Centerfire on December 9, 2007 at 7:33 AM

I think not. Hitlery doesn’t have a chance to beat ANY Republican nominee. I hope it’s Fred but anybody running would get my vote. Bill may be the most successful sexual predator ever but Hitlery is only his enabler.

I also said that Mitt was gonna have a real problem when those old videos of him supportin’ abortion and claimin’ NOT to be a Reagan conservative started showin’ up in TV ADS (not Youtube)- his trouble is just startin’.

I always hoped that Fred would be the one to get the ‘conservative’ vote, but I worry now that it’ll be Huck.
Ya’ll who read and write on polital blogs don’t get the REAL voters out there. Most of these folks Hate what’s happenin’ to the culture, they Hate bein told they’re bigots for not wantin’ 2 men to marry each other. They HATE the anti-american attitudes of Hollywood and the MSM.
The LOVE God,America,their families, and the military. They HATE illegal immigration.

WHATEVER candidate can make them feel that he is on their side in 60 seconds or less is gonna git the lions share of their votes.

Providin’ he ain’t wearin’ a dress.

As per campaign tempo, to demand the culmination at the beginning would be impetuously foolish.

Fred Thompson was warmly received from the onset.

The only discontented with Fred are those demanding flash gordon, as though flash would realistically fulfill ALL expectations.

Those citizens who recognize the benefit of conservative realism enjoy getting to know Fred Thompson. His strategy works in a campaign marathon:

Andante con moto; Allegro con fuoco; Presto Vivace !

Americans need a president who, once elected, can unite the nation without equivocation of a psychological social class caste system (to which Mitt adheres).

Fred’s campaign platform is exactly what the Republican Party represents.

There is genius in simplicity.

Don’t foolishly ignore what we have with Fred just because he won’t dress up in political drag to court an impetuous John’s vote.

What’s the big deal with civil unions? I can understand not wanting gay marriage, but extending the ban all the way to civil unions? That seems an acceptable compromise.

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 8:13 PM

Something to do with medical insurance and survivor’s benefits. Hate to say it, but the cost of life and medical insurance is partly covered by employers. And quite a few employers are either local, state, or federal government entities. And not all employees of government entities are hetero. So, a “civil union” could cause the taxpayer to subsidize the cost of medical care for some people who have a greater chance of contracting HIV/AIDS.

Sorry, on nothing more than financial reasons, I decline to support any form of “gay” marriage.

…was a distraction.

If I want that kind of conversation I’ll call my ex-wife.

jaime on December 7, 2007 at 5:26 PM

I can identify with that, too. Ouch!

Hotair should be promoting Thompson like CRAZY!

msipes on December 7, 2007 at 4:37 PM

Well, I think AP, Bryan, and MM are not in the business to promote anyone. They are running a blog/comment line. We commenters are free to promote our favourite candidate, but they have to maintain objectivity.

Great job, everyone.

Well, except for the trolls. I could live quiet happily without reading “scumbag lobbyist” ever again.

Geesh, this whole site is stretching to impugn Huckabee. Agenda driven drivel.

tizzidale on December 7, 2007 at 4:15 PM

Ok, how about this link:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/019217.php

Looks like the Huckster is the GOP’s Jimmah Cawter.

Heh, I missed you csd, I thought you got banhammered for that Jeri thread comment. How have you been?

BKennedy on December 7, 2007 at 8:26 PM

I don’t even remember that thread. I remember seeing all the gibots frothing and seething to the point of uncontrollable ranting.
I been doing great. I been visiting other sites and gracing them with my exceptional wisdom and insight into politics and how it works in the real world. As opposed to the Fred loons who live in lala land believing that Fred’s scummy past as a lobbyist for dictators and as a traitorous lawyer who worked for the flight 103 terrorists, is something the American people are gonna just say “Aw shucks!! He don’t mean nuttin’ by that.”. Lets make him president!

Bwahahahahaha!!!

Very plausible hypothetical match ups in Iowa primary given current quality of Iowan voters:

Jimmy Carter 39, John F. Kennedy 17.
Huey Long 39, FDR 17.
Benedict Arnold 39, Thomas Jefferson 17.

MB4 on December 7, 2007 at 9:09 PM

Hahahahahahaha Best post ever!

I swear all the Iowan Hucksters want is federal $$ and their Christian pater-familias.

Go Fred!

One more weak mealymouth who can’t grasp that, as a politico, you have to leave rapists in prison… because The Dukakis Effect will wring your aspirations like a chicken’s neck if you decide to play with it.

It’ll Willie your Horton.

Especially when said freed rapist rapes and kills on your “good faith” dime.

And mentioning how many times you signed death warrants ( boasted about on Sean Hannity’s radio show) won’t bring back that one victim who you enabled your freed criminal to rape and murder.

Huck is a schmuck.

No Nancy like huck, Mitt or McCain.

Big hairy MALKINS is what is needed.

Club for Growth is hammering home the anti-Huckster message. According to Allahpundit over at Hot Air, Club for Growth is spending $175,000 locally on ads in Iowa and South Carolina, and nationally on Fox News.

The ad is entitled, “United”…

I’m giving the bigots gibots a break from having to be confronted with their bigotry gibotry because I see them for the disgusting bigots gibots they are and am not afraid of telling them so until it sinks in.

csdeven on December 7, 2007 at 7:14 PM