5feae7a0b50f88a9b086…

I think fred? is the biggest liar and fake to come down the pike…EVER! At least on the conservative side.
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.

I think fred? is the biggest liar and fake to come down the pike…EVER! At least on the conservative side.

This coming from a supporter of FlipFlop Mitt is hilarious.

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

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?

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.

SUPPOSEDLY some distant relative of his, works for this PAC.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 2:31 PM

His son is a distant relative?

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.

The elder Mr. Thompson helped Daniel through his political action committee as well. In the last two elections, the committee paid Daniel Thompson more than $170,000 in consulting fees, compared with less than $70,000 it paid toward supporting Republican political campaigns.

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!

We love this trick. If you’re a politically-motivated journalist who wants to publish something unjustifiable and unseemly – anything from hysterical claims about Israeli atrocities to how Jeri Thompson is a bimbo – you have several options. You could…

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?

…As he BUSH 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….

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.

We’ll probably be dust before Nixon or Bush gets their appropriate spot in the history books.
Bradky on July 7, 2007 at 10:34 PM

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.

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.

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

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.

unseen on July 8, 2007 at 12:47 AM

Don’t really concur with your view

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 feminism 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 that woman…, regardless his age…, a ‘playboy’…, much less a ‘pervert’… I suggest we give our women (the MMs, MKHs, Bethanies, and yes, KPs of the world) more credit.

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.