Sneak preview: Fred debates!
posted at 1:08 pm on October 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
This has been floating around on YouTube for three months but not until Slate picked it up today did I hear of it. It’s from his 1994 Senate race against Jim Cooper. Obviously he’s not going to be this abrasive with the Republican field, but if we get even a glimmer of this Fred tomorrow night, it could put a lot of undecideds in play.
It’s slightly jarring seeing him invigorated, isn’t it?
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: 1 2 3 Next »
I’m swooning right now.
Rob Taylor on October 8, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Get the popcorn ready Martha!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on October 8, 2007 at 1:15 PM
He rented the red pickup truck ? I’m overwhelmed with grief.
Maxx on October 8, 2007 at 1:15 PM
The character of the audience was more evident than Fred’s. Not informative. A recurring problem which I hope he will address on Tuesday. Similar to Bush’s second do or die debate with Kerry, or the Yankees situation tonight.
JiangxiDad on October 8, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Ooh, ooh, ooh! I wanna hear Thompson tell Chris Matthews to “just shut up” in the debate! Ooh!
Seriously, I’m now very interested to see if this is the Thompson that shows up for the debate tomorrow.
aero on October 8, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Fred: I know you are but what am I?
Fred hasn’t changed a bit. Lies and misdirection. He has lobbied for a dictator, against asbestos victims, and gave legal advice to terrorists. ANY administration he would be involved in would obviously have no problems with continuing those practices.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Dude, Mitt’s going down.
And he’s going down hard.
Allahpundit on October 8, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Dammit! I missed the countdown remark before csdeven could get it!
Seriously, I would love to see someone with this kind of attitude get a shot. Huckabee doesn’t have a chance in hell, so I’d love to see Fred shut down Giuliani once or twice. Lord knows he should have enough opportunities.
MadisonConservative on October 8, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Fred Thompson is a former trial attorney, anyone who thinks he cant debate just doesn’t understand how adversarial law works. The only question is how aggressive he will be tomorrow night.
doriangrey on October 8, 2007 at 1:24 PM
He doesn’t have far to fall. Has he even broken into double-digits yet nationally?
aero on October 8, 2007 at 1:24 PM
So is Rudy……
doriangrey on October 8, 2007 at 1:24 PM
The walk-by intimidation scene was funny to watch. I suspect he will moderate his temperment for a widely broadcast debate. He may want to come across as forceful, but not cranky.
captivated_dem on October 8, 2007 at 1:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Af2vOwWYg8
Here is another debate video from the same campaign in it he is talking about leadership.
Complete7 on October 8, 2007 at 1:27 PM
He won! end of debete.
TheSitRep on October 8, 2007 at 1:27 PM
was fred supposed to look good there? i wasn’t overly impressed. i want details and information. i could get on the stage and give gotchas to the other candidates. any moron can do that. (hey, I think i just insulted myself).
lorien1973 on October 8, 2007 at 1:29 PM
debete. I don’t misspell I just spell differently.
TheSitRep on October 8, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Thing is, Fred was actually the one having a little trouble with the truth in those exchanges. His opponent was correct on all charges, including the lobbying for foreign companies. Oh well, I guess if you’re forceful enough it doesn’t matter how wrong you are.
Big S on October 8, 2007 at 1:32 PM
It’s a prepared statement before a debate. That’s not the same, especially for someone trained in acting. He has to show he is informed and can think fast on his feet.
JiangxiDad on October 8, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Fred’s a lightweight. Mitt has been dealing with idiots fakes like Fred his entire life and is more than capable of exposing him for the goof he is.
Fred is a scum bag lobbyist and Mitt is a chief executive, a very successful CEO, and saved the Olympics from people like Fred. The type of people that take funds given in faith for a certain purpose and funneling them to benefit themselves. No, Mitt has Fred’s number.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Big S on October 8, 2007 at 1:32 PM
I agree… I like Fred, but he didn’t look good there, not to me at least.
DaveS on October 8, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Get that DVR ready folks…..there’s gonna be a showdown.
And yes AP, the Ken doll is doooooooooooommmmmmeeeeeeedddd!
omnipotent on October 8, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Exactly the mentality of person that Fred is targeting. The “gotcha” types that aren’t interested in the specifics of a Fred administration, but rather are looking to for him to make a childish schoolyard challenge to show how tough he is, and by extension, how tough they are.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Wow csdeven hates lobbyists. I wonder how he’ll feel when Mitt loses and begins lobbying for a living?
Rob Taylor on October 8, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Well he used to have spark, at least we know that definitively now. Hopefully he will bring that tomorrow but also with some substance.
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 1:47 PM
The Fred groupies ignorantly think that Fred is gonna say some witty remark and the rest of the candidates are gonna crumble under the sheer awesomeness of Fred’s facade. What they will find out is that the other candidates are more than capable of handling Fred’s schoolyard tactics.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 1:48 PM
At the risk of being accused (again) of “hijacking a thread”, Mitt is a snake oil salesman. A financialy sucessful one, but a snake oil salesman just the same. These are just a few points of his record in Mass.:
Mitt’s positions:
Pro abortion:
From his own mouth, Video
Pro “morning after pill”:
Here and here.
Pro gay “rights”:
“Romney: I’ll be better than Ted for gay rights.”
Against Boy Scout ban on gay troop leaders:
Boston Globe article
Romney administration ordered Justices of Peace to perform homosexual “marriages” when asked – or be fired!
Pro gun control:
“He [Romney] is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.”
- Romney 2002 campaign website
Regarding the Brady Bill which required waiting periods to buy a handgun, Romney stated, “I don’t think [the waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”
- Boston Herald, 8/1/1994
Pro Kennedy-style “Universal Health Care”
The main supporter and cheerleader of Romney’s health plan has been, interestingly, the Heritage Foundation. However, there would appear to be just a bit of a conflict of interest in that. According to news reports, Romney’s charitable foundation recently donated $25,000 to the Heritage Foundation. And Heritage Foundation helped Romney research and write his health plan.
- Boston Globe, 8/17//2006
Poor party leadership:
Romney pledged to build the Massachusetts Republican Party, but in fact he did almost nothing. During his tenure there were two elections for the entire Legislature (2004 and 2006). In each election the Republicans lost seats. Republicans now hold the fewest seats in the Legislature since the Civil War.
The party’s slide has been so precipitous that Republicans yesterday did not contest 130 of 200 legislative seats, fielded a challenger in only three of 10 congressional districts, and put up fewer candidates for statewide office (three) than the Green-Rainbow Party (four).
- Boston Globe, 11/8/2006
“The Massachusetts Republican Party died last Tuesday. The cause of death: failed leadership. The party is survived by a few leftover legislators and a handful of county officials and grassroots activists who have been ignored for years. Services will be public and a mass exodus of taxpayers will follow. In lieu of flowers, send messages to New Hampshire Republican voters warning them about a certain presidential candidate named Romney.”
- Boston Herald, 11/12/2006
This is not the record of any RINO I would even consider voting for.
P. James Moriarty on October 8, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Fred got most froggy when his opponent pointed out the lobbying inconsistencies. The facts about his lobbying are much more clear now than they were then. Watching him debate someone a couple of years older than his wife doesn’t give me much insight of his skills when taking on people of his own age and with more experience.
Bradky on October 8, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Dig your head outta yer a$$ you moron. Mitt made more money in private business than scumbag lobbyists like Fred have made in a life time. Mitt has respect and class. Why would he lower himself to the level of the worst possible form of life in Washington?
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 1:50 PM
csdeven…when I say “Mitt Romney”, do you imagine something like this ?
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Yeah, this is a different ballgame altogether. We’ll see what tomorrow brings.
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Not begging to be your 8itch, but laughing at a schoolyard challenge, doesn’t necessarily equate to support of the action. More a recognition of methods being used and how obvious it is. And forceful doesn’t equate to rightness as Big S was implying.
captivated_dem on October 8, 2007 at 1:55 PM
I’m a moron? Unless Mitt’s paying you spending you’re life trolling the Hot Air comments, (no doubt from your mothers basement/attic which is at least 2000 yards from any school as required by law) makes you the moron, right?
I mean, you could be outside getting some fresh air, meeting a woman or even getting a job. But instead you lurk here hanging on some dudes every word, just waiting to defend the honor of the fair lady Mitt. It’d be sad if I cared about how unhappy you probably are.
Let’s keep the discourse civil, I don’t like being called moron, particularly by people like you.
Rob Taylor on October 8, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Those surly are issues that Mitt will have to, and already has answered for. If you choose to believe that he is a liar and really is pro-choice regardless of his explanation as to why his beliefs have evolved, then nothing the guy says will make a difference to you.
On the other hand, if you believe that a scumbag lobbyist who has dictators, unscrupulous companies, abortionists, and terrorists for clients, is the best choice for president just because he told someone to shut up that was telling the truth, well theres no reasoning with you either.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Hypocrisy thy name is csdeven…
doriangrey on October 8, 2007 at 2:01 PM
So then… Fred can play an arrogant jackass in addition to playing to a confused, senile old hick.
“Its Thursday (Jim), what is your position on term limits today?”
“The same its always been Fred, and when did you stop beating your wife?”
BKennedy on October 8, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Is that what you’re calling flip-flopping these days?
P. James Moriarty on October 8, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Awww… look at the poor little troll- he keeps begging for attention like a lonely puppy nipping at your heels.
I don’t know how well Fred will do at this talking-point pseudo-debate, but I do know this for a fact: it would be very difficult for anyone to live up to the expectations that have built up, and no matter how well he does the RINO Rudy and FlipFlop Mitt attack dogs will claim that he sucked.
Rudy won’t be able to attack on the lobbyist front since he was every bit the lobbyist that Fred was. I suppose Mitt might try out of desperation, but then he opens the door to a counter-attack on his flip-flopping, big government, anti-2nd Amendment weaknesses.
Fred’s made it pretty clear that he’s not terribly enthused about these 9 man pseudo-debates, but it’ll be interesting to see how he does as- judged by the voters rather than the pundits and trolls.
Hollowpoint on October 8, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Who else here wants to see a debate between Fred! and csdeven?
MadisonConservative on October 8, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Look dumb-ass, if you think exposing yourself as a fool is going to go un-noticed, you are sadly mistaken. Even the most cursory examination of the facts would have led you to never make that ignorant stupid comment. Mitt will never lower himself to be a scumbag lobbyist like Fred. Never.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Sorry the best smack down on film is Wilford Brimley, who plays a DA in the movie “Absence of Malice” which starred Sally Fields and Paul Newman. It has a scene where the character Brimley plays tells one of the other attorneys that when he walks out of the room he is going to have 2 things in his briefcase. Somebody’s a** and an indictment.
LakeRuins on October 8, 2007 at 2:05 PM
cs would last about 35 seconds before wetting himself.
Dude you need to chill before AP banns you.
doriangrey on October 8, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Politicians are malleable. You prefer they come toward the right or the left? What do their personal opinions matter too much if they will do the electoral’s bidding. (Problem is when they don’t, right?)
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Like I said, you think he’s a liar. Others do not. The problem you have is that you will have to claim divine knowledge of Mitt’s private thoughts in order to have any credibility. Rational people give him the benefit of the doubt.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 2:06 PM
For the record, I’m not talking about being “right” in terms of being on the right side of issues. All I’m saying is that to forcefully deny something that is demonstrably true usually makes you end up sounding like this guy, if people bother to check. There will be no shortage of skilled fact checkers in this race, so these kinds of tendencies would be worrisome if they popped up again. Between the current front runners in the (R) race when “troublesome” issues from the past have come about, Rudy has pretty much admitted his differences and kept the pandering to a relative minimum, Romney goes all in with the pandering, and Fred denies that he ever did anything of the sort or refuses to acknowledge the situation. All of these approaches can cause problems, in different ways.
Big S on October 8, 2007 at 2:06 PM
scumbag lobbyists
scumbag lobbyist
scumbag lobbyist
C’mon…two more and I’m calling YAHTZEE
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Why would AP ban me for calling out a dope for making such a stupidly uninformed comment?
Fred wishes he was as successful as Mitt. Fred has to funnel contributions from supporters to enrich his family. Mitt earns his honestly. It defies logic to claim Mitt would lower himself to the level of a scumbag lobbyist.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 2:06 PM
I really don’t think the Republicans, even in a state like Mass., wanted to be represented by someone who didn’t support the party platform in the way Mitt has shown, or to fall down on the job concerning party leadership. I’m just saying that he seems to say one thing, represent himself as a Republican, and perform as a Democrat. Dont get me wrong, I’m still looking forward to the debates to see how ALL of the canidates will do, but Mitt will not get my vote any more than “home for the weekend from the nursing home” Ron Paul will.
P. James Moriarty on October 8, 2007 at 2:13 PM
I’ve been watching this thread and had been getting tired until
made me laugh out loud. You’ve already got three of a kind.
BNCurtis on October 8, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Now four.
BNCurtis on October 8, 2007 at 2:14 PM
scumbag lobbyist
…four…
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 2:14 PM
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 2:06 PM
No, looking at his record is evidence enough for anyone with eyes.
P. James Moriarty on October 8, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Oh I see…trying to outplay me BNCurtis? Bring it on…
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Just to let everyone know, this is the debate in Tennesse that put Fred over the top. Before this debate he was running behind Cooper, and after this he was the front runner. Tennesseans were impressed that Fred stood up to Cooper who had a nasty habit of insulting his opponents regularly. When Fred finally got people to take his seriosuly he crushed Cooper in the election. This is the debate that got him there.
Can he do this in a national debate? I don’t know yet. But as Allah said, it is jarring to remember how fired up he used to be. Let’s hope someone lights a fire under his ass so he can bury everyone and take the momentum to the general.
Tman on October 8, 2007 at 2:16 PM
If you honestly don’t understand then you deserve to be banned. It’s about maintaining a civil atmosphere on the blog. Many people who would otherwise comment here see trash and personal attacks like you are posting and it gives them a very bad opinion of HotAir and Michelle.
doriangrey on October 8, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Another victim of derangement syndrome. My prediction: Unless Fred Thompson spends every second of the debate repeating “I am an evil lover of dictators, terrorists and asbestos poisoning…” csdeven’s opinion of him will not change in the slightest bit.
On the other hand if Fred Thompson DOES say exactly that, or if anything else happens, then csdeven’s opinion of Fred Thompson will not change either.
Isn’t that pretty much the definition of psychosis?
logis on October 8, 2007 at 2:17 PM
What I learned from this vid was that Tennessee has plenty of voters that remember where they were when they heard that Archduke Ferdinand had been shot.
ScottMcC on October 8, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Yup, that dog hunts ’round dem thar parts.
Regular folks from other parts of the country wont be impressed by a scumbag lobbyist and his scumbag lobbyist ways.
Fred thinks he was impressive in that exchange and also his cowardly refusal to debate Moore and Huckabee. He surly did impress the groupies, but we rational experienced conservatives see Fred for the fake and scumbag lobbyist he is.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Hard to let a good game of Yahtzee get out of hand…
BNCurtis on October 8, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Yahtzee!
BNCurtis on October 8, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Your politics of personal destruction and ends justify the means strategy are making Hillary Proud of you.
doriangrey on October 8, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Oh sh!t…asleep at the wheel again…
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Hey Csdeven,
Are you insulting Tennesseans? Where are you from?
Tman on October 8, 2007 at 2:24 PM
hang on…I’m calling technical foul
three “scumbag lobbyist” in one post
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 2:25 PM
…and it made the whole thread worthwhile. Sweet victory…/end subplot
BNCurtis on October 8, 2007 at 2:26 PM
three more for a double yahtzee
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 2:27 PM
That’s the best of Fred?
I’m underwhelmed. Yes, proves he has “fire in the belly,” but if he debates like that, he will get eaten alive by Hillary.
I’m rooting for Mitt! (as I think he has the best chances for beating Hillary) but I am slowly coming to the realization that Hillary may be my next President.
:-(
Note: Does anybody know what time the debates are at tomorrow?
Darnell Clayton on October 8, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Don’t know about that, but it’s clear that you and your ilk are completely blind to what Fred really is and assume every criticism of him is an unwarranted attack.
Fred is a scumbag lobbyist and is not an honest conservative. He funneled cash that was meant for conservative causes, right into his sons pockets. Even the gal at the FEC got a chuckle out of Fred’s violating the spirit of the law that was designed to discourage that crap. Fred always worked for clients that had the money and were working against American citizens.
Yeah, real class Fred. Real class.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 2:28 PM
how about a nine man cage fight? Fred could whomp some ass with that buckle…
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 2:28 PM
scumbag lobbyist
…eight…
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 2:29 PM
And he thinks that Fred Thompson would win a debate if he responded to insane crap like this by saying, “Yes, you’re right, you’re absolutely right. And, golly, you’re a really good debater too.”
I don’t think any of the other Republican candidates are going to come anywhere near cs’s “rhetorical skill.” But it’s good to know that when Thompson comes face-to-face with the Queen of the Moonbats, he won’t be pulling any punches.
Speaking of which, do we have any tape of Mitt “Butter-won’t-melt-in-my-mouth” Romney showing the incredibly tactful way he’ll respond to this kind of lunatic tirade?
logis on October 8, 2007 at 2:29 PM
And who better to represent rational people than you!!
thirteen28 on October 8, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Irony.
I hear you. He seems less than genuine to me, but perhaps that is a factor of the volume of change he has had. I give him some slack considering considering the state he governed, but I hear you. He must be making some impression though as he is polling relatively well in early states where he has worked to get himself known. Charisma or something deeper?
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 2:31 PM
I’m assuming you mean Mitt’s corporate big money friends who bailed him out of the Olympics. He owes them a debt of gratitude, and he has to repay them. Already started with keeping Bechtel on the “big dig” payroll after their fiasco, and repaying Monster.com by letting them “hire” Mitts son.
Let me see, how is Mitt’s sons earning their living now? While driving around the country, serving America?
right2bright on October 8, 2007 at 2:32 PM
God, I’m so sick of post-debate people claiming that they didn’t get enough information from the candidates or they feel like an issue has them more confused then before. Do a little research, a debate should be a debate, not the candidates just spewing along about their love for each other (Democrats anyone?)
wryteacher on October 8, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Your right. I don’t understand how anybody that’s watched the political scene for the last twenty years could think Rudy would get the Republican nomination. He will not. Fred maybe. Huckabee might be a better choice, we’ll have to see how the debates go.
Maxx on October 8, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Of course. You have this crystal-clear view of reality that no one else can see; and all you have to do is repeat yourself over-and-over-and-over again, and eventually everyone will eventually understand your “logic.”
Yeah, I guess you’re right. That is a better definition.
logis on October 8, 2007 at 2:35 PM
No. She hates me because I am exposing Fred for the lying fake and scumbag lobbyist he is. She wanted this stuff to stay hidden until he got the nomination so she could destroy him in the general.
Unlike you, I want the best candidate to challenge Hillary. You and the other groupies have a hard on for Fred and think that the rest of the country is looking for a fake and a scumbag lobbyist who will engage in schoolyard tactics. You are the “gotcha” crowd. The crowd who is impressed by Fred’s “Shut up” comment and his refusal to debate Moore and Huckabee. Fred has no plan, no experience, and no extensive history of helping conservative causes. Fred supported CFR. THAT was his big contribution in the senate. But none of that matters to you groupies. Fred said “shut up” and you guys go ape$hit.
Nice.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Nine…
BNCurtis on October 8, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Ten…
BNCurtis on October 8, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Double! I’m done.
BNCurtis on October 8, 2007 at 2:38 PM
He has two or three conservative opponents splitting the vote and the abbreviated primary schedule offer him an opportunity unlike previous elections.
Were the primaries spread out as before I’d agree with you but all the rules are in flux and you have so many candidates that votes are being divided up, leaving him an opening for the moderate votes.
Bradky on October 8, 2007 at 2:40 PM
(*&^$IUGHSDV(*&(*&$ !!!
Well played sir :-)
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Fred is a lobbyist. Fred lobbied for scumbags.
You do the math.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 2:31 PM
I don’t know. If you think of it strictly in terms of Fred vs Mitt, it may be something along the lines of “do you want a new, evolovling republican party, or do you want a return to the old party?” But who knows what the electorate thinks. All you can really do is to guess at the broad strokes, everyone has thier own thinking, from cold, hard, and rational, to CS.
P. James Moriarty on October 8, 2007 at 2:41 PM
P. James Moriarty on October 8, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Well done ! Very informative.
Maxx on October 8, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Something deeper. Namely his deep pockets that have allowed him to dump around $17 million of his own money into his campaign (with hints that he’ll spend even more in an attempt to buy the election), with an estimated $10 million spent on early TV ads. Essentially he was running unopposed.
Hollowpoint on October 8, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Something deeper. Namely his deep pockets that have allowed him to dump around $17 million of his own money into his campaign (with hints that he’ll spend even more in an attempt to buy the election), with an estimated $10 million spent on early TV ads. Essentially he was running unopposed.
Hollowpoint on October 8, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Yeesh. I didn’t like that at all. He didn’t seem invigorated, he seemed rattled (who says “shut up” in a debate??). I’m scared.
Karol on October 8, 2007 at 2:44 PM
This coming from doriangrey, is laughable.
However, csdeven, I generally agree with you, but you do seem to have an aggressive rage reserved for Mr. Thompson. Why is this so?
Troy Rasmussen on October 8, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Hence…”scumbag lobbyist”
It’s so simple…
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Fred! didn’t like the width of csdeven’s stance
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 2:46 PM
And that’s another good point, I REALLY don’t like that Mitt seems to be trying to buy the election.
P. James Moriarty on October 8, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Bradky on October 8, 2007 at 2:40 PM
It’s a good point but… people who vote in the primaries are usually the hardcore type, not so easily swayed from the party platform. Rudy doesn’t stand tall anywhere on the platform.
Maxx on October 8, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Rudy Giuliani bans knives from NY City in 5-4-3-2…
Just use a spoon from now on.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Your theory doesn’t account for his extremely effective fund-raising.
I had not cast it in that light, but I think you might be on to something. Fred echoes old-times – back to Watergate, Barry G, etc and Mitt entirely new. I can see both appeals consider the RNC self-destruct sequence in the last few years. You may have something there.
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 2:51 PM
I’m pushing the buttons of the groupies. The funny things is that I’ve been doing it long enough and have explained it many times, but I have the same people continuing to respond like little 8itches.
It is absolutely absurd that they would rather attack me than admit that Fred has some serious issues to deal with. It’s like attacking Fred is attacking them. Then, they see this obviously poor showing in this debate and they get all giddy. As if rational people want to hear “gotcha” politics. Rational conservatives want substance. Something Fred is sorely lacking it giving us.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Point taken. I can only claim ,as of now, on a 1-10 scale, about a 4 for Rudy.
Rudys’ electability among democrats and independents make him viable, but there are rumblings within the Republican party as to his being conservative enough. You know all this. I’ll watch the debates tomorrow and continue my own personal vetting of the candidates.
captivated_dem on October 8, 2007 at 2:53 PM
OT: in re: msg the other day re: revocation of citizenship, is there provision for natural-borne citizen that I am unaware of? Simple link will suffice if that’s the case, I’m unaware of it, so still very curious.
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 2:56 PM
You know? Like candidates who claim to be conservative and have a history of acting like far left liberals. That kind of substance.
That’s a “rational conservative” in Csdeven’s dictionary.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 2:58 PM
captivated_dem on October 8, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Like I said, Rudy’s decision to “play it straight” and admit his social liberalism has caused him some trouble (FYI I support him). However, I find it fascinating how the three candidates deal with their pasts in such different ways. And they told us all politicians were alike…
Big S on October 8, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »