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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Thanks, BNCurtis and Ochlan, for making this thread entertaining! Usually, when csdeven starts up his anti-Fred foaming-at-the-mouth repetitive ranting, I just leave the thread in irritation and disgust. But you guys kept me laughing. I love how he just completely ignored the by-play, except for feeding you that three-in-one (which I think was a tacit acknowledgment of your little game and an attempt to mess you up by exceeding five, but you recovered beautifully!).
Again, thanks for bringing a little lightheartedness to an otherwise boringly familiar “discussion.”
aero on October 8, 2007 at 2:58 PM
If we ignore what Fred actually is, I’d agree. But Fred IS, in his heart and soul, a lobbyist. A lobbyist who never lobbied for the little guy or conservative causes.
Mitt, to me is representative of a conservative party that had moved to the center to appeal to the middle and now is tacking right to pander to the base. Except for Hunter and Tanc, they are all doing it.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 3:01 PM
And a scumbag, to boot…the filthy whore
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 3:02 PM
That’d be an impressive feat; given that he’s not mayor anymore :P
lorien1973 on October 8, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Yeah, I mean merely image not excluding or including substance. If it were ideological solely (or perhaps even primarily) Hunter would poll much better.
I understand the logic on Mitt, but I confess that line – I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush gets under my skin. Reagan did pick up the center and center-left so that is too far left of a statement for my palate.
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Really? If it’s so obvious why are you getting all a$$ broke over it and running away? Those two at least know how to have some fun with it.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 3:05 PM
yes, but moved to the center from an apparently socialist point of view, ie gun control, anti-life abortion positions, “universal health care”, etc. I don’t believe he’s actually shifted and I don’t like where he’s shifted to. Too shifty, to many flip-flops, too many breaks with what the republicans are supposed to stand for both in his past and now.
P. James Moriarty on October 8, 2007 at 3:08 PM
I gathered that. His “playing it straight” is likely part of his appeal to me. By the same token, this is a campaign and may have been advised to bring his “issues” out early to achieve a certain immunity. No one but he and his staff know for sure. Regardless, he has alot of viability as a candidate, and as Americas’ mayor, deserves our respect.
captivated_dem on October 8, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Csdeven,
We’re not running away from you, we’re ignoring you. You don’t debate Fred rationally. I’ve disputed your points before, like the bit about him “not standing up for the little guy”, which we not jive really well with the fact that a movie was made that Fred played himself in where he did in fact stand up for the little guy.
There’s no point in debating with you. Evern when you’re wrong, and it’s PROVEN that you’re wrong, you think you’re right.
Tman on October 8, 2007 at 3:10 PM
….huh?
aero on October 8, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Mitts ads are starting to run here in Oregon. Now he’s advertising that hes fiought the religious right, the “gun lobby”, and for “abortion rights” and will continue to do so.
Flip
Flop
Flip
Flop……
P. James Moriarty on October 8, 2007 at 3:14 PM
As I mentioned, having nine candidates, four or so who are competing for the conservative base poster boy split the vote up.
Will be interesting to watch.
Bradky on October 8, 2007 at 3:15 PM
This thread is a great read….if you are registered at HuffPo. The comments here go beyond differences of opinion and policy. It borders of mania.
48 hours. Either Fred will quiet the critics or he will step off the stage.
Mitt/Fred/Rudy/McCain/Huck/Tanc……doesn’t matter a lick.
70 Dem Senators, and 390 Dem congressmen will shut everybody up soon. No sniveling……we have ourselves to blame.
Limerick on October 8, 2007 at 3:15 PM
If I recall, you had explained that you were referring to “natural law” and not “legal law.” I believe you were pointing to the fact that nothing can take away from the fact that a person was born in a specific place, even if some judge were to say otherwise. Of course, this means nothing when discussing the reality of how our legal system works, so a person could whine all day long about this being true, but it wouldn’t do much good in regard to the real life laws of the United States. I understood your point though, I think.
Either way, in response to your question …
How can US citizenship be lost?
I think we might be able to hit Bush on number 2.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 3:16 PM
This is going to sound juvenile, I know, but I hope that whomever is selected to represent the conservative base, we’ll all be able to find it in ourselves to work together. The alternative, anyone?
BNCurtis on October 8, 2007 at 3:16 PM
I’ve tried to get someone to discuss that comment (by Mitt) in his debate with Kennedy. My feelings are that Mitt made a mistake by letting Ted frame the Regan legacy as an assault on single families, unemployment, etc. Mitt had to distance himself from that policy the way Ted framed it. But, it the liberal state of Mass, I doubt he could have defended Reagan’s administration and had any chance at defeating Ted. I don’t buy that Reagan’s policies did what Kennedy said they did, but Mitt responded to them as if they did. This was a mistake.
Mitt’s response comes at about 2:20 in the video.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Oh! You mean why do I usually leave Fred threads that you take over with your drivel? Because you’re repetitive, rabid, insulting, and stupid when it comes to Fred. You’re also not worth debating, as someone else pointed out. You just get more rabid, repetitive, insulting, and stupid. Not interesting at all.
And you’re right, at least Ochlan and BNCurtis are entertaining. You’re not.
aero on October 8, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Superb, thanks.
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 3:18 PM
But he’s running for President. Just pointing out his history of ignoring the Constitution “if it makes the city safer.”
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Not just “gun control.”
Giuliani banned hand guns entirely. He disarmed legal citizens of the United States in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 3:23 PM
I didn’t make this next comment up…..
That’s running away. He said it, not me.
Fred stood up for the little guy one time. When he had a choice to lobby for the little guy or lobby for scumbags, what did Fred choose? He lobbied to deregulate the S&L’s. He lobbied for a dictator. He lobbied for an abortion group. He lobbied for a failed nuke plant. He lobbied against victims of asbestos poisoning. You have never satisfactorily defended those lobbying efforts and your response is to point to a case from 1977. No one will take you seriously for that exercise in intellectual dishonesty. Really.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 3:23 PM
yes indeed, that’s socialist “gun control”
P. James Moriarty on October 8, 2007 at 3:29 PM
I find it interesting that csdeven defends Mitt in exactly the same way and WITH EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENTS that Fredheads defend their guy. Yet somehow, they are only legitimate when csdeven doesn’t.
Strange…
Darksean on October 8, 2007 at 3:29 PM
His latest fundraising numbers weren’t that impressive; his campaign would be almost broke if not for the cash infusion from his pocketbook.
He’s already out of pocket for $17-$18 million, and has hinted that he’ll spend more. By the time Super Tuesday rolls around, he’ll have spent at least $25 million (perhaps as much as $30 million) of his own money on top of the significant amount he’s gotten from fundraising. I’d call that an attempt to buy the election.
Note that 4th quarter results won’t be released until after Super Tuesday, so he could spend vast amounts of his personal funds without having to answer for it until after the nomination was effectively decided.
Hollowpoint on October 8, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Does that mean you promise to leave?
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Why does he have to answer for it? I’d rather see a candidate put his own money into his campaign than use the contributions of gullible people, just to have that candidate drop out of the race and funnel those contributions into his family’s pockets.
And no candidate can buy an election. They have tried and failed every time. The difference between Rudy, Mitt, and Fred is that the more people know about Rudy and Mitt, the more they like. The more they know about Fred, the less they like.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 3:34 PM
I watched it again. It still bothers me, because as you said, he let Kennedy frame the Reagan administration but also he implied agreement with it by separating from it. And that’s in 94 so already 6 years post Reagan. Granted, Bush had just lost the election centered largely on economic issues, but it is also the same 94 that swept in the Republicans in the Newt Revolution..
I appreciate the hard look you take on things, but this is more than misspeak I think. I think it has to be chaulked up to political expediency and as such gives legs criticisms of his positions based on the motive of political expediency. Which facing Hillary may be an asset and not a liability. Just depends how the center takes it. His polling in the primary states, money spent notwithstanding, seems to imply they might take it pretty well.
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 3:34 PM
You probably already have your answer but here it is.
4 PM on CNBC and replayed at 9PM on PMSNBC
And the ratings will probably be higher then anything Uberdunce has ever had.
LakeRuins on October 8, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Show me where I defend Mitt by ignoring his weaknesses.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 3:35 PM
That’s not even close to what I said.
Darksean on October 8, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Are you serious? I’ve criticized Mitt for being a panderer many times, but even I couldn’t anticipate something that far beyond the pale.
If you’re joking, well played. If not… it would have to be the most shamelessly pathetic pandering I’ve heard of for a long time.
Hollowpoint on October 8, 2007 at 3:39 PM
His campaign would almost be broke, sure no argument there. But that’s because his spending the vast amount of money he has taken in. I have no problem with that whatsoever. If I give to a candidate I want them to use the money to get their message out not keep it. It’s hard to get upset about him using his personal funds either because every candidate comes in with pros and cons. If you are a career politician or an actor you have recognizability. If you are wealthy you can purchase air time to get that recognizability that others got in the public sphere. Does that make Mitt a worse person than the avg. Senator? I don’t think so.
As far as disclosure of campaign contributions and efforts, surely you don’t really want to get into that b/c then we have to get into Fred’s campaign, his timing, and CFR. I’d rather not.
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Not to mention profound stupidity. In this Blog/YouTube world only a cretin fails to understand that your ‘output’ can be cross-referenced in seconds around the globe.
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 3:42 PM
No joke, that ad is playing every 10 or 15 min.s on Fox News here. I posted after just seeing it for the third or fourth time. He knows this is a liberal state and is pandering to it as such IMHO.
P. James Moriarty on October 8, 2007 at 3:42 PM
I have no doubt that was part of the plan. He pretty much had to run his campaign that way to retain any kind of credibility. He’s always been very outspoken (to put it mildly) about his opinions, and there’s too much out there for him to backtrack on all of it. I guess we’ll see how closely he sticks to the plan at the “values voters” shindig that’s coming up. If he goes wobbly, I might switch to supporting McCain. I like ‘em both a lot, but as a New Yorker, I guess I have a particular affinity for Brooklyn badasses.
Big S on October 8, 2007 at 3:42 PM
It may not bother you, but I suspect that quite a few voters would be turned off by a perception that a wealthy candidate was trying to buy an election- especially with the accusations of pandering and flip-flopping floating around.
Hollowpoint on October 8, 2007 at 3:44 PM
It’s because Csdeven is actually (I believe) on the campaign staff of one of the other candidates. Not sure, but pretty confident. It’s his job to hang out in blogs and trash Fred. That’s why his arguments make no sense and why these are the only threads he responds to.
Right Csdeven?
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Un-freakin-believeable. Somebody has to post the video; it’s not that I don’t believe you, but it’s just unbelieveable that someone could pander so blatantly and think they could get away with it.
Hollowpoint on October 8, 2007 at 3:48 PM
You consistently state that Mitt and Rudy deserve the benefit of doubt, while giving Fred absolutely none. It really does not matter what Fred does or what your guy does. You’re on a mission and it has nothing to do with reality.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 3:49 PM
AP should reverse-trace csdeven’s IP and see if it turns up anything interesting…
whois and ping are your friends
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Did Ross Perot bother you? Not that he probably cost Bush the election but the way he ran it? How about Washington providing beer/ale as ‘incentives’ to get people to vote?
I’m sure some people would be uncomfortable with that charge, but I don’t the charge holds merit. As I said above, each candidate comes in with pros/cons and have to offset or play off of them accordingly. When he pays people to vote for him, then I’m interested in this argument.
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 3:50 PM
I wish I had the video capture capabillity, but I don’t. If there is someone else here from the Oregon area/region could you capture that ad and post it to utube with a link please?
Thanks and sorry.
P. James Moriarty on October 8, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Boy, I’m late to the fun. So, Fred can be a prick and a liar. Looks like presidential material to me!
The debate format was very odd. They were practically within slapping distance and looking right at each other. Fred will not get a chance to be so rude and dominering with a big group of candidates.
P.S. calling someone telling the truth a liar is not a good strategy, particularly with youtube out there.
It is time to straighten you out Hollowpoint. Fred is a lobbyist (and apparently a scumbag lobbyist to boot). Rudy is not a lobbyist. After he was a national freakin’ hero, knighted by the Queen and Times man of the year, he became a named partner at a law firm. That law firm does indeed do lobbying, but not Rudy. Giuliani isn’t registered as a lobbyist for any of the interests on whose behalf his firms have acted. Rudy may have been in a firm with lobbyists, but he is not one. Fred on the other hand was a registered lobbyist and was actually one of those guys in the back room smoking cigars snapping suspenders and rubbing their big fat bellies while cutting deals.
Rudy = hero, knight, man of year ≠ lobbyist.
Fred = scumbag lobbyist
tommylotto on October 8, 2007 at 3:51 PM
I don’t know enough about Mitt to know if he was just inexperience, or he was being politically expedient. (I do know that had he ousted Ted, we’d all be praising him as a conservative hero) But either way, I don’t see it as a detriment to Mitt. Even if he did believe what he said, he has a plausible explanation for flip flopping on the issue. It isn’t a deal killer for me. As a matter of fact it would take a preponderance of issues for me to eliminate any candidate. I agree that people seem to be ok with him so far. The more people know him, the better they like him. The ONLY serious issue I have with Mitt is his silence on our troops and their families and the challenges they are going through. I have written him a couple of lengthy emails taking him to task for not having a soul touching understanding of their sacrifices. I believe this is why Rudy is catching him in NH. Had he taking one day out of his life and spent it with a family on the day their trooper deplyed, I think he’d get some insight that he needs in order to give him the edge he needs to run away with this. Until he exhibits that understanding, I have to believe Rudy will ultimately be the nominee.
I appreciate your input on it. One last point I’d like to make. Mitt has a history of fulfilling his campaign promises and that is encouraging considering we want a candidate that will balance his personal agenda with the fact that he does ultimately represent us and is committed to fulfilling his promises to us.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 3:52 PM
What does that matter? Are you one of those types who thinks the facts are only valid if you happen to like the messenger?
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Is thisthe ad you’re talking about?
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 3:55 PM
That is exactly what the Fred groupies do.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 3:55 PM
….huh?
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Maybe you’re the Fred shill? If you think these are the only threads I comment on, you obviously only read the Fred threads.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 3:57 PM
What does Fred deserve the benefit of the doubt on? Specifically.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Yup, my bad…..haven’t seen it enough times to see the small print on who produced/payed for the ad. OK, I was wrong, it’s not him saying it’s his current position. Still shocking to hear it being played on TV. Appologies all around.
P. James Moriarty on October 8, 2007 at 4:01 PM
HEH!
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 4:02 PM
LOL! That’s just priceless. Yeah, partners have absolutely nothing to do with the decisions and actions of their law firms.
OMG! Get a grip! I suppose you believe the Clintons had nothing to do with Whitewater either?
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 4:06 PM
WHY DOES IT MATTER WHERE MY IP ADDRESS GOES TO?
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Which happened to be LIBERAL promises. THAT’S what we want. A guy who’s fulfilled his promises to the liberal/socialist block.
Your reasoning is baffling to say the least.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Oh, I get it- he was a named partner in a lobbying firm that refuses to disclose who it’s clients were, but Rudy himself isn’t currently listed as a registed lobbyist- he just hires them. Alrighty then.
That’s like arguing that the head of Hamas isn’t really a terrorist because he doesn’t personally carry out attacks, he just directs and funds them.
And Rudy was a “hero”? Delusional you are.
Hollowpoint on October 8, 2007 at 4:10 PM
In order to lobby, I believe one has to be registered. And unless Rudy can actually LOBBY, his name means nothing for the lobbying end of the firm. Rudy may be there just to give the firm credibility on the lawyering end, but that is a far cry from that scumbag lobbyist Fred’s activities.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Temper, temper laddie.
Somebody wondered if you were on a (Mitt?) campaign team.
It would be interesting if your IP resolved to a block assigned to such a campaign and you were busy throwing around immature bluster as “scumbag lobbyist”. That wouldn’t look good at all…ask John Edwards
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Shindigs and badasses. Sounds like a Brooklyn bluegrass festival. As for McCain, well……………………..
Have read “Faith of our Fathers”, and cannot begin to imagine what he suffered as a POW. POTUS could conceivably crack his mettle. A handfull of months to the Primaries. I continue to weigh the pros and cons.
captivated_dem on October 8, 2007 at 4:12 PM
You didn’t answer the question Stifler. Do you think we aren’t going to notice that?
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 4:12 PM
So? He fulfilled his promise to a liberal constituency, but he did not go beyond that promise. He always supported the family when he had no conflict with his promises. I realize you want Fred to lie to you, but please realize that is you. Not we clear thinking conservatives.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 4:13 PM
And Mitt did not lobby for Bechtel?…after the death of a woman, Mitt was still beholdin to his buddies at Bechtel. Fred’s red truck did not run over a woman and kill her, Bechtel’s mismanagement (and Mitt’s giving them a pass) killed a woman.
Mitt did not lobby for corporate bail out of the Olympics? Huh, news to me. So they just came to his door and dropped off the cash? No telephone calls, no calling to convince them to contribute?
Mitt never arm twisted as governor?
Fred the evil lobbyist…as if no politician has ever lobbied, or arm twisted, or traded favors.
right2bright on October 8, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Riiiiiiiiight.
Who you working for? Which campaign are you working for csdeven? Can you answer that please?
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 4:15 PM
I never said that. Did Rudy’s well deserved hero status make him influential? certainly. I did not deny that, what I said was that Rudy was not a lobbyist and never lobbied. That is true.
On the ther hand, Fred was a registered lobbyist, and we know for a fact that Fred actually submitted billable time to his firm based on his activities of lobbying for special interests and abortion groups and consulting for Islamic terrorists who blew up an airliner full of innocent people.
tommylotto on October 8, 2007 at 4:15 PM
As long as there is something entertaining or interesting going on in a thread, no. But once it degenerates into just you and a handful of die-hard Fredheads repeating the same non-arguments and accusations over and over and over and over and over and over and over (and over) again, yes. I do promise to leave then. You won’t have to worry about lil ol’ me when that happens. ;-) It’s getting close now. My boredom threshold is rather low these days when it comes to these rehashed arguments, I’m afraid.
aero on October 8, 2007 at 4:15 PM
If I was exercised, I would have used an exclamation point.
again….
WHY DOES IT MATTER? The facts are the facts and if a member of Mitts campaign says it or I say it does not affect the factual nature of the comment. Explain yourself.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Yes, you did.
What are you referring to when you suggest that Rudy was a hero? For what? What did he do? Are you sure we’re talking about the same person?
All Rudy has ever done is walk around NY City after the attack and speak harshly about terrorists. Is there something else he did that we’re not aware of that would make him a hero?
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Oh, so you do understand how it feels to read your drivel. Good. Perhaps you will cease being a Fred groupie and start being a rational conservative.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Still waiting for Csdeven’s answer.
Who you working for? Which campaign are you working for csdeven? Can you answer that please?
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 4:21 PM
That’s worth highlighting I think, and I agree.
As far as the rest of your post, I actually agree point for point. We would call him a hero had he unseated Kennedy. There is no perfect candidate, I agree with the preponderance of issues measure. I do think Rudy is most likely to be the candidate at the end barring some fundamental perception changes. And I totally agree re: Mitt on our troops – he needs a better understanding or a better expression at the very least.
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 4:22 PM
I actually don’t care at all about anything you’re saying on this subject…you’re just some anonymous shlub venting on a blog. But you’re not as anonymous as you think.
If it turns out that you are part of a campaign – and IP resolution can sometimes prove that – then the manner in which you behave online can have real-world concerns.
True or false, facts or fiction…I don’t care. If you’re working for Mitt, and if IP resolution can prove it, your “scumbag lobbyist” vitriol is going to haunt you. Think about it.
Of course, if you’re not working for a campaign, then you’re back to being just an anoymous shlub again.
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 4:23 PM
GOOD GRAVY! Rudy didn’t just fall out of the sky. He accomplished a lot as a real live prosecutor (not like that scumbag fake Fred on some TV show) and the Mayor of the largest city in the country. Then came 9/11 and the man did not flinch. He led his city to a place of hope and rejected despair. THAT is leadership. Something that lying fake scumbag lobbyist Fred never did or will do. Hell, he isn’t even leading in his campaign. His wife and friends had to push him into it.
If you want to know why you are called a groupie, that ignorant response from you is the reason why.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Really? That’s not what the NY City Firefighters say. They call all that an “urban legend.”
But I guess you know better.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Still waiting while Csdeven avoids answering the question.
Allah, if Csdeven is working for the campaign of one of Fred’s opponents, and is constantly on here posting hit pieces on the man; wouldn’t that be considered SPAM and a violation of terms of service?
I would think HotAir would want to avoid that sort of trash hijacking of threads.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 4:29 PM
The paranoia is running deep if you are going to start asking site hosts to id the commenters.
Bradky on October 8, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Really? Is that why you are one of two people here suggesting that Allah back trace my AP addy?
You sound like one of those types who only accepts the facts from those who walk in lock step with you. As if a person from Mitt’s campaign has less credibility than anyone else.
There is a reason why you started down this dead end path, and it’s clear that you thought something would come to fruition. The question remains…..
WHY DOES IT MATTER TO YOU WHAT MY AP ADDY IS?
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 4:30 PM
You’re deflecting Mr. Sockpuppet.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 4:31 PM
I think this forum needs a poll to see who they would look down upon and actually vote for. I don’t think there is anyone worthy. Seriously, a poll is needed.
tomas on October 8, 2007 at 4:32 PM
csdeven,
Do you realize exactly what is wrong with this comment?
I gave you multiple examples in several threads before this one that prove this statement wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. He most certainly believes in conservative causes, and has stuck up for the little MORE than once as I can attest being a Tennessean.
What bothers me about you personally is not just the insluting rhetoric you shout, like the bit about insinuating that we Tennesseans are ignorant rednecks with the “dog won’t hunt” comment, but the fact that you ignore clear evidence that literally proves your point is weak and unsubstantiated. You are expecting that people will believe you if you yell it loud enough.
I’m not entirely sold on Fred or any of the other candidates for that matter, but you aren’t doing anything to advance the debate by insulting people or trying to shout over everyone’s head.
By the way, we Tennesseans were wise enough to see through the Al Gore BS, I think we can handle Fred just fine.
And speaking on behalf of the rest of the “dog won’t hunt” Tennesseans, try winning an election without the South.
Tman on October 8, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Any tactic to silence those who expose them for the Fred groupies that they are.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 4:34 PM
To be fair, I don’t think The Troll is a campaign op- he’s not intelligent enough. Simply repeating the same dishonest smears and name-calling over and over again isn’t exactly the hallmark of an effective of smart campaigner.
Personally I think he’s just an Idaho Mormon who blindly supports Mitt because they share the same religion, and mindlessly attacks Fred because he’s essentially taken away Mitt’s opportunity to campaign as the conservative alternative to Rudy.
csdeven makes hotair.com a much less pleasant and civil place, but at least he (along with the likes of BKennedy) does shine some light on the type of person who supports Romney- much the same way that Ron Paul’s Truther Brigades reflect on Paul.
Hollowpoint on October 8, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Bradky, you do know that you have exactly three fans on this blog, right? And they’re all anti-American far left liberals.
Nothing you say matters.
Go back to having lunch with Enrique.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 4:36 PM
You would be wrong. Ask him yourself.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 4:37 PM
I’ve got it…you’re Newman!
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 4:37 PM
The points you mentioned do not mitigate the extensive lobbying Fred has done, and is quite proud of. Several pro-life votes over 8 years is nothing. I still want to see what votes Fred missed over those years. If I remember correctly, there were many key abortion votes during that time and the ones Fred voted in favor of were not the big issues. As a senator he voted many times for issues that helped illegal immigration. He sponsored McCain/Feingold. He was lazy. He supported all abortion in the first trimester.
Nothing you mentioned will balance out those choices Fred made.
This is less about what I accept about Fred, but more about you over stating his conservative credentials.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 4:40 PM
I cringe to jump into the fray, but csdeven has been here a long time. He may be obsessive about Fred, but he’s been here since well before the campaigns started.
SouthernDem on October 8, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Pray tell, who, besides Nonfactor that I can think of, is a far left Lib on this site?
SouthernDem on October 8, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Heh. I don’t know if that’s a joke, but such things do exist. I’ve been to a couple.
Big S on October 8, 2007 at 4:43 PM
That may well be the case SouthernDem, but even though I don’t have a horse in this race I’ve gotta say that I find csdeven’s level of bizarre adolescent vitriol curious.
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 4:44 PM
I already gave you one name in the comment above. So now you’re up to two of the three.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 4:44 PM
WOW 1994, that’s current. Now you’ve turned “red meat” into “where’s the beef”.
KCtheKat on October 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM
I believe this of Rudy too. Both have promised to nominate judges along the lines of Roberts right? I know Mitt has, and I thought Rudy said basically the same thing.
You give me a politician who will take whatever actions needed to rectify a certain situation for the good of the majority and I can live with it even if it isn’t my personal belief. Rudy and gun control seemed to work in NYC. If it did, and it benefited the majority, then I could support it even though I am a complete gun nut. I’d have to make a choice between my job, living in the city verses the country and commuting, and moving to a gun friendly state. But that is federalism at it’s core.
The sun don’t shine on every dogs back all day long.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Poor Gregor with his quasi Storm front webpage. Call me names if you like but you are a tool my friend. Nothing more nothing less.
Bradky on October 8, 2007 at 4:48 PM
LOL! How completely ironic.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Perhaps less knee jerking and more reasoned thought on your part would benefit you immensely? All you have to do is watch how these threads morph from Fred bashing to csdeven bashing. We now have morons demanding that I be identified. For what purpose I don’t know. I can only assume that it is an attempt to discredit the message since they have been unable to mount an argument that will defeat my superior knowledge on the subject.
Now, if you are stupid enough to rise up to the bold text part of that comment, you are as big a fool as they are.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Since Rudy’s interview on Laura’s show sometime back, I’ve been pretty confident he’d do that.
Funny.
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 4:54 PM
The points you mentioned do not mitigate the extensive lobbying Fred has done, and is quite proud of.
I don’t remember the story about Fred bragging about his extensive lobbying efforts, do you have something to support this?
Several pro-life votes over 8 years is nothing.
But far more than any of the other candidates. Who else stated that RoeVWade should be overturned?
I still want to see what votes Fred missed over those years.
But not before you slander him religiously for missing them!
Sounds logical……*cough*…
If I remember correctly, there were many key abortion votes during that time and the ones Fred voted in favor of were not the big issues.
“But hey, who needs evidence? I said Fred is a scumbag lobbyist, and that should be good enough!”
Not very convincing csd.
As a senator he voted many times for issues that helped illegal immigration.
Such as?
He sponsored McCain/Feingold.
Which he now admiteddly regrets. I agree though, he should have ran away from McCain/Feingold. But this is hardly a subject that is in anyones top ten for judging candidates.
He was lazy
Meh. That’s like saying Hillary is shrill. This doesn’t make or break the candidate for me.
He supported all abortion in the first trimester.
Yet still wants RVW reversed. I think he made his own opinion of abortion quite clear, in that he wants a federalist response to abortion, and get the government out of the doctors office.
This is the thing about Fred which appeals to me. He isn’t proposing any grand government scheme to fix everything, but instead talking about ways to reduce government and remove it from our personal lives. I don’t think there is a big difference overall when it comes to National Security between the Repub front runners, so whoever gets the nod will have to (I hope) have true conservative ideals.
Notice that we just discussed the points without calling people names or insulting their intelligence. It would be nice to see this continue.
Tman on October 8, 2007 at 4:56 PM
I’m plenty stoopid…and can fool with the best of ‘em
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 4:57 PM
It was an attempt at being funny, and not a dig on bluegrass. I’m telling on myself now. Kinda affects me in the same way as Celtic music. Signing off. Have a good one.
captivated_dem on October 8, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Yup. I ain’t heerd Fred use that one yit.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »