Fred stuns Beltway with bold agenda of … basic conservative positions
posted at 4:11 pm on August 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Well, pre-Bush conservatism, I should say. Bigger military, more effective domestic intelligence, fewer entitlements, tax reform: David Broder thinks it’s a bombshell and Jim Geraghty’s genuinely flabbergasted, although that may be because he seems to think Fred’s hinting at raising taxes and I don’t. He has made some noise about the Fair Tax, but so have five other candidates including conservative stalwart Duncan Hunter so he’s not exactly out on a limb.
The one potential grenade is his criticism of Medicare but he can finesse that as the campaign rolls on before the AARP asks to have a word with him. For now it’s just smart politics, especially with the health-care battle looming: it’s a cautionary tale of government bloat and it’s Bush-backed, so Fred gets to kill two ugly birds with one stone.
Seriously, am I missing something about why this is big news? Also, doesn’t Fred have more immediate problems?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
AP ‘hearts’ huckabee. So do I. I’m over Fred? – by the time he’s in, its only 2-3 months to a primary and its over. Lazy. Indeed.
More seriously, it’d be a good move for a major candidate to go public on a disagreement with Bush and lambast the administration for something far reaching and big – to give them that distance they are going to need in the upcoming election.
lorien1973 on August 16, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Man I’m looking forward to the first debate he participates in. There will be a lot of pressure on him to hit a home run there.
Zetterson on August 16, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Zetterson on August 16, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Agreed. He needs to announce very soon if he ever hopes to have any credibility.
jdawg on August 16, 2007 at 4:19 PM
I don’t see him debating very well. Has anyone ever seen him in a debate?
jeremiad on August 16, 2007 at 4:22 PM
There were scads of fair tax signs at the rally in Houston.
I hope he comes out swinging and I think he will shirk off the dem attacks like water off a ducks back.
And all will react well to that.
I think he’ll show that he has big brass ones!
TheSitRep on August 16, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Fred Who????
robo on August 16, 2007 at 4:22 PM
My guess: Conventional Wisdom holds that Bush has killed the Conservative Movement.
Actual Wisdom will hold that Bush isn’t all that Conservative. to paraphrase Rush in the aftermath of Meirs, the base is in crackdown mode, not crackup mode, yet the MSM et al will be all to willing to claim the latter.
So, is it news? Only to those who are astonished! to learn Conservatism isn’t dead.
cadetwithchips2 on August 16, 2007 at 4:23 PM
If he doesn’t announce by the end of Labor Day, it’ll be over for him, anyway.
jdawg on August 16, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Unfortunately, perception becomes reality. I think the only chance the Repuplicans have is that I don’t think the country is ready to elect a Hillary or an Obama just yet. The dems could have one the last 2 elections if they didn’t keep floating such shmuck candidates.
saiga on August 16, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Hmmm… interesting… he’s the only one talking about a number of issues here… you know, the tough ones.
This is the FIRST war America has ever fought were we did not increase the size of the military… fact is its just plain TOO SMALL… he’s right on that issue.
Entitlements? right agian… the spending INCREASES are unsustainable.
Tax reform? He can try, but no one in Congress will touch that one.
FBI? He’s correct. Its a LAW enforcement agency… not a spy agency. Just like its silly in my opinion to have FBI, Alcohol Tob Firearms, and Border Patrol, all enforcing different aspects of Federal Law… we need ONE entity…
Could get really interesting…
Romeo13 on August 16, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Ethusiasm for Fred seems to have dropped off significantly here. I’m not sure what is going to happen but if I had a gun to my head I would say Fred is not going to come out of this as the winner of the Republican primary. If Fred falls, which candidate is going to benefit the most by that? Rudy or Mitt? I’m going to say Mitt.
Zetterson on August 16, 2007 at 4:30 PM
A member of the Huckabee campaign likes Huckabee better than Fred? Shocking.
And yes- that he’s forwarding conservative principles isn’t really news… except that he’s really the only one of the frontrunners doing so.
Hollowpoint on August 16, 2007 at 4:30 PM
I think he will make a good showing in the debates. With what he proposes he will at least make the RINO’s move more right to counter him. It will make for a better Republican candidate one way or the other.
conservnut on August 16, 2007 at 4:31 PM
No. fred? will only have a big problem if he accidentally has to start running as a candidate and ends up spending that $3.4 mil that rightfully belongs to his family.
csdeven on August 16, 2007 at 4:32 PM
I think Fred’s ship has left the harbor already…he missed the boat.
Constant Parrhesia on August 16, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Come on cs, you can do better than that! What’s the matter? Not feeling well today?
conservnut on August 16, 2007 at 4:35 PM
I just don’t have the confidence in the “new” American population to make sound, common sense decisions. All they care about now is “what can the government do for me”. There are more people wanting to ride in the wagon than there are people wanting to pull it. As the wagon gets heavier, less and less will want to keep pulling.
We will need to get hard nosed to turn things around and administer some tough love to our fellow inhabitants.
saiga on August 16, 2007 at 4:35 PM
If you’re into Tabloid news, which seems to be the trend at Hot Air dot com, then no, it’s not news.
If you want to know that a possible candidate for POTUS has some common sense, then yes, this is news.
Montana on August 16, 2007 at 4:37 PM
First, Fred has to announce. Then he needs to engage in debate. Once he’s done that, we’ll see.
jdawg on August 16, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Because he has finally told us when he is getting in the race:
the former senator from Tennessee said that when he joins the battle next month
RiteWingFascist on August 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM
I actually think the wait may bode well for Fred. When he first began discussing entering the race the hype over him was too high. People saw things in him that he could never live up to. But he has waited and let the hype die down, he shuffled his campaign and let all his dirty laundry dry out. He will enter the race in September right before a debate, stronger and more organized then he would have been in July. If he performs well, I think he can get all that support back. Personally, I’m waiting to see him debate before I make a final decision on who to support.
Complete7 on August 16, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Care to back that up?
Allahpundit on August 16, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Fred Thompson: Conservative.
Unless he’s lobbying for Democratic special interest groups.
Or supporting Campaign Finance Reform.
Or funneling cashola to his son’s consulting company for services that were never rendered.
Or mucking it up with lefty Hollyweird bigwigs.
Fred Thompson: Because rehashing 20 year old ideas is actually harking back to tradition, not being old and stale.
BKennedy on August 16, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Bigger military, more effective domestic intelligence, fewer entitlements, tax reform: David Broder thinks it’s a bombshell.
Sounds more like a bomb to me.
Bigger military? Where are all the extra troops going to come from?
More effective domestic intelligence? Maybe. Maybe not.
Fewer entitlements? Oh yah, I would just like to see someone try to get peoples “entitlements” away from them. Pass the popcorn.
Tax reform? Rightly or wrongly most swing voters just see that as “more tax breaks for the rich”.
I think that Fred needs to go back to the drawing board. Maybe he could find something about all the illegal invaders who are in our country and the plantation owner money grubbing jerks who attract them.
MB4 on August 16, 2007 at 4:47 PM
A change of campaign advisor wouldn’t hurt either IMHO.
Zetterson on August 16, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Exactly!! How did I miss that? Why is that not #1? Why is that not even mentioned?
Zetterson on August 16, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Come on AP, he/she wrote because there is a liberal in our midst and it was only a matter for time. Let’s hope he/she doesn’t start all that hate and vitriol that usually come with them. The sad part is they generally travel in packs and the tone of the blog may be about to change.
volsense on August 16, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Remember, if Fred fizzles, Newt says he’ll run. Now THAT would make for some fun debates! As I’ve said before, Newt has a snowball’s chance, but so apparently do any and all Republican candidates as things stand right now. At least Newt would bring the discussion back to real conservatism, good ideas, and a sharpening of the party’s focus. He might help strengthen us for the next election, even if he loses miserably. A Goldwateresque loser, perhaps? Someone who loses but remains a legend for helping to bring a movement together that inspires generations to come?
Anyone notice that Newt has lost a bit of weight, gotten a spiffier hairstyle, and has been appearing without his glasses lately? Hmmmmm.
Back to Fred, though–it’s nice to see he’s openly embracing many of the basic tenets of conservatism. There’s hope for him if he sticks to these points and articulates them forcefully and well.
aero on August 16, 2007 at 4:53 PM
How is this news?
amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Oh, sorry, after I posted that, I just want to clarify something. I’m not talking to you, Allah. I understand your reason for posting this. I mean, how is this news to Broder and Geraghty?
amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 4:55 PM
To quote another down-home-country-folk-type, Granny Hawkins, “That big talk don’t mean doodly-squat!”
By the way, that headline “The men of MiTT” scared me until I read the link. Whew!
Brat on August 16, 2007 at 4:58 PM
I actualy think, from talking to people around me, that the American Voter’s wisdom has been seriously undervalued.
Folks know whats wrong… and are waiting for someone to come out and help us fix it… they’ll choose wisely, if someone will give them the opportunity. Just right now all the politicians are kow towing to the special interests…
I mean we all know that we have a serious energy problem with having to depend on the Mideast for oil… yet we can’t drill here??? HUH??? Put that on the ballot, explain that the oil is gonig to have to come from somewhere, why not do the drilling here where we will do it MUCH cleaner than anywhere else… and not fund terroism at the same time??? Give em the choice… I think they’ll suprise you.
Romeo13 on August 16, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Well, it looks like the tide is starting to turn against Fred.
I mean, he had the benefit of the doubt, for awhile, and then he squandered it.
Then you get posts like this:
I mean, wow.
Obviously, Fred is an idiot to want to increase the budget of our military. He’s a moron to want try to increase domestic intelligence, and therefore increase the security of our country. What an idiot! He’s going to try to remove or reform those entitlements that’re sucking up 45% of our budget? What kind of a jerk would want to reform taxes?
You know … When AP said, “Wow, this isn’t surprising this is basic conservatism” that’s kind of a hint. AP isn’t saying, “These ideas are stupid” he’s saying they shouldn’t be surprising.
But now you’re saying that all those ideas are stupid – are a bomb?
Tell me MB4, what platform do you think a conservative candidate SHOULD stand on, if not “better defense” “lower taxes” “smaller government”?
I mean, seriously. You should think a little bit before slamming an candidates’s views just because you don’t like the candidate.
apollyonbob on August 16, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Are you speaking of Abraham? He is already gone.
RiteWingFascist on August 16, 2007 at 5:00 PM
I agree. Fred’s been saying a lot of these things, or variations on these themes, all along. His commentaries from way before he was thinking about running for president reflect a basic set of conservative beliefs that don’t appear to have changed. The news would have been if he had edged toward the center to help capture centrist voters or something like that.
And I don’t see his ideas as being particularly politically provocative, either. It should not be considered “daring” and “risky” to espouse basic conservative beliefs. Newt has some politically daring and risky ideas. The ones Fred’s talking about are tried-and-true conservatism, plain and simple.
aero on August 16, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Anyone notice that Newt has lost a bit of weight, gotten a spiffier hairstyle, and has been appearing without his glasses lately? Hmmmmm.
aero on August 16, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Newt just needs to get some liposuction/tightening around the jowls and he’ll be good to go!!!
He certainly has more ideas than the rest of the field put together.
MB4 on August 16, 2007 at 5:04 PM
I thought Fred might be formidable, regardless of substance. Now, I’m inclined to think he made a mistake and Huckabee is the new buzz word thanks to his results of the straw poll. Of course, Huckabee is unlikely in the extreme to get the nomination, but he is getting the conversation, and that is what Fred needed to keep.
Yes, I noticed that too.
Spirit of 1776 on August 16, 2007 at 5:04 PM
You’re probably right. He’s hoping the hype will turn into disdain and then he can excuse himself from the race and funnel that $3.4 mil to his family.
csdeven on August 16, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Dream Ticket: Dave Burge/Fred Thompson
jaime on August 16, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Just to stick my nose in here for a sec….
fred? deals in vagueness. He has no plan that he can explain. He rehashes the same rehashed conservative ideals that have been rehashed over the years.
The point is that ANY conservative would be expected to say those things and freddie boy knows it. He is banking on stupid groupies to vote for the character he played on TV.
csdeven on August 16, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Sorry.
Dream ticket: Michelle Malkin/anybody else.
Suck-up for the day – thank you very much!
On-my-soap-box on August 16, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Oh yes I was. I didn’t realize he was gone. How the heck did I miss that? I’m happy to hear that. Thanks RWF.
Zetterson on August 16, 2007 at 5:13 PM
I don’t know that the tide is turning against Fred–maybe just amongst the most impatient of the short-attention-span set. I think that many people, like me, are just waiting to see him in action before making a decision about him. Unlike some, I’m willing to wait. Newt might be entering even later than Fred, and there’s still plenty of time to catch the attention of the millions of voters who haven’t even started paying attention yet (that is, if one of the states doesn’t move their primaries up to Thanksgiving of this year, thereby forcing Iowa and NH to move their primaries to 2006). Remember, the vital idgit vote is up for grabs until the last 15 minutes! Any candidate still has a chance.
For myself, I am still seriously considering Giuliani, Thompson, Huckabee, and Gingrich. There’s a long way still to go. Most of the public is not nearly as interested and engaged in all of this as we are. Give it time.
aero on August 16, 2007 at 5:15 PM
I don’t understand why people are saying it’s over for Fred if he doesn’t announce now.
Why? MOST people are not paying attention.
The elections are a long way off, if ya ask me.
bridgetown on August 16, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Burge has declared, Michelle has not. Fred almost has, so I included him.
jaime on August 16, 2007 at 5:19 PM
So why not Mitt!?
csdeven on August 16, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Yes yes, rehashed instead of sticking to basics, ‘unoriginal’ instead of ‘traditional’, vague to the point of having explained everything he believes on his website — I get all that. My point was that if you turn around and slam someone’s ideas, or the platform their running on, you’re no longer just attacking that person. And doing so, after everyone is saying, “Well he’s just expressing basic conservatism” is … thoughtless, to the say the least.
Part of the problem with politics is that people spend too much time reacting, and not enough thinking. That was all I was saying. I’m not that much of a Fred supporter anymore, but MB4s attack was so bizarre I just had to say something.
apollyonbob on August 16, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Tell me MB4, what platform do you think a conservative candidate SHOULD stand on, if not “better defense” “lower taxes” “smaller government”?
I think the time is ripe for a populist/conservative/ideas candidate, not just a money/”conservative” candidate.
BTW, it was bigger military, not better defense. Let’s stick with Fred’s program here.
I mean, seriously. You should think a little bit
Wow great “argument”. Real classy too. Tell me apollyonbob, can’t you do better than that? You aren’t a first grade teacher by any chance are you? You make me think of my first grade teacher.
before slamming an candidates’s views just because you don’t like the candidate.
Personally, I like Fred OK, I just don’t like his approach and some of the things that he has done/not done. I actually had high hopes for him at first, but he is disappointing me.
apollyonbob on August 16, 2007 at 5:00 PM
MB4 on August 16, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Well, I admit, I too have been suffering impatience. I want to see Fred debate, I want to see him in action. I feel like instead of “making sure he’s prepared” or “testing the waters” he’s “dragging his feet” … Newt has the advantage, even though he’d be coming in even later, of not having strung people along.
But true, there is still time.
apollyonbob on August 16, 2007 at 5:26 PM
aero, I’m pretty much with you but in defense of those short attention span types, I think the dissatisfaction derrives from the fear of being duped into electing someone who turns out to be a dud. Supporters see the debates and events coming and going before their eyes while Fred is sitting on the sidelines. They are left to wonder, what is keeping him from jumping in? Is he not well organized enough. Are the donations dropping off? Is he being lazy as the rumors warned? I think it could prove to be a good strategy to wait it out, as he has done, but it could also hurt him. Who knows? There is probably more to it then this too.
Zetterson on August 16, 2007 at 5:26 PM
That’s almost as bad as a Catholic priest saying, God bless you.
The very idea of expressing conservative values.
madmonkphotog on August 16, 2007 at 5:26 PM
And yes, I’ll second csdeven and ask, why not Mitt?
Zetterson on August 16, 2007 at 5:30 PM
He is banking on stupid groupies to vote for the character he played on TV.
csdeven on August 16, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Oh great, next you are going to tell me that he wasn’t really an Admiral in The Hunt for Red October!
MB4 on August 16, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Ok now we are talking. time to take out the garbage of entitlements and shoot them. Let’s build up our military, build up our infrastructure, hell let’s just build stuff again instead of having china build all our stuff.
unseen on August 16, 2007 at 5:32 PM
We’ll save it for a Mitt thread. :-)
In a nutshell: Though I’ve tried to get excited about Mitt, I just can’t. He’s just too politician-y. He has said nothing that engages either my political passion or my belief that he could actually win against Hillary.
Rudy remains on my list mainly because I think he’s the only one who could capture enough of the independent/swing voters to have a chance against Hillary in the general. Huckabee’s growing on me because he’s a really engaging speaker, quite conservative, and strikes me as “real”–plus he’s finally capturing some media attention, which gives him some credibility for me. He could still suprise us. Thompson is genuinely conservative (though not daringly so) and has the potential to build enough momentum to have a shot in the general (jury’s still out on him, as I said). And Newt…well, he’s Newt. He’s brilliant, and he’s an idea man. He’s a movement leader, and I’d love to have another one of those back in the limelight. We need a movement leader and a great communicator. Newt’s the best we have in that department, by far. I do hope he runs, just to help drive public discourse in a more conservative and forward-looking direction.
aero on August 16, 2007 at 5:34 PM
So why not Mitt!?
csdeven on August 16, 2007 at 5:21 PM
In the spirit of full discloser, I just gave a big $25 to Mitt. Maybe more later. No one else yet. I would give to Newt if he runs. I would give to Tancredo or Hunter if I thought they had a snowball’s chance. Maybe Tancredo if he runs third party, depending. I would give to Sessions big if I could talk him into running.
MB4 on August 16, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Newt also has the advantage over Fred in entering the race late because Newt is a very well-known political figure already (which isn’t necessarily a good thing for Newt!), while Fred still has to introduce himself (as a real person, not a character) to most of the public. I would bet that a vast majority of people, even if they know of the actor, have no idea what his political positions are. Newt gets to hit the ground at a dead run if he enters the race–very little ramp-up time for such a well-known political figure like him. Of course, he needs longer than most to overcome his negative polling, but his favorable/unfavorable numbers are no worse than Hillary’s, after all. ;-)
aero on August 16, 2007 at 5:41 PM
I am sad to say this but conservatism is dead. I am not sure who is to blame. This country has become a liberal leaning country. Conservative values are seen by most people as being outdated and bigoted. I am afraid the libs have won, and the sooner we realize this the better we can adjust to this new America. We have never tried socialism, maybe we will like it.
chief on August 16, 2007 at 5:49 PM
I can respect that. I didn’t mean to paint everyone who got excited about Fred and then became more cautious with the same broad brush. The caution is a positive thing–a willingness to look at Fred realistically and critically means the initial Fred furor will evolve into a more solid and well-informed base of support for him if he is able to earn it. That would ultimately be good for Fred, good for the party, and good for the country if he can win on his own merits instead of the blind hope of desperate conservative voters looking for a knight in shining armor to save us from Hillary.
aero on August 16, 2007 at 5:49 PM
chief on August 16, 2007 at 5:49 PM
You’ve got to be kidding, really.
jdawg on August 16, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Yes, it really is … trust us.
Sincerely,
The pundits in 1964 right after LBJ’s landslide victory.
thirteen28 on August 16, 2007 at 6:03 PM
I see Mitt as another version fo Bush Light
conservnut on August 16, 2007 at 6:04 PM
So why not Mitt!?
csdeven on August 16, 2007 at 5:21 PM
I see Mitt as another version
foof Bush Lightconservnut on August 16, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Dang fat fingers
conservnut on August 16, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Since Bill Lacy took over from Spencer Abraham, Fred! has some ground to make up and taking heed of the well laid out Conservative road map is a good way to do that.
He has to be vigorous as well though.
Speakup on August 16, 2007 at 6:11 PM
I’m not a big fan of Fred!, but one thing I do like is him sitting out. Every bit of modern Presidential campaigns starts way too early, and if Fred! does well by starting later, I’d be tempted to vote for him for that alone. Just think, the primaries could be over by February. Do we really want an EIGHT month campaign? Augh. Just thinking about it make me want to move off-grid.
Annoying Old Guy on August 16, 2007 at 6:19 PM
You totally GET it. We here at HA have to remember that we are genetic mutants who actually care about presidential politics 15 months before the general election. Mere mortals couldn’t care less about who’s in and who’s out right now. The whole line of reasoning about Fred (or Newt for that matter) being too late is silly.
Saiga brings up the best point of all. WHO the noble Rebublicans run against the Dhems is moot. The Dhems are going to lose because their candidates (please let it be Hillary) suck to an unbelievable level of suckedness. We can have fun here bantying about who’s going to get the collective nod from conservative-land but in the end this game is already determined. We win, they lose. (You think the SCOTUS is tilting to the right now, just wait.)
Mojave Mark on August 16, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Step slowly away from the ledge chief. Everything is going to be OK.
Zetterson on August 16, 2007 at 6:31 PM
YES! Right on target!
I agree, also, with Ace of Spades. I don’t understand they line of thinking that the window of opportunity has come and gone for Thompson.
I’ve just noticed around the right leaning blogs the old tired conclusion that in order to win the General Election, we have to mask conservatism. I completely disagree. And that’s why this is not a surprising or bold move but more a strategic move by Thompson. And it is why Newt has been extremely quiet about getting into “traditional” politics, i.e. campaigning for a office.
Having said all that, I have every reason to believe that regardless of whether or not Thompson runs, Newt will enter the arena. One of my co-workers daughters just interviewed with one of Newt’s organizations, along with Rep. Calvert’s and Mitt’s campaigns (also interviewed for internship for Hannity’s show but had to decline becuase of commuting)… why do I give this information? So you can determining for yourselves the importance of what was said to me. My co-worker let it slip that he was excited for her, paricularly where it concerned Newt because she could be “potentially working for SCOTUS.”
I honestly, think that Newt(and any SMART Republican)realizes that the country is HOT for a TRUE conservative leader, regardless of their previous negatives. If you can back up your conservative creditials, you’ll get the nod.
Sultry Beauty on August 16, 2007 at 6:44 PM
I have read a number of places that the reason Mr. Thompson has not declared his candidacy is because if he does it before Sept. they would not be able to complete the showing of the repeats of last season’s Law and Order and those involved with the show would lose money. Are all of you complaining about how late he is saying that this is not true or are you saying that he should just have said “too bad” to his coworkers and declared earlier anyway?
Rose on August 16, 2007 at 6:57 PM
It isn’t ‘big news’ to we Fred!Heads.
Not to worry about his ‘late’ announcement to the other Freders!. He knows exactly what he is doing.
OBX Pete on August 16, 2007 at 7:21 PM
There’s a lot of space between liberal and socialist. Personally, I don’t get too worked up about the normal ebb and flow of liberlaism and conservativism. However, I’m very suspicious about efforts to fundamentally remake our society, and its relationship with government, from either side of the aisle. I believe that many self-identified “conservatives” understand how their ideology can be more conducive to individual rights than that of the Left. Unfortunately, we’ve done a very crappy job making that case to the public lately, and have given those with socialist tendencies a huge opening to exploit. After the 2006 election, I’m afraid too many movement conservatives have misidentified the problem as “not being conservative enough,” and are attempting to “purify” the party rather than reaching out to moderates and small government liberals.
Big S on August 16, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Can’t disagree at all, but the movement itself can be alive and well, despite a lack of good, solid candidates willing to be put up as cannon fodder in the days of YouTube and dKos(not that standing for election was ever pleasant).
We could corner the market today, and ought to be. Timidity? Trepidation? Infrastructure is definitely in place. We just haven’t found our next Braveheart to, in WarCraft parlance, Unite the Clans, with a fresh apology of conservative values.
cadetwithchips2 on August 16, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Roger that. Media/Academia drip, drip, drip over the past 50 or so years starts to be effective after awhile :(
Can’t say I’m totally on board with that part.. where would you say the problem lies? I’m seeing the party of small govt as growing government at an even faster rate lately.
cadetwithchips2 on August 16, 2007 at 7:57 PM
I have sent Fred! money twice this summer. I received a nice and very humble letter from him the first time (start up funds for Friends of Fred).
I will be voting for him, and I really don’t care if he announces the day before the first primary. I already know what the other Repuds stand for, and liberal New Yorker, CEO, or Bible thumper I am not.
If you add immigration enforcement to Fred!s (supposed) platform, then I’m good.
I like to believe that part of conservatism is to go slowly in the right direction, and not create some big revolutionary program. That way people can plan their affairs around the changes.
I would be OK with the states collecting the Federal Fair tax if folks making less $100K were given a an exemption (to catch up).
In the end, a president’s effectiveness is really in convincing the American people to pressure Congress to act in the direction the America people want to go, lead and protect the Nation, and veto or do not meddle in anything else.
And leaving the rest to the States to decide.
AZCON on August 16, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Bigger military? Where are all the extra troops going to come from?
aengus on August 16, 2007 at 8:34 PM
After thoughtful reflection and analysis of the posts here I have come to the conclusion that most of you people are talking out of your azz. To say that “Fred has missed the boat and isn’t my guy” before he is even in and before you even know what he is about is mildly retarded. Say that a month after he is really in the mix, ok. Saying it before then leads me to believe most of you buy cars based on the monthly payment instead of the bottom line. Fred may or may not flame out once he is in. Whatever happens, it will be because of his merits and nothing to do with “waiting to long”.
Is this election this November for crying out loud?
Good grief.
Weber48IDA on August 16, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Almost? Surely a “Caholic” priest saying “God bless you” is much worse. You do know that the Pope is a crypto-Communist don’t you? You’re an idiot
aengus on August 16, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Yes I do realise the irony that I failed to include a full stop in the final sentence of my last comment so don’t bother pointing that out.
aengus on August 16, 2007 at 9:16 PM
/Sideshow Bob
aengus on August 16, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Fred isn’t running for the general, he’s running for primaries. Those happen on a state-by-state basis, but coming in September gives him 2, 3 months tops before the first primary. The REALLY general public doesn’t vote in primaries, its mostly the realm of poitical junkies, aka viewers like us.
Personally, I hope Fred doesn’t get the nomination. His fakery and laziness is legendary. Hillary will eat his lazy ass alive on the first night, because I guarentee you Hillary will do any amount of pandering, ring-kissing, and butt-kissing to get elected. The Clinton Lawyers are probably already in place to dispute the election results.
BKennedy on August 16, 2007 at 9:23 PM
No, most people buy new cars based on what they’ve heard repeated on TV most often. You might well believe that this idiotic “conventional wisdom” that no candidate can run unless he announces two years before the election is an idiotic farce – and of course you’d be right. But to millions of people it’s every bit as undeniable as the conventional wisdom that “McDonald’s is my kind of place” – and for exactly the same reason.
Don’t worry; the moonbats have a perfectly good excuse for acting like braindead, well, moonbats… but the people who matter in the Republican party couldn’t give less of a rat’s ass who the media tell us our “front runners” are – let alone what date they tell us to believe that the election is “over.” Of course the primaries will take place right around the same time they always take place, and the people running around and screaming “IT’S OVER!” will quietly forget that ever happened. Don’t try to argue; just accept that it’s an innate defense mechanism and move on.
Within the next month or so this ridiculous dog-and-pony show will get sidelined and the real primary races will start shaping up. Of course Hillary will win (I haven’t really been following the Democrat Primary for the past six years, but I assume somebody will tell me if she has a heart attack.) McCain never had a chance; Giuliani’s media bubble will become insignificant once the real campaign starts; and Romney will eventually figure out that $2,200 per vote is too rich even for HIS blood.
It’s starting to look like Huckabee and Thompson will be fighting to see who can out-conservative the other, and if we can take Gingrich at his word (which I do) this means he’ll stay out of the race and back whichever of them he thinks is most worthy. So as far as I’m concerned, everybody wins! (Well, except the people who aren’t conservatives. But I figure, hey, screw them.)
As great as that will be, there’s only room for one guy. And when it comes down to it, Huckabee has the personality of a Jehovah’s Witness. Of course that’ll get him a small but avid following. But he’s not camera-friendly enough to beat Thompson in a national campaign. Not even close. And a dozen more tag-team practice debates won’t fix that.
logis on August 16, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Huckabee, eh? Hmmm?
kiakjones on August 16, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Where to start…
I’m actually a pretty liberal guy by the standards of this site. I believe in gay marriage, some restrictions on guns, most of the “comprehensive immigration reform” policies (although with security and assimilation the first priorities), embryonic stem cell research, and a bunch of other things that cultural conservatives tend to hate. However, I find common cause with the mainstram of the Republican party in promoting strong national defense, economic growth through capitalist means, and personal responsibility as a necessary corrolary to individual rights. I find classical liberalism entirely unthreatening, but think multiculturalism coupled to socialism are the greatest threats we face in the USA (look where it got Europe.) With these views, I’m branded a “RINO” by many Republican partisans (especially within the past year), even though I’m “far right” by the standards of my own neighborhood and work environment (NYC/academic job).
I like my own personal freedom, and I suspect there are a lot of others out there like myself, based on my own experience. Many of them are not as engrossed with political philosophy as I am, though, and have been convinced that government monopolies over social programs are a good thing with relatively few drawbacks. I fear small government* types (liberal or conservative) are losing this argument, and that the drive to push “RINOs” out of the Republican party may only hasten that process.
*In terms of power, not necessarily cost.
Big S on August 16, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Allahpundit:
Back it up? By the very fact that you question whether it’s news or not. We’re talking about a former senator looking into a run for President, and while he has taken awhile to announce, and it’s been a bit of a tease, it’s news. And given that this is a relatively conservative site, it’s even more newsworthy.
Perhaps we can put up pics of Hillary’s cleavage?
Montana on August 16, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Now that is funny! I am going to show it to my friends, they will split their sides. Heh.
I do not blind myself with an ideology–but lean definitively to the Right. Partly because on the Right, we can critize our famous, our politicians and ourselves. I will not dirty myself with Leftist leanings that require lock step adherence to whatever the one in charge believes.
Montana on August 16, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Perhaps we can put up pics of Hillary’s cleavage?
Montana on August 16, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Das ist verboten.
An die Kinder denken.
MB4 on August 16, 2007 at 11:25 PM
I didn’t have time to read all the comments, but Fred! came in second after Romney in Thursday’s Illinois Straw Poll.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/16/mitt-romney-wins-illinois-straw-poll/
Sorry, don’t know how to make that little linky thingy.
Neocon Peg on August 17, 2007 at 12:11 AM
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
$3.4 mil to his family.
There, that should take care of your postings for friday, have a nice weekend.
right2bright on August 17, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Fred will be in this race and then we’ll get to examine him and his beliefs for real. We’ll get to see how he stacks up with Rudy and Mitt and just how effectively he can debate. I pray that Fred is as conservative as he seems and I hope that he comes out swinging. If he does and is, he’ll have my support and money. If he doesn’t and isn’t then Tancredo is getting my money just for shipping Chertoff a head of lettuce (and understanding that the first word in illegal immigrant is ILLEGAL).
Buzzy on August 17, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Heh.
I’m still not seeing anything better than Fred! out there. And I’ll bet I’m not the only one.
Contributions are down for the GOP candidates compared to the dems right now. Wonder why that is? Could be that there’s a lot of $$$ sitting on the sidelines waiting for Fred! to make it official? I’m in that particular boat myself.
But I’m not impatient, as many here appear to be. It’s early and very few of us are actually paying any attention at all to politics. Frankly I think the Average American is sick of politics.
techno_barbarian on August 17, 2007 at 1:09 AM
This slavish devotion to a former senator with a weak record (except for assaulting the first amendment with CFR) and zero executive experience defies conservative logic. fred? is a nobody who only knows how to fake out his supporters and parrot the lines that other more prominent conservatives have already espoused.
The guy has already funneled funds meant for his senatorial campaign to his son and I see no reason to doubt that he could very well do the same thing with the $3.4 mil he has already raised.
He used a fake red pickup to fool his supporters and he takes credit for a speech Reagan gave. He actually believes his own hype and worse yet, so do the groupies. They actually fred? just has to show up on the set of his TV show and simply act natural!! How moronic can you get?
All things being equal, the groupies still prefer the lying fake fred? that has no executive experience over a candidate who has basically the same conservative stances, but has tons more executive experience.
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 1:18 AM
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 1:18 AM
Endless. Broken. Record. Emphasis appropriately on the broken.
//snooze
techno_barbarian on August 17, 2007 at 1:19 AM
What the hell is a ‘fake’ red pickup?
Is it not red?
Is it not a pickup?
Does it have no engine?
Does it have no wheels?
It’s late CS – maybe you should go to bed now and get a little rest. You have another long day coming up to bash my man (actually THE man) FRED!!!!!!
OBX Pete on August 17, 2007 at 2:56 AM
That’s the point ain’t it? You fred?ites can’t see what a lying fake he is. You think his pickup was a real representation of “old fred?”. hahaha! fred? is the epitome of the washington insider and you fred?heads lap up his lies to the contrary.
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 4:07 AM
Your point seems to be that all of us who support Fred!!! are dumb and stupid and you aren’t. Also, please tell me what lies I have lapped up. You don’t know what I believe or don’t believe about the man. I am not going to change my support for him and you are not going to change your vitriolic attacks on him. So be it – but you really should quit inferring that all who support him are somehow less brilliant than you.
OBX Pete on August 17, 2007 at 4:25 AM
You need to understand that I have identified three different types of fred? supporters. When you responded to my comment I assume you are the type of supporter i was criticizing. Perhaps you are not, perhaps you are, but let me described the difference between the three.
Groupies: Complete idiots who, among other things, believe fred? doesn’t act in his TV shows. He just shows up and acts as he would in real life.
fred?heads: Refuse to accept any criticism of fred? but will ponit out the same flaws in other candidates.
Lastly the regular fred? supporter: Like most of us, hope fred? is the real deal, but have serious questions about his red pickup, support for CFR, ethics, and his lobbying history. We are waiting for him to grow a pair and announce so we can get him into a hostile environment so we can see how deeply he understands the issues and if he is able to think on his feet.
So when you defend his use of his red pickup whose sole purpose was to present himself as something he certainly is not, you are in denial.
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 8:03 AM
NYC conservative one-issue voter here:
Which candidate is best equipped to protect my family from terrorism while we go about our daily business here? Don’t know a lot about FT, have never seen his former tv show, don’t know what he’s made of.
Is he a pitt bull?
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2007 at 8:22 AM
Only three types of Fred supporters? I offer myself as a fourth type (assuming I am not unique):
1) Never have sent any money to any politician.
2) Content to wait and see what choices I have in the primaries.
3) At the most, put a bumper sticker on my vehicle (usually a red pickup).
4) Vote for the candidate that I feel represents my best interests.
At the moment, I see two Rino’s in front, a former Southern governor in third (who does not appeal to me that much, and that probably would not do well in the general election against HER), and Ol’ Fred. Whom will get my vote next year (BTW, all the primaries and the general election are next year, so Fred does have some time left before he commits)? Whoever gets the Republican nomination.
Texas Nick 77 on August 17, 2007 at 8:23 AM
There’s a war on. The socialists and barbarians are inside the gates. But ur cool.
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2007 at 8:40 AM
There you go again. Calling people who do not agree with you ‘idiots’. This must not apply to me because I am not an idiot and it was my point in my first posting.
This must not apply to me because I have not refused to accept your criticism against anyone. That is not the point. The point is that you are calling all of us who support Fred! idiots.
This does not apply to me because I didn’t ‘defend’ his use of a red pickup. I merely asked what a ‘fake red pickup’ is. If you think that is defending it then you should take a look in the mirror.
OBX Pete on August 17, 2007 at 9:35 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »