DNC launches early attack on Fred; Update: Fred may have an Obama problem; Update: Fred on Rushdie
posted at 5:29 pm on June 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Preemption, baby: it’s not just for foreign policy anymore.
Democratic strategists say Thompson’s populist style and show-biz allure could prove extremely appealing in a general election at a time when voters are so down on Washington. So the party has launched a preemptive campaign against him that includes a DNC fundraising e-mail branding Thompson, “The inside-outsider.”…
“Remember the Republican culture of corruption?” the letter asks. “The revolving door of Republican politicians moving in and out of top political offices and Washington, D.C., lobbying firms? That’s Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson. For years, acting wasn’t the ‘Law & Order’ star’s profession — it was a hobby. In the real world, Thompson has made a fortune in a decades-long career as a Washington lobbyist. And just this month, as part of his role as the ultimate Washington insider, Thompson offered to host yet another fundraising event for Scooter Libby’s legal defense fund. Thompson has been vocal in his support of Libby, saying that he would ‘absolutely’ pardon him. As he runs for president, he’ll try his hardest to hide the truth from the American people. And we need to stop him. Support our efforts to get the truth out about Fred Thompson.”…
Another DNC research report sketches likely lines of attack on Thompson: “reliable supporter, defender of President Bush,” “staunch supporter of Scooter Libby,” “key role in Bush Supreme Court nominations,” “already has a flip-flop problem,” “ill-equipped for the campaign,” “a thin Senate record, questions of ‘work ethic’, ” “controversial legal clients may cause problems,” “lobbying careers full of land mines.”
Working to influence news coverage, the DNC also recently began circulating a “research document” with the headline, “MAJOR LEGISLATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF SEN. FRED DALTON THOMPSON (1994-2002).” Then the page is blank until the line, “Paid for by the Democratic National Committee.”
Wouldn’t you know it, the attack comes on the very day the Associated Press decides to “look at” Fred’s past as a lobbyist. What are the odds?
Update: Star GOP pollster Frank Luntz A strategist for a rival campaign sounds the alarm:
“Fred is a concept, not a candidate,” says the strategist. “He is a vessel for what people want to believe in.”
Update: “God save the Queen.”
Update: I totally misread the U.S. News quote up above. It wasn’t Luntz who said that, it was a rival campaign strategist. My apologies.
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: « Previous 1 2
I don’t know how much you know about these asbestos lawsuits. I’m not an expert, but I have a friend who has been involved in many of them. Accprding to this friend, anyone who has a specific disease and was at some point in contact with asbestos can sue any one of several companies that used asbestos. The plaintiff doesn’t even have to show that the disease was caused by asbestos.
Mind you, this is people having contact with asbestos before anyone knew there was a problem with it. The plaintiffs agree that there was no way the companies being sued knew there was a problem with asbestos. People were injured and they want someone to pay. The plaintiffs were in a position to know asbestos was harmful just as well as the companies were, i.e.; neither could know.
In the U.S. you’re not supposed to be liable for actions that you couldn’t have known were dangerous, but these cases turn that concept on it’s head, and punish the employees, stockholders, and customers of the defendant companies only to serve a political end. These asbestos cases are a prime example why tort reform is needed.
Fred is doing the right thing trying to get them removed from court dockets. Anyone that thinks they are a good thing is a liberal.
jaime on June 25, 2007 at 8:52 PM
I’ve been reading the posts at HotAir for some time now and I’ve noticed that csdeven usually does quite a bit of frothing at the mouth at the mention of Fred! Indeed, it seems like a personal problem to me.
One can argue that Fred! hasn’t as yet participated in any debates……a true statement. He hasn’t lined up with the other cattle in the barnyard to raise his hand obligingly at the bequest of the liberal moderator. For shame! IMO, to date, the debates have offered little in the way of true, informative dialog and much in the way of liberal attempts to highjack and belittle the candidates and their platforms. Fred! has chosen to stay out of the cattle drive for now and focus instead on getting his message out in a more free and informative manner.
I care little for how well my future President behaves in a crowd when questioned by an obviously slanted moderator. I would rather learn where he stands on the issues in a clear, complete and informative way. I know more about where Fred! stands than I know about any of the other candidates.
So csdeven, belittle and badmouth those you call “Fredheads” and “groupies” all you want. If I am included in your blanket labeling, so be it. However, Fred’s methods thusfar have provided more detail about where he stands on the issues than all of your precious debates to date.
speed911 on June 25, 2007 at 8:57 PM
Could somebody please show me where, in all that Thompson has written or said, the claim that he’s an “outsider” exists.
Burn, strawman, BURN!
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on June 25, 2007 at 9:15 PM
csdeven, I’ve watched your posts on Fred become more and more virulent as time goes by. I’m also beginning to wonder if it’s something personal. After all, the other (granted declared) candidates have certainly had their ardent supporters on this site at one time or another, yet we’ve seen nowhere near the level of, umm . . . hatred . . . you seem to have for Fred. I wonder why?
governmentdrone on June 25, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Asbestos has been used for 2000 years. Even the Romans noticed it was harmful. Diagnosis were made as early as the late 19th century all the way through the early 20th century. Insurance companies started decreasing the benefits and increased premiums for those in asbestos related fields.
Look up the history of asbestos and the diagnosis of asbestosis.
So, as we all can see, good old freddie boy, champion of the people, was working for companies looking to reduce their liability for their product that was well known to cause early deaths.
csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Complete BS. Fred! made $1.3 million over 20 years of lobbying. That’s an average of $65,000 per year. Hardly the “fortune” a hard-core lobbyist would make.
flipflop on June 25, 2007 at 9:24 PM
It’s always possible there might be some die-hard Mitt Romney fans out there who won’t go out without a fight.
But I’ve never actually seen one of those yet. The only people I’ve seen so far who are rabidly anti-FRED! are the ultra-liberals and the ultra-liberaltarians.
I am constantly amazed at how many things those two camps agree on.
logis on June 25, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Well, apparently csdeven is not an ultra-liberal or an ultra-libertarian, but he’s rabid on the issue of Fred! I don’t see him posting much on other issues.
speed911 on June 25, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Get back on topic people. fred? and his history as a lobbyist is the topic.
csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 9:39 PM
I don’t CARE if he was a lobbyist. I CARE about where he stands on the issues of today and I explained why I agree with his tactics so far.
speed911 on June 25, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Well, I guess that only leaves one possibility: ex-girlfriend.
logis on June 25, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Uh, he didn’t really “compromise” his positions. He just picked his battles better. He never supported abortion, he just kept the abortion laws as they were in Massachusetts. He couldn’t have done any better if he tried, our legislature is a solid wall of D’s.
When Gay marriage got thrown at us by the courts, he did everything within his power to keep it confined to Massachusetts.
That “Health Care” isn’t of the socialized medicine variety, but Fredheads generally aren’t interested in nuance, “Mitt Romney supports socialized medicine!” is a much better cry for them. They’ll trust a 20-year Washington lobbyist as an outsider before they’ll trust the most conservative Governor in Massachusetts history for a long time.
The same people who cry flip-flop on Mitt are supporting a Washington insider that pretends he’s an outsider. They support an actor beholden to Hollyweird but trust he isn’t acting when he writes his many missives behind the curtain of non-candidacy. They trust an 8-Year Senator to be better be able to perform in the highest executive office on earth than a man who has been a governor and a business leader.
Mitt Romney’s credentials for the actual office and conservatism are rock solid. Fred? He’s an unknown, irrelevant Senator who supported McCain-Feingold. I don’t know what the force is behind his cult, but Fred himself hasn’t raised any money and his fanboys have already had their fund pool dry up.
When Fred gets in to win we’ll see. Until he quits having one-man interviews and taking potshots at other candidates in friendly forums, he’s just a paper tiger.
BKennedy on June 25, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Who was fighting with over health care, Hillary?
jeffNWV on June 25, 2007 at 9:49 PM
First, that wasn’t directed specifically at you. Second, you get the prize for the most rational response ever on fred? without a personal attack on me.
For the most part, I’m not that interested in freds? lobbying career other than he is going to have to answer for it. He has entirely too much stuff that he is not being held accountable for. THAT is why I am not a groupie, a fred?head, or even a basic supporter.
He owes me answers and a commitment before he gets my support. And until he does commit, I’m gonna mercilessly rag on him .
csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Wow, my first HotAir prize. I’d like to thank the academy and my mom and dad and my best friend’s brother’s sister and my dog…………….
speed911 on June 25, 2007 at 9:56 PM
So, Fred Thompson has insufficient experience to hold the White House – because he’s an inveterate “Washington insider”?
And Fred Thompson is “beholden” to the Beltway, and to Hollywood, and to his legal career — all at the same time? Well, if having three separate careers isn’t independence, then I guess I don’t know what is!
And Fred Thompson is “hiding behind a curtain of non-candidacy” just because he’s not participating in the idiotic dog-and-pony show pre-primary primary that the media just invented THIS YEAR?
Look if you want to assume that Fred Thompson is evil because he’s an actor, it is of course logically impossible for anyone to ever convince you otherwise.
But Mitt Romney looks and sounds like a gameshow host. There are only two possible explanations for that:
1) Romney is a good actor and he’s doing it on purpose, or
2) Romney is a bad actor who can’t help it.
I’ll admit that the first possibility is not a good thing, but the second one is even WORSE.
logis on June 25, 2007 at 10:18 PM
I don’t understand why everyone (well, not everyone) here at Hotair are against Mitt Romney. I don’t think he has flip-flopped on the abortion issue. I think that he is growing and has more understanding of the fact that abortion is really taking a human life. My understanding of his ephiany is a relative of an in-law had an abortion and saw up close and personal what the ramifacations of an abortion by a young girl.
cjs1943 on June 25, 2007 at 10:53 PM
But it is now required by law that every citizen of MA participate.
Pablo on June 25, 2007 at 10:58 PM
hahaha. And those aren’t given out willy nilly either.
csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 11:12 PM
It’s because Mitt! is the genuine concern for the rest of the candidates and the one non-candidate. Mitt! like all politicians have nuanced positions and Mitt! is doing a much better job at it. He is the only viable candidate that can speak to family values. He is believable on his abortion flip-flop. He leads in IA and NH and I think even NV. He has a good record as a governor and has a solid stance on national security. He is an accomplished businessman and saved the Olympics.
He has tons of experience and qualifications for the job and that scares the heck out of the other candidates. fred? is so scared he wont even announce his candidacy. Rudy and McCain passed on the IA and HN straw votes.
And lastly, Mitt! is raking in the dough. No one is sure where he is going to be after 30june, but all indications are that he will again lead the pack.
Mitt! is slowly building name recognition and support and as soon as fred? is exposed for the empty suit he is, most of those supporters will go over to Mitt!.
They are right to be scared.
csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 11:24 PM
I didn’t know that. How does it work?
csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 11:25 PM
What difference does that make? Romney has EXPERIENCE; he got RESULTS.
Seriously though, it’s fascinating how freedom-loving people view the world in a completely different way than than others do. Many people view the world as empty but for the five-year-plans and social “fixes” that our fearless leaders impose upon us.
Thomas Jefferson listed his life’s achievements on his tombstone, but he left off any mention of his Presidency or anything he did in office. The reporter who demanded that Fred Thompson list his “government accomplishments” probably didn’t have the faintest idea why some people might consider that an oxymoron.
logis on June 25, 2007 at 11:26 PM
What I’ve heard:
and:
jaime on June 25, 2007 at 11:40 PM
It seems like every time someone tries to dig up dirt on Mr. Thompson all they come up with is a little dust. And in the case of his past relationships they couldn’t even get that much.
Rose on June 25, 2007 at 11:46 PM
fred is the only one i see as president…cant wait to see a debate between him and hillary…she will look like a little girl standing next to him…iam with fred
coldwinter on June 25, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Allah these clowns don’t get it. No one, not even his ex’s, hates Fred. He’s the MAN!
sophiesmom on June 25, 2007 at 11:55 PM
Go Fred.
coleporter on June 25, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Don’t you love the Dems. They can’t figure out which is worse: Fred the Lobbist or Fred the Scooter Libby supporter.
sophiesmom on June 25, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Believe me, Sammy, our CS is far from being a troll. If you’ve read other threads…he’s a righty like the rest of us. He’s just passionately adverse to the praise that many are giving Fred. And is, I believe, a Mittguy.
Us old members, here, are aware of his passions…as should you be. There is no need for name-calling (ie: “troll). Even those of us that have butt heads with him, know he’s not the enemy, and some of us, obviously, will defend him to the end.
(Even if he DOES keep calling me “groupie”. :) JK CS.)
tickleddragon on June 26, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Oh…and….
Go Fred!
tickleddragon on June 26, 2007 at 12:01 AM
You’re a darling. Still looking forward to San Diego.
Peace and cheers.
csdeven on June 26, 2007 at 12:05 AM
The issue with Thompson having been a lobbyist is not one of substance, but one of appearance. Sure, he didn’t make much money, and the causes were somewhat complex (legal issues to do with asbestos claim liability), but he was still a lobbyist. That’s the word that will stick in people’s minds, and makes him an easy target. A major reason why Republicans have been doing poorly lately has to do with the perceived corruption, with Abramoff, Cunningham, etc. People remember that “lobbyists” were involved in these scandals, even if they couldn’t define the term, and will be turned off by it. If electability is a concern, things like this are a problem.
Another concern has to do with the “fire in the belly” thing. I’ve brought this up before, and John Hinderaker from Powerline alluded to it today: Thompson chose to leave his position in the Senate at a time when real leaders were badly needed, in order to pursue his acting and lobbying careers. He could have used his celebrity and stature in Washington to speak eloquently about the war on terror, Social Security reform, and a host of other issues; instead, he chose to use it to speak to Bill Frist about asbestos settlements, and to TV cameras about fake criminals in NYC. If I were in his position in 2002, I would have jumped at the chance to serve my country as he was able to do. Instead, he decided it wasn’t worth doing.
Big S on June 26, 2007 at 12:40 AM
Entelechy on June 26, 2007 at 12:55 AM
Yes, I understand that his daughter had died, and was stated as a cause for not seeking reelection. However, a few other things happened that might call one to duty. Terrible things happen all the time, and the death of a loved one is not an uncommon thing. That Thompson did not want to run again is not wrong. It just does not show the kind of steadfastness and sense of duty that I would like to see in a President.
Big S on June 26, 2007 at 1:07 AM
If you ask someone on the street who Abramoff or Cunningham are and what they have to do with Republicans most likely they won’t even know. I follow politics more than the average person and I don’t even know all the details. When people start getting interested in what’s going on, most people will be concerned with what the politicians are saying today and the image they portray. Also, there are conservative lobbyists so not all of them are bad.
Rose on June 26, 2007 at 1:10 AM
LIfe to the power of Fred.
Dhems phear the phred.
Mojave Mark on June 26, 2007 at 1:13 AM
Well, d’uh!
I know it’s asking a whole lot of some people, but try to use a tiny bit of logic here: OF COURSE politicians talk to lobbyists exactly as much as lobbyists talk to politicians. So it makes exactly as much sense to claim someone is evil because he was a lobbyist as it makes to say that he is evil because he is a politician.
In other words: the moonbats who are demanding more experience are simultaneously demanding naivete. As the old saying goes: you can’t argue with that kind of logic. And no one has ever raised his standing by treating fools as his equals.
Of course no serious person can possibly throw this stone without shattering his own candidate’s house. As for the moonbats, we can make fun of them all we want, but if Thompson is anything like Reagan he’ll just smile, shake his head, and ignore the gibbering twits. In other words, he’ll do something almost unheard of in America today: he’ll act Presidential.
logis on June 26, 2007 at 1:45 AM
All I know is that on every Fred Thompson thread he/she/it acts like a rabid lefty would going after Bush.
If you say he/she/it is not a troll, then fine, he/she/it is not a troll.
I’ll leave you to play he/she/it inane semantics game.
As for waiting for Fred! to debate, to get tossed a curve ball. Just how many decisions do you want a President to make in a knee-jerk fashion?
And if you think those ten talking heads on stage aren’t scripted then naivety wins the day. You act like no one else has advisers.
I don’t really care if Fred! did some lobbying.
I don’t really care if Fred! played the field before getting married. That just shows me he is a red blooded American. Not a politician groomed from birth like some.
If a politician has a snappy answer to all questions all that proves is he/she is well rehearsed.
I want a President when faced with all the facts and advisement he makes the best decision for America. Not someone that can raise his/her hand to a stupid question in a insignificant debate.
Right now, in my opinion, that person is Fred!
Make up your own mind, I won’t fault you for it.
Sammy316 on June 26, 2007 at 1:45 AM
Fred, Fred he’s our man…If Fred can’t do it, we’re screwed!
JNC1991 on June 26, 2007 at 1:53 AM
csdevin deserves thanking for confirming my opinion of Fred Thompson. I’ve read here for some time and have appreciated having someone bounce the other side of the Pro-Fred argument around, even if at times it was personalized to the point of no small distraction.
So as stated above: thank you, csd.
Fred all the way.
Beth A. on June 26, 2007 at 6:06 AM
You have got to be kidding. If a lobbyist is conservative it is okay regardless of what kind of extra regulations or special benefits they win for their client at the expense of you the taxpayer? But if they are liberal they are evil money grubbing hacks?
Bradky on June 26, 2007 at 6:42 AM
According to Newsday:
“Even after Thompson left the Senate in 2003 with a plum job playing District Attorney Arthur Branch on the NBC drama series “Law & Order” he continued to lobby, this time for Equitas, a British reinsurance company that handles billions of dollars of asbestos claims for Lloyd’s of London. That earned him more than $750,000 over the past three years, including $300,000 in 2005, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.”
750K ain’t chump change.
Bradky on June 26, 2007 at 6:52 AM
Would you rather have a career politician or a lobbyist representing you? It basically comes down to a choice between someone with a history of openly advocating for his employers/interest groups in exchange for their money, or someone who does the exact same thing, but attempts to hide it under the guise of “doing what is best for the nation/constituency”.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other – this is a non-issue.
Tom Doniphon on June 26, 2007 at 8:10 AM
Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!Fred!
Sorry. I went away for a little while, but I’m back now.
ncc770 on June 26, 2007 at 8:25 AM
I’ve had the misfortune to actually KNOW people like that. And trust me, people who are stamped out of plastic are even more annoying in real life than they are on TV.
They honest-to-God pick their wives based on demographics. They take part-time jobs and contribute to charities because that looks good to the people – “Oh, but of course you have to be sincere about it, because that’s important too!” (Believe it or not, I actually heard one of the younger podlings SAY that last part out loud – it takes decades to get all the soundbites properly worked out for the camera.)
Politicians do not get elected by doing what’s RIGHT; they get elected by doing what WORKS. I don’t know what it used to be like in the old days, but there’s an entire generation of politicians today – on both sides of the isle – who see Bill and Hillary Clinton as templates of the consummate politicians.
logis on June 26, 2007 at 9:09 AM
BTW, when I watched the interview where FRED! was asked about Scooter Libby, I groaned out loud: OK, here’s the part where he stops the straight talk, and starts mumbling and throwing out recriminations to cover his ass.
I was amazed that he just flat out said he’d pardon Libby. FRED! was federal prosecutor, and he’s clearly reviewed the case more than enough to know what a travesty it was. George Bush is the only person on Earth who can actually DO something about this screw job, but he’s sitting on his hands. But FRED! doesn’t hesitate a second to take all the flak anyone’s ready to hand out – just so he can say what he knows is right.
The Libby case is exactly the kind of political witch hunt that the executive pardon was INVENTED for. Compare that to Clinton’s last-month-in-office pardons for the highest bidders.
On second thought, don’t. That would be an insult. FRED! is operating on a completely different plane of existence from that pond scum. And he’s playing on a higher level than any other politician out there right now.
logis on June 26, 2007 at 9:24 AM
Hmm. Call me cynical, but I suspect it to be far more likley that the thinking was more along the lines of… “Can anyone suggest some prominent Muslims we can knight to prove to them that we aren’t Islamophobes? Ah-ha – Salman Rushdie!”
If it were some kind of anti-jihadi political statement you would definitely NOT in the same breath knight an apologist for terrorists like Shami Chakrabarti.
Do I really beleive my government is really that ignorant with regards radical Islam? Yes; I’m afraid I do.
SimonBarnett on June 26, 2007 at 9:38 AM
There are two issues here. One, federalism is great, and 2nd, holding onto old outdated policies held by the founding fathers is not good. We NEED experienced leadership in the White House BECAUSE the world leaders he has to interact with are experienced. freds? rhetorical rants sound good on a podcast, but world leaders are not fooled. Our leaders have to be able to think on their feet and fred? has shown that he is incapable of that. World leaders are not going to wait a day for fred? to memorize his lines and make his case. He has to come off as competent, quick, and forceful. fred? is completely vacuous on that point. Watch Rudy and Mitt! respond in hostile enviroments. They have it going on and will be a force to reckon with by other world leaders. The globalization of the world community eliminates no experience non-candidates like fred? from consideration. He knows this and that is why he is globe trotting the world in a lame attempt to give himself some foreign policy credibility to make up for his complete lack of qualifications to run the most powerful nation on the face of the earth.
fred?, so far, is all rhetoric and no action. His record confirms this and I see nothing that changes that.
csdeven on June 26, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Of course. That is exactly how the world works.
I have no idea why everyone keeps making fun of you. You’ve got it all figured out: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is sitting around right now thinking, “Wow, those ten guys on stage all let Chris Matthews ask them incredibly retarded questions and didn’t break down in tears. And Rudy Giuliani even got in a “zinger”. How forceful! If he gets elected, I’ll have to start toeing the line for a change.”
logis on June 26, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Rudy and Mitt! both have a long history of competent defenses of their positions. To point to Rudy’s zinger as some sort of apples to apples comparison of how he’ll deal with loonyabinajob is ignoring the fundamental differences between the two persons in question and the situation where the discussion takes place.
Pay attention….THE bottom line is that Rudy and Mitt! are both capable of speaking extemporaneously in hostile environments while sticking to their guns and staying on point.
fred? has shown he is completely incapable of that even in the most softball of interviews. IE, Leno, Robinson, and the London fiasco’s.
csdeven on June 26, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Thanks, CS… Looking forward to it too! ;)
tickleddragon on June 26, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Hehe. Yeah, I’m sure that’s it. Nothing you’re saying is stupid, you’re just not cutting and re-pasting it nearly enough times for the rest of us to figure out your brilliance!
Of course we all understand that “extemporaneous” sound bites are the way your TV works. But no matter how many times you repeat yourself, that won’t magically make that the way the world works.
BTW, I haven’t really been keeping track: is there anybody here who is doing absolutely nothing but chasing down every article they can find about MITT:( and GIULIANI:O and rabidly attacking them?
logis on June 26, 2007 at 12:34 PM
No, and in there lies my point.
Sammy316 on June 26, 2007 at 1:30 PM
An actor from Hollywierd with a common sense message who believes in a tough stance against our enemies and smaller goverment!
Me thinks the libs are have awful flashbacks to 1980.
That is piss running down their legs folks!
conservnut on June 25, 2007 at 5:57 PM
yes, but unfortunately there was a 1976 before there was a 1980.
Joey1974 on June 26, 2007 at 1:32 PM
It was unavoidable that there be a 1976. The Executive Branch was manned, for the first time in history, by two men who were unelected to the positions. That status was reached because of the resignations of Agnew and Nixon. It was inevitable that the American people lost trust in the Republican party.
The “malaise” and “stagflation” which rose up under the Carter presidency gave people a glimpse of the alternative, and led them to embrace the message of self-reliance they began to hear in 1980. From an actor.
Freelancer on June 26, 2007 at 2:28 PM
So you agree that fred? is completely unqualified. Good. That’s three converts in this thread alone.
csdeven on June 26, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Um, I’m afraid that’s not the exact meaning most people would glean from that particular combination of words…
But don’t worry. I think everyone here understands why you’d be confused about that.
logis on June 26, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2