Time for another left-wing “The GOP is gay for Fred” piece
posted at 2:23 pm on July 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The American Prospect has already been there and done that but the New Republic wants in on this action, so here you go. It’s behind a reg wall so I can’t quote too much; suffice it to say, the diagnosis is part Daddy complex, part Napoleon complex, part whatever the hell it was Champ was feeling for Ron Burgundy in “Anchorman” when he said, “I miss your musk,” and part good ol’ fashioned teh ghey:
Certainly, the Thompson talk in both cyberspace and the traditional media is a study in hero worship, with grown conservatives swooning like cheerleaders smitten over the manliness of the varsity quarterback. There is much rejoicing about the senator’s growling voice, his studly cigar habit, and his physical size. My favorite bit of macho Fred-worship making its way around the Internet is a widely circulated joke about the title of the recent film 300, in which a small troop of Spartans holds the line against the massive Persian army: “If Fred Thompson had been at Thermopylae, the movie would have been called 1.” (Reading posts like this, it’s unsurprising that, according to USA Today, 64 percent of Thompson’s supporters are male, the highest percentage for any presidential hopeful.)
Credit Sullivan at least for a little creativity in this area — in his formulation, it’s Fred who’s the gay one, notwithstanding his long and celebrated list of distaff D.C. conquests.
The piece goes on to claim that Fred might not be “manly” enough for the hard work required of a presidential candidate given his reputation for laziness and suggests that it’s not really Fred himself whom Republicans want to gay it up with but rather his character on “Law & Order.” So why link it? Because there’s an honest to goodness bit of news in there. They say “trophy wife”; I say cherchez la femme:
[L]ate last year, after fellow Tennessean and former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced that he would not run for president, those closest to Thompson once again began whispering in his ear about bigger, better things. Perhaps the most influential of these whisperers has been Thompson’s second wife, Jeri Kehn Thompson.
If Thompson’s first wife put him on the path to law school, it’s widely acknowledged that his second wife is the one driving his presidential run. Blonde, bodacious, and 24 years younger than her husband, Jeri is often sniffily referred to as Thompson’s “trophy wife,” but she is clearly more than that. A one-time Senate staffer and spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, Jeri is regarded around Washington as politically shrewd and fiercely ambitious on behalf of her spouse. In the wake of Frist’s announcement, Jeri promptly contacted Republican p.r. veteran Mark Corallo about serving as her husband’s spokesman and raising his profile inside the Beltway. More recently, after lefty filmmaker Michael Moore took a public poke at Thompson, challenging him to a health care debate and criticizing his penchant for embargoed Cuban cigars, Jeri brought the issue to her hubby’s attention and urged him to call up a friend with a video camera and record his now-famous 30-second Web response. (In it, a cigar-chomping Thompson says he’s too busy to meet with Moore, but wryly warns him to watch his step lest his “buddy Castro” decide to toss him in a mental institution as he has other documentarians. “A mental institution, Michael. That’d be something you oughta think about,” intones Thompson with a meaningful arch of his brow.) Last month, at a reception for party bigwigs and top donors that preceded the GOP gala in Richmond, Jeri diligently stood in line to meet and greet every person in attendance. “She’s been one of the key players,” confirms Tom Ingram.
The more I read about her, the more I think it’d be cooler to land Jeri for a Vent than Fred.
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] 3 »
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Presidential auditions? Hey, I think you’ve hit on something here. Maybe we could set something up where the candidates are placed in a fake White House, kinda like Big Brother and videotaped all the time, being forced to make policy decisions, run wars, do press conferences, etc. All the while we could watch every move they make and then decide who’d really be the best candidate.
Now, that’d be a reality show I might just watch. Imagine Kucinich trying to find his way around the Rose Garden…
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 5:18 PM
DCJeff on July 18, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Nah, but I do have a brother in GA, in the southern part of the state.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Esthier you better watch out…the great one has ordered you to…wait a minute…ordered you to a tutu? Ordered you to stop wearing a tutu?
DCJeff on July 18, 2007 at 5:20 PM
That was several years ago. While currently on the campaign, Mitt is really just talking.
That is not a cool image for me to have.
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Next thing you know, he’ll demand $100 for every time you respond to him.
Don’t waste your time.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Just asking from your handle…I have family there although I dare not be more specific since I have mentioned the great one….
DCJeff on July 18, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Thanks for the laugh.
And that order, what’s that, like an “action alert” only the Republican version?
Be careful though. Talking about csdeven means you’re obsessed with him and will cause him to lash out at you the way he has at me.
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 5:23 PM
DCJeff on July 18, 2007 at 5:22 PM
I hear ya. I grew up in the south - Texas, Arkansas, GA, NC. Been lots of places in my life. Some good, others not so good.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 5:24 PM
As President? No one currently qualifies as having done something as President.
Dealing with state issues is not the same as national issues. No state that I know of has the ability to make war outside its boundaries, nor uphold and defend the Constitution of the U.S.A., nor deal with a recalcitrant Congress, nor a biased national media, nor make treaties, nor deal with a budget of several Trillion dollars, hundreds of federal judges, prosecutors, cabinet officials, the IRS, federal bureaucracy…on and on.
And you’re right. I didn’t read all the article. If it’s wordier than I am, I’m offended. ;-)
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 5:24 PM
I do like the idea of a Presidential audition, tho.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Ok, let’s talk facts…
Where are the facts in your post here…2:48 PM?
or here…3:11 PM
or here…3:20 PM
or here…3:24 PM
or here…3:25 PM
there may be SOME fact here…3:30 PM, but it’s not about Fred.
How about here?3:35 PM…well I must admit you were thinking is probably a fact. But not about Fred.
Here’s another one…4:36 PM but again, nothing about Fred
Another actual fact…4:37 PM, but not about Fred.
Now for me…from what I’ve read, Fred is pro 2nd Ammendment. For me that is the litmus test. Any candidate who is not pro 2nd doesn’t get my vote because, in my opinion, that person doesn’t understand the Bill of Rights. Fred appears to be presidential. And right now we need inspiration that we’ve not seen since probably Reagan. We need someone that’s going to set goals that are good for America, not The Peoples Republic of California. Will Fred do that? We don’t know yet. As for the other things…they aren’t deal breakers for me at this point…especially when looking at the rest of the pack of both parties. So, we’ll see.
Catseye on July 18, 2007 at 5:27 PM
In weeks past, as Fred began his tease routine, Hot Air was developing into sort of a gay bar for Fredheads to gather and share their man-lust for him. Frankly, I found it to be a major turn-off. I imagine csdeven felt the same way and wanted to add some balance to these threads (though I’m sure he can speak for himself). As the admiration of the Fredheads for their MAN seemed impervious to logic, the mission turned into a crusade.
tommylotto on July 18, 2007 at 5:27 PM
“stuff” that fred? has did…
lobbied for a failed nuclear power plant 1.7 billion wasted
lobbied for a dictator
lobbied to limit the representation for victims of asbestos
passed CFR
flip-flopped on abortion
used a faked red pickup truck to fool his supporters
lied about his pro-choice past
did little to nothing in the senate except pass CFR
Stuff that other candidates did…..
Rudy……
Accomplished Prosecutor
cleaned up NYC
eliminated ferret ownership in NYC
remained composed throughout the 9/11 tragedy
Mitt!…..
accomplished businessman
saved the olympics
elected governor
pushed to outlaw gay marriage
admitted he was wrong on abortion
stopped new legislation to expand abortions
as governor he erased the deficit
I mean, c’mon, what has freddie boy really done except line his pockets by mostly lobbying for the scummiest and richest clients?
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Catseye on July 18, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Now you’ve done it, cs will probably either tell you to do your own research (he did that to me several times) and prove his statements on your own (???) or order you to STFU and quit addressing him as anything less than Ruler of The Universe.
Oh, and then he’ll order you to pay him $100
Don’t waste your time.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 5:30 PM
tommylotto on July 18, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Your obsession with gay bars and man-lust is troublesome.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Ok, have it your way.
I, CSDEVEN, HEREBY ORDER ESTHIER TO CEASE TALKING ABOUT ME, AND RETURN TO DISCUSSING THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Seriously? You want to run with these two as accomplishments?
And if you want to list “Accomplished Prosecutor” as an accomplishment, you’ll have to acknowledge Fred’s attorney past and at least call him an accomplished actor if past professions are working as accomplishments here.
And “has did”. Really?
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Sorry, I have to cry BS on that one. It’s always been a crusade.
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Come on, you’ve got to just be screwing with us. No one who visits Hot Air regularly could act so much like a DUer without being sarcastic.
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Hey, when ferrets are outlawed, only outlaws will have ferrets.
Yup, I can see it now; Rudy! Saving the world from the scourge of ferrets…
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 5:34 PM
No, he HONESTLY thinks he’s THAT important.
Arguing with cs (and others) is a bit like teaching a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig. Moral: don’t feed the troll.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Check out this post.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 5:35 PM
You didn’t miss much; just a ridiculous article giving FlipFlop Mitt a nice long tongue-bath: Mitt helps lost children! Mitt’s a successful businessman thanks to a politically connected silver spoon upbringing! Mitt’s good looking! Mitt’s a Mormon! Mitt won a single election in MA with 50% of the vote! Yawn.
Hollowpoint on July 18, 2007 at 5:37 PM
;-)
I AM the fat kid on the other end of the fred? orgy see-saw.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 5:37 PM
A presidential audition, hmmm? That would be fun to design and run with. But who gets to say “You’re Fired!”?
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Well, we know who NOT to pick, I think…
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 5:41 PM
And you can check out the facts in my 3:20 post.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Methinks he quoteth too much. I know of whom you speak. We must have someone with no dog in the hunt, if you’ll forgive the colloquialism.
How about Margaret Thatcher?
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 5:43 PM
You left out
Undermined the integrity of a Congressional investigation by acted as a mole for Nixon
Botched the investigation of Clinton’s illegal campaign financing
pretended to be someone he is not with a bunch of Hollywood libs
tommylotto on July 18, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Watching his wife give him a boost so he could see over the shrubbery would be pretty funny.
Hollowpoint on July 18, 2007 at 5:44 PM
and
OK, I’ll explain this slowly.
I believe that talk is cheap.
I judge who to vote for based on their previous actions before running.
Therefore, my request is simply to know what actions Fred? has peformed in the past, before his campaign that would cause me to choose him over any other candidate with similar talking points.
In other words, what record does Fred have that would indicate he really believes what he is saying.
Fred supported campaign finance reform. That was an action. His words now say that was a mistake.
Romney once said in a Senate race that he supported abortion. When he was elected governor, he kept abortion static and vetoed attempts to expand it. Romney’s words used to support abortion, but his actions in office are as pro-life as a completely pro-choice state Senate and House would allow.
Same with gay marriage. In the Senate race Romney said he supported gay rights. His actions as governor after our nutball supreme court ruled gay marriage legal were to curb and curtail it as much as his executive powers allowed.
Fred? Talk. Talk. Talk.
BKennedy on July 18, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Duh, that’s the theme of the thread…
tommylotto on July 18, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Hmmm. That’s a thought.
Or, we could get Frank Luntz to wire everyone in the country with one of those super whammy-dyne tools he uses to judge debates.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Hollowpoint on July 18, 2007 at 5:44 PM
That would be a hoot.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 5:46 PM
That’s okay. If slow is all you can do, we can wait until you’re through to read it.
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Methinks that you don’t have a very solid concept of what an actor does. Let me explain: they play the role of a character, pretending to be someone they’re not. Mark Hamil isn’t really a Jedi Knight, and Clint Eastwood isn’t really a cop or gunslinger.
Hollowpoint on July 18, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Hollowpoint on July 18, 2007 at 5:49 PM
What???!!! Now, you’ve ruined my whole week.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 5:51 PM
In all fairness, CS only has ONE topic, so I don’t know if it’s really possible for him to go “off” it.
He just can’t figure out why everyone else keeps “changing the subject” from the one-track loop that keeps going through his head.
logis on July 18, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Hollowpoint on July 18, 2007 at 5:49 PM
I s’pose the next thing you’ll say is that William Shatner really didn’t go to all those planets and fight aliens, and stuff…
Man, life ain’t fair.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 5:52 PM
What a coincidence, Fred? seems to be playing the role of conservative man of action dispite his dismal record and complete lack of action.
Thanks for pointing out that Fred?’s best feature is that he pretends to be other people.
Tennman, your derision doens’t warrant a response.
BKennedy on July 18, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Like Mark Furman using the “N” word.
tommylotto on July 18, 2007 at 5:53 PM
tommylotto on July 18, 2007 at 5:27 PM
tommylotto on July 18, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Dude. It’s the left trying to tear down a conservative icon by insinuating that backing Fred makes you gay. Because… you know… all conservatives hate all gays… being homophobic and whatnot.
Now. If you’re a lefty thats fine, but calling us Fred supports gay is ridiculous. Just because we weren’t damaged at a young age by an older man doesn’t mean you have to lash out at us.
It is possible for a man to feel great respect, even reverence, for another man without it being sexual.
I guess that’s hard for someone who has been damaged to figure out, but there it is.
VolMagic on July 18, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Oh, are you through now?
You missed the point, Kimosabe. Politicians talk. That’s what they do. It’s up to us to weigh their accomplishments, but they aren’t going to be accomplishing anything during the presidential campaign but talking.
Talk is cheap. But aside from writing, it’s also our only means of communication.
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Fred also has a voting record.
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Which means nothing to some. You see, he really doesn’t exist….
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Isn’t that a response?
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 6:05 PM
As far as the whole “gay for Fred” thing goes, I think the precise argument is silly, but that those who advance it are onto something not entirely unlike it. Rather than being obsessed with his ubermanliness (which I, frankly, don’t see), I think it’s really just a Southern thing. The rest of the Republican front-runners (Giuliani, McCain, and Romney), are all “moderates” on a few issues, as is Thompson. However, Fred seems to be getting a pass while the others do not, likely because he just looks and sounds the part of the classic right wing Republican. People are more likely to believe a folksy guy with a pickup truck and Southern accent when he changes his position to appease the conservative base than they are to believe a New Yorker or a guy from Massachusetts, and not for any rational reasons I can think of.
Big S on July 18, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Exactly what are you trying to imply? Other than you are completely devoid of a sense of humor.
tommylotto on July 18, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Check out his voting record and you tell me; replace the number in “page 1″ of the URL to continue:
page 1
A summary here
With regards to FlipFlop Mitt, you left out a few, including his refusal to sign a pledge to increase taxes as governor, his increase of the gas tax, doubling or quadrupling state fees, passing one of the most stringent gun control laws in the country, and passing a Big Government mandatory health insurance bill that imposes fines on individuals who don’t comply. Among a few.
Hollowpoint on July 18, 2007 at 6:15 PM
I am certainly not kidding about my disgust with fred?. And yes, most of the obvious sarcasm is missed because people who are infatuated with fred? cannot see past their own bias toward him.
Ignore me and discuss fred? is the message. Don’t get sucked into this personal attack crap with the fools jdwag, hollowpoint, and others. They are having authority issues in their lives, and attempt to exorcise those issues online where they don’t have to face the people they insult.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 6:21 PM
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Anytime, csd. Anytime.
And just as a reminder, I’m not the one ordering people around like an arrogant jerk, nor do I continuously repeat the same vile hatred you do.
I’ve said before, I’m waiting to see what Fred does once he’s announced but right now I’m leaning towards supporting him.
Be careful of who you attack and insult.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Ok,I’ll quit joking around…but will someone please tell me why Mitt$ supporter’s on here are always so irrationally angry? I mean most of the semi-rational folks on here are all leaning towards one or the other candidate…we are all leaning for various reasons…but most of us realize that whoever wins the nomination we should get behind(I’m not here to be a cheerleader for MM or AP)…a spirited adult debate is welcome amongst us…I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Mitt$ and his wife…nice people of course…so why are his supporters here such losers?
DCJeff on July 18, 2007 at 6:27 PM
DCJeff on July 18, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Don’t know. The phrase that came to my mind is arrogant jerks.
I tend to think it’s because Mitt! and Rudy! are more GOP “establishment” candidates, and the GOP “establishment” tends to be very arrogant and hateful towards the base. I speak from experience. They think that if you don’t do what they say, when and how they say it, you’re just a stupid hick. I think that’s why you see cs “ordering” people around here. That’s the “establishment” mentality.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 6:30 PM
It’s obvious if you had the opportunity you would chicken out, make excuses, or wet your pants. Or perhaps all three.
So, you can attack and insult whoever you like and the first time I call you the fool that you are, you want to make threats?
You are a fool because you continually insult people on line, and you are less than a man when you threaten others on line.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Maybe they all belong to the same cult. Using Dhemocrat logic, please don’t challenge them to be logical, you’ll just make them angry.
Mojave Mark on July 18, 2007 at 6:32 PM
So you want me to do exactly the opposite of what you’re doing?
I’m starting to see why people think you’re a lib.
Too bad, I always took you for a rational person before your anti-Fred hysteria.
I was responding to your “order.” We already know you’ve got a serious case FDS. No one doubts that.
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Wear a whore outfit, expect to get treated like a whore.
Act like a spamming troll, expect to get treated like a spamming troll.
You’ve long ago made yourself irrelevant except to become a minor annoyance and threadjacker. You could have indisputable evidence that Fred snorted cocaine off a dead hookers body while molesting an underage poodle and it wouldn’t matter, because it came from you.
Hollowpoint on July 18, 2007 at 6:34 PM
The key word there is “man.”
Children (and arrested adolescents) are incapable of understanding the concept of respect. They know how to love and they know how to hate, but absolutely nothing in between.
The liberals didn’t respect John Kerry any more than we did - they just saw him as the antidote for “The Most Evil Man In The World” George Bush. Now liberals know the attraction they feel for their Queen Moonbat Hillary, and they impute those feelings onto us. But the difference between that primal - almost pheremonal - worship and the concept of respect? They have no clue.
Conservatives (at least most of us) don’t hate Fred Thomas, and we don’t see him as just a foil for someone else that we hate… So in liberal minds, that only leaves one alternative: we must be smitten with him. They have no idea that another option even exists.
logis on July 18, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Perhaps you could point out whom these angry Mitt! and Rudy supporters are?
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Because men don’t threaten others online? Is that your logic here?
Also, it’s “online”, not “on line.” We made it a word in its own right.
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Which is exactly my point. If only csdeven didn’t seem so rabidly against Fred, his points might actually be heard.
They’re talking about your man crush on Mitt.
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 6:36 PM
No. Do exactly as I do. Be as vicious as you like toward candidates but do not attack HA members who don’t hold the same view.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 6:37 PM
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Oh, I see. Pointing out your hatred (as many others have done) is an insult and a threat? Dude, you have gone off the edge.
You insult with every post you make, then cry when you called for it. You remind me of the schoolyard bully who whines when someone stands up to you.
I jest and attempt to debate you, and your responses are typically non-responses or attacks.
And like the schoolyard bully, you attribute your own behaviour to me. Not today, cs.
If anything I have said offends you personally, I apologize. When you can reason as a human being and not spout hatred with every post, then I’ll engage.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 6:37 PM
You were attacking other HA members while giving me this “advice.”
You don’t find those words to be insults?
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Tell you what, I’ll continue to use it and other mistakes just to see how dedicated you are to attacking me verses discussing the thread topic.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Sure they are. But take a look at what I usually do. It’s a rare find to see me attacking others personally because I don’t like what they say about certain candidates. My response was about their behavior toward me for not engaging in the love-fest over that loser scum fred?.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Partly because it’s part of Mitt’s strategy to attack Fred; he’s done it himself. He’s the Golden Boy, the Chosen One- born of political connection and wealth. He’s pandered to all the right people, raised plenty of money, spoke very smoothly in the debates… yet is getting his butt kicked by a latecomer who’s stolen his opportunity to transform himself into a conservative and attack Rudy from the right.
They’re frustrated- particularly his elitist home state supporters desperate for a MA pol to be president again (Jack Straw) or a LDS type on a religious mission to get a Mormon nominated (csdeven).
Hollowpoint on July 18, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 6:39 PM
This is the tactic of the schoolyard bully. Attribute what you do to others. I think the term here is “transference” but not being a trained psychologist I could be mistaken. I once knew a kid that acted like this. He would act up, then say someone else did what he did. Tried it on me once. The operative word here is “once”. Never happened again. My dad taught me to stand up to bullies.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 6:43 PM
I insult candidates. You insult HA members who don’t agree with your devotion to a non-candidate. Unless you are the candidate in question, you have no reason to be offended. He isn’t you, and you aren’t him. But it’s clear that many of you have serious issues with that concept.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 6:44 PM
And how, exactly, is a retard supposed to know what does and does not constitute “engaging?”
As incredibly stupid as CS is, I have to agree with him about one point: Anyone who tries to argue with that guy is an idiot.
logis on July 18, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Hollowpoint on July 18, 2007 at 6:42 PM
What you describe here is “establishment” - I think I’ve addressed this already. Establishment types look down on the rest of us, thinking they have some power to order others around and treat the base as dumb uneducated hicks.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Are you sure about that? It’s dangerous to take up some one else’s argument.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Actually, it’s Fred who is the “establishment” candidate, and that’s why you guys like him so much. He’s one of Baker’s boys, turned Senator and lobbyist, and represents the style and values of most of the current congressmen as well as the current administration. Aside from one or two issues he is an ideological clone of Bush. Please don’t ask me to believe that that makes a non-establishment politician.
Big S on July 18, 2007 at 6:46 PM
If I’m correcting grammatical errors (which I wasn’t doing out of spite by the way) then I’m not attacking you and am only addressing your mistakes.
It’s what I do for a living, so please pardon me if it seems rude. It’s a hard thing to turn off.
And AGAIN, the topic of this thread IS exactly what I’m discussing. This thread is about Republican reactions to Fred.
Unless I’m mistaken, and you’re actually a lib as some here want to claim, then I’m on topic.
So then your advice is to only attack those who agree with me every now and then?
Esthier on July 18, 2007 at 6:47 PM
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Can you read, or do you purposefully avoid what others say? I said I’m leaning towards supporting him, but he’s not even in the race yet!!!
YOU - let me repeat this - YOU are the one referring to Fred! supporters as mindless groupies (look it up yourself - I’m not doing your research for you), order others around like you have some authority over them, and in general, act like a pompous, arrogant jerk!
And you have the gall to whine when others call you on it.
Grow up.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 6:49 PM
I love the fact Fred was a lobbyist. Nobody can bamboozle him ’cause he’s already been a bamboozler.
Mojave Mark on July 18, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Absolutely! fred? is the quintessential Washington insider. And the epitome of the lying politician because he is so desperately trying to build a folksy homespun facade to hide that fact from those he wants support from. fred? has zero respect for the groupies. They are a means to an end and that’s it.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 6:52 PM
The discourse on this thread is going downhill fast. We can argue and to some extent tease each other about our differing viewpoints, but let’s not get too personal.
tommylotto on July 18, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Mojave Mark on July 18, 2007 at 6:50 PM
I think to an extent, all politicians are bamboozlers. Some more than others. Some think Fred! is a bamboozler, others think Mitt! or Rudy is a bamboozler.
The real question, who do we want as our nominee against Hitlery (the great marxist bamboozler)?
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 6:52 PM
tommylotto on July 18, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Agreed.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 6:53 PM
If it makes sense to you that you should attack those that agree with you then, perhaps this teaching moment for you isn’t going to go any further.
So, correcting people on line is what you do? Is it hard for you to stop typing your responses and hitting the “submit comment” button?
WOW! That MUST be tough, and I cannot relate to that because for me, typing isn’t like speaking, where a angry word can slip the lips occasionally. I stop and re-read my comment before submitting my comment.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 6:58 PM
I can see that you are trying to get attention from the adult table again, and before I brush you away again, why don’t you quote the post where I called ALL fred? supporters “groupies”.
I’ll wait.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Sorry. That’s my fault for engaging their childishness.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 7:02 PM
awwwwww…lack of attention? And that clearly did’nt say Rudy supporter’s now did it?
DCJeff on July 18, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Oh my goodness…
DCJeff on July 18, 2007 at 7:04 PM
And yet the budget was balanced every year. And yet for all your talk of this phantom “big government” bill, it doesn’t have a single-payer system, and therefore isn’t socialized medicine. In fact, it lowered the minimum coverage so that people who did not want to pay for the extended coverage to afford it. But for Hollowpoint, any legal address to health care is always under the auspice of “big government,” because that’s the kind of shallow talking point that serves Hollowpoints purpose. Hollow points for Hollowpoint.
Why, its almost as if Fred?’s supporters will do, say anything in their rhetoric dispite reality.
BKennedy on July 18, 2007 at 7:06 PM
A reliable conservative with a high electability factor. Given their record, history and personality I believe that rules out Rudy, Mitt, McCain and the third tier candidates.
IMO that makes Fred the only real choice left unless someone better comes along and makes a splash- can’t imagine who though, since Newt hasn’t indicated that he’ll run and has some electability issues.
Hollowpoint on July 18, 2007 at 7:09 PM
His balanced budget was largely due to the capital gains tax increase previously passed by the Dems along with his increases in taxes and fees. He did cut spending and is to be commended for that, but some of those cuts involved cutting funding to local municipalities, resulting in higher property taxes. Include property taxes, and the tax burden in MA increased during his term.
And the point remains that his plan was MANDATORY, with fines for not signing up- including getting drug coverage. I call that Big Government.
Hollowpoint on July 18, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Well, let’s see: the thread started out with the Fred-hater’s allegation that “People who like Fred Thompson are fags.”
And now you think that someone BESIDES YOU is dragging the discussion “downhill” from there.
You know, if that allegation weren’t so patently asinine, it would actually be a compliment. Like it or not, that would be an incredible feat.
logis on July 18, 2007 at 7:17 PM
May be mutually exclusive next year.
Big S on July 18, 2007 at 7:25 PM
If it hasn’t already been suggested, I think what’s shaping up is a suggestion that voting for a woman in 2008 is the straight thing to do. Calling Democrats out on their sh1t early and often may be the best way to counter the tactic. I wonder whose bitches the writers at the “American” Prospect and “New” Republic are. Actually, I don’t wonder very much, because as a campaign tactic, “You’re gay if you vote for a man instead of a woman” reeks of James Carville.
Kralizec on July 18, 2007 at 7:26 PM
I’m willing to give him a pass on the experience issue. After all we have had great leaders rise up at crucial times with out what might be thought of as ‘appropriate levels’ of experience.
My wish from Fred, is that his rhetoric involve specifics - in his words ‘the things that only a president can do’. I just would like him to tell me what those are. Granted, I’m not seen him in person so maybe he is spilling his guts on the stump, but he has stuck to generalities in all the interviews I’ve seen. I’d like some specifics. That and an answer to M-F.
Spirit of 1776 on July 18, 2007 at 7:33 PM
‘the things that only a president can do’
From the same Leno interview, if I recall correctly, one of the things that only a President can do is sit back and let the situation in Iran “take care of itself.”
Big S on July 18, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Economic blockade and no more financial aid to Arab groups tied to terror, and a green light if necessary for a military strike from our stalwart Middle-East ally - if that what he means, okay.
If he means Jeri brought this to my attention, so let’s cut a 30 second commentary on the state of Iran, then uh, I’m out:)
Spirit of 1776 on July 18, 2007 at 7:40 PM
I think he meant that there’s the possibility of a popular uprising, or even a leadership change within the regime (those “moderate mullahs” we keep hearing about) so we should wait and see if we really need to do anything. Once again, I am paraphrasing, since I couldn’t find the relevant clip on YouTube, so take this with a grain of salt. I do know, however, that his stance was not anything you could call “forceful.”
Big S on July 18, 2007 at 7:45 PM
That would pretty much be ever Muslim over there. You have the murdering Muslims and the mute Muslims who say nothing about the slaughter ’cause it’s the will of the moon god and all.
The Muslims were beaten back from Europe due to Christendom’s better weaponry in the 15th century. Now that they have oil money they’re back and their desire is the same, just like Pinky and the Brain, to try and take over the world. Word for the day “caliphate.”
Mojave Mark on July 18, 2007 at 7:49 PM
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Whats that tugging on my shirt sleeve? Oh, just csd making another personal attack. Time to break out the insect repellent again. Shoo, will ya?
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Hollowpoint on July 18, 2007 at 7:09 PM
I tend to agree, as much as I like Newt. Like many here, I would like to see some specifics from Fred - maybe after he officially announces. All I can say is, it’s going to be a long campaign.
jdawg on July 18, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Yeah, that’s the impression I got from him also.
Yea. Nothing sums up our aid to me like this.
We have to get serious on energy independence. We can’t win this war without addressing the power from Saudi Arabia, and we can’t do that by constantly throwing $’s at them.
Spirit of 1776 on July 18, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Given that they’d likely be running against Hitlery or the empty suits of Obama or Edwards? I don’t believe that for a second. I’m not sure about Mitt, but I’m confident either Fred or Rudy would win- I just don’t view Rudy as a reliable conservative given his record.
Hollowpoint on July 18, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »