NYT on Fred: “Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?” Update: Nixon called Fred “dumb as hell”
posted at 2:22 pm on July 7, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It must be. It elected JFK, didn’t it?
Here’s the first in what’ll be a long line of hit pieces on Jeri Thompson dressed up as “political analysis.” They’re determined to label her a trophy wife but by their own admission they haven’t seen her resume and thus can’t judge how much or little she’s accomplished. Solution? Call her a trophy wife anyway — but in a good way:
THE term “trophy wife” was coined by Fortune magazine in 1989 and immediately entered the language. Although it often has a pejorative spin, the term originally meant the second (or third) wife of a corporate titan, who was younger, beautiful and — equally important — accomplished in her own right, which describes Mrs. Thompson.
This would be like Fox News calling John Kerry a “golddigger” but noting that that term originally described miners, who of course are industrious, hard-working members of the world economy. So calling him a golddigger is actually sort of a compliment, isn’t it? Same here. Just mainstreaming a little vocab. “Branding,” if you will.
I like this detail, too. Remember, the ostensible point of the article is that values voters won’t accept an older man with a younger woman. Hence the need for commentary about her … choice of footwear?
[U]nlike other potential presidential spouses like Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama, Mrs. Thompson lets her husband do most of the political talking. In public appearances recently, her most dramatic statements have been sartorial, like gold-lamé wedge sandals on a campaign stop, or a plunging neckline for a Washington dinner.
The Middle East already hates us so, what would it think if our first lady wore gold-lamé sandals? Isn’t that what’s bugging them, that they think she’s somehow not “dignified” enough for the role? After all, the age difference between the Thompsons is only six years more than the difference between the McCains, who married when John was 44 and Cindy 26. Jeri Thompson’s not that young, either, just three years shy of Michelle Obama’s age and eight years older than Jackie Kennedy was when JFK took the oath of office. So the knock on her as a trophy wife is thin even before you get to her resume. My advice to Mrs. T: Start wearing pillbox hats. They contain magical media powers capable of transforming actual trophy wives into elegant, self-assured, proto-feminist fashionplates. Or start wearing berets as a signal to the left to rally to your defense when the media pries into a private relationship that’s Your Business And Nobody Else’s. Hats seem to be the key for some reason.
Update: Funny.
Nixon was disappointed with the selection of Thompson, whom he called “dumb as hell.” The president did not think Thompson was skilled enough to interrogate unfriendly witnesses and would be outsmarted by the committee’s Democratic counsel.
This assessment comes from audio tapes of White House conversations recently reviewed by The Associated Press at the National Archives in College Park, Md., and transcripts of those discussions that are published in “Abuse of Power: The New Watergate Tapes,” by historian Stanley Kutler.
“Oh shit, that kid,” Nixon said when told by his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, of Thompson’s appointment on Feb. 22, 1973…
“We’ve got a pretty good rapport with Fred Thompson,” [counsel J. Fred] Buzhardt told Nixon in an Oval Office meeting on June 6, 1973. The meeting included a discussion of former White House counsel John Dean’s upcoming testimony before the committee…
Nixon expressed concern that Thompson was not “very smart.”
“Not extremely so,” Buzhardt agreed.
“But he’s friendly,” Nixon said.
“But he’s friendly,” Buzhardt agreed. “We are hoping, though, to work with Thompson and prepare him, if Dean does appear next week, to do a very thorough cross-examination.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
csdeven to commence attack on Fred, Fred’s trophy wife and Fred groupies in 5…4…3…2…
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Why not A certain Senator from New York touts her trophy husband.
William Amos on July 7, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Jeez, what a totally craptacular analysis.
Well, aren’t the husbands the ones running?!?! I’m not looking for another two-fer.
The first lady (or husband, if my worst nightmare come true) should be relegated to a pet projects and wasting public funds on new china or the DC Hooter’s.
SailorDave on July 7, 2007 at 2:31 PM
The libs never cease to amaze me. Let’s see, when W finally won, they started dissing the style of dress that Laura chose. As for Elizabeth and Michelle, maybe they’re just jealous.
Catie96706 on July 7, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Gee…..here I am, a Fred! contributor but not convinced he is the chosen one yet. Seems the NYT, LAT, BG, NPR, have decided he is. Rudy and Mitt must be having a cigar over the attention he is getting from the MSM.
Fragility, Nonfactor…..come on…..flail away! LOL
Limerick on July 7, 2007 at 2:32 PM
William Amos on July 7, 2007 at 2:28 PM
But but but, that would be sooo.
1) politically incorrect…
2) mean…
3) unfair
4) and wouldnt help Shillary at all…
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 2:33 PM
so we are gay and fred! has a trophy wife.
2008 is gonna be a thoughtful election, I can tell.
lorien1973 on July 7, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Cheap tricks. What else can you expect from the NYT.
AlexB on July 7, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Does the NYT actually think there is a story here? Fred! had been single a long time when he married Jeri, by all appearances he has remained friendly with his first wife and is devoted to Jeri and his children from both marraiges. He dated alot while single, which he was free to do, and then settled down again with a younger women, which is also not against the law! Wheres the story?
debi118 on July 7, 2007 at 2:36 PM
All this means is that Fred is not likely to be in the Oval Office closet with an intern.
Buzzy on July 7, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Nixon was from California. I have noticed a tendency for Californians to think that anyone who is from the South is dumb, particularly if they have even the slightest Southern accent. Listen to Hillary or Bill when they address a California audience. They will sound like they are from LA.
The slower your speech cadence and thicker the Southern accent or if you use any regional sayings or other figures of speech will lead to most Californian’s thinking you lack intelligence. But Nixon could also have been concerned with Fred’s lack of political experience too.
Fred himself might even think he was still a little wet behind the ears politically at that point in time. Ask him.
crosspatch on July 7, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Judging from the crap that occupies most N. American’s *info-tainment hours, I think this country will demand a prez w/ a trophy wife.
locomotivebreath1901 on July 7, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Of course they know there’s no story. They’re just doing their dirty part to get a democrat elected.
AlexB on July 7, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Smells like desperation to me–plus the usual flagrant liberal enemedia bias, of course. Why resort to trivial crap like this to attack a guy that hasn’t even declared yet? What are they so afraid of?
Personally, I’m already tired of the term “trophy wife” too. I’m sure the feminists will jumping up any minute now to say that a woman’s choices as far as her career and her relationships are her business. Oh wait–that would only happen in a world where feminists weren’t total leftist hypocrites. My bad.
ReubenJCogburn on July 7, 2007 at 2:51 PM
I gotta trophy wife too!
Okay, so it is a bowling trophy but, a trophy none the less.
TheSitRep on July 7, 2007 at 2:53 PM
TheSitRep on July 7, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Your wife has a bowling trophy or your wife is a bowling trophy???
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 2:56 PM
This piece is obviously responding to the crazy fred? groupies, who, on many occasions have vaunted freddie boy as worthy of the office because of his wife. I read these boobs and then have no clue what it means to be qualified to be the candidate for the conservative movement.
Those loons need to be exposed post haste so freddie boy will disavow them instead of fleecing them to run his non-candidacy. fred? is tapping the brain dead American Idol groupie crowd. fred? is simple the latest in a long line of vacuous rock star types who have the rhetoric down, but couldn’t articulate those ideals without having his notes in front of him or having a softball interviewer lead him to the right answers.
fred? is a fake.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Ron-Paul-alert-Ron-Paul-alert-Ron-Paul-alert
Ron-Paul-alert-Ron-Paul-alert-Ron-Paul-alert
TheSitRep on July 7, 2007 at 2:58 PM
As opposed to bunny ears I suppose?
kjspeedial on July 7, 2007 at 2:59 PM
The fact that the NYT ran an article about Fred’s wife in the fashion section of their paper is clear proof the liberals and MSM have decided Fred Thompson is the best Republican party nominee and they are very very afraid. Thus, we should all support Fred!
e-pirate on July 7, 2007 at 2:59 PM
TheSitRep on July 7, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Hell son, Ron Paul groupies look sane and rational compared to our resident Fred moby troll……You’re just plain being mean and insulting to the Ron Paul groupies now…
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Actually, she is smoking hot!
I had just been dieing to use that since I made it up the otherday.
TheSitRep on July 7, 2007 at 3:01 PM
When is Fred? going to be interviewed by a serious reporter?
Some say he is full of gold, others full of something else and I am beginning to wonder if the latter is true.
Although Fred?’s “cyber path” is ingenius, he won’t earn my vote unless he can prove his worth in front of the hostile media.
If Fred? is afraid to face the media, how will he handle terrorists around the world?
Darnell Clayton on July 7, 2007 at 3:08 PM
I don’t know much about trophy wives, but I’m just glad to see that the ‘08 presidential campaign is going to be covered by America’s premier newspaper of record as an aboveboard, fair, and reasoned analysis of the crucial issues facing us today.
Good job NYT.
Now how about some examination of Mitt’s underwear and Rudy’s divorces?
billy on July 7, 2007 at 3:11 PM
More anti-Fred propaganda from partisan democrats. Who asked Nixon what he thought anyway?
e-pirate on July 7, 2007 at 3:12 PM
One report I read said she is going to endorse his candidacy and possibly campaign for him. If that’s not remaining friendly I don’t know what is.
Kowboy on July 7, 2007 at 3:14 PM
It’s stretching it to use the words “sane” and “rational” in the same sentence as “Ron Paul.” There’s a razor thin line between Ron Paul supporters and THESE GUYS.
Gregor on July 7, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Wonder if Monica will help the billary team campaign.
After all she was a trophy of sorts.
Dersu on July 7, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Gregor on July 7, 2007 at 3:16 PM
You’re missing the point here, I’m not suggesting that Ron Paul groupies are sane or rational, that would be absurd since we all know it isnt the case. I am commenting on the sad state of our resident Fred moby troll.
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Darnell Clayton on July 7, 2007 at 3:08 PM
define “SERIOUS REPORTER” I haven’t seen one in a long, long time. I was under the impression that they became exstinct during the great depression from stravation. Have you had a sighting? Do you have a picture? Or is this like the bigfoot hunt? o the lock Ness monster?
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 3:28 PM
AP: That was a very well written piece you did there *cue applause*. It had an Ann Coulteresque tone to it with your biting trenchant comments. Bravo. I love the bit about Mrs. Thompson being Obama’s age. That’s a show stopper in a debate.
There’s some Fred envy here. Some of you are jealous ’cause Freddy boy’s got a hottie for a wife.
Mojave Mark on July 7, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Mojave Mark on July 7, 2007 at 3:28 PM
specially csdeven who probably was Jerri’s boyfriend before ole Fred came along…….
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Have they done a piece on Dennis Kucinich’s trophy wife?
JammieWearingFool on July 7, 2007 at 3:30 PM
As far as Fred’s wife goes I say bring it on. It would make a great departure. Hell it would even make the State of the Union speech interesting to watch. It would be like Princess Di.
I think the NYT is just worried that the dems would no longer have a lock on the hottest first lady (i.e Jackie)
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 3:33 PM
They accepted Willy and Monica, dirty dress and all
abinitioadinfinitum on July 7, 2007 at 3:37 PM
hell the liberals are always talking about bringing back camelot. Well here’s their chance.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 3:40 PM
seems like Fred! is so lazy he’s gonna need that trophy wife to announce, campaign, and debate for him
The Sinner on July 7, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Hmmm…
Elizabeth Edwards is a loudmouth skirt her husband hides behind.
Michelle Obama thinks Barack can handle the White House because he can deal with a “strong woman” like her.
Jeri Thompson says nothing, therefore not removing all doubt that she could be a self-absorbed idiot.
Jeri Thompson has the winning strategy here.
The reason Republicans don’t care either way if their wives speak is because most of the time, gals married to Republicans don’t pride themselves on being self-absorbed, “I rule the universe,” “hear me roar” women’s lib types. Those women are absolutely grating to the 60-70% of normal (read: non-feminist) women and the 90% of men who don’t appreciate that kind of self-aggrandizing pap.
BKennedy on July 7, 2007 at 3:42 PM
How stupid is he? After all, he was smart enough to get her to marry him….
(…and no she isn’t an empty dress. From what I have read she actually is intelligent.)
Tim Burton on July 7, 2007 at 3:44 PM
NYT analysis: Being a republican candidate is dumb, so naturally Fred is dumb. Nixon thought so, and we all know how trustworthy his judgement was. So that settles it. Fred will be even dumber if he gets elected. Stay tuned for a deluge of dumbness.
NellE on July 7, 2007 at 3:52 PM
As I recall reading, Nixon didn’t have very kind words for the Gipper, either. So Fred’s in awfully good company.
Ed Driscoll on July 7, 2007 at 3:52 PM
What in the world are you talking about? Details, please.
Pablo on July 7, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Oh please, don’t get him started again. The guy will go on for hours.
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Oh, puh-leeze. Does anyone here really take anything the NY Times says without a huge dash of salt?
We know what the Times is all about…and at this point they simply preach to the choir. And heck, I’ve been pushing for Fred for a year now. And what Nixon had to say about him, that’s the best the Gray Lady could come up with? A decades old comment?
Be nice…when talking about the next President of the United States, President Fred Dalton Thompson! And his veep, Michael Steele! (I have Rudy pegged for Homeland Security…)
JetBoy on July 7, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Sigh….
Maybe Ann Coulter was right about the NY Times?
Given the behavior of their publisher and editorial staff, especially in deliberately disclosing national security secrets being successfully used in the war on terrorism, the question I have is why isn’t Sulzberger, et. al, in prison awaiting execution for treason?
As far as I am concerned, the New York Times long ago became undeserving of the title of “newspaper of record” and should be renamed the “Caliphate Times.”
georgej on July 7, 2007 at 4:22 PM
And lemme guess – the feminists? Are crickets on this? Right?
Topsecretk9 on July 7, 2007 at 4:26 PM
True, I hope when Fred is president that he has charges of treason filed against creaps like Sulzberger. Bush is tolerant to the point of being a pin cushion for the left.
Mojave Mark on July 7, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Well, that means nothing. Kucinich got that babe and he’s dumber than a bag of doornail’s.
madne0 on July 7, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Nixon,
Who’s still in politics?
Egfrow on July 7, 2007 at 4:41 PM
If we were looking for someone that was smart, then more people from MENSA would be trying to get elected these days…
j_ehman on July 7, 2007 at 4:48 PM
And just about as tall…
JetBoy on July 7, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Beth A.
See. I told you so.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Well, of course they would.
freds? problem will be with conservatives like me who have many doubts after serious investigation of his record and general character traits.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 5:08 PM
“Trophy wife” is obviously once again an attempt to prick Republicans with the chauvinism pin.
Right alongside, of course, where the kitten-killing, SUV-driving, war-mongering, poor-hating, meat-eating pins would go.
Ryan Gandy on July 7, 2007 at 5:09 PM
You do realize that the second his first wife starts to campaign for him by using her personal relationship with freddie boy, she becomes a legitimate target for criticism?
The same is true for his wife. The minute the groupies start saying that Jeri is another reason to vote for fred? is the minute her character becomes a way to make her a liability to fred?. They will not get away with playing the absolute moral authority card in a primary whose conservative values reject that BS out of hand.
It may not be fair, but it is politics.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Those aren’t value voters. They are godless liberals.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 5:17 PM
If he was a Democrat, yes, having a pretty young wife would be considered a good thing by the media.
Lawrence on July 7, 2007 at 5:26 PM
This is in the Fashion and Style section of the NYT?
Damn. You know you’re somebody when you make it there. And you know for certain you’re a conservative A-lister when the liberal self-congratulating hedonists start passing judgment on you as if they were all a bunch of 16th Century Quakers!
It seems like there’ve been a bunch of these in a row. Thompson’s sucking up all the oxygen these days. The Republican candidates all must be sulking in their beers right about now over all this free publicity they’re not getting.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 6:24 PM
non story if it is by the NYT
bones47 on July 7, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Hey, I’ve got every one of those pins on my hunting vest, right beneath my gun-totin’ pin.
BTW, I think the NYT should print more stories like this. Every one brings this garbage wrapper a step closer to permanent collapse.
Herikutsu on July 7, 2007 at 7:28 PM
What contest in H**l did she win?
/end Frank Barone
Benaiah on July 7, 2007 at 7:39 PM
UPDATE:Hear all about it!! Tom Tancredo..30years married..2 son’s..5 grandkids..Nuff said, I’m out of here…
Legions on July 7, 2007 at 7:47 PM
That would be great if we were voting for family man of the year.
EnochCain on July 7, 2007 at 8:13 PM
Nixon was an under-par presiendt. At least fred? has the benefit of the doubt.
aengus on July 7, 2007 at 8:51 PM
I wouldn’t describe Nixon as an “under-par” President. If it weren’t for Watergate, he’d probably have gone down as a top tier president. He enjoyed several foreign policy successes such as China and forcing North Vietnam to return to the Paris Peace Talks. Had he have been in office in 1975, it’s doubtful that the North Vietnamese would have dared launched its invasion of the South. Nixon’s failing lay in his paranoia and personal demons. There was absolutely no reason for the Watergate burglary as McGovern would never have won the 1972 election–it was an act of sheer stupidity. And it was Watergate that fatally weakened the his presidency leading to a host of sins such as the Church Hearings and the War Powers Act.
Having said that, the Democratic machine must be worried about Fred! if they’re going to such extremes this early in the campaign cycle. They’re also really reaching if this is the best they can do.
Matt Helm on July 7, 2007 at 9:33 PM
I agree with you in a lot of ways but Nixon shouldn’t have brought his personal bagagge into the White House. This “If it weren’t for Watergate” rhetoric doesn’t sway me because Watergate did actually happen. I’m as conservative as they come but I’m not convinced. My mind is not closed on this and I’ve become more sympathetic to Nixon after listening to some of my friend’s arguments.
aengus on July 7, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Teresa Kerry, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Reagan, Betty Ford, Pat Nixon, and Rosalyn Carter all took their share of unfair hits from the opposition. It’s a contact sport. Why expect any less for Jeri or get your collective panties in a wad about it?
As for Nixon, I think he will be recognized as one of the top tier for his efforts regarding China. Watergate was dumb and like Clinton, had he simply fessed up at the beginning, it probably wouldn’t have led to his downfall.
Bradky on July 7, 2007 at 10:12 PM
One story many don’t realize regarding Nixon. When the Syrian -Israeli war in 1973 was going and the syrians getting soundly beaten, the Soviets began to make rumblings that they would send in support for the Syrians. Nixon raised the Defense Condition level and literally had the bombers and missile crews on very high readiness status. He notified the Soviet Premier that he would defend Israel. The Soviets backed off. Nixon had a pair of brass ones for sure.
Bradky on July 7, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Bradky on July 7, 2007 at 10:16 PM
aengus on July 7, 2007 at 10:31 PM
We’ll probably be dust before Nixon or Bush gets their appropriate spot in the history books.
Nixon may not quite be in the league you mention but he wasn’t far off the mark.
Bradky on July 7, 2007 at 10:34 PM
True. It doesn’t take a genius to see that Carter was one of America’s worst presidents and Reagan was one of America’s best presidents and one of its most American presidents (whatever that means, I’m not even an American) but other presidencies will have to be weighed carefully by sober historians when all the partisan bickery has faded away.
aengus on July 7, 2007 at 11:03 PM
The only problem with that, is it will never happen. Even now there are people that find themselves bias against Lincoln (don’t ask me how). All I know is that the history books are still showing bias hundreds of years after the fact.
j_ehman on July 7, 2007 at 11:08 PM
I know what you mean. There are anti-Churchill books as well. The vast majority of people will not accept the revisionist anti-Lincoln and anti-Churchill narratives of history IMO.
Let me give you a more parochial example. A few months ago there was a parlimantary election in Ireland and the largest national paper the Irish Times went into psycho Dan Rather mode leaking any and every innneudno that suggested the government might could possibly be corrupt. But the people trusted the government more than they did the media.
The opposition parties coasted along with the media and lost big time. The idea that the voting public are a bunch of morons is the foundation of the European Union, the rationale of the Democratic party and the unspoken asummption of increasing numbers of Republican senators.
My point, as convoluted as it must seem, is that Lincoln and Churchill will do just fine. The liberal historian and the politicians who dislike them will wilt but we the people determine history. Democracies survive the elections of idiots.
aengus on July 7, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Well, to be honest, Nixon being dead might have something to do with it too. :)
Kowboy on July 8, 2007 at 12:03 AM
It’s no remarkable phenomenon when a man marries a woman much younger than himself. In fact, it’s quite common, worldwide. A surprising portion of men marry younger when they re-marry, usually, in order to gain a woman with fewer issues. Conversely, women who re-marry are much more likely to marry a man, at least, ten, and often 20, years her senior, usually, out of necessity.
The older we men get, the more confidence we have and less feminisism we’re willing to tolerate. And…, no matter the age…, the fanatic fickleness, unrealistic expectations and fantasies of women don’t change much, so why not seek, date and court a woman that offers something to make up for the disadvantages that are part and parcel of marriage with a woman.
Fred! isn’t going to have near as much a problem with Conservative women as some think. NO ONE recognizes and acknowleges the sacrifices good men make for the sake of mysterious, unpredictable, insatiable, ever-disapointed women than those greatest of them…, the Conservative ones. They grow up witnessing Liberal woman and see some of the same traits in themselves, giving them the invaluable wisdom that some of the insufferable behavior is a woman thing and not a Lib thing. And NO Conservative woman would ever be so shallow or envious as to consider a woman of forty a ‘flusy’ or a man who’d marry taht woman a ‘playboy’…, much less a ‘pervert’… I suggest we give our women (the MMs, MKHs, Bethanies, and yes, KPs of the world) more credit.
Rugged Individual on July 8, 2007 at 12:36 AM
I edited this. Sorry… The changes are underlined.
Rugged Individual on July 8, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Let’s try that again…
Live and learn. Sorry about that.
Rugged Individual on July 8, 2007 at 12:46 AM
We’ll probably be dust before Nixon or Bush gets their appropriate spot in the history books.
Nixon may not quite be in the league you mention but he wasn’t far off the mark.
Bradky on July 7, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Yeah it will be a long time before people understand how incompentant both these presidents were.
Bush had 6 years to defeat a bunch of people that lived in caves with the greatest force ever ensembled in the history of human civilization and yet failed…..
Nixon had the power of half the world in his hands yet pissed it all away for the cheap thrill of a break-in.
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Let’s try that again…
Rugged Individual on July 8, 2007 at 12:50 AM
OK… I apologize for that escapade there… Perhaps someone with the capability of deleting all but the last of those mishaps would be kind enough to teach me how to get an underline into a post, while you’re at it. *blushes, while maintaining composure*
Rugged Individual on July 8, 2007 at 12:55 AM
And…, just for the record…,I DO realize that we men are jerks. We don’t deny it either. The males that do deny it aren’t quite men. Give them time, Ladies. ;)
Rugged Individual on July 8, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Don’t really concur with your view
Bradky on July 8, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Fred is going to cream Hillary for this reason. I think it is going to be a 1984-like landslide against Shillary just because she is so grating and has none of the personality of her husband. Unfortunately for her, if she tries to be ingratiating she will look even worse in comparison to Fred’s charisma.
Bill C on July 8, 2007 at 1:25 AM
Hope springs eternal for some. No landslides for any candidate in 08 would be my guess. Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado may be problematic for the Republicans.
Bradky on July 8, 2007 at 1:35 AM
History doesn’t write itself.
Nixon did the same thing every Presidential candidate always does: hire an investigator to get dirt on the opposition, and ask that they not tell him how they got it. But that happened while the liberal media was at the apex of their power. OF COURSE the notion that Watergate warranted a serious scandal is utterly idiotic. But that could not possibly matter less; the lie is too firmly fixed in the American psyche for it to ever be corrected.
No man; even one so great as Ronald Reagan can defend his own legacy. We conservatives supported Reagan throughout his terms, and we attacked like pit bulls at each of the thousands of attempted liberal slanders against him for decades afterward. THAT is why his legacy is assured.
As he decided to screw the conservatives and court the moderates. We held our noses and supported him anyway, until the day after the 2006 elections ended his usefulness to our cause.
Now George Bush can rely on all those moderates he loves so much to repay him for all the many concessions he made to earn their support…
You see how well that’s working out so far, right? Well, guess what – it’s NEVER going to get any better. Bush made his bed, and he’s going to spend the rest of his natural life sleeping in it. As for Bush’s legacy? History’s granite surface has never been smudged, let alone chiseled, by any moderate.
Therefore, Bush’s legacy will be whatever the liberal media decides to creates for him. My guess is that will not be a flattering one.
logis on July 8, 2007 at 1:42 AM
Sorry I can’t edit this. The fourth paragraph in my last post should be corrected as shown above. The way it was originally entered is very much NOT the meaning I intended.
logis on July 8, 2007 at 1:46 AM
logis on July 8, 2007 at 1:42 AM
The first time I heard the words legacy and Bush together Istarted to get nervous.
Bush has been leading with an eye to how history will regard him. This is utter nonsense. We live in the present. If you do all you can to deal with the present the future will take care of itself. Reagan, JFK, FDR never worried about their “legacy”
Clinton and Bush did. Which ones will history judge better?
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 7:31 AM
They are just jealous because Fred Thompson has a better looking wife than Hillery does.
lynnv on July 8, 2007 at 8:17 AM
Nixon was only responding just like anyone would in his predictament. With the hundreds of experienced lawyers at his disposal, why would he think otherwise about a 29 year old attorney from Tennessee. Very few people that age and that inexperienced could have done what Thompson did with Watergate. Bringing up private recordings 35 years old is bush league on any level.
volsense on July 8, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Well, the Clinton smear machine has been in full swing since at least June 29. I found this little article from the NYT that I don’t remember seeing reported on HA.
It seems the freddie boy has a PAC. SUPPOSEDLY some distant relative of his, works for this PAC. The lying NYT reports that this PAC, over the last two years, has paid this distant relative a bit of money for his work.
I swear, these people think $170,000 dollars is worth mentioning. And who cares that the only experience this so called “relative” had was as a landscaper before vaulting into the Tennessee lobbying world. Landscaping happens to be a very fine profession and should not be reported on as if it is a do nothing idiot job. We have landscapers taking care of the White House grounds for crying out loud! That alone is enough to qualify a person for lobbying activities.
I think I’m starting to see how the lies told by a news outlet really is all that a body needs to prove the worthiness of a candidate for POTUS. A couple more of this kind of nonsense, and I may just be convinced!
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 2:31 PM
His son is a distant relative?
Bradky on July 8, 2007 at 2:38 PM
That entire post was dripping with sarcasm. I think fred? is the biggest liar and fake to come down the pike…EVER! At least on the conservative side. Heck, at least Ron Paul is being unapologetically honest.
freds? downfall will be the lies and misrepresentations to conservatives. Conservatives who cherish honesty and forthrightness. His history as a lobbyist is becoming clearer as the time goes on. And with fred? refusing to get into the race and answer these questions, I am going to consider every one of them valid until he satisfactorily explains them.
It is my responsibility as a true conservative with solid conservative values to hold those candidates that want to represent me to the highest possible standard.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Bill Clinton used to say that he tried to pattern his Presidency after that of Teddy Rosevelt.
Forget about the disingenuousness of that claim for a second, and just think about the patent irony of it: can you imagine a man like Teddy Roosevelt every trying to follow in the footsteps of ANYONE?
logis on July 8, 2007 at 5:34 PM
This coming from a supporter of FlipFlop Mitt is hilarious.
Hollowpoint on July 9, 2007 at 1:42 PM
I think he finally gave up on the “I’m a Mitt Supporter” spiel.
At least this time he remembered to tack on the obligatory “…Oh, yeah, I hate liberals too” part, but lately he’s even been getting a little bit sloppy about that.
logis on July 9, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »