Posted on 04/16/2007 6:39:22 AM PDT by veronica
I can't even count how many polls were conducted during that time and the wording was so leading it was hysterical.
I would get a call from the Dem side touting how conservative their candidate was, but it was so cleverly worded you would have thought he was the Conservative Republican running. Then their anti-Republican write in calls were so bad you'd have thought Hillary herself was disguised as the Republican candidate.
My reason for writing this is polls are written for a specific response. I'm sure the polls showing Rudy leading are only asking for you to decide between those who have declared. Rudy is leading because there is nothing to choose from there.
; )
A lesbian?
I agree on that point. If it comes down to Rudy or The Wicked Witch of the West Wing, I’m voting for Rudy. He’s just not my first choice.
I know your area of Texas -— I love Texas!!!
You’re right -— polls at this juncture are popularity contests and name recognition. Mr. Mayor enjoys great name recognition and a strong post 9/11 reputation. He’s also been a marvelous and tireless campaigner for GOP candidates and for GWB’s reelection. Recall his most outstanding endorsement speech at the convention?
I have little doubt that the polls will change once the electorate begins to pay attention to the candidate debates. I think our side has a good chance to see campaigns waged on issues and I think the dirtier campaigns will be waged on the democrat side. Hillary will stoop to everything to win her damn party’s nomination. I hope Barrack Hussein Obama is up to the challenge, because Breck girl and Bill Richardson are most assuredly NOT. :0)
LOL -— well, there is THAT speculation, but I think she knows she needs Bill’s *charisma* to win votes for her.
He's not even my second, third or fourth choice...lol.
Yes it will be fun watching hillary attempt to remind folks that obama isn’t good enough while making sure it doesn’t sound racial, then watching him say she isn’t good enough while trying to make sure it doesn’t sound sexist.
I saw that rumor. Several asked the poster for a link or a source or any other information on that rumor. None was provided. I did an extensive internet search and could find nothing. Do you know the source for the rumor? Page 6, National Enquirer, the Globe? Where was it first reported and was there any basis whatsoever to it?
If you cannot provide a basis for it, I do not think it is appropriate to mention it.
It can be mentioned because a Freeper did and I am sure the MSM will mention it if there is anything to it which I surely doubt there is. It was a long time ago when he was still married and getting a divorce and that was the rumor that was flying around. You won’t find an internet source because the MSM will get it from Microfiche probably. Much before Windows 95.
Let me see, here.
A man is divorced, it happens. In our society, for the most part, people aren’t scandalized about divorce. So, Fred and his wife divorced. I haven’t heard of any scandalized tales about their marriage or divorce, so for me, this issue is neutral.
Then, while he was again single, he dated. A man who isn’t married DATES. It’s just part of life. If he hadn’t dated, and crawled into a hole like a hermit, his loved ones would be in grief and worry about him... they would want him to find another mate and to marry happily, move on with his life.
This is something that we should all support... I cannot imagine it becoming a political issue. Would our nation be better served if Thompson hadn’t remarried?
I would guess that part of what makes Thompson, Thompson, is his zest for life, his joy and energy, his sharp mind, his caring soul... these are traits that lead him to finding happiness and marriage. And then it could be said that the way he lives his life today, is a direct result of his happy marriage.
We should be happy for him. And we should be thrilled about all of his qualities! He will be an excellent candidate.
Let me guess—if he’d been dating MEN, he’d be the darling of the democrats/liberals?!
I knew I had a good reason for never reading Newsweek. Feh.
If this is the worse they can come up with about Fred, we’re good to go! ;-)
I didn’t say it couldn’t be mentioned. If there are rumors out there, Thompson supporters do need to know about them. But I just think the source should be provided so we know the details.
Thanks to freespirited for providing three of them in post 113. There are inconsistencies; one said it happened in 1959 (Fred would have been 16 or 17 then), another said the early nineties (Fred would have been divorced several years by then), and your Freeper source said that it happened when he was still married. Even so, there are enough details to cause concern (Thompson fathered a child with another mans wife in East Tennessee; she was chairman of the Republican Party in her county and traveled with Thompson; the story was relayed many times by her husband as being the reason for their divorce).
How do you define ‘serial’?
One? Two? Ten?
(Just curious.)
Do YOU know that rumor to be true? Or are you just spreading a rumor?
LOLROFLMAOAPIMPRFI
Yes there are inconsistencies. I’m sure the 1959 must have been a typo. But that’s not the reason I find the story hard to believe. It’s the detail that the woman was chair of the GOP in her Tennessee county.
Realistically, if this were true, the politicians in Tennessee would know about it. I cant believe they would be urging Fred to run under such circumstances.
OTOH, there are multiple sources, so I am not willing to put on blinders and say there is no way it can be true. I hope it is not. It’s the last thing the GOP needs.
Oh come on. Anyone is hotter than Bubba.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.