Let’s take it to the house, South Carolina!

It’s like Penthouse Forum. I love FredPorn.

Sultry Beauty on January 17, 2008 at 4:50 PM

SB, you’re a treasure here! I’d give anything to have seen AP’s reacation to this…

Why I like Fred!

omnipotent on January 17, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Thanks for the link.
I could not have said it better.

Where in that storied career did he contribute anything to the WOT? Oh yeah, he represented those Libyan terrorists, but wait, that IS for the wrong side.

tommylotto on January 17, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Where in that storied career was the WOT? Sure, the terrorists declared war on us, but we didn’t really respond in kind until 9/11. So you’re asking a question that most people with long careers in public office will not be able to answer well.

For that matter, where was Rudy in the WOT? Yes, he was still mayor of NYC at 9/11, and he did well in the aftermath. But has he done anything in the WOT since? Has Romney? Has Huckabee? Has any Republican candidate except, maybe, John McCain? And McCain may have the worst record, since he undermined our efforts to prosecute the WOT by trying to treat terrorists as if they were honorable enemy combatants in a civilized war, demanding that people who refuse to wear a uniform, attack mainly civilians, and hide in mosques and behind women and children be treated as if they were regular soldiers.

The point is, you’re proposing a standard here that few could live up to, unless they are in the military or the executive branch, and then only in the past six years, and then only in certain jobs.

Furthermore, you’re wrong when you said he represented those terrorists. They were not his clients. The most that could be said is that he gave some legal advice to lawyers he had a professional relationship with who represented them. Furthermore, at the time this advice was given to those lawyers, the accused had not yet been convicted. Remember, this was treated as a crime, which meant these same people had a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Furthermore, unless you know exactly what advice was given, you really don’t know whether he told them anything more than, “the case against you is very strong.” The kind of advice that Fred would have given in this context would not be telling the terrorists what they should try to do, but describing the laws as accurately as possible to the lawyers representing the Libyans. Like it or not, no matter how much you may believe someone is guilty, there are certain rules that have to be followed in a court of law. This is why prosecutors trying to put away a child molester still have to share any evidence they have with the defense, even if it undercuts their case.

The real problem with this whole scenario was that they treated an act of terrorism like a crime, thereby giving the accused all sorts of rights. According to their status as the accused, the scummy terrorists were entitled to the best defense possible.

In fact, the whole reason we have a WOT is because prosecuting terrorism like crime is so ineffective.

But don’t mind me. Just don’t try to blame a lawyer for doing his job as a lawyer, when the real problem is that an act of war was prosecuted like a crime.

stlpatriot on January 17, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Agreed about Fred. Trouble is Mitt is everybody’s second choice. Let’s hope it’s not that way if he’s the nominee for the general.

If anything, Fredheads worried about a Huckabee or McCain surge into Florida should be considering whether to bail out and vote for Mitt to boost him up, as a surprisingly strong showing would blunt the momentum of whoever wins.

I don’t see the logic of bailing on Fred to go to Mitt who has practically identical numbers in the SC polls. Mitt is barely ahead in most polls with one showing both Fred and Mitt tied for 17%.

Stick with Fred, South Carolinians! I think Fred’s numbers will surprise :)

-Aslan’s Girl (on this side of the wardrobe door…)

Shmuck in fact is the last one i’d vote for if Fred drops out, and i bet you can’t find 1 Fredhead here that would vote shmuck if he did..

stlpatriot on January 17, 2008 at 3:40 PM

I wouldn’t vote for Mikey the Minister .

IF Fred drops out, don’t for a minute think that Fred’s base will go shmucks way, i would bet 90% of Fredheads would choose Mitt.. IF, Fred doesnt finish strong in SC, and he in fact drops out, Shmuck is done, period…

Shmuck in fact is the last one i’d vote for if Fred drops out, and i bet you can’t find 1 Fredhead here that would vote shmuck if he did..

Chakra Hammer on January 17, 2008 at 3:20 PM

Fred Thompson and Spencer Abraham: Bad combo
By Michelle Malkin • July 26, 2007 11:41 AM

Fred won’t dance with the Sauds
By Michelle Malkin • January 17, 2008 08:08 AM

Umm . . . timley? Dude, you make it so difficult not to call you irrelevant. Do you even think before you hit submit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkN2fYnMTBs

Michelle
Malkin: Fred Thompson and Spencer Abraham: Bad combo

In my 2002 book Invasion (p. 71, 76), I noted the open-borders obstructionism of former Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Michigan), who fought to block the implementation of two different tracking databases–one for foreign student visa holders and the other for all temporary visitors (which was mandated by Section 110 of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act). Abraham led efforts to starve the first database of funding and crusaded several times to kill Section 110 altogether. On September 11, 2001, neither of those databases was in place. To this day, they remain incomplete.

Now, Fred Thompson has gone and hired Open Border Spence as his acting campaign manager:

Jihad Spence: Fred Thompson’s Pan-Islamist Campaign Manager

Michelle likes Fred!

omnipotent on January 17, 2008 at 1:27 PM

It’s curious as to why this post hasn’t been bumped to the top yet with the Michelle “straight talk” post as an update.

No problem, and I do admit that I am going on about something that I haven’t explained very well. So I apologize for that. My intention for predicting Mr Thompson’s viability, before I knew anything about his conservative credentials, was to simply say that he had no chance of winning because he was born into a certain type of generation that has historically never been elected to the presidency. I will attempt to provide an explanation now.

What I am basing my opinion on is in a branch of sociology describing the cyclical nature of history, or “Turnings”. While this subject has been around for some time, the more recent contributors to this field are Neil Howe and William Strauss with their books “Generations” and “The Fourth Turning”.

So according to the theory, there are four generational archetypes: Civic, Artist, Prophet, and Nomad. Each generation is born when society is going through a particular mood or turning. A turning is a period of about 20 years, the same span as a generation. Each generation has its perks and flaws. (I am trying to explain without deluging you with too much information.)

The Artist generation is born during a Crisis turning. Historical examples of Crisis turnings are WW II (1925-1945), American Civil War (1860-1865), American Revolutionary War (1773-1794). The “Silent” generation is but the most recent representation of the Artist archetype. So far, nobody born in the time lines above were elected president.

I have to correct myself again and say that my reasoning for the demise of Mr Thompson isn’t so much superficial but appears to be more historical in grounding. I was wrong to use superficial, though you are free to disagree.

Sorry for any confusion, I am happy to clarify or explain anything further.

Rightly or wrongly, history may be right again in regards to the plight of this generational archetype.

Weebork on January 17, 2008 at 2:25 PM

I would argue the point, but I have no idea what you’re blathering about. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean any offense, but you’ve admitted yourself that your analysis is purely superficial. Besides, you haven’t provided a shred of historical evidence to back up your argument, hence my use of the word “blather”.

Doctors who save murderers to help them avoid justice would be complicit.

csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 1:52 PM

Wouldn’t Death be justice?

To me it would…

Rightly or wrongly, history may be right again in regards to the plight of this generational archetype.

O/T here, but has anyone noticed that even among the general populace, journalists have kind of taken lawyers’ place as most reviled profession?

They definitely have in my eyes.
I know so many lawyers that it’s hard to have a hatred for the profession.

How many of those young skulls full of mush would look back at their chance to Meet Fred and think the country had been robbed of a great statesman…

Obvious to me that I need to get the coffee pot going and make some more calls to South Carolina.

http://www.fred08.com

My prediction was purely on superficial reasons […]

So even if Mr Thompson does well on Saturday in S.C. he won’t go much further based entirely on his age category.

Weebork on January 17, 2008 at 1:39 PM

You raise a valid point, Weebork, you can’t get any more superficial than that.

Guiliani would do it in a frickin dress burka.

TheSitRep on January 17, 2008 at 1:34 PM

FIFY :)

MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Haven’t replaced as much as joined.