L.A. Times Preparing Another Hit Piece on Fred!
posted at 8:55 pm on July 11, 2007 by Patterico
Share on Facebook | regular view
The L.A. Times really has it in for Fred Thompson. Jim Geraghty reports:
Folks close to Fred Thompson expect another critical piece from the Los Angeles Times in the near future, this one focusing on Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn’s past work for the government of Chile. Apparently sometime around 1991 or 1992, the partners invited Fred Thompson to join them on a trip down to Chile aimed at drumming up additional business. Fred went on the trip, sat in on the pitch meetings, and then returned with the partners. Thompson did not do any work for the government of Chile, I am told.
Allegedly, one primary source for this Times story is the same as the last one: former Congressman Michael D. Barnes (D-Md.).
It’s not clear what the paper is planning to accuse Thompson of doing. Geraghty says it has nothing to do with Pinochet, based on the timing.
If they’re trying to “pre-spin” whatever’s coming out, they’re being pretty mysterious about it:
The individual close to Thompson that I spoke to seemed to sense that the Times had not eaten their journalistic Wheaties in this endeavor. “There’s a difference in relationship between being [a lawyer] of counsel to a firm and being a partner, and they want to blur the distinction… [We] keep explaining that relationship, they don’t want to get it. Maybe we need flash cards for the L.A. Times.”
When the L.A. Times is done, can I see those flash cards? ‘Cause I don’t get it.
Specifically, I don’t understand why the campaign is leaking this now — but not telling us anything specific that will help put the allegations in context. Maybe it will all become clear in time. Stay tuned . . .
[Patterico blogs at Patterico.com and can be reached at patterico -AT- gmail -DOT- com.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
This ought to make the LAT (and csdeven’s head) explode:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_republican_presidential_primary
Fred tied with Guliani for the lead. Yeah, tell me now that 25% of the party is utterly stupid.
Guess csdeven’s gonna be voting for Hitlery in the general election after all…
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 11:38 AM
He will you know. lol
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Geez, I hope he didn’t buy his wife a diamond-encrusted dildo.
km on July 13, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Yeah, either that, or 25% of the party is made up of “empty headed” “groupies”.
Still waiting for an answer from him on if he’s gonna vote for Hitlery in the general if Fred! gets nominated.
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Hmmm, he’ll never answer that, he’s to busy waiting for Fred to respect him, while he hurls every imaginable insult on Fred.
doriangrey on July 13, 2007 at 12:08 PM
doriangrey on July 13, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Nah, he’ll just tell you he’s already answered that, while not answering it, and insulting you to boot.
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 12:10 PM
It’s call projection. Fred is not a real candidate with a real platform and has not been forced to state his positions. So, everyone is right now projecting onto Fred what they want a candidate to be — not what he really is. I could be wrong, but Fred is peeking and only has one way to go as people learn more about him. Vv
tommylotto on July 13, 2007 at 12:17 PM
I think you are, his positions are out there for anyone to look at.
I’m sure you meant “peaking”, right?
I tend to disagree with you, but time will tell.
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 12:25 PM
tommylotto on July 13, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Embrace the darkside Luke…
doriangrey on July 13, 2007 at 12:29 PM
And all of the other candidates have clear, concise platforms…except when they speak to veteren groups, than to kos kids, than to black churches, than to unions, than to coporate donors, then to code pink, then to NOW, then when they speak to the Baptist Assembly, then speak on July 4th, and all of the other groups they are pandering to. All of their policy’s have a back door.
Paper platforms are what candidate platforms are made of. Except John Edwards, his platform is held together with hairspray.
right2bright on July 13, 2007 at 12:46 PM
fred? was talking about what he would do in Iraq as the president. He wants to leave it to the troops to decide what the US should do. He’s a chicken$hit.
I notice you didn’t deal the specifics of which troops he should listen to and you ignore the context of my remark. fred? is going to listen to the troops. Those troops are limited in their understanding of the war in respect to the conditions on the ground in the area they serve. NO ENLISTED PERSONNEL have enough information to decide a strategy for the entire region. THAT is the presidents job and freddie boy wants to abdicate that responsibility.
Listen, if you can’t keep up, or continue to create straw man arguments, I’ll stop trying to include you at the adult table and I’ll leave you to your fred?head mutual masturbation society.
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 2:32 PM
How typically arrogant of you to THINK I was referring to myself. I understood that yours was a general statement and so was my remark pointing out the error of your argument.
And, as you tried to nuance your position further, you fail to understand that truth is truth regardless of the source. You are advocating the dismissal of a potential source of truth because you don’t like the people reporting the information. You should have advocated that people research the information themselves and decide if it is truth or lie. That should be done with EVERY story regardless of the source. I do with all info I receive about any candidate (or non-candidate in “liar freds?” case). To do otherwise is to be a sheeple.
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Old news dude. And I consider the source of freds? support. He says that a lot of people are supporting him because of his TV role. So, I’m not impressed. Now, if fred? every grows a pair of stones and actually announces and has to defend his flip-flops and his lobbying for dictators and against asbestos victims, we will see what his numbers look like.
freds? bragging about his poll numbers is like a AA ball player bragging that he has more homers than a major leaguer. He’s a joke, a fake, and a liar, and doesn’t understand principled thinking conservatives.
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 2:45 PM
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Speaking of “stones”, are you ever gonna grow enough to answer one little question, or ya just gonna keep on dodgin’ and weavin’?
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 3:41 PM
I’ve got more time in sitting on a Navy shitter than you do even ever thinking about being in the military don’t I?
Refer back to my definition of “the troops” windbag. Way to counter my argument.
I never said enlisted personnel had enough information to decide the strategy for an entire region. Your words pal. Nice straw man.
So as far as being included at the adult table goes, when you start acting like one, I might include you.
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 5:13 PM
I’ve got more time sitting on a Navy crapper than you do have ever had even thinking about being in the military don’t I?
Reread what I said about developing strategies windbag. Never said anything about letting enlisted personnel make decisions, although you seem want everyone to believe Fred would only talk to them. Nice straw man.
In talking to you, I’m reminded of something a wise old man once told me here in the south. “Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.”
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 5:23 PM
I got 6 to 1 odds on dodgin and weavin
Sorry for the double post. First one didn’t show up even after a few refreshes, so I tried to remember it. Got close. lol
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Yes, you did. And he ~still~ hasn’t answered, except to say, look it up. Yeah.
BTW, when were you in the Navy? I spent 10 yrs USMC (75 – 85)
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 5:34 PM
USN 80-84. Semper Fi
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Oorah!! Biggest ship I ever rode was the USS Mt Whitney (LCC-20) back in 80 – 81. That was a fun trip – went to Norway for a little dog-and-pony show.
-Back on topic –
Found this over at power-line:
http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/20565/
I’m sure cs will denounce it.
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Or just call you a “groupie” or member of the “fred?head mutual masturbation society”. lol
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 5:53 PM
F?HMMS
LOL!
After all, what do those folks at NRLC know?
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Yeah, the F?HMMS. lol
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 6:03 PM
I’ll take the word of the NRLC over him any day of the week. Someone at powerline tried to make a similar argument as a couple here, and that email was the response.
I’d say, game, set, match.
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 6:05 PM
And if that isn’t sufficient, here’ what NARAL says about Fred!
At: http://www.naral.org/elections/statements/fthompson.html
And if you read thier PDF, he only got a 5 percent rating in 1995.
So much for Fred being pro-choice in 1994 – 1996 or whenever cs wants to say.
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 6:11 PM
AND – This link at Vote Smart seems to say the exact opposite of cs on Fred:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=22003
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 6:12 PM
OK, you Fred! haters, let’s see you debunk this, and cs, I’m ~still~ waiting for an answer – so far all I hear are crickets chirping…
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 6:13 PM
He’s busy watching F-Troop right now trying to get more military strategy ideas.
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 6:20 PM
What’s that, you say? Need ~more~ info? OK, how about this:
From the Roman Catholic blog (http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/05/fred_thompson_a.html)
Can’t get much more pro-life than those folks…
So, I think this pretty much answers the whole pro-life thing.
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Must be, he’s been conspicuously absent this afternoon. Maybe it’s an F-Troop marathon on TV Land or something…
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Sorry. You’ve been excluded from the adult table. Try re-reading. Try researching freds? interviews.
When you’re ready, just ask and you’ll be invited back.
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 6:22 PM
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Try answering the one question put to you…
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 6:23 PM
For you it does, but who is really surprised?
You can’t even get your head around the facts about fred?. That is why you keep dragging out these pro-life opinions from others.
I have told you several times why his pro-life/pro-choice flip-flop is an issue, yet you keep trying to make an argument that suits your straw man.
When you’re ready to pay attention and debate me on the issues I brought up, just say so. As long as you keep arguing a point that doesn’t matter to me, you can just keep on with the f?hmms.
Later.
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 6:29 PM
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 6:29 PM
NARAL hates him, NRLC likes him, as do pro-life Catholics. Ah, but that’s not good enough for mr. perfect CS.
You still refuse to answer my question, so till you do, you get to stay in your room.
Is that F-Troop marathon over already?
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Did you get fries with that double order of superiority complex?
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Good grief, this guy acts like he owns this board. Love his idea of free speech… Agree with me or STFU and go away.
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 6:43 PM
I’ll give you 8 to 1 odds he’s never served a day in the military.
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 6:48 PM
I agree.
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 6:49 PM
What’s the wager? With two sons don’t usually magically go into the service without a history of honor, so I might jump on that bet.
Spirit of 1776 on July 13, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Sorry but I’m not getting this. Could be that I’ve been up for over 24 hours. Could I get a little clarification please?
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 8:38 PM
CS has two sons in the military; therefore I suspect there is family history…
Spirit of 1776 on July 13, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Quite possible. I have a son who is in the Navy right now. And it is probably largely in part due to family history. Dad, Mom, and both his Grandfathers were military.
But I did ask if he was in the military. He never answered. Until he does I’ll take it as a “no” and go sit at the F?HMMS table.
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 9:00 PM
I salute you and yours.
Spirit of 1776 on July 13, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Thank you, sir. You haven’t said whether the tradition exists in your family, but I’m willing to go out on a limb and say it does, so I return the salute.
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Thank you, sir.
Spirit of 1776 on July 13, 2007 at 11:12 PM
I don’t cast my pearls before swine.
Besides, it would be cruel of me to shame these two fools (kowboy and jdawg). They’re doing that all on their own and I see no reason to pile on.
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 11:27 PM
OH.MY.GOSH!!!!
On the Fox movie channel they are showing “Die Hard 2″ and guess who has a role? “liar fred?”!!! I kid you not! And you know what my first impression was? The groupies aren’t rooting for fred? thompson. They’re rooting for Trudeau!! freddie boy has bought into his acting persona to the point that he is always acting like that even when he is a non-candidate!!
Now it makes sense! I had a whacked out groupie (a couple of them actually) tell me last month that fred? doesn’t have to act. He just shows up and IS himself!! I knew this was crazy talk but I never realized just how obvious it could be! Now I see exactly where he gets a portion of his poll numbers from. I know that all candidates have their kooks that support them regardless, but fred? sure has an awful lot of them.
Of course there is no one at HA anymore that fits that description.
csdeven on July 14, 2007 at 2:00 AM
Is that your reason for not answering any of the legitimate and reasonable questions we have asked you in the past? Or the reason you’re now going to non-Fred topics and posting only about Fred?
I myself have told you that right now I support Tancredo, not Fred. But I guess you don’t like him any more than you do Fred. I like what Fred has to say on topics, and agree with him on most of them. Your
borderlinecomplete obsession with Fred is beginning to make you a non-factor in any conversation about him. Anyone who disagrees with you is a “groupie”, doesn’t belong at the “adult table”. You rarely if ever site sources, but tell us we should verify it ourselves and that we’re lazy if we don’t. Seems to me it’s lazy if you’re going to post something and not link sources for it.Now, if you’re going to respond to this with your typical “You’re small minded and juvenile and I’m far superior to you” attitude, do us all a favor and just shut the hell up.
Kowboy on July 14, 2007 at 8:36 AM
You guys are wasting your time. He has finally done something that he gets attention for. He hi-jacks these threads with his hatred, then he weakly debates, with a inordinate amount of detail, his position and when his facts are attacked (like articles countering his beliefs) he resorts to name calling. But at least he gets attention, he never loses an argument, he will just mis-quote you or lie about your message. He has excluded himself from the “adult table” as he calls it by his lies and distortions. BTW, notice I have called him a liar and a mis-quoter, and he never has challenged that. Why? Because he has been caught, on record. Why engage a liar? You won’t win.
No matter what you state, he will claim that others have stated lies, therefore you are lying. Even if you don’t write it, he really thinks you have written it. Very bizarre. So, as he is responding to you, he is thinking of all of the die hard Fred supporters, and some of the posting they have made, and he is attributing them to you. It happened to me, that is why I don’t engage him, I guess he thinks it is him against everyone else. Maybe he feels everyone is out to get him (or he finally has some attention). We had a troll a few months ago that did the same thing, she would attack, just to attack. She basked in the attention, then finally she had to cross the line to get more attention and was banned. I think everyone pretty much has seen his rants, and takes them for what they are worth. Face to face, I don’t think he would be so strident and quick to call names. The obession with Fred is a little too intense for me, a little too “over the top”. And it really stops a good thread from morphing into an interesting debate, with interesting comments, but at least he gets attention. Too bad, because he used to post some pretty good comments.
right2bright on July 14, 2007 at 9:19 AM
I don’t answer questions from people who use the personal attack in place of a defense for the issues I point out. You jumped on the jdawg bandwagon, assuming you know me, and the definitions of the terms I use. It’s like a feeding frenzy. You see others attack so you think they have a valid argument.
Just to give you the same clue I have given jdawg…..
I have three basic terms for fred? supporters.
Groupies….the whacky ones that like him because of his TV persona and attack others because they point out how dumb that is.
fred?heads…those who ignore the negatives about fred?, yet deride those same negatives in other candidates. Basically, a not very educated person on all freds? flip-flops etc.
Then you have the regular old fred? supporter who hopes he is all he says, but just can’t go nuts about him because he just wont stand to be counted.
jdawg knows this, yet continues to claim I call all fred? supports “groupies”. I have also told him many, many, many, times that I don’t care what freds? position on abortion is. I care that he was pro-choice and now he’s pro-life, and he lies and denies that he was EVER pro-choice. I cannot abide a liar. I can abide a pro-choice candidate. That is why Rudy is still an option for me and partly why fred? is not.
As far as answering his demands, yeah, riiiight. I’m not gonna give that child the attention he wants. When he is ready to defend fred? on the issues and admit the truths instead of lashing out at me for not buying into his fantasy about fred?, then will I treat him as an adult.
Another issue…..I don’t take many threads off topic. You and others start ragging on me because you don’t like what I say about fred?. Yet, I am constantly accused by these people as being the one who takes the thread off topic. That’s absurd and hilarious all at the same time.
This will be the last time I explain this to you. I do not like being part of these thread hijacks and responding to you guy’s silliness is just propagating it.
later.
csdeven on July 14, 2007 at 9:35 AM
kowboy,
case in point
csdeven on July 14, 2007 at 9:37 AM
I too have gotten the impression that he’s really not interested in what I have to say. He’s just fixated on the fact that I think Fred might be the best choice if he runs and therefore should be a target of his scorn.
I have asked him, both seriously and sarcastically I admit, why he has such animosity towards Fred, but all I ever get is “fred?’s a liar” and the snide comments and name calling.
I even went in search of his comments on non-Fred posts to see if this was a trend. It’s not. He really does seem to be a very intelligent person when the subject isn’t Fred. It almost seems like a post hypnotic suggestion is in effect and when he sees Fred’s name it sends him off the deep end.
But now it seems to be controlling him. In the post about congress’ rating, he had to make a Fred comment. It’s a shame really. If he could be the same commenter in Fred posts as he is in others that I’ve seen, it might make for some lively and interesting debate.
Kowboy on July 14, 2007 at 9:43 AM
Sorry, no bandwagon jumper here.
I have in the past asked you to explain your stance on Fred and all I ever get is the “He lied about his abortion stance” line from you. The possibility that he represented pro-choice groups as a lobbyist and says Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the decision left to the states in my mind does not make him ever pro-choice. I myself am anti-abortion now, but wasn’t until I had children of my own.
I’ve asked you if you have ever served in the military. I have been told by Spirit of 1776 that you have 2 sons in the military. I and my wife are both veterans and have a son serving in the Navy now. I hope you are as proud of your sons as I am of mine.
I don’t mind that you disagree with me. I’d just like to be able to discuss it with you rationally. When I get the “groupie” and “you don’t belong at the adult table” comments I tend to respond in kind. Not one of my better traits, but then again I’ve never denied the fact that I can be an asshole.
As I have said before, I think you’re an intelligent person, but the name calling and such detracts from that and makes you look like you really have no defense.
Kowboy on July 14, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Oh, the irony.
right2bright on July 14, 2007 at 10:19 AM
You cannot react to my vitriol about fred?. It is a opposing voice to the fred?-a-mania that surrounds him. That isn’t to say I don’t feel personally offended by the guy. He wants my support, but he plays coy with his announcement date. Not once, but several times. He filled out a questionaire and did an interview in 1994 that clearly took the pro-choice position. OK, fine. But now he claims he has always been pro-life and that someone else filled out the questionaire. Two reasons I don’t buy that.
1) By 1994 fred? had been an attorney for 20 years or so, and he wants me to believe that he signed something without reading it first? freds? too good a lawyer for that excuse to hold water.
2) fred? gave an interview in 1994 saying the exact same thing.
He now (and his supporters are carrying his water for him in defense), he says he has ALWAYS been pro-life.
That is a lie. That insults me. fred? wants my support yet he disrespects some the basic tenets of conservatism. Truth and honor. I cannot even get to his stated positions until he can convince me he is a true conservative at his core. Meaning, honest and honorable. So, yeah, in a way it’s is personal, but it by no stretch of the imagination is obsessive or psychotic.
csdeven on July 14, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Okay, I can accept that. Now I will ask you this. Do you think it might be that since this is in a way personal that you sometimes may take things we say to you a little too personally? I’m not talking about the F-Troop stuff. I mean some of the arguments we make in favor of Fred. Is it possible that you might be overreacting a little bit and taking some things as personal attacks when they really aren’t?
Now to your points on Fred in your last post.
1) My wife worked for lawyers for years. In every office she worked in I saw them signing things brought to their desks and sending them on with just a few questions to the people who filled out the documents. These lawyers trusted the people working for them and didn’t feel the need to go through everything that crossed their desk. Can you admit there is the possibility that this may be what happened with this questionnaire? I’m not saying it did happen, just that it could have based on my experiences. Lawyers have a boatload of paperwork cross their desks every day. No way can they possibly go through all of it. They have to trust those who work for them.
2) I can’t comment on this because I don’t know if I’ve seen the interview or not. I’ll try to find it. Or if you have a link handy and could post it, I’d appreciate it.
Kowboy on July 14, 2007 at 10:58 AM
“The ultimate decision must be made by the woman”
This isn’t the original article, but I have seen it but can’t find it right now.
csdeven on July 14, 2007 at 11:20 AM
It was a good article, and the statement does lean to Fred being pro-choice, or at least accepting that the laws are now that way. As I said before, I’m anti-abortion. However, as long as abortion is legal I have to accept that. And I also believe that it isn’t a government issue. It’s a state issue.
Either way, it isn’t enough to convince me that Fred may not be the best choice. But he still hasn’t locked up my vote and I will let the events of the coming months decide who ultimately will.
I read on another thread that one of your sons is home. I hope you enjoy his visit as much as I enjoy it when my son gets a chance to come home. And I pray that both of them may return home safely to you when their tours are over.
Kowboy on July 14, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Thanks for the prayers and I will extend the same for you and yours.
I agree also that the issue should be left to the states. The federal government jumped the shark on states rights some time ago and I don’t know if we will ever be able to reverse the entrenched culture of big government.
csdeven on July 14, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Thank you for your prayers also. My son is back in the states now, but has too much to do before he goes out again to be able to come home this time.
You’re right on the culture of big government. And many people do not understand that this country was not set up by the Founding Fathers to be a Democracy. The intent was to form a Federal Republic. Saying this to people gets me some funny looks until I explain to them that the original intent was for the federal government to take care of things like national defense, international relations, federal laws that SHOULD be applied nationwide etc. , but to leave it to the states to take care of everything else. Then they for the most part agree with me. I do get the occasional dissent from a big government type who thinks everyone deserves a piece of the pie, but I don’t bother with them. They’re usually too convinced of their own folly to persuade otherwise.
We may disagree on Fred, but you and I seem to be not too far apart on everything else.
Kowboy on July 14, 2007 at 12:42 PM
I told you csdeven was right…
P.S. that supposed pro-life voting record does not fool me. It’s not as if a law outlawing all abortions under any circumstance came up for a vote. These groups that figure out these voting records are just reading tea leaves from confirmation votes, etc. Just because Fred supported his President’s choice of attorney general (who is Pro-Life) does not make him Pro-Life. Most pro-choice Republicans believe that Roe v. Wade is bad law, there should be restrictions, partial birth abortions are bad, and parental notification is needed. What I am saying is that if another Pro-Choice Republican (like Rudy for instance) had cast those same votes, he would have probably voted the same way. So, I do not see his voting record being at odds with his 1994 statements which certainly sounds Pro-Choice (with restrictions).
tommylotto on July 14, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Pretty typical impeachment argument, Tommylotto. Unfortunately, as we all know, impeachment rarely works unless it’s a smoking gun followed up by an argument of unclean hands and bad faith.
There is no unclean hands or bad faith in the Thompson voting record, your efforts to imply restrictions/reservations on Fred’s intent notwithstanding.
So just because you say so, doesn’t mean it’s so. I will rely on what really happened as opposed to parol evidence.
Tennman on July 14, 2007 at 1:45 PM
tommylotto on July 14, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Yeah, just because NRLC supported him and gave him a solid pro-life voting record, and NARAL gave him at besta 5 percent rating, that don’t mean squat.
Only what you and csdeven say, right?
please.
So, I’ll ask you the same as I asked csdeven (and never got answered) – given your hatred of Fred, if he’s the candidate going against Hitlery in the general, you gonna vote for Hitlery?
jdawg on July 14, 2007 at 6:09 PM
csdeven on July 14, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Not with the current DemCong in charge. And I’m not too convinced about the R’s either. Lots of work to do.
BTW, good to hear one of your sons is back, you can add my prayers to the list. Having served, I know it’s good to be back with family.
jdawg on July 14, 2007 at 6:12 PM
I can’t find it, but I do remember cs saying he’d never vote for Shrillary. So I believe he did in his way answer that question for you.
Kowboy on July 14, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Can you say Bloomberg?
tommylotto on July 14, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Not without choking.
Tennman on July 15, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2