I’m voting for Fred.

Huckabee is a policy nightmare, Fred is asleep. It’s Rudy, McCain, or hand the Dems the keys to the WH. TallDave on December 23, 2007 at 5:45 PM

You’re buying into the MSM narrative on Fred. They did the same to Reagan. Go to Fred’s site if you want to know what he’s doing till the primary in Iowa. He’s a busy boy. You’re just rehashing the narrative that you’ve been given.

Huckabee is a policy nightmare, Fred is asleep. It’s Rudy, McCain, or hand the Dems the keys to the WH.

I can imagine Fred Thompson doing what it takes to squash terrorists. Sean Connery’s line, “Just how far are you willing to go?” God knows that I would trust Thompson’s deliberate decision as my own against terrorists.

The only time Fred Thomspon awoke from his seemingly perpetual nap was to pimp out McCain-Feingold, his most notable success in the Senate. He let Clinton slide on impeachment too, guess he felt sympathetic to the womanizer.

I’m sure America’s enemies will be impressed by Fred’s ability to put strongly worded condemnations onto paper and then do nothing – pretty much was the UN does now, but only after a major terrorist attack hits a Euroweenie nation.

Lawyer, lobbyist, Senator, actor: All are big on talk and attract talkers. Fred’s a talker.

Only if you’re interested in voting for a candidate who saw fit to give legal advice to the attorneys representing the Lockerbie bombers.

Big S on December 23, 2007 at 8:24 AM

And who did Rudy give legal advice and lobby for?

Oh, that’s right- we don’t know because he refuses to disclose those things. But I’m sure his refusal to disclose in no way suggests he has something to hide…

Mr. Thompson has said he makes no apologies for his legal and lobbying work, emphasizing in one online essay that every person, no matter how unpopular, is entitled to representation and that lawyers’ work on behalf of a client is no indication of their own personal views. …during his eight years in the Senate, Mr. Thompson supported sanctions against Libya.–New York Times, Jo Becker, 9/9/07

Thompson need not REINVENT or fabricate his record. Thompson is recognized as a specialist in legal jurisdictions by the international community, a plus for our country’s president. Case in point, Thompson proved he is worth his salt in this battle against hysteria, terrorism and mob mentality. Thompson did his work honorably. His contribution to the legal process was not contrived or dishonorable as detractors would imply. Headlines don’t tell all. The Lockerbie question was where to hold court. Thompson’s participation was in providing legal clarity in choosing the proper location for trial, the Netherlands.

Thank you, Big S, for reminding me of that malarky. Having reviewed the record, I would indeed trust Fred as President to NOT SCREW THE OPERATION as occurs too frequently when politicians ignorantly appease the mob. Fred has the background experience dealing with terrorist legal issues to keep America in the right in accordance to our Constitution. If captive terrorists were infested with TB, fleas and lice, Fred has the gumption to take care of the problem legally and powerfully. The other candidates would screw the pooch under the gun.

Vote Fred!

Concord Monitor:
Romney’s main business experience is as a management consultant, a field in which smart, fast-moving specialists often advise corporations on how to reinvent themselves.

HOW TO REINVENT only qualifies one as a propagandist.

Having reinvented the wheel and packaging the market with plastic PC hardly qualifies a man as the savior of anything, let alone as the President of the United States.

Why make it easy for the terrorists to succeed against us?

Walk Tall
Vote Fred

maverick muse on December 23, 2007 at 7:47 AM

Only if you’re interested in voting for a candidate who saw fit to give legal advice to the attorneys representing the Lockerbie bombers.

the radical Islamic perception of either Romney or of Huckabee as the President of the United States–too flamboyant in the self-righteous category for the good of American diplomacy.–maverick muse on December 22, 2007 at 7:05 PM

You mean the terrorists won’t be terrified of his l33t focus group derived five point plan Powerpoint presentation skilz? Imagine that.–Hollowpoint on December 22, 2007 at 7:11 PM

I can imagine Fred Thompson doing what it takes to squash terrorists. Sean Connery’s line, “Just how far are you willing to go?” God knows that I would trust Thompson’s deliberate decision as my own against terrorists.

Whereas, why would I trust a mask parading as a savior, particularly a fabricated mask? A gas mask of doom and gloom looms over the Romney/Huckabee tickets. What we need they have not to give. They appeal to the faint at heart in America as we ALL convene under the tent hearing their promises polished with snake oil.

Why make it easy for the terrorists to succeed against us?

Walk Tall
Vote Fred

Dirty Harry

MAKE MY DAY!

Mitt played savior to the SLC Olympics.

I am unclear as to what that means in record other than a publicity stunt created by the SLC powers that be to launch his proof pudding career. I do recall reading contemporary flashes of financial scandals in Utah. After the fact, suddenly Mitt was the savior, not just a hero, not just Hercules, but the man who saved the Olympics. Maybe. Maybe not. That would depend on what “saved” means. At least Mitt was there.

Gianni on December 22, 2007 at 11:07 PM

Thanks Gianni. I knew someone would get it.
Oh, and I’m 43.

Go Fred!

Do you feel lucky? Well… do ya, punk!

I take it from your verbiage that you are .. oh…. 16 years old?

sanantonian on December 22, 2007 at 7:42 PM

You do know thats a Clint Eastwood quote right?

I was seriously waiting for the Monty Python foot from God to come down and do some squashing. I’m really quite disappointed I actually watched that all the way through.

Do you feel lucky? Well… do ya, punk!

I take it from your verbiage that you are .. oh…. 16 years old?

the radical Islamic perception of either Romney or of Huckabee as the President of the United States–too flamboyant in the self-righteous category for the good of American diplomacy.
maverick muse on December 22, 2007 at 7:05 PM

You mean the terrorists won’t be terrified of his l33t focus group derived five point plan Powerpoint presentation skilz? Imagine that.

Only if those polls represent likely voters.
BKennedy on December 22, 2007 at 6:36 PM

It represents voters, not the general population.

the radical Islamic perception of either Romney or of Huckabee as the President of the United States–too flamboyant in the self-righteous category for the good of American diplomacy.

Spare us the additional baggage inflaming the holy war syndrome, as though things aren’t difficult enough as they are. Why throw oil on that insane wild fire?

Besides the divisive affect on our nation from candidates Romney and Huckabee, the war on terror will suffer with a religiosity overdose should either be elected; all hell breaks loose with more fervancy than ever.

Our President must not have the reputation of believing self manufactured blatant lies. There is no righeousness in that, only weakness and heavy ridicule.

America would suffer from a President claiming the Kingdom of God on the face of the earth, providing terrorists further sense of outrage.

How can electing an ultra-spiritual-dishonest candidate actually benefit a voter or our country?

Walk Tall
Vote Fred

As it stands now with a 43% to 44% matchup, either one could have, say, 52% who definitely won’t vote for them, implying that they couldn’t win the election since the most they could get is 48%- typically not enough to win.

Hollowpoint on December 22, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Only if those polls represent likely voters. I’m sure 2% of people would never vote for Barack because they’re white supremacists (100% showing among Ron Paul, too.), but it doesn’t matter if none of them vote.

While we’re all bickering about…
Professor Blather on December 22, 2007 at 5:31 PM

Heh. Don’t include me in the ‘we all’. I’m perfectly ready to concede all the candidates have problems.

Hollowpoint on December 22, 2007 at 6:18 PM

I understand your point and it’s obviously better to have lower numbers of those who say they will definitely not vote for you, but part of what you’re doing is comparing apples and oranges. If all Republican candidates were ranked the same, Romney would be in a bad position. That isn’t the case though. Depending on the poll that you look at Romney is nationally either #1, #2, or #3. Most of the negativity stats go out the window once the nominations are decided upon. I would rather go into the general with a candidate who now has high negativity numbers, but could run a strong national campaign, could pull all types of conservative, etc. than one who has a lower negativity rating, but isn’t as good a candidate (in a tactical sense).