RD on September 14, 2007 at 10:15 AM

I never even noticed that because I was thinking how shallow it is for him to parade his kids around as fund raising tools. Which other candidates drag their kids up on stage in the middle of speeches etc? You know his wife is sending her up there. The arrogance and disdain she must feel for those who would support Fred.

Sickening.

… that last one could be smeared (either in vicious jest or in true paranoiac fashion) as a disguised “Seig Heil” …

er, “Sieg Heil”. It may look fine in 3-D, but the foreshortening provided by a flat 2-D picture may not be as forgiving of certain camera angles.

It’s unfortunate that this is even an issue, and sorry to bring this up, but Fred had better keep tabs on how his daughter “does the elephant” in public – that last one could be smeared (either in vicious jest or in true paranoiac fashion) as a disguised “Seig Heil”. An association to Nazi gestures are the last thing Fred needs at this point…

1. Are you talking about a stupid man who is reaching too high, or an evil man?

He is not stupid. I don’t think he is evil in that sense. He is dishonest and greedy.

2.If, for some reason, the Dem. nominee isn’t Hillary, can “phony” Thompson beat the other two phonies?

It’s too early to tell. But in my opinion, Fred’s status as a lobbyist is worse than what Edwards is and certainly Obama is pure as the driven snow compared to Fred.

3. Would a Thompson Presidency be a disaster, or just a losing proposition against Hillary?

Yes, in the sense that we’d get the life long lobbyist mentality in the White House for at least 4 years. The ONLY positive, and the reason I’ll vote for ANY republican in the general, is that Fred absolutely will nominate the right kind of justices for the SCOTUS.

(I agree, btw, that his inability to articulate positions based upon an internal compass is becoming apparent to me).

ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!! I, we, have suspected this since day one, and all the promises by the Fred supporters over the summer have not come to fruition. He clearly has not yet addressed any issues that are near and dear to his heart except for his comments concerning Libby. Everything else is great conservative rhetoric, but you an tell his understanding of those issues are shallow at best. He sounds like a civilian trying to convince a veteran what it’s like to be shot at. We all know we wouldn’t like it, but the specific feelings escape anyone who has never felt it.

The Rudy ad you saw yesterday, whatever you may think about how blunt or not it was, is typical of what you will get from him. Where’s Fred’s ad, or for that matter, Mitt’s?
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 8:34 AM

Rudy is absolutely impressive! And I have no clue where the deep outrage at this from Mitt and the rest is. I am very disappointed and I am less than impressed with Mitt’s totally superficial understanding of the military and the feelings that the families go through. I am going to invite him to my house on the day my son deploys to Iraq and let him get an up close view of the emotional roller coaster a typical military family goes through. It wont hurt him a bit. Mitt will have to convince me that he will surround himself with people who do understand that and can advise him. Until then, my support for him is significantly lessened. Especially when compared to Rudy. Rudy may not have ever gone through it, but from what I have seen so far, he obviously understands it and is very sensitive to military families.

Fred did exactly what Fred does. He mentioned it in a couple of speeches as a superficial way to rile up the crowd for his benefit. He didn’t really care, except for what he could gain out of it. At least, that’s how he came off to me.

csdeven on September 14, 2007 at 1:10 AM

Assuming what you and BK say about Fred is correct, can you answer some questions?

1. Are you talking about a stupid man who is reaching too high, or an evil man?
2.If, for some reason, the Dem. nominee isn’t Hillary, can “phony” Thompson beat the other two phonies?
3. Would a Thompson Presidency be a disaster, or just a losing proposition against Hillary?

(I agree, btw, that his inability to articulate positions based upon an internal compass is becoming apparent to me).

The Rudy ad you saw yesterday, whatever you may think about how blunt or not it was, is typical of what you will get from him. Where’s Fred’s ad, or for that matter, Mitt’s?

As a life-long Midwesterner, I can guarantee we, except for maybe the recent move-ins, do not look to either coast for anything except amusement. And they give us plenty.

It’s that attitude (that we hear plenty of) that works to keep Thompson up in the polls, and doing well in the Midwest, no matter how qualified or not he is. Just because he’s NOT from there.

El Cazador on September 13, 2007 at 11:40 PM

For you and others who did’t get the thrust of my post, I was lampooning the idea of a national poll on the basis that New York and California combined have more population than most of the southern and midwest states combined, and therefore would scew any national poll results in favor of a liberal Republican. Unless the poll had a serious control mechanism like only putting out 100 surveys in each state, any proportionally representational poll would scew leftward.

I’m still for Fred. Sent him a few big. He is the least RINO of the Pub field. Rudy would make a great DINO, so I hope he sees straight enough to jump ship prior to the primaries to his true constituents.

Mitt could run the GAO or something.

In the same speech, he abandons the facade of federalism he has erected by saying this…..

“He said his message to states would be, “We expect you to get objective testing done”

WHO decides what “objective testing” is? Fred? The federal government? He doesn’t even understand federalism enough to be committed to it in all instances.

This is just like his policy of letting the foot soldier decide if Iraq is worth fighting for or if we should come home. It sounds good to the uninformed, but to those of us who understand the complexities of foreign policy, it is obvious Fred is memorizing rhetoric and not speaking from conviction. In other words, he’s running back to his acting.

Fred appeared more lively then he has in other campaign speeches if he keeps that up I might support him.

Complete7 on September 14, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Lively??? I thought that hunchback was Larry King!!!

DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 12:03 AM

Nice try, but your slavish devotion to meaningless national polls when Fred is sucking hind teat in Iowa and NH, solidifies your standing as a groupie.

Well, welcome to the club. I’ve been laughing at you groupies for several months now. -csdeven

I’m not a groupie. I’m “intrigued” by Fred’s candidacy, but I haven’t decided yet what I think of it. Don’t confuse opposition to your own brand of “groupy”-ism with strong support for someone you are bitching about.

- The Cat

1. Where The Midwest looks to New York and California for who should be President.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 7:02 PM

As a life-long Midwesterner, I can guarantee we, except for maybe the recent move-ins, do not look to either coast for anything except amusement. And they give us plenty.

It’s that attitude (that we hear plenty of) that works to keep Thompson up in the polls, and doing well in the Midwest, no matter how qualified or not he is. Just because he’s NOT from there.

DaveS on September 13, 2007 at 10:29 PM

Well, welcome to the club. I’ve been laughing at you groupies for several months now.

DaveS on September 13, 2007 at 10:29 PM

It’s clear that you groupies believe that national polls in a local election means something. You consistently pin your hopes on that because you know that Fred lags behind in many key early states. Lets see where Fred is in a month. If he can make better progress in convincing more groupies, he may just make some gains in Iowa and NH.

OH JEEZE! Now Fred has under performed on purpose? — csdeven

HAHAHA…. it’s “underperforming” to be in first or second place, depending on the poll, without even putting any energy into it? LOL. Okay.

saved on September 13, 2007 at 9:54 PM

Just what Bloomberg hopes you do. go Hillary!

saved on September 13, 2007 at 9:54 PM

Yeah, that’s what the Perot supporters said in 1992 and that gave us 8 years of Clinton. You might just as well vote for the democrat candidate.

Illegal Contribution to MoveOn.org from NYT?