Powerline: Congressional Republicans less than impressed with Fred

posted at 5:11 pm on June 29, 2007 by Allahpundit

Lots of people sending me this. A deflating blow, landed by one of Fred’s three favorite blogs? Say it ain’t so.

Dedicated to our resident Fred-hater, csdeven:

The Fred Thompson campaign recently set up an event for 60 of Congress’s most solid conservatives. Many of them were hoping to be able to endorse Thompson. Unfortunately, Thompson did not impress the Congressmen. He did not appear to be ready for a tough Presidential campaign. One of his aides explained that Thompson was “rusty,” which, as one Congressman told me, did not inspire much confidence in this YouTube era. Some of those who attended are now looking at Mitt Romney as the most viable conservative in the race.

Is this event attended by sixty-odd congressional Republicans the same as … this event attended by sixty-odd congressional Republicans? Because (a) that wasn’t all that recent and (b) by all available reports, Fred was exceedingly well received. Maybe it was another, more recent event? If so, how often do they throw campaign shindigs for dozens of House GOP members?

I don’t care either way; since yesterday, I’m a firm backer of a Sessions/DeMint ticket. But since I know we’ve got a lot of Fredheads here, here’s video from his recent stop in South Carolina. I like how he cracks himself up with the line about the $50 million he’s saved.


Related Posts:

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 3

Not that I agree with csdeven 100%, but I’d like to see Fred run through at least one debate and deal with a few MSM smear jobs before I could support him fully.

I don’t doubt his conservative credentials, but I do think we should wait and see how things go after he officially announces.

In the meantime, I’m gonna have to stay in the Mitt camp unless a few million people learn who Jim Gilmore is in the next month.

fiatboomer on June 29, 2007 at 8:36 PM

2001, not 2007

Dammit…2000, not 2007

SouthernGent on June 29, 2007 at 8:37 PM

Hey, wait a minute!

First, who is this guy at powerline? he seems like he’s connected.

csdeven = John Hindraker? I have questions.

/Fred! truther

Pablo on June 29, 2007 at 8:56 PM

CS, PIXAR movies are for everyone. They’re not just kids movies. That’s what makes them FAR superior to any animation outfit out there. They are what Disney USED to be.

Real Men are not afraid to see Pixar films. Take the wife!

I’m off now.

Oh, and as to your question about Sessions or DeMint… If they are currently holding a government office, then I trust the guy who ain’t just a smidge more. No offense to Sessions or DeMint.

CS, when it comes right down to it. My feelings about Fred! are sort of like my feelings about you. You seem to be a pretty decent, nice guy, who says a lot of things I agree with. Until you do something or say something (and that is really in our past, yeah) that truly gets on the other side of me – or hurts me – or frankly totally pisses me off. I’m going to keep on thinking of you as a pretty decent, nice guy who says a lot of things I agree with. Fred! has (as you have) the utter priviledge of not being thought of, by me, as a lying, underhanded, and fake individual out to fool me in some way.

I’m listening (so to speak) to the debates going on here about Fred!. If something disturbs me terribly, then I’ll change my mind. But for now, I’m just waiting for the announcement, so that the game can truly begin.

It really is that simple for me right now.

Now…on to PIXAR patronage! Good evening, CS, and good evening, EVERYONE!

tickleddragon on June 29, 2007 at 9:01 PM

grits on June 29, 2007 at 8:23 PM

Thank You.

sonnyspats1 on June 29, 2007 at 9:01 PM

csdeven on June 29, 2007 at 8:16 PM

Damn, but that’s all shades of funny.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2007 at 9:03 PM

name one other canidate that dares to say this and says it from the heart:

“These claims about government takeover, and government regulation, and big government, of course, resonate with me as well as they do many other people, because I’m against that. I’m against the more intrusive government and I’m against more and more regulation, and I’m against government doing things that it should not be doing, especially the Federal Government.”

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r105:138:./temp/~r105CIrd2n:e147713:

unseen on June 29, 2007 at 9:06 PM

I just watched Ratatoullie, and I was tempted to sneak in and watch Die Hard. The Rat movie was good, graphics stunning, didn’t feel like kids’ movie, 2 kids & wife loved it. Ya’ll won’t be disappointed.

I’m like some others here, and trust Rudy the most as far as governance, but am very interested in Fred and can see myself voting for him because of the issues; that is, if The Fred does not blow up in the next half year.

G. Charles on June 29, 2007 at 9:12 PM

G. Charles on June 29, 2007 at 9:12 PM

Die hard is the best movie of the year.

Was blown away.

unseen on June 29, 2007 at 9:13 PM

Hmmmm…. So far, silence. No acknowledgement of my email
grits on June 29, 2007 at 8:23 PM

Heh. Not alone on that score. AP has ignored my requests, no demands, that HA sell AllahPundit Ackbar t-shirts.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2007 at 9:17 PM

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r105:138:./temp/~r105CIrd2n:e147713:

Q&A was very good I thought; made some great points about the powerful and coercive nature of campaigning. I’m glad I read it.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2007 at 9:20 PM

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2007 at 9:20 PM

Yes puts it in a proper context. The MSM and anti-fred bloggers are spinning it for all its worth.

unseen on June 29, 2007 at 9:22 PM

The Fred Thompson campaign recently set up an event for 60 of Congress’s most solid conservatives.

Congress has 60 conservatives? Really? No joke?

matthewbit07 on June 29, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Unseen, do you have a reference number, (or something), for that article you linked to? The link was to search results and has expired.

FloatingRock on June 29, 2007 at 9:39 PM

I like Fred Thompson a lot, and I thought this session with the reporters was very good; he’s relaxed and frankly, in command of many of the issues. I don’t know if he’ll get in; I hope he does. But make no mistake, I’ll vote for whoever is the Rep especially if the Dem is Hillary Clinton.

sophiesmom on June 29, 2007 at 9:40 PM

I’d vote for Rudy over Hillary or Obama, but I’m really quite tired of voting for the lesser of the evils.

speed911 on June 29, 2007 at 9:45 PM

Heh. Not alone on that score. AP has ignored my requests, no demands, that HA sell AllahPundit Ackbar t-shirts.
Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2007 at 9:17 PM

I’d be happy to see the “Six Days, B**ch” shirts return, myself.

Slublog on June 29, 2007 at 9:49 PM

Go Fred! What a breath of fresh air for HotAir.

Mojave Mark on June 29, 2007 at 9:51 PM

FloatingRock on June 29, 2007 at 9:39 PM

Try this:

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1997 (Senate – September 26, 1997)

Page: S10012

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r105:3:./temp/~r105hIZEYV:e147713:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10011&dbname=1997_record

unseen on June 29, 2007 at 10:02 PM

Floatingrock…sorry stepped away to watch Michelle and H&c. Yes Condi. The blacks believe it or not are pissed about their Demo.’s selling their low level job’s out,that’s the only job’s they have. And they like to eat like everyone else..Plus you get the bonus of the ladies vote. If they don’t have her on the ticket the GOP will lose. Look she has always handled herself with class and holds her head high at all times. We need to find a front runner, she’s my VP.

Legions on June 29, 2007 at 10:05 PM

red meat for Fred fans:

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION (Senate – March 04, 1997

Mr. THOMPSON . Mr. President, our generation inherited the freest, strongest, most prosperous country in the history of civilization. Within one generation, we are changing that. When historians look back and ask the question, `When did the decline of the United States begin,’ they will point to our generation, because we are the first generation to spend the fortune of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

But we are told that we don’t need to worry about it because we are in the process of balancing the budget, as evidenced by the President’s latest so-called `balanced budget.’ But when the analysis comes out, we see that we are looking at another $69 billion in deficit, and this so-called `balanced budget’ is supposed to make all the cuts. But 98 percent of the cuts are in the last 2 years–after the President leaves office. We know that this is a sham. We know that even if, for a nanosecond, we did balance the budget in the year 2002, it would not account for the baby boomers who are going to be retiring in 2010. Can’t we look forward for our Nation’s future?
I support the balanced budget amendment and urge immediate passage. Page: S1901

unseen on June 29, 2007 at 10:06 PM

Hi everyone – newbie here.
I’ve been reading here for several months now, and both the pro’s and con’s of each candidate (including the candidate who hasn’t announced) ya’ll discuss give me alot to think about.
I like Fred, and I like One Platform Tanc. McCain makes me throw up a little, Mitt makes me uneasy and Guilliani, well he reminds me of the movies of the Godfather. I cannot say I would vote for anyone of these guys just because Shrillary or Obamamama get the Democratic nod.
If Bloomberg indeed does announce as an independant, he’s got the money to blow to actually buy a presidency and perhaps build a viable 3rd party. I don’t know anything about the guy politically speaking, guess I’ll have to wait for that info.
BTW I’m an independant Texas wife and mother who leans so far republican I almost fall down LOL. I’m looking for a candidate that will protect our borders, our consitution, our sovreignty (sp?), and will keep this WoT going till its darn well won. Jeez, that sounds kinda like a dating site ad ROFL.
Nice to meet you all finally :)

Mad Hatter on June 29, 2007 at 10:07 PM

Thanks Unseen.

FloatingRock on June 29, 2007 at 10:12 PM

Wow Fred get’s the “small stuff” also. You know the stuff Bush doesn’t think about that makes ALL his ideas fail. Like funding and saving taxpayers money.

TAXPAYERS AT RISK FROM GOVERNMENT WASTE AND MISMANAGEMENT (Senate – February 12, 1997)

[Page: S1297] GPO’s PDF

Mr. THOMPSON . Mr. President, today the U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO] issues its high risk series which identifies those federal programs that are especially vulnerable to waste and mismanagement. The programs identified in these reports have cost taxpayers billions of dollars in unnecessary expenditures. Without adequate oversight from the Congress many more billions will be wasted before we are through. While the magnitude of the problems GAO has identified is shocking, I am optimistic that we have in place the tools to change Government for the better–but we must be willing to use them.

There is a tendency when we are debating how to balance the budget or when the crisis de jour erupts, for Government to ignore management issues–those which to some are tedious, time-consuming and best left to the bean-counters. While management issues sometimes tend to get swept under the carpet during high-minded policy debates, we ignore them at our peril. We cannot implement any of our policy solutions without effective public administration. In an era of static resources, if we are to balance the budget, replace aging weapon systems at the Department of Defense [DOD], or attack drug abuse, we must achieve significant savings. To find the money, we have to make Government better while cheaper and, to do that, we have to do things smarter.

GAO identifies 25 areas that we must focus on to avoid squandering billions of taxpayer dollars. For example, GAO reports that DOD wastes billions of dollars each year on unneeded and inefficient activities, is vulnerable to additional billions of dollars in waste by buying unnecessary supplies and risks overpaying contractors millions of dollars for services not rendered. It reports that the Internal Revenue Service’s accounting is so poor that it cannot effectively manage the collection of the over $113 billion owed the U.S. Government in delinquent taxes. In addition, GAO again criticizes the management of the IRS’ computer modernization effort. Just last week, certain IRS officials conceded that this `modernization’ has already cost the taxpayers $4 billion and `does not work in the real world’.

IRS is not the only Federal agency having a problem coming to grips with the electronic age. Over the last 6 years, the Federal Government has spent $145 billion on computers but continues to have, according to GAO, `chronic problems harnessing the full potential of information technology to improve performance, cut costs, and/or enhance responsiveness to the public.‘ The security of sensitive data on Government computers and how well the Government converts its old computers to run in the 2000 were also identified by GAO as areas that posed a risk to the Treasury.

Billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse occur in Federal benefit programs. GAO reports, in the supplemental security income program alone, taxpayers are losing over $1 billion a year in overpayments. The $197 billion Medicare Program, according to GAO `loses significant amounts due to persistent fraudulent and wasteful claims and abusive billings.’

The risk of losses from the $941 billion Federal loan portfolio is another source of taxpayer vulnerability. Currently, the Government has $44 billion of defaulted guaranteed loans on its books and has written off many billions more over the last few years. According to GAO, three loan programs (student, farm, and housing) are especially vulnerable due to poor agency management. GAO also calls for improving Federal contract management at several agencies that spend tens of billions of dollars each year on contractor support. Finally, the 2000 census was placed on the high risk list. The census has tremendous implications in the allocation of billions of dollars in Federal funding and for the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives.

However, GAO was not all doom and gloom acknowledging that, `after decades of seeing high risk problems and management weaknesses recur in agency after agency,’ Congress has moved to enact several Government-wide reforms to address the situation. GAO mentions five such laws as key to improving operations in the Federal Government: The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act information management and procurement reforms of 1996. These laws are designed to get the Federal Government to operate in a sound, businesslike manner. It is up to Congress and the administration to ensure that these management reforms are implemented to improve Government performance and results.

I want to work with the administration and my colleagues in Congress to improve the Government’s operations. As part of this process, I plan to invite before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee the Director of OMB to address the problems identified by GAO. We have the legislative framework in place to eradicate these programs from GAO’s high risk list. What we need is the vision and fortitude to implement these bipartisan management reforms and achieve a lasting solution to the management problems that torment the pocketbook of our citizens.

unseen on June 29, 2007 at 10:15 PM

FloatingRock on June 29, 2007 at 10:12 PM

no problem

unseen on June 29, 2007 at 10:16 PM

one more; Good stuff. ithink this helps “flesh out” Thompson view on some issues:

INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT (Senate – October 02, 1998)

[Page: S11324] GPO’s PDF

Mr. THOMPSON . Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for his hard work on and dedication to information technology issues. The Committee on Governmental Affairs which I chair has had a long and involved history with this issue.

This language which we are discussing today seeks to take advantage of the advances in modern technology to lessen the paperwork burdens on those who deal with the Federal government. This is accomplished by requiring the Office of Management and Budget, through its existing responsibilities under the `Paperwork Reduction Act’ and the `Clinger-Cohen Act,’ to develop policies to promote the use of alternative information technologies, including the use of electronic maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information to substitute for paper, and the use and acceptance of electronic signatures.

The Federal government is lagging behind the rest of the nation in using new technologies. Individuals who deal with the Federal government should be able to reduce the cumulative burden of meeting the Federal government’s information demands through the use of information technology. This language hopefully will provide the motivation that the Federal government needs to make this possible for our nation’s citizens.

unseen on June 29, 2007 at 10:22 PM

It appears that Thompson tried to bring the Federal government into the information age. Hmm interesting in 1997 he had the vision to see where the online electronic age was going. Not only that but he thought to use it to save taxpayer money and make hassels dealing with the federal government less for citizens.

All “small stuff” but it is the bedrock of what makes OUR government functions for ITS citizens. Says alot for his character. No?

THOMPSON (AND GLENN) AMENDMENT NO. 748 (Senate – July 08, 1997)

——————————————————————————–

[Page: S7018] GPO’s PDF

SEC. XX. USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE IN FEDERAL PROCUREMENT.
(a) Policy: Section 30 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 426) is amended to read as follows:

`SEC. 30. USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE IN FEDERAL PROCUREMENT.
`(a) In General: The head of each executive agency, after consulting with the Administrator, shall establish, maintain, and use, to the maximum extent that is practicable and cost-effective, procedures and processes that employ electronic commerce in the conduct and administration of its procurement system.
`(b) Applicable Standards: In conducting electronic commerce, the head of an agency shall apply nationally and internationally recognized standards that broaden interoperability and ease the electronic interchange of information.
`(c) Agency Procedures: The head of each executive agency shall ensure that systems, technologies, procedures, and processes established pursuant to this section–

`(1) are implemented with uniformity throughout the agency, to the extent practicable;

`(2) facilitate access to Federal Government procurement opportunities, including opportunities for small business concerns, socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns, and business concerns owned predominantly by women; and

unseen on June 29, 2007 at 10:31 PM

I’ve been a Power Line fan since the 61st Minute but I’m having trouble figuring out John Hinderaker’s attitude toward FDT. Can’t think of a good alternative to just figuring he’s looking for ways to knock Fred down to make another candidate look better. You’d think a man as smart as him (and a lot of the commenters here) would remember the 11th Commandment, which is even more important in now than it was 30 years ago. Think the Clintonistas don’t have someone watching the web for mud to sling at whoever gets the nomination, or that they don’t know how to use Google? Hinderaker’s first stated reason for not being impressed with Fred was that he didn’t run for reelection in 2000. Fred’s explained his reason’s for that on a number of occasions but John’s never chosen to acknowledge them.

bdfaith on June 29, 2007 at 10:38 PM

For those that can’t stand Bush’s stance on classified documents this should warm your toes:

THE GOVERNMENT SECRECY ACT (Senate – March 03, 1998)

Mr. THOMPSON . Mr. President, I appreciate the attention being given to the Government Secrecy Act, S. 712, by Senator Lott and Senator Daschle. I also wish to commend Senators Moynihan and Helms for the hard work they have put into this issue as Senate members of the Commission on Protection and Reducing Government Secrecy.

To review the entire secrecy system, Congress established the Secrecy Commission in 1994. Last year, the Commission issued its final report. The Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on the Commission’s recommendations when they were first issued. Among the recommendations of the Commission was establishing a statutory basis for our secrecy system. Apart from nuclear secrets, there has never been a coordinated statutory basis for establishing and maintaining government secrets. Consequently, there is little coordination among agencies on how information is determined to be secret, little accountability among classifying officials, and little Congressional oversight of the government’s secrecy activities.

The Commission also described how the secrecy system functions as a form of government regulation, imposing significant costs on the government and the private sector. It is time to begin reviewing these costs and identify which secrets really need to be kept and which do not. Like other areas of government regulation, we need to inject a cost/benefit analysis into the process to be sure that those secrets we do keep are worth the cost.

The Government Secrecy Act is an issue of good government reform that needs consideration by Congress. I intend to work with Senator Glenn, the Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, to report an amended S. 712 very soon. The United States needs a secrecy system that does a better job of identifying those secrets which truly must be kept, and which then can truly keep them secret.

[Page: S1253] GPO’s PDF

unseen on June 29, 2007 at 10:39 PM

Mad Hatter on June 29, 2007 at 10:07 PM

Welcome

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2007 at 10:44 PM

From the above quotes it appears that we have a Reagan Republican with Fred.

Cut waste, fraud, and abuse, balance the budget, open up government to the citizens, move the government into the 21st century, let the federal government only handle what it is allowed to in the constitution.

Hmmm no wonder the attacks are starting. If Fred gets this stuff out before his enemies can paint him has a lazy empty suit. It’s landslide time.

unseen on June 29, 2007 at 10:45 PM

bdfaith on June 29, 2007 at 10:38 PM

’tis my problem w/ Hewitt. The other day was going to talk to D. Hunter and started the segment (paraphrasing though fairly): Today Mitt was the first presidential candidate to come out against amnesty, and are pleased to welcome to the phone another presidential candidate against amnesty, Congressman Duncan Hunter.

Weak.Weak.Weak.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2007 at 10:47 PM

Ok I’ll throw out where I think Fred missed the boat.

DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998 (Senate – May 14, 1998)

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to support S. 2037, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This legislation implementing the World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty is of vital importance to the American economy.

No nation benefits more from the protection of intellectual property than the United States. We lead the world in the production and export of intellectual property, including the many forms of artistic intellectual property and computer software. These industries are among the fastest growing employers in our country. When the owners of intellectual property are not fairly compensated, that hurts Americans and it decreases incentives for creating additional intellectual property that educates, entertains, and does business for us.

New technology creates exciting opportunities for intellectual property, but the digital environment also poses threats to this form of property. Unscrupulous copyright violators can use the Internet to more widely distribute copyrighted material without permission. To maintain fair compensation to the owners of intellectual property, a regime for copyright protection in the digital age must be created. Technology to protect access to copyrighted work must be safeguarded. Copyright management information that identifies the copyright owner and the terms and conditions of use of the copyrighted material must be secured.

There are new issues with respect to copyright in the digital age that never were issues before. The bill addresses such issues as on- line service provider liability in a way that is fair to all parties. And it governs a number of other issues that have been accommodated in the new era.

Passage of this bill is important if American intellectual property is to be protected in other countries. I was pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the initial bill, and to have supported the bill in the Judiciary Committee and now on the floor. I strongly support its enactment.

The DMCA was a very bad bill IMO and has caused a lack of invention in the digital landscape.

Ok 5-1 so far. I’m leaning towards Fred!. Will keep searching his real record and discover who is this Fred Thompson…

unseen on June 29, 2007 at 10:56 PM

fred? says the right things, but he has never done anything. His experience is that of a senator and lobbyist, and oh yeah…ACTOR. Talk, talk, talk. He mostly says the right thing (unless it’s about Cuba etc), but that don’t cut it.

In Tennessee that folksy rhetoric works, but the rest of the country isn’t impressed by it. We want to see some real accomplishments other than screwing American citizens out of their money.

csdeven on June 29, 2007 at 11:08 PM

If Bloomberg indeed does announce as an independant, he’s got the money to blow to actually buy a presidency and perhaps build a viable 3rd party. I don’t know anything about the guy politically speaking, guess I’ll have to wait for that info.
BTW I’m an independant Texas wife and mother who leans so far republican I almost fall down LOL. I’m looking for a candidate that will protect our borders, our consitution, our sovreignty (sp?), and will keep this WoT going till its darn well won. Jeez, that sounds kinda like a dating site ad ROFL.
Nice to meet you all finally :)

Mad Hatter on June 29, 2007 at 10:07 PM

Hi there fellow Texas Mom, Wife and Independent.

Re: Bloomberg…. If you enjoy being taxed & legislated out the wazoo, then Bloomie is your man. In NYC, he recently made it a law to only fry up your fries in certain types of oil. Just between you and me, that ain’t cool with us Texas Moms, ya think?

SouthernPride on June 29, 2007 at 11:16 PM

Hi there fellow Texas Mom, Wife and Independent.

Re: Bloomberg…. If you enjoy being taxed & legislated out the wazoo, then Bloomie is your man. In NYC, he recently made it a law to only fry up your fries in certain types of oil. Just between you and me, that ain’t cool with us Texas Moms, ya think?

OMG he’s the guy that did that? Another “oil” man lol. I find it hard to believe that anyone let that law pass. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? BTW I wasn’t meaning I’d vote for the guy, I distrust the rich ..
Sadly though, from my experience watching utter eejits get re-elected (Kennedy), sheeple go with who gets the most face time on tv & whomever the media endorses.

Spirit of 1776.. ty for the welcome :)

Mad Hatter on June 29, 2007 at 11:42 PM

We want to see some real accomplishments other than screwing American citizens out of their money.

csdeven on June 29, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Where’s all this screwing going on?

We want to see some real accomplishments

Last time I looked votes on bills are acomplishments. Look at CIR the vote was a great accompishment for America.

so let me get this straight, first, you say Fred has no record. When shown some of his record you say He has no accomplishments. Now when shown his votes you will say what exactly?

Talk about moving the goal posts. We get that you don’t like him. I don’t have a concrete view yet. However, if you have to continue to move your attack points as new evidence refutes your past points, your not going to win over many minds.

unseen on June 29, 2007 at 11:56 PM

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2007 at 10:47 PM

That sort of things why I seldom red or listen to Hewitt. He knows who he wants to see nominated and he’s going to help all he can. At least we know we can count on him, and on John Hinderaker, to do all they can to help Fred once he’s nominated.

bdfaith on June 29, 2007 at 11:59 PM

red=read

bdfaith on June 30, 2007 at 12:00 AM

Jim-Rose on June 29, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Demint endorsed Romney.

Fred! likes to gesticulate, doesn’t he?

Seriously though, I second the recommendation to listen to Fred’s podcasts. Man knows how to get his message across, and he knows which issues are relevant today.

brewt on June 30, 2007 at 12:15 AM

Talk about moving the goal posts. We get that you don’t like him. I don’t have a concrete view yet. However, if you have to continue to move your attack points as new evidence refutes your past points, your not going to win over many minds.
unseen on June 29, 2007 at 11:56 PM

I said REAL accomplishments.

Anybody can vote on bills. Yeah it’s an accomplishment but I wouldn’t write home bragging to momma about it. Neither would I brag to momma that I worked for a lobbying firm dedicated to screwing American citizens out of monies due them.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 12:39 AM

However, if you have to continue to move your attack points as new evidence refutes your past points, your not going to win over many minds.

unseen on June 29, 2007 at 11:56 PM

That’s a great statement, I think I will steal it from time to time.

csdeven has a sharp mind, but it is a broken record…he hasn’t accomplished anything or done anything, is what I read. Then you pop up with some items and now it is not enough. From nothing to not enough.

Fred may or may not be the man, but he is smart by hanging back and biding his time. “Accomplishing” something in congress is not the mark of a leader, I rather prefer congress do nothing. Kennedy has accomplished a lot.

Many leaders only lead when called. Churchill (and his critics predicted that he was not a leader, alcholic, but not a leader) was voted out of office the first election after the war. He was not qualified to lead a nation at peace? I doubt most people know what makes a great leader, or how to pick a great leader. Most of us don’t want someone that passes a lot of bills, follows the party line to gain power, is an insider. We want someone who can stand up to what we consider wrong…basically most of the liberal platform of concede and tax, empower the government (that usually begins by passing a lot of bills), impose their ideals on us, etc.
So, does Fred pass a lot of bills, is he into the power structure of the party, is he an “insider”, does he have the huevos to stand up to foreign dictators, or foreign agitators, can he take the heaps of critizism, can he stand the onslaught of a persistent and bias press, will he emerge as a leader? To early to tell.
Csdeven has made up his mind, even if Fred turns out to be a leader, csd has backed himself into a corner. The rest of us will just wait and see what emerges out of this race.

right2bright on June 30, 2007 at 12:43 AM

unseen,

I hasten to point out that all these experiences of freds? you point to do nothing to further his qualifications as POTUS. What they do show is that he certainly is qualified to act on legislation that the POTUS wants passed.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 12:43 AM

Csdeven has made up his mind, even if Fred turns out to be a leader, csd has backed himself into a corner. The rest of us will just wait and see what emerges out of this race.
right2bright on June 30, 2007 at 12:43 AM

I haven’t painted myself into any corner. I have mostly been dead on about fred?. It’s the fredheads that have got themselves out on a limb and now have begun to nuance their positions as more and more is known about fred?. Three dismal “interviews”. Leno, Robinson, and the London Q&A. Now we have this BS on Cuba. An obvious attempt to pander to Cubans because he THINKS his opposition to the immigration bill weakens him with them. He knows nothing of the Cuban immigration policies of the US. All Cubans are considered refugees and we couldn’t vet a Cuban spy from a regular Cuban. All they have to do is get one foot on dry land and presto chango, they’re a refugee entitled to protection by the US.

So, you go right ahead and keep posting his weak senate record and I’ll keep posting his damaging real life endeavors.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 12:52 AM

…if you have to continue to move your attack points as new evidence refutes your past points, your not going to win over many minds.

unseen on June 29, 2007 at 11:56 PM

Excellent point, Unseen

Csdevin, who’s your favorite for president?

FloatingRock on June 30, 2007 at 12:59 AM

Csdeven I mean. (sorry for the misspelling.)

FloatingRock on June 30, 2007 at 1:09 AM

So, you go right ahead and keep posting his weak senate record and I’ll keep posting his damaging real life endeavors.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 12:52 AM

Where did I post his record? You are ok by beating up on Fred, no big deal from me that’s how you get attention, but don’t misstate what I write, I never posted any record of Fred’s. That is what I mean by being painted in a corner, so anxious to condemn that you make those kind of mistakes, you lose your ability to be rational and you start making things up to secure your position. Your obsession is getting a little weird.

right2bright on June 30, 2007 at 1:29 AM

Csdevin, who’s your favorite for president?

FloatingRock on June 30, 2007 at 12:59 AM

All indicators point to a Mitt guy, Float. Best I’ve been able to figure.

tickleddragon on June 30, 2007 at 1:55 AM

I could be wrong, but that’s my gut.

tickleddragon on June 30, 2007 at 1:56 AM

This story about Mitt and his dog is really disconcerting. I wonder what Cs’ take on it is.

Rose on June 30, 2007 at 2:10 AM

I have liked Mitt from the start. He has a much better chance than most and I think would do a heck of job of shaking out The Hill and DC. His wife would also make a good firs lady and he has sons you find in leotards.

auspatriotman on June 30, 2007 at 2:35 AM

Yeah it’s an accomplishment but I wouldn’t write home bragging to momma about it

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 12:39 AM

Well from your logic that pretty much knocks out all Senators, Congressmen, and American citizens that have not held an executive post.

I myself would rather look at character, underlying core principles, and history of consistency.

From Fred’s record he has been saying the same thing since he has entered politics.

Rudy and Mitt’s biggest problems for me are that I have no idea what their core principles are. It seems they, like most politicians, will change their views depending on what election they are in or what debate they are facing. When you elect people like that you end up with a Clinton or Bush. People willing to sacrifice their base, even America itself for the sake of a “legacy” because it becomes all about them not about their ideas or country.

Can anyone really tell me what Bush and Clinton believe in their hearts? Or Rudy? Or Mitt? What is their view of America, the citizens, the role of government? Have any of these people governed with an overreaching bedrock of principles during their terms or have they simply wielded power like a sledgehammer to get their pet projects passed?

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 7:10 AM

This story about Mitt and his dog is really disconcerting. I wonder what Cs’ take on it is.
Rose on June 30, 2007 at 2:10 AM

I beat my dogs regularly just so they know how good they’ve got it when I ain’t beatin’ em.

The point is I don’t give a crap about one incident with a dog. If a guy, any guy has a history of cruelty to animals then I’d take issue with it.

IE, fred? has a history of working with a lobbying firm who was attempting to influence congress in order to limit the liability of that company for using a product that destroyed families.

Now, you seem to be a huge fred supporter, do you have as much a problem with freds? work as a lobbyist that was to take away REAL LIVING ACTUAL PEOPLES ability to have a decent quality of life for the rest of their days as you do with a guy how might have inconvenience a dog for 12 hours?

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 7:24 AM

Three dismal “interviews”. Leno, Robinson, and the London Q&A.

I thought the substance of all those interviews were great. In each he did not quickly sprout out the current talking point that his handlers fed him. You could see him THINKING about the answers. This is what a normal person does when confronted with a question. They listen to the question, compare the question with what they believe (i.e. think) and then gives an answer that conforms to their beliefs and which they think is right.

An obvious attempt to pander to Cubans because he THINKS his opposition to the immigration bill weakens him with them

A very smart move by Fred to separate the monolithic phantom “Latino” vote. Anyone who actually understands the “Latino” vote understands that they are not one united block of votes. Cuban-Americans have very different priorities than Mexican-Americans who have different priorities than Venezuelan-Americans. The “Latino” vote is not the same as the African-American vote. To think otherwise is just lazy thinking.

So, you go right ahead and keep posting his weak senate record and I’ll keep posting his damaging real life endeavors.

What weak senate record? His record shows a HISTORY of governing by a belief system. The history shows he was not an egomaniac bent on pushing bills for the sake of getting his name on laws. It also shows a willingness to work behind the scenes if doing so would advance his views. From what I have been able to see so far almost all of his record can be tied to his views on federalism and small efficient government.

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 7:30 AM

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 7:10 AM

There are many senators who have created and passed many pieces of legislation that have been forward looking and have resulted in making this country better.

fred? has done NOTHING. His “career” in the senate was lack luster and vacuous. The one piece of legislation he was so proud of that he fought for it, just had part of it struck down by the supreme court AND he magically regrets it now. Flip-flop.

Underlying core principles!? Are you not paying attention? He worked for a foreign company that was attempting to limit their liabilities to American citizens.

He, in an attempt to obfuscate his insider history, he faked the people of Tennessee by donning blue jeans and flannel shirts and then went out and leased a pick up that his staff would drive within blocks of rallies and then he’d get out of his fancy smancy car and drive the pickup to the rally.

In 1994 he stated he was pro-choice as long as the abortion was performed in the first trimester. And that the woman had the final say in abortion. Now he claims he has always been pro-life because of what, three or so votes on abortion he made in the 8 years he was in the senate? Flip-flop. (I haven’t checked yet, but how many votes could he have voted on that he missed?)

Are those the “character, underlying core principles, and history” you are referring to or do those facts not exist in your vetting process of non-candidates?

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 7:38 AM

IE, fred? has a history of working with a lobbying firm who was attempting to influence congress in order to limit the liability of that company for using a product that destroyed families.

Wait, you Fred bashers have to get your story straight. First you all say his oposition to tort reform but him in the trail lawyer camp, now your saying his lobbying puts him in the big business camp.

Or it could be that both put him in the constitution camp. The trot reform shows his views on federalism and his lobbying shows his belief in equal protection under the law. Hmmm both central tenants of the constitution. The constitution is not a right vs. left document. It has views of both the left and right in it. If you believe in the document you are going to have to take some unpopular stands on some issues.

As far as the dog story it shows that Mitt puts his comfort ahead of those less important then him. It shows a very self-centered personality

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 7:42 AM

I thought the substance of all those interviews were great. In each he did not quickly sprout out the current talking point that his handlers fed him. You could see him THINKING about the answers. This is what a normal person does when confronted with a question. They listen to the question, compare the question with what they believe (i.e. think) and then gives an answer that conforms to their beliefs and which they think is right.

How quickly he answers isn’t the issue so much as the wandering around and vague positions that allow each listener to decide what he meant. In those cases, people fill in the blank depending on their view.

IE, fred? says we as a country know what issues face this country considering Cuban immigration. fred? groupies read that and fill in the blank and fawn all over freds? “widsom”, but as we can see, he doesn’t have a grasp of that issue. He is an ACTOR. He knows how to manipulte people who are looking for an emotional fix to their problems. So, fred? gives them that.

A very smart move by Fred to separate the monolithic phantom “Latino” vote. Anyone who actually understands the “Latino” vote understands that they are not one united block of votes. Cuban-Americans have very different priorities than Mexican-Americans who have different priorities than Venezuelan-Americans. The “Latino” vote is not the same as the African-American vote. To think otherwise is just lazy thinking.

NO HE DOESN’T! Did you read a dang thing he said verses the facts? The Cuban community would be affected very little if at all by the immigration bill. He THINKS that opposing the bill weakened him with Florida Cubans, when in fact, it really matters little to the immigration status to Cubans. He tried to pander with this Cuban “spies” schtick in a clumsy attempt to do damage control.

What weak senate record? His record shows a HISTORY of governing by a belief system. The history shows he was not an egomaniac bent on pushing bills for the sake of getting his name on laws. It also shows a willingness to work behind the scenes if doing so would advance his views. From what I have been able to see so far almost all of his record can be tied to his views on federalism and small efficient government.
unseen on June 30, 2007 at 7:30 AM

Well, then, why didn’t fred? put forward lots of legislation that would have achieved the goals you say he holds as core values? Because he didn’t want to appear to be looking to JUST get his names on bills? You think every legislator sponsors bills just to get their name on them? If you have that jaded a view of legislators who actually do their job (which is promoting and passing law) how can you actually think fred? should be taken seriously when he basically hid out in the senate for 8 years and DID NOT do his job?

fred? should be judged by what he says and does, not just by the BS image he has made for himself over the years.

Tell me, are you one of those who think that fred? only had to show up on sets and be himself when he acted (to act: to impersonate) in his TV and movie rolls?

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 7:59 AM

strong>There are many senators who have created and passed many pieces of legislation that have been forward looking and have resulted in making this country better.

Sorry I haven’t seen a piece of legislation come out of Washington in the last 40 years that have been worth the paper its written on.

Underlying core principles!? Are you not paying attention? He worked for a foreign company that was attempting to limit their liabilities to American citizens.
He worked for a foreign company that was trying to get the same deal our American companies were getting (i.e. equal protection)

Underlying core principles!? Are you not paying attention? He worked for a foreign company that was attempting to limit their liabilities to American citizens.

Last I heard he still has the pick-up truck. Hell of a long lease. Either way how is this different from any other campaign event? Rudy and Mitt pander to their supports as much if not more so. They each craft a persona to get the most votes. The difference always comes down in my world to substance over style. You seem to like the flash in the pan slick willy politicians. I prefer a straight talking one.

He, in an attempt to obfuscate his insider history,

And he has done this how. Has he claimed that he was not a lobbyist? No. Has he claimed that yes he in fact was a big government Senator and he did indeed push tons of unwanted, unneeded bills down the throats of the American people.? No. Has he stated that yes he really, really wished he did not LEAVE the Senate on his terms when reelection was almost 100% given because he now wants to be a career politician like Rudy and Mitt? No.

As far as abortion from what I can see he has always thought that abortion should be decided by the states and that women should not be prosecuted by the federal government for having an abortion. He has also always thought to my knowledge that Roe vs. wade was bad law. And this is flip-flopping how again?

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 8:03 AM

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 7:42 AM

I don’t care about dogs, I care about people. I care that fred? actively worked towards limiting a foreign companies liability to REAL LIVE PEOPLE. REAL LIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE who their product maimed and killed.

I noticed, just like the pro-choice crowd, you ignore the welfare of real people in order to push a ideological agenda. Apparently, fred? feels the same way because the only people he cared about were the fat cats in their ivory towers.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 8:06 AM

people fill in the blank depending on their view.

Are you serious with this statement? There are not 100 views of Fred out there. There is one a conservative with a view of federalism. If he was doing what you say people would be saying he is a liberal, globalist, bush republican etc. They are not, so he is not an empty suit filled with the hopes and dreams of Americans but a person with concrete ideas and views that are echoed by the vast majority of Americans.

Did you read a dang thing he said verses the facts?

Why, yes I did. You have the Fl. Senator saying that the immigration bill would effect the cuban-american vote. You had the MSM trying to paint the Latino vote as one big block. You had the President trying the same thing. In all of this you had at least one man, Fred, saying wait a minute. Let’s not be painted into that corner.

legislators who actually do their job (which is promoting and passing law)

And here I thought their job was protecting our country, protecting our freedoms and upholding our constitution. You must be in the 14% of Americans who think Congress is doing their job then.

And what do you have against actors? Did one of them beat you as a child or something?

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 8:18 AM

you ignore the welfare of real people in order to push a ideological agenda

If by ideological agenda you mean upholding the constittution than yeah I’m a mean bastard. Unlike feeling weeping liberals I think that every problem should not be a reason to tear our founding document to shreds. If you don’t like the equal protection clause of the constitution because it unfairly benefits some undeserving people at times change the damn document.

And I am not pro-choice. But like Fred I think the States should decide this issue. Who the hell am I to tell people in NY or CA how to live their lives. God will judge them when it’s time. I can work to get laws passed to change Roe and the closer the choice gets to my city the more power I have to shape that law. The best way to change Roe on a national level is SCOTUS and I think any of the canidates from the REP side will put in good orginalist judges because Myers showed them the base will not except anything else. So the abortion issue in the race is not front and center for me. Is it a factor? yes. Has Fred passed my limitus test on the issue? Yes

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 8:30 AM

Sorry I haven’t seen a piece of legislation come out of Washington in the last 40 years that have been worth the paper its written on.

So that includes fred? too. Well, that takes care of his senate “record”. Now, lets move on to his lobbying record.

He worked for a foreign company that was trying to get the same deal our American companies were getting (i.e. equal protection)

So because American companies were screwing Americans, it was OK for fred? to help a foreign company to do the same? He could have lobbied FOR the American people ya know. He could have lobbied for lower taxes lobbies. Gun lobbies. Freedom of speech lobbies. You see where this is going? fred? CHOOSE what causes he lobbied for and it’s clear he was after the money and not ideological change for the benefit of US citizens.

Last I heard he still has the pick-up truck. Hell of a long lease. Either way how is this different from any other campaign event?.

So, he is no different than any other politician. Good. See, I knew we could make progress if you tried.

Why did fred waffle about a re-election bid until a bare 20 days before the filing deadline if he was sooooo adamant about fulfilling his promise?

As far as abortion from what I can see he has always thought that abortion should be decided by the states and that women should not be prosecuted by the federal government for having an abortion. He has also always thought to my knowledge that Roe vs. wade was bad law. And this is flip-flopping how again?
unseen on June 30, 2007 at 8:03 AM

How many times do you have to be told and linked to the questionnaire he filled out in 1994 that said he supported abortion through the first trimester and that the woman has the final say? That is the definition of pro-choice.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 8:31 AM

Has Fred passed my limitus test on the issue? Yes

Has Mitt and McCain passed the abortion limitus test? yes.

Has Rudy? not yet. And he fails on the 2nd amendment test.

I would rather have my guns than tell someone else how to live their life.

So I’m down to three choices Mitt, Fred, and Hunter. Mitt sounds good and feels fake. Hunter is a good choice but he has been unable to break iout of the pack. Fred looks good, feels good but lacks charisma. So I’m undecided but leaning towards Fred.

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 8:38 AM

Are you serious with this statement? There are not 100 views of Fred out there.

If you’re not going to pay attention why should we bother? fred? uses the technique of being vague about issues and lets the listening divine what he meant. The groupies fall for this. I do not.

In all of this you had at least one man, Fred, saying wait a minute. Let’s not be painted into that corner.

WHERE in that article did he say that? He was LINKING immigration reform to Cuban immigrants.

And here I thought their job was protecting our country,

Nice try. Lets stick to freds? “record” ok? fred? could have spent his 8 years in congress working his butt off doing exactly what you say. HE DID NOT.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 8:49 AM

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 8:30 AM

We ARE getting closre to making some progress! Now that you have nuanced your position on freds? abortion flip-flop, I have no problem with him evolving on his position. I have a problem with him lying about it. He said that he has been with the pro-life crowd since 1994 when in fact he was pro-life at that time.

So, fred felt it was his responsibility to take up a cause of equal protection and chose a cause that would screw Americans. Like I said, core values would have moved him away from that cause and towards one of the hundreds of lobbying jobs working on equal protection that BENEFITED American citizens.

Please use the bold type sparingly.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 8:56 AM

How many times do you have to be told and linked to the questionnaire he filled out in 1994 that said he supported abortion through the first trimester and that the woman has the final say?

So you base you entire view on one document that may or may not have been filled out by Fred. While at the same time ignoring his many votes in support of anti-abortion. And this is logical how?

Federalism solves a lot of these issues that have not/can not be solved for the last 30 years.

Why did fred waffle about a re-election bid until a bare 20 days before the filing deadline if he was sooooo adamant about fulfilling his promise?

I don’t know ask him. You don’t know either so why don’t you find out the truth before trying to paint it badly. The important thing is he kept his promise unlike a lot of other people in public life.

He could have lobbied FOR the American people ya know

Sometimes the best lobbying is done by deafeating bad bills. So by you logic a Public defendent that defends a murderer is as guilty as the murderer.

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 9:00 AM

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 8:38 AM

You and I are not very far apart. My issue with fred? is that I feel disrespected by him because he desires my support in money etc, but wont get into the fray in order for me to be able to see him asked the tough questions like the rest of the candidates have. I get further peeved because he keeps playing games with his non-announcement date.

I really like Hunter because people who he represents tell me great things about him. The MSM is scared to death of him, gives him very little press, and that is another ringing endorsement.

I’m glad we could discuss this and find we probably have more in common than not.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 9:01 AM

uses the technique of being vague about issues and lets the listening divine what he meant. The groupies fall for this. I do not.

Well good for you! I have no problem understanding what he is saying and what he means. Should I write to him and have him talk slower and more detailed so you can understand too?

WHERE in that article did he say that? He was LINKING immigration reform to Cuban immigrants

What article? I was going from his interview and Hannity and his podcast.

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 9:09 AM

So you base you entire view on one document that may or may not have been filled out by Fred.

fred? signed it and that’s enough. He’s an attorney and reads every thing before he signs it. Yeah, he knew.

While at the same time ignoring his many votes in support of anti-abortion. And this is logical how?

I don’t ignore them. It is because of those contrary votes and then his lie about his 1994 position that raises the red flag. I don’t need to be lied to. Rudy is telling the truth (finally) and Mitt! is too. Lets go fred? is what I say.

Federalism solves a lot of these issues that have not/can not be solved for the last 30 years.

Absolutely.

I don’t know ask him.

I suspect that he did it for the same reason he got into the non-candidate race for president. He was waiting to see what kind of support he had before announcing. That is not leading, that’s following.

That leads me to his responses concerning his support for the war in Iraq. He has continued to say that he will be optimistic about the war as long as the troops are optimistic. This is sheer cowardice. PERIOD.

Sometimes the best lobbying is done by deafeating bad bills. So by you logic a Public defendent that defends a murderer is as guilty as the murderer.

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 9:00 AM

That’s backwards. fred? worked against people in favor of an entity. He should have work in favor of people against an entity. fred? went for the bucks, not the ideology.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 9:11 AM

Well good for you! I have no problem understanding what he is saying and what he means.

You THINK you do. Know one REALLY knows where fred? will land on the issues when he is pressed on them.

What article? I was going from his interview and Hannity and his podcast.
unseen on June 30, 2007 at 9:09 AM

Here.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 9:14 AM

but wont get into the fray in order for me to be able to see him asked the tough questions like the rest of the candidates have

I can understand that. However, McCain annouced what 3 different times that he was running but not offically. Is this “testing the waters” campiagn any different? I think this has more to do with the Campaign laws then anything else. June 30 was the last day of the reporting quarter. By waiting until after June Fred does not have to declare how much he has raised. This helps him in the race.

Hunter is a good choice. His inability to break out is a problem. A Fred/Hunter ticket would be good. But I think Mitt will be on the ticket somewhere because of his fund raising ability. But a Southern/Northeastern ticket would do not help much. Now a Southern/southwestern/CA ticket might but a lot of battleground states out of play for the dems.

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 9:18 AM

So what did he say in SC that caused himto clarify his remarks? It doesn’t say in the artilce?

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 9:21 AM

Ok getting sloppy in grammar, bold lettering and spelling time for a break. Good debate. We will continue when Fred declares. Not much reason to before that.

unseen on June 30, 2007 at 9:23 AM

Ok. I’m gonna give myself a break from cooking and take the wife out for breakfast.

Thanks.

Peace and cheers.

CS

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 9:29 AM

Powerline: Congressional Republicans less than impressed with Fred

NRE: steveegg less than impressed with Congressional Republicans.

Nice to know the resident anti-Fredhead is getting some mad props.

steveegg on June 30, 2007 at 10:47 AM

One last word on Condi Rice for VP.. I know. Grin and bear it. If you all want your front runner in the white house next time, we need to take as many African-Amer. and women votes as we can get. She walks with her head up at all times (that I have seen her) and is always a class act. I give a darn about her stand on issue’s I just care about winning at all costs. Just like the Demo’s know a Hillary-Obama ticket is a formidable combo..

Legions on June 30, 2007 at 10:54 AM

Cs keeps harping on the use of a pickup truck for a prop but he dismisses the abuse of a dog. I’ve lost respect for Cs’ opinions.

Rose on June 30, 2007 at 12:18 PM

I like Fredheads b/c in my mind they represent the perpetual optimism of the right-wing, but I think he is over-hyped.

Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2007 at 5:38 PM

How can you possibly say he’s “over-hyped” when:

1. The MSM hates him, and continues to try to find dirt on him (to the extent of interviewing his old girlfriends, which backfired)
2. Elected Republicans are “less than impressed with Fred,” which is the theme of this entire thread
3. Dhimmi-crats hate him, because he is a conservative Republican who probably will not bow before their obvious moral superiority
4. Many bloggers (including Allahpundit)continually snark at him

The only people that are hyping him are the ones that have listened to what he has been saying, and resonating with his positions on many subjects.

Like me. I’ve donated to the Fred! pre-campaign, and will again after he announces officially. And this is the first time in a long time that I’ve felt compelled to donate to any political campaign.

rmgraha on June 30, 2007 at 12:19 PM

The Republican congress has been a shame. They need to wake up and start following what Fred Thompson is doing. Fred is going to take the Republican nod and every conservative should be voting for him.

msipes on June 30, 2007 at 12:38 PM

Cs keeps harping on the use of a pickup truck for a prop but he dismisses the abuse of a dog. I’ve lost respect for Cs’ opinions.
Rose on June 30, 2007 at 12:18 PM

I will because telling the truth to people is more important than the questionable context of some alleged incident concerning a dog. Ya know….D.O.G. Dog.

Maybe you should try abusing a dog and then abusing people and see which is more important.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 12:44 PM

They need to wake up and start following what Fred Thompson is doing. Fred is going to take the Republican nod and every conservative should be voting for him.

msipes on June 30, 2007 at 12:38 PM

Can you explain exactly what it is that fred? is DOING? Besides spew a bunch of feel good rhetoric that everyone else has already spewed.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 12:46 PM

People who abuse animals reveal a lack of character.

Rose on June 30, 2007 at 12:54 PM

How can you possibly say he’s “over-hyped” when:

Because most people know him by some TV show he was on. He has even admitted that he has benefited greatly from his acting career. I have had loony fred? groupies try to convince me that fred? doesn’t act in his roles. He just shows up and IS fred?.

THAT is crazy and I know there are lots and lots of those kooks out there that believe just like that.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 1:01 PM

People who abuse animals reveal a lack of character.
Rose on June 30, 2007 at 12:54 PM

People who abuse people are worse.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 1:02 PM

Worse, definitely, but they are both bad.

Rose on June 30, 2007 at 1:14 PM

True. Thus the reason I don’t support people abusers like fred? and will support a supposed dog abuser like Mitt!.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Csdeven, you keep referring to Fred as an actor in a derogatory way. Did you hate Reagan as much as you do Fred?

I don’t care about dogs…

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 8:06 AM

I’ll have to remember that when I read your posts from now on because I care about dogs and other pets and think that people who don’t are lowlifes.

FloatingRock on June 30, 2007 at 1:32 PM

Whoopie…I started reading this late, and of course started at the top. For awhile there I was thinking this thread would never show any life, but good ole csdeven came to its rescue, cause every body knows it aint a party till csdeven craps in the hall…

doriangrey on June 30, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Maybe you should try abusing a dog and then abusing people and see which is more important.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Wow, brilliant argument. I can’t respond to that since I haven’t abused either. You’re certainly more qualified to judge Fred Thompson than I am.

FloatingRock on June 30, 2007 at 1:43 PM

Csdeven, you keep referring to Fred as an actor in a derogatory way. Did you hate Reagan as much as you do Fred?

Reagan was out of acting and was an accomplished executive. fred? is and accomplished lobbyist and was acting up until a month ago.

I’ll have to remember that when I read your posts from now on because I care about dogs and other pets and think that people who don’t are lowlifes.

Good, please do because I don’t want to have to explain it to you again. And I’ll do the same. When I read your posts I’ll remember that you care about animals more than you care about people. And there just aren’t words fit for this forum that describes that type of person.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 2:21 PM

I can’t respond to that since I haven’t abused either. You’re certainly more qualified to judge Fred Thompson than I am.
FloatingRock on June 30, 2007 at 1:43 PM

If you can’t discern the difference between abusing a dog verses a person without having to do it, then you are right to keep your mouth shut. I’ll give you credit for knowing you need to shut up, because knowing to keep your mouth shut at least shows a small amount of cognitive reasoning.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 2:27 PM

it aint a party till csdeven craps in the hall…

doriangrey on June 30, 2007 at 1:42 PM

And it don’t really get kicking until you and your ilk start consuming it.

Breath mint?

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Vote for Mitt! Because abusing a person is worse than abusing a dog

FloatingRock on June 30, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Csdeven, the issue isn’t weather abusing a person is worse than abusing a dog. The issue is that abusing a dog, or any other innocent, is immoral. In this case there was no direct violence involved, but Mitt still caused his dog to suffer for hours on end through intentional neglect and a reckless disregard for its safety.

But speaking for myself, I had already dismissed Mitt from the running because he doesn’t support the 2nd amendment. I realize he’s flip-flopped on the issue, but I want to vote for somebody who always has and always will support the 2nd amendment and other Constitutional principles.

FloatingRock on June 30, 2007 at 2:52 PM

What?? Entrenched, non-responsive, arrogant Republican CongressCritters don’t like Fred???

GooooooFred! You must be on the right track!!

Gabbu on June 30, 2007 at 3:14 PM

One last word on Condi Rice for VP.. I know. Grin and bear it. If you all want your front runner in the white house next time, we need to take as many African-Amer. and women votes as we can get. She walks with her head up at all times (that I have seen her) and is always a class act. I give a darn about her stand on issue’s I just care about winning at all costs. Just like the Demo’s know a Hillary-Obama ticket is a formidable combo..

Legions on June 30, 2007 at 10:54 AM

Gotta respectfully disagree with you there, Legions. I’m not at all impressed with Condi’s performance. Not. At. All. Israel vs the entire islamic world is a mess, and she’s making it worse, not better. I respect her intellect and her accomplishments, but the state department is chronically inept and openly slanted toward the islamists. She’s the head, but she’s no where close to in control. I want more strength than that in my VP.

However, I do strongly agree with you that an African American VP would go a long way toward unifying the USA. I would enthusiastically vote for Michael Steele, preferrably paired with FRED!, with the realization that we could very well have our first real African American President 8 years later.

techno_barbarian on June 30, 2007 at 4:54 PM

FloatingRock on June 30, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Since we’re gonna be rational now, we can discuss this like adults. This whole issue started because for some reason Mitt! isn’t qualified to be POTUS over an incident with his dog that no one knows the context. This complaint was made by someone who is head over heels supporting fred?. fred? lobbied to limit the liability of a company that used a product that adversely affected US citizens.

I brought this up to see if they would eliminate fred? from consideration for something he did that was worse than what Mitt! supposedly did to his dog. Apparently fred? is still okay by their standards.

BTW, Mitt! has explained that his dog LOVED riding like that on trips. Who are any of us to call him a liar?

And lastly, you took my comment out of context. I said I didn’t care about dogs, I care about people. Any rational reading of the entire conversation and you would have realized that was a statement concerning relativity.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 5:01 PM

If you can’t discern the difference between abusing a dog verses a person without having to do it, then you are right to keep your mouth shut. I’ll give you credit for knowing you need to shut up, because knowing to keep your mouth shut at least shows a small amount of cognitive reasoning.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Absolutely breathtaking in its condescending ignorance and arrogance.

Completely true to form. Few can lower the level of discourse like our foaming at the mouth cs.

And unseen is a keeper. Welcome Unseen!

techno_barbarian on June 30, 2007 at 5:02 PM

Cs, the problem is that you find something petty about Mr. Thompson, that being the red pickup, and continually refer to it like it is enough to prevent anyone from even considering him. And yet you complain if someone brings up the dog incident because you think that abusing a dog is petty and insignificant.

Rose on June 30, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Rose on June 30, 2007 at 5:24 PM

freds? lobbying work was not petty. And for groupies to ignore the effects his lobbying has on people and then go bat$hit crazy over something that Mitt! supposedly did, is absolutely astounding.

freds? red pickup fakery is an indication of his lack of respect for his potential supporters. I am watching for other indications of this type of disrespect.
I have found it in his video with his wife and kids. It was another obvious attempt to present himself as something he is not.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3