Audio: Michelle lowers the boom on Fred for hiring Spence Abraham

posted at 11:20 am on July 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

Apologies for the static-y feed here. Hopefully it’s not so much of a distraction as to make the clip unlistenable. You may not want to listen to this one anyway: The effect of MM knocking Big Papa is apt to cause seizures in the Fredheads among us, and even prompts a rare disagreement between the boss and Laura. I think the worry is a tiny bit overstated but her point about learning the lessons of trusting Republican leaders is painfully well taken.


Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Some of you people make me want to vomit! You are determined to destroy ANYONE who rises to the top in the Republican field. Who’s perfect? Rudy? Mitt?, McCain? Give me a break! Ronaldus Magnus couldn’t pass muster with you lame brains! Regardles of what MM thinks, Fred is still the closest thing to a conservative that has even a remote chance of being elected.

edgehead on July 30, 2007 at 7:07 PM

Fred is still the closest thing to a conservative that has even a remote chance of being elected.

edgehead on July 30, 2007 at 7:07 PM

Uh, you need to look into his record and his rhetoric. fred? is far from being the movie star he has craftily created.

I am not fooled by his BS.

csdeven on July 30, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Only if you limit it to the last, say, five years or so.
Tennman on July 30, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Well, then, we wont consider anything fred? has done previous to 2002.

That doesn’t leave much. Clearly not enough to give him the nomination.

csdeven on July 30, 2007 at 7:12 PM

I never was a Fred supporter and I won’t vote for him unless he wins the Primary.

As bad as Fred is, he is still better than Hillary, Obama or Silky.

PBoilermaker on July 30, 2007 at 7:55 PM

Uh…I gotta say it…

ronsfi on July 30, 2007 at 7:57 PM

Boy I go boating in Northern MN for 9 days and nothing changes… oh wait yeah I want Duncan Hunter and Mike Steele if not Steele then Adam Putnam. Can’t wait for the blowback on this!

MNDavenotPC on July 30, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Rudy Giuliani speech when he was NYC mayor – “Two days ago I announced that the City of New York has filed suit against the federal government. We are challenging a provision of the recently enacted federal Welfare and Immigration law.
This new federal law is part of an anti-immigration (Now since there is no anti-legal-immigration movement, to speak of anyway, you already KNOW that he is talking about ILLEGALS) movement that can be
seen throughout the United States, unfortunately.

Here in New York City we know the value of immigration. New York the greatest city in the world was built by the hands of immigrants and it continues to be built and strengthened by immigrants. New Yorkers know
that any effort to eliminate immigration or unfairly burden immigrants (He is clearly from above and below saying illegal “immigrants”) could destroy the very process that is the key to New York and America’s success.

That’s why the City of New York has filed suit in federal court. Our lawsuit contends that the new federal law violates the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by invalidating New York City’s
Executive Order 124. For those who may not know, Executive Order 124″ is New York City’s policy regarding undocumented immigrants. This
order was issued seven years ago by Mayor Ed Koch and then later reissued by Mayor Dinkins and then by me. Executive Order 124 protects undocumented immigrants in New York City from being reported to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service while they are using City services that are crucial for their health and safety, and critical for the health and safety of the entire city.

Joining me in defense of fair treatment for immigrants (Again, you know he means ILLEGALS) is a coalition of well-known individuals and organizations (I wonder who that would include? LaRaza? CARE? Ted
Kennedy? Vicente Fox?)
who oppose the anti-immigration (You know that he is talking about ILLEGAL immigrants) forces in Washington (That would be a majority of Republicans in the Congress, not just Tancredo and Hunter) and elsewhere (That would be us bad nasty nativist rednecks, I would “assume”)

MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 8:07 PM

I will never vote for anyone who cavorts with Islamic Facist Apologists.

Of course, according to the Republican Party (of which I used to consider myself) my thinking brands me a racist.

One year ago I would have been shocked to hear myself want a 3rd Party. I am even desperate for a decent Democrat. I would vote for a decent Democrat after the crapola our current Republican politicians have given us.

Montana on July 30, 2007 at 9:06 PM

I don’t care that Fred was a lobbyist. I can understand why he voted for McCain Feingold years ago. It really doesn’t bother me that he hasn’t announced yet. But it worries the hell out of me that he has hired Spencer Abraham as his campaign manager. That strikes hard on the immigration issue and for the life of me I can’t imagine why he would do that … unless he’s squishy on the issue.

Buzzy on July 30, 2007 at 9:09 PM

That doesn’t leave much. Clearly not enough to give him the nomination.
csdeven on July 30, 2007 at 7:12 PM

Again, back to the “things done.” Only “things said” qualifies anyone to run, except ex-presidents. And they aren’t running.

Tennman on July 30, 2007 at 9:17 PM

wow, fiery thread here. Let me jump in.

I think alot of you are missing one of Gregor’s important points which is that electing RINOs actually hurts the party. It doesnt make it more electable which seems to be the unfortunately flawed conventional wisdom. Polls showing things like decrease in the number of self-identified (R) are the result of the public being unable to distinguish policy wise between the two parties. Which party is actually tougher on immigration? Who knows its a toss up. It has nothing to do with the country moving left. There seems to be alot of evidence 2004 was punishment for R moving to far left. Those of you advocating electing a center-moderate are missing the boat tactically. Hillary will eat anyone for breakfast who is “moderate” like she pretends to be. Someone who is a sharp contrast is needed.

Now all that said Gregor is off his Rocker when he calls Romney a RINO. Once again complaints about Romney fail to look at his actual record. You really take a quote on his website that you say shows he is weak on enfocement as more important then his actual record where he got State troopers involved in enforcement?

I think Fredmania has run out of steam without leaving the station. His non-awnsers to softball questions from day 1 really leaves me wondering where did the excitement even come from?

Resolute on July 30, 2007 at 9:31 PM

If we nominate Romney, the 2nd amendment people will stay home. I guarantee it unless he changes his mind on the AWB, cuz they’re will be little reason for them to turn out.

Bad Candy on July 30, 2007 at 9:40 PM

*Sigh* there, not they’re.

Bad Candy on July 30, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Michelle and Laura, the voices of reason. Thank God.

Zorro on July 30, 2007 at 10:01 PM

Csdeven: 1, Fredheads: -20

How does it feel to be declared the winner? ;-)

It’s Mitt! all the way baby! That is, if he can change his mind about the YouTube thing.

Darnell Clayton on July 30, 2007 at 10:17 PM

A major part of Fred!’s appeal is his understanding of how important immigration issues are for the nation and the citizen’s of the United States. Any doubt that he will enforce the borders without compromise to the Ferengi Right who seek short term profit, or to the Left to appease their thirst for political power, deflates his popularity like a pin in a helium ballon.

omegaram on July 30, 2007 at 10:37 PM

Simple if the RNC wanted Hunter to be the front runner, he would be.

The RNC has already been proven willing to take the hit in elections in order to continue their own agenda and screw being in compliance with Conservative Americans much less Conservative ideology.

Rudy is the front runner because he’s a wool covered RINO and it appears Fred! is right there too.

Speakup on July 30, 2007 at 1:30 PM

The second pargraph above is sadly accurate. Tancredo has been persona non grata through the entire Bush Presidency precisely because of his very public stand against open borders. Tancredo is persona non grata to the MSM for the same reason and because they do not want to promote a Republican who might connect with the masses. So when both the GOP powerhogs, and the MSM tsk-tsk brigade dismiss Tancredo they have the same motives. It has worked well.

If the party bigs wish to promote a total unknown they can do so easily in a bait and switch convention. Such conventions brought us both Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. The camera technique is simple, bring out the ugly ones first, and give them bad lighting. When the mood has been set, bring in the palatable snack and watch the crowd roar.

This won’t happen with Tancredo right now because the GOP Border Busters hate his guts. Of course, the conservative citizens now thoroughly hate the GOP which is why the GOP cannot raise money from the ‘little people’ anymore. Until shamnesty, the GOP out raised the DEMs with the masses.

I will not give the GOP a plug nickle

The question: if the GOP gives a party and the little people don’t come, can they still get the little people to vote for the mime the GOP selects this election?

I am not interested in the ‘Tancredo doesn’t have a chance’ argument. At this time, Tancredo doesn’t have a chance with the party big shots. He always has a chance with the masses but it takes a party to run a campaign.

This is not a typical election. The GOP top has proven they were just using the little people. They have revealed they despise the hicks and religies at the bottom. They tried to break bones to force in amnesty and end border control. It won’t go away. If they offer a half baked RINO it will not fly. They have to offer an outsider who did not participate in the gangster actions memorial day weekend.

They have lost my trust completely. Except Tancredo. If Rove hates him, Tancredo must be OK

Guilliani is very capable. However he did make that flip remark about loving illegals and if they pay taxes we need more of ’em.

entagor on July 30, 2007 at 11:04 PM

Darnell Clayton on July 30, 2007 at 10:17 PM

Darnell, tsk, tsk, tsk. You need a better scoreboard. ;-)

Tennman on July 30, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Tear that man down…shut em down…shut em shut em down. Somebody is getting to big for their britches.

tomas on July 30, 2007 at 11:26 PM

where did the excitement even come from?

Resolute on July 30, 2007 at 9:31 PM

Some TV show he was on.

csdeven on July 31, 2007 at 12:06 AM

Still… a very stupid thing to do. The hiring that is. Fire him Fred… or bend over and kiss your azz goodbye.

Griz on July 31, 2007 at 12:18 AM

Here is Viguerie’s view.

Primbs on July 31, 2007 at 12:45 AM

Fred is Toast! I win’t support a Grand Pooba Globalist insider.

sonnyspats1 on July 31, 2007 at 12:57 AM

It official I’m in for Rudy! If I have to roll the dice than my money is on a hard headed goomba from Brooklyn. No way will Rudy switch out on his promises. If he cleaned up that mega sewer in NYC then we would be in good hands with Rudy. As far as the FDNY spouting accusations about Rudy making money on the backs of the dead first responders with speaking engagements, They get paid to complain. Thats what unions due bitch about money and put down the boss.

sonnyspats1 on July 31, 2007 at 1:07 AM

Immigration troofer Gregor first wrote:

Amazing! I guess you’re not familiar with where the big campaign money comes from. Oh how cute. You actually thought it came from individual citizens like you and me, didn’t you?

I then documented that, in fact, 94% of the money Rudy has raised did, in fact, come from “individual citizens like you and me”:

The source of presidential campaign donations are a matter of record, and Rudy’s are documented right here.

94% ($33.3M) came from individual contributions
1% ($219K) came from PACs

Having been proven to be simply making sh*t up, Gregor tries a non-sequitur to wriggle out:

Uh … and you think “individuals” is limited to ‘only Americans who don’t own businesses?’ Is Bill Gates an “individual?” Is George Soros and “individual?” Are corporate officials “individuals” or are you saying that they don’t count?

Who said anything about owning businesses? You said the money didn’t come from individuals. I proved it did.

Yes, Bill Gates and George Soros are individuals, and they are each allowed to donate up to $2K to each and every candidate they wish, just like you and I.

$33 million from average middle class Americans. Right. Do the numbers on that, why don’t you.

What is your point, Einstein? This is all a matter of record. Based on the last reported figures (July 15), about 26,500 people have donated to Giuliani’s campaign. Of those, 18,200 (about 2/3’s) have donated $200 or less. Obviously, anyone who can afford to donate a significant sum to a political campaign is likely to be relatively well off.

Are you aware how many PACS and organizations George Soros is involved with? Do you believe that George Soros only accounts for the minimum individual donation to the Democratic Party?

Again, you just don’t know what you’re talking about. Soros and other big spenders (and their organizations) donate millions in *soft money* to the DNC, no doubt. But it is against the law for any person to donate more than a few $K to a *specific candidate*, and it is against law for any campaign to accept it.

In 2004, I maxed out early on donating to President Bush (no, I don’t own, operate, or even work for, a business…but I donated about 5% of my pre-tax annual salary).

Close to the election, I got a call from the Bush campaign soliciting another contribution. I told them I thought I was maxed-out, and they said no, so I said OK and wrote them another check for about $1K. A couple weeks later, out of the blue, they returned my donation to me in the form of a check from the Bush campaign, with a cover letter explaining that I *was* maxed out, and therefore they couldn’t accept any more money from me.

LagunaDave on July 31, 2007 at 1:09 AM


Rudy, Mitt

Honestly they are unproven, Freds’ votes and his statements on the war on terror are there long before the election process.

Rudy? come on seriously he has sooo many personal flaws that the strength to run an unpopular war is not in his genre.

Mitt? A Mormon going to war? Seriously asking a Mormon to drop the big one in a time of crisis?

A nuke running around the US we getting islamic backmail whose going to relatiate or more important order the first strike?

EricPWJohnson on July 31, 2007 at 1:58 AM


The basic problem between the two parties is this

One thinks peace is a thing that can be legislated

The other one thinks peace is when your enemies cry “enough” and leave you alone

I Lump everyone but Fred and Huckabee in the peace is a state of mind group

EricPWJohnson on July 31, 2007 at 2:00 AM

Keep this one fact in mind, Hillary has been running for President for the last 5 15 years or more.

doriangrey on July 30, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Pardon the fix.

soundingboard on July 31, 2007 at 4:42 AM

Bottom line is.. I do not trust any of the top tier candidates not one…

build the wall on July 31, 2007 at 8:25 AM

Mitt? A Mormon going to war? Seriously asking a Mormon to drop the big one in a time of crisis?
EricPWJohnson on July 31, 2007 at 1:58 AM


WHERE do you people come up with this crap?

csdeven on July 31, 2007 at 10:24 AM

Well there you have it, our ghost best hope Fred is an open borders dhimmi.

Timber Wolf on July 31, 2007 at 3:36 PM

I hate that picture of Laura. She looks like Nicolas Cage in drag.

km on July 31, 2007 at 5:41 PM