George Will’s Stunning, Devastating, Campaign-Wrecking, Bye-Bye-Fred Column

posted at 5:28 am on September 13, 2007 by see-dubya

Overhyped, wordy, yet ultimately pointless…whether I’m describing Fred’s candidacy, or George Will’s latest (of several, actually) Fred-bashing column is left as an exercise for the reader.

Looks like Will gets a solid base hit on one subject: contrasting Fred’s record on campaign finance reform with what he told Laura Ingraham (audio, skip to 5:43) about his record on campaign finance reform. To wit:

Thompson, contrary to his current memories, was deeply involved in expanding government restrictions on political speech generally and the ban on issue ads specifically. Yet he told Ingraham “I voted for all of it,” meaning McCain-Feingold, but said “I don’t support that” provision of it.

Oh? Why, then, did he file his own brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold McCain-Feingold, stressing Congress’ especially “compelling interest” in squelching issue ads that “influence” elections?

Beyond that, though, Will seems to be accusing Fred of A: not raising enough money, and B: not being religious enough to raise conservative Christians’ money:

Is there, however, a huge cash value in the role for which he is auditioning — darling of religious conservatives? Perhaps. But their aspiring darling recently said in South Carolina, “I attend church when I’m in Tennessee. I’m in McLean right now. I don’t attend regularly when I’m up there.”

“Right now”? He has been living “up there” in that upscale inside-the-Beltway Washington suburb, honing his “Aw, shucks, I’m just an ol’ Washington outsider” act, for years. Long enough to have noticed that McLean is planted thick with churches. Going to church is, of course, optional — unless you are aiming to fill some supposed piety void in the Republican field.

Hot Air commenters, whether churchgoing or not, and whether Fred supporters or not, weren’t quite as scandalized by this admission as Will thinks they ought to have been. I have to say these politicized sneers about the state of Fred’s soul are every bit as relevant and enlightening as the attempts to dig something that isn’t there out of the records of his divorce. Or, perhaps more apposite, the sneering Mormon-bashing we’ve seen directed at Romney. And they make the sneerers look just as good.

Meanwhile, from the left, Fred is getting hit with cries of Too Much Jesus!

The Fred-bashers–all over the spectrum–are sounding more and more like militant atheists who have this really off-putting zeal where you would expect to find only apathy or mild contempt. They all want to be the one who really sticks it to Fred and proves you’re wrong and deluded if you support him. Fine; if you really believe there’s nothing there, then act like it. If Thompson is truly the empty suit and ideological enigma you claim, he’ll dry up soon enough. (I mean, I don’t waste a whole lot of time fisking Brownback’s or Gilmore’s policy positions, and I don’t throw a rod every time someone resigns from the Ron Paul campaign. Will’s written three columns bashing Fred.)

The message being sent by all these scattershot attacks is that Fred is a serious threat that must be stopped–which is a very different message from most of the attack rhetoric itself. He could never win! We must stop him from winning! Allahpundit’s offhand “exactly what is it he’s done?” and “yeah, enough with the cornpone” remarks are actually far more devastating than the curiously desperate and counterproductive ack-ack Will and the Daily Mail are throwing up.

Utterly Gratuitous Exit Question: Piffle, or not piffle?


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 3

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Lions and Tigers and Bears oh my…Lawyers..18%…Congress…17%…yea, you win that round all right………..

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Because only the democrats are listening to people like you (those employing the politics of personal destruction), and the democrats aren’t counted in Republican polls. In fact I would hazard a guess that instead of turning conservatives away from Fred you and the other anti-Fredheads are convincing the conservatives who haven’t made up their minds about Fred to view him in a much more favorable light.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 1:13 PM

The last time I saw anything about “the politics of personal destruction,” arch-liberal Frank Rich wrote it. He had a similar whiny tone. As to your hazzarded guess, your faith in humanity must be little if you think that upon reading criticism of an unknown quantity to them, they would immediately turn against it rather than evaluate it.

But I suppose you know more about human nature than the rest of us. Personally, i’d say your current display of hubris is more apt to push someone against a candidate that you only “defend” by attacking his critics.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 3:18 PM

I said his son was a consultant for Monster, and the article said that. Sounds like I understand it as well as you. He was a consultant for Monster.com. If you don’t like or believe it, write the Phoenix.

right2bright,

I hate to call people “liars” but you are a “liar”. The issue was not at all whether or not Mitt’s son worked for Monster.com and you know it.

Shall we review?:

You began by saying that Mitt’s father, George Romney, bought him his education and his jobs. You remarked enviously that you wished you could have gone on a mission to France and then denied that that was envy.

You said that Mitt’s son was hired as a consultant because because Mitt was a friend of the owner, implying that, like his father, Mitt “bought” his son his job and that he wasn’t qualified on his own merit. Indeed, you have yet to name which son it was, so you have no way of knowing what qualifications he brought to the job.

When you were unable to substantiate those^^claims you said it was because Bain bought Monster.com, and yes you did correct that eventually.

You said that Romney’s son was named “Bill”.

You claimed that an article you quoted from in Harvard Business Review was an “abstract” and that I could buy it from you for $1,000.

You said that Mitt himself was a consultant for monster.com.

You babbled about having access to court documents that we are not privy to.

In short, there was not a single thing that you said that had any merit.

Today you have remarked negatively about Mitt’s lack of military experience when Fred has none and (without substantiation as usual) stated that Mitt is financially supporting his kids now as they help him with the campaign – which brings us right back to your whole scenario that they have everything “bought” for them.

If you want to pretend that those were not “slurs”, go right ahead, but that only serves to add to the evidence that you are lying.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Lions and Tigers and Bears oh my…Lawyers..18%…Congress…17%…yea, you win that round all right………..

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Lawyers are trusted completely or somewhat by 80% of the population. That crushes Congress. I think you should take the advice of the vast majority of the population and trust me.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Lawyers are trusted completely or somewhat by 80% of the population. That crushes Congress. I think you should take the advice of the vast majority of the population and trust me.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Yea, right as if thats going to happen any time soon. No sorry after your display of willing intentional dishonesty I simply cant take anything you say on trust.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Congressional investigators said that the investigations were hamstrung due to lack of co-operation of witnesses.
doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 3:06 PM

That my friend, is called an excuse for failure. Fred was a failure, and surprise, surprise, he had an excuse for his failure.

Don’t tell me about the obstacles that stopped Fred from doing something noteworthy. Tell me about the obstacles he overcame to achieve anything noteworthy.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Lawyers are trusted completely or somewhat by 80% of the population. That crushes Congress. I think you should take the advice of the vast majority of the population and trust me.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 3:32 PM

To be fair tommylotto, 80% of the people trust THEIR lawyer. It’s everyone else’s they have a problem with :-D.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 3:44 PM

For example, you think Fred had trouble with witnesses. Rudy took on the mob. The mafia has this little policy called Omerta. That didn’t stop Rudy. He took ‘em down anyway. He indicted all the heads of the five families, got convictions and hundreds of years of prison time. You don’t hear Rudy complaining that those mean old mafiosos won’t cooperate. He cornered them and made them flip on their bosses. That is what a real prosecutor does, or is your understanding of that role limited to Law & Order reruns?

Rudy overcame the obstacles and accomplished something noteworthy. Fred, not so much…

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 3:49 PM

csdeven…

I was not defending Fred. I did not mention one word on Fred. I was openly questioning your elitocrat ways. Now I am openly attacking you for them. You have earned your elitocrat spurs. An elitocrat with no thoughts, opinions or beliefs that are of any value to the rest of us poor idiots.

A tool is as a tool does.

Ignore On,

GoingThere

GoingThere on September 13, 2007 at 3:51 PM

It sounds like Rudy should go back to doing what he does best. I’m sure there are still lots of mafia guys out there.

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 3:57 PM

I’m sure Fred would have gotten away with strong arming political witnesses. A big difference. But then, maybe not.

Rose on September 13, 2007 at 3:58 PM

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 3:49 PM

Well it is obvious you are a lawyer, caught being dishonest your response is disingenuous equivocation. There is nothing even remotely similar between Rudy taking on the mob, who stand their ground and fight, and Fred taking on the Clinton administration who make key witnesses disappear in the dead of the night and cant be questioned about it.

It’s child’s play taking on the mafia compared to taking on a sitting president. Especially when the sitting president and his wife just happen (shudder) to be completely unethical lawyers.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 4:04 PM

Well it is obvious you are a lawyer, caught being dishonest your response is disingenuous equivocation. There is nothing even remotely similar between Rudy taking on the mob, who stand their ground and fight, and Fred taking on the Clinton administration who make key witnesses disappear in the dead of the night and cant be questioned about it.

It’s child’s play taking on the mafia compared to taking on a sitting president. Especially when the sitting president and his wife just happen (shudder) to be completely unethical lawyers.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 4:04 PM

That there is some grade-A crazy. Where can I get what you’re smoking doriangray? I mean, I know Clinton was a loathsome boorish despicable unethical womanizer, but worse than New York Mafia crimelords vis-a-vis hitjobs? That’s a tough pill to swallow, even for someone who hates the Clintons like I do.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 4:16 PM

Did you see the Godfather? Mafia witnesses disappear all the time, or their brother from the old country shows up the day they are scheduled to testify, just to sit next to the mob boss’ consigliere and fly home. That is what the mob is famous for!!!

The situations are very comparable — powerful ruthless opponents in an investigation with uncooperative witnesses and overseas connections. The only difference is Rudy got results, and Fred got CFR.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Oh my God, this is too good to be true.

You began by saying that Mitt’s father, George Romney, bought him his education and his jobs

Show me where I said Mitt bought him his ed. and job. You won’t find it.

Although I wouldn’t hesitate in guessing he bought his kids an education. That happens alot, both of my kids are attorneys and it cost me about 1/2 mil for all of their college. Proud of it, and proud of them, and they don’t run around denying it.
Hey okay, Mitts close personal friend (who owns Monster.com) did not know Mitt’s son was applying for a job at his company. You believe that, I will believe a father and his good friend would talk about it. Me, and I think most others, would say, “hey my son is looking for a job”. He’s a good kid, college grad, knows the family, respects Mitt, hire him. You have a problem with that?

You claimed that an article you quoted from in Harvard Business Review was an “abstract” and that I could buy it from you for $1,000.

This gets better, the article was an abstract (it stated it right at the top), by three of Bain’s executives. Each of the consulting on CRM’s that Bain’s did (who owned Bain? That’s right Mitt) was abbreviated and was a paper in the Harvard Business archives. The decription (which is the abstract) was a summary. That compilation was made up from consulting they did for various companies, some they listed like Monster.com. Amazing how facts get in the way of truth. Darn it and you thought you found a liar.

This is like shooting fish in the barrel, and I don’t even have to use insulting words.

Bain was the consultant, Mitt was owner, guess he doesn’t know when they are consulting with a personal family friend let alone a huge company like Monster.com. Saying Bain consulted and Mitt consulted is the same. It was Mitt’s baby, he owned it, he ran it, he takes credit for it.

The court documents (I can’t believe this) was sarcasm. I said I have court sworn documents under oath by Mitt, sworn on various religious books to cover all bases…it was a joke, I did it twice, once more obvious than the other. I can’t believe you thought Mitt would swear under oath concerning his son’s employment. I also said that those were secret court documents that only I have seen.

to court documents that we are not privy to

You were so intense in proving that Mitt’s son did not receive preferential treatment (scary intense. It is called jerking your chain in the business world (although it is a medical term)

If I new it would have hurt your feelings I would never have done that (see, that is sarcasm). Sheesh.

Oh and the $1,000 dollars, yeah I will sell it to you for that. Although you can buy it for six dollars and change from Harvard.

Hello, anyone home?

So did Mitt serve in the military or go to France?

Did any of Mitt’s sons serve in the military, or opt to stay at home and consult on their dad’s campaign.

I don’t care about Fred…and that bothers you.

Truth is not a slur.

And look at that, answered each of your allegations and did not call you one name.

Your welcome. Now move on.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 4:30 PM

The situations are very comparable

Actually there is one major difference – a Congressional investigation is not as constrained as a criminal one. The questioners can say whatever they like to and about the person being questioned and they have broad subpoena and contempt power.

In other words, it’s a lot easier to hold Congressional investigations than to prosecute a criminal trial.

Thompson’s inability to control the investigation into Clinton fund raising is a bit of a black mark on his congressional career.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 3:20 PM

I missed one, darn it, the envy…see that was sarcaism. I said “I wish I could have gone to France and serve my country instead of Vietnam”. I love those chocolate croissants.

To all the soldiers who served; you served your country better going to Vietnam, than anyone going to France. God bless every soldier, and curse the individuals who worked the system at getting out of service in a difficult time. Not cursing the ones who were not chosen, or could not serve, or did not go to Vietnam, but the dispicable ones that ran (some across borders) and allowed someone else to take their place as an American son.
Buy Danish does not understand that.

I lost some good friends during that time.

Some are alive today…at the cost of others greatest sacrifice.

If that’s a slur to those who have served, than your moral compass is wrong.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Thompson’s inability to control the investigation into Clinton fund raising is a bit of a black mark on his congressional career.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Agreed, but where is the white mark or smilie face or gold star or whatever denotes a good accompishment in his congressional career?

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 4:45 PM

Agreed, but where is the white mark or smilie face or gold star or whatever denotes a good accompishment in his congressional career?

His votes, overall, were conservative. He didn’t seem to take much of a lead in policy creation, though.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 4:47 PM

What does Mitt, Monster.com and France have to do with Fred’s waffer thin credentials?

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 4:48 PM

His votes, overall, were conservative. He didn’t seem to take much of a lead in policy creation, though.

Sounds very presidential…

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 4:50 PM

I did not mention one word on Fred.
GoingThere on September 13, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Exactly. You chose to fixate on me. Which admittedly is a disturbing trend for someone who I have rarely ever spoken to.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Bill C on September 13, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Yeah, nice try Bill. Fred chose the scum and left the regular folk to fend for themselves. He could have used his connections in the government to help the little guy instead of screwing him. Your attempt to justify his behavior is despicable.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 4:57 PM

This gets better, the article was an abstract (it stated it right at the top)

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 4:30 PM

Really?


What I’m looking at is the word: ARTICLE
.

Record: 1
Title: Avoid the Four Perils of CRM.
Authors: Rigby, Darrell K.1
Reichheld, Frederick F.2
Schefter, Phil3
Source: Harvard Business Review; Feb2002, Vol. 80 Issue 2, p101-109, 7p
Document Type:Article

Yes, there is an abstract of the full article, that precedes the article itself. Abstracts are summaries of longer a longer thesis.

The abstract begins here:

Abstract: Customer relationship management is one of the hottest management tools today. But more than half of all CRM initiatives fail to produce the anticipated results. Why? And what can companies do to reverse that negative trend?

At the end of the abstract is the text of the entire article. Scroll down and learn the difference…

Maybe one of your sons can help you out with this business of presenting opinions and arguments and substantiating them with facts, because you are doing a miserable job of it.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Show me where I said Mitt bought him his ed. and job. You won’t find it.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 4:30 PM

Right here:

And please, don’t pretend that his dad’s influence didn’t buy him his jobs and prestige. And I would love a 30 month vacation in France, some mission.


right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 12:59 AM

Do you really want to continue with this folly?

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 5:14 PM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 5:14 PM

In all fairness, right2bright is correct. He never said Mitt bought his son his job. You are extrapolating here. What he said is quite clear. He said Mitts influence got the job. That’s not the same as buying him a job.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 5:24 PM

In all fairness, right2bright is correct. He never said Mitt bought his son his job. You are extrapolating here. What he said is quite clear. He said Mitts influence got the job. That’s not the same as buying him a job.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Yeah, Mitt’s dad just said. “Well, I don’t want you to give him the job, but I hope I’ve just influenced you that way.”

Splitting hairs, the last recourse of someone with nowehere to go.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 5:37 PM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Is she still beating that dead horse?

She is making statements heavy with innuendo, and then denies the intent. We have already acknowledged the fact that parents have influence on their children. They also help them out when they can. The FACTS surrounding Mitt’s life prove that he did everything pretty much on his own and she has no proof, no smoking gun, no evidence whatsoever to substantiate her assertions that Mitt was helped along by his parents.

She accuses us of thinking that his parents influence is an immoral thing. I have never felt that way and I’ve never heard you say it either. For us it’s about proof. What can be proven and what cannot. Her “proof” is so thin and requires such stretches of imagination to connect the dots, that I have a hard time believing she is serious. But she seems pretty committed, so she must be.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 5:42 PM

And I would love a 30 month vacation in France, some mission.
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 12:59 AM

Do you really think a 30 month mission for the LDS church is akin to a vacation?

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 5:45 PM

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 5:37 PM

Influence and “buying” are two different things. I’m no lawyer and I can see that. Too bad you can’t.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 5:59 PM

Influence and “buying” are two different things. I’m no lawyer and I can see that. Too bad you can’t.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 5:59 PM

I got it jdawg *wink wink*

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 6:00 PM

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Yeah, right

I got yer *wink*

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 6:01 PM

Do you really think a 30 month mission for the LDS church is akin to a vacation?

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Whatever the hell it is, it’s gonna strike people as weird!

JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 6:07 PM

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 5:24 PM

That is a hilarious, Clintonian explanation, and frankly I am not going to waste my time waiting around for you to explain the difference. I don’t have any more time to spend with this jacka$$ who is a loon at best and a liar at worst.

The bottom line is that right2bright refuses to give any of the Romney’s credit for their considerable accomplishments and he is using the sort of “winners of life lottery” arguments that moonbats use, and to make it worse he invents stories out of whole cloth in a pitiful attempt to try to prove his “point”.

And clearly right2bright did not say what he claimed he said here:

I said

“I wish I could have gone to France and serve my country instead of Vietnam”. I love those chocolate croissants.

And this is a complete rewriting of history, and the proof is in this thread if you care to waste your time going through it:

Oh and the $1,000 dollars, yeah I will sell it to you for that. Although you can buy it for six dollars and change from Harvard.

The only consolation right2bright has is that EricPW Johnson is even more of a dolt than he is.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 6:09 PM

That is a hilarious, Clintonian explanation, and frankly I am not going to waste my time waiting around for you to explain the difference. I don’t have any more time to spend with this jacka$$ who is a loon at best and a liar at worst.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 6:09 PM

It’s not lying it’s creative story telling.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 6:18 PM


JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 6:07 PM

Why? Is it “weird” to go on a Christian mission to Central America or Africa?

Oh, and for the record, lest anyone think that “France” conjures up a life of living in chateaux with croissants and cafe au lait served in a Louis Quinze bed, the circumstances are very different and it is more like living in a monastery after having given a vow of poverty.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 6:20 PM

It’s not lying it’s creative story telling.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 6:18 PM

If you read the original thread you will see that it goes WAY beyond “creative storytelling”.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 6:22 PM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 6:09 PM

I’ll let him answer the “liar” charge –

And I have no reason to “waste” any time looking anything up. I don’t support Mitt, so I really don’t care one way or the other what he may have bought or influenced. I just find it interesting that most, if not all, of the Mitt supporters I have run into seem to have a near religious zeal when it comes to defending thier candidate.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 6:24 PM

Yes, there is an abstract of the full article, that precedes the article itself. Abstracts are summaries of longer a longer thesis.
Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Thank you, it was not in the place you were looking for originally, but you found it. This is your BIG argument, that an abstract is two inches below the original article?

HAHAHAHAHA!

By the way, your sexism shows, who said sons when speaking of attorneys?

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 6:24 PM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 5:14 PM

Education? You missed that, or do you want to continue this folly.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Who is this “she” you are always talking about? I thought you have all of the facts straight.

Who are these “sons” you (By Danish) talk about? I thought you had all of the correct facts

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 6:28 PM

I’ll let him answer the “liar” charge –

And I have no reason to “waste” any time looking anything up. I don’t support Mitt, so I really don’t care one way or the other what he may have bought or influenced. I just find it interesting that most, if not all, of the Mitt supporters I have run into seem to have a near religious zeal when it comes to defending thier candidate.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 6:24 PM

Wait up jdawg, I’m a little slow. Wern’t you just accusing Mitt’s FATHER of buying or selling or “influencing” jobs? Now you’re accusing Mitt of what basically amounts to bribery? Even you don’t know your own story.

As to religious zeal, the only thing we have religious zeal for is not buying the BS you’re selling. Maybe if you had more evidence than “Mitt’s Family is RICH! They MUST have engaged in unscrupulous activities!” we’d believe you.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 6:29 PM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 6:09 PM

You are very brave sitting behind a computer and calling someone a liar.

When an article that you did not read is two inches above the “abstract” you call that a liar.

When Mitt’s personal friend hires his son, you say that is a has nothing to do with being a friend.

And I will sell you the secret transcript of his sworn testimony before congress…HAHAHAHAHA

Get a life, and learn to speak with respect…you should have you mouth washed out with soap.

And…get your facts straight.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 6:35 PM

Wait up jdawg, I’m a little slow. Wern’t you just accusing Mitt’s FATHER of buying or selling or “influencing” jobs? Now you’re accusing Mitt of what basically amounts to bribery? Even you don’t know your own story.

As to religious zeal, the only thing we have religious zeal for is not buying the BS you’re selling. Maybe if you had more evidence than “Mitt’s Family is RICH! They MUST have engaged in unscrupulous activities!” we’d believe you.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 6:29 PM

No, dangit!!!!

I did not accuse anyone of anything!!!!!!!!

I simply said big danish misconstrued what r2b said!!!!

Dammit, GET IT RIGHT!!!!!

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 6:40 PM

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 6:40 PM

These guys only see anger, they never make a mistake. Even when calling someone a liar.

Abstract 2″ below the article makes someone a liar. They will say 2.75″ and that makes me a liar again.

They crack me up, everyone is amused by them.

You are wasting your time talking sense.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 6:44 PM

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 6:44 PM

I try not to get too worked up, but dangit, they are really beginning to pi$$ me off! I hate it when people say I’ve said something I never said.

I’ve got to go get another cup of coffee now.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 6:46 PM

HAHAHAHAHA!

not2bright,

OMG. I’m beginning to think you are quite insane.

The abstract is before the article. Abstracts always precede the full thesis.

I asked you for a source to back up one of your ridiculous claims and your pitiful response is right here in the archives:

right2bright on September 8, 2007 at 3:19 PM

As for my “sexism”, you have added another reason for me to be convinced that you are really a moonbat, and I can easily imagine you as someone who squawks about how unfair it is that it is that our past is “history” and not “herstory”.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 6:50 PM

Who are these “sons” you (By Danish) talk about?


right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 6:28 PM

Time to call 911.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 6:29 PM

This is like arguing with someone who is in a room with padded walls. She also moves the goal posts every time with yet a new fantasy so it is nearly impossible to keep up with the previous ones.

You can take my word for it or read the original thread here :)

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 7:06 PM

I just want to get this on the record one more time:


And please, don’t pretend that his dad’s influence didn’t buy him his jobs and prestige.

In other words, according to not2bright, Mitt’s jobs and “prestige” were bought for him.

There is NO other way of interpreting that, despite jdawgs chivalrous but tortured explanation.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 7:13 PM

The abstract is before the article. Abstracts always precede the full thesis.
Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 6:50 PM

Got anymore insults? You mean the abstract is before the article, you mean the abstract you couldn’t find isn’t 2″ below but above?

You sure got me now…what a debater.

Ummmm, you never answered me about the sexist, you say that my sons have law degrees? Never occured that they could be daughters, or one son and one daughter? Jump to conclusions are we?

Is the abstract really above the thesis? Dang your clever. That makes Mitt all the more important, that should move him to double digits. You certainly know how to pick out the important things in an argument.

Man, you are brilliant. Are you sure you don’t want to buy that secret sworn testimony? Marked down to $500.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 7:13 PM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 7:13 PM

I will type real slow so you can understand.

This was born out of an original argument with csdeven, when I said that George helped Mitt get started in business. I said an influential powerful man helps sons get jobs…he said no way prove it. So I showed him the Phoenix article stating that Mitts son was hired by a personal friend and business ally. Plus I said common sense dictates that and gave several examples: Kennedy, Bush, Jessie Jackson jr., Trump, and others. They all benefited from their fathers. Not uncommon, and nothing wrong with it.

I upped the ante (and jerked your chain) when I found how over the top you guys got, and stated I had secret testimony, I never thought you would fall for it; that you could seperate reality from fantasy…you can’t.

You hopped in and called it envy, csdeven finally admitted that fathers help sons.

That is all this really is about. End of it, end of you calling people names, end of you being a jerk…unless you want to continue being a jerk.

Now let’s get back as to why Mitt is falling so far behind, that is what is really important (nobody wants to hear any more bickering, including me). And why Fred is surging. What are you Mitt-wits going to do about this turn of events?

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 7:22 PM

Come on, keep fighting, let’s go for 250 comments!!

Oh, never mind.

see-dubya on September 13, 2007 at 7:25 PM

Come on, keep fighting, let’s go for 250 comments!!

Oh, never mind.

see-dubya on September 13, 2007 at 7:25 PM

LOL all you need to do is mention something negative about Fred or Mitt and it is jello wrestling night at hooters time in terms of popularity!

Bradky on September 13, 2007 at 7:29 PM

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 7:22 PM

Mitt-wits

Heh. That’s good – can I use that sometime?

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 7:38 PM

LOL all you need to do is mention something negative about Fred or Mitt and it is jello wrestling night at hooters time in terms of popularity!

Bradky on September 13, 2007 at 7:29 PM

Lime or Strawberry?

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 7:39 PM

LOL all you need to do is mention something negative about Fred or Mitt and it is jello wrestling night at hooters time in terms of popularity!

Bradky on September 13, 2007 at 7:29 PM

LOL!!! Fixed that for ya!

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 7:39 PM

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Thank you again for proving my point.

And I’ll take strawberries.

steveegg on September 13, 2007 at 7:44 PM

Clinton II. Heh. Sounds like a movie sequel.

First they came for your wallets…now they want your soul!

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:59 PM

You do realize that the appropriate clip from “Army of Darkness” must now be hunted down.

Come get some.

steveegg on September 13, 2007 at 7:57 PM

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 7:38 PM

Yeah go ahead use Mitt-wits, I think I stole it from someone else. Mitt-wits, Fred-heads, what are Rudy’s and McCain’s? Ron Paul is bizzarro.

see-dubya on September 13, 2007 at 7:25 PM

I thought all of you guys posted something controversial then went to bed.
Here are some suggestions:
Mitt is a Christian or not.
Mitt is a draft dodger
Mitt is a flip flopper
Rudy is a liberal
Rudy embraces sanctuary
Rudy did not lower crime
Fred drives a red truck
Fred drives a red truck
Fred drives a red truck
McCain and Kennedy, buddies forever
McCain and immigrants, buddies forever
McCain and free speach, enemies forever
Huckabee, big government, or stop smoking
Ron Paul, is he from Jupiter or Mars
Newt, will he or won’t he
Newt, can the majority even understand him

Post one of those and wake up to a cool 250 to 500.

Night night see-dubya.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 8:01 PM

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 8:01 PM

Now, that’s funny right there. I don’t care who you are.

Tennman on September 13, 2007 at 8:13 PM

steveegg on September 13, 2007 at 7:57 PM

Awesome.

I want a boomstick!

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 8:18 PM

Who is this “she” you are always talking about?
right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 6:28 PM

Yeah, riiiiight. It’s pretty evident you are a female.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 8:38 PM

Got anymore insults?

right2bright,

Is the truth “insulting”? Do you not remember what you say from one minute to the next?

You said:

This gets better, the article was an abstract (it stated it right at the top)

That is FALSE. It stated right at the top that it was an ARTICLE.

After that summary (which I already copied and pasted for you) there was a brief abstract.

After the abstract the full article followed.

That is indisputable, and if you are having difficulty with this then perhaps commenting on blogs is above your capabilities.

As for where this “began”, It began with your FIRST comment on that thread at 12:59 a.m. when you said:

And please, don’t pretend that his dad’s influence didn’t buy him his jobs and prestige. And I would love a 30 month vacation in France, some mission.

That is what I was responding to, and whatever discussion you had with csdeven has nothing to do with my comments to you.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 8:42 PM

OK, let us examine the real Fred and his claims at being a conservative…….

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.
21) He

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

The conclusion is that Fred is the most dangerous candidate to the conservative cause in America because if he receives the nomination, he will be destroyed by Hillary. Or if he miraculously does win the general, he’ll bring his nepotism and lobbying ways to the white house. His campaign staff is loaded with lobbyists and by all accounts, a power hungry wife.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 8:51 PM

So I’m back from my whirlwind tour of Central FL. first The villages at 1pm then Celebration (near Disney)at 4:40 pm. I spoke with Fred Thompson and we shook hands. He must have
applied sunblock because some came off on my hand. The turn out at the Villages was impressive. I arrived late and just circled till I saw his two massive custom made tour buses. It wasn’t hard to find Sen.Thompson his outstanding oratory could be heard from a city block away. I was pleasently suprised at the large turn out (1500 est.)and immediately spotted FT towering above the crowd. I was about ten minutes late. Even at the height of the afternoon in the Florida sun FT was energetic and animated. His speech gave no doubt as to his conservative bonafides on the issues. Fred Thompson spoke on so many issues there were only a few questions needed to be asked during the generous amount of time alotted for the give and take with his audience at the end of his speech. Here’s a list of issues addressed in detail today by Fred Thompson.

1 Iraq
2 Global war on teror
3 Border securety
4 The democrats indifference
5 Immigration
6 China’s military build up
7 Abortion
8 Anchor babies
9 Santuary cities
10 Earmarks
11 Long term military spending
12 A level playing field with regards to trade agreements

If you would like to hear it first hand from Fred Thompson You can see and hear his Iowa State Fair speech at http://www.Imwithfred.com

sonnyspats1 on September 13, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 8:42 PM

Let me straighten you out. If you think saying it matters or is FALSE) if an article is first or second on a page means anything…lean over and listen to this…get a life. If there is an abstract on the page, there is one on the page, top, bottom, sideways, learn how to comprehend. If you think that there is no abstract because I said bottom of the page and you can’t find it, learn how to read (here is a hint, add the word emerald to your search and you will find the abstract at the top, on the sdsu you will find it on the bottom…man o man, sheeesh). Remember this…you had no idea this existed, you had no idea what an abstract (and still don’t) is, until I pointed it out to you, I am the one who gave you the link. Me, not you, I had to spoon feed you. You should pay me for the lack of schooling you had, and for what I have had to teach you the past couple of days.

I have his transcripts of his court hearing where he swore on whatever book the Mormons use to admit that he brought a gun in to Monster and forced them to hire his son (that was when he was for gun control, but is now for it). I just don’t want to give you that transcript, instead you will have to use common sense…sure

This is one of the “lies” that you are upset about.

And no, it began the day before you stated, you foolish person. And by csdeven rules, once you jump into an argument, you own all of the others persons arguments. That is his rules (ask him, and if he doesn’t admit I have his statement) and he makes the rules for you Mitt-wits. He is the leader, he has stated that. So before you jump on me, check with your commander. You are way out of line, csdeven is not going to be happy with you, oh he will not state it publicaly, but he will be very unhappy that you were concerned about the abstract being at the top and not the bottom.

By the way, did I mention I am the one who provided you the link, and that you were completely unaware of Mitt and Bain consulting with Monster.com?

Your welcome.

Okay, you drive a hard bargain, the secret documents and testimony I can sell you for $250. Hardly used, and only I have them.

And I ask you again how many sons do I have that are attorneys oh great accurate one?

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 8:38 PM

oops, look like you aren’t too good at choosing a gender, have you always had that problem? Or just when the lights are out.
What tipped you off Sherlock?

Looks like you have a little problem with facts yourself. After you straighten out you little minion, Buy Danish, sit down and have a talk with yourself.

This post is about gone.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 10:26 PM

Kerist. I can’t believe I have to respond to this unadulterated insanity, but I do not suffer fools gladly.

Let me straighten you out. If you think saying it matters or is FALSE) if an article is first or second on a page means anything…lean over and listen to this…get a life. If there is an abstract on the page, there is one on the page, top, bottom, sideways, learn how to comprehend. If you think that there is no abstract because I said bottom of the page and you can’t find it, learn how to read (here is a hint, add the word emerald to your search and you will find the abstract at the top, on the sdsu you will find it on the bottom…man o man, sheeesh).

Right2bright,

I’m sorry but I do not have a freaking clue what you are babbling about there^^^. Do you have a translator handy?

Remember this…you had no idea this existed, you had no idea what an abstract (and still don’t) is, until I pointed it out to you, I am the one who gave you the link.

You’re right! I had no idea the ARTICLE existed! So what? It doesn’t have anything to do with Mitt Romney. I know exactly what an abstract is, and YOU most certainly did NOT give ME the link. I had to take a portion of what you quoted and Google it with the author’s names to find it… myself.

This is all very easy to prove – it’s all in the original thread.

Me, not you, I had to spoon feed you. You should pay me for the lack of schooling you had, and for what I have had to teach you the past couple of days.

Ha Ha Ha. You have indeed “fed” me a lot of delusional “ideas” but you haven’t “taught” me a single thing, except that there are all sorts of kooks in the world, and even conservative blogs have their share of them.

This is one of the “lies” that you are upset about.

Since most everything you write it a figment of your imagination, why should I have thought that that was any different from the rest of your bizarre assertions? It reflects poorly on you, not me.

And no, it began the day before you stated, you foolish person

It began for ME when you made that comment about Mitt’s job being “bought”. How does that make me a “foolish person”? Why do you keep babbling on about csdeven? Is this his blog?

By the way, did I mention I am the one who provided you the link, and that you were completely unaware of Mitt and Bain consulting with Monster.com?

Why yes you did mention that you provided me the link! Right up there^^!! That is twice in one post that you are , err, mistaken about the truth, and you have yet to show me that Mitt did consulting with Monster.com. You claim that because he was running Bain and Company he personally did the consulting work with monster.com, but you’ll excuse me if I don’t take your word for that. Surely you understand that the person who runs a multi-billion dollar company hires other people doing the consulting work.

And I ask you again how many sons do I have that are attorneys oh great accurate one?

Listen up! I hope your feelings are not hurt by this, but I. don’t. care.about.the.gender.of.your.children.

After you straighten out you little minion, Buy Danish, sit down and have a talk with yourself.

I’m a “little minion”?! Ha Ha. I think I’ll go with this definition and thank you for the compliment:

One who is highly esteemed or favored; a darling.

As for talking to myself, no thanks, but I don’t doubt for a moment that you yourself do that frequently.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 11:29 PM

Oh boy it seems we have a little discrepency as to what Mitt says now and what Mitt said then about every conservative issue in a debate with Kennedy where he gets laughed of the stage AWW Poor Mitt, even the leftards can see right through him. Only someone who has a personal stake in a Mitt presidency could suspend that much disbelief. He really makes one have to suspend disbelief doesn’t he. This is scarey pathological liar Mitt. Is this the man we want to represent us as a party? I for one think absolutely not.

sonnyspats1 on September 14, 2007 at 12:13 AM

Oh boy it seems we have a little discrepency as to what Mitt says now and what Mitt said then about every conservative issue in a debate with Kennedy where he gets laughed of the stage AWW Poor Mitt, even the leftards can see right through him. Only someone who has a personal stake in a Mitt presidency could suspend that much disbelief. He really makes one have to suspend disbelief doesn’t he. This is scarey pathological liar Mitt. Is this the man we want to represent us as a party? I for one think absolutely not.

sonnyspats1 on September 14, 2007 at 12:13 AM

Yeah sonnyspats, cause absolutely, positively nothing could possibly have changed in thirteen years.

Patholigical liar… or… grew up politically, as evidenced by his actual policies which he put forth and conducted as Governor, a much more recent and concrete use of power than debate talking points in an election against The Swimmer.

Speaking of patholigical liars, why is it Fred mysteriously “does not recall” the details of the only thing he ever actually fought for in the Senate? You’d think he’d know every detail of what he then would probably call a crowning achievement, but now that his Washington insider status is unpopular, he seems to have changed his skin.

Funny how to “prove” Mitt has “lied” you have to go back thirteen years, but Fred’s change of stripes is quite current. In fact, its origin seems to start with his “testing the waters” a few months ago. Mitt embraces his past and explains his changes in detail. Fred pretends like he fell off the bus yesterday, and all you need to know about him can be handled in a well scripted Fred Thompson ’08 ad.

BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 1:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3