$27 million for Hillary in the third quarter?
posted at 9:10 am on October 2, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
The siren is up at Drudge. She only did $26 million in the first quarter, which is typically the bonanza period.
The numbers I saw for the GOP yesterday were $10 million for Mitt (plus $7 million more out of his own pocket), around $9 million for Rudy, and $8 million. She raised as much money by herself as our big three did combined. Couple that with the fact that some pro-life grassroots activists are already promising not to volunteer if Rudy’s the nominee and I fear we’re looking at a very harsh reality:
It’s game over, man.
Update: Belated exit question — is the scourge of Hillary so awful that we should hope for the Goracle to take revenge and jump in?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Wow, you got one right! That is what Rudy wanted to do, and did do.
Right again! See my 2:15 and 2:19 for details.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Well it is inevitable at this point, is it not? What candidate has not flip flopped on anything. Its the nature of the beast. The difference is only one side actually gets called out on it.
The MSM does not have to attack itself. A candidate for president has a camera on them pretty much every waking moment of the day. The opportunity to articulately make that point is not few and far between and to do so does not require a NYTimes oped. All you need is a microphone and a camera. We are just not used to having a Republican candidate who can, in fact, take advantage of those off the cuff speaking opportunities. We are not used to someone who can make a clear, concise point that makes sense when pressed by reporters who are shoving cameras in the candidate’s face.
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Ah, but he’s willing to sue GUN MAKERS for making LEGAL weapons (where they are made)…. but won’t SUE the FEDS for not doing doing their job?
You do know that Petition for Redress is part of the Constitution?
Not scapegoating, but not allowing him to spin out of the fact he did NOTHING about illegal immigration a mayor, except make statements that he WANTED them their.
But now… he spins to being Pro border control… imagine that…
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Pay attention here boys and girls, I just gave you the reason Hillary cannot beat Fred Thompson. Why the Clintons are not talking about Fred. They are scared to death of him and praying that either Rudy, or Mitt get the nomination.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Well right here is the problem. I was working off the assumption you were a republican. Your arguments make perfect sense to me now.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 2:30 PM
I really didn’t want to know the details of your personal life. Do you know what a rhetorical question is?
What a dumbazz statement.
Who is you, romeo? If you is not you then who did you vote for?
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 2:31 PM
You may just have something there. If Fred does pull the gloves off, it could be bloody, (and bloody entertaining I might add)
conservnut on October 2, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Do you ever get anything right?? Rudy did not sue the gunmakers for making legal weapons.
Just to make an analogy even you might comprehend, do you think it’s okay to sell fireworks in a State where they are illegal?
Further, do you think it’s okay to bring fireworks across the State lines, knowing that they are illegal?
Note: This is not an argument about whether or not it makes sense, or is unconstitutional, to make fireworks illegal.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Let Hillary have this one, if she’s as bad as people say we’ll win the next election and hopefully the GOP will have learned its lesson by then.
Darth Executor on October 2, 2007 at 9:28 AM
Spoken like someone who plays chess.
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Not sure… is that another Rhetorical question or just a Dumbazz one?
Me? Retired Navy, 48, white, male, INDEPENDANT CONSERVATIVE, somewhere between a Federalist and a Libertarian… and I already stated that I bought into the Republican arguement TWICE and voted for Bush, and have been quite disappointed.
But I am, and will remain, an independant simply because I see BOTH parties as part of the problem.
I, like many voters, vote for PEOPLE, not parties.
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Spoken like someone who plays Russian Roulette.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Think about it. What other candidate can the Clinton’s not afford to attack? They have an incredible slime machine, but the second they point those big guns at Fred, he nukes them and Hillary is done, stick a fork in her done.
There isn’t a prayer on earth the Clinton’s can stand up against Fred revisiting Chinagate, Peter Paul, Norman Hsu and the many many others during the campaign. He put away Tennessee’s Governor Leonard Ray Blanton over corruption charges. Hillary wont have the protection Bill had in 1996 and no amount of people fleeing the country or pleading the fifth will stop Fred from making everything he knows about Chinagate public.
Hell I wouldn’t be surprised if getting his pound of flesh from the Clinton’s who escaped him in 1996 wasn’t a major aspect of his decision to run for POTUS.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 2:42 PM
True, but with Mitt they’d have a lot more ammo on the flip-flop charge than all the other candidates combined.
Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 2:40 PM
This is not a dating service.
Great. Bloomberg would love to hear from you, and so would Pat Buchanan. You know, for someone with a military background you sure do suck at strategy.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Then you Sir, with all due respect to you for your service to this great republic, which make no mistake I admire and greatly and respect, know nothing what-so-ever about how American politics work.
People don’t win election and haven’t since James Madison. Parties win elections, the party which can muster the most votes for their candidate to be specific.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Don’t and I’ll find a third party candidate to vote for.
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 11:27 AM
OK, well that makes at least 2 votes for a third party candidate.
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 2:46 PM
No, he sued them for making guns which are LEGAL WHERE THEY ARE MADE, and were then being ILLEGALY resold in New York…
His whole arguement was that they were making too many guns.
Read the dang lawsuit!
But thats OK, because I apparently don’t get anything right….
LOL…
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 2:47 PM
What does Fred know and when did he know it? Aren’t the events surrounding Chinagate already public, including Congressional investigations from Thompson and Burton?
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Wrong. That’s exactly what he did. He sued gunmakers for firearms they manufactured and distributed legally. His argument is that since they didn’t somehow prevent their firearms from being used in crimes in NYC, they’re legally responsible even if they broke no law.
It’s no different than selling your used car to a dealership, the dealership selling to a private party who then has their car stolen and used to kill someone in a drunk driving accident… and suing you for not insuring that it didn’t end up in the hands of a drunk driver.
Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Fine, you do that, just remember this and never forget it. A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Hillary Clinton.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 2:49 PM
No, they are not. The vast majority of the voting public knows nothing what so ever about chinagate. They heard the name Chinagate on the news a couple of times but the Clinton’s managed to keep the details covered up until after Bush was elected. By that point the general public no longer cared because Bill couldn’t be elected again anyways.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Did he, or did he not say what I quoted and enact policies that prevented and discouraged city employees from reporting illegal aliens to immigration authorities?
How many illegals would’ve been deported had Rudy didn’t prevent them from being reported? I guess we’ll never know, now will we?
We’re seeing efforts all over the country were cities are individually cracking down on illegal immigrants, but Rudy went in the complete opposite direction.
No reasonable person buys the argument that he did it soley to encourage illegals to report crimes- that’s the same argument that EVERY left-wing city government uses as an excuse to provide sanctuary for illegals when the obvious intent is that they simply don’t like to see illegals deported; Rudy made it clear that he shared that view when he said the wanted illegals in NYC.
Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 2:47 PM
If you’re “right” then you should be able to respond to the fireworks analogy.
Moreover, you’ve added a new wrinkle to the discussion, namely that you are now claiming that the gun manufacturers were sued for making guns which are LEGAL WHERE THEY ARE MADE.
It has nothing to do with where the manufacturing center is located. To give you another analogy, that’s like saying it’s okay to grow pot in Oregon and sell it anywhere in the U.S. because pot is legal for medicinal purposes in Oregon.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Awww… argueing personality instead of issues… gotta love it…
You asked, I answered.
And Sir, I understand how politics are played here in America, but the rules are being written by the Proffesional politicians in Washington and elsewhere. Fact is that it is NOT serving the Republic.
Our government is becoming more and more disfunctional as time passes, because it has been divided into two camps which Demonize each other… Bush is the Debil… and Shrillary (which I’ll admit to using myself), are nothing but the latest incarnation of a ruling class that perpetuates its power by dividing the nation. The rhetoric of both Parties has led to a Congress which can’t even pass the appropriations bills needed to run our government…
I understand how politics are played, I just won’t support it with my votes… or opinions…
There is a LOT of middle ground where the sides could agree, and actualy do some positive things… but both sides are so interested in winning, that NOTHING is getting done.
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 2:58 PM
’m sorry, but I don’t see the problem here with any of our candidates. The only item on the list that is even debatable is immigration, but Rudy’s views on immigration have been misrepresented
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Misrepresented?
“There isn’t a mayor or public official in this country that’s more strongly pro-immigrant (You know he means illegal) than I am, including disagreeing with President Clinton (Good Lord he is to the left of Bill Clinton and probably the HildaBeast™ too!) when he signed anti-immigration (You know he means illegal) legislation two or three years ago.”
- Rudy Giuliani
What more does he have to do, unzip his pants and pee all over both of your legs?
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 2:58 PM
You know, it occurs to me that I have NEVER had the opportunity to vote for who I really wanted for president, in the general or even in the primary. By the time the primaries roll around to Texas, my favorites have almost always already been eliminated. So since I’ve been voting in presidential elections (1988), I have never once voted my heart. I have always had to make the pragmatic, lesser-of-two-evils choice. Perhaps that’s why I don’t pine too much for the ability to make the idealistic, wishful choice. I’ve never had the opportunity to do it. Wish I had been old enough to vote for Reagan, but George H.W. Bush was my first.
aero on October 2, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Very simple… its a patently false analogy.
Its illegal to sell those guns in New York, but the COMPANIES were not selling them in New York, others were.
The people brining those guns into the city were breaking the law, and should be held accountable.
Now… to your fireworks analogy, answer me this…
If I bring fireworks ILLEGALY into my home city here in Denver, should Colorado sue the Fireworks namufacturer in Wyoming (where I bought them then illegaly transported them into Colorado)?
Thats the analogy… and much closer to the lawsuit.
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 3:01 PM
The Dems: they mostly come with money. Mostly.
deesine on October 2, 2007 at 3:02 PM
I know. In 2004 I voted for Al Sharpton in the primary. ::grin::
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Just because much of the public is ignorant of what happened does not mean that what happened has been kept secret, and Fred holds the keys to that secret.
Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Sigh. No. What he did was make it a priority to deport dangerous criminals. What good did it do when only 787 illegals a year were being deported? Can you answer that?
For you to say that Rudy wanted illegals is absurd. The schools and social services were falling apart. Why would he want more people to make the problem worse?
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 3:06 PM
I got news for you, our government has always been like this. Try remembering that Alexander Hamilton challenged his presidential opponent to a pistol duel at dawn because Aaron Burr had the audacity to publish information about an illicit affair Hamilton was having. That duel I might remind you resulted in Hamilton’s death and the end of Burr’s chance to be elected POTUS. Burr by the way, was leading Hamilton and most historians agree would have won had he not killed Hamilton in that duel.
The history of American politics is rife with similar examples so just park the cr@p.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Ah, so, now I understand why my comments on my own blog from a few days ago drew the ire and hate from a witchy-Liberal female filled with various throwup about me (she wrote that I was “a fake Christian” because I AM PRO-LIFE, and the rest went very downhill from that low point).
I note that the Democrats deploy a range of people all over the internet who try to gungup Conservative blogs and harass Conservative bloggers, with a lot of “you’re a loser” type nonsense. It’s certainly not honorable behavior when it’s done individually, but internet-wide it appears to be an organized effort by Democrats to basically undermine confidence among Conservatives. Becacuse they’re not visiting MY site due to needs or desires to interact with their chums.
The same behavior/s occured in the months preceding the last Senate elections, by the way.
I disagree that the “game (is) over,” I just think almost certainly that the Clintons/Democrats enjoy their ever creative methods in reporting or not reporting monies, and, that they use a great deal of individual users throughout media to malign nearly everyone else (which is never reported as resource).
S on October 2, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Ah, those were the days…
Slublog on October 2, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Let me add this: their method of “win” is to ruin people. That’s what the Clintons, and the Democrats, consider a win for them, that others are ruined. And, they consider “ruin” of others to be what their politics are. Without that, they have little to nothing to sell to any voters, so they attract (and insight) people who basically are antisocial and feel rewarded when they can malign and harm others.
S on October 2, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Fred Thompson will not win a general election. The message of “federalism” as the all-encompassing solution will only work on those anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage single issue voters. Sure, it’s a good formula for the Republican primary, but most people want the federal government to “get things done.” Federalism only works when state and local governments are competent, which is largely not the case. Try selling that to voters in Louisiana, or Michigan for that matter–both places where the state government has been awful.
Big S on October 2, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Sorry, they “incite” not “insight.”
S on October 2, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Get a grip on yourself, you are smarter than this. Out of sight does mean out of mind. If you are even going to attempt to suggest otherwise then you might as well be getting paid by the Clinton’s to shill for them, because they couldn’t ask for a better propaganda agent.
Ancient history, nothing to see here, moveon people…
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 3:15 PM
And he wanted to make it a priority that illegals who committed crimes were reported? Is that why he forbade cops from individually contact immigration authorities, instead making them go through a bureaucratic middleman?
If the feds weren’t deporting enough, it’s no excuse for protecting them from being deported. Were he really concerned about the lack of federal deportations he’s have sued the feds for not doing their job instead of suing the feds for trying to do something about his sanctuary city policy. He could’ve used the media to shame the government into action. Instead he used the media to welcome illegals with open arms.
Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 3:16 PM
If only they’d fight wars the way they fight politically…..
aero on October 2, 2007 at 3:16 PM
For you to say that Rudy wanted illegals is absurd.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 3:06 PM
The documentation, his own words and speeches, is overwhelmingly that he did.
“In Mr. Giuliani’s case, his aides acknowledged that most voters do not know how aggressive he was as mayor in pressing for ways to allow more immigrants (illegals) into the country.”
“It was a role he seemed to cherish, becoming a national leader for the cause of welcoming immigrants (illegals) in the 1990s. To the surprise of many people in both parties, he also spoke passionately about helping those here illegally become citizens, advocating for $12 million to start a city agency that would assist those seeking citizenship. He vigorously defended the city’s policy of forbidding city employees, including police and hospital workers, from asking a person’s immigration status.”
Again, what more does he have to do, unzip his pants and pee all over both of your legs ?
He could grab some of you by the ba##s and yell at the top of his lungs, “Mirarte aqui, yo son el la mayoria persona abierta de las fronteras que encontraras siempre!!!”
and you’d say “Golly, it’s unclear where he stands on all this”.
Will you be telling us next that it’s unclear where Ahmadinejad stands with regards to Israel and Jews.
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Right, because the public has so much confidence in Congress to get things done. What people want is for the federal government to do those things it should be doing well, and federalism advances that cause.
Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Are you proud of that MB4? He is talking about legal immigrants. Nice job adding your own idiotic commentary and then ending it with vulgar imagery.
If you want to know what really happened in New York, where I was living for many decades and experienced first hand, read my other comments that explain it in a way that even you should be able to get.
If I bring fireworks ILLEGALY into my home city here in Denver, should Colorado sue the Fireworks namufacturer in Wyoming (where I bought them then illegaly transported them into Colorado)?
Thats the analogy… and much closer to the lawsuit.
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Fair enough, but if the manufacturer is deemed to be recklessly disregarding the welfare of Coloradans by producing more fireworks than citizen anywhere can legally purchase, and manufacturing types of fireworks that are not legal, then there may be grounds for a TORT case.
If the gun manufacturers had only met the supply/demand for legal purchases then the lawsuit never would have been filed.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 3:21 PM
I’m lost as to how Giuliani would “trample all over [The Constitution].”
He’s clearly stated he will respect the right to bear arms. He’s clearly stated in New York he had a different job with a different approach.
I’ll lay it out again for you all:
Which candidate will lower my taxes?
Which candidate will protect me in my homeland?
Which candidate will spurn economic growth?
Which candidate will end racial segregation of government(special privileges for “minorities) and return to “All men are created equal” ?
Which candidate will actually address the people of this county on a daily basis?
That candidate is Rudy Giuliani. If those things are accomplished, my life is better for four more years.
Vincenzo on October 2, 2007 at 3:26 PM
OOPS! I didn’t me “spurn” economic growth. Sorry about that. Couldn’t have picked a worse word.
Vincenzo on October 2, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Are you proud of that MB4? He is talking about legal immigrants. Nice job adding your own idiotic commentary and then ending it with vulgar imagery.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Hello! Hello! Hello! He is not talking about legal immigrants!!!
Idiotic commentary? lol.
Vulgar imagery? lol.
If that response is the best you can do. lol. lol. lol.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 3:31 PM
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 3:15 PM
What the *#@ are you talking about? I asked you a simple question. What makes you think that Fred has some secret Chinagate knowledge stored away that he has been holding back?
If that’s the case then that does not reflect well on him, since it would mean that he was holding information that the American people have a right to know just so he could use it to boost his campaign.
Because, he wanted to make sure that the INS got the most important cases and didn’t waste their time deporting people who were not an imminent threat to the safety of New Yorkers.
Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 3:16 PM
If the feds weren’t deporting enough, it’s no excuse for protecting them from being deported.
He wasn’t protecting them. He was prioritizing by going after dangerous criminals.
I don’t know what you’re talking about here. What lawsuit is this?
Bwahahaha. The New York media?? Yeah, that would have worked out really well.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 3:34 PM
“To the surprise of many people in both parties, he also spoke passionately about helping those here illegally become citizens, advocating for $12 million to start a city agency that would assist those seeking citizenship.”
Just thought I’d repeat that, since some people need repetition to get the picture. Then again, with some people, even that is to no avail.
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 3:35 PM
The Rudybots just repeat the same mantra over and over.
“He’s electable …. promises to appoint good judges …. who knows how he’ll be on immigration … strong leader … will be great on terror … electable …”
Look, if you want to vote for a liberal Republican, be my guest.
Just don’t expect conservatives to join you.
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 3:37 PM
That should be some conservatives. I fully expect to vote for Rudy if that is what I think it takes to take down Hillary!.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 3:40 PM
But, but, but he PROMISED to appoint only strict constructionist judges as President! He promised!
2Brave2Bscared on October 2, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Absolutely!
Why on earth would anyone believe this? If Hillary promised to appoint strict constructionist judges, would you believe her?
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 3:41 PM
The Dims in congress have been trying to do what Rudy wants for years now, helped along by Bush.
They will jump at the chance to give Rudy “bipartisan” support for his amnesty bill.
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 3:42 PM
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Maybe you could share your sources with us MB4. Give me a link to the original stories you quoted from so I can respond. What you quoted was not just a factual account of something, it had analysis and opinion mixed in with it.
As for your insistence on repeating your vulgar analogies, GFY! That means, Good For You!
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 3:45 PM
That should be some conservatives. I fully expect to vote for Rudy if that is what I think it takes to take down Hillary!.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 3:40 PM
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
- FDR
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 3:46 PM
MB4,
I believe I made myself very clear. I fear a Hillary! presidency. Quoting FDR isn’t exactly going to do anything for me. He began our descent into socialism and is a prime example why you should fear Hillary’s! socialist mindset.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 3:50 PM
So you really are a Hillary shrill, thank for making that obvious. I already answered that question (doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 2:09 PM), but Hillary shrill that you are you insist on pretending that there is nothing to see here, moveon people.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Sigh… once again… don’t you see a problem with that?
You’re not voting for this guy because you think he deserves to be President, because he’ll make a good President, you’re voting against Hillary.
Thats how we ended up with Bush twice.
We’ve got to be able to do better than that…
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Maybe you could share your sources with us MB4. Give me a link to the original stories you quoted from so I can respond. Again, what more does he have to do, unzip his pants and pee all over both of your legs ?
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 3:45 PM
They are not my personal sources, they are readily available to the public.
I am not your secretary. Yahoo or google them for yourself, maybe you will take them more seriously if you do it that way as you obviously do not believe me or anyone else who tells the truth about Rudy “Sanctuary City Mayor” Guliania anyway.
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Hmmm… legally produced and sold product. The manufacturer has no control of the product once sold.
So I guess you’re in favor of sueing McDonalds if your fat? Of sueing Liquor makers for drunk driving? Or gas distributors and car makers for making drunk driving possible?
He was trying to get around the Second Amendment… and tried using Tort to do so… so he not only does NOT believe in the Constitution (at least the Second Am), but is willing to sue the INNOCENT to take away a Constitutional Right….
Yep… thats someone I want as President…
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Sigh. Once again. I voted for Bush because I wanted to vote for Bush.
No you won’t. You will always have a problem getting your perfect conservative elected. Even Reagan wouldn’t fit that bill.
I also said I hadn’t made a decision on who I would support in the primary. But if whoever I decide to support doesn’t get the nomination, the winner will get my vote. I refuse to give the election to Hillary!
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Sue, we survived 4 years of Jimmy Carter and 8 years of Slick Willy. If needed to pave the way for the future we can survive 4 years of the HildaBeast™, (Third Clinton term) if it comes to that.
They only thing that I can see that is better about Rudy “Sanctuary City Mayor” than the HildaBeast™ is that he has got better legs, a smaller a$$ and not as shrill a laugh. Other than that not much difference in actual substance.
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 4:00 PM
MB4,
Then sit it out if Rudy is the nominee. I can’t make you vote for the republican. But don’t whine when it doesn’t turn out like you want it to. 12 years of Hillary! will just about do in the Supreme Court.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Sadly Buy Danish, Romeo13, and MB4 suffer from the Samson complex, if their candidate cant get the nomination, then to hell with everyone else lets burn the house down.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Well, as someone else from Texas said upthread, by the time it gets here, the decision is already made. I really don’t have a choice as to who I will vote for. Just a choice in who I send money to.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Uh, maybe it’s you who needs to “get a grip”. If you answered my question at 2:09, you’re going to have to tell me exactly where the answer is because I CAN’T FIND IT here:
All your 2:09 does is say that Fred is a good lawyer with experience dealing with Chinagate, and he’s champing at the bit to get the Clintons. It says nothing about secrets Fred has not revealed such as you implied here:
Emphasis mine.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Sorry but I don’t agree with that, I voted for my congressman, 5 times. His name is Duncan Hunter, he is running for POTUS and come primaries, I will vote for him. I fully expect Fred Thompson to get the GOP nomination, and to be perfectly honest I am a Fredhead. I will vote Duncan Hunter in the primaries because I hope to see a Thompson/Hunter ticket.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 4:14 PM
What don’t you agree with? It is a fact not an opinion. The republican nominee is decided by the time it gets to Texas. Everyone has dropped out.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Sadly Buy Danish, Romeo13, and MB4 suffer from the Samson complex, if their candidate cant get the nomination, then to hell with everyone else lets burn the house down.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 4:06 PM
That is not correct at all.
I could support Mitt, Tancredo, Hunter, and probably Fred.
Newt, if he changes his mind and Jeff Sessions if he would run or Tommy Franks if he would run. Probably others too.
Besides with Rudy “Sanctuary City Mayor” Guliania, Seria una casa de la plantacion de todos modos.
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Try actually reading the links, Fred was the prosecuting attorney in Chinagate. He has all the discovery document that the public never got to see. He knows who mall the players are and where all the bodies are buried. The only thing that kept him from bringing Bill Clinton down in 1996 was not being able to get witnesses to testify under oath. In a presidential campaign he doesn’t need to do that, all he needs to do is show his discovery files to the public. And there isn’t a god damn thing the Clinton’s can do to stop him from doing that.
Once he connects Peter Paul (who is chomping at the bit to testify against Hillary) and Norman Hsu to Chinagate it’s over for Hillary.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 4:21 PM
But if its Rudy, you’ll burn the house down. I have to go to the bank and the liqueur store, be back in 10 or 20 minutes. Yes some of you guys are literately driving me to drink.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 4:24 PM
if their candidate cant get the nomination, then to hell with everyone else lets burn the house down.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Are we ever gonna do it?
Maybe we should go ahead and do it
Go ahead?
Feel the heat, pushing us to decide
Feel the heat, burning us up, ready or not
Some like it hot and some sweat
When the heat is on
Some feel the heat and decide that
They can´t go on
Some like it hot, but you can´t tell how hot
Til you try
Some like it hot, so let´s turn up the heat
Til we fry
Some like it hot
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 4:25 PM
I think DRUDGE is working to get Hillary elected, that’s what I think. If and when there’s a link about any GOP Presidential campaign, it’s related somehow to some Liberal denigration of them. Most of DRUDGE’s ongoing headlines all position Hillary in some fashion that falsey presents her as Borg Queen of the Known Universe.
…pause…
Well, now that I think about it…
S on October 2, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Yes some of you guys are literately driving me to drink.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Do not drink Millers beer or Billy beer or Rolling Rot beer or Pearl beer or Stag beer!!!
Drink only Microbrew like Widmers to be safe.
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 4:27 PM
I’m looking out for you.
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Blah blah blah. No wonder you don’t like Rush. He doesn’t let people like you quote things out of context without attribution and get away with it.
By the way, here is an excellent recap of Rudy’s magnificent accomplishments as Mayor of New York. Some of you Rudy-bashers may want to read it, especially if Rudy happens to win the Republican nomination. You’ll find plenty of reasons to support him here instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and ending up with Hillary.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Speaking of Rush – I had almost forgot all about him, but since you brought him up.
LIMBAUGH IS STILL A GOOSE – by Rick Moran
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 4:37 PM
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Wow, thanks for answering my question… finally. Sort of*. Was it really necessary to rant and rave like you did, or could you have just answered my question in the first place?
*”sort of”, because I’m not sure that you are correct on the subject of Discovery. Is that his private property to haul out when he sees fit? Further, why didn’t he use it when Hillary ran for the Senate??
Also, please note that despite what seems to be a bit of a paranoid conclusion on your part, I have not attacked Fred at all.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 4:40 PM
He doesn’t let people like you quote things out of context without attribution and get away with it.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 4:31 PM
No one is asking you to “let me get away with it”
As a short cut copy and paste some of the key words and yahoo or google them for yourself.
You can do it if you want to.
Also yahoo or google Rudy “Sanctuary City Major” Guliania’s speech where he defied and sued the federal government on illegals.
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 4:42 PM
I agree with MB4 about the Giuliani-In-His-Own-Words’ Welcoming Mat for Illegals conclusion, and all the other justifications and ratioanlizations to try to dissuade that conclusion about him are wrong. Giuliani has tried very consistently — I’ll give him that much — to reframe if not rewrite his past doings as being “tough on crime” while being lenient to a point of indulgence (in reality) on illegal immigration (Bloomberg’s the same way, if not worse).
Giuliani exists in an Upper East Coast bubble in his perceptions (as does Bloomberg) (also Hillary and nearly all East Coast Liberals, including many RINOs from there) that considers illegal aliens part of their “worker” force and thinks taking any actions against them thwarts the votes from places such as Puerto Rico and from Hispanics (it does but this leverage has to end).
I’m on a tangent here, but the point is that Giuliani has so much as admitted that he’s indulged the problem in his rationalizations with solving other problems (to discourage illegal aliens being identified so that they’ll “not be discouraged from reporting crimes” is a foolish argument but it’s been Giuliani’s) (it’s also the ACLUs and other Liberal organizations’).
The CRIME in mass exists BECAUSE of this problem. You can’t ask roaches in the kitchen to report pest problems (not that human beings are roaches, but it’s the argument I’m making otherwise as to this issue of crime as it also is relative if not associated with illegal aliens and the industries that profit from and traffic in them).
Giuliani’s position on illegal aliens defies his stance on national security (and I’ve had the same complaint about President Bush, as also about McCain and many other RINOs).
He can SAY he’s tough on national security and law enforcment, but by his own admission, he defines (as an attorney, within a legal context) illegal aliens as not being “criminal” or representing any “crime.” But, thus, by his resorting to that text-definition within a criminal versus civil definition, on a local level at that, he’s revealing his very permissive, dismissive ATTITUDE about illegal immigration as even representing a concern or problem to him.
He really has a lot of makeup work to do in this regard to ever gain support from many Conservatives, as he also does as to the issue of abortion on demand. He CAN change his positions like any of us can, but the big difference is that Giuliani’s running for the Presidency and asking people who feel very differently than he does to support him, and, he’s not doing a good job of explaining his potential to change his positions (or intentions) on these issues. Bush made the same mistake by providing little to no explanation about his “comprehensive immigration reform package” and voters had to find out the gritty, disturbing details ourselves and when we did, it contributed even moreso to Bush looking deceptive…he’d advanced a snookery effort, as did McCain, and we expected more from them than another Kennedy kookie (either Bush knew the disturbing recipe involved or he hadn’t read the bill as proposed and both conclusions are/were disturbing).
We expect no better from Kennedy and other deceptive Liberals but far more from Republicans. Thus, I know I’d have to really, really look the other way to vote for Giuliani and I’d fear if and as I did. But I’d vote for him if it was a Clinton-Giuliani option only. I just hope that it does not reduce to that.
I’d like to see Romney garner far more support. He’s by far the best executive talent among the candidates and he’s got a stable, happy, productive family (no social or emotion problems in his life or history). Someone who could administer the country adeptly, smartly, adroitly…I don’t understand why he isn’t being more enthused over.
S on October 2, 2007 at 4:44 PM
(Sorry, Wall-0-Text ^^).
S on October 2, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Rick who?
Maybe the use of the word “goose” subconsciously led you to essentially charge that Rush is a chickenhawk and has no right to comment on his assertion that we should not do as the Democrats desire and surrender the Iraq War?
Doriangray,
By the way, I already knew that Fred was the prosecuting attorney on Chinagate, and that should have been clear when I said Aren’t the events surrounding Chinagate already public, including Congressional investigations from Thompson and Burton?
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Samuel Adams or Stone Brewery with the odd Budweiser or Corona, but mostly Samuel Adams….
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 4:46 PM
doriangrey:
Eeewww, you may not have heard the news about Corona beer. It often contains that “special offering” from South o’ the Border.
But I agree about Samel Adams. It’s one of America’s finest products.
S on October 2, 2007 at 4:49 PM
I’m tracking with you on the Rudy part, however I think I can answer your question about Mitt. GW Bush MBA Harvard=Mitt Romney MBA Harvard. One POTUS with a MBA from Harvard is quite possible all this country can endure. It’s not Mitt’s fault that GW’s MBA from Harvard has made the public very skittish of electing another MBA from Harvard so soon. But there it is.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Hmmm, me former professional musician, you former writer for Rolling Stones Magazine…I’m not sure I should talk to you without my lawyer present…… :p
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Yup..it’s me…. I’m back!… Been watching you all day…. and you’re doing about a… minus D, which is maybe, a little better than usual.
But now, you’ve clearly stepped into the same donkey cesspool as Harry Reid, et al….. trying to use other people’s blah, blah money making rhetoric, via, in this case, attention getting blogging.
Here’s what sinks you…from the 2nd to last paragraph:
I mean your self-inflicted, superiority attempts are not only par for your course, but mostly, amazingly amusing!
That’s why I watch you so closely….to get my daily laughs!
Do you realize, that because of you, I’m going to make millions off my book, titled: Napoleon’s 3rd Cousin…….?!
Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Uh oh……. Start the music track.. ;)
Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Right here baby……..Live and Fully Baked..
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Doh………Well that didnt work…well here than…
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Surprise! I agree with you. However, you really are misrepresenting or misunderstanding Rudy. If you read this article you may gain some insight into this thinking, like right here:
Rudy was trying to deal with what was for him was a local issue. He had hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens in New York who were not going to be deported. He must have felt that the best thing to do under the circumstances was to make as many of them citizens as possible. We may not agree with that conclusion, but it is very misleading to portray Rudy as a pimp for illegal immigration, or open borders.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Rick who?
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Rick Moran.
Ask Michelle Malkin next time you see her.
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Yup..it’s me…. I’m back!… Been watching you all day….
Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Still obsessing.
Just don’t start tapping your foot.
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Egads. Now you are a Harvard MBA bigot.
Bush had a Harvard MBA. You don’t like Bush. Ergo, we can’t have someone with a Harvard MBA in the White House. Not only is that your personal opinion, you think that you represent the voter’s views on this issue! I think not.
By the way, for the record, Mitt had a dual business/law degree. So maybe he is more qualified than Fred!
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Too late…been tapping all day..didn’t have the nerve until now.
Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 5:30 PM
MB4 on October 2, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Kerist you’re a dullard. I know it was “Rick Moran”. My point is that Rick Moran is hardly a household name, and I for one, could not care less what he thinks about Rush Limbaugh.
I do agree with Ann Coulter, who today said exactly what I said on the original Rush/Phony solider’s thread, namely that the phony soldier thing began with a phony republican seminar caller who also claimed to have served in the military, and itsegued from there.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 5:32 PM
it segued.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 5:32 PM
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. A lot of things the American voting public may be, insane isn’t yet one of them. Most Americans when asked about Mitt say, he’s too slick, too oily, too polished, what they are euphemistically saying is, hey we already tried one Harvard MBA as POTUS, it didn’t work out so good.
BTW nice reach on the me not liking Bush, to bad you over reached, slipped and bumped your head. I like Bush just fine thank you. A little disappointed with him (ok quite disappointed) over his immigration stance, but over all pretty happy with him.
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Ragnar over at the Jawa Report is calling you out. Are you going to take the bet?
abrown28 on October 2, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »