opportunistic chap…
Entelechy on May 1, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Here I sit waiting for the inevitable Fred orgasms coming up at the top of the hour.
csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Yeah. I’ve already put him in his place once already for the same misguided claptrap.
csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Wow. Fred’s segment on H&C just finished up and damn but the boy did good!
He’s gonna take the country by storm.
techno_barbarian on May 1, 2007 at 9:22 PM
techno,
He has to actually declare first. And the interview, IMHO, was more of the same rhetoric, with zero experience or action to back it up. His best point was his association with Petraeus when he was at Fort Campbell. Name dropping isn’t my idea of presidential qualities to look for.
csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 9:37 PM
I came to the post late…
That has incredible cachet as a campaign slogan, don’t you think?
gryphon202 on May 1, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Definitely. You may see that in a post title or two.
see-dubya on May 1, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Good post, but I felt the need to amplify those two items.
Bradky, the Bible indeed takes the same dim view of adultery as it does of ANY intimate contact outside the sanctity of marriage, regardless of the gender of those involved. And you are very wrong to assume that Christians who oppose homosexuality would not as strongly oppose unwed sexual conduct. It is equally wrong. But what’s also wrong is hearing someone say he dated and automatically assuming that includes sex.
Bottom line, this kind of story won’t hurt Fred! with any constituency, when a person finds themself choosing from a slate which includes Rudy and McCain (or Gingrich).
Freelancer on May 1, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Oh CSderanged you are trying to battle with wits again? Let me guess — you finished your last chapter of psychology 101 and feel enlightened?? As usual you flap your jaws and liquid crap rolls out.
Just to review the bidding in this thread to show you I am correct.
You stated in a thread last month:
Not sure who appointed you “Hotair sheriff” but I’d love to know what part of the sacred conservative ideals you mentioned have to do with promiscuous behavior and degradation of women. The winks and nods are highlighted below.
Grow up young CS, you are really embarrassing yourself with your sophomoric rants.
Sounds like someone at a HS football game giggling over the QB being seen in the back seat with a cheerleader. Mature – yes…
Darwin had it wrong – we never evolved past cavemen. Men can’t control those urges and need to be applauded unless they are named Clinton.
Yes poor ol Fred — he is so weak of character he couldn’t successfully rebuff the advances of the “fairer sex”. Gives me all sorts of warm fuzzies about how he approaches GWOT.
This was almost too funny to believe. What part of divorce says he treated women with respect, courtesy, and uh well respected marriage vows of “til death do us part”?
If that is the case then George Clooney should be a shoo in for election no matter who else runs.
Bradky on May 1, 2007 at 10:53 PM
But you merrily perpetuate unproven allegations that Clinton raped someone or threatened to have the wives of the state troopers killed….
Unfortunately, considering the source all too believeable.
Bradky on May 1, 2007 at 10:57 PM
That’s rather shallow. I guess we should just ignore the fact that this woman is a successful lawyer, political consultant and mother and just focus on the ‘ick factor’ of the fact that she’s beautiful and she’s old and that’s just wrong?
Ridiculous.
Slublog on May 1, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Bah…meant to type “she’s beautiful and he’s old.”
Slublog on May 1, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Hey, speak for yourself. I’m a chick (smart, successful, and good-looking) and just about all of my friends agree that the most attractive men are not necessarily those with the best physical appearance (although he must have a minimum level of fitness), but those with intelligence, confidence, class and most importantly a sense of humor. I don’t find age differences distasteful.
JustTruth101 on May 1, 2007 at 11:37 PM
I realize he hasn’t announced. But do you honestly believe he doesn’t read the massive amounts of support he’s getting and that he won’t run?
Not quite fair to say he’s got no experience, either. Senator Thompson. I know kerry, reid, and the others kinda screw things up, but being a Senator used to be a pretty big deal. Representing entire States, and all.
And I guess you missed the part where he talked plainly and honestly about reid’s actions lately. NOBODY, (but us), is talking as directly and strongly as he is.
I didn’t get the impression he was name dropping at all. I got the impression that he was openly and strongly supporting Patraeus and the change in tactics, and how often do you hear that anywhere else? I was thankful to hear SOMEBODY say it and mean it.
And that reminds me; I’m baffled by the GOP’s unwillingness to engage the dems. Hell, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. A healthy GOP would be able to absolutely shred the lunacy now on display. Who’s in charge of changing that, anyway?
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, csdeven, but right now, Fred!’s saying EXACTLY the things I want my next President to say (and my current President, and the rest of the GOP, now that I think of it).
Speaking from personal experience, I’ve taken on a great many challenges when I had absolutely no idea what I was actually getting into and have consistantly done an effective job. And been better for having done it. I think I’m an average American and that my Country is filled with a large number of people a lot like me and those well beyond me.
His inexperience as regards the Presidency doesn’t bother me. He’ll get it done. I choose to believe that, based on my personal impressions of the man. Time will prove me fool or sage. I’m ok with that.
Tangentially (forgive the long post), I identify with Fred! because I’m an entrepreneurial American. This Country’s great because it allows me to chase and catch my dreams, no matter what those dreams may be. Look around the world and see just how few places are left where you can actually do that. Freedom’s losing ground all over the world. It’s precious. It’s valuable. It needs defending. I believe Fred! would stand in the gap and not run from the challenges we’re about to face.
I love this Country, and I want to see it survive and thrive. I’m sure you do too.
techno_barbarian on May 2, 2007 at 12:25 AM
techno,
Yes, I want to see it survive and thrive too. The plain talk is invigorating and that is why I have backed away from him at least until he commits. I don’t want Freds non-candidacy to distract me from those who are actually running. I listened to Dick Morris on H&C tonite and I have kind of the same view as Dick does. I want a tiger, just not a paper tiger.
But I respect your POV. Thanks for sharing.
CS
csdeven on May 2, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »