Quote of the day

posted at 11:15 pm on June 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

“I was very relieved. I’d seen the pictures of her in a low-cut dress, but she looked like a first lady.”

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

hahaha! AP, YOU ARE BAD.

Hasn’t poor fred? had to put up with enough this week?

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 11:23 PM

I can’t wait ’till Jeri is on the cover of every grocery store magazine. I’m tired of looking at “hasbeens” Bittney, Linsey, and Paris.

Jeri has class, she’s smart…and she’ll make a hot first lady!

AZCON on June 30, 2007 at 11:27 PM

Why doesn’t Fred go ahead and announce his candidacy? What’s he waiting for? I think too many people aren’t taking him seriously because he won’t commit. The time for testing public reaction needs to end. This is just getting annoying.

thedecider on June 30, 2007 at 11:28 PM

ABH.

Anything But Hillary.

(I wouldn’t want to see her in a low-cut burka.)

profitsbeard on June 30, 2007 at 11:30 PM

Fred! has nothing to gain by announcing. He’s gaining in every pole.

The day after his numbers go down, he’ll “all in”.

AZCON on June 30, 2007 at 11:30 PM

thedecider on June 30, 2007 at 11:28 PM

My thoughts too. I gave him a lot of space because of the whole L&O contract thing and the movie on HBO or whatever, but lets get in or out, or at least say when.

Spirit of 1776 on June 30, 2007 at 11:33 PM

Fred! has nothing to gain by announcing. He’s gaining in every pole.

Either a joke or a Freudian slip.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 30, 2007 at 11:34 PM

I got Beltway Boys on in the background. Anyone else listen to these clowns on amnesty? Ugh!

Dude, Jeri would be an awesome First Lady!

Bad Candy on June 30, 2007 at 11:46 PM

Isn’t Jeri a lobbyist also?

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 11:53 PM

Why doesn’t Fred go ahead and announce his candidacy? What’s he waiting for? I think too many people aren’t taking him seriously because he won’t commit. The time for testing public reaction needs to end. This is just getting annoying.

thedecider on June 30, 2007 at 11:28 PM

And I’m one of them. If Fred? doesn’t run, perhaps we should ask his wife to?

Isn’t Jeri a lobbyist also?

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 11:53 PM

It’s a good rumor to start. Jeri! for Prez! Fred? for VP!

Darnell Clayton on June 30, 2007 at 11:58 PM

Yeah, the kids can be in her cabinet.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 12:06 AM

…Allahpundit.. a guest speaker on WLS talk radio(Chicago area) this afternoon was giving you a nice compliment on your news worthiness. It was good to hear your name getting on the air waves..

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Why doesn’t Fred go ahead and announce his candidacy? What’s he waiting for? I think too many people aren’t taking him seriously because he won’t commit. The time for testing public reaction needs to end. This is just getting annoying.

thedecider on June 30, 2007 at 11:28 PM

I agree, this is getting old.

xplodeit on July 1, 2007 at 12:16 AM

Either a joke or a Freudian slip.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 30, 2007 at 11:34 PM

HA! What’s not to love?

Isn’t Jeri a lobbyist also?

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 11:53 PM

Yeah, Jeri’s made seven hundred thousand dollars over the last ten years lobbying for the vertical pipe industry./s

AZCON on July 1, 2007 at 12:25 AM

It isn’t the 4th of July yet.

Buzzy on July 1, 2007 at 12:27 AM

Buzzy on July 1, 2007 at 12:27 AM

Understood, but from the comments it looks like I’m not alone. We have a saying here in the midwest: crap or get off the pot. I can’t stand a tease.

thedecider on July 1, 2007 at 12:32 AM

Buzzy, the point being that he is still playing games with his announcement date. He could come right out and say he will announce on such and such a date and we who are getting tired of it, would all be a lot happier.

On the issue of Jeri…..is she a consideration when deciding if fred? should get our vote? Do we consider the Clenis? How about a wife that is ill?

If she should be considered, what qualities should be taken into account?

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 12:33 AM

Someone please tell me we have an African-American women somewhere in the GOP that can be our VP. I am a newbee to the GOP and am having a brain lock thinking of one. I say Condi Rice. Just grin and bear it. If Clinton won with the baggage he carried and now the MS. is running with all her barrage and they all love them. Condi can help counter that Clinton-Obama ticket. I give a darn what her position is on any subject..Winning is all that matters. The black’s vote more on the color of the candidate than issues..

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 12:34 AM

Fred! sent me a personally signed letter today,

“Let me assure you any campaign I would mount would seek a return to “first principles” and reassert the concept that the government in Washington is the servant of the people, not the reverse”

I don’t care if Fred! announces on the eve of the GOP primary. He has my vote, csd be damned!

AZCON on July 1, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Wow Legions, that’s kind of slap in the face to Mr. Steele and Ms. Rice and Mr. Watts, etc, don’t you think?

Spirit of 1776 on July 1, 2007 at 12:38 AM

Thompson/Winfrey

There ya go, no way to beat that ticket. Oprah is THE successful American, and happens to be a woman, and black.

Anybody here know O so the proper introductions can be made to get this thing started?

AZCON on July 1, 2007 at 12:48 AM

AZCON on July 1, 2007 at 12:48 AM

That’s funny, but “O” would never run. I don’t think her true motives (self-promotion in the name of philanthropy) could withstand that kind of scrutiny.

thedecider on July 1, 2007 at 12:51 AM

I want to go on record saying that Fred! is going to fizzle. Many people on our side are not thinking this through very well…

Halley on July 1, 2007 at 12:51 AM

I give a darn what her position is on any subject..Winning is all that matters. The black’s vote more on the color of the candidate than issues..

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 12:34 AM

Yeah, that’s not racist or anything–and I’m about as far from PC as it gets. So you’re comfortable judging somebody solely by the color of their skin, and completely ignoring the content of their character?

ReubenJCogburn on July 1, 2007 at 12:52 AM

Halley on July 1, 2007 at 12:51 AM

Examples, please? What are we not thinking through very well? Please help the less informed.

speed911 on July 1, 2007 at 12:53 AM

I say Condi Rice. Just grin and bear it.

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 12:34 AM

Why would you have to “grin and bear it”? What’s to “bear”? I’m sure most of us would be happy if she ran, not specifically for the “black vote” though. I’m not sure what you mean to imply is the problem with her?

That said, you also talk about Hillary being “loved”… By who? Her negatives are only topped by Newt’s negatives (which is why he ain’t runnin’). Let me rephrase that, her negatives are WORSE than any other candidate running for POTUS… the latest “I’d definitely NOT vote for….” poll just gave her 52%. She’s pretty much screwed (and yes, she’ll have to pick Obama because that will motivate black voters and dumb ass college kids who think they’re proving something by voting for him, when in reality they are transparent and voting for him simply because he’s black – though they’ll tell you it’s for “hope”)

For over a year now, Hillary’s “I’d definitely not vote for her” poll numbers have given me a reason to wake up every day. We’re screwed if she (or any of those Dems win). Hell, we’re possibly screwed even if some of the Repubs win, but with the Dems it’s a guarantee. So the fact that America hates Hillary, yet the Democratic Party is determined to prove they can nominate a woman (on top of being a Clinton) she’s almost a shoe in, is the one thing that keeps me going… because we’d have to really f-up in order for her to win. I don’t underestimate the Clinton machine’s power and all the stunts they’ll pull over the next year+, but her negatives are going to be tough to overcome.

RightWinged on July 1, 2007 at 12:54 AM

Seriously, what’s the hold up? It’s becoming quite annoying to me.

SouthernGent on July 1, 2007 at 12:57 AM

though they’ll tell you it’s for “hope”)

Those crazy kids are so audacious!

Spirit of 1776 on July 1, 2007 at 12:59 AM

RightWinged on July 1, 2007 at 12:54 AM

Well, definitely her negatives (wife of Bill: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”; Whitewater, Travelgate, et. al.) are hard to overcome, but even the MSM isn’t really in support of her. The Dem party does not seem to be rallying around her. Her stance on the war is not helping her with the usual party loons. I know she’s raised a lot of cash, but I think that is suspect (not uncommon, given that she’s a Clinton) and I have a certain mistrust of polling data. I will honestly be surprised if her party nominates her. I just don’t believe she’s electable and I think the more intelligent Democratic strategists know that too.

thedecider on July 1, 2007 at 1:03 AM

..RightWinged..I also think of Condi in high regrad. I said grin and bear it because I put her name out there a few times before and got some remarks..Being new to the GOP I listen to all. She has always been a class act as far as I’m concerned and always walk’s with her head held high.

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 1:04 AM

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 1:04 AM

Condi is a kind of political chameleon. She knows which side her bread is buttered on. She has demonstrated intelligence, cleverness, and an ability to spin a story (an important skill for someone in her position). At the end of the day, I think she’s good in any role; I just can’t get my head around what her core beliefs are. She’s obviously a conservative. I think I would like to see her in a role where she calls the shots. Then, and probably only then, will we know what her true abilities and beliefs really are. Right now, she’s an advocate for W’s policies and I’m not sure she’s entirely in support of them all.

thedecider on July 1, 2007 at 1:12 AM

I agree with legions in the sense that a lot of the people who regularly vote for black dems, do so strictly because of color and couldn’t care less about how their policies adversely affect their lives. So, since those are the “fish” we are after, we need to fish with the bait they like and not what we like.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 1:12 AM

What are Condi’s negative numbers?

I’ll bet you 80% of Americans could not even tell you her cabinet position.

AZCON on July 1, 2007 at 1:12 AM

Seriously, what’s the hold up? It’s becoming quite annoying to me.

SouthernGent on July 1, 2007 at 12:57 AM

I became annoyed with this a few weeks ago. Join the club. I’m giving him one more week before I’m jumpin’ off this bandwagon. I’ve already begun thinking that Rudy is the last best hope for 2008.

lorien1973 on July 1, 2007 at 1:20 AM

further proof that female hotness is a Republican trait

jediwebdude on July 1, 2007 at 1:21 AM

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 1:12 AM

I’m on board with that. I know many blacks who still believe OJ is innocent. I still recall the applause when the final verdict came down. Some (not all) blacks support race over ideology in my observations – not just the “OJ” thing. Honestly, if Obama supported the conservative causes I support, I would vote for him. His race wouldn’t concern me at all. Unfortunately, he’s a liberal whose views couldn’t be farther from my own.

thedecider on July 1, 2007 at 1:26 AM

Well, definitely her negatives (wife of Bill: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”; Whitewater, Travelgate, et. al.) are hard to overcome, but even the MSM isn’t really in support of her. The Dem party does not seem to be rallying around her. Her stance on the war is not helping her with the usual party loons. I know she’s raised a lot of cash, but I think that is suspect (not uncommon, given that she’s a Clinton) and I have a certain mistrust of polling data. I will honestly be surprised if her party nominates her. I just don’t believe she’s electable and I think the more intelligent Democratic strategists know that too.

thedecider on July 1, 2007 at 1:03 AM

You’re right about the Democratic strategists being intelligent enough to know that she’s unelectable (in the general election), but they can only do so much. Can you imagine the balls they’d have to have to take on the Clinton machine?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=34-mz-wEHCs

Okay, that vid was a joke, but I’m serious that the Clintons still do rule the Democratic Party with an iron fist in many ways. I expect their team is working overtime to dig up dirt on all the GOP candidates as well as praying for chaos in the middle east (their self-fulfilling prophecy strategy has been working well for the Dems the past few years. Step one – Embolden the enemy while we’re winning by telling them that we’re losing and they (the enemy) is winning, and dividing the country (the US I mean) with the whole “Bush lied on WMDs” thing, 6 months in to a war the Dems spent 13 years arguing for. Step 2 – Watch the emboldened enemy struggle to keep it’s head above water by attacking primarily civilians and attempting to spark a civil war (because they can’t even come close to fighting our military). Step 3 – Dems turn to the media and American people and say “see, told ya so!”, when in reality the chaos grew and continues primarily because the Dems are promising surrender (not on the battlefield, but back in DC by swaying public opinion). Anyone who doesn’t recognize the give and take with the Dems and enemy is either retarded or lying.

/tangent

Anyway, Hillary will have to try to “win by default” as Dems did in 2006. They didn’t win because the American people loved their ideas (because they literally have absolutely none, and refused to ever articulate one. I recall debates on FNC with a strategist from both parties and everytime the host begged the Dem strategist to explain even one plan or idea all they could do was say “time for a change” “new direction” and attack Bush.).

That plan has gone about as far as it could go, so Hillary will have to fight really dirty… She’s just going to have to have some real gold if she’s to overcome her negatives.

RightWinged on July 1, 2007 at 1:29 AM

I don’t care what Hannity and all you other Nor’easter think about “terror hating” Rudy.

1) Rudy let the terrorists strike repeatedly in NY.
2) Rudy couldn’t be farther from my thinking on ANY social issue.
3) If Rudy was in the Senate, shamnesty would have passed.
4) Westerners and Southerners do not trust Easterners!
5) No one compares Rudy to Ronald-because Ronny would kick Rudy’s @ss!

AZCON on July 1, 2007 at 1:29 AM

Someone please tell me we have an African-American women somewhere in the GOP that can be our VP. I am a newbee to the GOP and am having a brain lock thinking of one. I say Condi Rice.

Well, that’s pretty dumb reasoning to use when trying to decide on a VP. Would some people vote for her just because she is black and/or a woman? Maybe. But I tend to think that her abysmal performance as Secretary of State would end up being much more of a factor.

Watcher on July 1, 2007 at 1:32 AM

…AZCON..You forgot about the midwesterners..

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 1:39 AM

Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell would be far better than Condi.

Imagine Walter Williams in a debate. Hilarious!

lorien1973 on July 1, 2007 at 1:40 AM

RightWinged on July 1, 2007 at 1:29 AM

I’m in complete agreement on your point. For the right Republican candidate, at this point it seems the election really is theirs to win or lose. However, I will remain skeptical whether Shrillary can win her party’s nomination. No doubt her political machine is working behind the scenes to discredit her opponents. I would also submit they are working to discredit her Democratic challengers as well. At the end of the day, the MSM isn’t backing her. I really can’t tell who they are backing other than Obama. It’s almost like they are waiting to see who can leap ahead in the polls enough to justify challenging Shrillary and right now, they aren’t really providing any negatives on Obama. Somehow, I think he’s their favorite. All I can say is “bring it on”.

thedecider on July 1, 2007 at 1:44 AM

her abysmal performance as Secretary of State would end up being much more of a factor.

punto fuerte

AZCON on July 1, 2007 at 1:46 AM

I have it on good authority from people who are currently setting what they’re now calling “progressive thinking points” for the dnc that they don’t want shrillery at all.

They really want obama, but most of the big money support is going to edwards. That’s where the support conflict is for the dems.

They know they can’t win with her thighness.

And I still think that Michael Steele is the smartest and best choice we have for the VP.

techno_barbarian on July 1, 2007 at 1:55 AM

I know many blacks who still believe OJ is innocent.

Me too. However, those of us black people who’ve always believed that OJ was guilty learned to keep our mouths shut at the time, since it wasn’t worth getting into an argument over.

Now days, I find many more black people willing to admit that he is probably guilty.

baldilocks on July 1, 2007 at 1:55 AM

….csdeven-1:12am..&..thedecider-1:12am..There are a lot of African Americans out their that feel the Dem’s just tried to sell them out with cheap labor. These people are fighting for the same low end jobs the illegals are stealing from them..and the AfricanAmer.’s like to eat too. All we need to do is remind them of that fact over and over again with those policital ad’s we have all come to love. Without Condi we lose the fence sitters..

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 1:56 AM

Without Condi we lose the fence sitters..

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 1:56 AM

No we don’t. I can’t support Condi for VP. Not because she’s black. Not because she’s a woman. I can’t support her because she’s done such a completely lackluster job in her current position.

Do you know anything about Michael Steele? I would encourage you to do some research on him. Very impressive individual.

techno_barbarian on July 1, 2007 at 2:07 AM

Paula Abdul for VP.

Not black (sorry).

Picks up the Jewish, Syrian, Brazilion, Cheerleader, Jewelry designer, Music video vote, i.e., all the thing Republicans are not.

AZCON on July 1, 2007 at 2:23 AM

lorien1973 on July 1, 2007 at 1:40 AM

I’ve dreamt of Walter Williams as Secretary of State and Thomas Sowell as the UN ambassador, for years. THAT’s a tag team for foreign policy.

techno_barbarian on July 1, 2007 at 2:07 AM

I haven’t heard one thing from or about Michael Steele that I didn’t like, but there’s an unfortunate built-in liability to putting someone on a national ticket who lost a recent election.

Freelancer on July 1, 2007 at 2:33 AM

also from the article

Money is pouring in for Thompson, while it is drying up for John McCain, the Republican senator for Arizona.

good riddance

(on top of being a Clinton)

RightWinged on July 1, 2007 at 12:54 AM

dude, please; I don’t want to ever again have to picture anything “on top of a Clinton” again (either one)

She has always been a class act as far as I’m concerned and always walk’s with her head held high.

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 1:04 AM

She’s a class act from a personal standpoint, but we ideological righties, are truly for eradicating racism–of all (official) kinds in any (official) contexts. I fault her for publicly supporting the SCOTUS decision to continue allowing race to be a factor in those law school addmissions programs.

All we need to do is remind them of that fact over and over again with those policital ad’s we have all come to love.

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 1:56 AM

To me this seems like pitting one race against another–which seems like just a different form of racial manipulation and exploitation.

urbancenturion on July 1, 2007 at 3:30 AM

These people are fighting for the same low end jobs the illegals are stealing from them..and the AfricanAmer.’s like to eat too. All we need to do is remind them of that fact over and over again with those policital ad’s we have all come to love. Without Condi we lose the fence sitters.

If all you need to do is remind people of those things, then why do you need a black person to do the reminding? And I can’t repeat often enough what an awful Secretary of State she has been. Do you really that think Fred would be stupid enough to run on the same ticket with a member of the Bush inner circle? If you are determined to go down in flames, then why not just go all the way with it and suggest James Baker or Karl Rove?

Watcher on July 1, 2007 at 3:37 AM

Apparently I am drunk. For those of you in the PC age I am Fermentation challenged.

Just buy Big A and the notorious B.P. a Iphone.

The goldfish will meet a horrible death Geraldo wil not let me put a period on this subject. Look to me , le3ts take a vacation , lets just get awayy. The extra Y is for your Y pleasure.

You will be slapped and like it(the big sleep, the only Marlow character played by Bogart.?)

Sammy316 on July 1, 2007 at 4:58 AM

I suspect the non-announcement has to do with:

(1) He doesn’t want more onerous 2Q reporting, so nothing until at least July 1 (today).
(2) He doesn’t want to be in the next useless debate.

someone on July 1, 2007 at 8:15 AM

(3) the fact that the election is a year and a half away.

The only people who are perturbed by Fred!’s non-announcement are political junkies, and y’all know he’s running anyway. Did y’all get dressed for the prom a week ahead of time?

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 8:35 AM

Condi is a beautiful, talented, intelligent woman but has been a complete failure as Sec. of State.

She would, in my opinion, be a horrible woman. Frequently when King George should have taken action on a global incidents, he would say, “we’re disappointed” or “that’s not acceptable” but do absolutely nothing.

Condi would do the same.

stenwin77 on July 1, 2007 at 8:50 AM

I meant to say, she would be a horrible President…

sorry

stenwin77 on July 1, 2007 at 8:50 AM

When Bill was elected in ’92, someone opined that ladies at last have somebody in the Whitehouse that they can have sexually fantasies about. (the Monica Lewinsky scandal was 6 years away)

Well, if Thompson wins, men will now have America’s first hottie for a First Lady.

jihadwatcher on July 1, 2007 at 9:00 AM

I have it on good authority from people who are currently setting what they’re now calling “progressive thinking points” for the dnc that they don’t want shrillery at all.

techno_barbarian on July 1, 2007 at 1:55 AM

Ah, I just love the clever word games the donks play to pull the wool over the eyes of the American sheeple. Things haven’t changed much since their cult leader and master of spin, BJ Clinton, redefined the meaning of sexual relations.

So now they’ve graduated from “talking points” to “thinking points”. I’m going to assume that rather than continuing to talk about what needs to be done and getting nothing accomplished, the Dems have settled on just thinking about what a Utopia they could create – while still doing nothing about it.

Lets’ face it, the only “thinking” coming out of the DNC revolves around discovering new ways to hide their shortcomings and disguise their true intentions.

fogw on July 1, 2007 at 9:07 AM

someone and Pablo,

The fact remains that fred? could do as Newt has done. Give a specific date even if it is months away. freddie boy, just like he did during his last senate term, is playing games with his non-announcement date. His behavior is indefensible.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 9:09 AM

Condi? Please. Condi is about as conservative as Hillary, and about as right-wing as Jon Stewart, and as anti-jihadist as Abbas. On top of that, she has been a total dismal failure as Secretary of State, a position she garned not on merit, but because George wanted to be progressive by appointing a black woman to a high cabinet post.

jihadwatcher on July 1, 2007 at 9:10 AM

Jackie Kennedy was no bowser.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 9:10 AM

His behavior is indefensible.

What obligation is he shirking? What rule of ettiquite is he breaking?

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 9:11 AM

Jackie Kennedy was no bowser.
Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 9:10 AM

People had more class back then. Jackie was class. Men didn’t go around calling her “hot” and fantasizing about her.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 9:14 AM

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 9:11 AM

I know for a fact that fred? wants my support. He is disrespecting my conservative values by being evasive about whether or not he will announce. So, I get to skewer his sorry a$$ until he meets my expectations.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 9:17 AM

Again..no one on the other side really gives a hill of beans about pass baggage( hence:the Clintons only to name one) they only care about winning.. Condi has always been a class act under the worst of circumstance’s. Holds her head high and defends her Man. I’m not trying to sound racist here at all, yet I fear a lot of republicanAfricanAmer.’s will vote for Obama..if we do not counter the attack we don’t have a chance.(Dick Morris say’s Hillary will use what is called “defacto amnesty” if elected). Whatever that means?..It didn’t sound good..

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 9:33 AM

Men didn’t go around calling her “hot” and fantasizing about her.

Jackie was an icon back then because she was a beautiful woman. While the terminology may have changed, she was indeed “hot”.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 9:35 AM

He is disrespecting my conservative values by being evasive about whether or not he will announce.

I’m positive that he’s going to announce. Do you doubt it? And how, exactly, is he “disrespecting conservative values” vis a vis his announcement? Is it conservative to turn elections into a continual, never ending debacle?

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 9:41 AM

Legions, we already have de facto amnesty. The illegals come here, stay, work and nothing is done about it. The bill was worse, however, because it would have codified their right to stay, sanctioned their disrespect for our national borders, and given them access to even more social services than they already use.

jihadwatcher on July 1, 2007 at 9:42 AM

jihadwatcher on July 1, 2007 at 9:10 AM

I’m afraid you’re confusing Condi with her predecessor, Colin Powell, who, along with Richard Armitage over at State, fought the president and his policies at every turn. Bush wanted to appoint someone who was on the same page, so he turned to a long-time trusted colleague. Her race and sex had nothing to do with the appointment.

Your assertion that Condi was unqualified for the position is a stretch, given her foreign policy credentials. She was far more qualified than Powell ever was and exponentially more savvy than Madeline “here’s an autographed basketball” Albright, who found Kim Jong Ill likeable and was convinced we could trust him.

fogw on July 1, 2007 at 9:42 AM

..Webster’s Dictionary..”DEFACTO AMNESTY”-”actually existing but not offically approved”..Hillary’s first 90 days she will enact it. Santuary cities will start popping up all over the place..This is according to someone who should know the Clinton’s–Dick Morris..

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 9:49 AM

On the issue of Jeri…..is she a consideration when deciding if fred? should get our vote? Do we consider the Clenis? How about a wife that is ill?

In order; no, *YES* and no!

cmdrsubfleet on July 1, 2007 at 10:07 AM

Why would you have to “grin and bear it”? What’s to “bear”? I’m sure most of us would be happy if she ran, not specifically for the “black vote” though. I’m not sure what you mean to imply is the problem with her?

Madam Secretary, Dr. Condoleeza Rice is an empty pant suit, and a prime example of affirmative action. She isn’t nearly the person her “PR” makes her out to be. Besides, she’s a closet globalist and Jaw-Jaw Diploweenie. You do not want her anywhere near the reins of power than she already is.

cmdrsubfleet on July 1, 2007 at 10:25 AM

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 9:41 AM

Pat no attention to csdeven, he is completely full of sh*t…..

doriangrey on July 1, 2007 at 11:01 AM

Condi would be a great VP but her political career is over thanks to Boosh..

Wade on July 1, 2007 at 12:25 PM

There is no such thing as a prefect candidate anymore. Get over it..Only winning matters..Example: Obama last night at the debate telling the Afro-Amer. crowd he’s going to be making their lives better..Despite the fact that he will legalize 20 million mex. and start another flood of illegals rushing to cross the borders all HERE TO TAKE AWAY LOW END JOBS FROM HIS PEOPLE..and they will all vote for him anyway..That’s why like it (and I like her)or not, Condi has to be VP to counter that attack.

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Your assertion that Condi was unqualified for the position is a stretch, given her foreign policy credentials. She was far more qualified than Powell ever was and exponentially more savvy than Madeline “here’s an autographed basketball” Albright, who found Kim Jong Ill likeable and was convinced we could trust him.

What foreign policy credentials? She studied politics in school and ended up with a degree in political science. That is what lawyers use to get into law school. Not only did she have no actual experience in foreign matters, but her interest was in Soviet Cold War diplomacy. Her only foreign policy posting was a short two years as director of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council. Her only interest in foreign policy was Cold War-centered, totally unapplicable to the new world situation we now face, not only in terms of enemies and in terms of ideologies, but in terms of how America must deal with them. This is why she favors negotiating with Hamas, or Iran, or any of the people that want to kill us. She understands nothing of Islam, is not familiar with the Koran, and does not understand what propels the global jihad.

This is why she has been an utter failure in Iraq and in regards to anything in the Middle East, totally consumed as it is now by the tenets of Islamic imperialism. She was picked for the job for Bush’s need to be seen as progressive and because she was, as Bush said, “Someone I can trust.”

Funny that you should mentioned Madeleine Albright, for Rice attended a course on international politics taught by Josef Korbel, the father of future Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

jihadwatcher on July 1, 2007 at 12:30 PM

jihadwatcher on July 1, 2007 at 12:30 PM

I completely agree with that. I don’t think her ideology fits the needs of the times.

Spirit of 1776 on July 1, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 9:35 AM

So the word “hot” has replaced the word “class” now? Jackie was not “hot”. She was the epitome of class, grace, and sophistication.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 12:33 PM

..jihadwatcher..Do not like to argue, just discuss. How would Obama and Hillary handle the mideast issue. Do we really want to see.Putting the collaspe of the entire middle east on the lap of one little lady is pretty rough. Look 80% of Amer.’s do not even watch or listen to this stuff. These people when they go to the poll to vote have no idea what’s up, period. I understand your disappointment with the Bush admin.. I also wish for the best overthere. That’s why we need to put another Republican into the white house no matter what it takes. If we lose a vote because it’s a Condi we pick up 10 because it is her.

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 1:11 PM

I’m not blaming the Middle East crisis on Condi. I am saying she has proven she is not the woman for the job.

Using condi simply for her race, regardless of her incompetence both ideological and practical, is a non-starter for me. Nobody is who going to vote Democrat is going to vote Republican just because there is a black female for VP. In fact, the left sees her as some aunt Tom. People have already decided which party they are going to vote for. The middle ground of Reagan Democrats will side with Thompson hands down over Clinton. Clinton is radioactive. No need to play the race card to get votes from those people.

jihadwatcher on July 1, 2007 at 1:23 PM

I think the issue would be if Condi would bring more in that she would scare off. There are many undecideds out there and there are many soft dems, who would switch and vote for a Condi ticket.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 1:26 PM

..jihadwatcher..what I’m more worried about is republican Afro.Amer. voter’s actually voting for Obama spite their noses.

Legions on July 1, 2007 at 1:29 PM

You’ve been watching too much Paris Hilton, csdeven. Don’t let morons dictate vocabulary to you, k?

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Paris who?

If you mean letting you try to define “hot” in todays terms to mean “classy” in yesteryears term, don’t worry, I have a dictionary and I know what people mean when they say “hot”, “swinger”, and “playboy”.

freds? spin machine better have it’s bearings greased, because it’s clear the direction his groupies want to go.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 1:41 PM

No, dumbass. Hot = beautiful, attractive, desirable. Not classy. Barbara Bush is classy. She is decidedly not “hot”. though little Barbara is another story.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 1:50 PM

what I’m more worried about is republican Afro.Amer. voter’s actually voting for Obama spite their noses.

Don’t worry. Two reasons: A black conservative will not vote for Obama. Black conservatives are very conservative and eschew race politics as a principle. Secondly, there are so few black conservatives, that portion of the demographic is negligible in any case.

jihadwatcher on July 1, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Settle down dude. You’re starting to lose your cool. No one is insulting you and I doubt you are fred? or his wife, so there’s no reason for you to try to degrade this into an imature school yard insult contest.

Yeah. Describe any first lady as “hot” and see what response you get from her. I know exactly what “hot” means and you are right, it doesn’t mean class. Class is a word that is still in use and will never go out of style. “hot” has been co-opted from it’s original context to describe a feeling one might get when looking at a certain type of woman.

“Classy” has NEVER been used to define what you are suggesting when you use the word “hot”. Especially when the woman in question exposes her fun bags the way Jeri does. “hot” means “sexually desirable”.

Marilyn Monroe was “hot”. Jackie was “classy”.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 2:17 PM

No, dumbass. You can be classy and hot. Well, you can’t but, other people can. Jackie was. And I have not suggested that the two mean the same thing. That’s another invention of yours, apparently owing to your F!DS.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Funny that you should mentioned Madeleine Albright, for Rice attended a course on international politics taught by Josef Korbel, the father of future Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Maybe Albright should have taken her father’s course, or any kind of remedial course that might have taught her the tools of the trade.

While I am not a fan of Condi’s performance as SoS, Albright fared even worse and came across as a weak-kneed gullible amateur, who joined Clinton and Berger in watching the jihadists attack U.S. interests, reacted like a deer in the headlights and in effect, gave the enemy the green light to continue with no fear of any military retaliation.

Condi has had to deal with the fallout from 9/11, which gave birth to our “new world situation”. Albright, one could argue, rolled out the red carpet for the terrorists, making any future Secretary of State’s job a more difficult task.

fogw on July 1, 2007 at 3:59 PM

I’ve always loved Condi, even though I haven’t always agreed with her foreign policy. Mainly just because she’s an amazing person. She’s had an incredible life, and she’s absolutely brilliant. But in this election we need to get away from the Bush administration and back to the basics. Just the fact that she’s a part of the Bush administration would work against her

Keli on July 1, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 3:35 PM

You lose.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 5:33 PM

I lose what? Certainly not the logical argument. Your respect, perhaps? Reminds me of the flu I lost a while ago.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 5:35 PM

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 5:35 PM

When you resort to childish name calling, yes you lose the logical argument. As far as respect goes, you have to earn it first.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 6:48 PM

The former senator addressed a Republican state fund-raising luncheon in the state capital of Columbia. He appeared surprised to see more people wearing “Fair Tax” stickers than “Thompson for President” badges. He did not seem prepared to answer questions about the sweeping tax reform.

Novak’s column. Not that matters in and of itself, but food for thought.

Spirit of 1776 on July 1, 2007 at 7:10 PM

No, failure of logic loses the logical argument, and you’ve got that in spades, freak. If I had your respect, I’d be frightened.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 7:10 PM

When you resort to childish name calling, yes you lose the logical argument.

BTW, does that apply to Ann Coulter too? Don’t make me go dig up your rabid defenses of her.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 7:22 PM

Awwwww, isn’t that cute. Pablo likes to use his potty mouth on the big bad ‘puter.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 7:53 PM

So you’ve got nothing, then?

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 8:02 PM

When you resort to childish name calling, yes you lose the logical argument. As far as respect goes, you have to earn it first.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 6:48 PM

Which is why most of us couldn’t care less what you have to say. We are tired of your childish name calling and you never earned any respect from the start.

Gianni on July 2, 2007 at 6:22 AM

Gianni on July 2, 2007 at 6:22 AM

Yet, here you are, spending the time to respond to what I say. Get over yourself.

csdeven on July 2, 2007 at 7:50 AM

Comment pages: 1 2