Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Hot comments: Fred!, Kirsten, and Joel

posted at 10:05 am on May 1, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Kirsten Powers slams the Democrats and the implacable NOW as “out of the mainstream” on partial birth abortion:

The Democratic Party has made a huge show of reaching out to religious voters, for whom abortion is a central issue. Overtures have been made to acknowledge the moral dimension of abortion, with Sen. Hillary Clinton’s famous remarks that, “we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.”

But terrified by the left wing of the Democratic Party, the presidential candidates are aligning themselves with organizations that malign opponents of unrestricted late-term abortions as misinformed hysterics. Yet some of the people who run those organizations are themselves bereft of factual information about the procedure they champion. Recently, National Organization for Women (NOW) President Kim Gandy was asked in a radio interview to describe the procedure she so vigorously supports. She couldn’t. When pressed, she sputtered, “I’m not a doctor.”

When the host cited testimony of a doctor, one Dr. Martin Haskell — the man who pioneered and has performed at least a thousand of these abortions — Mr. Gandy replied “I don’t know who Dr. Haskell is.”

It’s important to know who Dr. Haskell is, since he has debunked a central claim of unrestricted late-term abortion proponents, that they are critical to protect the “health” of the mother. According to an interview in American Medical News, Dr. Haskell said, “I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.”

She notes that between 60 and 70% of Americans agreed with the SCOTUS ruling that upheld the ban on partial birth abortion, and yet all of the Democrat presidential candidates criticized that decision. Several, including SML Harry Reid, voted for the ban only to turn and scold the Supreme Court for upholding a law that they voted for. Their vote was cynical–they wanted to appear mainstream, but hoped SCOTUS would strike the law down and save them from their own hard left wing. Doing the right thing for the unborn never entered their calculations.

Onward to Joel Mowbray, who finds your tax dollars at work spreading terrorist propaganda in the Arab world:

Testifying under oath recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice misled Congress in her strong defense of Al-Hurra, the taxpayer financed Arab TV network. It was unwitting, though. She herself was misled.

During the March 21 House Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Rep. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) pressed Ms. Rice on the wisdom of providing a platform to Islamic terrorists, citing Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah’s Dec. 7 speech, which Al-Hurra aired live. The broadcast speech “went on for 30 minutes,” she responded, “followed by commentary, much of which was critical of Nasrallah.”

In fact, Mr. Nasrallah’s speech was carried in its entirety, roughly an hour and eight minutes. The commentary that followed–a 13-minute phone interview with Wael Abou Faour, a member of Lebanon’s governing coalition–was indeed critical of Mr. Nasrallah. He accused the Hezbollah leader of not being anti-U.S. and anti-Israel enough. While Mr. Nasrallah had claimed Lebanon’s governing coalition was aligned with the U.S. and had backed Israel during the war last summer, Mr. Abou Faour said that Hezbollah was actually closer to the U.S and added that any Lebanese faction that assisted “the Israeli enemy” should not be allowed to engage in political discussion because “the only place they should be [is] in prison.”

The secretary of state’s testimony was without doubt delivered in good faith. But the same cannot be said of the information about the broadcast Al-Hurra provided to the State Department.

According to Mowbray, Al-Hurra’s problem centers on former CNN producer Larry Register:

Mr. Register has not, to his credit, changed Al-Hurra’s dedication to showcasing the full range of U.S. politics. The other side of the network, however, has been “gutted,” in the words of one staffer. Even though Mr. Register has made some improvements since the March column, Al-Hurra still produces far fewer stories about Arab government corruption and human-rights abuses.

Register has found plenty of airtime to dedicate to Iran’s Holocaust denial conference, though. Al-Hurra means “the free one,” and its purpose is to be a voice of America and freedom in the Arab world. If Mr. Register can’t allow it to fulfill that mission, he ought to find another job.

Finally, a little red meat from Fred! Only Fred! gets the !, and it’s for this passage of his latest NRO column:

In the meantime, let’s be realistic about the world we live in. Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about U.S. immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo.

Russia, though, takes the cake. Here is a government apparently run by ex-KGB agents who have no problem blackmailing whole countries by turning the crank on their oil pipelines. They’re not doing anything shady, they say. They can’t help it if their opponents are so notoriously accident-prone. Criticize these guys and you might accidentally drink a cup of tea laced with a few million dollars worth of deadly, and extremely rare, radioactive poison. Oppose the Russian leadership, and you could trip and fall off a tall building or stumble into the path of a bullet.

The hundreds of demonstrators the Kremlin has had beaten and arrested in the last few weeks alone, we are told, were not pro-democracy activists but common criminals — like world chess champion Garry Kasparov. Demonstrating without a permit is a serious crime and, luckily for the Kremlin, it turns out that pro-government youth groups seem always to have permits for rallies at the exact times and places that anti-government protesters gather.

Oh yeah. That’s how a president writes about world events.


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:

I think I’ve found my candidate in Fred(!).

flipflop on May 1, 2007 at 10:10 AM

one thing i have never understood about partial birth abortions being for the health of the mother……doesn’t the doctor induced labor with the baby breached (coming out feet first)? isn’t that a health risk for the mother, or is it just a risk for the baby that’s about to be stuck in the back of the head and have it’s brains sucked out?

pmoshields on May 1, 2007 at 10:17 AM

KP!. Wow, she is really impressing me. Stateswoman behavior from a pundit.

C’mon Fred, tell us something we don’t know. Talk like that make you sound like a tool. He could have stolen that from any number of comments here on HA. I’d rather hear him wax eloquently as he has done in the past. Maybe Mitt! will tap him to be his VP running mate?

csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 10:20 AM

pmoshields on May 1, 2007 at 10:17 AM

My understanding is that the baby is being born normally and when his/her little head pops out, the “doctor” stops the birthing process and shoves a steel spike into the babys brain and scrambles it like an omlet. Hence, the reason it is called a partial birth abortion is because “IT” (not a human being, but an “IT”) is still in the mothers birth canal.

“Set Tookie free! Set Tookie free! Set Tookie free!”

csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 10:25 AM

Hence, the reason it is called a partial birth abortion is because “IT” (not a human being, but an “IT”) is still in the mothers birth canal.

Grrrrrr…this should have read…..

Hence, the reason it is called a partial birth abortion and not murder is because “IT” (not a human being, but an “IT”) is still in the mothers birth canal.

csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 10:26 AM

from descriptions i have read/heard, nurses have described seeing “ITs” legs kicking while its head is still in the birth canal

pmoshields on May 1, 2007 at 10:27 AM

Fred! is sounding like Reagan II.

infidel4life on May 1, 2007 at 10:31 AM

“ITs” legs kicking while its head is still in the birth canal

Ewwwwww. I had not heard that.

I’m not a doctor, but I always thought a head first birth would kill the baby as the cervix would close around the baby’s neck once the shoulders pass it.

csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 10:31 AM

from descriptions i have read/heard, nurses have described seeing “ITs” legs kicking while its head is still in the birth canal

pmoshields on May 1, 2007 at 10:27 AM

From descriptions I have heard, nurses have described seeing “ITs” little head accidentally slip out, and being killed anyway.

tikvah on May 1, 2007 at 10:34 AM

heh that whole thing wasnt supposed to be linked, its not a direct quote

/newbie poster off

pmoshields on May 1, 2007 at 10:38 AM

pmoshields on May 1, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Ahhhh. I get it.

csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 10:39 AM

I heart Fred!

Laura02420 on May 1, 2007 at 10:40 AM

From descriptions I have heard, nurses have described seeing “ITs” little head accidentally slip out, and being killed anyway.

tikvah on May 1, 2007 at 10:34 AM

That must engender a real feeling of power with the “doctor”.

csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 10:40 AM

BETTER FRED! THAN RED!

saint kansas on May 1, 2007 at 10:41 AM

csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 10:25 AM

That is barbaric beyond belief.

infidel4life on May 1, 2007 at 10:42 AM

My understanding is that the baby is being born normally and when his/her little head pops out, the “doctor” stops the birthing process and shoves a steel spike into the babys brain and scrambles it like an omlet.

I thought it was the opposite, hence why nurses have reported seeing the legs move. (as mentioned by tikvah) It is also why doctor does what he does to the head of the baby. As cervix would not have dilated up like it would in a normal birth. There is nothing normal about it, the body is not a participant in this murder.

ChipDaddy on May 1, 2007 at 10:47 AM

Finally, a little red meat from Fred! Only Fred! gets the !

And don’t you forget it, either!

I think it’s in the stylebook….

ScottG on May 1, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Fred!, you’re making me feel funny in the pants. Stop teasing me and run.

ulyses on May 1, 2007 at 10:52 AM

From the Mowbray piece –

Unfortunately, there is no practicable way that Foggy Bottom, or anyone else for that matter, can effectively monitor Al-Hurra…The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the congressionally created independent panel charged with oversight, lacks the ability to conduct even basic auditing, as English transcripts are provided only on request–which rarely happens.

I’m sorry but, what the eff?! We can’t monitor our own broadcasts that are supposedly a key component of our international information strategy? This is pathetic and inexcusable and represents a dangerous incompetence on the part of our gov’t.

CP on May 1, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Bryan, in all honesty, here. How many Fred! love affair threads are we going to have here. Because if all the news we’re going to get about candidates here, is how much you love Fred!, what’s the point?

I thought this was the “world’s first full-service conservative Internet broadcast network”, not the world’s first Fred love network. How about the 36% of Republican voters, who favor Rudy Giuliani? Or the Romney people?

These threads have become so damn predictable, it makes my stomach turn reading them. There’s a picture of red meat, or something, with a title of “Something Something Something Fred!”, followed by 100 comments along the lines of “Fred!”, or “Run, Fred!, Run!”. There’s nothing new or original. Always the same love fest.

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 10:54 AM

When the feminists sold the country the bill of goods that is abortion 30 some odd years ago, they claimed that the fetus was ‘just a formless bunch of cells’. Updated technology has shown how early in development the fetus takes human form.

So when Ms Gandy claimed ignorance on what PTA really is she is spouting the new abortion marketing. Ignore what abortion really is (killing a little human child) and go back to the days when its just a formless nothing.

That and the more often than not ludicrous ‘health of a woman’ claim.

CUS on May 1, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Abortion: All the fluff and haughty talk…..history and God will judge it for what it was; Politicians sacrificing the lives of babies for votes from the poor. Murder of the most vulnerable and innocent reduced to a tool of political base building. Choice….rights….CRIME!

Foggy Bottom: The magic sanctuary of leftwing America haters. Get a job there and you are in for life. You can sabotage America anytime you feel like it and nobody will ever question you.

Fred!……walk up to the podium….turn on the mike…..look out over the crowd…..’I'm in!’…..we want to hear a policy speech now. No more ‘I’ll slap some grits on America’s enemies’ stuff. Real policy. I say this as a grits and bacon boy myself. Enough with the fun-pokin…time to get serious.

Limerick on May 1, 2007 at 11:02 AM

That must engender a real feeling of power with the “doctor”.

Makes some sick.

Spirit of 1776 on May 1, 2007 at 11:02 AM

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 10:54 AM

Sheesh, someone got up on the wrong side of the aisle.

infidel4life on May 1, 2007 at 11:07 AM

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 10:54 AM

Sheesh, someone got up on the wrong side of the aisle.

infidel4life on May 1, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Why because I disagree with the constant Fred love fest? It’s the same thing, all the time. A story about something Rudy’s done comes out, and it’s always presented negatively, or very suspiciously.

Something Fred’s done comes out, and a 100 comment love-fest ensues. You’re saying I’m grouchy, for pointing out the facts? Would that mean that if I wasn’t grouchy, I’d support Fred?

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 11:10 AM

amerpundit….

I hear you. You all know I went from the Newt wagon to the Fred! wagon…..but….time to get something more then sound bytes from him. This next election is too damn important to the nation. I’d rather listen to amerpundit asking questions about Fred! then listen to me yelling like a school girl cause the ‘Monkees’ just walked on stage.

Limerick on May 1, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Thanks.

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Fred! seems to have the most common sense of the bunch, but I agree it’s time to see what he thinks he can do with the presidency.

Privatestock on May 1, 2007 at 11:21 AM

The first time I read this I cried. I raised my children alone after fighting for them in court, I can’t imagine this.

From Wiki:

The following is a description from a nurse who witnessed this method performed on a 26½-week fetus:

“Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms, everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus….The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp….”[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion

Speakup on May 1, 2007 at 11:28 AM

These threads have become so damn predictable, it makes my stomach turn reading them. There’s a picture of red meat, or something, with a title of “Something Something Something Fred!”, followed by 100 comments along the lines of “Fred!”, or “Run, Fred!, Run!”. There’s nothing new or original. Always the same love fest.

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 10:54 AM

You know I love ya, ameripundit, but the above comes across as whining.

Personally, I want to hear as much about Fred! as possible. I think he’s someone who exactly gets how to effectively communicate directly to the People and the world without the filters of handlers and focus groups. Just what this country and world need right now.

I know Fred!’s not got as much experience as many of us would like, but I haven’t seen ANY GOP candidate out there that I could get excited about other than Fred! The rest are very distant second choices, only taken if that’s all I can get against any dem candidate in ‘08. I can vote for Fred! with a clean conscience; with my heart and my head.

I know you’re staunchly for Rudy. I respect that. You make valid points, and the thinking among us are listening.

But kindly allow those of us who see a glimmer of hope for the future of America through Fred! to enjoy that hope, without you being constantly threatened by his current overwhelming popularity.

Thanks.

techno_barbarian on May 1, 2007 at 11:32 AM

techno_barbarian on May 1, 2007 at 11:32 AM

You want to hear more about Fred!, so do I. However, I’d also like to hear more about Rudy, and the other Republican candidates. My point is, that’s not what’s being presented here. This is supposed to be a “conservative network”, I assumed that meant that more than just the one Conservative candidate (who hasn’t even declared) would be presented.

If this blog is only going to cover Fred, then at least admit it. Just like you’d like to learn more about Fred, I’d like to learn about the other candidates as well.

I’m not staunchly for Rudy. I’m still scanning the field, he’s just who I happen to like right now. I’ll probably change my mind several more times.

I’m not asking for this to become a Rudy propaganda network. All I’m asking is that once in a while, more Republican candidates beside Fred get presented in a positive light, or even at all.

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 11:40 AM

“Set Tookie free! Set Tookie free! Set Tookie free!”

That’s right baby. Kill the babies and abolish the death penalty..that’s your party of love and civil rights.

They negotiate with terrorists, but they want to force the president into a compromise with the threat of impeachment. A satirist would go out of business writing about the left. Everything they do is intellectually inconsistent and cartoonish. With the degree of hatred and intolerance that so many on the left have for Republicans, and the prediliction toward violence that so many of them seem to espouse when they think they’re anonymous, how far are we from something roughly similar to Hitler’s brownshirts? I’m not being absurd. When I see the level of rhetoric from Al Gore and Dean; it’s disturbing how little regard they have for people that don’t share their views. America is going to be really interesting to watch over the next 20 years. Horrible to live in, but interesting to watch.

austinnelly on May 1, 2007 at 11:41 AM

We have solid proof that once elected, politicians make the transition back to their original policies that they discarded in favor a more palatable election stance.

That we fall for the ’sales talk’ instead of holding them accountable for disingenuous changes of heart is only the Politicians fault in so far as the quality of the shinola spoken.
The rest is our own fault for not demanding better quality policies period.

Speakup on May 1, 2007 at 11:52 AM

amerpundit

This is a conservative website

Rudy’s not that conserative. Easy enough.

It would be a Newt(!) lovefest if he didn’t have so much baggage.

omnipotent on May 1, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Amerpundit,

I don’t think that Fred! is getting star treatment on this blog necessarily. Sure, the posts stack up rather quickly on any mention, but I feel he’s just the most newsworthy right now.

I figure it’s more about the late entry into the race and his unusual candor on issues that the rest of the frontrunners less forthright about.

Not to discredit you, however. To be honest, I also find it a little odd. Look at it this way, even tough I hate to quote someone this crazy…

Might there be a little of THIS going on?

Ha! (Now where did I put that asbestos suit?)

JunkCoast on May 1, 2007 at 11:59 AM

amerpundit

This is a conservative website

Rudy’s not that conserative. Easy enough.

It would be a Newt(!) lovefest if he didn’t have so much baggage.

omnipotent on May 1, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Ok, you’ve made that decision. Now, how about Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, or Tom Tancredo? Have you decided, single-handedly, that they’re not Conservatives either. If you have, that’s fine. But, let me make my own decision.

If you’re not going to present more than the one candidate in a positive light, then at least say that the blog endorses the one candidate.

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 12:01 PM

This is supposed to be a “conservative network”,

Gotta disagree with you there, my friend. This is a cutting-edge news site. This site leans Conservative, but we hear from all sides, and all sides usually get a fair hearing. Dissenting opinions are not banned and squelched outright, like on many (most) of the leftie sites.

Right now Fred!’s hot news, and HA is doing its duty excellently covering that news. Rudy and the other candidates will get their share of coverage.

What you seem to be asking for is equal representation, and I think that’s a lot like the fairness doctrine, in many ways.

I’m not staunchly for Rudy. I’m still scanning the field, he’s just who I happen to like right now. I’ll probably change my mind several more times.

Respectfully, I think you’re being a little disingenuous there. You’re campaigning hard for Rudy on a regular basis, and good on you for doing so. And I’ve seen plenty of threads on Rudy here on HA, and I’m quite certain there will be many more shortly.

I still can’t figure out why your back is so up about Fred! He’s good news for the Conservatives, in my opinion. A complete breath of fresh air. Not your choice, obviously, but I just don’t see the big downside. I also see a great crossover potential with him.

He has little negative baggage, and the one skillset that I now believe is absolutely essential for a world leader to possess to be effective; he communicates very very clearly.

If the GOP had been communicating as clearly and consisely as Fred! is right now, not even having announced, how different would the political and world landscape be today?

techno_barbarian on May 1, 2007 at 12:02 PM

I don’t think that Fred! is getting star treatment on this blog necessarily. Sure, the posts stack up rather quickly on any mention, but I feel he’s just the most newsworthy right now.

Rudy told a crowd that if a Democrat is elected, then there is a large risk of another 9/11. He received backlash for it from the Dems, and the audience that was there erupted in applause. That hardly received a blip on the screen.

Yet, saying that the Mexican economy is based on exporting their citizens, deserves a note of “newsworthy”? That’s what everyone’s been saying in the non-open borders crowd.

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 12:07 PM

techno_barbarian, you can disagree with me all you want, but this is the first sentence on the “About” page, written by Michelle Malkin:

Welcome to the world’s first full-service conservative Internet broadcast network!


I still can’t figure out why your back is so up about Fred! He’s good news for the Conservatives, in my opinion. A complete breath of fresh air. Not your choice, obviously, but I just don’t see the big downside. I also see a great crossover potential with him.

You’re not quite grasping my point. I’m not opposed to Fred. My mind is still very open to choosing Fred, believe me. What I’m saying is, I’d like to hear more than a couple of soundbites, and a few columns he’s written.

I’ve been campaigning for Rudy, yes. But only in the comment section. His position on abortion is still a thorn for me, however. He’s just the candidate I see the most promise in, at the moment.

I’m willing to change candidates, and that’s why I’m asking that more be presented. On Fred, I’d like to know more about him.

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 12:14 PM

More than just what he wrote in a column, or said on a radio show. I’m not asking that Fred be covered in a negative light, or less often. I’m just asking that Hotair cover the other candidates, as well. If you don’t want to cover Rudy, fine. But there are 9 other Rs out there, very few of whom have even been given a looking over here, at Hotair.

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 12:16 PM

That must engender a real feeling of power diety with the “doctor”.

csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Tim Burton on May 1, 2007 at 12:18 PM

BTW, the partial birth abortion thing, made my stomach turn. How a doctor can live with him/herself after doing that to a baby?

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 12:19 PM

I agree with ameripundit. This has become an absolute gay lovefest for Fred and the GUY ISN’T EVEN A CANDIDATE! We as conservatives have several good candidates out there who are at least putting it on the line for us to judge them. Fred, wisely enough is testing the waters, but c’mon, it’s starting to sound like a coronation and we have very little to judge him on. What has the guy actually DONE that compares to Rudy, Mitt, or any other candidate that has management experience? Rhetoric? Well, if all it takes is rhetoric to give conservatives a hard-on, the conservative movement is in deep trouble. Emotionalism is the lefts tactic. Conservatives speak to a balance between rational and passion.

I haven’t thrown my total support behind anyone yet because it is way too early, but I know enough about Rudy, McCain, and Mitt! to make a reasonable comparisons at this point in the race. Fred just has offered nothing substantial compared to those three a-fore-mentioned candidates.

csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 12:20 PM

That must engender a real feeling of power diety with the “doctor”.
csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Tim Burton on May 1, 2007 at 12:18 PM

MUCH better.

csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 12:22 PM

Welcome to the world’s first full-service conservative Internet broadcast network!

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

As to the rest of your points in the above post, I could not agree more. But like I said, I’m sure we will be seeing a great deal more about each of the GOP hopefuls in the very near future. It’s early yet.

Much respect. I gotta get some work done. I’ll check in later.

techno_barbarian on May 1, 2007 at 12:22 PM

amerpundit

This is a conservative website

Rudy’s not that conserative. Easy enough.

It would be a Newt(!) lovefest if he didn’t have so much baggage.

omnipotent on May 1, 2007 at 11:54 AM

The political talk here is just that. There are no links to websites for just one side; all get mentioned, some good, some bad. The reception depends on the NEWS you generate. In the case of Fred Thompson, a lot of talk means more, not less coverage.

The group at HotAir do a great job of providing what’s hot vs. what’s not. IMHO

tormod on May 1, 2007 at 12:23 PM

techno_barbarian, I totally agree with you (with exception of the candidate selection). I’m not against supporting Fred (still open to it), and I certainly hope you’re right about more candidates being profiled. That’s all I’m asking.

Have a good day!

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 12:25 PM

John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, and author of the book “Desiring God”, has the full article that speakup was quoting. You can read it at Mr. Piper’s website.

BigOrangeAxe on May 1, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Here’s my favorite tool for predicting election winners – Fred! hasn’t made the list yet, but I guarantee you’ll see huge swings as soon as he does.

http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election-2008/to-be-elected-president

BTW, Edwards at about 10 to 1 is a strong indicator that his campaign may be over before it even gets going.

peski on May 1, 2007 at 12:44 PM

BTW, the partial birth abortion thing, made my stomach turn. How a doctor can live with him/herself after doing that to a baby?

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 12:19 PM

Utterly barbaric, in this instance, it’s hypocrisy to point at Muslim atrocities and at the same time allow the murder of a baby in that child’s most innocent and vulnerable form, near or at full term and sentient.

Speakup on May 1, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Key word of today – electability – capable of, or having a reasonable chance of, being elected, as to public office – unless you wish a Mrs. Clinton or a Mr. Obama to be your next president.

I remember the herd on the Left, from 2004, and how entertaining it was to watch those debates. This time around is no different. I simply hope we’ll not offer the same from the center-to-the-right. Some on the list aren’t even worthy a mention. Others might contribute an idea or two to the discussions, but have no chance in heck of getting even close to being nominated.

AP is still for Rudy, as he stated in recent posts. There is a thread on Mr. McCain on HA right now.

This thread has been hijacked, again.

The Fred Thompson article dealt with complex issues, around the world, not only the important one in Mexico. No one so far, no one, not our current admin., not our media, no one has had the cojones to say those words, yet. Stones, indeed!

Entelechy on May 1, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Entelechy said,

The Fred Thompson article dealt with complex issues, around the world, not only the important one in Mexico. No one so far, no one, not our current admin., not our media, no one has had the cojones to say those words, yet. Stones, indeed!

Gumballs?, perhaps?

BigOrangeAxe on May 1, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Fred! is so right on in his assessments. We NEED this man for president!

It is just a hope, a faint glimmer right now, but what a pure joy it would be to actually vote for someone who is competent, holds the interests of the nation above all of the special interests, and has the wisdom, intelligence, and integrity to fill our expectations of the President of the United States.

What a pure joy it would be to vote for Fred!, a spectacular choice, rather than for the one who will do the least damage.

omegaram on May 1, 2007 at 2:12 PM

Chester Turner was convicted in L.A. today for the murder of 10 women and one fetus.

WHAT?!

If the woman he murdered could abort her own baby and it not be murder, then how can he be guilty of murder? Since abortion is a matter of civil rights, it seems as if the only law they should charge him with is denying her the civil right to murder her own baby.

Key word of today – electability – capable of, or having a reasonable chance of, being elected, as to public office
Entelechy on May 1, 2007 at 12:59 PM

I don’t know about others, but this is my point. Right now Fred is not electable because he hasn’t even declared yet. Once he does, I’ll reconsider.

csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 2:26 PM

BTW, the partial birth abortion thing, made my stomach turn. How a doctor can live with him/herself after doing that to a baby?

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 12:19 PM

Probably by purchasing carbon lifeform offsets. And campaigning for feelgood candidates so he/she can feel better about their actions. Or they could just anesthetize themselves with drink, drugs, or they plain just don’t care.

Sad situation.

ScottG on May 1, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Oh yeah. That’s how a president writes about world events.

Or at the very least, it’s how a president should.

Wolfman on May 1, 2007 at 2:41 PM

amerpundit,

I don’t disagree with your point at all. At risk of my commenting privilege, I suspect that Fred! fits a certain unspoken internal formula of the host, and that Tancredo, Hunter, Paul, et al, do not. If you’ve ever written for, or been quoted/endorsed by WorldNetDaily (Michelle excepted), you’ll get short shrift here. AP has an issue with WND, and with Joseph Farah in particular. Maybe it’s the evangelical Christian thing, I don’t know. But that’s how it comes off. How else to explain the constant parodying of Tancredo as Arthur?

If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but since I’ve been reading here I’ve never heard a positive thing coming from AP about WND, and I find them quite excellent.

Freelancer on May 1, 2007 at 3:25 PM

ScottG on May 1, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Carbon offsets in the form of convicted murders saved from the death penalty.

csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Oh yeah. That’s how a president writes about world events.

Or at the very least, it’s how a president should.

Wolfman on May 1, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Agreed. A Fred! victory would be a kick in the teeth for the politically correct crowd. That’s also one of the things that I like about Rudy as well – back in the day, he had Yasser Arafat tossed out of a party he was trying to crash. However, I think Fred is a much better communicator, and after 6 years of an administration that may be right, but has declined to make their case to the public to prove it, a good communicator would be a welcome change.

Laura on May 1, 2007 at 3:54 PM

An even more emetic utterance is that by the Acting Speaker of the Palestinian Parliament (who knew there was one?) calling for the death of all Americans down to the last infant.

chsw

chsw on May 1, 2007 at 5:38 PM

I’ve been campaigning for Rudy, yes. But only in the comment section. His position on abortion is still a thorn for me, however. He’s just the candidate I see the most promise in, at the moment.

I’m willing to change candidates, and that’s why I’m asking that more be presented. On Fred, I’d like to know more about him.

amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 12:14 PM

Umm… you’d like to know more about him, but object to posts that serve the purpose of informing people more about him?

RINO Rudy has been campaigning for a long time, and much of what he does or says is already covered by the MSM. The Fred phenomenon is recent, and as such there’s a lot of buzz about him- he hasn’t even announced yet.

As it stands now, he looks to many of us like the most electable conservative in contention- a big deal for those of us disallusioned with RINO Rudy, “Maverick” McCain, or Mitt (who?) Romney.

Hollowpoint on May 1, 2007 at 6:58 PM

CP on May 1, 2007 at 10:52 AM

I concure. What a bunch of ninny brained twits. It’s like the leaky boat concept and out country is taking on water!

sonnyspats1 on May 1, 2007 at 10:18 PM

If the woman he murdered could abort her own baby and it not be murder, then how can he be guilty of murder?csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 2:26 PM

I don’t remember the details of the case but I do remember the rulling being celebrated as a giant step for reversing Roe/Wade.

sonnyspats1 on May 1, 2007 at 10:37 PM

sonnyspats1 on May 1, 2007 at 10:37 PM

Really? I’m glad to hear the issue was actually addressed. Thanks for that.

csdeven on May 1, 2007 at 10:45 PM

Here’s the federal law, which Bush signed.

Many states, including California, have similar laws.

Gianni on May 2, 2007 at 9:49 AM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.