Replies

Top Ten Awards for Sunday, November 4th

These are the awards with full text of the posts.

10th Place advertising guy

#132; "fawn, listen closely to Fred..........he said life begins at conception and abortion at any time is in fact killing the baby...he then said as a matter of law....federal law is wrong visa ve Roe vs wade......he said state law not federal law should be the answer........said the same about homo marriages................his whole point is states rights vs hijacked law at the federal level" (Note: reply to Fawn's post #126)
#138; "line of the interview :::: ... Tim says Fred, you are losing weight........Fred says back immediately..........coming from you Tim, that is a compliment."
#144; "...watch Fred’s demeaner....Fred alone controls timing,emotion and results..Tim tries but fails over and over trying to go hyperbolie"
#166; "Fred became the uncle of calm that Russert ain’t got....it slow,clear and controlled by Fred Dalton..........Russert’s voice would raise and Fred would answer slowly, 'Well Tim, no......'"
#225; "if I was managing McLettuce, I could esconche his republican legacy.......As McLettuce leaves the stage, he could be a extremeely powerful media attack mouthpiece for the party ... McLettuce is a solid 90 % republican............John, go spend the clout..........."
#253; "imagine Eisenhower in that chair today just occupied by one Fred Dalton Thompson.............it would have been the
same demeaner and effect because what both would have said was the truth. It’s all good."
#302; "states rights and then PERSONAL responsibility.Not some federal CONSCIENCE was his point beyond his point of law" (Note: reply to Norman Bates post #281)
#404; "the wounds Hillary just received were from darts...wait til the arrows, then swords strike.............she will be pieces parts, watch............ .....notice Bill barked about the massage parlor documents and no media coverage...............hehehe ... this is Obamama’s to lose"

9th Place altura

#417; "Fred can handle Hillary. He certainly handled Tim. ... Which brings me to a point that the Pakistan thing Tim opened with revealed that Tim is not that smart and he doesn’t have an understanding of the issues. ... Beyond his cute little things he posts for candidates to respond to, how much does he know. ... As Fred went through the problems with Pakistan and the various ramifications, Tim was clueless. ... All he wanted was to get on to the next subject that he had a cue card on. ... I was really impressed with Fred and even the domestic partner agreed."
#438; "... Tim didn’t want Fred to say it, but Fred seems to say what he’s determined to say. ... I thought his remarks about seeing his (now) 4 year old in the sonogram and realizing that life begins at conception were very sincere and moving."
#480; "I came into this thread late and didn’t read the first 200 posts or so (will do it later - promise), but .... were there any other shows on today? ... I know we all missed Biden’s appearance (in every way) but I think this thread reveals the obsession with Fred. Most of us like him ... I sure do ... but everyone is fascinated. ... Some run him down because he is not their man, or he just doesn’t float their boat for some reason. ... But, I think he and Rudy are the two guys who can deal effectively with the press and the public and the Hillary. ... I like Rudy but he is not as conservative as Fred, so I’m totally for Fred."

8th Place Brices Crossroads

#434; "'It was disingenuous for Thompson to say that life begins at conception but that states should be able to allow the taking of this life without due process. Is he saying that life is not protected by the Constitution even if that document states that it is? His position doesn’t make any sense.' ... I know you have been a supporter of Fred for some time. Let me see if I can provide a little context for his answer that could not be given in the MTP rapid fire setting. Fred’s position, that the abortion issue is a matter for the states, is exactly the position of Justice Antonin Scalia and Judge Robert Bork. Both of them oppose abortion and are not against criminalizing it at the state level. (Fred and, I think, most ethicists do not favor criminal penalties against the woman who is the second victim of the procedure, but believe the abortionists should be prosecuted). So Fred’s position is indistinguishable from Scalia’s and Bork’s on the treatment of abortion at the federal level under current law. I myself would go further and would apply the Equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the unborn child, defining him as a person, and giving him the rights of a citizen. That is a matter for the judiciary, however, and not for the President or for the Congress. Both Scalia and Bork oppose this application of the 14th Amendment. I have never heard Clarence Thomas’ view, so I will not try to extrapolate it from Scalia’s. Suffice it to say that under current law, Fred’s position is indistinguishable from that of Justice Scalia and Judge Bork. ... On the question of the Constitutional Amendment, let me make a few observations. First, the President has no role whatsoever in a Constitutional Amendment. He neither sign it nor vetoes it. It is passed by two thirds of both houses of Congress and ratified by three quarters (38) of the state legislatures. There are nowhere near the votes in Congress now to pass an Amendment, probably far less than a majority. If, somehow, the prolife forces achieved the two thirds supermajority, there are probably no more than 20 state legislatures, perhaps far fewer, that would ratify the Amendment. This battle has to be won at the state level , and it cannot be joined until Roe v. Wade is consigned to the dustbin of history. The promise to support a Constitutional Amendment is 'pie in the sky' which allows candidates to establish prolife bona fides with full knowledge that the Amendment cannot be achieved for decades, if ever. ... Which brings me back to Fred Thompson’s position. If you are serious about Right to Life, as I know you are ( as I am), the most reliable way to advance the prolife struggle is to change the Supreme Court, not by picking judges that agree with you on this issue or that, but whose overall philosophy is one of constitutionalism. Roe v. Wade was the most extra-constitutional, anti-federalist, ultra vires arrogation of power by the federal judiciary in American history. It was based on bad law and bad science, as Fred Thompson has stated. You have to ask yourself which of the major candidates do you trust the most to nominate Justices who will overturn this blatant anti-federlist decision, not because the Justice is prolife or tell the President he is prolife (Remember Justice Anthony Kennedy, who assured both the Senate and President Reagan, when asked about abortion, that he was a practicing Catholic and then proceeded to affirm Roe). For me, the answer is easy. I choose the candidate who gives the principled answer, not necessarily the one which this group or that group feels he should give, because I trust his principles more than the other candidates’ pledges. That candidate is Fred Thompson. ... Sorry for the long post, but this is an important issue for most of us." (Note: reply to Prokopton's post #402)
#522; "You know...As I was thinking about all these candidates that say what their handlers tell them to say, I thought back to George H.W. Bush’s 'Read my lips' pledge not to raise taxes in the 1988 campaign. This was just a pledge that he was repeating that someone had told him. His principles, expressed in the 1980 campaign, were against supply side economics and tax cuts, and he referred to Reagan’s plans for a 30% across the board tax cut as “voodoo economics”. When the rubber met the road, his principles triumphed, he hiked taxes in 1991, and this led directly to Bill Clinton’s election and to another huge tax hike in 1994. (Top marginal rate went from 28% in 1988 to 31% in 1991 to 39.6% in 1994, all because the GOP primary voters believed the pledge and paid no attention to the principles) ... I do not often agree with Jesse Jackson and I seldom quote him, but during the 1992 campaign when Bush was being savaged on all sides for breaking his pledge, Jackson came out with the following: 'Don’t read his lips; Watch his hips'. I think in evaluating candidates, this is not a bad rule of thumb. Bedrock principles always trump election year pledges."

7th Place snugs

#65; "IMHO Powell feels he was let down and made a fool on with the photos showing the sites of WMDs and therefore feels justified to say and do anything which in his mind clears his name and puts the blame on others. ... Not saying I agree with this or that it is true but IMHO that is where Powell is coming from and I suspect probably has his ear bent by his wife as to how he was set up as a patsy."
#210; "...The press have had a field day with Cheney and his health but compared to Thompson Cheney looks robust and healthy. ... It is also interesting and worrying that it has been rumoured that after several days campaigning etc that Thompson has taken time off. How true this is or if it is just MSM spin I do not but if it is true he could not do this as President. ... At this juncture to me he has not given the impression that he could keep up with the VP’s schedule let alone the President’s schedule. ... This is 2007 and people expect their leader to jump on a plane at a minute notice and go to the other side of the world, give a speech, meet a few people come straight back and resume their normal daily schedule of meetings, touring the country photo ops etc. I worry that Thompson is giving the impression he would not be able to do this."
#223; "Those are lovely photos of him with his family but I fear they are photos that are not going to do him any favours. ... He is going to be ridiculed as an old man with young wife and children, it emphasized the fact he is divorced and remarried. ... IMHO he would do better to keep the children away from the cameras, far from making him appear younger they make him appear older. ... Older men with younger children sometimes do appear younger such a John Edwards but the extra 10 years or so with Thompson plus his previous ill health results in him actually appearing older IMHO. ... I hope people do not think I knocking or am anti Thompson this is not the case but I am desperate for Hilary to be beaten and I fear that Thompson is not up to that." (Note: reply to prairiebreeze's post #179)
#229; "I agree and allows one to be above the issues which IMHO a President has to be on some things." (Note: reply to Cedric's post #204)
#481; "From what I have observed over the years the First Lady has a much larger role than the wife of our Prime Minister because she had to conduct the equivalent of the State Duties that the wife/husband of our sovereign has to do. ... Though I do agree with you it should not affect the President’s ability to do his job though if she was seriously ill that may well could."

6th Place Morgan in Denver

#62; "As explained, the charge is more than 20 years old. If this becomes the criteria no candidate will be free of scandal. ... These things are alwayss thrown at Republicans and ignored when it comes to Democrats. It’s a double standard and I refuse to be swayed by it." (Note: reply to RDTF's post #52)
#79; "The problem is expectations were raised before Fred entered the race and now poeple are not happy when he does not meet the bar they set. I’m not happy with his performance either but I’m not willing to throw in the towel yet."
#101; "Democrats must have victims or they cannot get the support they have to get in order to win elections. Ergo, pander to Hispanic voters. No surprise there. What WILL be interesting is how normally conservative leaning Americans from Mexican heritage will react?"
#224; "The only benefit, or good thing, associated with such a long campaign season is perhaps voters will learn enough about the candidates to make a good decision. Miss Hillary will be exposed over and over next year to our benefit, IF she is really the Democrat candidate. For our side, it gives us more time to show the differences in political philosophy, to our benefit. ... I hope that’s the way it will work."
#409; "I think you have it backwards. This would be a great discussion over a bottle of scotch some evening. ... The court can overturn Roe v Wade because it is not a privacy issue, as it previously ruled. At the time Roe was decided there were states poised to pass laws in favor of abortion and no doubt some states would still approve the procedure. Since the US Constitution guarantees 'life and liberty' this presents a unique situation/argument. Still, this only affects citizens in each state individually. ... On the other hand, because states are required to support other states laws, a gay marriage would cause major problems in a state that had laws against the practice. So, this would certainly be a federal issue. ... I can see (see, not necessarily agree with) both sides, which is why this is such a great discussion. If you have read what Justice Scalia has to say on this issue, you would see the logic originalist justices would use. I believe four on the court would overturn Roe v Wade if a case comes up, all logically and constitutionally based. On the gay marriage issue, the conservative justices seem to agree there as well, that without a national law individual states would be required to recognize homosexual marriages."
#512; "... I just finished watching the Fred Thompson interview on Meet the Press. Fred had the best insight on Pakistan, Iraq and Iran as I have heard from any candidate to date. Things Fred said coincided with my understanding of many issues and he came across as logical and methodical in his approach to the presidency should he be elected. I don’t know how anyone could watch the MTP interview without acknowledging his knowledge on these issues. As to his position on abortion, what he said satisfied my concerns. From what I read earlier on FR, it seems this wasn’t enough but I fail to see how."
#532; "... The upcoming election may be more interesting as time goes on. Hillary seems to implode and Fred seems to be coming out of his shell. Even though neither side has a winner the race is getting more interesting."

5th Place Finny

#445; "'Oh jeez, Timmy get’s all self-righteous over a comment Thompson made about Osama being more of a symbol than anything else. ... 'People who lost loved ones on 9/11 see him as more than just a symbol.' Puke, Timmy.' ... LOL! I know, that was such a stupid 'question.' But on the whole, I thought Russert was very gentle with Thompson, soft-ball pretty much all the way (though I was cooking breakfast so I missed some). I don't know what to make of it. ... The other one that I, frankly, loved, was when the 'torture' question came up. It cracked me up -- I got the idea that Thompson basically said, 'Hell yeah, use what you have to to save American lives in war, just don't call it 'torture' -- I never used that word,' something to that affect. And I thought, 'Right ON, Fred!' ... I think Thompson did very well in what he said -- he was consistent in his message that domestically, smaller government is better. I know there are many who think how a candidate says something is actually more important than what he's actually saying. I disagree. ... The most youthful, handsome, clean-cut, family-sparkling chap on the planet can talk about stepping toward government-controlled health care in a way that sounds like music to the ears and eyes -- yep, he's expressing it beautifully, but what he's saying is destructive to American freedom and an individual's right to self-determination." (Note: reply to Bahbah's post #81)
#504; "You people need to get it through your heads: THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DETERMINE ABORTION LAW. ... The next best thing is a president who will strive to appoint judges that will overturn Roe and give the decision-making power back to the states. There is no president -- NOR SHOULD THERE EVER BE AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT -- who wields the power to make abortion a punishable crime nation-wide. As has been pointed out here, murder is a state's issue; certainly abortion belongs there as well, then. ... You grasp for the red-herring item that Thompson finds disagreeable the prospect of states making it so that young girls, their parents, and doctors be held criminally liable for abortions, and Thompson states PLAINLY that just because he holds a certain view, he doesn't think he should have the power to make all the rest of America abide by those views. People of your mindset refuse to hear that part. ... Engaging in willful self-deception and pretending your own lack of ability to grasp the truth is somehow Thompson's fault, is destructive. And a very poor representative of 'moral' thinking."
#517; "'...because I trust his principles more than the other candidates’ pledges.' ... Brices, your post on Thomson & abortion is cause for many thanks, posted and thought. Count mine among them. The excerpt above reminds me of something my politically wise dad told me long ago and that I've always remembered: ... You don't vote for the man, you vote for the philosophy because the philosophy sets the principles, and the principles can always be trusted. Like a compass. So when you vote for a man who embraces your philosophy, you know exactly what you're getting. On the other hand, when you vote for a man according to his personal opinion on separate issues, you have no idea what you're really getting in part because you have no idea what's going to come up in the next four or eight years. ... My pet peeve is the demand for 'pledges.' They are crap, and every time someone asks for or expects one, it ticks me off. And every time a candidate succumbs, it drops him a tad in my view. I liked the way Thompson handled Russert's demand for a pledge by finally conceding that he'd pledge that his administration would do what it could to keep nuclear options away from hostile ME nations. As in, DUH! Pledges are jokes. Demonstrated consistency to philosophy and principles are serious and true." (Note: reply to Brices Crossroads post #434)
#520; "'Cheney looks better than Fred for his age ...' ... Keep in mind that Thompson is 6'4. He's a very big man, and people -- men and women -- with big frames have more to support physically. ... Put politely, in my personal experience, large, tall people don't age *visually* particularly well physique-wise and in appearance without real effort. We petite folks age much better with less effort, because there's a lot less to maintain and gravity has a lot less of a drag, and NO, it isn't proportional as much as we may think. There's a REASON that insects have never gotten to be the size of dumptrucks, and it has to do with gravity, energy, and mass. ... Anyhoo, empirically speaking, most folks that big in their 60s to 80s don't look as hale as an equally fit person the same age but with 3/4 or 5/7 the the body mass. Just a thing I consider when I see Thompson, knowning that he's well over six feet tall, and that's a pretty big fellow."

4th Place jmyrlefuller

#123; "The primary elections are still about two months away, and as we know, the dynamics of a primary election can change on a dime. Remember, Howard Dean led in the polls up until a couple of weeks before the Iowa caucuses in ‘04. ... Right now you have a lot of people dissatisfied with the top five candidates. Fred had a chance to capitalize on this void but seems to be fading. Huckabee seemed to get a bump but his support seems very shallow and he has his own liberal leanings. ... So who’s left? Hunter, perhaps? About the only thing holding him back is money and name recognition. Those who know him mostly love what he has to bring. But he’s the only one (outside perhaps Tancredo) with a track record of being solidly anti-amnesty and pro-border enforcement, and as we all know that is the crucial issue today."
#131; "To which I would respond to those types, 'Even murder is a state law in most cases.' Federal law prohibits murdering federal agents, as well as traveling interstate to flee murder charges, but murder is a state crime, not federal. ... Why should abortion be treated any different?" (Note: reply to Fawn's post #126)
#212; "Meanwhile on FTN... They just had a pretty good interview with Benazir Bhutto. ... And then they go to Biden. It’s all doomed, the extremists are going to power. Blames the Bush administration... predictable."
#218; "Schieffer: Will the terrorists get nukes if things get out of hand? ... Biden: No, but the extremists are in power, so I’m not sure. ... Fuller: Do you realize that it would take an incredible amount of technical knowhow to operate one of those things? Certainly much more than running a plane into a building."
#221; "Biden just found a way to blame Iraq. Why am I not surprised?"
#228; "They seem to have extended Biden’s stay. After this commercial there won’t be enough time to fit Penn in. ... Has Hillary’s lackey cancelled?"
#234; "Schieffer: Should we move into Pakistan? ... Biden: Yes. Forget Iran... everybody’s in Iraq, not enough troops in the Pakistani area."
#267; "Now on to TW roundtable... Michael Gerson might as well be a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party... no vision, no plan for change on health care and education, tied to the President... Steffy: The GOP candidates are running on Bush’s platform. George Will says that not really, they’re running actually further to the right. ... Dionne: Economic insecurity “it’s real,” GOP running out of answers, getting stale..."
#381; "NARAL and Planned Parenthood are also very much extremist organizations on this issue. They are against anything short of government-sponsored abortion and birth control, so someone who would relinquish decisions to the states would receive very negative marks for those organizations, regardless of whether or not all of those states would institute abortion on demand."

Third Place rodguy911

Great insights and pithy comments. Invaluable POV additions to the thread.

#28; "It was a slow week but here's a little story I ran across and then followed up on, it's verrrry interesting. ... Earlier this week I was listening to the Joyce Kaufman show which airs from 2-5 PM Eastern on WFTL AM 850 out of S. Fla.(Ft.Lauderdale I believe) and heard on the web as well. ... The day I listened Steve Malzberg had picked up WFTL for the day on his syndicated show originated out of NJ on WOR. I thought I heard a reference to "38 million illegals" on his show as I listened while I worked and you all know how that can go. ... On a long shot I e-mailed Malzberg if that really was the case and he e-mailed me back with this link. Many thanks to Malzberg for the link. ... http://www.insight-report.com/ Checking that out and several others that all linked to the story I wound up Reading portions of "The Social Contract" written by James H. Walsh Volume 17,Number 4 written in the Summer of 2007. Turns out Walsh(not the Congressman)is a former Federal Prosecutor and U.S. -German Marshall Fund Scholar in the field of immigration.(in other words he knows what he is talking about) ... Two paragraphs from an article I found "Illegal Aliens" Counting the Uncountable" will give you a good idea of how Walsh comes to the figure of 38 million illegals as opposed to the other figures from 3-20 million that are routinely bandied about by the drivers by. ... The following is a Summary paragraph: "No exact head count exists for the ghost population of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. Data compiled by the U.S. census bureau(USCB) and by national survey,governmental agencies, non government statistics-keeping agencies,philanthropic organizations, religious charities, and immigrant advocates are used in estimates ranging from 7 million to 20 million. This article demonstrates that this number is closer to 2 times 20 million." ... The following paragraph gives and even better summary of how Walsh got to the 38 million number. ... "My estimate of 38 million illegal aliens residing in the U.S. is calculated, however, using a conservative annual rate of entry(allowing for deaths and returns to their homelands)of three illegal aliens entering the U.S. for each one apprehended.(Walsh quoted other border patrol agents who put the figure as high as "7" note he uses three) My estimate includes apprehensions at the Southern Border(by far the majority,at the Northern border, along the Pacific, Atlantic, and the Gulf of Mexico coasts, and at seaports and airports. Taking the DHS(Department of Homeland Security) average of 1.2 million apprehensions per year and multiplying it by 3 comes to 3.6 million illegal entries per year,then multiplying that number by 10 for the 1996-2005 period, my calculations come to 36 million illegal entries into the U.S. Add to this the approximately 2 million visa overstays during the same period, and the total is 38 million illegal aliens currently in the US. If this total is true it changes a lot of things and may explain why so many different interested parties act the way they do, anyway I was flabbergasted to see the number and just had to chase it down a little."
#87; "... If the number is accurate or even close,it could change a lot of minds on just how important border security really is. ... Walsh used conservative stats. I read elsewhere where border agents told him as many as 7 get away for everyone they catch and he only used 3. ... One of the sad things about the entire fiasco is that both parties are guilty of not securing the borders and it needs to change and soon. ... Some pubbie politicos want the cheap labor and are not afraid of violating US law to get it along with the supposed campaign contributions that go with it. ... The other side is even more devious. ... The rats are already frantically trying to get as big a percentage of the 32 million legal Hispanic vote as they can and if the number of illegals swells to 38 million who knows how many of them will get Spitzer type ID's or the equivalent and how many will vote. Anything is possible with devious dem/rats at work. We don't dare turn our back on them."
#128 ; "The sad thing is the rats are so slick they keep doing out anything and everything they can to all their target voting groups; Hispanic, African American, gay, unions, illegals, etc. in hopes of getting beyond 50% come election time. ... At that point they win all the time and every time, and we don't stand a chance. ... It's not the view of govt. our forefathers had and one can just imagine how fast they are spinning today underground."
#255; "ROTFLMAO! Just saw the 'Fred' interview with the living breathing Potato. ... I thought Fred did an excellent job. ... The big thing was that Fred is not afraid to answer semi-straight questing with straight forward answers. ... He refused to triangulate and realizes that voters don't like candidates that are all over the place trying to please every one and in effect pissing everyone off. ... He was a little lacking in charisma but that seems to be somewhat contagious this election cycle. ... On Mushariff in Pakistan Fred picked up right away that Mushariff is probably trying to solidify his position now that Mrs. Bukito is back in town. He looked beyond all Mushariff's stoopid over reaction and realized just how important Pakistan is to the U.S.,good response. ... On Iraq he shut Timmy down by pointing out our victories over there. ... Russert tried time after time to use Fred's words against him but it never worked, the closest he came was on the abortion debacle where Fred was confusing at best but bottom line is he's a states rights guy and so am I. ... Fred straightened out Timmy on Osamma telling him the wot will still go if Osamma is taken out and also told Timmy in no uncertain terms we are in a "global conflict" with people like Iran who still think the thirteenth imam is coming back. ... His take on Iran was good as was his overall take on actions like waterboarding "measures meet circumstances". One quote he made that had me cheering was 'the less govt. the better'. ... He also handled his 'pot selling buddy Phil' well by stating that he would talk to him but would not 'throw him under the bus' until he had the talk. ... His obvious differences between bubba and himself kept coming through--medical records,c haracter and many other things. All in all I thought Thompson did an excellent job."
#329; "I missed it today, but I guess that's not too surprising,he is a card carrying member of the CCF (Clinton Crime Family). Did you see the segment on FNC with Peter Paul about the Hillary fund raising? ... Evidently the 12 minute video was put up on Google and was number one until the took it down!!"

Second Place kabar

Comments on the shows, interesting discussions of other's posts plus great facts (with links). A tour de force.

#57; "Thompson’s campaign said the candidate was not aware of the multiple criminal cases, for which Martin served no jail time. All are described in public court records. ... Karen Hanretty, Thompson’s deputy communications director, said Saturday that 'Sen. Thompson was unaware of the information until this afternoon. Phil Martin has been a friend of the senator since the mid-1990s and remains so today.' Thompson communications director Todd Harris added that Martin was not subjected to the campaign’s standard vetting process because 'he’s a longtime friend.' ... 'There’s not a campaign in the world that has the ability to research every one of its supporters going back more than 20 years,' Harris said." (Note: reply to RDTF's post #52)
#74; "... Comparing the 1990 Census to the 2000 Census, the Mexican-born population of North Carolina went from 8,751 in 1990 to 179,236 in 2000 or more than 20 times in just ten years." (Note: reply to Gritty's post #68)
#207; "Dubya's strengths as a politician against both Gore and Kerry were that he was 'comfortable in his own skin' and could communicate in a down-to-earth, folksy manner. Bush was/is not an enegetic, galvanizing speaker in the mode of a Reagan, the 'Great Communicator.' Bush's malapropism and speaking gaffes have become a daily source of jokes by the late night talk shows, especially Letterman's Great Moments In Presidential Speeches, which is daily fare on his show five days a week."
#222; "'At this juncture to me he has not given the impression that he could keep up with the VP’s schedule let alone the President’s schedule' ... You are drinking the MSM Kool-aid about Thompson, i.e., 'lazy,' 'no fire in the belly,' etc. He is not the one giving that 'impression,' it is the MSM and his opponents who are trying to create that impression. Yet, Thompson remains the second ranked candidate and I believe will become stronger the closer we get to the primaries while Giuliani's support has crested. ... More than likely, we are going to have a brokered convention with no candidate having enough delegates to be elected on the first ballot. That favors Thompson who is going to be the consensus candidate." (Note: reply to snugs post #210)
#237; "Watching MTP now. Thompson is doing very well. His answers on Pakistan and Iran are spot on. He is demonstrating a comprehensive knowledge of the nuances involved in dealing with these regimes. Very comforting."
#247; "'I believe Thompson would choose McCain as his running mate if he won the nomination. Mc Cain would take the spot as it would be the closest he’d get to the oval office.' ... LOL. I can see it now the "Grumpy Old Men" ticket representing the Grumpy Old Party." (Note: reply to mimaw's post #235)
#272; "LOL. Under the same circumstances, political rallies and military audiences, I have no doubt that Fred’s skills as an actor would serve him in good stead. Fred can play the role of President quite well, rest assured. And he is a far better ad hoc communicatior than Bush."
#277; "Tim’s questioning left a lot to be desired. The ommission of any questions about immigration is proof enough that Tim is more interested is trying to blow Fred out of the water."
#332; "'Rudy is “cured”, he is past the 5 year mark without recurrence, while Fred is still has the active disease while he is in remission. McCain also has been cured, although his disease does have late effects that tend to swell up his cheek (where the melanoma was removed). A 5 year Prostate cancer survival rate is 99 %' ... As someone with personal experience with melanoma, you are not cured. McCain must be examined regularly for the rest of his life to check and see if another questionable lesion returns anywhere on his body. ... I trust you heard Thompson's response on his physical condition on MTP. Do you really believe he would run for President if he believed that the possibility of not surviving his first term due to his illness was a real question? And don't you think that he would have access to the best level of care as President? ... 'One last question, what percentage of voters know about Freds cancer? Also do you think this info will change any general election voters minds?' ... What I object to is using the "C" word to torpedo a political candidate. You can bet the Hillary campaign, indirectly, will try to use it against Fred, Rudy, or McCain should they be nominated. The problem is that some voters may very well change their mind depending upon how the issue is played. Frankly, the average voter is not well-informed or knowledgeable about a lot of things. That said, it is not going to affect my vote." (Note: reply to codercpc's post #286)
#377; "Here is Fred's voting record on abortion and other subjects. You can also use the links to get interest group ratings. I notice NRAL and Planned Parenthood gave him a zero in most years and never above a 10."

First Place - Bahbah

Consistent and informative reporting of what is actually said on the shows, coupled with insightful comments. This is what this thread is built on.

#81; "Oh jeez, Timmy get’s all self-righteous over a comment Thompson made about Osama being more of a symbol than anything else. ... 'People who lost loved ones on 9/11 see him as more than just a symbol.' Puke, Timmy."
#122; "'I sincerely hope Fred does not get on the defensive with fat Tim' ... There is nothing defensive in his manner at all. There is really nothing wrong with his answers, although he did miss an opportunity with mention of the Kay report as Huck mentioned. But I'm not sure there is anything about his delivery that people are going to find very compelling." (Note: reply to rodguy911' post #112)
#136; "Here comes the question about the drug dealer with Thompson’s campaign. ... Timmy reads an incredibly lengty piece on it. ... Fred says yes, he is still with his campaign. Has not had a chance to talk to him about it yet. Says he has complied with all rules on airplane travel. ... (Fred is very good at not letting Timmy get him off his message.) ... He did not know about the things that happened in Phil’s twenties. He turned himself around. He is my friend and he will stay my friend. I’m not going to throw him under the bus."
#208; "I highly recommend the segment with former President Bush. His goodness and decency cannot be missed. ... How very different from what we have with the Clintons."
#231; "Jack Croddy of the State Department is being exposed over and over for the cowardly fellow that he is."
#238; "Juan made Kristol quite angry saying that diplomats’ life insurance policies were void if they went into a combat zone. Says it’s simply not true. ... Brit point out that Croddy revealed that lots at State don’t support the policy in Iraq. LOL. Brit calls what Croddy did 'caterwalling' and a disgrace."
#242; "Nice little dust up at the end of the Fox panel over Juan’s exceptionally dumb remarks about the weasels at the State Department. ... I was glad to see that Hume and Kristol thought that Croddy’s performance was an absolute disgrace and a big black mark for State."
#256; "LOL. John Edwards talking about how we need someone with honesty, sincerity and integrity. LOLOL."
#283; "Steffie has gone into full I’m for Hillary mode in this session with John Edwards. ... He gets Edwards to say that, no, he doesn’t think Hillary is corrupt, which she patently is."
#316; "Good grief! Steffie’s panel could be titled 'How do we get Hillary elected president.'"
#325; "'I sense that snugs supports another candidate.' ... Well, you are wrong. snugs wants the Republican to win. She is giving us her unvarnished impressions. You can't stand to hear anything not entirely positive about YOUR chosen candidate...which is pretty much what has been going on on this site for months now. Someone doesn't see thing your way, attack, attack, attack. It has become mindless, tiresome and annoying." (Note: reply to Clara Lou's post #307)
#374; "Dodd takes the Biden route and blames Bush and Iraq for what is going on in Pakistan."
#389; "Sheesh, the CNN panel all in a tizzie over Hillary. There is no real race for the dem nomination. This is all they have to talk about and they are making the most of it. ... I think I have to tune out the rest of it. It’s too sickening."