Video: Jeri would make a better first lady than Billy Jeff, says Fred

posted at 4:12 pm on September 21, 2007 by Allahpundit

Via our old pal Ian Schwartz, now putting his nose to the grindstone for some guy named Breitbart. Fred’s lifting Mitt’s line here, although who can blame him? Calling Billy Jeff effeminate in front of the NRA is one notch below racking an M-16 and squeezing off a few rounds on the crowd-please-o-meter. The irony is, if the rumors are to be believed, the Clenis is the one southern politician in America with more derring-do among the ladies than ol’ Fred.

This isn’t the only recent campaign event at which he’s paid Jeri some attention, either. See the beginning of the second clip for that. Exit question: Shouldn’t she do a Vent interview with MM? It’d be a friendly audience, it’d get lots of grassroots play, and it’d be a nice introduction to the base via another woman who’s well respected by conservatives. No brainer, right?


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

Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 6:24 PM

You’re absolutely right about this, and I wish more people were saying the same thing. The 14th and 17th need to go, not that it’ll ever really happen.

Jezla on September 22, 2007 at 5:53 AM

not enough real men have stood up and demanded them.
conservnut on September 22, 2007 at 1:04 AM

Which is enforcement of rights.

csdeven on September 22, 2007 at 6:11 AM

Thing is, as Thompson says, the baby is not an illegal immigrant, so I do disagree. How exactly would you like to see the citizenship laws defined?

Big S on September 21, 2007 at 5:22 PM

I would start by amending the 14th Amendment. By simply stating that only persons born of US citizens or legal residents, inside the USA or its territories, are legal US citizens; and that no special consideration be given to persons born of foreigners inside the USA and territories.

Texas Nick 77 on September 22, 2007 at 6:59 AM

If we thought the government “enforced” rights, we’d want more government so we could have more rights enforced.

trubble on September 21, 2007 at 5:25 PM

Yep, governments do not create rights… they only take them away by legislation.

Texas Nick 77 on September 22, 2007 at 7:02 AM

Also: The 17th? Really? Why?

Big S on September 21, 2007 at 5:50 PM

The original concept of the USA was “a Republic of Republics.” The election of the US House of Representatives insured the people had a voice in the national government. The selection of the members of the US Senate was done to insure the individual States had a voice in the national government. If, and when, a Senator began voting against the interests of his home state, he could be recalled and another selected by his state legislature to properly represent the State’s interests. This would efectively give the govenors of the several States control of the US Senate.

Also, it would negate the need for huge campaign funds to be raised to get elected. Since the only campaigning needed to be done was within the state legislature, no need for TV ads, print ads, etc.

Texas Nick 77 on September 22, 2007 at 7:25 AM

In case you’re wondering, I came in late on the discussion again. Time zones do that to you.

Texas Nick 77 on September 22, 2007 at 7:26 AM

I missed a blue-on-blue firefight? Damn.

I see BKennedy couldn’t pass up an attempt to take a few cheap shots at the biggest threat to the Republican policy version of Bill Clinton.

steveegg on September 21, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Guilty as charged, but I’m employing the modified Document Dan Defense: “Cheap, but accurate.”

BKennedy on September 22, 2007 at 9:11 AM

Texas Nick 77 on September 22, 2007 at 7:25 AM

I understand what the argument is, but I don’t buy it at all. As I wrote above, the federal government and the governments of the states do not exist for their own sake, but for the benefit of the individual constituents who live therein. A state does not have a “voice”, the people who live there do, and they get to define (albeit sometimes incorrectly) what is in the interest of their state. You tip the weakness of your argument by resorting to arguing about the low cost of Senate campaigns for appointed Senators (duh).

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Charles Manson would make a better first lady than BJ.

saved on September 22, 2007 at 12:09 PM

and his inability to speak extemporaneously.
csdeven on September 21, 2007 at 6:53 PM

I still cannot believe that Fred had the gall – in an radio interview with Laura Ingraham – to take apart Ronald Reagan’s communication skills!

I mean if as Fred says in the interview here (Reagan comments start at 9:45) that really Reagan didn’t have such great communication skills……….
………………well then………..………
“Fred, perhaps, you should ask your doctor if Praxal is right for you.”

.
.
Contrast Fred with the “Great Communicator”.

Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 2:54 PM

“Fred, perhaps, you should ask your doctor if Praxal is right for you.”

It’s Paxil.

Go Fred!

Mojave Mark on September 22, 2007 at 6:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2