Fred’s ex-girlfriends: He’s the man

posted at 7:31 pm on June 23, 2007 by Allahpundit

“Women love a soft place to lay and a strong pair of hands to hold us.”

Breaking on Hot Air

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

That’s some sweet, sweet obsession right there.

Pablo on June 24, 2007 at 4:49 PM

csdeven on June 24, 2007 at 1:57 PM…..a href=”http://fredfile.imwithfred.com/2007/fdt-speech-to-the-policy-exchange-in-london/”>Dude check it out?Give me you Roger Ebert on this.

sonnyspats1 on June 24, 2007 at 4:57 PM

CSDEVENTry this link.

sonnyspats1 on June 24, 2007 at 4:59 PM

sonnyspats1 on June 24, 2007 at 4:59 PM

I seen that already. I saw that the day it was released and he was, as always when he can read from a prepared speech, very articulate. If you haven’t seen the Q&A with fred? afterwards….WOW BABY! He was AWFUL! He was the fred? I have come to expect when he has to speak extemporaneously. I watched his Leno and Robinson interviews and I was actually embarrassed for the guy. This London speech was just as bad.

Well, he did go there to get Thatchers endorsement, so maybe he’ll get it and that’ll buoy him up for a while. And if that don’t work, he can always fall back on his skills as a man whore and actor.

csdeven on June 24, 2007 at 6:04 PM

sonnyspats1 on June 24, 2007 at 4:59 PM

I seen that already. I saw that the day it was released and he was, as always when he can read from a prepared speech, very articulate. If you haven’t seen the Q&A with fred? afterwards….WOW BABY! He was AWFUL! He was the fred? I have come to expect when he has to speak extemporaneously. I watched his Leno and Robinson interviews and I was actually embarrassed for the guy. This London Q&A was just as bad.

Well, he did go there to get Thatchers endorsement, so maybe he’ll get it and that’ll buoy him up for a while. And if that don’t work, he can always fall back on his skills as a man whore and actor.

csdeven on June 24, 2007 at 6:04 PM

csdeven, I can sense you are resisting your desires.

You long to feel Fred! rubbing your back, gently kissing your neck and hold you to him.

You want to hear Fred! whisper sweet nothings into your ear as he nibbles on your earlobe.

Just give in to the longing for Fred! Lay back and let Fred! hold you tenderly and make sweet sweet love to you.

lorien1973 on June 24, 2007 at 12:44 PM

LMAO!!!

DCJeff on June 24, 2007 at 6:12 PM

Just give in to the longing for Fred! Lay back and let Fred! hold you tenderly and make sweet sweet love to you.

lorien1973 on June 24, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Bwaahahahahahaaha!!!!

And now… csdeven starring in, “Brokeback GOP”, brought to you by Astroglide.

(music swells, cs leans in close)
“I wish I could quit you, FRED!”

techno_barbarian on June 24, 2007 at 7:55 PM

I find it reprehensible that someone must automatically presume a physical relationship every time the word dating is used. I haven’t the first clue whether person A slept with person B based on the term dated, nor does anybody else.

The junior-high mentality that pervails among comments associated with that presumption are despicable.

I also find it reprehensible is the use of the term “legions”, “impressive list of conquests”, and “swinging bachelor days” in reference to Sen. Thompson’s former lady friends and his time as a single man. In fact, the body of the article names only two former girlfriends, Lorrie Morgan and Georgette Mosbacher. Margaret Carlson is referred to only as one of the “rivals for his affection”, which doesn’t even suggest that they dated once. Two girlfriends is a legion now. I’m sure if there were so many more, a list would have been forthcoming.

If this is the best they can dig up on Fred, women who adore him, he’s obviously a real gentleman.

Freelancer on June 24, 2007 at 8:05 PM

pervails = prevails

PIMF

Freelancer on June 24, 2007 at 8:05 PM

The problem fred? has are the rumors of his philandering ways AT THE TIME HE WAS ENGAGED IN THEM. Apparently he did every thing he could to make sure all the gals knew he was “available”.

I figure if his sexual exploits are good enough to get him elected by a certain supporter, then his sexual exploits ought to be enough to send him back to Tennessee by those who are disgusted by his checkered past.

csdeven on June 24, 2007 at 11:30 PM

The problem fred? has are the rumors of his philandering ways AT THE TIME HE WAS ENGAGED IN THEM. Apparently he did every thing he could to make sure all the gals knew he was “available”.

Have any of his exes accused him of being unfaithful? Can you name a single one… or do you just have these mysterious “rumors” of yours?

I figure if his sexual exploits are good enough to get him elected by a certain supporter, then his sexual exploits ought to be enough to send him back to Tennessee by those who are disgusted by his checkered past.

The point of this post was not that he had a series of sexual exploits, but that he managed to stay on such good terms with his exes… but sure, have your conniption fit over a series of monogamous relationships, all the while pining for Giuliani/Gingrich.

Any more intellectually dishonest talking points you’d like to regurgitate for us here?

Watcher on June 25, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Watcher on June 25, 2007 at 12:04 AM

You can spin it all you like, but I am not fooled by fred?. This isn’t about his girlfriends attitudes towards him. It’s about the checkered history of a guy who thinks he wants to “get a couple things done” as the president.

And I pine for no candidate, or non-candidate for that matter. Unlike the fredheads, I’m still waiting to see who polls best against the dems.

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 12:11 AM

Perhaps a little dictionary definition will help you with your intellectually dishonest spin of freddie boys past?

phi·lan·der

2. To engage in many love affairs, especially with a frivolous or casual attitude. Used of a man.

Yup! Frivolous is the best description of fred? I have read yet.

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 12:14 AM

So any man who has a date is a philanderer? I guess marriages should only be arranged by parents on FDSdevin’s planet.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on June 25, 2007 at 12:50 AM

What you’re seeing here is the ne plus ultra of leftist argumentation, where every policy disagreement devolves inevitably into accusations of bad faith and suspicions of ulterior motive.

From a different thread. AP has captured, brilliantly, a wonderful description of the type of argumentation that the left uses constantly.

Anyone see any similarity with certain posts in this thread?

Tennman on June 25, 2007 at 1:22 AM

The fact that Fred has dated a lot of women and is still on good terms with all of them is really fantastic. He knows how to treat a woman while dating her, and also while going through a break up, without being a huge jerk, apparently.

Though it really makes me sad that he and his first wife got divorced…even if they’re still on good terms. 26 years?? Ouch. =(

emmaline1138 on June 25, 2007 at 7:15 AM

So any man who has a date is a philanderer? I guess marriages should only be arranged by parents on FDSdevin’s planet.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on June 25, 2007 at 12:50 AM

You obviously have not read the entire thread or the article. Go back and re-read it and you’ll see how easy it is to call freddie boy a philanderer when he himself brags about it. The people that are spinning this as a reason to vote for fred? are just hypnotized by the guy.

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 7:27 AM

Go back and re-read it and you’ll see how easy it is to call freddie boy a philanderer when he himself brags about it.

What he “bragged” about was being pursued by any number of women, and frequently getting caught. What happened after that, he’s not bragging.

Now, what was your point again?

manwithblackhat on June 25, 2007 at 10:06 AM

What he “bragged” about was being pursued by any number of women, and frequently getting caught. What happened after that, he’s not bragging.

Now, what was your point again?

manwithblackhat on June 25, 2007 at 10:06 AM

Well, sure. That’s how anybody would look at it if they ignore his history. Unfortunately for fred?, the BS image that he is trying to present is only the spin part of a 20 year history as a DC bachelor. What fred? is trying to do is exactly what Hillary is doing with her history. Specifically spinning it to pander to a certain group that is totally infatuated with the idea of the image and couldn’t care less about the facts of their histories.

Well, I ain’t that guy. I see fred? for exactly what he is. A lying faker.

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 11:02 AM

Go back and re-read it and you’ll see how easy it is to call freddie boy a philanderer when he himself brags about it.

What’s easy to do on this thread is to see your acute F!DS. I’m a Rudy guy myself, but your obsession is entirely irrational.

Pablo on June 25, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Pablo on June 25, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Glad to see that you tacitly agree that fred? has some less than moral issues he will have to answer if he ever decides to announce. He don’t get to have it both ways. There are those out there that think being a man whore is the kewlest, but it makes sense that conservative Christians will definitely have issues with his sexual indiscretions.

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 11:22 AM

What makes sense to conservative Christians is to judge what we KNOW, and to reject gossip, innuendo or slander.

I dated my wife for four years. By your standard of presumption I’m guilty of something, but we were married before we slept together. Of course, I still hold out hope that you’d be smarter than to actually accuse me of some indiscretion, as that would be actionable slander. Sen. Thompson being a public figure, you feel some perverted liberty to call him every name in the book with impunity, and without shame.

Freelancer on June 25, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Well, I ain’t that guy. I see fred? for exactly what he is. A lying faker.

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 11:02 AM

I can’t wait for your book to come out, when you finally decide to cough up any proof of this.

manwithblackhat on June 25, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Glad to see that you tacitly agree that fred? has some less than moral issues he will have to answer if he ever decides to announce.

I said absolutely nothing of the sort, tacitly or otherwise. it’s the F!DS that’s making you hallucinate that. The fact of the matter is that Rudy will have a far harder time with such issues.

Now than, what sexual indiscretions are you talking about? Links, please.

Pablo on June 25, 2007 at 1:16 PM

CS -

Have never seen you criticize any of the other candidates nearly this close! What’s with this obsession?

Truly interested!

SSG Fuzzy on June 25, 2007 at 1:16 PM

I think we should ignore csdeven cause it seems like his sole purpose in life is to start heckling.

emmaline1138 on June 25, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2