And AP wonders why traffic is going down.

Buzzy on September 6, 2007 at 7:18 PM
If that’s the case then I am not surprised. I was a pretty big fan of this site a few months back but my opinion of it has soured recently and I find myself going to alternatives. AP is pushing his agenda and that’s fine – but I don’t have to read these stories through someone else’s prism.

Weber48IDA on September 6, 2007 at 7:30 PM

Yep. I’ve cut my time here way back, until just recently.

Too much endlessly repetitive poisonous vitriol and unchecked ego on display. Got better things to do, most of the time.

At least not the way the Fred! haters here have attacked Fred or his supporters. I have pointed out huge glaring inconsistencies with Mitt? (”pro-life”, but endorse RU-486) supporters. That isn’t hate, that’s just debate. What these people do is engage in HuffPo/dKos-like behavior.

jdawg on September 6, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Yep. If you dare voice support for Fred!, you’re labeled ‘groupie’. That is, when you’re not being labeled a ‘hair rending groupie’, ‘mindless groupie’, or worse.

You don’t hear that label for any other candidate’s supporters. Well, except for ron paul, but his are more like evil little minions. ;)

Hell, I’m just willing to give Fred! a fair hearing, but the FDS-infected want to tamp down even that. Snuff that spark before it catches fire.

Bullies attempting to paint with much too broad a brush, in my opinion.

An armed citizenry can protect itself until the police arrive and that’s about it. The value that will stop the government from turning on us is the citizen military. Our troops are not going to be involved in killing the citizens of this country.

So free speech IS the basis of our society and you single issue 2nd amendment types need to get some perspective.

And what do you know, Fred was involved in a blatant attack on free speech with his involvement in M/F. He needs to answer for it so we can see exactly what he really is instead of the scripted rhetoric he wants us to believe he stands for.

csdeven on September 6, 2007 at 6:55 PM

I really don’t know where to begin on the above post. It is so wrong.

Cripes, you Fred-Heads get nasty quick.

Slublog on September 6, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Oh bull pucky, I have been nasty for a long time…especially if left alone around your sister…20+ year old daughter or wife…(opp’s wait, thats just the old rock and roll musician in me speaking)…Lock your women up boy…doriangrey is a coming to town…

doriangrey on September 6, 2007 at 5:03 PM

Dorian, dude! Flies, honey, vinegar, and all that jazz, ya know?

Slublog’s good people, as are many you’re quick to be harsh with.

And Slublog, for the record, I’m a would-be Fred! supporter and the apparent unrest and turmoil lately does cause me some concern. But I’m willing to wait patiently and see how it all shakes out.

I haven’t picked a locked-down favorite yet. There’s no reason to until it’s time to vote in the primaries. I’m looking and listening to everybody.

Well, except for ron paul. Yikes.

I think Fred is gonna really get allot o’ folks excited.
TheSitRep on September 6, 2007 at 9:29 PM

Considering he’s had 6 months to get his message honed to a knifes edge and his scripted speech in Iowa and his semi-softball interview with Sean tonight were lack luster and uninspiring at best.

As far as making history goes, unless he does a 180 degree switch in his extemporaneous events, that history will be the antithesis of what you are hoping for.

Okay. I hope he is everything you hope he is. I say that earnestly.

Spirit of 1776 on September 6, 2007 at 7:33 PM

Thanks. So do I.

Hollowpoint on September 6, 2007 at 7:32 PM

Bwahahahahaha!!!

Sure, Hunter has a chance.

You single issue 2nd amendment types are priceless!

On Mitt:

From: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08/mitt_romneys_record_on_economi.php

“Governor Romney’s economic record contains a mixture of pro-growth accomplishments and some troublesome positions that beg to be explained,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “While his record on taxes, spending, and entitlement reform is flawed, it is, on balance, encouraging, especially given the liberal Massachusetts Legislature. His record on trade, school choice, regulations and tort reform all indicate a strong respect for the power of market solutions. At the same time, Governor Romney’s history is marked by statements at odds with his gubernatorial record and his campaign rhetoric.”

On Fred:

From: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/09/fred_thompsons_record_on_econo.php

“Fred Thompson’s eight-year record is generally pro-growth with an excellent record on entitlement reform and school choice and a very good record on taxes, regulation, and trade,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “His belief in a limited federal government is demonstrated by his numerous votes against government intrusion in the private sector and increased federal spending. His fondness for Tennessee pork aside, Thompson consistently voted against increased spending and new government projects, at times, one of only a handful of senators to do so.”

The report also said of Fred:

“Given his recent doubts about McCain-Feingold, Senator Thompson will have to clarify his current position on political speech,” Mr. Toomey continued, “and explain how he would deal with our expensive tort system given his philosophical opposition to comprehensive tort reform. That said, Fred Thompson’s overall record contains the hallmarks of a pro-growth economic conservative.”

Sounds like good, honest appraisals of both candidates. Nothing they’ve said about either one really surprises me.

I’m sure the Fred-haters will dismiss it, tho…

Fred’s support of McCain-Feingold is definitely a blemish on his record, but given his vow to reverse the most ominous provisions and an overall Federalist stance backed up by a conservative voting record, I don’t find it to be an unforgiveable sin.

Okay. I hope he is everything you hope he is. I say that earnestly.

Not true. Hollowpoint has already made it clear he will stay home or vote 3rd party. Maybe you should just speak for yourself?

csdeven on September 6, 2007 at 6:57 PM

Maybe you shouldn’t speak for me, dishonest and hateful troll. I’ve said I’ll stay home or vote third party if RINO Rudy, FlipFlop Mitt or Maverick McCain get the nomination, but Fred isn’t the only Republican candidate I’d be comfortable voting for.

And AP wonders why traffic is going down.

Buzzy on September 6, 2007 at 7:18 PM

If that’s the case then I am not surprised. I was a pretty big fan of this site a few months back but my opinion of it has soured recently and I find myself going to alternatives. AP is pushing his agenda and that’s fine – but I don’t have to read these stories through someone else’s prism.

I did not say that. And I think you would be hard pressed to find any such commentary from me on any of the candidates.

But I have my enthusiasm tempered because it’s inaccurate to say Fred did what he did with the founding principles in mind. So to exalt him for them requires mental gymnastics that I’m am not limber enough for.

Spirit of 1776 on September 6, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Didn’t say you did, but as we’re constantly reminded Fred did support McCain-Feingold. He more recently addressed it saying the free speech provisions should be reversed. Some might call that a flip-flop, others wouldn’t. Not a point worth arguing as far as I’m concerned.

If you remember the time when McCain-Feingold was passed, campaign finance was a hot topic. Few argued that there shouldn’t be some kind of regulation to help prevent the kind of pseudo-bribery that went on then and now. However most of us agree that the provisions intended to prevent contributors from buying a candidate air time in lieu of money for air time went too far in restricting free speech.

Fred’s support of McCain-Feingold is definitely a blemish on his record, but given his vow to reverse the most ominous provisions and an overall Federalist stance backed up by a conservative voting record, I don’t find it to be an unforgiveable sin.

McCain still stands by the bill, including he free speech provisions; Fred supported the recent court ruling that weakened those provisions, McCain forcefully disagreed with the court decision and thus deserves any criticism he gets on the matter.

amerpundit on September 6, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Dude, why are we talking about Obama? He’s down 23 points or more to Cankles. It’s Hillary v GOP, so those are the only polls that matter.

Not too good me thinks.

Fred thinks the pre-season is over, but the race has been going for 3 months and he’s many laps behind. AND his crew chief just left!

And didn’t someone point out that Fred is violating the spirit of the law again in respect to campaign finance? The point is to make everything open and honest, but Fred has positioned himself to keep everything secret. If this is what he is doing, this is a disturbing trend. First he funnels campaign contributions to his son and now this? That’s another red flag.

Want to call that a flip-flop? Fine, go ahead.

I did not say that. And I think you would be hard pressed to find any such commentary from me on any of the candidates.

But I have my enthusiasm tempered because it’s inaccurate to say Fred did what he did with the founding principles in mind. So to exalt him for them requires mental gymnastics that I’m am not limber enough for.

Fine, go ahead.

Hollowpoint on September 6, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Looks like the supporters of anti-free speech Fred have the same views. Now we have to have the Fred supporters permission to speak.

get over yourself, many have been and will continue to and I doubt they require your permission to do so.

Fred Heads will go with whom ever has the greatest chance of winning and preserving this great republic that we love so much.

doriangrey on September 6, 2007 at 6:15 PM

Not true. Hollowpoint has already made it clear he will stay home or vote 3rd party. Maybe you should just speak for yourself?

Like I said above, if you are comfortable with what you know and you’ve decided your vote with that in hand, more power to you. 2nd amendment more important than 1st to you? Fine.

Spirit of 1776 on September 6, 2007 at 5:31 PM

I’m aware of only one of the Republican candidates- John McCain- advancing a anti-1st Amendment stance.

I’m also aware of at least one- Mitt Romney- who’s advocating and anti-2nd Amendment stance.

Neither get my support.

Yes, I know- Fred supported McCain-Feingold… because it gets brought up at least a dozen times in every thread his name is mentioned. He has addressed the free speech restrictions as a unanticipated mistake he vowed to correct if elected. Want to call that a flip-flop? Fine, go ahead.

An armed citizenry can protect itself until the police arrive and that’s about it. The value that will stop the government from turning on us is the citizen military. Our troops are not going to be involved in killing the citizens of this country.

So free speech IS the basis of our society and you single issue 2nd amendment types need to get some perspective.

And what do you know, Fred was involved in a blatant attack on free speech with his involvement in M/F. He needs to answer for it so we can see exactly what he really is instead of the scripted rhetoric he wants us to believe he stands for.

Obviously you fear the BKennedy as your “hateful” allegations show.

BKennedy on September 6, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Bwahahahahaha!!!

Me thinks they projecteth too much.

I got a kick out of that bumper sticker idea.

http://www.imao.us/archives/008622.html/#comments