Audio: Michelle lowers the boom on Fred for hiring Spence Abraham
posted at 11:20 am on July 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
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.
Link: sevenload.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: 1 2 3 Next »
Here’s more on that guy. I couldn’t believe Fred would hire that guy. I guess all of the Republican candidates suck.
PRCalDude on July 30, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Fred should have hired Robert Spencer.
You go MM.
profitsbeard on July 30, 2007 at 11:34 AM
This certainly has placed more doubt on his campaign than anything thus far — at least in the blogosphere. It would be nice to hear him respond on this.
frankj on July 30, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me…I…your not going to fool me again!
Nosferightu on July 30, 2007 at 11:35 AM
csdeven countdowns in 5..4..3..2..
And Fred gets nailed again. Why? All he does is Talk. He talks the talk. Duncan Hunter has walked the walk. Mitt Romney has walked the walk. Fred has uh… well, he was a DA on TV.
BKennedy on July 30, 2007 at 11:37 AM
The Thompson frenzy reminds me of the Bush coronation of 2000.
MM is speaking for the base.
Thompson at least has enough support to prove himself a conservative on a daily basis unlike the other leading GOP candidates who have zero credibility as conservatives.
Valiant on July 30, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Good luck.
Spirit of 1776 on July 30, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Maybe we should drop a line to Hannity and have him ask it. Hannity is Fred Thompson’s pretty much official sounding board.
BKennedy on July 30, 2007 at 11:41 AM
I’m still awaiting a response – any at all – on the abortion group consultant job denial. Don’t hold your breath.
Good idea.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Time to remove the ‘I’m with Fred!’ blog banner I have. The problem is, none of the Republicans are inspiring. Duncan Hunter would of course be good, but he doesn’t have any recognition or money.
PRCalDude on July 30, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Giuliani 08.
Everyone face it, it’s our best shot. And a good one.
Halley on July 30, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Giuliani is the only candidate that puts NY, NJ, Pa, and FL. in play. The GOP cannot start off every election conceding such a huge electoral bloc.
Hilts on July 30, 2007 at 11:59 AM
My disappointment in Thompson’s choice is extreme. I almost feel like crying. What is it with the leadership of the West that every leader we have wants to surrender our countries to our enemies? It’s like there really is a Lord Sauron who has ring to bind us. It’s almost enough to make me believe in God as the deliberate blindness to evil seems to be so extreme as to only be explained by an evil force.
Intellectually, I now that the evil force is for the most part “anti-racism”. While I oppose racism, I think we need to refuse to accept any argument premised on racism being the founding principle of our culture. Racism is not our demiurge (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge). It’s simply one among many evils we must fight. And right now at this point in time, “anti-racism” hurts our fights against those other evils.
Anyway, before Abraham, I trusted that Fred could deal with immigration issues and the war with the muslims competently to preserve our country. Now, my choice is simple. I’m voting for Rudy–even though I don’t trust him on immigration either.
thuja on July 30, 2007 at 11:59 AM
o/t watching the press conf with bish and brown, Bush just said the ryder cup was for bowling…
zane on July 30, 2007 at 12:00 PM
When? He’s about as RINOish as Giuliani.
Zach on July 30, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Hmmmmm I’m only getting to hear the introduction. Ends with Laura saying: “I’m doing grrr”
MrC_5150 on July 30, 2007 at 12:03 PM
And Fred gets nailed again. Why? All he does is Talk. He talks the talk. Duncan Hunter has walked the walk. Mitt Romney has walked the walk. Fred has uh… well, he was a DA on TV.
BKennedy on July 30, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Hunter is good, but in the second tier. Independents will not vote for Hunter en masse.
Romney pushed abortion rights and socialized medicine in his “walk” with the left. He has good points, but is a religious question with BACs and RCs.
Nothing wrong with a little LAW AND ORDER in the White House for a change…after 20 years of Clinton-Bush.
saved on July 30, 2007 at 12:03 PM
I don’t know why anybody is surprised. It’s not like Fred doesn’t have a record that shows him to be at least as RINO as anyone in the field despite his podcasts or hot oil rubs from Hannity.
Oh that’s right, nobody has bothered to look at his record.
JackStraw on July 30, 2007 at 12:04 PM
People were and are just too quick to jump on the Fred bandwagon. I will still wait and see.
Still waiting on a true Conservative anyhow.
On-my-soap-box on July 30, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Oh, and, Malkin for President!
On-my-soap-box on July 30, 2007 at 12:05 PM
WTF ??? After winning (barely) one small battle Shamnesty Republicans are going to purge the party of anybody who (like W) lacks purity of thought on the subject?
That is ONE QUICK WAY to lose lose lose.
You can bet president Hillary with a dimorat controlled congress will reverse your “victory” in a New York Minute.
boris on July 30, 2007 at 12:06 PM
When Fred was a blank slate, everybody loved him, of course. But I knew that once you have to start actually answering questions, hiring staff, etc., the bloom would come off the rose. I’m not surprised by any of this.
I still don’t understand how Barack Obama is able to do this on the Democratic side. He still seems to be “all things to all people.”
asc85 on July 30, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Amen to the first, not so thrilled about the second. I’d rather see Romney as CEO of GE than as the Commander-in-Chief. We’re at war for the foreseeable future – we need a leader, not a manager.
Redhead Infidel on July 30, 2007 at 12:09 PM
I have not seen any posts, here on HA, about Newt Gingrichs’ comments on Fox News Sunday, confirming rumors that he had dinner with Fred and Jeri Thompson and Bob Livingston. Don’t know anything about Livingston beyond a wiki entry. How do these revelations factor in to Fred?s’ candidacy?
captivated_dem on July 30, 2007 at 12:09 PM
I’m starting to like Duncan Hunter better and better.
I’m still very fed up with bait and switch Republicans and will be until they’re working at the local vacuum store.
Speakup on July 30, 2007 at 12:09 PM
It’s because he’s black.
Hey, it’s nice to see that some people here are finally questioning their faith in this half-baked, ham actor Thompson. Faith is bloody overrated if you ask me.
Enrique on July 30, 2007 at 12:10 PM
You are correct.
Romney must have a great VP – maybe Giuliani/Gingrich.
faraway on July 30, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Working flawlessly at Sevenload. Nevermind.
MrC_5150 on July 30, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Even with Rudy, does anyone REALLY believe that New York will go red any time soon?
If getting two towers knocked over by terrorists who want to kill Americans in their own backyard did nothing to change their tune, I don’t see how their former mayor will do any better.
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 12:23 PM
I think we’ve got some more suffering to do before any prayers of such a man are answered.
MrC_5150 on July 30, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Fixed
eeyore on July 30, 2007 at 12:24 PM
And Fred’s on the same level. First, a supporter of McCain-Feingold, then flatly denying he worked for that group when he did, then appointing Abraham.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 12:25 PM
He may not be able to carry all of it, but a portion of it is better than none of it. Same thing with the other swing states (like Florida). I gotta tell you, I live in FL, and there’s a good deal of support for him around these parts.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Maybe now, those of you who claim to be conservatives will start talking positive about Tancredo.
Of course, the ironic part of all of this is that many of you who bash Thompson for being another Rino in disguise, will then go and vote for Giuliani who is even further left than Thompson.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Looks as if it’s Giuliani, Romney choice I think. If conservatives don’t want a Dem president then we’d better get behind one or the other and right quick. Maybe it’s time to back the principles of a winning strategy. Also, we need to stop saying/illustrating that the Dems are ahead and get down to the business of electing a Republican president.
jeanie on July 30, 2007 at 12:32 PM
‘Ol Fred is a likeable guy, and a decent actor, but the sooner the balloon of his candidacy is burst the sooner we can get back to choosing a candidate who can win in ‘08.
Labamigo on July 30, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Giuliani hasn’t lied about who he worked for, hired someone who Michelle has considered open-borders since 2002 as his campaign manager, and tease about whether or not he’s going to declare/run.
I like Tancredo, though. He’s great on immigration.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 12:33 PM
I don’t see Rudy & McCain as being the right guys as President. Rudy is like a re-tread Thomas Dewey, and Mccain has his head up his @ss. Mitt is a little too much like Donny Osmond ; clean cut, honest, and polite.
I saw Tom Tancredo on C-span, and I like him even though he seems to kind of stutter. I also saw Duncan Hunter, and he seems like a guy that can get things done. Fred worries me because I don’t think he subscribes to the doctrine “When you’re in command, command” He seems like he could be pushed around. Newt is smart, but a little too full of himself.
What we need is another choice, but I have no idea who that might be. 1 part Newt, one part Duncan, ond part Rudy, and one part Teddy Roosevelt.
saiga on July 30, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Reagan.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 12:35 PM
BINGO !!!!!!!
saiga on July 30, 2007 at 12:36 PM
I didn’t listen yet. Just wanted to scold AP for continuing to abuse Laura Ingraham with that absurd photo. That’s brutal.
Jaibones on July 30, 2007 at 12:38 PM
…and warming up in the bullpen is number ‘98 Newt Gingrich.
LakeRuins on July 30, 2007 at 12:40 PM
What people who make comments such as this fail to grasp is that this is what got us into the mess we’re in today. We vote in the primaries for the person we think can win the general election, rather than for the person who shares our philosophy. If you this way in this election, we’re doomed to open borders and amnesty. Go ahead. If you think voting for Giuliani or Romney is a “winning strategy” … then don’t dare utter a single whimper of complaint when the amnesty bill is passed in 2008/2009. Don’t shed a single tear when guns are outlawed in your city. Look in the mirror and realize that it’s exactly what you voted for.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Well, while you’re voting for the person that shares our philosophy 100%, I’ll be watching the Clinton Inauguration on CSPAN.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Duncan Hunter has been my first choice from the start. He’s a classic GOP conservative just like we want, but he can’t get any traction within the party.
hmmm…. why isn’t ‘the party’ embracing a classic GOP candidate like Hunter? hmmm….
Lawrence on July 30, 2007 at 12:48 PM
I agree. I admire him for this, at least up until the shamnesty fiasco when he suddenly pretended to be for border security. Heh!
The fact that he has USUALLY been honest about what he stands for makes it even more confusing why conservatives would support him. He’s come right out and admitted that he’s on opposite sides on almost every conservative issue, yet so many just close their eyes and support him. Why? Because he TALKS a good game on terrorism, although he has absolutely no record to back it up. He’s using 9/11 to walk his way all the way into the White House, and all he really did was walk around NYC giving speeches.
It’s scary how naive we are. While Michelle, and so many other conservatives are claiming that they won’t be fooled by Thompson into believing that he’s a real conservative … the guy they’ll most likely run to is even LESS a conservative. And the one guy who has been 100% conservative on EVERY issue throughout his entire career (Tancredo) … gets mocked by people such as AllahPundit.
Makes sense to me.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 12:50 PM
How is it better to get some of a state when you can’t get the whole thing? The votes aren’t split in two. Coming in a close second is losing just as much as if you weren’t even in the running.
I do support ideology over electability but only to an extent. If he can gain some ground and prove his conservative creds, then I’d consider voting for him, but as of yet, there’s no reason to consider that he’s got any kind of a chance.
Even in straw polls where there’s nothing at stake to mark him as acceptable, he’s polling low.
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 12:55 PM
saiga on July 30, 2007 at 12:34 PM
1 part Newt, one part Duncan, ond part Rudy, and one part Teddy Roosevelt.
Should we rethink cloning? Ha.
Teddy Roosevelt truly loved America and what it stands for. If he was living today, he would be in a perpetual rage.
captivated_dem on July 30, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Well, while you’re voting for the person that shares our philosophy 100%, I’ll be watching the Clinton Inauguration on CSPAN.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Yes you will, because of the number of morons we have who will be voting for Giuliani. Of course, you’ll blame those of us who voted for real conservatives, instead of looking in the mirror and realizing that you lost because you all voted for yet another RINO.
In my opinion … none of you who plan to vote for Giuliani have a right to be moaning about ANYTHING going on right now. You moan, whine, pout, scream, cry, and stomp your feet about how pissed off you are about these d@mn RINOs … and in the same breath you tell everyone how we need to vote for the biggest RINO of them all.
Absurd.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Giuliani is the only candidate that puts NY, NJ, Pa, and FL. in play. The GOP cannot start off every election conceding such a huge electoral bloc.
Hilts on July 30, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Bloomberg will take those states off the map again and give them to the democrates.
unseen on July 30, 2007 at 1:02 PM
If every conservative who felt this way were to actually VOTE for Tancredo as their first choice in every straw poll … then you would see his numbers explode to the head of the pack. Instead, you all vote for Giuliani, or Fred Thompson in the straw polls, effectively making it impossible for Tancredo to gain ground.
Again … look in the mirror.
There’s an amazing lack of understanding of how polls effect money, and money effects elections. And it’s unbelievable how conservatives seem to be completely ignorant on the purpose of primaries. Try voting for the guy who shares your philosophy.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Tancredo can’t rally enough general support to win. He’s not going to pull in the swing voters.
Giuliani put mob bosses behind bars, as well as Wall Street crooks and other scandalous figures. He cracked down on minor crimes including graffiti. Remember Marc Rich? Guess who prosecuted him.
Giuliani refused a $10 million donation from the Saudi Prince for the sole reason that the Prince said the US was partly responsible. He regularly uses the words “Islamic terrorism”, while saying the Dems shy away from calling it what it is.
There’s no reason to believe he wouldn’t be strong on terrorism. Tancredo would, too, but like I said, he’d be unable to rally enough support against Pantsuit.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Presumably the Dems would use up resources fighting for them that might be spent elsewhere. Might not make a difference in the end but it’s a thought…
sublime on July 30, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Living in Dearborn while (lebanese descent) Abraham was Senator was a dismal experience. He was granted the Senatorship by the big shots in the Michigan GOP. The seat was reserved for him. Once in he seemed to be a fluffy marshmallow not wanting to use hurtful words on local news interview, bland, vague, and smiley. However, he was a real suck up to the mideastern community.
Debbie Schlussel has some history on him. And here from DS are details MM was referring to in the clip
worrisome quote from that article –
Now you know, Abraham seemed to have a blind eye to the possibility that anyone from the middle east could be a greater suspect for middle-eastern terrorism. This is the wrong kind of clan loyalty. I prefer loyalty to the bigger clan of Americans. Current Michigan Senator Stabenow must thank her she-goddess every full moon that she had as opponent Spencer, the man who loved RINOs and middle-east-os to the exclusion of reality
Abraham has a public track record. It isn’t secret. The guy can probably bring in a lot of bucks but I am sure the bucks come with obligations due. Or does Fred really agree with Spencer? That is the question.
entagor on July 30, 2007 at 1:04 PM
You keep saying that as if it was true. I don’t support setting a time table on removing troops from Iraq, Tancredo does. That is at least as big an issue as illegal immigration, the only issue Tancredo has to run on.
Aside from that, Tancredo seems just fine. Oh, other than the simple fact he would never get elected.
JackStraw on July 30, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Right, that makes sense. Because by voting for the guy who can win, that’d be losing. Instead we should be voting for the guy who won’t garner support outside of the blogosphere and talk radio.
You honestly think Tancredo can take more electoral votes that Pantsuit?
So, basically you’re saying that if everyone voted against the guy they support, and instead voted for Tancredo, he’d be leading the polls.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Must have crushed Allah to post this.
Rudy in ‘08!
Bodhi on July 30, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Yeah. I like Tancredo, Hunter, and Huckabee. I want someone who was a conservative, is a conservative, and will be a conservative.
Zach on July 30, 2007 at 1:09 PM
He’s “magic” according to The Los Angeles Times…
SouthernGent on July 30, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Dear Gregor—Of course you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. But—your “principles” however noble just lead to divide and conquer. In the case of the next election, I think we may have to settle for “half a pie is better than none” from the looks of things. I, for one, would rather have that than Hillary or Obama. By the way, I really hope that developments prove me wrong!!!!!(and…excuse the platitudes please)
jeanie on July 30, 2007 at 1:11 PM
You really believe people would vote for Hillary than for Tancredo? I don’t think that for a minute. You listen to Tancredo talk … and I would suggest that more Americans would vote for Tancredo than for Giuliani OR Fred Thompson. What’s killing Fred Thompson right now is the growing perception that he’s an insider with Bush and all of his back door policies. There will never be anyone able to accuse Tancredo of being an insider.
In a major campaign, Tancredo would be able to use the fact that Karl Rove kicked him out of the White House. That alone will bring in many of the independent voters, and those who fear Hillary.
What’s holding Tancredo down right now is his lack of visibility, and misleading agenda driven mockery by those such as Allah.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Really? Have you seen Pantsuit’s numbers? It’d be wonderful if Tancredo could beat her. He can’t. People, whether we like it or not, are not going to vote for a 100% Conservative in the next election. He may be totally different, but they associate it with Bush.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 1:18 PM
No. You’re saying that. You’re saying that you’re voting AGAINST the real conservative because then the other guy who isn’t a real conservative will be leading in the polls.
I’m saying to vote for the guy you actually agree with on most issues, and if everyone else did the same thing, then yes … he would be leading in the polls.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 1:19 PM
MM gave Duncan and Tancredo a plug in the interview as real conservatives.
If a GOP candidate can’t sail to the nomination and presidency on the immigration debacle alone, we don’t deserve to win.
Valiant on July 30, 2007 at 1:25 PM
No. I vote for Rudy, because I support him. The only reason I’d vote for Tancredo, is if I abandoned the guy I support. It just so happens the guy I support can also beat Hillary. Tancredo can’t. Why? Because you need more than just the Conservative vote to win this upcoming election.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Huh?
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Giuliani is the only candidate that puts NY, NJ, Pa, and FL. in play. The GOP cannot start off every election conceding such a huge electoral bloc.
Hilts on July 30, 2007 at 11:59 AM
NY? Hill gets it. Rudiani is a close second
FL? Hill gets this one too. For goodness sake, even AL GORE practically won Florida.
Fred!Rudiani ticket is the best hope. If you run Rudiani…
a Frito Bandito-Paul Rodriguez ticket will be GOP’s best chance in 2016.
saved on July 30, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Dude, please just put the Tancredo pipe down and back slowly away from it. The man is a great guy and a conservative, but he doesnt have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. He is just like Duncan Hunter, strong solid conservative but without the name or face recognition to get elected.
doriangrey on July 30, 2007 at 1:28 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
You may be right. Just don’t utter a single sound of complaint on the day the amnesty bill is passed and signed by Giuliani. As I said … you vote for Giuliani, you’re voting for amnesty, loss of the 2nd Amendment, and on-demand abortion.
In fact, anyone who plans to vote for Giuliani should be banned from this blog the second they write a comment complaining about any of the above issues. Yes, I know that’s absurd and I know nobody is going to get banned, but you’ve got to see the hypocrisy involved.
Just realize what you’re voting for.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Then you’re voting for a RINO and one of the most liberal RINOs in history, and for that you should NEVER be seen complaining about illegal immigration, abortion, or 2nd Amendment issues again.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Huh? He opposed the amnesty bill, says states should decide on guns, and only supports federal funding for abortions through the Hyde Amendment – something no President including Reagan an the two Bushes have tried to repeal.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Why couldn’t Tancredo beat Hillary? The guy to be beat Hillary is someone with steadfast conservative convictions and a lack of skeletons and flip-flops.
Tom Tancredo: The un-Hillary.
We conservatives have to stop giving a damn about the Republican Party. Conservatism is more important than electing any guy with an (R) after his name.
Zach on July 30, 2007 at 1:36 PM
I hear the unmistakeable splashing sound of Fred jumping the shark…………..
ronsfi on July 30, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Oh, and Gregor, did you vote for Bush?
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Hee. Wait until tomorrow when he announces he has only raised $3 million.
JackStraw on July 30, 2007 at 1:38 PM
freds? problems are much deeper than the people who he chooses to have around him.
He lobbies against regular folk. He lobbied for a dictator. He lies. He’s a fake. He voted for McCain/Feingold. He has zero executive experience.
And that’s just the start.
csdeven on July 30, 2007 at 1:39 PM
The guy who can beat the Hillary Machine is the guy with the money and recognition. In a perfect world, Tancredo would beat her hands down. However, I’m still paying off a mortgage.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 1:39 PM
I’d like to make it clear that I’m not wanting to attack any of you personally on this. It’s just the standard practice of conservatives betraying their principles when entering the voting booth that I’m attacking. I just feel that as a group we have a severe lack of understanding of the importance of voting on principle. Contrary to popular belief that it’s why we win … the truth is that it’s why we’ve been losing. We only THINK we’re winning because the guy we’re voting for is winning, but then we spend the next four (or eight) years complaining that the guy turns out to be exactly what we’re against.
Meanwhile, liberals are voting on their principles and it came very close to getting a buffoons such as Al Gore and John Kerry elected. The last time conservatives voted on principles … they got Ronald Reagan. The truth is that the majority of the American population wants conservative values. Tancredo would win in a landslide over Hillary.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 1:43 PM
I don’t have to read all the comments to understand the anger and frustration you have with Fred! Even I am having doubts! (GASP!!)
When will he run?
What are his true positions on Immigration, Health Care, GWOT and Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, India, China and Russia’s Nuclear (Enrichment, Energy, and Weapons)?
What’s the deal with this Abraham and why was this controversial clown hired as his campaign manager/advisor, etc.?
Newt Gingrich sounds good but the scandal just won’t go away will it?
We all wish for a true Conservative but there aren’t many around as I can see.
kiakjones on July 30, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Then you are massively out of touch with reality.
Of course this is a completely theoretical discussion, because Tancredo has as much a chance getting the Republican nomination as Kucinich has for the Democrats.
I know that you and all of your friends would vote for Tancredo, but other than that, he would get clocked by Hillary.
asc85 on July 30, 2007 at 1:44 PM
And it’s also cool that Tancredo has been barred from the White House by Rove.
That’s what I’m looking for; a guy who makes bureaucrats in Washington uneasy.
Zach on July 30, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Oh really? He opposed the amnesty bill? How did he do that? Last time I checked he was not holding any office at the time. Your idea of “opposing amnesty” is giving one speech talking about how he didn’t like the bill because it doesn’t include his magic biometric ID cards? You might want to actually look at his record, along with all of the interviews he was doing on Leno and other shows in the six months leading up to the bill’s failure. Giuliani is as open borders as they come, and until it was obvious that the bill was going to fail, he didn’t even try to hide that fact.
As for states deciding on guns … last I checked, the 2nd Amendment does not allow for that authority. If you want to allow your State to violate the 2nd Amendment, then I would suggest that you don’t understand the purpose of the Constitution.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 1:48 PM
I consider myself a Fredhead but I don’t want that to make me blind to what’s really going on. I’m glad Michelle and others are bringing this kinda stuff to light at this point and time while we still have a choice! I like Fred because of what he says everytime he opens his mouth. I agree with his verbal views and verbal positions. But if those words don’t match his actions, I want to know about it.
Thanks Michelle!
Joshua P. Allem on July 30, 2007 at 1:50 PM
And yet we have Dingy Harry and Pelosi in control of Congress.
I second.
Unfortunately, you can’t run on the fact you’ve been barred from visiting a member of your own party.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Yes, I did. But I didn’t vote for Bush because I “thought he could win.” I (along with most of you) voted for him because he had me totally fooled into believing he was a true conservative. This is a different situation now, where you actually KNOW that Giuliani is not a conservative except on what he “SAYS” he believes regarding the war on terror. Again, with this being his ONLY conservative principle, it’s important to note that he has absolutely no record to back it up. I can tell you that the NY City firemen would tell you it’s a sham.
It’s one thing to vote for someone because you’re legitimately fooled. But to vote for a RINO on purpose, simply because you think he can win? You might as well just vote for Hillary. You think SHE can win, right? If you’re going to sell out, why not go all the way?
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Uh huh. And was has pro-2nd Bush done for the communities under tight gun laws?
Gregor, did you vote for Bush in ‘04? Because by your logic:
Then you have absolutely no right to complain about Bush’s push for amnesty. See, you voted for amnesty.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 1:54 PM
This is such an utter myth it needs to be addressed, again. Reagan had a record as Gov of CA that was almost indistinguishable from Romney and not much more conservative than Rudy. Look it up. Sure, he ran as a conservative but he didn’t have a record as being one. That’s just a fact.
As to his win, take a good hard look at who he was running against and the political climate. Jimmy Carter is by almost any objective standard the worst president of the 20th century.
The country isn’t hungering for a hard right conservative for president, you are. The country is trending more center left right now which is why while every single Democratic presidential candidate will be attending yearly kos, not a single one attended the DLC meeting that is taking place as we speak.
Tancredo has raised less than $3 million dollars to date. He has nobody, not even Allah, to blame for that but himself and his candidacy. There are only 3 candidates who have a chance to get the nomination, Rudy, Romney and maybe Fred. Trancedo seems like a great guy and solid on immigration. He ain’t gonna be president.
JackStraw on July 30, 2007 at 1:56 PM
You don’t understand the American people very well. You might want to look at the maps during the last two elections which show voting by county. The entire country is almost all red. America is a conservative country. America would vote for Tancredo once they got to know him. They will not vote for Hillary.
Of course, if Hillary wins, it’s not going to be legitimate anyway. The only way Hillary wins is by illegal aliens and dead people voting. Maybe a few dogs and mules.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 1:58 PM
It would serve Tancredo well if people knew there was hostility between him and Bush.
All you people thinking of voting for Giuliani or Romney…did you get enraged over the Shamnesty Bill? Did you call and fax Senators? Did you curse Graham, Kyl, Bush and other RINOs for supporting it?
After helping defeat Shamnesty, why would you vote in another open-borders advocate?
Zach on July 30, 2007 at 1:59 PM
I have had enough of these Faux-servatives pandering.
Barry? Barry? Where are you? BAAARRRYYY!
ronsfi on July 30, 2007 at 1:59 PM
They don’t care. The entire Democratic field has hostility with Bush. They have more hostility with Bush than any Republican does. “hostility between him and Bush” isn’t exactly a rare element.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 2:02 PM
We have those clowns in control for one very simple reason.
We made the mistake of electing fools such as Bush, Giuliani, McCain, and the rest of the open borders RINO crowd. This pissed off the base of the conservative party, which is the majority of American voters, and caused them to revolt.
Now, you’re suggesting that we repeat this mistake.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 1:58 PM
You apparently dont know what those maps mean. Take a real close look at both coastlines. 60% of America’s population lives with 50 miles of either the East or West coasts. GW may have carried everything in the middle which makes it look like the majority of the country is solid red, but all that red was only 40% of the country’s population.
Remember how close the 2004 election was? Remember how Gore actually won the popular vote… I.e actually had more people vote for him then voted for Bush? No the country is split pretty much down the middle.
doriangrey on July 30, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Is this a parody? You’re actually saying that Hillary would be beaten hands down by a Republican. When reality knocked, did you actually answer?
2004 was four years ago. That was only one year into the war, Bush’s approval ratings were higher, we controlled Congress, and we were in an overall different situation. Kerry had to run against an incumbent President during a war.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 2:06 PM
No, I did not vote for Bush in the second election PRIMARY, but yes … I voted for him in the general. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. Would you have rather I voted for Kerry?
You vote on principle in the PRIMARY, and then if Giuliani wins the primary, then go ahead and vote for him. But if you vote for the fool in the primary, than you’re a fool also.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:08 PM
When did you elect Rudy? You honestly think a majority of the country is yearning for a strong Conservative President?
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Mind me asking who you voted for in the primary?
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »