PDA

View Full Version : Report: Thompson to announce


Cochise
05-30-2007, 07:34 AM
Fred Thompson running for president

By: Mike Allen
May 30, 2007 08:23 AM EST

Fred Dalton Thompson is planning to enter the presidential race over the Fourth of July holiday, announcing that week that he has already raised several million dollars and is being backed by insiders from the past three Republican administrations, Thompson advisers told The Politico.

Thompson, the "Law and Order" star and former U.S. senator from Tennessee, has been publicly coy, even as people close to him have been furiously preparing for a late entry into the wide-open contest. But the advisers said Thompson dropped all pretenses on Tuesday afternoon during a conference call with more than 100 potential donors, each of whom was urged to raise about $50,000.

Thompson's formal announcement is planned for Nashville. Organizers say the red pickup truck that was a hallmark of Thompson's first Senate race will begin showing up in Iowa and New Hampshire as an emblem of what they consider his folksy, populist appeal.

A testing-the-waters committee is to be formed June 4 so Thompson can start raising money, and staffers will go on the payroll in early June, the organizers said. A policy team has been formed, but remains under wraps.

The supporters on Tuesday's call make up a group the campaign is calling "First Day Founders." When launched, the campaign will have offices in Nashville and Northern Virginia, the advisers say.

Campaign officials said they have every indication Thompson will declare his candidacy, but cautioned that he could still decide not to run or to postpone the announcement. Mark Corallo, the campaign spokesman, said: "He is seriously considering getting in and doing everything he has to do to come to a final decision."

A member of Thompson's inner circle, who insisted on anonymity, said the former senator will offer himself as a consistent conservative who can unite all elements of the Republican Party. "The public is increasingly cynical and disenchanted with government," this adviser said. "Competence is at the heart of what people want from government, and they need to have a sense that government can do the things they care the most about. They want a reason to continue Republican governance. Thompson can be seen as the adult with a firm hand on the tiller."

Thompson urged the supporters to muster a major show of financial force in early July, just after the June 30 deadline for second-quarter financial reports to the Federal Election Commission.

Thompson's top rivals – Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney – will have a formidable advantage for the current quarter, so he plans to show his muscle right after that.

Similarly, several Thompson advisers are urging him to skip the Iowa Republican Straw Poll in Ames on Aug. 11, since his campaign will have such a short time to prepare. Instead, Thompson could campaign 30 miles away in Des Moines at the Iowa State Fair, which will be taking place at the same time.

Since Thompson began hinting he might get in, polls have generally showed him tied for third with Romney. In the most recent average of national polls on RealClearPolitics.com, each had 10 percent of the vote, behind Giuliani at 26 percent and McCain at 18 percent. Since those polls were taken, Romney has shown increasing strength in early-voting states.

The chief operations officer will be Thomas J. Collamore, a former aide to Vice President George H.W. Bush and former vice president of public affairs for Philip Morris Companies Inc. In the George H.W. Bush administration, Collamore was an assistant secretary of commerce under Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher. In the Reagan administration, he was special assistant to Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige.

That reflects the pedigrees of some of the key Republicans who are likely to join the campaign, advisers say. Republicans from the grassroots level to President Bush's inner circle have expressed frustration with the current field of candidates, and so Thompson initially will likely get a lot of fawning attention from party leaders and the news media. But it is not clear that he can turn his celebrity into a solid candidacy. Supporters realize the potential liabilities: the late start, after many endorsements, donors and activists have been locked up by other candidates; a reputation for an aversion to hard work; his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer; and a bear-like physique that makes him look his 64 years.

Organizers were encouraged by a donor meeting in New York City on Thursday afternoon that was attended by some of the best-known names in state and national politics. Without disclosing his specific plans, Thompson plans to keep the momentum going with an appearance in Richmond on Saturday at the Commonwealth Gala, headed by Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Ed Gillespie.

In a preview of the campaign to come, Thompson plans to show he is a candidate acceptable to all elements of the conservative coalition. He will make it plain to the attendees and a large press corps that, as one adviser put it, "The Fred has landed."

Thompson lives in McLean, Va. Tickets for the dinner, to be held at the Greater Richmond Convention Center, start at $125. Sponsors who pay $1,000 to $10,000 will be able to get their photo taken with Thompson at a reception an hour before the dinner.

Thompson, who plays District Attorney Arthur Branch on the NBC series, was a senator from 1994 to 2003, elected to finish Al Gore's term when he resigned to run for vice president. Thompson then won a term of his own, and did not seek reelection in 2002. He gained national exposure in 1973 as a minority counsel to the Senate Watergate committee. He eventually became chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, where his investigation of Democratic campaign-finance activities left many Republicans disappointed.

Now a senior analyst for ABC News Radio and substitute host for the legendary Paul Harvey, Thompson savaged the White House immigration proposal in a commentary last week. "A nation without secure borders will not long be a sovereign nation," he said. "No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it's not going to win any beauty contests."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4243.html

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 07:44 AM
Fred Thompson running for president

By: Mike Allen
May 30, 2007 08:23 AM EST

A member of Thompson's inner circle, who insisted on anonymity, said the former senator will offer himself as a consistent conservative who can unite all elements of the Republican Party. "The public is increasingly cynical and disenchanted with government," this adviser said.

Well, that part I agree with.

"Competence is at the heart of what people want from government, and they need to have a sense that government can do the things they care the most about.

WTF?


That reflects the pedigrees of some of the key Republicans who are likely to join the campaign, advisers say.

What more Bushies?


Interesting. Think I'll stick with Paul, let you Bushies sort it out.

unlurking
05-30-2007, 08:20 AM
Will have to read up on him, but so far Paul's stance on issues is closer to my own.

jAZ
05-30-2007, 09:20 AM
Say goodbye Rudy.

FD
05-30-2007, 09:23 AM
I feel like once he's in the race he'll lose his mystique. People mostly liked him because of who he wasn't (Rudy McRomney).

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2007, 09:23 AM
That's the major problem with you libertarian types, BEP....you're really not much more than anarchists who operate under the pretense of civility....:rolleyes:




:p

Seriously though, the Gipper had it right: less government, more efficient government, and smaller government....doing the things they do best--not trying to be all things to all people.

The Feds foray into a bureaucratic version of business "diversification" and "international conglomerates" is what has gone wrong with our national government, IMHO.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 09:28 AM
That's the major problem with you libertarian types, BEP....you're really not much more than anarchists who operate under the pretense of civility....:rolleyes:

I'm not a libertarian. I only look like one because that's how far left we've drifted if you think that. I believe in much more govt than a libertarian but certain things overlap with the old conservatism and libertarianism. I am NO anarchist. I think conservatism has morphed into a new kind, more like the British conservatives who have been left of our conservatives. Big govt conservatism. Yup, that's my opinion.

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2007, 09:36 AM
I'm not a libertarian. I only look like one because that's how far left we've drifted if you think that. I believe in much more govt than a libertarian but certain things overlap with the old conservatism and libertarianism. I am NO anarchist. I think conservatism has morphed into a new kind, more like the British conservatives who have been left of our conservatives. Big govt conservatism. Yup, that's my opinion.
Eh, apparrently you haven't been paying attention. That happened about 70 years or so ago....it was called the "New Deal." ;)

And we've bought it hook, line, and sinker. For good or bad. But it is, what it is. :shrug:

IMO, the only difference between the Dems and Reps, really...is how far down the road toward socialism we decide to travel.

Bootlegged
05-30-2007, 09:38 AM
I wonder what Cole Trickle thinks of this?

Frazod
05-30-2007, 09:45 AM
He did a decent job as President Grant in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. :thumb:

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 09:49 AM
Eh, apparrently you haven't been paying attention. That happened about 70 years or so ago....it was called the "New Deal." ;)

And we've bought it hook, line, and sinker. For good or bad. But it is, what it is. :shrug:

IMO, the only difference between the Dems and Reps, really...is how far down the road toward socialism we decide to travel.
I gotcha! But it's one thing preserving what has gone previously and another to expand and add to it. We do get more under all branches under Reps.

Let's see if I wind up being correct on this one: We will get nationalize healthcare under a Rep, if a rep wins. It may be a different version but we'll get it.

I am actually right of today's center.

Cave Johnson
05-30-2007, 09:52 AM
Godspeed, Lazy Mc Skirt-Chaser....

Sully
05-30-2007, 09:59 AM
Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan.

Direckshun
05-30-2007, 12:56 PM
Jesus Christ I hope Thompson wins the GOP nomination.

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 12:58 PM
Jesus Christ I hope Thompson wins the GOP nomination.

Why so? In a “he could help the party” kinda way, or a “he would sink the party helping my candidate” sorta thing?

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2007, 01:04 PM
Jesus Christ I hope Thompson wins the GOP nomination.If he does, and Hillary or Obama is the Democratic nominee....he will beat either.

(One caveat: UNLESS Iraq really goes to complete hell between now and then.)

Mark it down. :D

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2007, 01:06 PM
Godspeed, Lazy Mc Skirt-Chaser....Bill Clinton is not eligible to run again.... ;)

FTR, at least Fred was a bachelor....:)

recxjake
05-30-2007, 01:10 PM
Say goodbye Rudy.

ROFL

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/05/freds_in_whos_hurt.html

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2007, 01:47 PM
ROFL

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/05/freds_in_whos_hurt.htmlHere's what they say about Thompson's impact on Guliani:

Rudy Guliani: If you accept the premise that the nomination fight will ultimately come down to Giuliani versus some conservative alternative, then Thompson's entry into the contest is quite good news for Hizzoner. The longer (and nastier) the fight among Romney, Thompson and McCain to be the conservative choice, the better Giuliani looks. Thompson's candidacy has the potential to muddy the water in Iowa and South Carolina with no clear winners emerging. An extended primary season is all to the good for Giuliani who is strongest in the group of states voting next Feb. 5. The only potential downside of Thompson's candidacy from the Giuliani perspective is that they are both tough-talking, law and order men -- overlapping images that could make it harder for Giuliani to distinguish himself from his rivals.


This is what they are neglecting to mention, or choosing to overlook. Guiliani is ONLY viable as a Republican nominee in the primaries because he is, currently....the most "electable" of the candidates. Above all else, Republicans tend to be more pragmatic than their Democratic counterparts who.....tend to be more ideologically driven (although with the W, the Neocons have pushed the party more in that direction.)

That said, if Thompson enters the race....he is certainly as "electable" compared to any of the current candidates on either side. Thus, Republicans will be given a choice between:

A. An "electable" Republican who defies the base of the party on many issues.
B. An "electable" Republican who reflects the positons of the base of the party on most issues.

IMO, "B" will be the choice of a significant plurality of Republicans in their primaries. That hands the nomination to Thompson.

Watch....and be amazed at how right I am. :)

FWIW, if Rudy somehow wins the nomination....I will still support him, and expect him to do well in the general election. I just don't think he can beat Fred in the primaries.

recxjake
05-30-2007, 01:49 PM
Mr. Kotter, as long as Fred or Rudy get it, I'm happy.... I just really don't want to see Mitt be the nominee...

Brock
05-30-2007, 01:53 PM
I don't think Thompson is a very strong candidate. He's probably less qualified to be president than Bush.

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2007, 01:54 PM
Mr. Kotter, as long as Fred or Rudy get it, I'm happy.... I just really don't want to see Mitt be the nominee...Sorry, Mitt....is a Mormon. It's really as simple as that.

Just like Hillary is a bitch. And Obama is liberal black. It's not politically correct to say, but those things destroy the electability of those folks among significant demographic groups (and in the case of Romney and Obama, I say that is sad....and unfortunate....but it is also fact.)

The only way any of those three win....is if Hillary convinces people she's not a bitch, Obama convinces people he's not really liberal, and Romney presents himself as....not a real Mormon.

Those electability issues are simply too much baggage, unless.....Guliani or Thompson somehow implode or fall on their faces--which given the opportunities between now and the primaries, isn't totally out of the question.

It WILL be interesting to watch. That's for sure. :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2007, 01:55 PM
I don't think Thompson is a very strong candidate. He's probably less qualified to be president than Bush.
You need to get out more then, dude. :p

Brock
05-30-2007, 01:59 PM
Romney has no chance. None. I don't care about anyone's religion, but when they start dragging that stuff out into the light, he's done.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 02:02 PM
The only way any of those three win....is if Hillary convinces people she's not a bitch, Obama convinces people he's not really liberal, and Romney presents himself as....not a real Mormon.


:LOL: That's pretty funny...especially the last part.

Direckshun
05-30-2007, 02:12 PM
If he does, and Hillary or Obama is the Democratic nominee....he will beat either.

(One caveat: UNLESS Iraq really goes to complete hell between now and then.)

Mark it down. :D
Nice caveat, there. Might as well say the Dem's will crush his ass, guaranteed.

Direckshun
05-30-2007, 02:13 PM
Why so? In a “he could help the party” kinda way, or a “he would sink the party helping my candidate” sorta thing?
In a "he's a poor matchup against Obama" kind of way.

He'd beat Hillary, but I think any reasonable GOP nominee would beat Hillary.

Cochise
05-30-2007, 02:32 PM
Above all else, Republicans tend to be more pragmatic than their Democratic counterparts who.....tend to be more ideologically driven (although with the W, the Neocons have pushed the party more in that direction.)

That doesn't really make any sense. Neoconservatism is hardly a further-right brand of conservatism. If anything, it takes the party away from more classical principles.

Cochise
05-30-2007, 02:34 PM
I don't think Thompson is a very strong candidate. He's probably less qualified to be president than Bush.

He's at least as qualified as Barry Obama is.

Brock
05-30-2007, 02:35 PM
He's at least as qualified as Barry Obama is.

How is that a recommendation?

Cochise
05-30-2007, 02:42 PM
How is that a recommendation?

At least half the voting public doesn't seem to care. You've got two people who want to hold the nation's highest office after just a term in Congress on the Democratic side. On the other side, you have legislators (who IMO are not all that qualified no matter how long they have been in Washington) and a few governors and other executive office holders (who are more qualified, but aren't really contenders except one).

Compared with the past several presidents, (governor, governor, vice-president, governor, governor) this field as a whole isn't all that qualified, IMO.

ChiefaRoo
05-30-2007, 02:44 PM
I don't know why anyone would accuse Thompson of being unqualified. He was a good Senator from TN and he knows how Washingon runs.

Cochise
05-30-2007, 02:49 PM
I don't know why anyone would accuse Thompson of being unqualified. He was a good Senator from TN and he knows how Washingon runs.

Being a member of a assembly doesn't qualify you all that much IMO for an executive position like the White House.

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2007, 03:02 PM
That doesn't really make any sense. Neoconservatism is hardly a further-right brand of conservatism. If anything, it takes the party away from more classical principles.

It's not conservatism that drives Neocons....it's the IDEOLOGY. Like liberalism drives Democrats, as both a political framework....but also as an ideology. Dems tend to be much more ideologically homogenous, than Reps.

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2007, 03:05 PM
Nice caveat, there. Might as well say the Dem's will crush his ass, guaranteed.You won't be as cocky about it come next year this time....unless the bottom really falls out in Iraq. It could; but you shouldn't hold your breath.

Remember, the anti-war movement was at its "height" from 1969 THROUGH the 1972 election....how did McGovern fare again?

Hillary and Obama will be battling to NOT become another McGovern. :)

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 03:55 PM
I don't know why anyone would accuse Thompson of being unqualified. He was a good Senator from TN and he knows how Washingon runs.
I don't buy the qualified line myself. What does that mean?
Founders intended for anyone being able to run. There's no quals in the Constitution except for age and being a native citizen.

I just think people like those who have been in a chief executive position more but that doesn't rule out not being one before. The people decide.

Direckshun
05-30-2007, 06:06 PM
Dems tend to be much more ideologically homogenous, than Reps.
I seriously, significantly disagree.

Direckshun
05-30-2007, 06:07 PM
You won't be as cocky about it come next year this time....unless the bottom really falls out in Iraq. It could; but you shouldn't hold your breath.
I've been watching Iraq, and I've already exhaled.

Believer
05-30-2007, 06:50 PM
Here's what they say about Thompson's impact on Guliani:




This is what they are neglecting to mention, or choosing to overlook. Guiliani is ONLY viable as a Republican nominee in the primaries because he is, currently....the most "electable" of the candidates. Above all else, Republicans tend to be more pragmatic than their Democratic counterparts who.....tend to be more ideologically driven (although with the W, the Neocons have pushed the party more in that direction.)

That said, if Thompson enters the race....he is certainly as "electable" compared to any of the current candidates on either side. Thus, Republicans will be given a choice between:

A. An "electable" Republican who defies the base of the party on many issues.
B. An "electable" Republican who reflects the positons of the base of the party on most issues.

IMO, "B" will be the choice of a significant plurality of Republicans in their primaries. That hands the nomination to Thompson.

Watch....and be amazed at how right I am. :)

FWIW, if Rudy somehow wins the nomination....I will still support him, and expect him to do well in the general election. I just don't think he can beat Fred in the primaries.

Mr Pro-choice is not electable because the conservatives will NEVER allow him to run in a general election without a Pro-Lifer running as an Independant to stop him. The last thing conservatives want is a Nelson Rockefeller in the White House.

Rudy will not and cannot win the White House. He has peaked.

Baby Lee
05-30-2007, 06:56 PM
Guiliani is ONLY viable as a Republican nominee in the primaries because he is, currently....the most "electable" of the candidates. Above all else, Republicans tend to be more pragmatic than their Democratic counterparts who.....tend to be more ideologically driven (although with the W, the Neocons have pushed the party more in that direction.)
Had me right up until you said Dems were more ideologically driven. Dems went with electability in Kerry because he didn't pump his fist and scream. If Reps go for Giuliani, it'll be because his stances have the broadest support.

Direckshun
05-30-2007, 07:00 PM
Had me right up until you said Dems were more ideologically driven. Dems went with electability in Kerry because he didn't pump his fist and scream. If Reps go for Giuliani, it'll be because his stances have the broadest support.
Exactly.

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2007, 07:32 PM
Had me right up until you said Dems were more ideologically driven. Dems went with electability in Kerry because he didn't pump his fist and scream. If Reps go for Giuliani, it'll be because his stances have the broadest support. Exactly.Kerry is not an ideologue? Surely, you jest? He's an idealogue without charisma, but still... :spock:

The structure of that paragraph was bad; I should have started a new paragraph. I was referring to the fact that the Dems tend to nominate more ideological candidates because they are more ideologically homogeneous....it's a reflection of a more united and coherent liberal ideology, whereas Republicans tend to (ideologically) be more fragmented/diverse. Demographically, Dems are the "big tent" party, whereas as Reps are a bigger tent ideologically speaking--and Thompson will be appealing to "more" Republicans than Guliani...IMHO.

As for Giuliani.....his stances are "broad," sure. Which, absent, a "real" conservative in the race....equals the most "electable." :)

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2007, 07:35 PM
I seriously, significantly disagree.

I do this, for a hobby and for a living (less or more....less)....but perhaps you are an insider? :shrug:

Keith Olberman, perhaps? :hmmm:

Cochise
05-30-2007, 07:39 PM
FWIW, I caught a few minutes of Limbaugh today, and he said he had just spoken with a Thompson confidant who said that he was considering the June 4 day to start raising money and exploring the possibility officially, but that the July 4 part was not true as far as he knew. So, take it with a grain of salt.

The politico is the same e-rag that also reported John "Maybe it's Maybeline" Edwards was going to drop out of the race when his wife's cancer returned, but then he didn't.

mlyonsd
05-30-2007, 07:46 PM
I'm sure I'll get bashed for this but I'd have to learn a lot more about his form of cancer that is in remission before I could vote for him.

Direckshun
05-30-2007, 07:55 PM
I do this, for a hobby and for a living (less or more....less)....but perhaps you are an insider?
I do it for a hobby too, and I actually am a liberal to boot.

I'm calling bogus on that.

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2007, 10:27 PM
I do it for a hobby too, and I actually am a liberal to boot.

I'm calling bogus on that.Bogus on what? :shrug:

FTR, I'm not claiming to be a self-appointed or paid expert or analyst (though I've never closed the door on that, and I may yet)...but I'm no political neophyte either. I've been at this 25-30 years now. That's what I meant by saying I "live" it....I keep up with it, as a hobby and a big part of my job--I consider it a personal passion and professional responsibility.

For me, politics has been a life-long passion--even through the disillusionment and cynicism of Vietnam, Watergate, and the 90s. With a family and four young kids, I'm not quite as "current" on the details everything inside the DC "Loop" as I was in the 80s and 90s...though.

You'll have to just trust me on this (or not)--but if I was in your circle of acquaintances....honestly, I am the person who nearly everyone goes to....if they have a political question or want an informed "take" on something that's happening. I'm unabashedly conservative....yet even my liberal friends, colleagues, and associates like to "chew the fat" with me about politics (for the record, I'm a bit less obnoxious/provocative/controversial "in person...heh)

Believe it, or not....makes no difference to me. I'm no recxjake....I'm not exactly a second or third year undergrad who's had limited life experience or schooling. I've been around THIS block more than a few times. I just call it like I see it. Sometimes I'm wrong, but my track record is actually pretty impressive (ask my wife....heh.)

I'm just sayin'. :p

wazu
05-30-2007, 11:10 PM
I'm not sure what to think about this guy. The very fact that the Republican base seems to flock to him is a little unnerving.

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2007, 11:32 PM
I'm not sure what to think about this guy. The very fact that the Republican base seems to flock to him is a little unnerving.

Have you seen the Democratic base lately? :spock:

wazu
05-31-2007, 07:39 PM
Have you seen the Democratic base lately? :spock:

LMAO

Yeah, but that really doesn't bother me considering I stopped voting for Democrats a long time ago. (A couple of basic economics classes will have that effect on a person.)

I just want to see a Republican candidate I can respect. I was dead set against George Junior from the get-go in 2000. I wanted McCain. I never understood why with roughly 300 million people in this country we would need to draw from the same family twice. Especially considering that his dad wasn't particularly stellar.

Just because Fred Thompson is an actor doesn't mean he's Ronald Reagan. But maybe he's good anyway, we'll see.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-31-2007, 08:31 PM
How are all the Republicans going to feel about Thompson's stance on the GWoT when they realize that he let a major airport get seized by rogue commandos who preceded to crash a major international flight, and his crew's lack of preparation and security led to dozens of unnecessary deaths.

:shake:

Taco John
05-31-2007, 10:33 PM
I'm not sure what to think about this guy. The very fact that the Republican base seems to flock to him is a little unnerving.



Haven't you heard? He's been on TV before.

recxjake
05-31-2007, 10:44 PM
F. Thompson = Wesley Clak 04
Romney = Howard Dean 04

patteeu
06-01-2007, 05:45 AM
Godspeed, Lazy Mc Skirt-Chaser....

LMAO

patteeu
06-01-2007, 05:58 AM
F. Thompson = Wesley Clak 04
Romney = Howard Dean 04

recxjake = the Mr. Magoo of politics

Baby Lee
06-01-2007, 08:14 AM
How are all the Republicans going to feel about Thompson's stance on the GWoT when they realize that he let a major airport get seized by rogue commandos who preceded to crash a major international flight, and his crew's lack of preparation and security led to dozens of unnecessary deaths.

:shake:
But then, he did manage to maneuver a whole special forces squadron to get the drop on 'Jimmy' Bond in flagrante delicto.

recxjake
06-01-2007, 08:39 AM
recxjake = the Mr. Magoo of politics

Atleast I'm actually doing something about it, rather than just bitch about it all day on a football website.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 08:47 AM
Atleast I'm actually doing something about it, rather than just bitch about it all day on a football website.

I hope you're better at what you're doing now than you are at what you do here on this football website.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 12:48 PM
But then, he did manage to maneuver a whole special forces squadron to get the drop on 'Jimmy' Bond in flagrante delicto.

The sonofabitch should have known the Annex Skywalk was going to be an ambush

:cuss: :cuss:

deadbabyseal
06-03-2007, 01:24 PM
Have you seen the Democratic base lately? :spock:Not meaning to pick at you but the picture in your avatar is Lorrie Morgan, a country singer Fred Thompson used to date. Fred is married to Jeri Kehn.
Here's a picture of our actual next First Lady.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 01:35 PM
Not meaning to pick at you but the picture in your avatar is Lorrie Morgan, a country singer Fred Thompson used to date. Fred is married to Jeri Kehn.
Here's a picture of our actual next First Lady.

Ooops. :LOL: