Rasmussen: Fred 26, Rudy 22; Update: Fred says AQ’s smoking ban helped cause Anbar awakening — and he’s right
posted at 11:48 am on September 10, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Can you feel it? You can if you read Rasmussen. If you prefer Gallup, then you’re feeling Rudy 34, Fred 22, McCain 15, and Mitt 10, which marks a three-point bounce for Fred — and a two-point bounce for Rudy and four-point bounce for McCain since last month. I guess he did win that debate after all, eh? The big losers: Mitt, who lost four points but is still ahead of McCain in the Rasmussen poll, and capital-p Patriot Ron Paul, whose tiff with Huckabee at the debate may have dropped him from 3 to a cool 1.
Anecdotal evidence of Fred’s reception on the trail ranges from gruesome in Iowa but trending well to SRO rock-star treatment in the south. New Hampshire’s the wild card, as it usually is, and Huckabee’s trying to take advantage. How about it, Fred?
Update: I forgot to mention, the nutroots is smearing Thompson for saying the other day at a campaign stop (admittedly awkwardly) that one of the reasons the Sunnis in Anbar flipped to the U.S. side is because Al Qaeda told them they couldn’t smoke. And … yes, that’s correct. That’s been reported numerous times, most recently just today by Michael Totten. Quote:
“People here tacitly supported Al Qaeda,” Captain McGee said, “because Al Qaeda was attacking us. But they took control of the city. They forced girls to stay home from school. They dragged people outside the city and shot them in the head. They broke people’s fingers if they were seen smoking a cigarette. They forced men to grow beards. Once they started acting like that they could only establish a safe haven by using terrorism against the local civilians.”
Newsbusters rounds up a few other reports of this same point. Iraqi Sunnis don’t want to live under shari’a; AQ insisted upon it. Something had to give, and it did. Bear this in mind the next time the nutroots lectures the right about all the things they don’t know or understand about the war.
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 »
csdeven sees this starts ranting incoherently then his head explodes in 5…4…3…
doriangrey on September 10, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Fredheads tell us Fred’s lead is because he’s the real pick of the majority of the people instead of the media RINO pick in 5…4…3…
BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 11:55 AM
I’m a little confused as to how Rasmussen and Gallup can be so far apart on their numbers.
bj1126 on September 10, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Media RINO pick? He’s the blogger RINO pick if anything. Give me some credit.
frankj on September 10, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Mitt is doomed. He’s so blantantly artificial that sometimes you can see the plastic parts. A life-sized Ken doll. He may be a talented administrator and perhaps he can one day be an efficient and respected cabinet secretary, but he ain’t gonna be president.
Rudy has charisma but when was the last time someone went from mayor to president in one leap? My count is between zero and none.
McCain lost his credibility in the shamnest debacle. That leaves Fred and some also-rans. Gulp. I guess I should bulk order some Impeach Hillary stickers now; maybe I can corner the market.
Thomas the Wraith on September 10, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Let me explain it to you: Poll are crap.
frankj on September 10, 2007 at 11:58 AM
It’s common sense that this is Fred’s to lose. This was entirely predicatble, and in 2 months his lead will probably be nearly insurmountable.
Of course, people like BKennedy and csdeven know this, as does most everyone. That’s why the Fred hit pieces have been so abundant of late, including those tellingly originating from NRO and Romney supporters in general (Hugh).
DaveS on September 10, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Come on. Fred suggesting cigarettes are why we are winning in Iraq? I like fred, but that’s ridiculous.
lorien1973 on September 10, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Has it occurred to anybody that perhaps Fred! has developed a campaign-warp-drive powered by the hatred of Fred!-haters?
Keep hatin’. Fred!’s countin on the press.
unamused on September 10, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Actually it was Micheal Yon who suggested that, Fred was merely echoing him.
doriangrey on September 10, 2007 at 12:04 PM
And can we stop pushing the meme that Fred suggested a Lincoln-Douglas primary debate or that Huckabee is “accepting his offer”? Please? If I wanted mindless revisionism or opportunistic selective listening, I would go to dKos.
Thompson didn’t offer to engage the most deperate attention-seeking candidate in a debate, nor did he even suggest any Lincoln-Douglas debates for the primaries. Certainly you all know that, which reinforces my previous point… you all know full well that Thompson can easily run away with this nomination, and that’s why you are resorting to such childish tactics, even when it makes you look illiterate.
DaveS on September 10, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Right…and you explain how he’s the media RINO despite the daily reports attacking him in one way or another in 5…4…3…
MadisonConservative on September 10, 2007 at 12:05 PM
How the hell can one company have it 34-22 Guiliani over Fred and the other 22-26?
Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 12:06 PM
DaveS on September 10, 2007 at 12:04 PM
And who here suggested that he did?
doriangrey on September 10, 2007 at 12:06 PM
I haven’t read that story (I saw a link somewhere), but AQ’s tendency to execute people who are smoking (which is very popular in Iraq) *IS* a major factor in the revolt by many local populations against AQ.
It’s no more ridiculous than boiling it down to “we are winning in Iraq.”
DaveS on September 10, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Uh yeah, the man who skips out on a NH debate to announce on Leno the same night, who has been getting worn down in every interview with anyone who isn’t a fanboy, whose positions were unknown, and who was coasting on a cult of celebrity until he stopped baiting us and finally announced had the primary to lose? Puh-leeze.
This is how it’s going to run DaveS: As knowledge of Fred increases, his poll numbers decrease. This is just an after-announcement bounce that will fall quickly.
So what you’re saying is: Trust NRO on everything except for Fred Thompson related pieces. Fredheads are as paranoid as Paulites, the only difference is that Thompson isn’t Troofer-level insane.
BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 12:08 PM
That seems to be ONE of the reasons the Sunnis are now coming around. Michael Yon detailed in one of his dispatches about how the AQI doofs would come in to areas like Anbar and Baquba, lay down their laws, which included a strict smoking ban. Anyone caught smoking would get their fingers (or hand, can’t recall) chopped off.
I see it as just one of the many details of evidence that suggest regular Iraqi citizens prefer freedom and don’t like oppression. Maybe that’s a stretch.
You are right, Lorien, by itself smoking is not the major motivator, but it IS one factor of many, many others, and most I would say were more important.
JamesLee on September 10, 2007 at 12:08 PM
I can’t name any off the top of my head, but a lot of people. The guy AP linked at the bottom of the post is fairly representative of the typical Romney supporter, it would seem, and the guy at the link did it.
DaveS on September 10, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Pick One:
1. Reverse Psychology.
2. Fear the Fred!!!!!!
BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Simple Gallup=MSM. Gallup feeds their ideology to the public, Rasmussen on the other hand is the most accurate pollster on earth. Do you want to be told what to think by Gallup/MSM/liberal/socialists or would you rather get objective unbiased information and make up your own mind?
doriangrey on September 10, 2007 at 12:12 PM
1. In other words, the same logic by which the left is going to explain the Bin Laden message of late?
2. If the media in this country fears Fred, then let’s get ‘im goin. What, you want someone that Jayson Blair would vote for?
MadisonConservative on September 10, 2007 at 12:12 PM
doriangrey, I have much more respect for Rasmussen. I’m just pointing out that’s a helluva gap.
Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 12:15 PM
I have to agree, I really want to like Mitt, but he comes off as inauthentic especially him changing his view on abortion 2-5 years ago. I changed my view on abortion but I was fairly young. In a general election he would just come off as a republican John Kerry, an expensive empty suit.
Complete7 on September 10, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Fred on the road here
bnelson44 on September 10, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Rasmussen and Gallup use differnet methodologies for determining ‘likely voters’. I think this explains at least some of the difference.
But I think the other commenters are correct when they say that these polls are largely meaningless. The may be more about name recognition or a general positive association than about actual support.
Thomas the Wraith on September 10, 2007 at 12:18 PM
We don’t have a national election. I need to know what the poll results look like state by state. This means nothing to me.
I have a feeling that if Fred wins the nomination we are in big big big trouble come general election time. Every time I hear him speak on camera I want to see greatness. I have been dissapointed EVERY time. I hope I’m wrong.
Zetterson on September 10, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Ya, it is a hell of a gap, but my opinion is that it is for this reason. Gallup is liberal/socialist hence their poll questions lead (leading questions) to liberal/socialist answers. For them the best GOP candidate is Rudy, who just happens to be a liberal. A slight skew of the polling demographics and leading questions and Rudy gets their nod of approval.
doriangrey on September 10, 2007 at 12:22 PM
It’s the Republic stupid, we want it back.
Americans will always vote center right when the candidate fits the profile, whether Fred! or someone else will remains to be seen.
Speakup on September 10, 2007 at 12:22 PM
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FRED!
I’m so hyped!
msipes on September 10, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Correct.
JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 12:24 PM
His jump is based on the fact that some people were waiting for him to official come into the race before they give him their vote. And also he was viewed by a lot of people on Leno. The guy is going to keep going up.
msipes on September 10, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Romney was more upfront and open with his answers before the race really started. He’s been less than candid since, especially since the debates started and the press and his competition bore down. Instead of just saying what he believes or saying he’s changed his mind about some things over the years, he tends to obfuscate as all pols are want. He seemed shakey about the war in the last debate which hurt him, I think. I know I lowered him on my preference list. His biggest problem is that 25% of the electorate apparently won’t vote for a Mormon for some reason. I couldn’t care less myself about his religion and will vote for him if he’s the unlikely nominee.
Laddy on September 10, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Fred was referring to how AQ’s smoking ban involved lopping off the fingers and hands of those who dared to smoke when AQ said not to. Common Iraqis are apparently grateful for the freedom to smoke (among other things) that we have brought to them. The smoking ban is a stark example of how brutal AQ in Iraq has been. (See Warner Todd Huston’s explanation at NewsBusters.)
Yes, Fred should have explained his reference to the audience. But Warner Todd Huston is right, too. If you wanted to know what he was talking about, it isn’t hard to find out and understand. Fred was right, and he was not being the idiot the NYDN made him out to be.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Okay, man. Whatever gives you comfort. It isn’t going to happen, though. He is simply the most likable, most recognizable candidate out there, and he’s going to continue to gain in the polls I think. It certainly doesn’t hurt that he uses the somewhat Reagan-esque rhetoric and is an actor… a lot of people will put 2 and 2 together and draw conclusions.
DaveS on September 10, 2007 at 12:34 PM
We be full of ourslevz!
Time will tell. We electron junkies walk around and strut….No-Yes-No-Yes…..like I said, full of ourselvz.
I’m ready for the non-Fred!heads to grow a pair and admit that this is a horserace. He might win, he might not, but until then the top four are on the rail and just coming up to the first turn. My crow is cooked and ready. Is yours?
We here aren’t going to decide this race. It is going to be the candidates and Joe public. Fear the Joe.
Limerick on September 10, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Resistance is futile.
You will be Fredssimilated.
/Fredhead
unamused on September 10, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Different methodology. Gallup’s results are from Republicans and “Republican leaning” independents. Rasmussen’s poll “likely primary voters” that includes Republicans and “Republican leaning” independents.
In some states only registered members of a party can vote in that party’s primary; in others independents can vote too. There may be other factors involved in determining who is a “likely primary voter” such as whether they’ve previously voted in a primary- I’ve not looked that deep at their polling methods.
Add in the fact that (as evidenced by the polls) Fred tends to appeal more to conservatives and Rudy towards moderates- who tend to be less likely to vote in the Republican primary- you get different results, with the Rasmussen poll giving more weight to conservatives, and the Gallup poll giving more weight to independents who might not be able to even vote in the primary, depending on what state they live in.
Hollowpoint on September 10, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Imagine if the final 2 candidates are Clinton and Guilianni… Two Liberal NEW YORKERS !
Not much choice for southern and fly-over country conservatives.
Fred isn’t perfect but the two New Yorkers make my skin crawl (and I AM A FORMER NEW YORK (state) CITIZEN !)
stenwin77 on September 10, 2007 at 12:41 PM
I’m not so sure about that. I want to like Fred. I want him to be somebody I can be proud to vote for. Every time I see him speak though, I find him dull and lacking passion/energy. I get the feeling that his heart is only half in it. And I’ve also been turned off by his “path to citizenship” talk for illegals. I will continue to watch him and continue to look for inspiration. I hope I won’t continue to be dissapointed.
Right on and well said Limerick.
Zetterson on September 10, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Thompson may be awkward and listless, but he is very well informed on what is going on in the war on terror. Much more so, it seems, than any other candidate.
bnelson44 on September 10, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Now if only I can get fellow New Yorkers to turn on Bloomberg for his smoking ban!!
BTW, I know most of you are Fredheads, but Rudy is the man! The man saved NYC and would never hold hands with Saudi princes. Plus, the MSM would have fits because he doesn’t take crap in press conferences!
kcluva on September 10, 2007 at 12:51 PM
This AQ cigarette ban business with Fred has told me two things about Fred, one good and one bad:
Good: Fred is keeping himself very, very well-informed about the details of what’s going on over in Iraq. He seems to be better educated about the situation there than the MSM and many of us.
Bad: Fred did not follow up on his comment with an explanation of what he was talking about. We really need a great communicator this time, and Fred failed to communicate effectively in this instance. Not a good sign. But he has plenty of time to improve on this kind of thing. I’m not going to write him off for one incident. If it becomes a pattern, though, I’ll have deep concerns.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 12:53 PM
I’m just putting the candied cherry brandy glaze on mine, just in case I’m the one who has to eat it… :P
doriangrey on September 10, 2007 at 12:53 PM
How do you know that? The article in question said…
…which leaves a lot of rooms for Fred to give the whole thing context, while still allowing the reporter to report it in a condescending and misleading way.
DaveS on September 10, 2007 at 12:57 PM
I don’t mind Fred’s laid-back demeanor. He’s mellow, not disinterested. At least he won’t get into the primaries, get insane buggy eyes, yell YEEAAAAAARRRRGHH!!!! and take the party down with him.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Take a hint, Huck, no one likes a Nanny Stater, not even the Iraqis.
Bad Candy on September 10, 2007 at 1:00 PM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2007/09/10/according-abc-s-wright-100-percent-anbar-iraqis-oppose-troop-surge
jp on September 10, 2007 at 1:01 PM
DaveS on September 10, 2007 at 12:57 PM
You’re right. Good point. I wasn’t there, and I haven’t seen a complete transcript of what Fred said. He may very well have explained his reference thoroughly, and it is this reporter who left the pertinent information out, not Fred. I don’t know for sure. It does seem that this reporter was biased against Fred, though, so I should err on the side of giving Fred the benefit of the doubt in this case.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 1:05 PM
So, since there is a strong lefty movement to restrict smoker’s rights in this country – can we expect a push-back soon by those whose rights are being limited? I sure hope so.
Goldwater Republicans unite!
“Just leave me alone and do your job protecting this country”.
Timothy S. Carlson on September 10, 2007 at 1:08 PM
I don’t know- his namesake law firm had no problems representing the Saudis. Even if you’re right about not holding hands with Saudi princes as a goverment official, he’s gone well past hand holding when it comes to the illegal aliens he gave wet sloppy kisses to.
And I know this is hard for most NYC residents to believe, but NYC is just a city, and one not terribly representative of the rest of the country at that.
Hollowpoint on September 10, 2007 at 1:09 PM
I will never vote for McCain, but this is wrong:
“four-point bounce for McCain since last month. I guess he did win that debate after all, eh?”
What percent of the Republican primary electorate actually watched the debate? I bet it was less than 4%. So even if McCain convinced every sibgle viewer to support him, he wouldn’t get more than a couple points bounce.
Clark1 on September 10, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Fred has to prove something the others don’t…he needs to prove he is a leader.
Rudy, Mitt, McCain, have all led battles in the senate, military, or private arena. Fred has been senate only, and not an “outstanding” leader by any means. That may come out later in the debates and how his campaign is run.
right2bright on September 10, 2007 at 1:23 PM
McCains 4 point bounce was from the one comment “thanks for the question you jerk”. People like straight talking candidates. That is why the one that takes on selected journalists will win the hearts of the voters.
right2bright on September 10, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Eh, that’s bad logic. I don’t watch the debates–or haven’t so far–but I get the low down on what happened in them, or, at the very least, get some sense of who “won” and why. That can influence a lot of people.
For the most part, though, I agree with the sentiment… it wan’t due to the debate as much as the “little jerk” comment.
DaveS on September 10, 2007 at 1:28 PM
I agree. Though I think a handful may have come from people who saw McCain’s 12-minute bio ad, too. I thought it was very moving and effective (not enough to get me to vote for him, but plenty for others, I’m sure). Some others might be sheeple who don’t pay attention to politics themselves but sway according to what they “hear.” In other words, they heard the MSM report that McCain won the last debate, so they shift to him for now–even though they didn’t bother to watch the debate themselves. If other people think McCain did the best job, that’s good enough for them.
Also, McCain has just relaxed lately. He’s coming across as more laid-back, confident, less stressed, admitting past mistakes, good-humored, even making jokes and laughing at himself. People like that kind of thing a lot.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Anything but HillObamaWards.
profitsbeard on September 10, 2007 at 1:42 PM
I think a middle ground here is what we are seeking as voters. Not dull and yawn inducing, not insane and emotion driven screams either.
Zetterson on September 10, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Fred does not have the staying power, the stamina, or the non-stop energy level and intellectual focus needed to go the distance in a brutal and protracted nomination and election process.
You heard it here first.
Always Right on September 10, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Fred’s support is hollow. Rudy appeals to Republicans and independents. Fred, not so much… Rudy is practically every one’s first or second choice. He has a much higher favorability rating among Republicans and in the general population. But for some reason having more to do with packaging than real substance, Fred appeals to the red meat fanatical Republicans. That being said, the primary is going to be very close. But if Fred wins, we are doomed. Bush/Rove only won by the slimest of margins by dividing the the populace and motivating the base. That strategy will not work this time (see 2006) and frankly, I don’t think Fred will surround himself with a genius like Rove — particularly if past is prelude.
Save America, stop this Fred nonsense. A vote for Fred in the primary is the equivalent of a vote for Hillary in the general.
tommylotto on September 10, 2007 at 1:59 PM
What a bunch of contradictory hooey. You think Rove and Bush played the last election smart? They just barely beat one of the worst candidates ever running one of the most incompetent campaigns in decades. Then, you think Fred’s support is hallow but Rudy’s is more substantial while admitting that it has little to do with substance?
bj1126 on September 10, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Fred does not have the staying power, the stamina, or the non-stop energy level and intellectual focus needed to go the distance in a brutal and protracted nomination and election process.
You heard it here first.
Always Right on September 10, 2007 at 1:52 PM
You have a point there. With A wife many years his junior and two preschool children Fred Thompson will need to conserve his energy. He will probably run an unconventional campaign that will presume his constituency has the intelligence to use the authority he delegates to them and make it happen for us. Thompson is smart enough not expend time or resources getting in a pissing match with his opponents by rebutting every critisism at length, or pandering to idiots. So he won’t need to produce the evidence of his staying power. Heh Heh
sonnyspats1 on September 10, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Actually, there are people who think Newt might get on board with Fred and be his Karl Rove. I’ve said before, if Newt signs on, I’m there. Newt’s even smarter than Karl, and a far far better conservative to boot.
But I reluctantly have to agree with the rest of what you said. Rudy has the best chance of beating Hillary in the general, and like it or not we have to take that into account. I am torn between being pragmatic and voting for a winner who is too centrist for my principles, or being principled and possibly throwing the election away for the sake of supporting a real conservative who probably can’t win (like Newt if he enters the race). The true conservative in me wants to make a point by pushing hard for a real conservative, even if we lose because of it. The pragmatist in me would much rather have Rudy than Hillary and admits the probable necessity of giving up some of my conservative ideals in order to keep a socialist out of the White House. I will probably vote for Rudy. But I will pine for someone like Newt in the meantime.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Karl Rove is an abject idiot. What are you even talking about? Dividing the populace? If anything, his strategy was one of triangulation, not division… something that doesn’t really work anyway. Stop letting the idiots in the leftist media tell you what to think.
Watcher on September 10, 2007 at 2:25 PM
There’s a comment/story online today about the “smart” money being on a 3-way Hillary, Rudy, Bloomberg race, with Bloomberg being the spoiler willing to spend $1 billion to see Hillary win (my take.) I’m sorry but now I can’t remember where I saw it ( I thought it was here in fact.)
I’m not one of the “smart” people, so I don’t know. And I don’t like Bloomberg too much so I don’t know if he would split Republicans, or Democrats, or both. But I do happen to know that some bigshots at FOX in Manhattan share this view. Maybe it’s a NYC thing, don’t know.
Remember, that’s how her husband won, by a plurality. The theory says that that’s Hillary’s strategy too.
JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Fred is going to be the next president. All of these shots are desperation from both the Dems and the other Republican candidates. He has a good resume, is better informed than anyone else and comes over as “presidential”. A campaign should not be an endurance contest. It should be to pick the best person for the job and that is Fred.
duff65 on September 10, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Well, I don’t agree that Rudy is our best hope. I think Hillary is our best hope. If she can get the nomination, her past will never be far behind. And, remember, her negatives far outweigh any other candidate. They’ve hung around the 50+ percentile in every poll. That means that 50+ percent have a negative opinion of her. And she just can’t keep trying to appease the left and then come back and tell the center that she’s a centrist. Too many cameras; too much Youtube.
I said Fred would jump 5 points as soon as he announced. I was off by a point. I said that he’ll cruise easily through the nominating process and general.
I’m sticking by my prognostications.
Tennman on September 10, 2007 at 2:51 PM
JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 2:27 PM
I haven’t read the particular article you’re talking about, but I’ve seen Bloomberg-related speculations and polls in the past. It’s not good for us. Most polling on the topic apparently shows that Bloomberg takes from both sides, but more from the Republican-leaning indies (why, I don’t know–he’s no Republican). But even if Bloomberg only made a 1-2 percentage point difference in the general, that’s enough to decide an election these days. Many believe–probably rightly–that Nader’s piddly showing in 2000 cost Gore the race. Perot certainly cost Bush Sr. a second term. I really hope Bloomberg doesn’t run. But if he does, I pray for Algore to enter the race as an Independent/Green Party type candidate. He probably won’t because he would rather have Hillary win than Rudy, and he won’t want to throw the race away for the Dems. But it would be nice.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Hmmm… Fred’s Resume:
Executive Experience: Zero.
Conservative Leadership: Zero.
Tough Elections against Democrats: Nope.
He did serve on committee though.
Fred has never done anything for conservatives, all he’s ever been is a Washington insider. Oh, and btw, he spearheaded McCain Feingold.
But why confuse you with the facts, you can continue to think being a pretend DA is better experience than being a governor or a mayor(and real DA, nmight I add), but it doesn’t mesh well with reality.
BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 3:03 PM
We haven’t played for a while. Let me take a stab at it.
1. Executive experience. Misnomer; should be called government experience. Each Congressman has his own staff and has executive power within his own sphere of influence. If you’re talking as in head of an executive branch of the U.S. Government, dealing with foreign policy and having a 2 trillion dollar budget and an active military, no one has had that experience but the president of the United States. To claim otherwise is a canard.
2. Conservative leadership. Okay, I’ll bite. Who in this race does have it? Certainly not Rudy, who is a liberal in every sense of the word except for the military.
Certainly not Mitt. To be a leader more than 10 percent have to agree with you.
Certainly not Huckabee or Brownback or McCain the Maverick.
To be a conservative leader, all you have to have are people who agree with your core principles. And there are plenty of us out there.
3. Tough elections against Democrats. I guess that’s a tough one to deny. He won by 20 points the first time after being 20 points behind. Second time, he won in a walk. Hard to disprove your negative comment.
4. He did serve on committees though. Yes, and he also served on U.S. Security advisory boards. Your point is, well, taken. After all, the key word here is “served.”
It might be wise to go find some new MitRom talking points. These are getting a little musty.
Tennman on September 10, 2007 at 3:45 PM
I’m not so sure that trashing any potential nominee is a good idea. About the worst I’m willing to say is that if Brownback is the nominee, I’ll look seriously at voting Democratic. Otherwise, we’re looking at a challenging election and unless we find a potential candidate completely unpalatable, as I do Brownback, and we all do Ron Paul, we should try to accentuate the positive.
And for the record, I find Romney a bright and articulate speaker. I see none of this alleged plastic quality about him.
thuja on September 10, 2007 at 4:15 PM
It all has to do with how they define “likely voters.” Rasmussen’s definition selects more conservative samples than the other polling firms, as evidenced by the higher proportional shares of Thompson and Romney supporters it finds. The gap between Rasmussen and all of the others has existed pretty much all year, too. Who is right? Nobody knows; Rasmussen’s a respectable polling firm that has had a good run, but then again so did Zogby a few years back, before his predictions went to hell and he started doing those silly internet polls. What happened? My guess is that 9/11 blew the assumptions that went into his definitions out of the water, and he missed an important political trend. Anyway, somebody’s missing something here, and who it is will only be revealed when the votes are cast.
Big S on September 10, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Running a bunch of staffers who are paid to do your bidding is a far, far cry from writing budget proposals, overseeing several state agencies, and dealing with opposing legislatures, city councils, or even the regional Supreme Court, as is the case with Romney, Guiliani, and Huckabee to a lesser extent. What was Fred’s worst conflict in his “executive office,” a staffer forgot his morning coffee?
Mitt at least stemmed the tide of gay marriage in Massachusetts, using all the executive power he could muster to keep it only in Massachusetts and not let fly-by-nighters swoop in and out. Not bad for a man who had more Democratic opposition than anyone else in the race, bar maybe Guiliani’s city-level equivalents in NYC. From Fred’s perspective, he had plenty of opportunity to promote conservative principles, but apparently he let Bill Frist do all the heavy lifting so that Fred could focus on McCain-Feingold.
This point is mostly a comparitive to others. The real question is, would we actually laud Mitt if he beat Ted Kennedy running on a RINO platform thirteen years ago? I doubt it. Mitt won in the hardest state for Republicans to win, he knows about swaying Democrats and has proven he can win Democrat votes. All Mitt has to do is attract more Democrats than Hillary does Republicans, and he wins.
Well, he did serve under Clinton, and we all know how serious Clinton was about security issues. Fred might have done the best job in the world, but apparently it didn’t go anywhere, did it?
Talking points, sir? I deal in the reality regarding the candidates, and Mitt is who I most prefer at this moment. He’s the best walking example of conservative values around in this election, and he was the first to meet with the fine interviewers here at HotAir. Mitt isn’t afraid of anything, which is why he currently has my vote.
BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Yeah, talking points. If you and csdeven want to keep pretending that you’re not using the same arguments on every thread related to FDT, you’re going to have to stop denying that the talking points haven’t been supplied to you by someone else.
Whatever floats your boat, I say. If you believe them and you believe in your candidate, Hurray! I’ll vote for the Mittster if he gets into the general. But I just don’t see that happening.
TTFN
Tennman on September 10, 2007 at 4:46 PM
steveegg on September 10, 2007 at 4:58 PM
I could’ve swore I closed the blockquote.
steveegg on September 10, 2007 at 4:58 PM
When it stops being accurate that Fred:
Has no executive experience.
Never fought one iota for conservative causes.
Never faced tough Democratic opposition.
Supported McCain-Feingold with all his might.
Funnelled money to his son from a PAC that did nothing to conservative causes for work his son didn’t do.
Then I will stop bashing Freddie Dalton Thompson.
However, until such a distortion in the fabric of our current reality occurs to alter these truths, I prefer to call my posts “accurate observations” instead of your preferred “talking points.”
BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 5:00 PM
I think my head just exploded….
BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Glad I could oblige.
Seriously, these national polls are worse than worthless. It’s state-by-state that is the key, and both Fred and Rudy are in trouble there last time I checked.
steveegg on September 10, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Ah. Solipsism. That, I understand.
Tennman on September 10, 2007 at 5:41 PM
I’m a little confused as to how Rasmussen and Gallup can be so far apart on their numbers.
bj1126 on September 10, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Their numbers are so far apart that one, maybe even both, polling organizations must be staffed with total incompetents. Just be glad they didn’t become doctors or airline pilots I guess.
MB4 on September 10, 2007 at 5:57 PM
BKennedy, I agree with Tennman. The “Why Fred Sucks” list is getting far beyond old. I think all the regular readers here can recite it by heart, probably in a disgusted tone of voice, because you and others have posted it so very many times. I daresay you haven’t changed any minds by bombarding us with it multiple times per day. It was annoyingly old by the time you and csdeven had posted around the 100th time. Now we’re probably up to at least 500 times. We get it.
Why don’t you focus on telling us why Mitt is great instead of bashing Fred for awhile? Or are you intending to post some version of the Why Fred Sucks list on every Fred thread, every day, for months and months until the primaries are over?
Frankly, you and csdeven have done more to drive me away from even considering Mitt than anything or anyone else has. When I think of Mitt, I think of you two and your incessant Fred-bashing, which gives me a strong feeling of disgust that I can’t help associating with Mitt. I’m completely not kidding. You’re hurting your guy with your mud-slinging. It’s just like how negative campaign ads often backfire–same thing.
Anyway, if you don’t want to quit it for my sake and for the sake of other fed up HA readers, why don’t you do it for Allahpundit and the rest of the HA staff? I happen to know that you and csdeven have actually driven away readers who got so tired of your anti-Fred posting that they took their page hits elsewhere. Don’t poop on HA’s doorstep, in other words.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Well, it is the nauseating Fredheads who came in here shouting FRED! IS THE GREATEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD! six months ago that turned me off to Fred. I’ve been trying to ignore the mindless Fred!heads for the last few months and really give Fred a chance, but that money funneling to his son killed him for me. He’s a Washington insider who acts just like the Clintons do. His Federalism rhetoric doesn’t match any action he has ever taken. He supports the status quo in Washington and that means ardent anti-federalism in effect. In the same way as you dislike Romney on my account, the Fredheads have made me associate ridiculous naivite and ten-inch thick blinders with Fred.
I’ve also listed the accomplishments and the reasons I support Mitt countless times, but I’m not going to let anyone slide with saying Fred has the “best resume” when clearly he is the least distinguished candidate of them all. McCain has his war service, Guiliani has his mayorship and New York turnaround, Romney has his immense business experience and turning around the Olympics. Fred has McCain Feingold as his number one notable, barring perhaps his fictional DA spot in a fictional crime drama.
In fact, it is the Fredheads who have never enumerated any of Fred’s qualifications. They have told me that he is somehow the “most likeable,” but I find nothing likeable about a lobbyist-turned-Hollyweird stooge. The Fred!heads accounting doesn’t stand up to the facts.
As to driving away readers, as least when csdeven and I post about Fred, we’re delivering facts, not the conspiracy theories drummed up by the likes of Hollowpoint and EricPWJohnson. Moreover, your logic is unsound because it would require the readers you have so much concern for to browse every Romney and Fred related thread, meaning they would actually be exploring the HA site, and likely would simply ignore Mitt or Fred threads if they found them distateful.
So no aero, I won’t leave just because you don’t like my distaste for your sainted Freddie “money funnel” Thompson.
BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 6:23 PM
I’m sure he can defend himself, but he didn’t ask you to leave, he asked you to quit it, you know, like, cut it out, cease, desist.
I don’t mind if you keep posting the same calumny over and over and over and over again. Just be honest about your motivations when attacking a fellow Republican.
Tennman on September 10, 2007 at 6:46 PM
The only people who leave here over the facts we post about Fred are the moron groupies like aero who can’t handle the facts. You noticed how these fools come running back here after one national poll bragging it up on Fred? It’s gonna take more than a bump in a national poll to save Fred. He has to start engaging people from some where other than his TV shows. He will have to start making some endroads in the early states and he will have to maintain them too. These groupie morons think everyone else is gonna pack it in and go home just because Fred finally jumped in. They are delusional fools. Much like the Paulite loons.
csdeven on September 10, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Cry us a river you sissy-mary. Good gravy! You are so vacuous and shallow that you let what others say decide who you support on the issues?
Do us all a favor you fool, remove yourself from the discussion if you don’t have the will power to think on your own. Crimeny! You’re worse than a conditioned dog! Sit aero! Stay aero! Roll over aero! Beg aero!
Grow up aero.
csdeven on September 10, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Howdy, cs, from one of the Luddites.
Two “fools,” two “groupies,” two “morons” and a “loon” in a pear tree.
Might I suggest a thesaurus? Although I do admit to a striking balance, start with a moron, end with a loon. Heh.
Tennman on September 10, 2007 at 6:55 PM
I didn’t ask you to leave. I can’t do that–I don’t own this site. I wouldn’t do it anyway, even if I could. I just asked you to stop Fred-bashing, or at least limit it. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request.
And he’s not my “sainted Freddie” as you so sneeringly put it. I’m not a Fred supporter, as I’ve stated on HA many many times. I’m pragmatically leaning toward Rudy as the most likely candidate to be able to keep the White House out of a Democrat’s hands. My wished-for “real conservative” candidate, for whom I’d happily “waste” my vote, is Newt Gingrich. But I respect Fred’s supporters and stick up for them from time to time when I get tired of watching the Punch and Judy show you Mitt guys put on. Mitt has had months and months of running as hard as he can, spending millions along the way, and he’s not making much headway. I simply want to see Fred run for awhile to see what happens. I don’t want to skip the Fred threads as you suggested, and neither did my friends who also wanted to read about Fred here and left because every Fred thread was immediately contaminated by Fred bashers. One simply can’t read Fred threads on HA without you rabid anti-Fred wolves foaming all over the place and ruining the fun for everyone else.
All I’m asking is that you show some common courtesy and respect for your fellow conservatives and back off. I’m not the HA police. I can’t make you. I’m sure you won’t heed my request because you don’t give a sh*t what I or others think as long as we get the point pounded into our skulls on a daily basis that you hate Fred. WE GET IT!!!!!!!!
aero on September 10, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Honest!? A Fred groupie is demanding HONESTY!? When the Fred groupies start make reasonable assessments of Fred, then they’ll get a reasoned response. But as long as they insist on acting like the Ron Paul loons, they will be treated like the fools they are.
csdeven on September 10, 2007 at 6:58 PM
What a sh*tty attitude, csdeven. At least I say something different from time to time, unlike you. Your keyboard is stuck on the same list of nastiness day after day after day. And you don’t even read what anyone else writes, anyway. I’ve told you many times before I’m not a Fred supporter. I’m not here to cheerlead for Fred. I’m just sick to death of your incessant harping on him and his supporters. IT’S OLD.
And you caught me–I already didn’t like Mitt (on the issues) before you guys started up with your attack-dog behavior here. But if Mitt’s supporters are such a nasty, narrow-minded bunch, I’m not persuaded to give him a second look.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Put it to you this way: The 2008 election is going to put whoever the Republican Nominee is against the slimiest, dirtiest, most corrupt, most fraudulent, most power-hungry, and most Marxist candidate in election history. I want the nomninee to be as spotless as possible, you hear me? When the general comes, just whose fraud and corruption do you think is going to be exposed for all to see? Hint: It isn’t Hillary Clinton.
The left has little to no traction calling others “flip-flop” due to John Kerry making them look like fools last election. But using PAC funds for personal gain while you tout the mighty power and long-forgotten tradition of federalism? The media headlines write themselves.
Reagan is a brilliant dead man whose 11th commandment harkens from a time where most people, left and right, were decent and honest. There is absolutely nothing Republican about Fred Thompson. As far as the media is concerned, he’s as fake and corrupt as Hillary Clinton and he’ll be beaten to a pulp for it because he’ll never be able to keep up with the power-hungry zeal of Hillary Clinton.
If this election wasn’t easily the most pivotal one in modern times, I wouldn’t care about Fred’s transgressions. However, my and csdeven’s list, as horrible as it might be for you to read over and over again serves a purpose. It isn’t a “Why Fred Sucks” list, it’s a “Who Fred IS” list.
Fred’s last three occupations were Washington lobbyist, no-name Senator (bar McCain Feingold), and Hollyweird stooge, err, actor. When was the last time we even nominated a Senator for President? GWB: Governor. GHWB: House Rep, then Vice President. Reagan: Governor. Fact is, the last time we sent someone to the White House who was a Senator was Nixon, and that was after he was VP. There’s a probably a reason why we don’t: the Senate breeds corruption.
BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Well I know fred Thompson rode aroung the state fair in a golf cart wearing Gucci loafers, but as usual the MSM didn’t tell the rest of the story. In all fairness Fred Thompson can speak for himself. Here is a clip of his opening day speech. I thought the content was noteworthy and he does not back away from the Islamofacist threat.
sonnyspats1 on September 10, 2007 at 7:22 PM
It’s nice to see something other than the Why Fred Sucks list from you, BK. I actually understand your concerns and am perfectly willing to take them into account. The problem with the implied conclusion to your argument–that Mitt is clean enough to withstand the Clinton smear machine–is that Mitt can’t beat Hillary. So, no matter how clean Mitt is and no matter how dirty Fred is, Hillary wins the White House against either of them, and we the people are screwed. That’s why I lean toward Rudy–he’s liberal, but he’s not a socialist like her. He’s strong on terror and a tax-cutter. But most importantly, he’s the only one in the field who seems to have a statistical chance to beat Hillary in the general. A critically important factor in politics, I’m sure you’d agree.
Probably the only thing that would make me switch to Fred is if Newt joins his campaign and Fred is clearly listening to him. Then at least I would know for a certainty that there is genuine conservatism, genius-level intelligence, and experienced leadership involved, along with what appears to be a high potential for electability in Fred.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 7:22 PM
My only question is this:
Which states will Hillary carry that Kerry didn’t. If you can tell me how Hillary wins Florida and Ohio, I’m listening. Until then, Hillary’s negatives are so high that I don’t see her winning any states that Kerry didn’t, and I’d prefer not to have New York Liberal and New York Liberal as my only choices in the Presidential race.
I also don’t trust polls. The reason Bush won is because he ran right, not left. Guiliani has no chance of winning his home state or any of the northeast, and many Southerers and Christians will look at his social issues and stay home. I don’t care what the poll lemmings have to say, they’re always wrong.
BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 7:30 PM
They were not wrong about 2006, to our great misfortune. Yes, polls can be manipulated and usually are. But don’t discount their power to shape public opinion and election expectations.
Mitt is just nowhere on the map in match-ups against Hillary. In fact, I think he was losing ground last time I checked. He can’t buy every state at the price he’s been paying for the early primary states, no matter how rich he is. Geez, if he can’t even hit 15% in the Republican nomination race after almost a year of running as hard as he can, I fear he’d be handing enough small purple states to Hillary to just throw the whole election in the trash for us. It doesn’t take Florida or Ohio if a handful of purple states switch hands. Demographics are changing–enough Californians are flooding into the city where I live in Texas that it’s even turning us a pale shade of violet, and we were as red as could be a few years ago. We can’t count on all the “safe” red states to stay red this time around. The country is justifiably angry at the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress, and many will vote Dem to show it.
Anyway, as I’ve said before, if Mitt somehow manages to win the nomination, I’ll get behind him 110% and never say another word about any of this. I’ll be the first to plant his sign in my yard. And I admit that, though Mitt can barely keep his head above 10% in national polls, if he can win several early states he has the chance to rocket to the top in time for the later primary voters to jump on his bandwagon. But right now, the vast majority of the nation doesn’t even know who he is. And too many who do know who he is are distinctly unimpressed. I don’t see him winning the nomination, and certainly not the general against the Clinton Machine.
I’m not thrilled about two liberal New Yorkers, either. But I say again, I’d rather have a somewhat liberal but somewhat conservative Rudy than a full-on socialist Hillary any day of the millenium.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 7:43 PM
There does appear to be a large disconnect between the Fredhead’s opinion of Fred and the reality of Fred. BKenney and csdeven have made it a mission to make this disconnect known to any new readers to these threads. Therefore, they are performing a service by not allowing the unsubstantiated Fred puffery to go unchallenged.
Fred is not the conservative Lancelot on a white horse, but Fredheads think he is (actually, that’s Newt, but he is unelectable too). Fred was a mole for Nixon and a lobbist for abortionists — and lied about it. Eventhough he is old, he has hardly more governmental experience than Hillary — less if you count her years in the White House. He did take campaign contributions and funnel them to his son — that corruption charge will only get louder as the general approaches. He has no executive experience and has demonstrated poor judgment in the selection of his campaign staff. He is an unqualified and flawed candidate, and as such he is dangerous. If he were to win the primary by bambozzeling the red meat Rebubbakins, we are screwed, because he will loose the general.
tommylotto on September 10, 2007 at 7:46 PM
You Idaho men always treat your women this good?
JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 7:53 PM
well said. gonna keep that.
JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 7:55 PM
I just don’t see what they’re doing as a laudable public service. What if all of us here went around performing the “public service” of methodically and somewhat viciously tearing down all the other Republican candidates who we believe for whatever reason to be unsuitable? The site would very quickly degenerate into a public brawl. I don’t think people appreciate the “public service” of being called “groupies,” “lemmings,” “fools,” “morons,” “loons,” and so on on a daily basis. All the candidates are flawed–some more than others–so all of them can be very effectively attacked and will be. None of us has to make it our “mission” to enlighten the poor ignorant fools who frequent this site. In case you hadn’t noticed, HA is in fact frequented by a mostly highly-educated, highly-informed bunch of readers. It is insulting to act like they need someone performing the “public service” of pounding them over the head daily with details they’ve read, taken into account, and either heeded or cast aside for their own reasons. I really do understand the concerns of the Fred-bashers, just like I understand the concerns of the Rudy-bashers, the Mitt-bashers, the McCain-bashers, etc. We all want to put the best, most electable candidate forward. Tearing each other’s guys to shreds in the coming months is not productive in my opinion, though. We’re all going to have to get behind whoever gets the nom when all this is said and done, and that’s going to be hard to do when we’ve reduced each other to a bloody pulp beforehand. We are risking rendering our own guy unelectable in the general by eating our own like this.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 8:02 PM
He’s probably forgotten I’m a woman or didn’t pay attention to me when I told him. Just like he constantly forgets that I’m not a Fred-supporter, just a reader who is sick and tired of his diatribe. His first response to me is always to call me a pathetic Fred Groupie for daring to ask him to be civil.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Don’t take it personally aero. Us guys love to fight. We’ve been doing it since we were born. then we drink beer. it’s fun.
JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 8:09 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »