Video: The obligatory “Paul supporter demands 9/11 Truth from Fred” post
posted at 12:23 pm on July 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Sorry for the slow blogging; the Scott Thomas thing is sucking up time. There’s plenty of stuff in headlines if you’re bored. I linked this yesterday as an update to the Paul post but there are enough Fredheads here that I guess we owe it our full attention. All the action is in the first 30 seconds and the last minute, so feel free to skip around. CNN, bless their hearts, conveniently omitted her screeching Trutherism from its account of the encounter.
The SLC boys raise an interesting theory: is the North American Union crap a gateway to 9/11 Trutherism? I don’t think so. NAU is the province of Birchers while Trutherism is a hobby of the far left, and while those two groups do coalesce in the Cult of Paul, that’s about the only place they do. Tancredo believes one and not the other. As does Paul himself, in fact.
John of Verum Serum sent me the link to another video this tool made awhile back which references a person (actually, two people) near and dear to all our hearts. The irony is, you’ll hear her yell in the clip below that Fred’s not a real conservative. The boss is starting to wonder herself.
Update: Slublog e-mails re: WaPo’s piece about Fred’s past as a trial lawyer that he’s getting tired of Fred responding to substantive challenges with “don’t fuss at me, now”:
His work representing white-collar criminals, drug defendants and lawsuit victims has given Thompson an affinity with one of the Republican Party’s perennial targets, trial lawyers, and he carries that connection with him even today as he prepares to seek the GOP presidential nomination. It also helped shape a view on lawsuit reform that has frequently put him at odds with his own party…
Officially, Thompson and his aides declined to answer questions about his legal work on the grounds that he is not a declared candidate. Privately, his advisers said they are acutely aware that GOP opponents could try to paint Thompson as too liberal, based on his legal work, his support from the trial lawyers’ lobby and his votes on liability legislation that conflicted with those of most Republicans.
Yeah, they’re milking his non-candidacy for all it’s worth, although after the abortion lobbyist debacle maybe they’re better off with a “no comment” this time. Meanwhile, from Time, another tantalizing tidbit about Jeri. Cherchez la femme…
“I do worry that Jeri is the one really running his campaign,” says a House Republican who describes himself as “likely” to support Thompson. “She’s smart, but that could be a recurring problem.”
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:
Why can’t she be stupid like the other politicians’ wives.
Mojave Mark on July 26, 2007 at 12:28 PM
That’s what I’ve been saying for years…Smart women are a recurring problem!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on July 26, 2007 at 12:32 PM
YES.
not nessesarily at all. alex jones, godfather of popular bircher nonsence, is allso the second largest franchiser of trutherism. the loose change douches are lefties, but a lot of their collaborators are from the paleo-right clown car.
this is what i was trying too tell you all about the immigration mania. it’s not proper modern conservatism. its from a dark, creepy, paralel radical nationalist movement which has been looking for an “in” since buckley kicked them to the curb in the 60’s.
jummy on July 26, 2007 at 12:36 PM
The truther video has many similarities to the Blair Witch Project. Both had bad, shaky camera work and also just plain scary.
terryannonline on July 26, 2007 at 12:37 PM
I have to say I disagree with that… There are a lot of other places these two groups merge.
As for the screeching that makes it sound like the woman is being raped… hilarious (because we know she isn’t, but is instead a hysterical lunatic Truther).
RightWinged on July 26, 2007 at 12:38 PM
I disagree on this as well. Trutherism is partial to the far right as well. The extreme right fringe that fears government; as well as the left that just hates bush and thinks he’d murder our own citizens.
Then again, when you reach the extremes of right and left; what they want aren’t that different, only the reasons why.
lorien1973 on July 26, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Hopefully some day we’ll be able to vote for a candidate that we truly believe in instead of voting to keep the greater evil from office. No matter who is elected to be our next President it will be the one who receives the most corporate financial support and spends the next four years paying them back.
We have a Congress that gives standing ovations for members who have taken $90k in bribe money. There is no hope.
repvoter on July 26, 2007 at 12:47 PM
wow. went to the user ppage and she’s actually kinda purty. which isn’t that surprising; rightwing nuts are more attractive than leftwing nuts. nuts nonetheless, though.
jummy on July 26, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Yeah, I unfortunately have to disagree that Trutherism is exclusively a hobby of the far left. The bulk of Truthers might reside there, but I’ve found there is some substantial crossover with the Birchers.
And of course there a great many Truthers who are essentially apolitical, but are simply excited by any conspiracy theory, whether it involves Roswell or 9/11 or Bigfoot. They don’t care if there’s a Democrat or a Republican in officer–whoever They are, They are hiding The Truth!
Blacklake on July 26, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Perhaps, but I don’t think so, nor is it a good connection to draw, as one makes up it’s facts and the other can only be accused of misconstruing them.
Also, there are enough politicians (local and state) in the South and Mid-West that have authored legislation in response to the activity of the economic development programs – the trans-state corridor, etc, it’s in a different category altogether.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 12:53 PM
What the @#%& are you talking about? Obeying the law and punishing lawbreakers is not “proper modern conservatism?” So to be a “proper modern conservative” I have to want to throw the borders wide open and let in everyone?
I’m getting really tired of so-called “proper modern conservitives” from the President on down to jummy calling me racist or anti-immigrant because I happen to be for the rule of law. Once again – I, and people like me, am not anti-immigrant, some of the best, smartest, and most admirable people I know are immigrants. I am anti-illegal immigrant. They’re sucking the life out of our services (just ask my fiancee’s sister, who’s a nurse in an ER), our country, and our economy, and the only thing we get in return is a whole bloc of people who want to establish their country and culture here rather than assimilate as every other wave of immigrants has. But apparently in order to be a “proper modern conservative” I’m supposed to welcome these parasites with open arms.
I think I’ve posted here before about my Indian friend, an absolute brilliant engineer who would be an asset to any country. He did things the right way – played by the rules, filled out all his forms, etc. When the job we were working on was finished, he had 90 days in the midst of the deepest part of the tech recession to find another job or be deported. Why should he be deported and millions of scumbags be allowed to just walk across with no regard for the law? Answer me that question.
crazy_legs on July 26, 2007 at 12:57 PM
I disagree. I have several friends, very conservative, card-carrying members of the VRWC, who are convinced the gov’t was behind 9-11.
Of course, they also think that the contrails following high-flying airplanes are really the gov’t spreading mind-control substances in the atmosphere. Seriously. I’ve tried explaining this phenomenon, but to no avail.
Some folks just buy into every conspiracy theory out there, facts be damned.
jdawg on July 26, 2007 at 12:58 PM
This video is proof of a conspiracy to shut down the truth!
DaveS on July 26, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Scintillating camera work. Try pointing the camera at the subjects face instead of his left ear or tie.
Mallard T. Drake on July 26, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Ha Ha I am the guy in the white FDT tee shirt with the short hair standing right behind Fred.
That Stupid chick was there as a Ron Paul plant.
The news media crowded around her when Fred left. She was there with a guy wearing a Ron Paul shirt. I told the media that she was a Ron Paul plant. she said: “I am not with Ron Paul” The news crews kept asking her questions so I told them to take a picture of her partners shirt. He quickly put a shirt over his RON Paul Tee shirt. Any who she was parked just next to my car. When she drove off she had Ron Paul stickers on her car.
I’ll post some picture in a few minutes at
http://www.thesitrep.com/ron_paul_freak
TheSitRep on July 26, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Nice crotch shot at 11 seconds.
link? i was too lazy to look. hot crazy chicks are awesome.
lorien1973 on July 26, 2007 at 1:09 PM
In other words……
“Sure she’s smart, but if she’s the one who is really running the campaign, that could be a recurring problem”
Context you fred?heads, context.
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 1:14 PM
i know what you mean. she’s exactly what you’re looking for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QABc_I00rQM
jummy on July 26, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Here is her picture
http://www.thesitrep.com/ron_paul_freak/
TheSitRep on July 26, 2007 at 1:16 PM
I went to her site and left a little hello. This ought to get her a bit stirred up. hehehe
Kowboy on July 26, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Why are you tormenting my new, would-be girlfriend? :(
lorien1973 on July 26, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Well on your first date, don’t bring her flowers. A roll of Reynold’s Wrap and she’ll be yours forever.
Kowboy on July 26, 2007 at 1:27 PM
i would totally ask her to the dance before resorting to a cow like kirsten powers.
jummy on July 26, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Jeri does like baking cookies, unlike someone else I could mention.
captivated_dem on July 26, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Ron Paul and Ward Churchill, heapum crazy blood brothers. Your black helicopter awaits!
saved on July 26, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Oh no! ALLAH HEARTBREAK!
Oklahoma City Mayor washes his hands of something AllahPundit says doesn’t exist.
Gregor on July 26, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Couldn’t have said it better.
RightWinged on July 26, 2007 at 1:40 PM
As an admitted Ron Paul supporter, I am absolutely embarrassed by these stupid F!@ks. I don’t know how many times I’ve shown them videos saying that Ron Paul does not agree with their retarded conspiracy theories but they alway reply that he is just lieing to get into office. Sigh
Oh and I see NAU as being plausible, it really doesn’t seem that far fetched but I pretty sure there are not some evil men in a back room planning it, just that multi-cultural bullsh!t and a desire to remove borders and be one humanity is seeping into our national consciousness.
libertytexan on July 26, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Allah… I know you make such statements just to inspire more comments…. but just for the record, there is nothing “Bircher-esk” about the NAU… several states have already addressed the issue with legislation for heaven sake. And as much as I hate to say it, Fred is not a real conservative… just check his Senate record.
Maxx on July 26, 2007 at 1:50 PM
The woman in the video keeps yelling “Get off of me!” into her recorder. The video does not show anyone on her. It appears that the policemen are barely touching her. It also seems like she was bound to disrupt the session uttering comments while Fred! was asnwering questions.
This whole thing seems staged.
Just off the black helicopter with Ward Churchill and Paul?
Fred!’s comments about sealing the border have been clear. I trust that he is not lying.
saved on July 26, 2007 at 1:53 PM
There’s absolutely no doubt about this. Most of the 9/11 truthers believe in every conspiracy ever imagined. But there’s a flip side to this. There are also people such as Allah, who suggest that there are no such things as conspiracies. Anyone who believes in one is a nutjob, a “truther”, or a “conspiracy theorist.”
How does one possibly believe there are NO conspiracies? Is shamnesty not a conspiracy? Was Shoeless Joe Jackson involved in a conspiracy, or was that all the fantasies of “nutjobs?”
There are those who believe EVERY conspiracy theory, and then there are those who stick their heads in the sand and convince themselves that there is no such thing.
One has to wonder exactly what it would take for Allah to admit that there might be something to the NAU. There are increasing numbers of government officials admitting to it, with members of Congress feeling so strongly about it that they feel it necessary to introduce legislation to STOP it, and yet, all Allah can do when watching the GOP self destruct by ignoring the entire U.S. population in pushing shamnesty … is scratch his head and say it just doesn’t make any sense.
Allah. Do you own any stock in Mexican or Canadian products or corporations? Just asking.
Gregor on July 26, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Mmm-hmm. See, I’m not the only one.
Tanya on July 26, 2007 at 1:53 PM
See; that’s whats awesome about crazy chicks. Bring them some weird ass sci-fi movie and they’ll think its reality. Tell them you play video games to counter-act the government mind control and you get to play xbox all day long. How can it get any better?
lorien1973 on July 26, 2007 at 1:56 PM
not to go ot, but i think i’ve found a competitor for the title currently held by the humping robot.
http://www.break.com/index/very_useful_talent.html
jummy on July 26, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Ever seen “Fatal Attraction”? There’s a huge down side to crazy chicks.
Kowboy on July 26, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Gregor on July 26, 2007 at 1:53 PM
There are conspiracies, and then there are _conspiracy THEORIES_, if you know what I mean.
Shamnesty was definitely a conspiracy, but the mind-control substances being excreted in airplane contrails clearly belong to the latter category, as do the truthers arguments of a massive gov’t conspiracy in 9/11.
jdawg on July 26, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Montana Latest State to Introduce Anti-NAU Legislation
Allah… how much legislation have the 911-Truther’s got passed so far ?
Maxx on July 26, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Even if the government HAD been behind it, it wouldn’t have been Bush. The whole thing would have taken so long to put together in secrecy that ultimately Clinton would have had to have been behind it. But seeing as facts are just a nasty annoyance that gets in their way, they still think they’re right.
Kowboy on July 26, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Kowboy on July 26, 2007 at 2:39 PM
The absence of facts clearly means there’s a real conspiracy, even if there’s nothing to back it up.
Oh, the inner workings of the mind of a conspiracy theorist…
jdawg on July 26, 2007 at 2:42 PM
I don’t know dude, given his Gulf of Tomkin BS and fondness for the Alex Jones show they may have a point.
Hollowpoint on July 26, 2007 at 2:53 PM
No doubt about it. We have far left liberal fruitcakes at work who have placed aluminum window shields over their desks like tents to shield them from the deadly rays that they believe are being emitted from the lights and killing. I work in a communications network operations center where we have all the news stations on 24 hours to insure that we’re aware of events that might impact the network. They whined and moaned and managed to threaten management until they actually removed FoxNews from the wall.
Gregor on July 26, 2007 at 2:57 PM
No, it wasn’t a conspiracy. It was just a bad bill that got defeated.
Hollowpoint on July 26, 2007 at 2:58 PM
conspiracy:
1. plan to commit illegal act together: a secret plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act
2. making of agreement by conspirators: the making of a secret plan or agreement to commit an illegal or subversive act
3. group of conspirators: a group of people planning or agreeing in secret to commit an illegal or subversive act
Maxx on July 26, 2007 at 3:06 PM
LOL!!! Just a bad bill? You mean, by well meaning government officials who all had the wishes of the American public in mind? Or was it a large group of government officials attempting to mislead the entire public, of which 85% had made it clear they had no interest in amnesty? Are you saying that it was not an organized effort to lie and misrepresent the bill as “not amnesty” in an attempt to push it through? Are you suggesting that the bill had absolutely no secret financial deals under the table, with groups such as La Raza, or even the Mexican government?
Naw …
Just a bunch of nice men and women who were only attempting to make life better for American citizens.
I know you don’t actually believe that.
Gregor on July 26, 2007 at 3:07 PM
A bad bill that was contrived in the proverbial cloak room and attempted to be pushed through before the members had a chance to read it against the will of the people.
When done subversively, against the will of the people, and in an orchestrated manner, how can you label it otherwise? The outrage exhibited surely was not exclusive to the language of the bill, but also the manner in which it was submitted.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Source: Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
CONSPIRACY, n. [L. See Conspire.]
1. A combination of men for an evil purpose; an agreement between two or more persons, to commit some crime in concert; particularly, a combination to commit treason, or excite sedition or insurrection against the government of a state; a plot; as a conspiracy against the life of a king; a conspiracy against the government.
More than forty had made this conspiracy. ( Acts 23 )
2. In law, an agreement between two or more persons, falsely and maliciously to indict, or procure to be indicted, an innocent person of felony.
3. A concurrence; a general tendency of two or more causes to one event.
Maxx on July 26, 2007 at 3:12 PM
As long as there are people with self-interests, there will always be people working on the margins of honesty and legality to pursue them.
I would label, perhaps inaccurately, many of those things conspiracies. For example Hitler conspired to thwart the restrictions set on Germany to build his war machine. (I don’t mean to hyperbolize here or equate with the topic at hand). So I have no objection at all to state and local authorities, ie people that see a threat, passing legal obstructions. If it is a fairy tale, no harm done. If it is not, they will be credited with foresight.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 3:18 PM
If you are naive enough to think that our elected officials are primarily motivated by the wishes of the American public, you could label just about everything they do a “conspiracy”.
Hollowpoint on July 26, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Gregor on July 26, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Good gawd, man. Talk about hyperventilating.
jdawg on July 26, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 3:18 PM
These friends of mine sometimes really take the cake, so much so that I rarely, if ever, start any political discussion with them, because I know where they’ll inevitably lead. You have no idea some of the really kooky things they bring up. Most times I just smile and say, really?
jdawg on July 26, 2007 at 4:15 PM
I agree.
Maxx on July 26, 2007 at 3:06 PM
There was nothing “illegal” about the bill. It was, however, really dumb.
Big S on July 26, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Heh. I have them too. But fortunately I don’t work with any blatant aluminum foilers like Gregor does.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Ugh. Well by now this thread has become steeped in fanatic rhetoric, but I thought I’d point out a few things for Allah’s benefit.
They’re right. This isn’t scamming. If they officialy respond they’ll be violating federal election laws.
2) The reason Fred has postponed his announcement till Labor day is the broadcast of “Law and Order”. The last original episode in which he appears is scheduled for Sept. 1, 2007. Everyone who worked on that episode has money coming to them post broadcast. If he announces now, NBC doesn’t show it and some folks don’t get paid.
3) What exactly is wrong with his wife being intimately involved in the campaign? She’s a professional political operative, what else is she gonna do?
I’m not a Fred supporter yet, I haven’t heard nearly enough from him on any issue, but I’m open to it. Do you just hit him like this because he hired Spencer Abraham? Is your…immigration fetish…that all-consuming? Spencer Abraham helped run the Michigan Republican Party too. Should we be wary of Michigan Repubs.? Might they be tainted like Fred? And what about the Hoover Institution at Stanford? Abraham has been there for the last couple years. Do you think he may have infected VDH too? Must we purge him from the Party for his association with Spencer? You see where I’m going don’t you?
Why be wary of Fred on immigration and jihad when he’s said and done all the right things? The Schlussel paranoid style of purity tests is unbecoming and weird. Anyway, it’s something to think about.
The Apologist on July 26, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Big S on July 26, 2007 at 4:22 PM
I didn’t take a position on whether Shamnesty was a conspiracy or not. I simply provided the definition.
Maxx on July 26, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Nice.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 4:40 PM
If that is the case, why has fred? screwed around with the announcement instead of just telling us all last June that he would announce after Sept 1st and the reason why?
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Because it would show his priorities :)
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Very.
But I _am_ concerned about him bringing on Spencer Abraham.
jdawg on July 26, 2007 at 4:46 PM
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 4:41 PM
S’pose you go to his web site (if you can bring yourself to do it) and ask him yourself?
I doubt any of us can answer this with any degree of certainty.
jdawg on July 26, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Far be it for me to defend Fred, but do you think he brought him on board for policy purposes or campaign expertise?
If for policy purposes then that goes against everything he has build up with his radio bits etc. I doubt Fred is THAT tone-deaf.
If for campaign expertise, which is more likely since he said he was filling it out to hit the ground running, what’s the big deal?
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 4:53 PM
You mean showing some loyalty to his former employer and co-workers in not screwing them out of a paycheck? There are worse priorities to have.
I don’t know if the airing of Law and Order has anything to do with his announcement date or not, but if someone I worked with cost me a week’s pay I probably wouldn’t be too happy about it.
Also remember it was the media (citing anonymous sources) that speculated he’d announce in July- not Fred Thompson. I’d like to see him announce ASAP, but with Super Tuesday six months out yet, I can wait.
Hollowpoint on July 26, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Probably a little of both. However, I think the primary reason is probably that they’re Senate buddies.
Big S on July 26, 2007 at 4:57 PM
I think Abraham was a poor choice, but when was the last time a candidate was judged so harshly based on the political views of their campaign manager that differ from the candidates own views?
Put a gun to my head and I couldn’t even guess the name of the campaign manager for the other candidates without looking it up, much less know (or care) what position on the issues they had.
Hollowpoint on July 26, 2007 at 5:01 PM
True, there are worse priorities. And there are many better ones. Fill free to cast his actions in any light you like.
Yeah, so either they already think closely alike and the addition policy-wise means little, or they don’t and he wants him on board either way. I got bigger problems with Fred then an insider adding an insider to his campaign.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Really?! Last I checked … our leaders swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of this country. There’s also a little section of that “piece of paper” which reads …
Oh yeah. Here’s that other part …
Gregor on July 26, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Duh! Yes, you actually could.
Gregor on July 26, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Fred just put a new post on his blog. And, e-mailed a letter to me with the date of August 7th as when they would start e-mailing weekly updates of events he will be at and updates from the road.
Check it out.
cjn on July 26, 2007 at 5:32 PM
It was WONDERFUL hearing her emotional agony and outrage.
I really enjoyed that.
Christoph on July 26, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Absolutely no conspiracy here. Just keep on ignoring common sense, and THE LAW, and everything makes sense.
Just another well meaning judge. No reason to think he’s part of a wider agenda.
Gregor on July 26, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Because it’s tantampount to announcing and then he would be in violation of election law. Fred is as close to campaigning as is legally allowed without filing papers with the FEC on money stuff. In fact, there are people who think he’s already crossed the line (Romdroids) but can’t figure out how to make a stink without looking like crybaby losers.
And since when does Fred have to prove his motivations on any of this stuff? You’re the only Romney campaign staffer here. The rest of us are just citizens.
OT; 300 is out on DVD this coming Tuesday July 31! Get ready to rumble Spartans! 90 minutes of extras and interviews! Hoo-rah!
The Apologist on July 26, 2007 at 5:51 PM
No it isn’t tantamount. He either is or he isn’t. He can announce that he will let us know on October “whatever” and that is no violation. fred? is playing games, and the only people left lapping it up, are still being fooled by him.
I doubt that the Romney campaign is worried about fred?. He has raised millions and fred? has raised next to nothing. He is weathering the attacks on him, while freddie boy is whithering under the attacks on him.
Since when? Since he wants my support and money. He’d better get on the stick, because as we have seen here over the last few days, the patience for freds? cowardice in the face of the real candidates is wearing realllll thin.
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Another staffer leaves freds? campaign today. fred? wants his wife totally in charge, and she’s stepping on toes. She’s over-ruling staffers. Prominent republican operatives are turning down job offers while the current ones are quitting.
I told you guys months ago that she would stick her nose into this and become fair game for the media.
It’s happening.
Buh Bye fred?, you lazy, lying, fake.
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Here’s one story.
Here’s another.
And how mighty will be his fall.
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 6:22 PM
From your link.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Hollowpoint on July 26, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Anything to hammer the Fred!
But I am still watching to see what he does, and how he handles himself. I am concerned. This drive for divine perfection is going to kill us come Nov 08.
jdawg on July 26, 2007 at 6:32 PM
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/018348.php
The hits keep coming. Wonder why Rudy^* and Mitt@?? aren’t getting this kind of media anal exam?
jdawg on July 26, 2007 at 6:37 PM
This is what jumped out at me in that statement.
Expected by who? Is this another case of fred? playing his BS games with announcement dates etc?
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Campaign Staffer deven: You’re first story illustrates my point about his flirting with the line on announcing.
You can insist he either is or isn’t, but it’s lawyers who make the determinations here and I’ve never met one that wasn’t a weasel willing to spin any argument to get his way, so Fred (bein’ a lawyer an’ all) is wise to recognize there are limitations. “A man’s got to know his limitations”, as a great man once said.
Additionally, I don’t see how a campaign shakeup at the time of a campaign transition is surprising or indicative of Fred’s imminent demise. Romney isn’t really getting his money’s worth on your arguments here.
Speaking of Romney, he’s raised a hell of a lot of money to be sure and he’s a good Republican for a guy from Massachusettes, but Fred is still kicking his butt in the polls. Hell, McCain is kicking Romney’s butt in the polls. The only poll Romney’s gonna win is the one in Ames that he can buy and even there he’ll be followed in second by The Only Man Who Can Save America.
Like I said before, I’m open to a Fred candidacy, but I wanna see how he handles himself in the debates and see if he can land a punch effectively against a Democrat when he doesn’t have a script. And I don’t have anything in particular against Romney either, but your Anti-Fred crap is really getting old and busted and it was weak to begin with.
The Apologist on July 26, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Because fred? is a fraud and they aren’t playing his non-candidate-candidate game anymore.
Rudy already had his anal exam and Mitts! is just around the corner. Late September.
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Yeah? He is flirting with the line. Some people think that is cool, others think it’s not. I do not trust a guy who wants it both ways. Especially a clown who tries to paint himself as a Washington outsider and the first sign of trouble, his fans start talking like he’s a slick savvy Washington insider. The fred?heads can’t have it both ways. He is either an insider or an outsider. He is either a candidate or he isn’t. freds? playing coy with the date serves no strategic purpose other than to fudge the rules. It would have been perfectly fine for him to announce a date he would announce. He hasn’t and therefore all these “contractual” excuses are BS.
Yup, those are the actions of a guy who wants to be known as “Ol fred” while he drives around in his fake red pickup truck.
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 6:56 PM
I wonder if the worry is that Jeri will end up as a Republican Hillary Clinton… politically at least… you’d have to hit her an awful lot with an ugly stick to get her to match Hillary’s other attributes.
jeffshultz on July 26, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Ugly is as ugly does.
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 7:09 PM
It would have been legal, though not necessarily wise strategically. Especially if it was unclear when the last episode would air months ago when he was trying to lay out plans.
Not at all. Just because it would have been legal doesn’t mean it would have been a good idea in every other measure. Frankly, I’m glad of it. It shows sound judgement in not letting your opponents and the media force you to show your cards early and play your hand before it’s best for you and your campaign.
The only people it would help are his opponents. Which is why their staffers keep showing up in these threads with oppo research and complaints about how Fred isn’t playing fair. :( Boo hoo.
Fred’s running his campaign pretty well as far as I’m concerned. The question is more one of what’s the substance of the campaign and that’s what we’ll begin to see in September.
The Apologist on July 26, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Man, I hope Romney’s paying you a lot to smear people with no proof (or even an articulate allegation) like that. I’d sure want a healthy paycheck to sacrifice my integrity.
Maybe McCain’s people will be desperate enough in a couple weeks to start paying people to be ugly on the internet at popular conservative sites. Of course, I don’t know if McCain would have enough money to get me to be as nasty as you’re willing to be. I guess we’ll see.
The Apologist on July 26, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Like I said, you think it’s a wise move, I do not.
I also think the media would never had promoted him the way they did if he had just followed his own advise and never said a word until October. But fred? wanted it both ways. He wanted to push the line to be a candidate way back in April all the while he was whining that it was way too early and he was gonna run his own campaign.
fred? has shown from the beginning that he is a two faced fake. Some people refuse to see it and make excuses for him.
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 7:33 PM
So is this the new meme? Lazy didn’t work. Liberal didn’t work. Maybe impure and 2 faced will? Whateva.
The Apologist on July 26, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Straw man.
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Ask fred?. The more we know about him the worse he gets.
I guess you guys are just gonna have to find a different candidate. Maybe there’s a guy on a different TV show and you can draft him?
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Gary Sinise for President!
Slublog on July 26, 2007 at 7:56 PM
No! I already called for Angie Harmon!
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Hmmmm…
I change my vote!
Slublog on July 26, 2007 at 8:28 PM
And some people fail to see his absolute genius. Some people fail to see his charisma and charm. Some people fail to see how much like me he is.
:-)
Tennman on July 26, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Super Dave does the late night circuit so he qualifies. Besides he’s announced ahead of Fred!?@#$%^&*()__
sonnyspats1 on July 26, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Yeah. There are no such things as conspiracies. Absolutely no reason to believe there’s any effort at all to create the NAU. Nada. Crazy people.
And, only lunatics would believe such a thing. No right minded person would believe our government is attempting to integrate the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. Nonsense I tell you!
And only fools would believe Ramos and Compean were caught in the middle of this conspiracy.
Oh wait …
(Emphasis mine)
I guess the House of Representatives is full of lunatics and nutjobs that are completely unaware of what’s being pushed by their coworkers.
Gregor on July 27, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Comment pages: