This is how Hugh comes across:
"DID YOU KNOW THAT FRED THOMPSON HAD CANCER? YES, LIFE-THREATENING CANCER! CANCER, I SAY!"
I stole that line from a blog, but I agree that Hugh seems to be going overboard here, probably since he's got so much love for Romney.
1 posted on
09/06/2007 8:27:29 AM PDT by
jdm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
To: jdm
hugh hewitt is a largely worthless RINO shill.
2 posted on
09/06/2007 8:32:49 AM PDT by
flashbunny
(<--- Free Anti-Rino graphics! See Rudy the Rino get exposed as a liberal with his own words!)
To: jdm
3 posted on
09/06/2007 8:35:16 AM PDT by
lesser_satan
(FRED THOMPSON '08)
To: jdm
the usual Bravo Sierra...
4 posted on
09/06/2007 8:36:33 AM PDT by
xcamel
(FDT/2008 -- talk about it >> irc://irc.freenode.net/fredthompson)
To: jdm
Let's see, my 29 yr old son was diagnosed with the same kind of lymphoma, and after treatment, has continued to be pronounced cancer free for 7 years!
The 77 year old mother of a very good friend, has been cancer free of the exact same cancer, for 15 years (more than two Presidential terms)!
The question here is does Hugh Hewitt have knowledge of how long he will live, much less question the health of another?
5 posted on
09/06/2007 8:38:10 AM PDT by
zerosix
To: jdm
It’s ok, Fred died from the cancer several weeks ago. Seeing as how that stopped the cancer from returning, it should not cause him any problems once he becomes President.
6 posted on
09/06/2007 8:39:02 AM PDT by
ejonesie22
(I don't use a sarcasm tag, it kills the effect...)
To: jdm
Hugh is so vested in Romney that he really is losing credibility. Sad to see....
7 posted on
09/06/2007 8:39:22 AM PDT by
eureka!
(Is power so important to the Democrats that they are willing to betray our country? Sadly, yes.)
To: jdm
Hugh has always said that in elections he will support the most conservative candidate who has a realistic shot at winning. His definition of “realistic” is directly related to how conservative the candidate is though. Thus he has never supported a truly conservative candidate because he apparently goes into all elections already believing that no truly conservative candidate is electable.
8 posted on
09/06/2007 8:42:15 AM PDT by
ZGuy
To: jdm; calcowgirl
Hugh who?
Oh the RINO in L.A. who supported Tom McClintock for governor of CA in the 2003 recall until the “johnny-come-lately”, Ahnold jumped on the band wagon...that Hugh?
Yea, well that back stabber, Hugh, has about as much credibility as a screen door on a submarine.
9 posted on
09/06/2007 8:42:20 AM PDT by
kellynla
(Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
To: jdm
Hugh picked his horse too early. Thompson is ten times better than Romney.
10 posted on
09/06/2007 8:42:41 AM PDT by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
To: jdm
I always knew I was right about Hugh Hewitt. This confirms it. Hewitt’s a RINO loving SOB lowlife.
12 posted on
09/06/2007 8:50:49 AM PDT by
Reagan Man
(FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
To: jdm
Hugh Hewitt doesn’t have nearly the credibility he had a few years ago - largely because of nonsense like this.
14 posted on
09/06/2007 8:53:07 AM PDT by
Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
(Want authentic 1st century Christianity? Visit a local, New Testament Independent Baptist church!)
To: jdm
Hugh Hewitt is a totally, 100% committed Mitt-worshipper.
18 posted on
09/06/2007 8:57:49 AM PDT by
JohnnyZ
(Romney : "not really trying to define what is technically amnesty. I'll let the lawyers decide.")
To: jdm
That’s because the same man that wanted to stick us with Harriet Meiers on SCOTUS also wants to see RINO Rudy win the Republican nomination for President.
To: jdm
Has Thompson’s entire political career consisted of just two years in the U.S. Senate?
To: jdm
Does anyone actually think Thompson looks healthy and strong or are we all seeing something else and no one wants to say it?
I suppose it could just be my bias since I’m a Hunter supporter but my eyes are usually pretty trustworthy.
23 posted on
09/06/2007 9:02:44 AM PDT by
Perchant
To: jdm
Why all the deflecting of this issue of Thompson's cancer?
It was the first thing Fred Thompson made public when he started his "testing the waters" phase.
Thompson thinks it is important and his supporters need a better response to the issue than try to tear down anybody who brings up the subject.
This issue will get A LOT of attention from the media and most assuredly the Democrats so there needs to be compelling responses and not just calling the questioner a "poopy head."
27 posted on
09/06/2007 9:17:02 AM PDT by
elizabetty
(Ron Paul - Because Moonbats Need Choices Too!)
To: jdm
I have concerns about Fred's health as well, especially considering the heavy toll being President can exact upon a person.
Having said that, however, I trust his Doctor's assessment of his condition and his ability to handle the job.
Fred will be a GREAT President.
32 posted on
09/06/2007 9:27:54 AM PDT by
reagan_fanatic
(Ron Paul put the cuckoo in my Cocoa Puffs)
To: jdm
Do you know that if Hillary had sex with Bill Clinton she could become mentally ill from a venereal disease.
35 posted on
09/06/2007 9:37:48 AM PDT by
TornadoAlley3
( An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last..)
To: jdm
Anyone can die, any minute, on any given day. If you are President, this is what VPs are for ......... so to Fred: pick a good one and to Hugh: MOVE ON!
37 posted on
09/06/2007 9:48:31 AM PDT by
MissMagnolia
(Democrats can't win unless America loses & their definition of "fairness" is equal misery for all.)
To: jdm
Like it or not, on the subject of
electability, Fred Thompson's health is a real issue and
must be addressed seriously if he is to have any chance of winning the general election.
People know he battled cancer. Therefore, people are understandably concerned about his ability to serve out a four-year term.
Until voters are convinced his cancer is not an issue, it will remain an issue. His opponentson both sideswill make sure it remains an issue.
The last thing we should want to see is for the so-called "11th Commandment" to be in force during the primaries, only to have our nominee's chances quickly go up in smoke in the general election because Republicans were "too polite" to bring up such issues when we had the chance.
Rather than excoriate any of our fellow lib-haters who would dare to bring up the "C" word and Sen. Thompson, I see this as an opportunity to deal with it now, while there's still plenty of time to find out which antidotes work and which do not.
38 posted on
09/06/2007 9:51:29 AM PDT by
newgeezer
(Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson