Fred reaches fundraising target for new ad? Update: Fred appeals to Fredheads to keep donating
posted at 1:19 pm on December 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
According to the campaign site, with less than five hours to go they’re still $65,000 short. No matter, says Politico — somehow they came up with the balance and will be on the air tomorrow in major cities across Iowa. Can the dream of third place at last be within reach? Don’t stop believing, my friends.
Update: Lame. Everyone knew what Huckabee meant, including the people pretending they didn’t.
Questioning Huckabee’s response to the death of Benazir Bhutto, Thompson, R-Tenn., told a Pella, Iowa, crowd, “I am not sure what Governor Huckabee meant when he said we needed to apologize for this assassination. I am more concerned about people around the world would think when they see a presidential candidate was apologizing for assassination of the former Prime Minister Bhutto.”
Update: Team Fred sends along this video and asks for redoubled efforts to reach the $250K target so that the new ad can run until the caucuses.
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 4 [5] 6 »
HAH, heh. YES! You are correct, sir!
MadisonConservative on December 28, 2007 at 8:09 PM
I wish I had said that.
TheSitRep on December 28, 2007 at 8:10 PM
How zat?
sonnyspats1 on December 28, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Yeah Ellen!
sonnyspats1 on December 28, 2007 at 8:23 PM
My neighbor seems to be impressed with me trying to sell his truck for Fred.
I have pretty lights in my driveway. Better go answer that knocking on the door.
wccawa on December 28, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Awesome job getting your 250K for Iowa to run one fairly lame ad.
Question Fred: How many more miracle fundraisers are you planning on hosting to pimp out each individual ad? You shaved it real close. Mwanwhile Ron Paul is laughing at you from his blimp.
BKennedy on December 28, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Picture a couch, quiet/simple atmosphere, after the primaries are over, and I’m the psychologist. The clients:
tommylotto, if Rudy’s not the man
csdeven, if Fred is the man
rightwingsparkle - if McCa
in isn’t the manBKennedy, Buy Danish and Hugh Hewitt, if Mitt’s not it
Bill Clinton if Hillary is/isn’t the woman
Michelle Obama, if it’s not “this time”
Edwards in any event
Ron Paul - therapy may start now
Huckabee - same as Ron Paul
Many others on HA’s right if Huckabee is the man (self included - one of you can play psychiatrist)
AP - if any of the rightie nominees is the man
The media if Ron Paul/Huckabee is not the man on the right
The media if Hillary is the woman on the right
Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 9:13 PM
I want a blimp. (pout)
wccawa on December 28, 2007 at 9:13 PM
You know here is whats funny. All of these people like csdeven and BKennedy love to bash Fred. Isnt it funny that they never say who THEY support? Its always “Oh I havent made up my mind yet”. Thats BS. The fact is they dont want to say who they are for because we will change the narrative of the thread and thats not what they want.
But Ill keep checking in here to see when its more civil.
broker1 on December 28, 2007 at 9:14 PM
broker1, you must have missed it. CS has been put on notice by Bryan. Civility is an order.
tickleddragon on December 28, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Actually BKennedy is for Mitt, tommylotto is for Rudy, and csdevin has said he likes Mitt, but he will support whoever gets the nom, even Fred. I can’t remember for sure, but I believe his state is one of the late ones that usually doesn’t matter.
Gianni on December 28, 2007 at 9:22 PM
broker1, if you haven’t figured out that Mitt is BKennedy’s man, then this blog is not called HotAir. csdeven has claimed repeatedly to vote for whoever the nominee will be, but seems to be for Mitt, and a few others, so long as they’re not Fred. He’ll vote for Fred too, if it comes down to that, which it doesn’t look like, at least not yet.
csdeven, seriously, don’t pout. I believe that HA’s owner/editors have extended you more lives than a cat possesses. Take this bonhomie to heart and post your comments, whatever they may be, without calling others names, including the candidates.
Make your points once, and don’t repeat the same drivel. We know how to read, or how to ignore you. I say this because I do want you around, in spite of the fact that often you’ve tested many of us. Bonhomie, I repeat - internalize it! And don’t listen to your so-called buddies here who’re not going to be there when it matters. See you in San Diego.
P.S. I still think you’re a dude, and if you’re not I don’t care.
Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 9:23 PM
A GPS guided nuclear powered stealth blimp yacht would be pretty cool. I’d stock up on supplies and live on it full time.
FloatingRock on December 28, 2007 at 9:27 PM
BTW if anyone is watching Dateline, they are having an undercover show on people selling passports throughout the world on the blackmarket. REAL government issues passports. Im from Spain and it seems I have people in my government on the take. Im ashamed.
broker1 on December 28, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Allow me to edit my last post. Its not MY governement. Its the government of which I was born under.
broker1 on December 28, 2007 at 9:34 PM
If Mitt Romney were president and I had a blimp yacht, I would probably spend most of my time anchored twelve miles off shore to prevent him from confiscating my books and videogames.
FloatingRock on December 28, 2007 at 9:44 PM
Just what are the main platforms that most of the bloggers here want from our leaders? I have a few and I won’t stray far from them if they get compromised
Immigration,WOT, Pro-Life, Fiscal disipline.
bones47 on December 28, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Indeed. And with a son serving in Iraq if I’m not mistaken.
JiangxiDad on December 28, 2007 at 9:50 PM
If Rudy were President and I had my stealth blimp yacht, I would probably spend my free time running guns up from Mexico. And in the event of a Huckabee Presidency, I would smuggle cigarettes and alcohol. In either case there wouldn’t be much profit smuggling people across the border when they can just walk across for free. However, if McCain is president I might start the world’s largest airline to ferry people into the USA from all over the world. Blimps just wouldn’t be fast enough.
FloatingRock on December 28, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Not good enough. He’ll send an armada around to confiscate your adult beverages.
RushBaby on December 28, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Never mind. I see you have thought of everything!
RushBaby on December 28, 2007 at 9:57 PM
SECOND LOOK AT STEALTH BLIMP YACHTS!!!!1!11!!!!!2!!!
wccawa on December 28, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Freedom, liberty and the American way, which was won at the cost of blood and treasure by men with firearms, is my first priority, for which the 2nd amendment is essential for ensuring it’s continuation and renewal. That would be 1a.
Law and order to serve the common good while not infringing on our rights or our ability to pursue our own happiness is an essential component of the American way. I’ll call this 1b.
Preservation of America requires that we protect both our national sovereignty and our interests abroad by projecting overwhelming force when necessary. The best defense is a good offense. That would be number 1c.
Everything else is 2 or lower. I think I can pretty much vote for any candidate of any party or religious affiliation as long as they are strong on point 1. I may be picky, but I think for good reason. :)
FloatingRock on December 28, 2007 at 10:26 PM
I’d be on the FBI’s most wanted list, or my blimp would be anyway. Good thing it’ll be stealth so they can’t track me with radar.
If I am on the FBI list, I hope they’ll use the picture with me hanging out the cockpit window of my blimp flipping them the bird.
FloatingRock on December 28, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Good ole Fred
sonnyspats1 on December 28, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Bryan, do you mean I can’t do this…..
I just want to make sure what is and isn’t allowed on HA.
csdeven on December 28, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Dude, notice how I stopped even though you kept going.
Take a lesson from that.
MadisonConservative on December 28, 2007 at 11:23 PM
I don’t pout about anything. Bryan’s the boss and if I want to comment here, I have to follow his rules. It’d be nice to know where the line is though, even if it only applies to me as the post above suggests.
Fred deserves serious flack for his history. Others think he deserves serious praise for it. I see Fred as the most dangerous candidate because of his history as a lawyer who supported terrorism and a lobbyist that lobbied for a dictator. (among other things)
Here is why……yesterday in Ann Arbor, a clerk (who was on break) from a grocery store followed a shoplifter across the street to detain him until the police arrived. The guy fled and the clerk grabbed him by the shoulders. The manager ordered the clerk to release him and the guy got away (the $300 worth of merchandise was recovered). The clerk was fired the next day. The Ann Arbor police have no problem with what this guy did. When asked if he would do it all over again the same way the clerk responded that he would even though it cost him his job.
Now, being a regular old American, does anyone REALLY think that the American voting public is going to vote for a guy who gave legal advice to terrorists and lobbied for a dictator? Especially when the guy says all that belonged in his personal life? We would rather lose our jobs than let a shoplifter go free and we certainly would never support terrorists or dictators even if it cost us our jobs. That is how regular Americans feel. If you doubt it, just google the most despised professions. Lawyers are near the top, very close to senators.
If Fred wins the nomination, he will lose in a landslide because Hillary can say that whatever her failings are, she never gave legal advice to terrorists nor did she lobby for a dictator.
csdeven on December 28, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Considering the methods and tactics you’ve employed in the Fred threads here at Hot Air over the course of the past several months I though you’d wear my remark as a badge of pride, CSD. I’m hurt and feel rejected that you aren’t.
But that’s all I’ll say about that. I’m not about to start feeding the troll again because it goes right through their system just like a goose.
If you want to be treated with respect, CSD, you should behave respectfully toward others.
FloatingRock on December 28, 2007 at 11:38 PM
God, I love you. Hold me.
With all due respect (which ain’t much, and I promise this will be the last time I waste finger movement responding, barring some actual contribution from you), and even if I pretend you aren’t simply a troll (which you unmistakably are) and even if I pretend you aren’t a rather obvious teenager (which you are) … even if I set all of the above aside, one obvious question remains:
Do you or do you not realize that you have unquestionably gained Fred Thompson votes by your behavior here? That your behavior (and those like you here) has unquestionably cost Mitt Romney votes?
I’m just curious. If you’re just an adolescent troll having fun, obviously you don’t care - or you’ve actually accomplished your mission. Well done. And I say that sincerely. If you wanted to make Mitt look bad - or help Fred! - you’ve succeeded. You (with a handful of others) have almost single-handedly pushed me away from Romney and towards a vote for Fred.
On the other hand, on the very unlikely chance that you are an adult, or that you’re remotely sincere and serious in anything you’ve ever said here - you might want to rethink your tactics.
Michael Moore re-elected George W. Bush. Which I personally appreciated. You might want to ponder that lesson before you return to the all-Fred-hate all-the-time 24/7 stupidity for which you’re now (in)famous.
If you don’t think a handful of votes can matter, you haven’t paid attention to recent history.
Professor Blather on December 28, 2007 at 11:53 PM
csdeven - I have no problem you putting your arguments forth as to why you dont think someone should be elected, no sweat. If you feel 3.5 hours of lawyer work makes a candidate unable to lead, fantastic. I dont. Obviously you feel that if he gets in office that he is going to staff his cabinet with Al Queda.
The problem that, at least I have had, is that you make these arguments in every thread every ten minutes along expletives demeaning those of us that do not agree with you. I am here for civil debate, nothing more. Would enjoy you hanging around and debating. Not browbeating and insulting those of us that dont think that what you think are big issues are not for us.
broker1 on December 28, 2007 at 11:53 PM
News2Use on December 29, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Fred Thompson, if he wanted to help terrorists, has had plenty of opportunities. He could be down at Gitmo, passing out underwear.
.
Fred Thompson, if he wanted to help to help the pro-choice folks, has has plenty of opportunities to do so, and delclined.
.
Fred Thompson can marry any friggin woman he wants to, trophy, smart, or not.
.
Fred Thompson, if he wanted to move campaign funds to his children could do so. If this is illegal, the MSM and his enemies would be all over it.
.
Fred Thompson, if he was lazy, would be selling used cars in Tennesee, or if really bad, would be a journalist.
.
Fred Thompson, if he was “an actor” would certainly be doing a better job in the debates and in interviews, content not withstanding.
.
Fred Thompson, if he really wanted to, could have started his campaign earlier. He didn’t. Get over it. If you know what date George Bush or Bill Clinton started their candidacy, you need to get a life.
.
Fred Thompson talks and acts the way an American raised in Tennesee should talk and act.
AZCON on December 29, 2007 at 12:02 AM
No, son. She just participated in roughly two dozen serious scandals (including at least one possible murder), was just named the single most unethical politician in the United States, and has perhaps the highest base negatives of any politician in American history.
Oh and here’s a newsflash, kid: she’s both a lawyer and a senator. Oops.
Bryan, if you read this: the kid is a troll. Without doubt. Probably a ‘concern troll’ intentionally trying to smear us all; at best a garden variety troll. It is patently obvious.
Keep him or ban him as you see fit, but don’t mistake what he is. He has no interest in conservative politics other than causing damage. The argument above is so intellectually dishonest its not worth addressing. The kid is either a shill for Fred himself, a shill for Hillary, or just here to turn honest debate into mockery.
I don’t care what you do with him - but spare us all the insult to our intelligence of taking him seriously.
If you want to keep him for comic relief, great. But let’s remember what he is.
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 12:04 AM
And real quick on Fred/terrorist thing. He did not work for the terrorists, he gave advice on where the case should be tried TO THE LAWYER WHO WAS ACTUALLY REPRESENTING THEM.
Also, John Adams represented the British responsible for the Boston Massacre - and he did so on principle. Oh and he went on to become the second president of the USA.
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Dear God, man… don’t you see the slack everyone here is cutting for you? Don’t you see how dozens are literally covering your ass in the hope you see the light? Don’t you see how damn near everyone here is hoping you get a small spark of awareness to light up your ass and SMELL THE COFFEE?
Pardon my French.
Dude, Fred isn’t your life. Fred isn’t MY life, either. Whatever happens in the next year, happens. Period.
But… how you conduct yourself among your peers IS your life. It certainly plays a large part in mine.
So, please. Chill.
And no, I am not your enemy. Just chill.
wccawa on December 29, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Can you imagine if we condemned every lawyer for every sin of every client? Really - try to imagine it. It’s an astoundingly stupid exercise.
If that was the standard, no lawyer would ever be elected to any office. Ever. And that would include a great many of our past Presidents, good and bad.
Enough with all that reason and logic. Tell me some blimp stories.
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 12:13 AM
It seems to me that you’re the one on probation, CSDeven, not I, but I’ll make you a deal: If you’ll abide by the terms of Bryans warning, I’ll refrain from similar remarks in the future, with the caveat that “CSDeven” is now synonymous with “unhinged-troll” and is a term which describes a phenomenon that others including myself may occasionally refer to in the proper context. However, I’ll keep my remarks tasteful if you will from now on.
FloatingRock on December 29, 2007 at 12:16 AM
The advice is nice, but you guys aren’t Bryan. Why you feel the need to fog this up is beyond me. I asked a simple question because of how he worded his warning. If he is saying that there is a separate set of rules for me then that is fine. Does he want me at a disadvantage in discussions? Who knows. That is why I asked the question.
IE: When a member at HA calls me a pile of human excrement, can I respond in kind? I don’t know. Do you? Wouldn’t it be nice to know? Unless you have the answer, all the advice from others is meaningless.
I didn’t say it would make Fred unable to lead. First, his behavior disgust me. Second, I know how regular Americans will feel about his actions as a lobbyist and lawyer. They will not accept it and I have yet to hear a rational argument that would lead me to believe that the American public wont react viscerally to the fact that he is linked to those efforts. And he has admitted as much. I mean I’m standing here waiting for the counter argument because I have the next one ready to go. It seems as if I harp the same point because I can’t get anyone to rationally explain why the American public will vote for the guy once his actions are exposed to them. It’s dead silence. So, the comments remain the same until someone takes up his defense and I can move forward.
If someone were to say that there is no defense and Americans will react negatively, then that is at least an answer and we can debate that point. Usually the response is that they will not react negatively because they think so. Well, that isn’t a rational argument. It’s very easy to test this out. Just go to people you know who are not political junkies, but are going to vote in the general. Explain to them how Fred was involved with terrorists and a dictator, and funneled campaign cash to his son, and see how they react. And don’t ask them the way you would explain it, ask them the way Hillary would. THAT is the way they will hear it. And what will Fred’s response be? Well, he can’t change it now, so he will say what he has always said. It’s his personal life and it shouldn’t matter. Believe me, because I have tested this many times, the look of disgust on their faces is almost universal. And when I try to use Fred’s explanations to make them feel at ease, it doesn’t work and they say stuff like “Typical lawyer BS!, Screw him”.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 12:21 AM
Excellent historic example!
FloatingRock on December 29, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Hmmm… did I tell you the one about when Steve Perry, a blimp and Mitt’s hair walked into a bar?
wccawa on December 29, 2007 at 12:27 AM
So what? You missed the point. The point is that just because SOMEONE thinks it’s an acceptable response, most Americans do not. Americans want to stand up for a higher set of values. Values like quitting a job before helping terrorists for one single second much less 3 hours. The same is true for dictators. And funneling campaign cash to family.
The guy was within his legal rights as a citizen to make the citizens arrest. Does he have to sell out his values because his company says so? Did Fred have to sell out values because of his boss? Well, the regular American citizen chose values over money. Fred chose money over values. America doesn’t value that type of value system. Especially in a candidate.
I’m sure Clinton said his sexual escapades in the oval office were his personal life also. But apparently, Americans didn’t buy his argument.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Dude, I tried. I really did. I don’t think you can. Best of luck to you.
wccawa on December 29, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Fred Thompson, if he wanted to help terrorists, has had plenty of opportunities. He could be down at Gitmo, passing out underwear.
.
Fred Thompson, if he wanted to help to help the pro-choice folks, has has plenty of opportunities to do so, and delclined.
.
Fred Thompson can marry any friggin woman he wants to, trophy, smart, or not.
.
Fred Thompson, if he wanted to move campaign funds to his children could do so. If this is illegal, the MSM and his enemies would be all over it.
.
Fred Thompson, if he was lazy, would be selling used cars in Tennesee, or if really bad, would be a journalist.
.
Fred Thompson, if he was “an actor” would certainly be doing a better job in the debates and in interviews, content not withstanding.
.
Fred Thompson, if he really wanted to, could have started his campaign earlier. He didn’t. Get over it. If you know what date George Bush or Bill Clinton started their candidacy, you need to get a life.
.
Fred Thompson talks and acts the way an American raised in Tennesee should talk and act.
AZCON on December 29, 2007 at 12:02 AM
AZCON on December 29, 2007 at 12:32 AM
Thats fine, I have no problem with your argument except for one thing. The way that you would approach asking people those questions. If you would approach people and tell them only that then yes they would be sick to their stomach. But if you would approach someone and tell them that Fred stands for this and that and this and that and they say “He sounds like my kind of candidate, strong conservative on all the issues.” AND THEN I throw in “He also gave some advice to the attorney representing the Lybian terrorists as a matter of course.” Sounds a little different doesnt it?
Its just like when the MSM have a poll saying that 75% of Americans troops want to come home. But they dont ask “Do you want to come home BEFORE victory”
And I have already given a counter argument in my post above.
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Prove those claims. They have been around for years and nothing has come of it. Compared to her deniability and Fred’s admission, Fred loses.
Base negatives mean nothing when Americans have to choose between her and a lawyer that gave advice to terrorists and dictators. Conservatives will simple stay home. With all the rhetoric around here that people will stay home rather than vote for Rudy, it is absolutely certain that they will not vote for Fred.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 12:36 AM
Really? Wow I didnt know you had done a study on this or ran a few nationwide polls. Again, you are equating YOUR beliefs to the masses.
When faced all of the candidates. I will take the following:
Strong on border enforcement
Strong on Terrorism
Understands the enemy
Lower taxes
and more
vs.
He gave a few hours of billable hours to the attorney representing a couple of terrorists on where their trial should be held. Not on strategy on how to go free.
I will take this candidate anyday if no other holds my conservative values.
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 12:38 AM
You missed part of my comment. Hillary will not sing Fred’s praises. And Fred wont bring it up first. So the first exposure to Fred’s involvement will be from Hillary and her MSM lapdogs. Fred will be left to be on defense with typical lawyer rhetoric.
So no you should not talk about Fred’s positions first. To test the theory you must present it to them as Hillary would and then try to defend it as Fred would because that is how it will play out.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 12:40 AM
I’ve read plenty of comments here at Hot Air and people generally treat each other respectfully regardless of differing opinions, CSDeven. There will probably be a period of adjustment for you during which you may suffer some few small indignities and have to turn the other cheek, but eventually people will adjust to the kinder, gentler CSDeven and you’ll find you’ll be treated with as much respect as anybody else here, assuming you’ve earned it.
You have nobody to blame but yourself; so don’t expect much sympathy from anybody but genuinely kindhearted people like RushBaby and Entelechy, to name a few.
FloatingRock on December 29, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Ok point taken but how about this. If Hillary wants bring up dirt, holy crap she will lose. Not just of herself but she has tied herself to Bills presidency and its not pretty.
Fred can go into:
Her cattle futures again
Castle grande real estate scam
Whitewater
Her worshipping at the alter of Saul Alinsky
Vince Fosters death
Last but not least this SHORT list about the clinton legacy:
Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates.
▪ Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation.
▪ Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify.
▪ Most number of witnesses to die suddenly.
▪ First president sued for sexual harassment.
▪ First president accused of rape.
▪ First president to be held in contempt of court.
▪ First president to be impeached for personal malfeasance.
▪ First first lady to come under criminal investigation.
▪ Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign-contribution case.
▪ Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions.
All Fred has to do is say “Do the American People REALLY want 4 more years of THIS??”
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 12:50 AM
Yeesh! How did this thread ever get so far off topic?
Oh, right…
flipflop on December 29, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Our comments passed, but my response is here…..
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 12:59 AM
That is a great list. But it’s been around for years and nothing sticks to her. With the MSM on her side and against Fred, I see conservatives staying home out of principle. Liberals will vote because they have no principles.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 1:02 AM
My dear sweet friend FloatingRock, thank you for singling me out along with Entelechy.
It’s not my place to stand between friends with my arms outstretched, preventing you from each others’ throats. Nor is it my place to coax opponents into friendship.
And yet, I would beseech you to consider csdeven’s post at 12:40 am…for the reason of it. In seven concise sentences, he explains why he does what he does. What he does is a gift; he holds a mirror up to us and forces us to examine what we believe, warts, wrinkles, and all.
If you’re true to Fred, his comments are but water off a duck’s feathers. CSDeven’s challenge is to confront you! To root out any doubts you have, and face them honestly!
RushBaby on December 29, 2007 at 1:02 AM
Ok, that’s it for tonight. I’ve got laundry and a kitchen to clean in the AM.
Thanks for the explanation Rushbaby. You’re dead on.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 1:06 AM
And you know what, you could be right. I am thinking the evangelicals will stay home if Huck doesnt make it no matter who the candidate is. The MSM wont be able to avoid it all though, especially one of her main campaign contributers in 2000 as her nemesis right now.
Bear Witness to the:
Hillary Clinton Accountability Project
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Lets not stop there
. Fired all but three US attorneys immediately upon entering office to avoid prosecution.
. Pardoned nurmourous criminals immediately before leaving office some of which are now Hillary’s biggest contributors.
. Bill appointed both Albright and Reno at the behest of Hillary
.Both the CIA, Pentagon and Judiciary are still riddled with misinforming,information leaking bench rulling Clintonistas
sonnyspats1 on December 29, 2007 at 1:10 AM
Compliment intended.
But the rest of your comment, the part about CSDeven…. /shakes head
FloatingRock on December 29, 2007 at 1:14 AM
No it is not. We have discussed this before. A lawyer defending his client in our justice system is not sullied by the acts of his client, regardless how abhorrent. However, that was not what Fred was doing for the Libyan terrorists. The advice that he gave was in connection with the effort to fight extradition so that the terrorist would never be tried or would only be tried in Libya. Fred was not defending the terrorist on the merits in our justice system (which would be forgivable) but was fighting to keep the terrorist from ever facing any legitimate justice system (which is not forgivable).
Anyway, you guys are taking this way too seriously. This is Fred you are talking about. I have as much chance of getting the GOP nomination — and I’m not even a party member!!! Fred’s candidacy has turned comical. Let’s all just enjoy the laughs.
P.S. Ted Kennedy’s wife had the ethical standard necessary to quit her job at a law firm rather than be associated with a firm giving advice to the same terrorists Fred worked for. Am I telling you, Mrs. Ted Kennedy has higher ethics than Fred? Yep.
tommylotto on December 29, 2007 at 1:17 AM
Oh geez here we go again. Just when csdeven and I were having a logical, civil conversation someone else comes in and lays a deuce in the punch. Ok Im going to bed but I will leave you with this. This is a perfect illustration of someone that will never vote for Fred and thinks that those that do are stupid. When they see a pro-Fred post this is how they react at their KB.
Remove all hot liquids from lips
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 1:26 AM
csdeven is a friend. You can take that to the bank.
His copycats,
not so muchnot even close.RushBaby on December 29, 2007 at 1:30 AM
csdeven is right. I gave you thoughtful analysis and explained why Fred’s advice to terrorists was different from Adams defense of British soldiers involved in the Boston massacre. I even cited an example in Ms. Kennedy on how an ethical person in public life would have and should have reacted when told who their firm intended to represent. Your response:
You compare my post to a dump in a punch bowl and compare me to the crazy German kid on you tube getting mad at his video game.
Try substance. I may provide substance with an edge, but there is always substance.
tommylotto on December 29, 2007 at 1:35 AM
Tommylotto, while it’s obviously important to protect our interests overseas, would you agree that it’s pointless to do so if in the process we destroy ourselves here at home?
FloatingRock on December 29, 2007 at 1:46 AM
What’s your point, Socrates?
tommylotto on December 29, 2007 at 1:55 AM
,
Daily KOS even has blog etiquette advice for the commenting impaired. Plays well with others-F
sonnyspats1 on December 29, 2007 at 1:59 AM
FR.
Don’t sniff the lump in the punchbowl. Let’s talk another day.
RushBaby on December 29, 2007 at 2:00 AM
If our side had a President from the opposing party, I reckon our blogs would have to issue some kind of blog etiquette advice, too. Differences are:
1) ours would be in plain, *unpadded* English.
2) lacking in blanket accusations against “those who disagree”.
RushBaby on December 29, 2007 at 2:07 AM
I have been reading the persistant rants posted here in the Fred threads. What I have been reading and being passed off as exchanges in a debate have escalated to the rabid rantings of a foaming at the mouth madman. The reason for the KOS post is not to compare but to contrast. If even kook fringe leftys have the sense not to eat their own what does that say for us who are putting up with said rants. What I have been reading here is being posted by a disturbed individual. It is obvious from the repetitious critiques that these are not for the purpose of debating commentors but for the purpose of influencing the hundreds of readers of the HA blog. People who either just scan read for information or who are looking for valid information are taking these rants as fact when they are far from it. This is not good for HA or blogs in general. This new medium is all we have as an unadulterated source of factual news. Its an alternative to the propaganda put out there by the MSM. To have some batshit crazy bedbuggin nut case come on here and drive wedges is unacceptable.
sonnyspats1 on December 29, 2007 at 2:59 AM
Not a Party member? This actually explains quite a bit. There’s might be three or four HotAir readers who actually believe you’re not here because you actually fear Fred. It’s not fooling anyone but the fools. What’s so comical is that there’s pretty much nothing negative that you can lay on Fred that your own candidate doesn’t have beat by a mile. You’re doing everything you can to prevent Fred from getting the nomination, not because you think he can’t win, but because you know he CAN.
You’re nothing but a tool, and most likely a PAID tool at that. Is this your only job?
Obviously. That’s why you’re here spending so much time and effort attempting to prevent him from winning. Because he can’t win. Riiiiiiiiight.
Gregor on December 29, 2007 at 3:31 AM
Why do some people like to own pitbulls?
Connie on December 29, 2007 at 3:33 AM
It is a condition known in medical terms as Micropenis
TheSitRep on December 29, 2007 at 5:48 AM
We can only hope that Bill and Hillary are finally held accountable for their actions.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 9:11 AM
Fred spent 3.3 hours advising on international law, and certainly did not fight “to keep the terrorist from ever facing any legitimate justice system”, a yellow journalist fabricated spin.
If the POTUS with conservative convictions actually knew domestic AND international law, he’d be better prepared to execute the law and direct foreign affairs without muddling out idiotic apologies for an international assassination or limiting himself to the talk without the walk, or to the vanity mirror of plastic obsession with hyped popularity.
maverick muse on December 29, 2007 at 9:15 AM
csdeven- we both know what you do and why. YOU are a master at the art of changing the topic from FDT to CSDEVEN. It is remarkable how you can hijack EVERY Fred thread. I am really in awe. Although most of the grownups have recognized that to accomplish your goal you must get ever more outrageous in order to get somone to fall for it and respond to you.
Your track record is astounding. I bet 85% minimum of the serious Fred threads are destroyed by you! Single-handedly!
Whatever the Mitt-en pay you- IT IS NOT ENOUGH! Dude- you mmanage to stop any serious discussion of FDT cold.
Amazing!
I usually only stick in the threads until you show up- but I do check back when they’ve gone cold. YOU ARE THE MASTER at destroying a thread. HotAir is young- they’ll wise up eventually- but until then- you are gettin’ your job done. And my hat’s off to ya.
*I still don’t think yer guy’s gonna get the nod. But dang, ya’ll are GREAT at shuttin’ down Fred.
Ex-tex on December 29, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Morning Csdeven, that timestamp is waaaaay too creepy.
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Just to let everyone know csdeven and I have been having civil and logical discussion.
Anyway, good morning everyone.
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 9:42 AM
And the reason their lawyer wanted the advice was to avoid the possibility of his clients being tried in an impartial court in Scotland or the US etc. So Fred spent 3 hours helping them to that end. I wouldn’t spend one single second helping terrorists in any way, shape, or form. Most Americans wouldn’t either and that is why Fred will never become the president even if he gets nominated. I see it as my responsibility to myself to continue to examine all the candidates in order to vet them before Hillary gets a chance to in the general election. Certainly any dirt we have found will have been found by Hillary. And I’m sure they have dirt on all the candidates just waiting to pull an October Surprise. Example…..Fred spent many, many years “dating” in the Washington DC area. He was known as a sort of playboy. Well, you don’t get that kind of rep by taking girls to the ice cream parlor and then dropping them off at home with a handshake at the door. We all understand the ramifications of that type of lifestyle. Does Fred have a angry ex-girlfriend just waiting for the opportune time to tell the country she has Fred’s love child? Or maybe she had an abortion that Fred paid for? Even if Americans could be convinced that Fred’s work for terrorists was A-OK (Yeah, right), Fred’s history is still rife will these kinds of potential pitfalls that would absolutely guarantee a dem win in 08.
Fred’s conservative rhetoric isn’t the only thing I look at. I examine his personal life to see if he actually LIVES conservative principles. So far, with the issues of terrorism, dictators, campaign finance/nepotism, abortion, etc, I find Fred seriously lacking as the standard bearer for conservatism.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 9:42 AM
If I was the master at that, believe me, I’d use that power to collect money and not insults.
But, it’s a moot point now isn’t it? So lets drop it and try to honor Bryan’s wishes.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 9:48 AM
You know how hotels don’t have 13th floor? Maybe we should do the same with 9:11? Lets replace it with an icon of an American flag.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 9:49 AM
My bet is- you collect plenty.
Ex-tex on December 29, 2007 at 9:51 AM
Absolutely, well done.
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 9:53 AM
Hey csdeven, on a serious note. Does it give you pause that Giuliani signed a security contract with Qatar? With the prime minister Abdullah bin Khalid al-Thani? Who is:
former minister of Islamic affairs and a strict Wahhabi Muslim who has been identified in U.S. press and government reports as a protector of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Reportedly hosted Bin Laden on his farm on 2 occasions
Is listed as defendant in Federal Lawsuits by survivors of families against officials related directly or inderectly with 911?
CIA officer Robert Baer accused him of helping KSM escape right before he was captured in 1996
State department report on terrorism released several months earlier listed criticized Qatar for coddling interntional terrorists
Theres more…
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Liking the fairer sex does not preclude one from being conservative. It is how a man treats women that is telling.
Compare what FDT’s ex-girlfrinds say with Ol’ trailor trash Bill C’s.
Ben Franklin vs. Marquis de Sade
TheSitRep on December 29, 2007 at 10:01 AM
And just to add….I find ALL our candidates lacking in conservative living. McCain and Rudy cheated on their wives. (Rudy cheated right?) Huck has obviously done some serious religion bashing from the pulpit. I’ve been waiting for some shady business deal to come out about Mitt, but so far the guy looks so perfect he looks made up. But I don’t see that as a negative. That leaves Hunter and RP. Well, their personal behavior seems pretty normal, but Hunter isn’t gonna make it and I cannot turn this countries foreign policy over to RP.
So, I am in the same boat as many of you. All the candidates suck in one way or the other and I am left with tolerating their smell, even if I’m not actually holding my nose. The only criteria left for me is supreme court justices. Which candidate will nominate strict constructionist justices and will fight tooth and nail to make sure they are confirmed by a hostile congress?
Rudy? Yes and I don’t know
Mitt? Yes and I don’t know
McCain? I hope and I don’t know
Hunter? Yes and yes
Huck? Yes and I don’t know
Paul? I don’t know and yes
Fred? I don’t know and yes
The reason I’m not sure about RP and Fred is because RP ’s vision of foreign policy might color his view of what a constructionist justice is. And Fred is a little too comfortable with the typical lawyer outlook to trust his view of what a constructionist justice is.
With Huck I’m sure he will nominate justices who are religious based, but he might also get a guy or gal who thinks illegals should have special rights that Americans do not.
McCain’s views on water boarding and Guantanamo make me pause on who he might nominate.
Both Rudy and Mitt have promised to nominate constructionist justices, but has either had to fight a hostile congress to get them nominated? Have they fought the opposition on anything that would lead me to believe that they could find the stones to fight for their guy?
So, I’m left with vetting our guys on those criteria and then figuring out if they are going to beat Hillary (or whoever).
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Considering that I am single-handedly responsible for helping Fred meet his 250K goal, Fred should be paying me. I mean really, WHOSE mind have I changed? Just who on this forum has now rejected Fred because of what I say?
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Yeah, that’s the way I saw it, too. Lawyers deal with sleazy clients sometimes, and 3 1/2 hours on a technical issue is nothing. Certainly, unlike the Dems, there isn’t a thing in Fred’s record that would indicate sympathy for terrorists.
The more I see Fred, the more I like him. His position on abortion is nuanced but defensible. He admits he made a mistake with McCain-Feingold. He started slowly with a “lazy” moniker attached that’s been hard to remove. As for his electability: Mitt and Rudy’s support is thin and could turn at any show of weakness. The Hillary! campaign was plenty afraid of Fred, and that’s enough for me.
AP, what’s this “Lame” update? Huck’s use of “apology” lurched out at me like a drunken cow. Based on other, Carter-like statements, I could believe that, without a further explanation, he meant precisely what he said. Fred’s comments weren’t accusatory: he left room for Huck to clarify, and the meat of it, about others taking such a poorly-worded statement and running with it, was dead on. It’s a serious issue.
G.W.B. was reviled when he once used the word “crusade” as a term for struggle. At least he had the excuse that in English, it usually means exactly that — people did know what he meant. “Apology” does not mean “sympathy,” and never has.
I could just imagine Huck with the same crisis that faced G.W.B. when the Chinese brought down, and then held our plane and servicemen, threatening to try them as spies. The resolution was all about the wording of “apology.”
Aardvark on December 29, 2007 at 10:16 AM
It sure does, and I have read those before, but the defense of them by the Rudy folks seems to be pretty solid. I’d like to see another discussion on those subjects with the Rudy fans defending their guy.
I’m not sure it would have an effect on Rudy because he has had 6 years of being “America’s Mayor” and the perception of his credentials on fighting terrorism will cast serious doubt on accusations to the contrary. Now once the debate started, he might lose out, and we need to know the depth of his involvement BEFORE we nominate him.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Yes, two of Fred’s girlfriends say he was a gentleman. And that is good. My point is that he was engaged in behavior that is not conservative to a great many folks. The reason it is viewed that way is that casual encounters outside of marriage have a great potential of creating issues that are viewed as immoral. Fred is way more likely to have a skeleton in that closet than say a guy like Mitt does. Thus, Fred has a potential problem in that respect.
Are we nominating a dem we expect to be a dirtbag or a conservative we expect to be conservative? Can Fred compare himself to another conservative and still claim a moral high ground?
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Dude, Mitt will say ANYTHING to get elected! He’s even trashin’ the most basic Mormon theology. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqjrmb7YSPM
Does this guy have any real conviction???
Ex-tex on December 29, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Getting news from the Village Voice — Fair and Balanced…
Rudy accepted 3 million in charity for the victims’ families after 9/11 from the emir of Qatar - an essential US ally in the ME region. Later Rudy’s consulting firm worked on security contracts with the government of Qatar — once again, a very important ally of the US in the war on terror. Like any Mideast “ally” Qatar is a mixed bag of tricks. There are elements of the royal family and government that are undesirable, but just like Pakistan we cannot afford to cut off contact with dubious allies just because their support at times is suspect. Like Michael Corleone said, “keep your friends close, your enemies closer.” We need to stay connected with Qatar for important business and security reasons. In any event, there are “allegations” that a member of the emir’s family has connections with an effort to help KSM escape Qatar in 1996 as the FBI was closing in on him (Right, the FBI was closing in on KSM in 1996 — sounds like a Clinton apologist to me).
The connections between Rudy and this black sheep family member — none known, but the Village Voice is always ready to assume the worst:
No facts, no witness statement, just a connection between Rudy’s company and US ally Qatar, and the Village Voice assumes a relationship between Rudy and Abdallah al-Thani.
Rudy’s security arrangement with Qatar is a plume in his cap. It shows he has connections necessary to help him fight the terrorists war on us. This story is a hit piece and once you look past the unsubstantiated connections and innuendo, you can see there is nothing there but valuable experience needed by the next POTUS in this time in history.
Fred on the other hand had a partner in his law firm come into his cushy office in DC and asked him to help out in his fight to keep murderous terrorists from facing justice. Fred did not tell the partner to get out of his office and immediately start drafting his resignation letter (like Mrs. Kennedy), he worked with his partner for 3.3 hours coming up with a strategy on how to avoid extradition for murderous terrorists. Fred’s firm made hundreds of thousands of dollars. The terrorists avoided justice for 11 years. How does this help Fred’s credentials.
Plus, just imagine when Clinton trots out the families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing — their eyes filling up with tears as they remember their loss and the feelings of frustration knowing the murderer of their family was free in Libya due to the work of hot shot DC lawyers like Fred.
tommylotto on December 29, 2007 at 11:17 AM
I think Fred is a man of great character. While Rudy was running around on his Ol’ lady, Mitt was watching his Dad in parades, and Huck was hiring John Bolton, Fred was standing firm on his conservative values.
Gettin’ some on the way is a bonus.
TheSitRep on December 29, 2007 at 11:30 AM
You seem to be the only person in the whole world that is locked into this notion — with the exception of a yes-man chorus or two.
Obsess much?
Tennman on December 29, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Does that mean you think I’m wrong? What facts or analysis do you dispute? Don’t bother to post if you do not have anything to contribute.
tommylotto on December 29, 2007 at 12:02 PM
For the love of christ man. Im not endorsing that attack, I simply asked him what he makes of it. Second, that whole paragraph is spin, spin, spin. Plume in his cap? Got to be kidding, and its not just the village voice. Do a google search and many sites have this accusation.
My point being is that just like you being a Rudy apologist, Fred being my guy, I dont see what he did as a big deal. If I were to spin Freds situation like you did I could say:
“The attorney came to Fred because of his knowledge in International Law and Politics, so if anything its a plume in his cap that he is so knowledgeable in the International Arena.” Makes you want to puke doesnt it?
Either way, I am truely done with this thread. And Im sure you will respond with “I put forth facts” which you dont. Just Giuliani camp spin. I am moving on, this topic has been beat like a dead horse.
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 12:35 PM
No. Obviously not.
But let’s restrict ourselves to bashing just one candidate in this thread. Otherwise I get confused and start blithering about blimps and Jessica Alba. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Speaking of Fred Thompson, I sent his campaign $400 this morning. Mostly because it made smile. I’m officially a Fred-head for a day. Who can teach me the secret handshake?
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 12:53 PM
First off, Tommy, please don’t presume to tell me when I can or cannot commment. But I’ll play with you anyhow.
Fred was Of Counsel. You, as an attorney, are deliberately misleading people when you make the characterization that he was a member of the firm. He was approached to consult on jurisdictional paperwork issues.
Of course he wouldn’t. He consulted. For three billable hours. No one with half a brain would consider this “representation.” From the NYT article: Mr. Culver, a former Democratic senator from Iowa, said that Mr. Thompson was not a primary member of his team, and that his contribution amounted to “a couple of conversations.”
“In a large firm, you frequently consult with people who have experience” in the field of law at hand, he said.
Again, “Of Counsel,” not a partner; a consultant. “coming up with a strategy on how to avoid extradition…” is the rankest speculation I’ve ever seen.
It wasn’t his firm. It was someone else’s. Arent Fox. Now, the amount made over the 11 years by Arent Fox re the Libyans was around 900 grand. For a DC firm, that is not even one if its large clients.
Your theory had enough water to be tried by the NYT until it was debunked enough that nobody tries to give it life anymore….but you.
Tired of playing yet?
Tennman on December 29, 2007 at 12:53 PM
You know, that might be an improvement.
Texas Nick 77 on December 29, 2007 at 1:24 PM
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Bud, this post proves that you have it in you - stick to this kind of analysis and posting and you’ll be embraced.
Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 1:28 PM
I don’t think going out with ladies while single is an immoral thing, even several women. At least he didn’t say, “I have a wide stance” to explain his encounters. :)
And, BTW, I like the kinder, gentler CSD a lot better. My thanks again to your sons’s service to the country. And may you and yours enjoy a very Happy New Year.
Texas Nick 77 on December 29, 2007 at 1:38 PM
It’s two sons in the service.
Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »