Audio: Michelle lowers the boom on Fred for hiring Spence Abraham
posted at 11:20 am on July 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
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 »
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:08 PM
No, in the primary you vote for the person closest to your core values who you believe actually has a chance to win the general election, otherwise the party runs the risk of nominating Dewey.
doriangrey on July 30, 2007 at 2:12 PM
I disagree 100%. I don’t believe this is true. The country is tending ANTI-BUSH. This is because the entire conservative base, along with right leaning independents are PISSED OFF beyond belief at the liberal tendencies of the current administration. I believe you’re misreading the anger at the GOP as a slide left, when in actuality … it’s a desire to move right.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:13 PM
I am sorry, but you are 100 percent wrong. Go look at the demographic of that map again. The truth is right there in front of you “IF” you will bother to look at it.
doriangrey on July 30, 2007 at 2:15 PM
You have seriously lost touch with reality. You do realize that Democrats are raising more individual donations than ever before? That Republicans struggle to tie Hillary in head-to-heads? That even Rush Limbaugh believes there’s a good change Pantsuit will be the next President?
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 2:17 PM
LOL! Yes, I understand them perfectly. You do know that our election is decided by electoral votes, right? Why do you think the liberals want to eliminate this? Why do you think they want to allow illegals to vote? Because illegals tend to live in California, and on the East Coast where the welfare and benefits are the highest.
But go ahead and vote for Giuliani. You’ll help INCREASE the illegal population and make the situation even worse.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:18 PM
No. I said Hillary would be beaten hands down by a TRUE CONSERVATIVE. There’s a huge difference.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Without a doubt. Yes.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Fair enough. Tell one of the most respected pollsters in the country he is 100% wrong, too.
JackStraw on July 30, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Too many people think Tancredo is as nutty as Paul. (I don’t) Unfortunately, I see no likely way for him to overcome that. He would be good on defense, on immigration, American Soverignty, and would do the right thing on most of my other hot-button issues, but I don’t know how he would be on economics, or if he has what it takes to be the big boss.
Hunter is superb, He’s the one conservatives should be backing, but he might as well be invisible to 99% of the nation. It would take the ‘main stream media’ turning conservative (or some other miracle) for him to have a chance this go-round. Barring that miracle, he should be the VP pick; Adding conservative credibility to whoever is the Presidential pick and building the recognition for 2012.
The main thing I like about Rudy is that he has guts and willingness to confront his enemies; he would probably be good on national defense. Beyond that, I don’t like him. You might as well elect Joe Lieberman. Take terrorism out of the equation and few of us here would like the America that Rudy would try to make.
Mitt would be ‘OK’ at best. I just can’t get excited about him. The Mormon thing is great as far as I’m concerned. I have tremendous respect for ‘main stream’ Mormons… Not so much for some of the wacky minutiae of the religion, but for their practical approach to life. But it is a big negative for many voters of ‘the Christian Right’ and for the non- religious independent who might lean towards voting Republican.
Fred WAS probably the most electable. He has messed up badly the last few weeks. I think he can overcome it by getting rid of Abraham, and honestly explaining the abortion lobbying thing. Oh Yeah, and by actually declaring his candidacy. And getting into the debates to let us see whether he is as bad as csdevin believes or as good as I think he is.
Basically, I think we are screwed. The only reason I have any hope at all is that the Democrat candidates suck as badly as the Republicans.
LegendHasIt on July 30, 2007 at 2:24 PM
You’re living in a fantasy wonderland. Again, I point out:
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 2:25 PM
I’m sorry if this has already been given out. I looked and didn’t see. I’m also sorry that I can’t make the link look all spiffy.
Anyway, its a Newsbusters story about Spence that might shed some more/different light on things:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/07/30/media-misreporting-thompson-addition-spencer-abraham-campaign
Darksean on July 30, 2007 at 2:26 PM
I did not vote for President in the 2004 Primary. Why? Because California only listed one Republican candidate on the ballot, and that was George Bush, who I refused to vote for. And the only Independent candidate on the ballot was Michael Peroutka, who I also didn’t like. So, there was pretty much nothing I could do being in California.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:26 PM
This debate shows why RINOs run the party and are in bed with the left wing/terrorism alliance.
No one will get my vote in the primary or general election unless they are actively conservative. Enough is enough.
Valiant on July 30, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Please. That’s just an embarrassing comment.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Should be the conservative slogan btw. now and the primary winner’s selection.
However, I expect that no one will follow this, knowing full well what it means.
Entelechy on July 30, 2007 at 2:29 PM
The number of electoral votes your state has is determined by the number of Representatives plus the two Senators. So, Florida has 27 electoral votes, that means it has 25 Representatives and 2 Senators.
So, states that Tancredo could carry, such as Colorado (9) and other states have mostly single digit electoral votes. However, states that Hillary would carry, such as New York (31), California (55), Pennsylvania (21) have a larger say in who gets elected. That’s why Florida is so important: It swings. You lose Florida and a few others, you can lose the entire pie.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Duh. Because conservatives are sending bricks and Bush Pesos in place of money. How hard is this to understand. The lack of money to the GOP is due to non-conservative candidates. I’m sure you know this, but you’re only pretending to not understand. At least, I hope.
Yes. Could this possibly be a hint to you that we’re choosing the WRONG CANDIDATE?
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:18 PM
No you apparently don’t understand them, nor apparently do you understand the electoral college. In 2000 GW won the electoral college by winning Florida’s electoral votes, which he received by getting 500 more votes than Gore. Thats right, the election came down to 500 votes.
You better believe that Hillary is not going to fall for that trick. And thats what it was, a trick. GW campaigned hard in the places that would give him the electoral votes required to win, Gore campaigned in the population centers. Thats why Gore won the popular vote but lost the election.
Keep this one fact in mind, Hillary has been running for President for the last 5 years or more.
Please dont be a retard, I’m not voting for Giuliani, or Thompson or Romney or anyone…I am voting for whichever of them wins the nomination. I personally like Thompson and this little bit about Abraham’s doesn’t change that, but regardless of whoever I personally like I am voting for the republican nominee.
doriangrey on July 30, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I fully agree with Gregor on one thing:
A true conservative will win the election IF HE CAN COMMUNICATE WELL.
Give Duncan Hunter the ‘fireside chat’ skills of Fred Thompson, enough national exposure, and he would be our next President.
LegendHasIt on July 30, 2007 at 2:37 PM
And yet as I told you earlier, your uber-conservative Tom Tancredo has raised only $3 million, total. If the country was hungering for his consevative views, by your logic he should be swimming in money.
Don’t blame this on Bush or anyone else. Rudy and Romney have raised a truckload. Tancredo isn’t getting money because he doesn’t have support. It’s that simple.
JackStraw on July 30, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Let me repeat myself. There’s no reason for these people to not give him an acceptable if he’s someone that they would at all have a reason to vote for. Yet he doesn’t even get much of an ACCEPTABLE vote. There’s got to be a reason for that.
Clearly, conservatives in these straw polls don’t find him acceptable. People who don’t even find him acceptable have no reason to vote for him as their first choice. That would be very stupid.
I’m a little sick today, so I’m avoiding one until I can get a shower and a nap tonight after work.
But this has nothing to do with me. I’d vote for the man if he were the candidate, but I’ve seen nothing about him that makes me believe he’s THE candidate to vote for.
I vote my ideology, not electability.
Yeah, that’s what I do. Thanks.
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Darksean on July 30, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Yep, already saw that, just couldnt remember where I read it or I would have posted the link myself.
doriangrey on July 30, 2007 at 2:40 PM
God - I’m glad to see you show up. I was beginning to worry that something had happened to you!
OBX Pete on July 30, 2007 at 2:41 PM
You’re second line would seem to indicate that I understand it perfectly.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:42 PM
That was to the RNC. The Republicans are getting real money, just not enough. I hate to break this to you, but people aren’t waiting for a Conservative to come along so they can pour all of their money into the campaign. There’s no law against donating to Tancredo. If people liked him, if he could garner enough support to beat Hillary, he’d be rolling in the dough. Instead, he’s out of the first tier.
Sure. So, let’s choose Tancredo who won’t even reach the same ballpark as Hillary. That makes sense.
Do you honestly think a majority of the country is yearning to elect a Conservative Republican? I mean, seriously?
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 2:42 PM
There’s nothing wrong with that. But the question is … who are you voting for in the primary. That’s what’s important, and that’s my point.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Plus, it’s impossible to find a candidate who shares all of our opinions 100% since we all disagree very often on many different issues.
We’re each going to have to compromise on at least some issue.
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 2:45 PM
And I go back to what I said earlier, that money is determined by the poll numbers, and poll numbers are determined by YOU and the rest of the conservative base. If you all continue to vote for Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney in the straw polls … that’s where the donors are going to send their money. Donors are not interested in spending money on a candidate running low in the polls. Would you?
The answer is simple. If conservatives vote for the true conservatives in the straw polls, the poll numbers go up, and the money goes up.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:48 PM
I look at it this way
Someone flys a plane into the Sears Tower
Now who do you want as President? Really think about it?
Fred Lives!
EricPWJohnson on July 30, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Darksean on July 30, 2007 at 2:26 PM
You mean the MSM is driving this to keep Fred down? Say it ain’t so!
jdawg on July 30, 2007 at 2:51 PM
If this becomes a race between Hillary and Rudy, conservatives like me will be sitting in right field straining to see what the two liberals are doing way out in left field. Any “conservatives” who support Rudy, make sure you bring your binoculars—although unfortunately political baseball includes a lot of smoke and mirrors on the field that tend to obscure the view.
If Rudy manages to win the election, which I doubt, it will not be as a result of the conservative coalition or the Reagan coalition, (or whatever you chose to call it), it will in fact be the end of the modern conservative movement.
FloatingRock on July 30, 2007 at 2:51 PM
And poll numbers are determined by the amount of support the candidate has. Therefore, if the candidate doesn’t have any support, he doesn’t have good poll numbers and people don’t donate.
Hence, if he doesn’t have support, he doesn’t get many donations. So, since Tancredo doesn’t get many donations, that means he doesn’t have much support from the American people. Hence, he could get elected.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Online polls? Really?
I’ve gotten the impression that the Internet does little to help presidential candidates. We’re not even more likely to donate money.
Besides, if he’s really presidential material, he’ll be able to rise above this. You’re trying to get us to do all the work, but it’s his responsibility to convince us that he’s the person we want.
If he can’t even convince fellow conservatives, he’ll never be able to convince the rest of the country.
Being the president takes more than good ideas. It also takes politics. If he cannot do well in politics, then he can’t be a good president.
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Romney raised $7 million before he even announced. He’s winning in both Iowa and NH but only 3rd or 4th nationally. Yet he and Rudy are dominating the fund raising.
Try again.
JackStraw on July 30, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Why? What separates his strength on terror from that of Rudy’s or Mitt’s?
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Ask me that again when it’s actually time to vote in the primaries, until then it’s fluid. Could be Thompson, could be Hunter, might even be Romney, the one it will actually be however is the one who looks the most like they have a chance of beating the Hildabeast. Even GW RINO and semi-liberal that he has turned out to be would be preferable to Hillary.
doriangrey on July 30, 2007 at 2:55 PM
::climbing down for a closer look::
seejanemom on July 30, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Huh? No, they aren’t. They’re getting nasty letters, bricks, and Bush pesos. No, it wasn’t just to the RNC. Conservatives are refusing to support candidates who are supporting open borders.
I already answered that twice.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Oh good, it’s you. Come here to stir up some more traffic for you site only to ban the people who accept your invitation?
Must suck to come to someone else’s site where you can’t control the content of the comments, changing them up to get them to say whatever you want and deleting the ones that make you look foolish.
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Are you saying Tancredo supports open borders?
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Could you perhaps please not bring your disagreement with seejanemom to HotAir.
doriangrey on July 30, 2007 at 3:02 PM
That $14 million Rudy got in the last quarter came in how? How about Mitt who’s outraised all of them?
That’s why I said:
Because that’s not reality. Look who leads the polls: Moderates. Yes, Hillary is a moderate Liberal compared to a few of her fellow Dems. The moderate Reps and Dems lead the polls - they have the most support from the American public.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Hmmmmm…
Supporting Sutton’s persecution of the drug runner…
and now supporting Fred who’s selected a pro-islamic campaign manager…..
pretty much identifies your priorities…
Mcguyver on July 30, 2007 at 3:04 PM
EricPWJohnson on July 30, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Good bye!
Mcguyver on July 30, 2007 at 3:05 PM
I’m not speaking of individual personal donations. I’s talking about the big money. Corporate sponsors.
It’s tough to rise above this when the media is blacking him out. What would you have him do to solve this? Why is it that you think the media is hyping Giuliani, McCain, and Hillary?
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 3:06 PM
To be fair, her disagreement with me came from Hot Air, a site she wanted to get me banned from for a false accusation.
But sure, I’m done. It was stupid to write something here anyway.
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 3:07 PM
The ones flocking to Hillary and Obama?
The same media who constantly brings up reminders that McCain is falling in the polls, and brings up Giuliani’s stances that scrape with some Conservatives?
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 3:10 PM
I haven’t seen any recent McCain hype. All I’ve seen of him lately is bad press and a failing campaign.
But if I had to answer, I’d say it’s because they’re electable and because they’ve made a name for themselves.
OK, still, I don’t see why they’d be looking at online polls for where to put their money.
First, who says he’s being blacked out? It could simply be that he’s not doing anything that’s all that newsworthy. He hasn’t been pulled from any of the debates.
And how to solve this? How do politicians get any press? If he can’t answer that question for himself, then he hasn’t got a prayer anyway, especially in the general election, assuming Republicans vote him in as their candidate.
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Only 3rd or 4th nationally?
Your point does not conflict with mine, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Romney and Giuliani were the top two candidates from the very beginning, even if the media wanted you to believe McCain was.
There was never a time that Romney and Giuliani were not polling high at the beginning, even before Romney announced. So yes … that’s where the money goes. That’s exactly what I said.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 3:16 PM
???
Tancredo is not in the group I mentioned. Is Tancredo getting bricks and Bush pesos? No.
His lack of funding is due to the reasons I addressed earlier in the thread.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Maybe, by choosing Abraham, Fred thinks he can pull cross-over votes?
(IMHO) He’s now hugging an open-borders establishment turd and, combined with his suspect positions on abortion, McCain-Feingold and lobbying, Fred is now beyond clean-up.
“I’m NOT with Fred!.
*Michelle, please get yourself on the ballot!
BJ Phisch on July 30, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 2:58 PM
You are just getting asked again because it’s hard to believe that you could seriously think that. There are more liberals in the country than conservatives, not much, only about 4 or 5 percentage points. But as I tried to point out to you before, its where they two live that counts, hell California with its 55 electoral votes cancels out half of the mid-west. You throw Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois Pennsylvania and and Ohio together and thats almost enough to win right there. And thats only seven of the 50 states, but its 209 of the electoral votes.
doriangrey on July 30, 2007 at 3:20 PM
You said that Republicans aren’t getting money because they’re for open borders, but as you’re pointing out here, that has nothing to do with the presidential candidates.
Mitt, Rudy and Fred are all anti-open borders. So this doesn’t apply to them either.
The candidates are getting or not getting money based on only themselves.
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Romney polls lower than Rudy and has since Rudy’s declared. Romney’s raised more money than Rudy. Discuss.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 3:24 PM
You said Republicans weren’t getting money because of their support for open-borders. Rudy, Mitt and Fred, who you say are, have overwhelmingly outraised Tancredo, who isn’t.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 3:26 PM
You’re starting to talk in circles. Romney and Rudy both raised more money before they entered the race than Tancredo has to date. It’s not their fault that they had more support than Tancredo ever has gotten.
Tancredo has gotten tons of press over the last 6 months as one of the champions of sealing the borders. You can’t argue that his lack of fundraising is do to a lack of exposure. He just doesn’t have the support you keep claiming he does.
JackStraw on July 30, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Mcguyver on July 30, 2007 at 3:04 PM
BJ Phisch on July 30, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Both of you nincompoops should try this one on for size,
MSM Bull$hit About Fred…
doriangrey on July 30, 2007 at 3:27 PM
That $14 million Rudy got in the last quarter came in how? How about Mitt who’s outraised all of them?
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 3:02 PM
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?
Follow the money and you’ll see things that might enlighten you. I would almost guarantee you that the bulk of money donated to Giuliani, Romney, and McCain has come from corporate sponsors who aim to profit in some way, many from amnesty.
The bulk of fundraising does not come from you and me. It comes from dirty, under the table agreements with special interests.
The fact that Giuliani and Romney have been so close to the Bush administration and were able to raise so much money so soon … should be a good indicator of where their connections lead.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 3:28 PM
And who has more individual donors than we do? The Democrats! How d’ya like that. So, let’s see. The ordinary people are donating to….Democrats!
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Michelle, like Schlussel, has jumped the shark.
This is NAU/black helicopter stuff.
someone on July 30, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Really? You mean when they try to label McCain’s troubles as an indication that voters are against the Iraq War, instead of the truth, which is Shamnesty?
And Giuliani? Please. The media is currently trashing the hell out of Fred Thompson because of the fear that Giuliani was losing ground. And on top of that, they tend to misidentify Giuliani’s problems as being related to abortion, rather than immigration issues and the 2nd Amendment.
Crawl out of that tunnel.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 3:33 PM
From the Orlando Sentinel. See, Randy Enwright used to be Thompson’s ambassador to Florida. When Tom Collamore left, he became campaign manager, alongside Spencer Abraham.
Emphasis mine.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Um, no. Abortion isn’t the only thing mentioned. The media takes every opportunity to remind us of the social issues Rudy differs from many Conservatives on.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 3:37 PM
And regardless of whether or not he’s his campaign manager in the sense of making political decisions, Abraham is a top advisor and ambassador to the Capital for the Thompson campaign.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Now, I’m moving on to the Hillary+protester thread. Hope to see y’all there.
amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Does it matter how they’re spinning why he’s losing? Either way, they’re talking about how he’s losing.
Plus, as has been said already, if these online polls directly influence funding, then the person who polls the highest should be receiving the most funding.
And that’s simply not the case.
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Is Spencer Abraham running for President? I understand the role of campaign manager to be the guy who coordinates the advertising, orders out for pizza, and pays the hotel bills when the candidate checks out.
I do not assume that the campaign manager determines the candidate’s personal beliefs or message. In this case, Thompson has been very strong on immigration and enforcement and completely unlike Abraham’s previous stands.
Of course, it is possible that Abraham was following his boss’s lead when he was in the cabinet, as all Secretaries are supposed to do. We know where Bush is on the subject, after all.
Whatever Abraham’s personal beliefs are, I would expect a campaign manager to advocate and advance the political agenda of the candidate he works for, not the other way around.
georgej on July 30, 2007 at 3:54 PM
I been ignoring the yard work, so now it’s got out of hand and I working my a$$ off most of the day.
Thanks for caring. ;-)
csdeven on July 30, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Get a grip, folks. It’s not a nail in the coffin and definitely even a reason for outrage.
I got this off the draftfredthompson site. It may clarify a couple of things that I have heard but needed to find out if others had heard it too.
Now, you can consider the source as pro Fred Thompson, that’s okay. But this a statement by Steve Gill that was communicated to him by the Thompson campaign.
According to Politico:
Taking those two statements together, it makes more sense to call Enwright, the campaign manager and Abraham as the campaign political ambassador. He is not styled as the “campaign manager.”
FDT has stated many times that securing our border is our primary concern. After that has happened, we can discuss what to do with the illegals in our country now.
MM, with respect, maybe you ought to talk to the FDT campaign. As a prominent blogger and now major TV personality [emphasis mine], it might behoove you to get the goods from the source. It would certainly help you with your comfort level, and maybe better on ours too. Right now, I see commenters in a tizzy. You said in your interview with Larua that [parahprase] “If he was only an advisor that might be one thing.” I think I can state that he is only an advisor and not the manager that you might be fearing.
Tennman on July 30, 2007 at 3:59 PM
“Laura” not “Larua,” sheesh.
Tennman on July 30, 2007 at 4:01 PM
I’m with Laura on this one.
Spirit of 1776 on July 30, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Debbie Schlussel is the one who “lowered the boom” on Fred for hiring Spence Abraham.
MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 4:20 PM
It worries me somewhat that too few on our side seem to be thinking things through tactically. In our very unperfect world, the question isn’t “Which of the candidates reflects my own personal principles to the highest percentage point and thus gets my support” but “How can the national calamity of a Democrat in the White House during the Islamofascist war be avoiding at all costs?”. America very nearly put a terrorist appeaser/excuser in power in 2004, so whoever isn’t thinking electability first in this campaign isn’t really thinking at all.
Halley on July 30, 2007 at 4:22 PM
doriangrey on July 30, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Mcguyver on July 30, 2007 at 3:04 PM
and now supporting Fred who’s selected a pro-islamic campaign manager…..
BJ Phisch on July 30, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Maybe, by choosing Abraham, Fred thinks he can pull cross-over votes?
(IMHO) He’s now hugging an open-borders establishment turd and, combined with his suspect positions on abortion, McCain-Feingold and lobbying, Fred is now beyond clean-up.
Both of you nincompoops should try this one on for size, …
“Campaign manager”, “campaign advisor”, or whatever, no one inside or outside Fred’s campaign has denied the association. It stinks! I stand by my words and position.
Reread the headline for this post. Who could fail to note your lack of ‘nads in failing to label AP and the Boss–the poster and headliner of this post–”nincompoops”. Save your insulting name calling for a hate site.
BJ Phisch on July 30, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Halley on July 30, 2007 at 4:22 PM
And that really and truly is the situation. What this country desperately needs right now is another Ronald Reagan, sadly we are not likely to get one. So since reality is that we are not likely to get another RR, we are going to have to make due with the best we can get, and that my conservative friends means another bad tasting compromise or we will get something far worse than a bad tasting compromise, we will end up with Hillary Clinton in the White House.
doriangrey on July 30, 2007 at 4:35 PM
You are welcome to hold that opinion of course, but I disagree. I think the applicability of that statement is really for minority parties or parties trying to build a majority.
America already has a majority that tends to lean conservative. Even the Reagan headline AP put up yesterday shows that. So the field of candidates needs to rally the base - increase the percentage of like-minded people motivated to vote. As such I think the primaries has a function and the general has a function that are not the same. But hey, maybe I’m not really thinking at all. Always possible.
Spirit of 1776 on July 30, 2007 at 4:35 PM
BJ Phisch on July 30, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Just because I am more polite to our host doesnt mean she and AP shouldnt have done their homework before jumping the shark on this, nor does it mean that you are any less of a nincompoop for running off and jumping to a concussion.
If like csdeven you just posted in this thread to bash on Fred whom you never had any intention of considering as a candidate than that makes you something other than a nincompoop, it makes you a Moby troll, otherwise you and anyone else making foolish uninformed rash statements based on false information have just made yourself look very foolish.
doriangrey on July 30, 2007 at 4:40 PM
I’m with you. Then again, I don’t see why we can’t do both, worry about finding someone who can be electable while also worrying about someone who has the same views conservatives do.
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 4:43 PM
WTF?!!!! LOL! What are you smoking?!!!
OMG! Other than one single interview where Rudy said he’s against the Shamnesty bill AFTER HE ALREADY KNEW IT WAS ABOUT TO FAIL … Rudy has ALWAYS been pro-illegal alien, amnesty, and free services to illegals. Fred is a card carrying member of CFR. I’m still not convinced Fred is bad, but there is absolutely nothing other than his recent words that indicate that he’s not for open borders.
As for Mitt … take a look at his website and his stance on immigration. He says he wants to INCREASE LEGAL IMMIGRATION while decreasing illegal immigration. What do we call this policy? We call it COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM, or to make it simple … legalize the illegals so they are now legal. And no, I have absolutely nothing against immigration, but I do have something against INCREASING what is already too large a flow.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Agreed.
Spirit of 1776 on July 30, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Neither of you are paying attention, or you’re just purposely ignoring my answers. I tend to believe the ladder.
Please read, or re-read my comment at:
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Well, that makes sense, except that those who suggest we elect Giuliani are NOT following that advice. Giuliani is the furthest of all the candidates from conservative principles.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 4:57 PM
That’s debatable. For some, married couples who simply want to live together and those with degrees who get passed over in favor of those without any skills, there certainly could be a few more let in.
Obviously we have room for more or else the illegals would shut us down.
And really, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t change our immigration laws to suit those who are being patient. We currently reject those who could help out this country, making it competitive in tech industries, but instead we allow unskilled workers to come into this country in droves. Does that really make any sense? If we’ve got so many people wanting to come in here, why should we be turning away the PHDs?
As to Rudy, certainly his position isn’t one I’d favor when it comes to illegal immigration, but I’ve seen no indication that he’s one of the politicians suffering for his stance on illegal aliens, which is what you were talking about.
And as to CFR, it’s certainly possible to belong to the organization without wanting a one government world. It’s just as possible as the idea that no one’s actually pushing for a North American Union.
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 5:05 PM
I never suggested that we should not let any more in. I suggested that the current flow is too high, meaning the numbers that are being allowed in each year is too high.
As for it being debatable …
No, it’s really not.
HUH?
Again. You’re really not paying attention.
Yes it is, but extremely unlikely that a person against the desired policies of CFR, which is open borders, would be given the positions that Fred has been assigned to. But all of this needs to be answered by Fred.
Thank you for admitting that it’s not at all possible.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Thompson is out! I’m not making the same mistake I made with Bush! I don’t care what Fred says anymore! He can’t hire guys like this and then try to convince me he’s a conservative!
sabbott on July 30, 2007 at 5:20 PM
You’re not talking to me on that one. I’m not personally a fan of Rudy.
The big numbers come from illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants. You’re debating apples and oranges with me.
We take in a very small number of legal immigrants. Clearly, we could allow more legal immigrants if we chose to do so if only we weren’t stuck worrying about all the ones who sneak in or overstay their visas.
So Rudy’s not getting any campaign money because of his stance?
I guess I have missed that one.
Then again, Rudy’s not my guy, so I don’t care.
So we agree that CFR isn’t pushing for a global government then?
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 5:28 PM
doriangrey on July 30, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Just because I am more polite to our host doesnt mean she and AP shouldnt have done their homework before jumping the shark on this, nor does it mean that you are any less of a nincompoop for running off and jumping to a concussion.
—-
Yup, I saw and read this topic’s headline, listened to Michelle and Laura, (I even read “The Picture of Dorian Gray (spelling correct)), then I “ran off and jumped to a concussion.”
FYI: Fred! was my front runner. Like most I wished to view him as Reaganesque–a down-to-earth, level-headed and believable communicator, a man of courage willing to try to do the right things for this country. Unfortunately, at this point, like any employer, my disappointment regarding his CV will prompt me to look elsewhere.
Again, without concern for being labeled a “nincompoop” or stupid, silly, foolish, or simple, I stand by all previous. I’ll not respond further to your insolence in kind (nor should anyone). You get the last word.
BJ Phisch on July 30, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Actually, I think he’s getting the bulk of his money BECAUSE of his open borders, pro-illegal, pro-large corporation stances. That was the point I made earlier. Most of Rudy’s money is coming from large corporate donors and special interests.
No. I’m not blind and I don’t have my head in the sand.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Who see no value in putting their money behind a Democrat, specifically those who have expressly stated their desire to pass a bill worthy of La Raza?
Besides, that doesn’t explain why McCain’s campaign is plummeting, seeing as he’s the poster boy for that particular concern and was (until recently) more electable than Rudy.
That’s certainly constructive.
I could counter by saying that we’ll never have a one-government globe and that it’s naive to assume that any organization can ever pose a credible threat in that arena, but it simply would do no good.
Besides, you already said early on that you see Fred as the least culpable in this regard, which means that either you don’t see CFR as any type of threat (either because you agree they’re worthless or agree they can’t do what they aim to do) or you don’t believe that Fred agrees with them on that issue.
Either way it’s not worthwhile to discuss CFR as it relates to Fred with you if that is your position.
Esthier on July 30, 2007 at 6:01 PM
No, it shows how utterly out of touch with reality you and your theories are. I call BS.
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
The rest ($2M) came from interest and loans.
Corporations themselves are not even allowed to directly donate “hard money” to individual candidates, though their employees sometimes form PACs to do so.
Of Rudy’s PAC money, a whopping $106K (0.3% of the total funds Rudy has raised) came from business-related PACs. This is the same, percentage-wise, as Duncan Hunter, BTW.
You’re just making **** up, my friend.
LagunaDave on July 30, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Heh, heh, heh…..Another lesson for freddie boy……Don’t dis MM by not linking to her blog!
csdeven on July 30, 2007 at 6:14 PM
fred? said he didn’t lobby for an abortion rights group. fred? also said he has always been pro-life. fred? also talked like he understood Cuban immigration.
Since he has never done anything and has been shown to be “incorrect” on at least three issues, you’ll have to pardon those of us who don’t lap up his BS.
csdeven on July 30, 2007 at 6:19 PM
No, CS, Fred said he didn’t recall. His campaign manager made the mistake of saying never happened. Fred did say that the recollection of someone saying he lobbied Sununu didn’t happen.
Again, a miststatement of the facts. FDT said he IS pro life and his record proves it.
I have no clue what kind of argument you’re trying to make. He didn’t SAY it, he WROTE a position paper at the same time as the immigration debacle. He also wrote other postion papers about immigration and eminent domain and a whole host of REAL issues.
Again, a misstatement. FDT was elected twice and served as a United States Senator. He hasn’t done the same anything that all the other candidates haven’t done. Be the president. That’s the only measure that is acceptable as “things done.” Otherwise, it’s just “things said.”
You’re pardoned. But only marginally. :)
Tennman on July 30, 2007 at 6:27 PM
I’m sure I’m not the average voter, but I suspect that the recent elections have come down to people like me–perhaps we are independent thinker, perhaps we are flakes. (My fear is that the flake vote totally swamps the truly independent thinker vote.) Both flakes and independent thinkers tweak out on people we perceive as true believers. We want some independent thought. The decisions of the hive mind bore us. It’s doubtful that a “true” conservative will get the flake vote and the independent thinker vote over Hilary.
Let’s face it, personality matters. Tancredo seems like a genuinely nice guy and could win votes that way.
Let’s also face it that unimportant issues also matter in election. Let me use myself here as a typical voter. I like Tancredo. I agree with him on his key issues. On the other hand, I love botany and it would hard, very hard, for me to vote for someone who denies evolution. I know Tancredo is running for president and not for botany professor, but it still rankles me. Close elections come down to such decisions made by less ideological people.
thuja on July 30, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Come on Esthier. At least think about your responses before typing. The liberals are for taxing the hell out of the corporations. There’s a very good reason corporate America supports the GOP. Liberals and RINOS are open borders for two different reasons. Liberals know the illegals pouring across tend to head straight for the social services and benefits counters, which means they tend to vote for Democrats. RINOS are for open borders for cheap labor and under the table payoffs from corporate America.
Um. McCain never really HAD a campaign except for the illusion created by the media. McCain has never been liked by conservatives and would have a better chance of winning the Presidency as a Democrat. Any financial support McCain was getting was quickly cut off when it was apparent that he was possibly the most despised candidate in the bunch.
As for him being a more electible than Rudy at one point … I’m not sure what you’re smoking. Maybe, BEFORE 9/11 but certainly at no time since then.
I think you’re confusing me with someone else. Please find and post the comment in which I said this.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 6:35 PM
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?
Aside from all of this … do you actually believe the multi-BILLION dollar corporations in the world actually follow these rules and have not found ways around them?
Yeah. Because there are no such things as under the table deals in Washington. Everything is as it’s supposed to be.
Wow.
$33 million from average middle class Americans. Right. Do the numbers on that, why don’t you.
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?
Yeah. There are no conspiracies. There are no scandals. There is no under the table money. All government officials follow all the rules. I’m just making it all up.
Gregor on July 30, 2007 at 6:49 PM
You are wise! And don’t fall for any reasoned response from him. The first time you disagree, he’ll start up with the schoolyard potty mouth insults again.
csdeven on July 30, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Oh come on! We aren’t going to have to link to freds? statements AGAIN are we?
csdeven on July 30, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Only if you limit it to the last, say, five years or so. If you’re going to try to rehash 13 year old statements that have no bearing on the present — again — you needn’t bother.
Tennman on July 30, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »