Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 7:55 PM

No. My first point is that fred? wants to act like a candidate but take none of the risk. My second point, and it comes from the comedic value alone, is this fred?manina over a guy who isn’t even a candidate. He is included in polls with real candidates and the fred? groupies delute the poll by voting for a guy who is not a candidate. It’s hilarious! And my little cause to put fred? into some context has been going on for almost two weeks and I still have people going bat$hit crazy that someone challenges freds? viability, when he is not viable because he is not a candidate.

I noticed we have ANOTHER fred? thread up top, and I expect to find more of the same rhetoric from a non-candidate and the continued renting of hair over his non-candidacy. You just can’t make this stuff up.

My point was that Mitt! has been confronted on his different stances on issues and fred? has not.

Your point is that he hasn’t announced with almost 9 months before Super Tuesday? That he didn’t take place in the meaningless MSNBC debate that no one watched?

Romney was considered a candidate before he announced too; he just announced earlier- and very, very early in the election cycle- and where has that gotten him? Fourth place so far.

Maybe Fred will completely fall apart when interviewed or debated… but that’s very highly unlikely- he’s campaigned for office twice before with a 100% success rate (unlike Romney, who’s 50/50 thus far).

Go to the National Review archives, or the ABC blog- there’s plenty already there about his positions. That’s the reason for the buzz; we have a pretty good idea where he stands and like it- unlike Romney, Rudy or McCain.

He was known for driving around the state in a red pickup during his first Senate campaign to great effect, and it stuck. Had he been some poser who couldn’t identify with people, it would’ve flopped as badly as the infamous Dukakis tank photo. Call it a gimmick if you like, but if it’s stupid and it works, it ain’t stupid.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 5:20 PM

My point was that Mitt! has been confronted on his different stances on issues and fred? has not.

I am less of a Mitt! supporter than I am a fred? critic. These last two weeks have been an adventure in comic relief reading all the fredmainia? talk about a guy who wont announce. It’s like he’s trying to crate an image that has nothing to do with what he really is. He is a washington insider and I even heard a story about how he travels to rallys etc in a beat up red pickup. But afterward, he drives off a block or two, his staffer drives the truck and he gets in a limo.

Ouchie.

But you don’t get to point to his leading in the polls against reps as credible and not accept the poll that says he is behind Hillary. The fact that peole haven’t been exposed to his hypocricies could be the very reason he polls well against reps

Umm, that’s why I didn’t make a big deal about it aside from pointing out his being a “top tier” candidate.

Oh, since you’re a Mitt “flipper” Romney supporter, I’d be careful about throwing about the “hypocrisy” charge. I’d also not want to put too much stock in the Hillary vs. X polls either, because they’ve consistantly shown Hillary trouncing Romney.

Well, right now he trails Hillary in several key states.

Well, right now he hasn’t even announced, hasn’t participated in a debate, hasn’t really campaigned and has come to the table much later than the others. These early X vs Y poll numbers mean very little, and won’t for at least another 6 months. Until the American public gets a better chance to see him speak and address his views, it’s absurd to quote Fred vs Hillary polls this early. The only real use these early polls have are to identify who the top tier candidates are- and with Thompson showing up 3rd in recent polls, he’s already a top tier candidate.

This election cycle has started VERY early- and remember that most voters aren’t reading blogs daily, and many know nothing about Fred outside his acting career.

It also bears noting that during his first run for Senate in Tennessee, he was far behind early in the race, only to end up trouncing his opponent once the election was held.

I’m pretty confident that in a head-to-head race against the wooden, phony Hillary his down to earth style would do very well.

and I believe Fred! would make a strong showing in the general election against any of the Dem front runners.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Well, right now he trails Hillary in several key states.

CS,
So then who are you going to vote for? What big government, big spending, influence selling, look good, sound good politician are you going to vote for?
King of the Britons on May 10, 2007 at 1:35 PM

I haven’t made that decision yet. But my litmus test is whoever polls best against the traitorous dems.

Heres the problem with isolationism. The Iraqi parliment, right now is debating to kick the US out of their country. When things start going to #ell and the Iraqis need help, it wont be us, but it will be somebody. The Chinese? Oh yeah, wouldn’t that be nice. They would go into Iraq and kill every sunni just to appease the shiites and then reap the rewards in oil. They could manipulate the oil market to the point that this free market that Paul thinks is the cure all, would be seriously hamstrung by rising energy costs. So, you just think about that. The US isn’t the only country that has interests in the ME and if that crazy old coot Ron Paul had his way, we’d be sucking hind teet when it comes to oil. Just look at Iraq toady. A power vacuum will need to be filled when we leave and no other country on the face of this planet has the USA’s interests at heart.

You believe that freedom is an overused cliche – you have my condolences.

That is disengenuous. It was very obvious what the context of my comment was.

Freedom is an overused cliche’ in these types of discussions.

You try to use “freedom” as the absolute moral authority trump card. It is not and that is what I meant.

The Ron Paul crowd have the collective IQ of an ashtray.

My ashtray called, and wanted my to give you a big “F you” for such an unprovoked attack on it’s intelligence.

Republicans who have seen their party hijacked by neocons and theocons

It’s now about to be hijacked by the fleeocons.

Same question to you Hollow – who is your man? What are his credentials?

Right now I’m in Fred’s corner. He hasn’t formally announced yet, but it seems pretty clear he will.

True he’s not a Perfect Conservative Candidate, but neither has any candidate I’ve ever voted for (and Ron Paul sure as hell isn’t) and he seems much stronger and more authentic than any of the current front runners.

His record and written articles suggest he’s pretty strong on Federalism issues, in favor of tougher border security before any solution to the millions already here, strong on defense and homeland security, etc. While his lack of executive experience may bother some, he’s no babe in the woods with regards to politics. Given that the top three Dem contenders don’t have such executive experience either (unless being married to a President counts), so that point is largely moot.

Furthermore, no matter how good a candidate is on policy, it’s useless if they’re unelectable, and I believe Fred! would make a strong showing in the general election against any of the Dem front runners.

The big government Nanny-State will never be reduced by people who have accepted it as a part of life.

It won’t be reduced by Ron Paul either because he can’t and won’t be elected for an office higher than the one he already holds.

He supports a very isolationist foreign policy which is being twisted by some as anti-semitism.

He is not electable, but does bring Constitutional issues to the forefront in a field of left-leaning candidates.

So then who are you going to vote for? What big government, big spending, influence selling, look good, sound good politician are you going to vote for?

I agree that many of the things that libertarians advocate could not work as it stands now – like legalizing drugs without getting rid of free healthcare – but anyone who is on record in both deed and word advocating more freedom and lesser government and not the other way around will get my support. You believe that freedom is an overused cliche – you have my condolences. The world will never be changed by people who accept things as unchangeable. The big government Nanny-State will never be reduced by people who have accepted it as a part of life.

As much as I’d like to see some Paul’s small-government libertarian stances advanced, I still can’t see how anyone of sound mind would think this guy would make a good nominee or President.

Personally, I prefer candidates who aren’t dumber and crazier than myself, and Ron Paul is both.

Ron Paul believes in freedom. Period. Why do you have a problem with that?

King of the Britons on May 10, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Freedom is an overused cliche’ in these types of discussions. All behavior has limits and what Paul suggests works on paper but not in the real world. Paul would destroy corporations and leave weak businesses in it’s place. HUGE corporations in other countries would destroy our smaller businesses and before you know it, our resources would be bled dry and we’d be another darfur.

Instead of having freedom as a lynchpin issue, we need to try practicality.

But come on, no true libertarian can support the Patriot Act.

Libertarians believe in smaller government, but they also believe in effective government too. I would think that libertarians can see that the Patriot Act does not effect any of their civil liberties. However, it seems that most self-proclaimed libertarians are also paranoid delusionals with percecution complexes.