Audio: Fred gets (a little) testy with Ingraham over immigration votes; Update: Huckabee to Fred — I got yer Lincoln-Douglas debates right here; Update: Fred panned on first day?
posted at 2:22 pm on September 7, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Just a bit, at the 11:30 mark. Staring into the crater that used to be the McCain campaign, he knows that’s an issue on which he can’t afford a reputation.
There’s some tension a few minutes before that over campaign finance reform, too, when he calls her “meaner than a pit bull squattin’ in a pick-up truck with the windows rolled up in July.” (No, not really.) He’s already pissing off the left, though, even while he’s lulling his own supporters into “a patriotic stupor.”
Exit question: Why on earth hasn’t his campaign put “The Hunt for Red November” on YouTube?
Link: sevenload.com
Update: Huck throws down the gauntlet. Will Fred accept? Er, no.
Update: HuffPo rounds up the reaction to Fred’s first speech. Oof.
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 »
“The Hunt for Red
NovemberOctober” But who’s quibbling.captivated_dem on September 7, 2007 at 2:31 PM
I thought Allah said Red November because our party’s color is red, the election in November. Shows what I know… Didn’t even think about the movie.
amerpundit on September 7, 2007 at 2:35 PM
I’m pretty sure November was intentional since the election is in November…It was in other words an Allahpun…..dit…
doriangrey on September 7, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I liked him in Die Hard 2 myself…
Ochlan on September 7, 2007 at 2:38 PM
“The Hunt for Red November” is a pun from the article Allah linked to. Geez.
TXRedhead on September 7, 2007 at 2:39 PM
I love Fred ‘n’ all, but he’s but a miniboss to Laura.
Fred may be able to beat up Chuck Norris, but Laura could wail on ‘em both Terminator style.
saint kansas on September 7, 2007 at 2:42 PM
While Abraham has been labeled an open borders icon that received an award from La Raza, Thompson?s immigration record is as open borders as Abraham?s. Americans for Better Immigration (ABI) career grades for Thompson and Abraham are identical on every subject and include:
Overall Career Grade = C
Subject & Grade
Reduce Chain Migration = C
Reduce Visa Lottery = C-
Reduce Unnecessary Visas = F
Reduce Fraud: Refugee & Asylum = C-
Reduce Enticement – Illegal Immigration: Amnesties= D
Reduce Illegal Immigration – Anchor Baby Citizenship = No Vote
Reduce Illegal Immigration ? Other Awards = A+
Reduce Illegal Immigration ? Border Enforcement = A+
Reduce Illegal Immigration ? Interior Enforcement =C+
CaptainObvious on September 7, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Wow. Pretty boring speaker. On Hannity last night too. Wasn’t expecting that.
JiangxiDad on September 7, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Word of advise- try reading the article before commenting so you don’t look… silly.
Hollowpoint on September 7, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Fred needs some fire in the belly instead of tire in the belly. Less than inspiring thus far. He needs to take out some liberals including those in the GOP.
Valiant on September 7, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Laura was snarky and disrespectful from the get-go.
Christoph on September 7, 2007 at 2:52 PM
My apologies. Silliness is pretty rampant here.
captivated_dem on September 7, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Read a little deeper and you’ll see that his amnesty grade came mostly from an amnesty provision slipped into a spending bill that passed 99-1.
ABI is a bit extremist since they seem to be not only against illegal immigration, but legal immigration as well.
Hollowpoint on September 7, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Nothing I said made me look silly, except possibly attributing the pun to AP…Doh…
doriangrey on September 7, 2007 at 2:55 PM
The month where he wows us all and we forget about the slow summer doesn’t begin for a few more weeks.
What people see in him is beyond me.
pedestrian on September 7, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Did you watch the same Hannity appearance I did? I thought the Leno appearance was mediocre but the Hannity interview was very good.
Hollowpoint on September 7, 2007 at 2:56 PM
I think Fred did pretty good against Laura, he answered her questions and defended his record.
Complete7 on September 7, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Yea, I would take anything they say with a couple buckets of salt.
doriangrey on September 7, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Hah. No. He just repeated what he heard Newt say, and then tossed it out there because with all the candidates there is no danger of being held to it.
Spirit of 1776 on September 7, 2007 at 3:00 PM
His answers: a president doesn’t need a fire in his belly,
and he hasn’t bothered to learn the other candidates positions.
A president without passion and a deep knowledge of our opponents will bring this country to ruin.
pedestrian on September 7, 2007 at 3:03 PM
If it is only from a 99-1 spending vote that Duncan Hunter voted for then why is Duncan Hunters grades this good?
Overall Career Grade = A-
Subject & Grade
Reduce Chain Migration = A+
Reduce Visa Lottery = A+
Reduce Unnecessary Visas = B
Reduce Fraud: Refugee & Asylum = A+
Reduce Enticement – Illegal Immigration: Amnesties= A+
Reduce Illegal Immigration – Anchor Baby Citizenship = A+
Vote
Reduce Illegal Immigration ? Other Awards = A+
Reduce Illegal Immigration ? Border Enforcement = A+
Reduce Illegal Immigration ? Interior Enforcement =A+
CaptainObvious on September 7, 2007 at 3:04 PM
She won’t be the first, I assure you.
Big S on September 7, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Word of advice: Try spelling words correctly, when advising people how to comment without looking silly, so you don’t look… sillier
The Monster on September 7, 2007 at 3:09 PM
His “ub, uh” gets tiring quickly.
He’s running for President of the United States. She’s asking tough questions. Wait until he meets Rush…
amerpundit on September 7, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Well, that was exceedingly unimpressive. I can understand why Fred ran away from the Fox debate.
progressoverpeace on September 7, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Laura, how dare you ask Fred about his record!?
Big S on September 7, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Could it be this one?
DaveS on September 7, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Well, that was almost the opposite of my expectation. I thought the first part of the interview was pretty dull, and I was expecting Laura to say bury him with immigration, but he answered it well and I actually sympathized with his statement.
Spirit of 1776 on September 7, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Yeah, I bet. You are at what? 2% in the polls. Sorry Huck, Not a big enough fish bubba.
conservnut on September 7, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Senate != House of Representatives
Hollowpoint on September 7, 2007 at 3:22 PM
hmmm, maybe I should put “Hunt for Red October” up over at FredThompson.TV ?
realVerse on September 7, 2007 at 3:24 PM
And yet Douglas debated Lincoln even though their respective polling differences were greater than Fred-Huck.
Spirit of 1776 on September 7, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Where do you get that data?
conservnut on September 7, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Oh for crying out loud….testy? Where? Sounded like an interview to me. Thought he did fine and showed he could take smart questions and give smart answers. M/F as an albatross? Yeah….whatever.
Limerick on September 7, 2007 at 3:26 PM
She didn’t kiss his but, but I didn’t take it that way. All the candidates should be subjected to tough questions, and I thought he answered them well. He’s been criticised on McCain-Feingold and recently on immigration, and Laura would be remiss for not bringing those issues up and giving him to opportunity to respond.
I didn’t hear the testyness that AP apparently did.
Hollowpoint on September 7, 2007 at 3:29 PM
your saying one vote in the senate is worth more in the negative then multiple votes in the House? Looking at ABI they have 5 bills he voted for that are negatively attributed to illegal immigration yet still has those grades. I dont buy one vote on a rider would effect multiple years of voting.
CaptainObvious on September 7, 2007 at 3:34 PM
sorry if you meant I infered hunter voted for the same bill. I was stepping out to grab lunch and missed those two words.
CaptainObvious on September 7, 2007 at 3:40 PM
I didn’t catch the “testy” part. I thought his answers were thoughtful and conservative. It’s hard being honest with everyone picking, picking, picking; but I felt like he was genuine.
tgillian on September 7, 2007 at 3:40 PM
conservnut on September 7, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Out of my memory which means its mostly like either in the pages of Rudger’s 9 vol ‘the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln’ or Moore’s single volume: Addresses and Letters.
The relative position b/t the 4 candidates in discussion is not comparable. Douglas was in no danger of losing his seat. I’m not in his mind, but I don’t think Douglas took on the debate for imm. election purposes, but set himself as the clearest ideological thinker of the time, and to frame himself for a future run for presidency.
Say what you will, but if Fred wants to seriously discuss ideological issues, he could answer the bell. That’d seal up all credibility issues in one bow. But he won’t and that’s okay. And he doesn’t have to as long as people give him reasons and excuses. Which is fine too.
I agree with you Limerick. Did fine.
Spirit of 1776 on September 7, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Huck actally polled one point better then Thompson in a recent ARG poll of New Hampshire, in which he beats him outside the margin of error among actual Republicans. I say he might just have a case, and it’s win/win if Thompson accepts of backs away from his challenge. Smart move by the Huck.
Big S on September 7, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Listen to his words versus thinking he’s supposed to entertain us.
Fred! is about choices and directions America must make and navigate in order to correct our course and get back on track.
He’s strikes me as a smooth steady hand at the wheel and would drive back towards the Constitution.
He has some serious ground to cover to get my vote though.
He has no great regard for Calder-own, that’s a good start.
Speakup on September 7, 2007 at 3:42 PM
I agree, though I only answered re: polling bc that was excuse given to avoid it. Polling is kind of irrelevant, if he says – dang, I wish someone would dance with me, and then a girl says I would love to dance…it’s not exactly cool to say, no thanks you’re not pretty enough, etc.
But again I agree: win/win for Huck.
Spirit of 1776 on September 7, 2007 at 3:43 PM
It’s exactly the sort of attention-deprived desperation being exhibited by Huckabee that Thompson was avoiding by skipping out on the debates. Huckabee–and pretty much all of the candidates–come across as little kids yelling “look at me! please!! ooh ooh!”. Thompson did the right thing by staying out as long as he did.
As for Huckabee’s “taking him up on the offer” publicity stunt / red herring, I don’t recall Thompson offering to debate Mike Huckabee. In fact, I think I recall Thompson saying explicitly that the Lincoln-Douglas style debates weren’t feasible in the primaries.
DaveS on September 7, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Huck could raise the stakes by specifically proposing a debate in New Hampshire. It makes sense, since they seem to be competitive there, and he could bang the drum some more about Thompson not showing up for debates in the state. He might not do it formally, but I guarantee you it will be mentioned in is stump speeches if Fred declines.
Big S on September 7, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Because Duncan Hunter is exceptional on immigration issues, but you might want to think that through. The reality is that if Fred Thompson loses the nomination, it’s most likely you’re going to get Rudy Giuliani instead.
I’m sure there’s nobody here (in their right mind) who feels Giuliani is better than Thompson on immigration issues.
Unless you actually believe Duncan Hunter can win. I like Hunter and I’d love to see him win, but that’s simply not going to happen.
I also think Fred Thompson did a pretty good job of explaining his previous votes.
And here’s an example of those ID cards that Giuliani is so fond of promoting.
Gregor on September 7, 2007 at 3:49 PM
That is exactly what I would do.
Spirit of 1776 on September 7, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Fred could offer to debate every other candidate one on one. That would be a political masterstroke, taking them all on in turn. Even if he didn’t have all the best answers all the time, he’d show something very different and if he shined, the primary would be over.
Darksean on September 7, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Neh… Fred can shrug him off and come away looking like the more serious candidate. All he has to do is opt to spend his energy on a tour with town-hall style Q&A sessions with citizens, rather than on debates with lowest-tier candidates that he is already beating.
DaveS on September 7, 2007 at 3:57 PM
You guys are acting like the New Hampshire primary is the be-all/end-all of the election. It isn’t. Nobody is going to spend time “debating every other candidate” for a puny little primary in New Hampshire.
It’s important for momentum–especially for smaller “darkhorse” candidates like Huckabee–but, in the grand scheme of things, it isn’t important at all.
DaveS on September 7, 2007 at 3:58 PM
It’s a big stretch to make a “Papers, please” sort of national ID system into an immigration issue. Presumably we’d be too worried about revealing throughtcrime to our telescreens to care about immigration at that point.
Mark Jaquith on September 7, 2007 at 3:59 PM
What happens if Fred comes in 5th place in the NH primary? It’s possible, the way things stand right now.
Big S on September 7, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Let alone Matt Lauer.
Blacklake on September 7, 2007 at 4:03 PM
First of all, no… it isn’t. That’s a NC driver’s license.
And second of all, what an embarrassment for WorldNetDaily! The article is one big unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, founded entirely on the fact that the little logo looks kinda-sorta like one that conpsiracy theorists don’t like.
DaveS on September 7, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Some of his answers were pretty direct. He spun the “why are you running” question, but was pretty strait forward about his immigration votes. His points about election finance reform are confusing, but he made a good point that large contributions just before an election are simular to bribes.
I notice a lot of people are forgiving of their candidates, when they are faced with the same questions. All of the Guliani supporters ignore his record on abortion, immigration, and gun control. Yet they will post scathing comments about Fred on the same issues. I like Guliani’s position on Islamism, but flat out despise everything else he stands for. Guliani is a open borders, pro-abortion, gun grabber. Things Fred is not.
Rode Werk on September 7, 2007 at 4:04 PM
That doesn’t look reasonable–Huckabee, if I recall, has like 1/3 of the support Thompson has–but why would it matter? Isn’t is just like 20-30 delegates?
DaveS on September 7, 2007 at 4:06 PM
I’d say the over/under on the Fred candidacy is about 30 days.
. . . and counting.
Labamigo on September 7, 2007 at 4:06 PM
I cannot listen at work, my preliminary take:
Laura has choosen her candidate, his name is Rudy. She pitched big, softballs to Rudy on immigration. Fred not so much. Here is glenn Beck getting to the heart of Rudys immigration stance.
All of Rudy’s enforcement talk is just a pretext to amnesty. Deportation is not in his vocabulary. Laura did not want to get to the heart of the mattter. That is the most salient difference in candidates immigration stand. Rudy will “Stop illegal immigration” as a prelude to amnesty. Rudy get illegal immigration softballs, Fred does not. If Laura is not showing bias I expect her to take Rudy to task during their next interview.
Theworldisnotenough on September 7, 2007 at 4:08 PM
so now we dont only have to vote for the best of two worst in the general we have to elect the Media driven primary candidate even though they are not the best candidate. This is what got us Bush. “Sure hes not perfect but he has the momentum” That makes no sense. Not one conservative I have ever talked to can give me a reason Duncan cant win other than Hes not known. Well get him known. Every aspect people like of each candidate can be seen in Hunter and none of the negatives. what more can you have. 50% of the primary voters dont decided until the week before the election and in some places its 2/3rds. Conservatives need to take back our party.
CaptainObvious on September 7, 2007 at 4:11 PM
I am wearing my Fred shirt again.
I like the guy and think he handled Laura’s quest very well.
TheSitRep on September 7, 2007 at 4:15 PM
“quest?” oh that is short for question.
TheSitRep on September 7, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Polling has been light since Huckabee started to gain momentum, but Thompson and Huckabee are probably closer than Thompson and Romney or Thompson and Giuliani. My take on NH is that you need a top three finish to survive; the RCP averahe has Fred in 4th place right now, with Huckabee retaining significant momentum.
Big S on September 7, 2007 at 4:19 PM
By the way, anybody who thought Laura was being “snarky” there apparently hasn’t listened to a lot of Laura. That was her at level one or two, tops. Dig up her little amnesty-era chat with Linda Chavez if you want a dose of the hard stuff.
Blacklake on September 7, 2007 at 4:24 PM
In the past maybe. This year people started pumping resources into NH early. It won’t be significant if Fred, who comes in at a later, more reasonable time, doesn’t finish near the top. That said, I think you’re underestimating what can happen in the next 3 months.
I don’t know… we’ll see.
DaveS on September 7, 2007 at 4:26 PM
I’d still like to know what, if anything, Fred is going to do about interior enforcement of immigration laws. Regardless of his past voting record, does he now support a worker verification program?
I’ve listened to all of Fred’s ABC radio commentaries and all I’ve been able to determine is that he supports “border enforcement”, whatever that means. People who support the current system of border enforcement would say that they support “border enforcement”, but it means next to nothing in the real world. I’m sure Bush and McCain would say they support enforcing the borders, and we all know what they mean by the term, but what does Fred mean specifically?
I would’ve liked Laura to press him hard on that issue. I just listened to this entire interview and still don’t know anything more about Fred than I did before. I’m increasingly suspicious that Fred still supports open borders, more or less, and is hoping to skirt the issue until he locks up the nomination.
FloatingRock on September 7, 2007 at 4:27 PM
I agree, it is a win win for Huck, but then again it is a common political practice to challenge a stronger opponent to debate, but they rarely take you up on it. It always is a win of sorts for the smaller opponent.
But having said that, I don’t think it is a lose/lose for Fred if he ignores it.
conservnut on September 7, 2007 at 4:29 PM
True. I need to hear Fred say he supports workplace verification and interior enforcement. Of course the requisite bracero program needs to be implemented. That is the formula for self deportation.
Theworldisnotenough on September 7, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Mitt came off quite impressivley when he talked about sanctuary cities.
Theworldisnotenough on September 7, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Isn’t that the same story they keep telling about Fred, even though he rocked the crowd at every speech he gave? I’d like to see the video and judge for myself.
Theworldisnotenough on September 7, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Look, I would love to see Duncan win (*Disclaimer: He is my congressman and I voted for him 4 times*) but the face recognition is a killer for him. His lack of face recognition translates to an inability to raise sufficient campaign funding or attract sufficient media coverage.
Without either of those he simply isn’t able to get his message out to the electorate. Sadly he suffers from the same malady that shut out former US Ambassador Alan Keyes in 2000. Like Keyes before him Duncan’s ideologies and qualifications are exactly what conservatives and republican votes really want.
However also like Keyes, his lack of face and name recognition is an nearly insurmountable obstacle. It saddens me to say that because I do believe he would make a great president. Tragically however being qualified to be the POTUS simply isnt enough to get anyone elected any more. Now you have to be able to win the most competitive popularity contest on the face of the earth to get elected.
And winning a popularity contest is all about being, well popular. You only get to be popular by having lots and lots and lots of people know who you are, and you only win popularity contests by having those lots and lots of people like something about you.
Most conservatives and republicans would like Duncan, perhaps even enough to elect him, if they ever had the chance to get to know him. Because of his lack of face and name recognition that just isn’t very likely to happen this time around.
doriangrey on September 7, 2007 at 4:46 PM
I have no idea what Fred would do to fix the illegal immigration problem, do you? I’d like to know. I can’t even begin to compare Fred’s stance to Rudy’s because other than a tough talking radio commentary with nearly zero substance, I have no idea what Fred’s current position on the issue is.
FloatingRock on September 7, 2007 at 4:50 PM
I’m interested in what he has to say; given Fred’s federalism stance he might have some issues with a heavy-handed approach at the federal level. Clearly workplace enforcement should be a part of a better immigration policy though.
Hollowpoint on September 7, 2007 at 4:52 PM
You seriously call that getting testy? Played too much two-hand touch as a kid, AP? You must have some super testy hearing abilities. Kinda like how dogs can hear things humans can’t. I’m shocked you didn’t pick up how “lazy” he is also. I mean, it was right there for the takin…
JWS on September 7, 2007 at 4:55 PM
I think Fred Thompson will be on Hannity radio show in 5 minutes (5pm ET)
JiangxiDad on September 7, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Thompson’s interview on Hannity is a repeat of last nights.
JiangxiDad on September 7, 2007 at 5:09 PM
1) If Fred is pissing off the left, he is definitely saying the right stuff.
2) The groupies are already in a stupor. Fred will just move them between patriotism and other exercises in emotional masturbation in favor of real substance. Patriotism is good, but not in lieu of real meaty issues.
3) Are you kidding me? Did Fred ACTUALLY drag out a video of the “Hunt”?
4) I love the way he nuanced the phrase “fire in the belly”. Isn’t fire in the belly the same as having passion for something? He made it sound like fire in the belly meant to be impulsive etc. Anybody know if that is right or is Fred trying to squirm out of a comment meant to cast himself as an outsider but it back fired and made him look lazy?
5) It’s ironic that Fred speaks of corruption when he violated the spirit of FEC laws when he funneled campaign funds to his son by hiring him at an exorbitant salary for a basically do nothing job.
6) Fred wont disavow M/F. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
7) I thought Fred did OK with his explanation of the second immigration vote. Not so well on the first, but he sounds like he will look into it.
8) Supreme court justices….great answer.
9) I’m curious AP. When are you going to stop shilling for Fred by posting pictures that have been re-touched to make him look young, vibrant, and motivated? :-)
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 5:23 PM
I missed something. I didn’t see any reported response from Fred.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Oh by the way everybody, beware, AP is definitely weeding out all you Fred shills with his comments…too late!
O.K boys and girls please have something really funny posted here by bedtime…. you’re slacking on the job!!
Where is ErikPJohnson to defend Fred when we need him?
He should be hilarious!!!!
Mcguyver on September 7, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Yeah, you’d think that Fred would have been more prepared after taking all summer off to make sure he hit the ground running.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Really? Are you even trying? It’s not that hard. He’s been talking specifics on his immigration positions for at least four months now.
Let me help you out.
Gregor on September 7, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Do you think it was unfair?
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Right. Try reading the article again and pay attention to the fact that it’s intended to be standard for ALL drivers licenses THROUGHOUT North America, including MEXICO AND CANADA.
“Kinda-sorta?” Once again we have a person who has not bothered to check a fact before making a statement on this issue. It’s all a conspiracy … because you say so, right? That’s pretty much your stance.
Gregor on September 7, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Is the logo a picture of North America, or does it just “kinda-sorta” look like it? Is there a good reason for having a logo of North America on a U.S. driver’s license, or would it make more sense to have a logo of the U.S., or in this case … North Carolina? Get a grip.
Gregor on September 7, 2007 at 5:41 PM
The reason the campaign probably doesnt want Red October on youtube is that Fred was totally outacted and out-charisma-ed (if there is such a word) by another thespian greybeard….
named Sean Connery.
Plus the movie makes Alec Baldwin into a hero, so there is that to chew on as well….
(and make no mistake, I enjoyed the movie very much, and Fred in a small part was his usual gruff, authoritative self…)
Always Right on September 7, 2007 at 5:45 PM
I like Duncan too. He is a young guy and after 8 years of Mitt, he might be ready to challenge Obama. I think Mitt would do well to tap him for VP. He has tons of upside and 8 years as VP will help him with name recognition. He’d barely be 67 years old. Still very young in political terms.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 5:47 PM
I didn’t, Laura always asks tough questions of who she interviews Fred should not have been any exception. I didnt hear anything that I though was tense testy or snarky on either one of their parts. Just a damn good interview and some pretty damn good answers.
doriangrey on September 7, 2007 at 5:50 PM
While I would prefer to see him as Fred’s VP, I would still be quite happy with him being Mitt’s…
doriangrey on September 7, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Laura was snarky and disrespectful from the get-go.
Christoph on September 7, 2007 at 2:52 PM
She’s always like that. Seems to have some issues-I’m not sure she’s happy being a woman. Doesn’t seem like she’d be much fun to be around.
JWS on September 7, 2007 at 5:52 PM
I re-read AP’s headline and he said FRED got (a little) testy. Not the other way around.
It must drive you nuts when we all fail to put the time into reading what you deliberately write.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 5:53 PM
I don’t see Mitt taking second seat. I don’t know Duncan well enough to make a comment on his willingness.
IF Mitt gets the nomination, he will have to have the south…..and if he gets it, I don’t see him needing Huck to secure the evangelical vote. That opens up for a VP that would actually be further right than Mitt. That’s truly is a sad state of affairs for the republican party isn’t it?
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 5:56 PM
All Fred (or any republican candidate) has to do is ask Huck about his proposed nanny-state smoking ban, something so ridiculous and extreme it would make Hillary blush (and John Edwards nod in approval).
Once the question is out there, Huck’s poll numbers are going right back down to where they rose from in the first place.
thirteen28 on September 7, 2007 at 6:01 PM
he has hinted at doing the same thing with the obesity problem. while I understand his ferver for fixing pressing issues in our society (ala brownback and family) as Im sure most here agree this is a scary thing. Kind of like Edwards wanting to force medical treatment. which surprisingly hasnt gotten much outrage from liberals. but I digress
CaptainObvious on September 7, 2007 at 6:06 PM
If Mitt ends up in second place and is offered the VP role with whoever actually wins the nomination, absolutely I think he will accept it.
e-pirate on September 7, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Can you point to Mitt’s history that would lead you to believe that? I don’t see it. Mitt’s strengths include being the CEO and not a mouthpiece for others.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 6:12 PM
And the only one of the top four who would. Rudy!McCain!Fred! not a chance.
Limerick on September 7, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Heard that too. I’m not familiar with Huck’s history, but from what I’ve heard he’s dropped a couple tons in the past few years, and now it seems he’s exhibiting something similar to the zeal of the recently converted. If he thinks he’s going to win over conservatives with nanny-statism like this, then he’s as badly mistaken as McVain was in thinking that his “leadership” on the amnesty (quit laughing) would help his chances at getting the nomination.
thirteen28 on September 7, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Fred’s “testy” response was aimed at the NYT for setting up the Reagan comparison, and then again for the reference to some vote of his, seemingly pro-illegal, which he felt was obscure and needed to be put in context.
I got the impression he was not upset with Laura, just showing a little emotion over the games that get played.
Gonna vote for this Fred guy if he keeps it up.
TexasDan on September 7, 2007 at 6:21 PM
I got the impression he was not upset with Laura, just showing a little emotion over the games that get played.
TexasDan on September 7, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Exactly. However, if you have an axe to grind, or are trying get some traffic…
JWS on September 7, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Fred, Rudy and John have all recovered from cancer. Mitt would be a tumor away from the presidency.
pedestrian on September 7, 2007 at 6:26 PM
That’s young looking!!?!?
That’s probably the meanest thing you’ve said here about Fred!
omnipotent on September 7, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Thanks, Gregor. I’ll check out those videos later tonight when I get the chance. Does Fred specifically call for workplace enforcement in one of them?
FloatingRock on September 7, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »