Heart-ache: Fred says he’s not a regular churchgoer

posted at 2:08 pm on September 12, 2007 by Allahpundit

Well, neither is his chief rival for the nomination. But then, his rival isn’t expecting to win the south.

Thompson, in his first campaign stop in South Carolina, told a crowd of about 500 Republicans yesterday that he gained his values from “sitting around the kitchen table” with his parents and “the good Church of Christ.”

Talking to reporters later, Thompson, a former Tennessee senator, said his church attendance “varies.”

“I attend church when I’m in Tennessee. I’m in McLean right now,” he said referring to the Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., where he lives. “I don’t attend regularly when I’m up there.”

Thompson said he usually attends church when visiting his mother in Tennessee and isn’t a member of any church in the Washington area…

“I know that I’m right with God and the people I love,” he said in Greenville. It’s “just the way I am not to talk about some of these things.”

I look forward to hearing in the comments whether this is a big deal or not. Meanwhile, WaPo and the LA Times are spinning Rudy’s diminishing lead as evidence of a crumble. Is it? He’s lost nine points since late July in the WaPo poll, four to Fred and two each to McCain and Romney. (Huckabee’s gained three since then, too.) Part of Fred’s gain is due to the announcement bounce, though. The LAT poll of early battleground states is more interesting.

lat.png

Rudy’s surprisingly close to Mitt in New Hampshire and to Fred in South Carolina given their respective “home field” advantages. Here’s the shocker, though:

lat002.png

It’s amazing that pro-choice, pro-civil union Giuliani only trails Fred by two on social issues in deep-red SC. It’s a testament to two things, I suspect: the depth of ignorance about Rudy’s views on domestic policy and the fact that Mitt hasn’t yet turned his advertising artillery on Rudy in the state, preferring instead thus far to tout his own record. Mitt’s problem with Fred’s entry is that he has to triangulate now between Thompson and Giuliani. If he turns the guns on Rudy, it leaves Fred — his rival for social con votes — above the fray. If he turns the guns on Fred, they split the social con vote and Rudy maybe ekes out a surprise win. Choices, choices.

Meanwhile, the 400-lb. gorilla waits in the wings and, if you believe the Wash Times, prepares to make his entrance. I’m a little nervous that he’ll crush the others in the debates and leave us with a radioactive nominee for the general. Exit question: What are we to make of this?

lat003.png

Update: Uh oh.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Excuse me O Allahpundit but why is it exactly a “heartache” if Fred Thompson is not a regular church goer?

Hilts on September 12, 2007 at 4:16 PM

It’s a little thing called sarcasm.

Allah likes his candidates irreligious if at all possible.

clark smith on September 12, 2007 at 7:08 PM

Doesn’t matter to me and I’m in church Sundays more often than not. I strongly suspect that when it comes to politicians that going to church is more about getting elected / re elected than anything else anyway. I once saw a clip of Hillary coming out of a church with Bill and kept waiting for the flying monkeys to bring her broom around.

Buzzy on September 12, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Id rather have a guy that is honest and straight up about not going than a scumbag that goes just for show.

TheSitRep on September 12, 2007 at 7:48 PM

I don’t believe any amount of church service could change Fred’s past, so it doesn’t really matter. Fred is the big guy who sticks up for the big guys. Whether its asbestos pumping companies or the Washington Status Quo, Fred was always there to protect the big boys and put the little guy in his place.

As to Newt, Newt has one advantage over Fred: He isn’t an amoral faceless washington insider. He might be an insider, but he’s not amoral as far as I’m aware.

As to his intellectal gargantuanness, sounds good enough to me. Hopefully he’ll replace that poser Fred instead of competing with him. Another social con just means a general of New York Lib(Socialist) vs. New Tork Lib(RINO).

BKennedy on September 12, 2007 at 7:48 PM

From Fred groupies? Heck no I’m not surprised. They’re gonna vote for a guy who is clearly not a conservative except in the TV shows he was in.

csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 4:22 PM

Keep in mind that everyone who answered isn’t a “Fred groupie.”

baldilocks on September 12, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Newt is unpopular mostly because his last name sounds like grinch

Not because his first name reminds us of that irritating little girl in Aliens?

Tanya on September 12, 2007 at 7:53 PM

It looks like there’s a lot of support on theis thread for Fred from people who also don’t attend church regularly, which isn’t surprising.

What about the people who do?

I am an ordained minister serving as a missionary in Brazil. I agree with the commenter who said that we are electing a president and not a pastor. Fred’s comments are refreshingly honest in the face of the fake religiosity of the Democrats. I will never forget the disgust I felt when Howard Dean said he was going to “talk more about Jesus” when he went down south–and then mentioned that his favorite book in the New Testament was the book of Job. I’m sorry, but Fred’s genuine apathy (if indeed it is such) is much better than the Democrat’s fake fervor.

brazilnut on September 12, 2007 at 8:09 PM

I like Newt but saying he’s not amoral is ignoring the fact that he likes cheating on his wives. I mean c’mon, Fred’s a lawyer whose firms represnted people you didn’t like so he’s amoral (I guess to be moral lawyers need toignore their constutional duties)and I guess working for a living without the approval of bkennedy is amoral too.

I suspect someone around these parts doesn’t really know what amoral means. Fred lays out who he is and doesn’t grovel to the phony moralizing of supposed conservatives who are more worried about whether or not a candidate will stroke thier backward politic than getting a Republican elected so that we don’t replay the Carter years.

Maybe slamming Fred for not sounding like Michael Savage on Meth (the Paleocon platform) is what’s really amoral. Maybe we should judge the man on his ideas, not whether or not you’d work for the same people he did when he was putting food on the table for his familiy.

Rob Taylor on September 12, 2007 at 8:44 PM

Will somebody tell me just one accomplishment of note by Fred that warrants electing him the POTUS.

tommylotto on September 12, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Almost four hours later and nothing. They only thing more pathetic than Fred’s credential is his supporters ability to articulate his credentials.

tommylotto on September 12, 2007 at 9:22 PM

tommylotto on September 12, 2007 at 9:22 PM

Thay cannot. All they can point to is Fred’s vacuous rhetoric. The following is an example of a Fredite and his reason for supporting Fred.

Fred lays out who he is

Fred has to “lay out” who he is (it depends on what your definition of “is” is.) because he hasn’t done anything he can point to as a conservative. If he were to allow his record to speak for him, he’d appear to be no different than Abramoff, Hillary, or the myriad of others who have done nothing for conservatism.

csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 9:36 PM

Will somebody tell me just one accomplishment of note by Fred that warrants electing him the POTUS.

tommylotto on September 12, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Almost four hours later and nothing. They only thing more pathetic than Fred’s credential is his supporters ability to articulate his credentials.

tommylotto on September 12, 2007 at 9:22 PM

the same question could be posed and left “very” Unanswered about allot of People
Lincoln
Reagan
Micheal Dell
Bill Gates
General Grant
Edison
Henry Ford
FDR
Churchhill
Thatcher
Gahndi
just to name a few. World history is replete with examples.

TheSitRep on September 12, 2007 at 9:38 PM

the same question could be posed and left “very” Unanswered about allot of People

Lincoln – created Republican Party

Reagan -Governor

Micheal Dell
Bill Gates
General Grant
Edison
Henry Ford

Didn’t run for office. Are mostly known for their utter brilliance and new ideas, things Fred does not possess.

FDR
Churchhill -its the tenure that makes them well known.

Thatcher -See above.

Gahndi – Oh, nothing here except for leading a massive nation on a peace march under the threat that if Ghandi died before they reached the end, all hell wiuld break lose.

just to name a few. World history is replete with examples.

TheSitRep on September 12, 2007 at 9:38 PM

Yeah, there are a lot of examples that Fred has never reached parity with.

BKennedy on September 12, 2007 at 9:50 PM

TheSitRep on September 12, 2007 at 9:38 PM

GOOD GRAVY!!!

You groupies are absolutely clueless! Do us a favor, stop watching “The Hunt” for a few weeks. Maybe you’ll start to see the fact that Fred is a did nothing, empty suit who preys on the most gullible of our society for his campaign funds.

csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 10:03 PM

TheSitRep on September 12, 2007 at 9:38 PM

Here, do some research on these items….

1) Lobbied for a dictator
2) Lobbied for a failed power plant
3) Lobbied against citizens suffering from asbestos poisoning
4) Lobbied for a pro-choice group
5) Was proud to be a womanizer
6) Supposedly married just to run for president
7) Flip-flopped on abortion
8) Failed to nail Clinton in the china scandal
9) Voted not to impeach Clinton
10) Co-authored McCain/Feingold
11) Funneled campaign cash to his son
12) His staff is in disarray because of his wife’s desire for power
13) Did nothing in the senate
14) Has no executive experience at all
15) His staff is loaded with lobbyists
16) Lies about being a Washington insider
17) Refuses to debate
18) Refuses to engage in specific policy questions
19) His PAC raised little to no money for conservative causes
20) Has created an image that is not what he is. Just like his fake red pickup and his blue jeans and flannel shirts he used in 94.

So, these are just a few of the “conservative” credentials you Fred supporters want the rest of us to fawn over Fred about.

csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 10:17 PM

TheSitRep on September 12, 2007 at 9:38 PM

Was the point that you were trying to make is that BEFORE those famous people accomplished what made them famous, they had not accomplished anything of note? If so, that is a stupid point and applies to me as much as Fred. Are you saying that since I have not accomplished anything noteworthy, I am qualified to be POTUS? Just because I might do something note worthy? Or does that ridiculous amount of blind unsubstantiated faith only apply for Fredheads towards their beloved Freddie?

I was amused by the Fredheads when he was teasing, but now he is seriously challenging Rudy. I want to know why Fred? Not why not Rudy, but why Fred. I’m a lawyer and I’m used to arguing things I do not personnally believe in, but even I could not articulate a rational reason why Fred is qualified to be the leader of the free world. This Fred mania is scary.

Someone tell me why I’m wrong. I’m still waiting.

tommylotto on September 12, 2007 at 10:39 PM

Hillary’s negatives are as high as Newt’s. It would be an interesting election, that’s for sure.

Rose on September 12, 2007 at 10:40 PM

tommylotto,
Some people don’t trust Rudy on anything other than the WOT. That is a big issue but not the only issue. The second most important issue to me (actually equal to the WOT because it is part of it) is the issue of judges. Rudy claims he will only elect conservative, constitutional judges who would protect the WOT and not the terrorists and protect parental rights and the freedom of religion but he is a liberal at heart. My fear is that he will nominate a good, well qualified candidate but when the Democrats fight him he will give up and say “I tried to get who I promised but it didn’t work so I have to nominate a more liberal person”. I just don’t think he is committed enough to get qualified judges through. This is my main concern about Rudy and the reason I will not vote for him.

Rose on September 12, 2007 at 10:46 PM

Rose on September 12, 2007 at 10:46 PM

See!!!!

I was not asking why not Rudy. I was asking why Fred. I guarantee that you could not articulate a reason that would not embarass the both of us. Just because Rudy is no good doesn’t make Fred qualified. By the same logic I’m qualified because Rudy is no good.

tommylotto on September 12, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Not Rudt because as someone who lives in NYC, I can tell you that supposedly safe New York is a hell hole where I end up calling the cops on some Irish illegal whose beating the crap out of his old lady once a week. Where self defnse has virtually been outlawed and teens I’ve worked with in grant funded programs have been so deeply brainwashed by the teacher’s unions that they argued against the program that was helping them gain job skills (an F.I.A. program) because their teachers told them it was “from Bush”

Rudy ran NYC like a strongman, turning th cops loose on the town get his much lauded drop in crime. Now that he’s gone crimes on the rise because his poicies, like welcomig illegals, didn’t work at all.

Rob Taylor on September 12, 2007 at 11:09 PM

tommylotto on September 12, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Well you see tommylotto, Fred inspires fear in everyone, that is why they are all attacking him.

/Fredhead.

BKennedy on September 12, 2007 at 11:10 PM

Five and a half hours later and still waiting.

I want someone to tell me
“Fred is qualified to be President because ________________”
And that blank should not be filled with “Rudy is a RINO” or “Mitt Flip flops.” I want something like “captured a Russian sub during the Cold War” but in real life not Hollywood.

tommylotto on September 12, 2007 at 11:12 PM

Sorry, tommylotto, I misread your post. You’re right, but it really is the same answer. Rudy is not a choice for me so I have to pick someone else. I don’t like anyone else. I only like Mr. Thompson. I don’t think he is any less qualified than anyone else. And to be honest, I think he is someone I could trust. And I have never seen Law and Order so It is not because of his T.V. role. I do like his stand on the issues.

Rose on September 12, 2007 at 11:15 PM

It all comes down to who we trust because everyone has a past and if we vote strictly on that past no one would get a vote. There are problems with all of them. We are in a position where we have to trust our own judgment as to who we trust now and whose words and actions are the most convincing now. It really is up to each voter to decide. There are those of us who have made that decision although there is plenty of time to reconsider that decision. But foul mouthed, angry posters will have no sway in my decision.

Rose on September 12, 2007 at 11:28 PM

csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 10:17 PM

A – MEN!! You even threw in some things I hadn’t heard of yet – not that I needed any convincing that Yawn of the Fred is anything more than a bunch of tired cliche’s and sound bytes. Isn’t his 15 minutes up yet? I’m sure they are.

thedecider on September 12, 2007 at 11:49 PM

tommylotto on September 12, 2007 at 11:12 PM

With every response they make your point. The problem is they don’t understand, nor do they care to understand, what that point is and why.

To me, with all candidates being equal in varying areas of dissatisfaction, the final decision has to be made on substance and not rhetoric. This is why, to my mind the only two viable candidates are Rudy and Mitt. Both have excellent executive experience and practical experience dealing across the aisle. With Rudy holding the clear edge in defeating ANY democrat. I am waiting to see how Mitt does in the south. If he can make gains, then I may lean more towards Mitt. But Fred is a complete non-starter right now. Instead of hitting the ground running, as it was touted he would do, he sounds exactly the same as he did all summer. Vague and elusive.

csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 11:55 PM

Why vote for Fred?
Because of his character and integrity. Because he believes in this country and he can get the job done…..He is a patriot…..

Nelsa on September 13, 2007 at 12:00 AM

thedecider on September 12, 2007 at 11:49 PM

Have you noticed how tough the loudmouth Fred groupies are when they attack me, but when I shift to substantive issues about Fred’s history and qualifications as a conservative, they become silent?

Well, telling the truth doesn’t help the hit count and I don’t want AP to ban me for affecting that. So, from now on I promise to refrain from enumerating Fred’s flaws, and I will only attack him on issues of his wifes “trophy” status, his fear of going to church as the roof might collapse on him, his fake red pickup, and etc.

I will not mention the 20 items I have already listed and I will not mention that he has been accused of cruel treatment by his first wife. I wont mention that Fred believes he is the characters he plays, AND that the groupies believe it too.

/sarc off

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 12:02 AM

Why vote for Fred?
Because of his character and integrity. Because he believes in this country and he can get the job done…..He is a patriot…..

Nelsa on September 13, 2007 at 12:00 AM

Please, help us out. What in his history of action can you point to that will convince us of what you claim?

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 12:03 AM

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 12:02 AM

Reading through the posts, it appears you get attacked by the group-thinkers. Once again, doriangrey was curiously unavailable for comment, and this time, you can’t blame it on Monday Night Football as you did last time.

I will not mention the 20 items I have already listed and I will not mention that he has been accused of cruel treatment by his first wife. I wont mention that Fred believes he is the characters he plays, AND that the groupies believe it too.

Please – continue to mention all of it. I plan to keep the list you created above for future reference. I see it as being quite useful in future discussions involving Fred-worship.

thedecider on September 13, 2007 at 12:10 AM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/is_a_fred_thompson_campaign_ne.html

This is one of the stronger slams from Will that I have seen in quite awhile. Only the most fervent Fredheads will not be bothered with the facts presented. Pay particular attention to the spending calculation Will made.

New coke and 80 days!

Bradky on September 13, 2007 at 12:14 AM

Some of your 20 reasons are trivial, maybe you wanted a round number.(Do you really think the red pickup is going to convince someone not to vote for him?) Some have been answered satisfactorily by Mr. Thompson. There are a couple that I am going to look into. But I still don’t think you have a solid enough case to convince anyone. They are still past errors, either of judgment or in the interpretation by others. It is his response to the situations and our individual judgment of each one of them that matters.

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 12:15 AM

But I still don’t think you have a solid enough case to convince anyone. They are still past errors, either of judgment or in the interpretation by others. It is his response to the situations and our individual judgment of each one of them that matters.

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 12:15 AM

You could almost be defending Bill Clinton with that statement.

Bradky on September 13, 2007 at 12:21 AM

George Will? Not exactly the one I run to for advice for choosing who I will vote for. We have plenty of time to see how it all plays out. It won’t be decided here.

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 12:22 AM

Bill Clinton’s mistakes were made in the White House, while president. Not years before the election.

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 12:23 AM

Bill Clinton was a whole different situation. I see no comparison between the two.

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 12:26 AM

Some have been answered satisfactorily by Mr. Thompson.
Rose on September 13, 2007 at 12:15 AM

Really? Which ones?

And the red pickup is not about the red pickup. It’s about him creating the false image of a Washington outsider when he clearly is a Washington insider. Doesn’t that bother you? The guy is lying to you. Unless you are voting for Fred because he IS a Washington insider, his fake image ought to bother you.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 12:27 AM

George Will? Not exactly the one I run to for advice for choosing who I will vote for.

It doesn’t matter Rose. Is Will speaking the truth?

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 12:28 AM

No it doesn’t bother me. Would you not vote for a strong vice president because he was an insider? Fred said that the reason he didn’t vote to impeach Clinton was because it would have made Al Gore president and being from Tenn. he knew all about Gore. He’s right. It would have given Gore a jump start to the 2000 election and as close as it was, he probably would have won. Maybe we should be thanking him. As far as the China thing goes it was an error in judgment. He was trying to be fair and it backfired. McCainFeingold he said didn’t work the way he wanted. None of your wife complaints are relevant to me. I really don’t care if his wife runs his campaign or not. The lack of executive experience doesn’t bother me at all. No reason, it just doesn’t. As far as the image of the red pickup, all candidates do things to try to relate. Look at some of the things these people do when they campaign. It’s all part of the process. I’ll have to get to the other points another time, long posts are boring.

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 12:35 AM

I think he as grasping at straws. (Will) He seems to desperately want to malign Fred and his last comments at the end about church pretty much sums that up. It is not relevant to most voters how often he goes to church.

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 12:39 AM

Giuliani – Federal prosecutor — took down the mob, chief executive of a city with 8,000,000 people (which is 2 million more people than the entire State of Tennessee) — balanced budget, reduced crime, reduced welfare, cut taxes, inspired our entire country during the crisis of 9/11.

Mitt — very successful business man, ran large corporations, saved the Olympics, was chief executive of state with population of 6.5 million people.

McCain — freakin’ war hero, 4 term Senator, extensive expeirence on committees and sponsoring legislation

Huckabee — minister, chief executive of state with population of 2.8 million people

Thompson — 2 undistinguished terms as Senator from Tennessee

If Jeri had been Predident for 8 years, Fred’s experience would almost match Hillary’s.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 12:39 AM

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 12:35 AM

So you are saying that Clinton shouldn’t have been impeached? Interesting. Your answer seems to say politics is the primary consideration even before issues of integrity and fitness for office.

Bradky on September 13, 2007 at 12:41 AM

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 12:39 AM

Well to be fair fred did capture a Russian sub… oh never mind!

Bradky on September 13, 2007 at 12:42 AM

To paraphrase Shakespeare:

that which we call a Fredhead
By any other name would be as blind

Bradky on September 13, 2007 at 12:49 AM

Fred voted for impeachment on the obstruction of justice so the issue of Gore becoming president doesn’t seem to wash as his explanation for voting not guilty on the perjury charge. I don’t normally trust wikipedia, but this entry seems fairly accurate. It doesn’t specifically address Fred’s reasons for his votes, but to me, Fred’s explanation doesn’t fit the reality.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 12:49 AM

Ok, I’ll pick this up in the AM.

G’night all, and blessings on you and yours and this great country and especially those who defend us.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 12:52 AM

He’s a little guy.
Entelechy on September 12, 2007 at 4:23 PM

Ha! Good one!

jaime on September 13, 2007 at 12:57 AM

I would loved to have seen Clinton gone. But there is debate as to whether it was really worth it all. He was a mess of a president and technically he was impeached. I will not base my vote on whether or not Fred voted to impeach him. That is the point. It is not enough to affect my vote. The only issues that will affect my vote are the ones of judges, immigration, and the WOT. All this other stuff is just noise.
Important to some and not to others. Like I said, we just have to decide what’s important in making our decision. Then we vote for the one who best addresses those concerns. There is no pure candidate.

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 1:01 AM

There is no pure candidate.

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 1:01 AM

We are in violent agreement on that point!

Bradky on September 13, 2007 at 1:03 AM

Bradky, your attacks are not going to win any converts. But maybe that’s not your goal.

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 1:04 AM

My response was to your previous statement. Not the one above.

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 1:04 AM

Bradky, your attacks are not going to win any converts. But maybe that’s not your goal.

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 1:04 AM

If people can’t have a little bit of sense of humor about politics it is no fun at all to discuss. Sorry you felt I attacked you.

Bradky on September 13, 2007 at 1:12 AM

Sorry if I misjudged you. You’re right. A sense of humor is a valuable thing. Especially in politics.

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 1:15 AM

To paraphrase Shakespeare:

that which we call a Fredhead
By any other name would be as blind

Bradky on September 13, 2007 at 12:49 AM

To paraphrase somebody or other:

In the land of the blind and deaf, the blind man is king.

MB4 on September 13, 2007 at 1:53 AM

This is one of the stronger slams from Will that I have seen in quite awhile. Only the most fervent Fredheads will not be bothered with the facts presented. Pay particular attention to the spending calculation Will made.

New coke and 80 days!

Bradky on September 13, 2007 at 12:14 AM

Maybe Will would be a bit more convincing if he didn’t intentionally take a quote out of context to misrepresent what Fred said in the Hannity interview, which I watched.

A similar question stumped Thompson the day he plunged.

Sean Hannity, who is no Torquemada conducting inquisitions of conservatives, asked Thompson: “When you look at the other current crop of candidates — Republicans — where is the distinction between your positions and what you view as theirs?” Thompson replied: “Well, to tell you the truth, I haven’t spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions.”

He also is unfamiliar with the details of his own positions.

Will threw integrity to the wind in favor of his agenda by leaving out what Fred said next, which was that of course he was familiar with the positions of the other candidates, but wasn’t yet interested in going after the other Republican candidates, but instead would focus on the Democrats.

Given George Will’s intentional dishonesty almost from the start, he demonstrated he’s not credible and can’t be taken seriously.

Hollowpoint on September 13, 2007 at 3:19 AM

Hollowpoint on September 13, 2007 at 3:19 AM

Of course you think that. But lets examine Fred’s interview with Sean in the light of logic instead of hair renting emotionalism. This is part one….

1) Fred answers that going on Leno exposes him to more people.

2) He thinks the debates are designed to start pissing contests. He goes off into the Lincoln/Douglas format for the general, when he was asked how to make the primary debate better in his view. He doesn’t answer it.

3) He declines to make a comment about the other candidates. Obstensively to “stay above the fray”.

4)Fred likes where he is at in fund raising etc.

5) Fred wants to make the country more united and less divided.

6) Fred is asked what the difference is between him and the other republican candidates. He says he hasn’t gone into it publicly but knows where they stand. Here he finally addresses debate format with the other candidates and says there will be time for debate, if they want to, in a group or one on one. He just contradicted what he had just said about why he wasn’t debating and acts like it’s the other candidates that are reluctant about engaging in debate. Then he admits he has a lot to work on in his own positions. Next he decides he isn’t so “above the fray” when he takes a swipe at the rep candidates by suggesting that the American people should look at each candidates history and see if they are now, where they were before. Intimating that the rest are flip-floppers and he and he alone is consistent.

Fred speaks with forked tongue.

So, GW wasn’t being dishonest. His view was that Fred really doesn’t know where the others stand, and he was right because how can Fred understand where others are when Fred himself admitted he doesn’t know where HE stands? Secondarily, and another issue I’m going to skewer Fred on from now on is his lie to Huckabee that he never said he would go one on one in the primary. Fred is a coward and a liar. He wont debate in a group, nor will he do it “mano e mano” like he threatened he would.

I’m not going to bother with part two and I doubt you will either because those facts I just laid out wont make one iota of difference to you Fred groupies.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 8:22 AM

I am still waiting for that Fred accomplishment warranting his consideration for POTUS.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 10:49 AM

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 10:49 AM

They’d rather fixate on me. But I just left a post that reminded them that you are asking a serious question and are not using the vitriol that I am using that they say is the only reason they don’t take me seriously. That doesn’t explain why they haven’t responded to your respectful questions, but, there it is for all to see.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Thompson gave an honest answer, and gave it in an honest manner.

It’s a shock to people living in an area, where you wear everything about you on your sleeve or your resume, but there are parts of this land of ours where people like a bit more reserve about things, and where a man goes to church is one of them. I’m familiar with the Church of Christ; we had one in the town in Ohio where I grew up. I’m not sure they have much of a presence on the East Coast, never mind in McLean, Virginia.

So do tell, then, where would the Senator go to church in or near McLean? Is regular church attendance required of its members, as it is, say with Catholics? If so, he’d have to have a place convenient to him. If not, how much of an issue is this, and is it not enough to know that Thompson joins his mother for the occasion when in Tennessee?

manwithblackhat on September 13, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2