Mike Wallace to Romney: When did you first have sex with your wife?
posted at 4:38 pm on May 10, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Charming. It’s suggested, although not definitively stated, that Ann Romney was sitting right there, too, when he asked it.
Romney’s wife, Ann, who converted to the Mormon Church before they were married, is also interviewed. When asked whether they broke the strict church rule against premarital sex, Romney says, “No, I’m sorry, we do not get into those things,” but still managed to blurt out “The answer is no,” before ending that line of questioning.
Mitt’s “the Mormon candidate,” you see, so the media’s entitled to ask him embarrassing, prurient questions about his sex life — strictly in the public interest, of course, as a gauge of hypocrisy. Stay tuned for Mike’s hard-hitting interview later this year with Hillary Clinton, a.k.a. “the woman candidate,” in which he introduces the issue of women’s health by asking her at what age she first menstruated.
Exit question: Should “who here’s had premarital sex?” be the second show-of-hands question put to Democrats in the next debate? We already know what the first should be.
Update: Speaking of Mitt, Red State’s getting some nice buzz today from Erick Erickson’s “here I stand, I can do no other” pronunciamento about switching from Romney to McCain. Is that all it takes for a few extra links? Well, then, let’s do this!
Update: With 228 votes cast thus far, Hillary has four votes. McCain has three.
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
C’mon, I wouldn’t vote for a guy for President who didn’t take his car on a test drive before he bought it. It’s a judgment thing.
Enrique on May 10, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Lol! Seriously though, what liberal media? Wallace needs to ask that southern belle, Miss Hillary, all about Bill’s escapades.
RightWinged on May 10, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Utah is the deepest red of Red states, mormons are about to be villified to know ends by the media unless many of them start supporting dems.
jp on May 10, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Classy Mike, real classy.
Bad Candy on May 10, 2007 at 4:48 PM
I would have said, none of your damn business. What kind of question is that Mike? Why are you so interested in the personal details of other people’s sex lives? Are you some kind of voyeur? I thought you on the left wanted people to mind their own business when it comes to sex, so why would you ask an insulting question like that in front of my wife embarrassing us both? This interview is over.
Mitt’s poll numbers would have gone up 15 points over night and he would have put the “Press” on notice he is going to bloody their noses if they pull that carp on him!
TheBigOldDog on May 10, 2007 at 4:51 PM
I’m glad they ask because it gives Mitt! a chance to show the difference between…..
Rudy, 3 marriages and adulterer
McCain, 2 marriages and adulterer
fred?, 2 marriages, unabashed fornicator, and cradle robber
….and Mitts! 38 year marriage and absolute fidelity.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 4:51 PM
In-a-prop-riate.
CP on May 10, 2007 at 4:52 PM
yeah, i took her around the world before i married her. big whoop. wanna fight about it?
lorien1973 on May 10, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Foolish and foolhardy me thinks.
omnipotent on May 10, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Wow, was “fornicator” actually just used as a pejorative? Why, I think Fred! may also be an unabashed gadabout, and rakish rogue as well. To the stocks with him! And maybe get him a big red “F” to wear as well.
brak on May 10, 2007 at 4:55 PM
I don’t seem to remember Wallace asking Bill, “At what age did you first cheat on your wife?”.
amerpundit on May 10, 2007 at 5:00 PM
freddie boy wasn’t just a fornicator, he was an unabashed fornicator with many, many partners. He wore it like a badge of honor. that may be okay with you, but there are many people who look down upon that. I don’t think he should go to the stocks, but he certainly doesn’t get to disparage the office of president with his history of immoral behavior.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 5:06 PM
WEll, what is your definition of sex? As we have learned, some forms of sex really aren’t sex. He should have asked them to be more specific. Oral sex and cigars do not count.
bopbottle on May 10, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Sorry duder, but Mitt hasn’t earned the ! behind his name. He’s been a candidate for approximately forever, raised a ton of money, but still hasn’t gained much traction.
The ! belongs to Fred! alone.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 5:09 PM
I guess some people don’t view their potential spouses as property they should return if the “performance” isn’t favorable.
I’d rather not vote for someone who would refuse to marry someone over bad sex. If you can’t learn how to make it better, then how can you handle running the most powerful country in the nation?
I really don’t want to know.
Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 5:12 PM
talk about F!DS…….she is forty-something for pete’s sake!
Limerick on May 10, 2007 at 5:13 PM
And you know this how? Because he *gasp* dated before he remarried, and admitted “chasing girls” during that time? I don’t recall him bragging about how many women he bedded as would an “unabashed fornicator”.
It’s nice to see that Romney’s supporters are becoming just as desparate and pathetic as Ron Paul’s though- I’m sure Mitt appreciates it.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 5:13 PM
But at least it was while he was single. I think most people will forgive him for that considering the last guy we had in office.
Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 5:14 PM
It’s 5:17 PM. Does Mike Wallace know where his foreskin is?
Stephen M on May 10, 2007 at 5:17 PM
I’m not desperate, and Fred isn’t even running, but he certainly did imply that he did more than “chase” girls. In the context, he was admitting to something that could possibly hurt his chances at winning.
You wouldn’t admit to going on dates as something that could hurt your presidential chances.
And really, isn’t it a little early to be snapping at each other over presidential candidates?
Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 5:18 PM
“So, Hillary, is the fact that you have a dughter by Billy proof that you slept with him at least once? Or was it an artificial insemenation ?
bbz123 on May 10, 2007 at 5:20 PM
I heard Fred! also enjoys dancing, in addition to fornication.
brak on May 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Oh please. We are all going to be Mitt! supporters in a few months. How dare you tell all Hotair readers that they are as desparate and pathetic as Ron Paul supporters.
Zetterson on May 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM
NO!
Zetterson on May 10, 2007 at 5:40 PM
if you want traffic, clearly you should support Ron Paul. His supporters are obsessive and insane. Lots of free time on their hands to browse the site!
lorien1973 on May 10, 2007 at 5:40 PM
I must’ve missed that; I read where he addressed that he “chased girls and they chased me” while single- hell, his wife even mentioned it as an issue while they were dating. Given that it’s very uncommon to have a candidate that was single in recent years (especially in the context of taking a much younger wife) is unusual, and he was right to address it early to help downplay any MSM “gotcha” revelations.
I’m pretty sure he wasn’t out trying to compete with Gene Simmons over the number of women he had sex with, but given the highly unusual situation regarding his marital life it would no doubt be brought up and needed to be addressed early.
And yes, it’s early to be “snapping” over candidates… but what the hell else are we going to do on the Internet?
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 5:40 PM
I found some golden plates buried in my backyard and after carefully translating them, I realized it was instructions to vote for Rudy not Mitt.
I felt it was my duty to share this information with the readers of Hot Air.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 10, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Ace asks a good question:
“Speaking of that, given that Mike Wallace is now asking Mitt Romney about whether he and his wife had sex before marriage, perhaps it’s time for the MSM to begin asking Hillary Clinton if Bill strayed because she wasn’t blowing him enough, no?”
Yep, yoo betcha. Also ask if she had Vince whacked because he had video of her doing Bill with a strap-on. “I’m simply asking questions!”
All fair now.
mojo on May 10, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Mike Wallace should be taken off the air for this one. It is so far over the edge I almost don’t believe he asked it. The only problem was that Mitt didn’t respond forcefully enough. It is much worse than anything Imus did.
duff65 on May 10, 2007 at 5:47 PM
I’m shocked… all the Ron Paul sycophants haven’t ninja-spammed the poll.
yet
Lehosh on May 10, 2007 at 5:49 PM
I was being a bit sarcastic, but I was addressing the attack on Fred! as an “unabashed fornicator” by a Romney supporter. Pretty desperate and pathetic in my opinion.
Among the top tier candidate, Romney? is probably my (distant) second choice to Fred!, but he has a long ways to go to earn my trust considering his less-than-conservative past as governor. Thus far, I’m not very convinced he’s the real deal.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Wow. I’d forgotten Mike Wallace was still alive.
Scotsman on May 10, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Kind of like Hillary and Obama wouldn’t you say? Not Bill but Hillary. You are running out of choices for the election!
Bradky on May 10, 2007 at 5:56 PM
In some strange, parallel universe where it’s possible for politicians to have senses of humor, Romney’s answer should’ve been “Which one?” But I don’t imagine that degree of sarcasm would sell in this particular bubble of space-time.
Blacklake on May 10, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Um, Esthier…where have you been?? Obviously not on the Fred! threads where the Fred!Folks are regularly told we’re idiots.
tickleddragon on May 10, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Fair enough.
And who knows, maybe I’m wrong, but I really do think he meant to imply that he slept with women. It’s the word “chasing.” I just think he would have said dating if that’s all he meant to imply.
Either way, I really don’t see it as being a problem. If conservatives are going to worry about sexuality, they’ll worry about the ones who cheated on their wives, not the ones who had sex outside of marriagem because really, even the religious ones are doing that.
Yeah, I agree. That would have bombed in the MSM.
Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 6:07 PM
And for the record, I’m sorry, but I just don’t trust ANY candidate that’s drank the water in Massachussetts.
(tongue FIRMLY in cheek)
tickleddragon on May 10, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Yeah, I was referring to that as well. It’s becoming a bit much in my opinion.
Though Hollowpoint’s point about there being nothing else to do on the Internet is well taken.
Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Just before I punched him, I’d have asked Mike Wallace when the first time was that he had sex with his…. Uhh, nevermind.
That is just infuriating. But not surprising from a no-class, communist pus-bag like Wallace.
LegendHasIt on May 10, 2007 at 6:12 PM
I like Mitt, think he’s a good man and would make a good conservative President. Personally I’ll be voting for Fred! in the primary but if Mitt gets the nomination I’ll work for his campaign without a problem.
Buzzy on May 10, 2007 at 6:15 PM
I wonder if Mike Wallace will ask Hillary if Bill boinked her more than that one time when Chelsea was created, first as an abortable fetus, then as a viable human.
SouthernGent on May 10, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Well said, Buzzy. I agree, but I still have much trouble trusting ANY politician that has drank the water in Massachussetts. But if he gets the nom, I will do more to understand him and support him.
tickleddragon on May 10, 2007 at 6:20 PM
That’s pretty close to the direction I’m leaning, but after watching Republicans in DC legislate and spend like Democrats, I’m wary of someone with a history of being a “moderate” Republican who now claims to be a conservative in the race for the nomination in which candidates traditionally shift towards the conservative base, then shift back to the “center” during the general election.
If RINO Rudy or Maverick McCain gets the nod, I’ll either stay home of vote third party (I live in blue Minnesota, so my vote won’t matter anyways). Romney I might be willing to vote for in the unlikely event he gets the nomination.
Fred! is thus far my first, second and third choice, but I still think it disgraceful the way Wallace treated Romney. The entire Republican party should permantantly boycott Wallace at the very least, and perhaps boycott CBS completely until they apologise and fire Wallace.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 6:27 PM
I think the questions should be more along the lines of
What ground rules did you establish with Bubba regarding his predator tendancies with other women?
Did you accept that oral sex between he and other women was okay, but he was to go no further?
When was the first time you looked the other way regarding Bubba’s violation of his marriage oath to you?
Was your lust for power even greater than his lust for other women?
Mallard T. Drake on May 10, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Only fred? groupies who rent their hair, scream and cry like beatles fans did in the 60’s use the (!) with freds? name.
All fred? has done is talked about wondering if he should decide to consider contemplating a possible decision to aspire to announce his candidacy. Therefore, rational conservatives give him a lower case “f” and a “?”.
Mitt! has actually debated his compitition and goes on venues where he is asked tough questions. When fred? decides he’s ready to have to speak without prepared speeches and interviews with tough interviewers, he will deserve a capital “F”. The “!” will be reserved until we see if he can perform in a hostile enviroment.
But all that aside, all fred? has done is 8 years in the Senate, 20 some years as a lobbiest, and he has ZERO executive experience. That’s a mighty tough hill to climb for a guy who so far has only mesmerized conservatives with his folksy colloquialisms. Sorry, that dog don’t hunt ’round these parts.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 6:32 PM
C’mon. Every good story has to have a little BS to make it more interesting. :-)
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 6:34 PM
I think you’re probably right. But Mitts! reputation looks a whole lot better in comparison. Which is my point on this. Every little defect in a candidate will be used against him and right now in the morality areana, Mitt! is Godzilla and the rest of the front runners are Tokyo.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Will they ask Hillary(D) if she’s done a little Cigar duty herself?
DANEgerus on May 10, 2007 at 6:40 PM
I guess it’s sort of a compliment in reverse that Mitt would be asked this question about his personal morality. Can you possibly imagine the answers to a question like “Do you follow the moral standards of your church?” that would be given by the Democratic candidates?
WasatchMan on May 10, 2007 at 6:48 PM
He said he did? I think it was one of the myriad of friendly interviews he has given.
Can anyone who supports a guy who refuses to actually become a candidate accuse anyone of being desperate? Mitt! supporters are actually supporting a candidate. fred? groupies attend his speeches hoping to catch a pair of signed skivvies that they can frame and hang in a place of honor in their home. The guy is more actor than politician.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Well, that and act as council during the Watergate hearings, advise the White House during the Roberts confirmation process, and play a role in the Council on Foreign Relations, public speaker, the American Enterprise Institute, and senior news analyst. You forgot those.
Still, the lack of executive experience is a concern, but the likely competion amongst the Democrats have no such experience either. Furthermore, I’m not sure that executive experience in a liberal city or one term as governor in a liberal state performing as a “moderate” anti-gun, pro-choice RINO is something I’d brag up terribly.
The last two Republican presidents did have executive experience, but they didn’t work out so well for the conservative cause. Perhaps it’s time for someone who hasn’t been a career elected offical or “moderate” to take the helm.
As to the Fred!, given the buzz about his candidacy and rising popularity as a candidate in a short time, I think the F and ! are warranted. Romney? (the question mark representing the fact that no one really knows his true position considering his recent RINO history) on the other hand has been talked about as a candidate for the better part of a year, but still hasn’t gained a lot of support.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 7:12 PM
“I think most people will forgive him for that considering the last guy we had in office.”
And this statement is exactly why we won’t get another conservative (read Republican) President elected in our next election. The extreme right wingers are going to be all judgmental and worry about what someone did in their personal life that will no way impact or have an effect on how they run the most powerful country on earth. It’s this stupid philosophy and condescending atitude that causes libs to look at us and refer to us all as religious zealots. Frankly, I don’t care if the guy slept with the entire Dallas Cowboy’s cheerleading squad (I’d actually be impressed). What I want to know is if 1) He’s going to eliminate the Muslim threat the world faces 2) he’s going to stop of illegal immigration problems and 3) He’s going to get government out of my pockets. If he says yes to all three, I’m votin him in and I’ll even send a stripper over to his place to thank him
rayvet on May 10, 2007 at 7:13 PM
There is a lot of fred? buzz. My point is that it is based on what? None of his experience is every called into account as a qualifier and his record in the senate was pretty weak.
All the buzz is around what he says. Heck, anyone can SAY stuff. I’m waiting for fred? to DO something like BE a candidate or DEBATE his compition or be INTERVIEWED by a hostile person like Wallace.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Fred! chasing girls?
That doesn’t bother me at all.
At least he wasn’t chasing boys.
That would bother me.
OBX Pete on May 10, 2007 at 7:23 PM
It’s pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that Fred is going to run, and for good reason- neither Romney, Rudy or McCain can be remotely considered a reliable, consistant conservative. Given the support he’s garnered in a short time and how early it is in the election cycle, he has plenty of time.
Don’t worry though- he’ll announce in a few weeks, and soon after you won’t have to hold your nose and support Mitt anymore, because he’ll drop out after his poll numbers drop down to single digits and stay there.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Don’t worry, you won’t have to wait long.
The Presidency isn’t a position in which the most “experienced” candidate gets the job, nor should it. I’ll take someone with good ideas, a strong ideology, consistant stance and the ability to convey his views effectively over someone who has to spend most of their time explaining the inconsistancies in their positions, but wasn’t a mayor or one-term governor.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 7:33 PM
but was a mayor or one-term governor.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 7:34 PM
Is Mike Wallace still alive?
LonelyMassRepublican on May 10, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Yo Mike. I understand your 89 years old. Just when was the first time you jerked off?
NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on May 10, 2007 at 7:49 PM
AMEN to that!
Re the “question”–are you sure it wasn’t Stuttering John who asked it? And what’s next?
“How many sex partners have each of you had?”
“Mayor Giuliani, did you ever ‘experiment’ when you had gay people living with you, and if not, why not?”
“Senator Clinton, will you please confirm the testimony about the appearance of teh Clenis for us?”
“Was it good for you?”
“Do you fundies only do it in the missionary position?”
bamapachyderm on May 10, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Christians aren’t perfect Mr. Wallace, but they ARE forgiven. What’s YOUR plan for paying your sin debt, exactly, sir?
Oh wait, Mormons aren’t Christians. Ok, I don’t know what happens when the false Mormon God and the false Mormon Jesus find out you have fornicated, maybe you just get a slightly smaller world to be the god over when it’s your turn or something…
NRA4Freedom on May 10, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Since when do shriveled up senile old liberal tools have any business asking a personal question like that? Unbelievably crass. Chris needs to put smelly old dad in a home pronto.
Re the poll: I’m votin’ Fred! no matter what the question.
infidel4life on May 10, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Did Bill & Hill ever have post-marital sex?
pjcomix on May 10, 2007 at 8:27 PM
I guess if Mitt just admitted he was an alley cat whore who nailed everything with a pulse, the media would embrace him enthusiasticly and demand he switch parties where he will be at home. When will we get the question “Hillary, when was your first lesbian encounter?” And did Bill watch?”
roninacreage on May 10, 2007 at 8:39 PM
“Mrs. Clinton, we know your husband is a serial adulterer, how about you? Have you ever cheated on Bill?”
roninacreage on May 10, 2007 at 8:42 PM
csdeven, I hear Mr. Fred Thompson is a heterosexual man.
On topic, who knew that Mike Wallace is so voyeuristic…
Entelechy on May 10, 2007 at 9:00 PM
I have been very busy this week working overtime in our laboratories. I am now happy to announce that the extreme makeover retrofit kit for the humping robot has been sucessfully installed. The robot’s performance has been enhanced with a supercharged, high speed gas-turbine performance unit. Furthermore, the robot is now anatomically correct, possessing a high pressure, hydraulic male member. The robot has expressed his doubts about the reliability of the new equipment. He has requested a functional diagnostics test.
Hmmm. That gives me an idea. Hey Enrique! How about if we let the robot take you for a test drive. It’s a diagnostics thing, ya’ know.
CyberCipher on May 10, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Silky Pony!
SisterToldjah on May 10, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Up next with Mike Wallace we’ll find out if it’s boxers or briefs for the next leader of the free world… Don’t miss it.
Mojave Mark on May 10, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Yo Mike…. Just when was the first time you jerked off?
NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on May 10, 2007 at 7:49 PM
I doubt that he remembers, but that last (most recent) time was during the interview with Mitt.
CyberCipher on May 10, 2007 at 9:33 PM
I doubt it. He’s Jewish so he probably lost his eight days after birth.
rokemronnie on May 10, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Crikey guys, y’all can’t really believe than an Allahpundit Fred! endorsement would generate more driveby traffic than coming out for Silky Pony would, can you? Shoot, even the regulars would be checking back for corrections. Put your mice down and step away from the straw polls people….
JM Hanes on May 10, 2007 at 10:10 PM
I think I can accuse someone who jumps up and down and roots for someone because there is an ‘R’ next to his name of being desperate…but I won’t..because..I gotta say man..all your pathetic snarky comments at Fred..you’ve won me over. I’m throwing my support to whatever turd sandwich is chosen in the primary. Now, I’ve been working on a theme song. After that debate, we need to get the ball rolling, or should I say the bowl flowing at turd sandwich headquarters. My working title was “Let’s shove a crappy candidate down their throat and screw the base if they don’t like it; p.s Fred Thompson sucks.” It kind of lacks pop though..so I tightened it up and put it to some Rock and Roll…sung to Def Leppard’s “Pour some Sugar on me”…I present..”Feed a turd sandwich to me”.
Now, the other gem I have for you is we need a new candidate. No, not Fred. I mean, a candidate with crossover appeal. Someone that will steal voters from the left. The guy I have in mind: 1)He’s never had a conservative thought in his life; you ‘vote for the guy with the ‘R” folks will love him 2)He’s got military experience. 3) He’s loved by the UN and 4) He’ll be able to solve our immigration problem. CSdeven, you need to draft Hugo Chavez for team turd sandwich. Now before you start sweating legalitites, remember, if you bring him into the country right, no one will dare prosecute him after the election. The bigger the crime, the less likely an illegal will get busted. Just think, the lefties will think you’re cool, he’ll have an ‘R’ next to his name; what more could a devoted turd sandwich voter ask for? Just think it over. You may like Romney now, but I think Hugo will grow on you. Just think, Jimmy Carter will certify ANY election he’s in.
austinnelly on May 10, 2007 at 10:11 PM
I haven’t made up my mind yet, but this was too funny:
Well said. Make sure she’s not from NC, however.
baldilocks on May 10, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Hollowpoint,
Mitt! Romney! Yay! Mitt! Romney! Yay!
Listen, I like Fred (although he doesn’t deserve the ! until he confidently throws his hat in the ring) but your sniping at Romney and those of us who are increasingly interested in him as a candidate is petty and unwarranted - and does nothing to enhance Fred’s potential candidacy.
Buy Danish on May 10, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Consistants stance? fred? was pro-choice in 1994. The concept the fred? groupies aren’t getting is that the more they quote what he says, the more convinced I am to wait until he actually does something. Right now he’s no better than a snake oil salesman.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Yep. I can tell you’re a fred? fan. All talk no substance. Why don’t you write your boy a letter and urge him to do something other than to wonder if he is going to think about considering an announcement that he might contemplate a decision to maybe make a commitment to consider declaring an annoucement that he will think abiout it.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Proper answer: “Shortly after having sex with yours.”
Mojave Mark on May 10, 2007 at 11:38 PM
That is just a gross and inappropriate question. wallace just made himself look like a damn fool/pervert.
Mitt should have said exactly that…and stuck with it.
Highrise on May 11, 2007 at 1:06 AM
I don’t think there’s much doubt that Ron Paul brings the most google bait to the table.
The Unabrewer on May 11, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Wallace is poster child of Dinosaur Media and their confrontational journalism (confront only Republicans, that is). He needs to be installed in the Museum of unNatural History with Helen Thomas.
He got that question from his MSM style book. It’s just an updated version of the old trick queston “When was the last time you beat your wife?”
Brat on May 11, 2007 at 9:13 AM
Brat,
Romney: Hey Mikey, you still doin’ Helen Thomas?
apologies to all for that mental image.
pistolero on May 11, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Who in hell are you talking about? I don’t know any “fred?”
Has “fred?” made an announcement that I missed?
News2Use on May 11, 2007 at 10:51 AM
I just love how everyone automatically amuses that since Fred was known to date while he was single that he was also sleeping around! It is silly!
I except to support Fred once he announces, which I believe will be after the current season of Law&Order ends. Has a contract, could cause complications if he is a candidate and also on current episodes!! Everyone on his case because he hasn’t announced yet, I have a question for you.
When did the candidates announce in previous years?
Just because everyone else has moved the campaign season earlier, doesn’t mean everyone has to!
SSG Fuzzy on May 11, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Mike Wallace - tabloid journalist.
CliffHanger on May 11, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Hate to tell you, Buy Danish, but the snarking started toward Fred enthusiasts. csdeven (and others, but mostly csdeven) makes it a point to spend every candidate-related thread snarking at the Fred folks, and telling us how we’re groupies and idiots. Needless to say, we’re raw.
I’ve stated, in an attempt to chill the hostility, that I’d support Mitt if I didn’t get the candidate I wanted…but that doesn’t seem civil enough to get certain arrogant, hostile know-it-alls to quit being so insulting.
tickleddragon on May 11, 2007 at 2:41 PM
CS, you told me recently that a friend that agrees with you only 80% of the time is still a friend…
That would be the case only if the friend didn’t condescend and insult me (others) during that 20% of the time. I don’t keep arrogant wankers for friends, even if I do agree with them 80% of the time. So, given the fact that EVERY commenter on this site knows you are insulted by the fact that Fred is liked by so many on here, and given the fact that those same people know that you think we’re idiots and groupies… can you please finally freakin’ chill?
tickleddragon on May 11, 2007 at 2:46 PM
I do not think you are an idiot and you must admit that the fredamainia is over the top. I wouldn’t take the groupie remark as an insult, but just a friendly poke in the ribs. I try to direct my more biting remarks at fred? and his record, but as I have said, if he becomes the guy that can beat Hillary, I’ll be right next to you grabbing for those signed FRED! skivvies.
Peace, tickledragon.
csdeven on May 11, 2007 at 3:27 PM
CS: to the fredmania being over the top…IF it were all coming from ONE or TWO people over and over and over, then yeah, I’d agree. (If you’ll notice I don’t comment quite as often on Fred now because I’m pretty sure everyone knows my affinity for a possible candidacy.)
When you’ve got NUMEROUS individuals stating their opinion and all like him…we don’t control that. This is not just a couple of us, orchestrating a giant lovefest for Fred. There are quite a few, obviously. Which I assume is what gets under your skin so. I understand that. And offer my sincere care.
But with you it’s not just a comment here or there..it’s a drumbeat. A constant assertion that we’re idiots and groupies. What we keep trying to tell you is that we KNOW your opinion…just as you KNOW ours. But we’ve not (I know I haven’t) called your enthusiasm for Mitt (or whoever) idiocy or overemotional or groupie’ism… That’s the difference.
You asked me not to take the “groupie” tag as an insult, but as a poke in the ribs. Well, Hon…you can only be poked a few times before the ribs are sore and bruised. (Also, speaking as a female, the term “groupie” tends to rile a bit more than it would a man. Remember that the stereotype is usually a loose woman given to “servicing” an object of worship. A disgusting thought.) ;p
You can direct your comments AT Fred and his record all you like, but it seems kinda silly since he’s probably not a regular reader here. :)
Now…on to that grabbing of the Fred! skivvies…I was completely unaware of this concession. I don’t recall reading a comment (forgive if there was and I missed it) from you stating that you’d support him if he were the candidate.
But with all that said…I obviously see you as someone to talk to and reason with on this, because I’ve taken the time to explain myself. IF I didn’t see a possibilty for some common ground and affinity, I’d not have bothered.
Sooooooo….Your plea for Peace is accepted, CS. :)
tickleddragon on May 11, 2007 at 4:08 PM
And I promise this will be the last full on novel that I write on the subject.
:)
tickleddragon on May 11, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Sounds like it’s time for old Mike to retire. He’s getting goofy in his old age. Dirty old men ask those kinds of questions.
UnEasyRider on May 11, 2007 at 4:44 PM
You know, there’s a lot of jibber-jabber going on, but I think the real point is that Mike Wallace is a jackass, a crude buffoon, and should definitely have a career more along the lines of basic maintenance or food service. Well, food service may not be such a good idea, given that he seems to have this “sexual offender” kind of tendency going on.
Merovign on May 11, 2007 at 6:24 PM