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 | printer-friendly
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: « Previous 1 2
I understand and respect you men’s testosterone-laden style of interaction. However, it’s hard for a “mere” woman like me not to take it personally when, in just one post, I get called a “sissy-mary,” vacuous, shallow, unable to think for myself, lacking will-power, a fool, a conditioned dog, and a child who needs to grow up. I don’t think I’ve racked up that many insults in the entire time I’ve been participating in political blogs. Csdeven was on a roll–I almost hated to interrupt him with a civil and reasoned discussion about politics. I think he got some spittle in my arm, though, and one of his eyes might have popped out and rolled under his desk at some point.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Well, there’s margin of error wrong and then there’s gobsmackingly blatant reality. If the Dems are leading by 20% three months before the election, it probably isn’t the poll lemmings’ doing. If they’re predicting a 10% deficit in the general before the primaries are even over I dismiss them immediately. Fact is, when people are faced with the actual concrete idea of Mitt vs. Hillary instead of Mitt vs. Rudy vs. McCain vs. Fred vs. Hillary vs. Obama vs. Silky, their attitudes shift pretty quickly one way or the other. We know there will be a 0% conversion rate of Republicans to the Clinton camp, and a lot of moderates truly detest Hillary. I believe the real question of 2008 is “who turns off the least Republican voters while gaining Democrats.” I believe that answer is Mitt. Thompsons folksy ways don’t pull any weight above the Mason-Dixon line, and anybody who has a Mormon in their neighborhood is not likely to be turned off by Mitt’s religion.
The way I see it, each candidate has a flaw which can be exploited, but different levels of potential reaction if you exploit the flaw openly.
Attacking Guiliani for his checkered personal life can backfire, since many people hold the idea that a candidate’s personal life is his business and attacking that is petty.
Attacking Mitt for his religion is potentially worse, since most people think religion is between them and God, and Mitt isn’t running for theocrat in chief. It comes off as plainly anti-American for anyone who believes in religious freedom.
Attacking Fred for his money funnelling though? Not only is that fair game, it’s a political goldmine that lasts all election. You can fully expect to see a return of “The Republican Culture of Corruption” meme. Yes, the very one that slaughtered us in 2006. When the 14% rated Congress can say “Hey! Look at the other guy!” You’re in trouble.
BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Ha! I KNEW you’d slip sometime with your ad hominem attacks! You just called ME a groupie. You cannot quote from a message of mine and then cite “A Fred groupie” and claim you’re not talking about me.
For shame, me bucko, for shame.
I support Fred. Never denied it. He’s the only candidate I’ve ever given money to. I believe in him and I believe him. I’ve also gone toe-to-toe with you several times challenging the veracity of your “facts,” which are nothing more than conclusions. Example of a fact: The ice cube was cold. Example of a conclusion: The ice cube was too cold.
You and BKennedy confuse the conclusions with the facts all the time. Just like TommyLotto — but he’s a lawyer, and they’re paid to make conclusions. Can’t fault him for that.
Let’s now talk honesty. Can you finally admit that you aren’t applying a “groupie” moniker to some amorphous troglodyte out there and that you were addressing me and me alone?
Gotcha. :)
Tennman on September 10, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Too bad Mitt ran from Reagan when he had a chance to take a stand against Kennedy. But when confronted by Kennedy he folded like a cheap suit, and ran from being a Reagan conservative. We don’t need a wimp in the White House, we need a man. Mitts says he is a conservative now, but he wasn’t before (by his own words)…whatever gets him votes.
right2bright on September 10, 2007 at 9:15 PM
If Mitt did win, some among us would say he only won as a RINO, not a conservative. Either way, win or lose, it can be spun as bad for Mitt. Fact is, Mitt was a lot younger politically when he challenged Kennedy, and I’m more apt to believe him based on his actions as governor than from his statements during a campaign from thirteen years ago.
BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 9:30 PM
I honestly forgot aero was a chick and tennman you are still a Fred groupie.
The facts about Fred are not in dispute. The only thing in dispute is the level of spin you guys use from day to day. We have been looking for positives out of Fred and have found them, but unfortunately, they have to be given the weight they deserve and that is where his “experiences” lose any credibility.
Fred talks a good game. We all know that and have admitted it since we first started this. We have tried to find greatness in his senate career, and that has been lacking. We have looked for executive experience. Nada. We have even looked for general conservatism in his life outside of the senate. What we have found is disturbing at best. The clients he lobbied for. His pro-choice stance and then he lied about it. He funneled cash to his son. McCain/Feingold. Now we find out he helped the scum who were responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. He has no standing in the family values arena. We are even hearing reports that he was mentally cruel to his first wife and that he only got married so he could take a run at the white house. His organization was falling apart on his first day in the race, yet his entire shtick this summer was that he wanted to hit the ground running. His wife has scared away staffers. Fred has a rep for being lazy. Fred admits that his friends pushed him into this.
And what do we hear from the Fred supporters? EXCUSES. Nothing but excuses. And if then you say that you trust him. On what record? All anyone can trust Fred about is the conviction that he played his acting rolls with. But the rest of us know that he was simply ACTING.
So complain all you want, but when you Fred supporters make excuses for every single event in Fred’s life, those of us who haven’t drank the Fred kool-aid, understand that your complaints are not based on an honest realistic assessment of Fred’s history.
I apologize for going off on you two. I am just so sick of the “heads up their a$$es” attitude about Fred’s flaws while they turn a critical eye toward every other candidate except Fred.
csdeven on September 10, 2007 at 10:24 PM
sissy-mary was hilarious.
JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Be still my beating heart! I’m going to print and frame this.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 10:46 PM
What the heck does that mean, anyway? I assume it means he thinks I sounded like a girly-man when he thought I was a man. Doesn’t quite work when I actually am a girl, huh? ;-)
aero on September 10, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Mitt governed as an honest politician that stuck to his campaign promises, yet took on many conservative issues against the politics of the bluest of blue states. And what was it that Fred did? Talk. Talk. Talk. Lobby, lobby, lobby. Funnel, funnel, funnel. AND McCain/Feingold.
csdeven on September 10, 2007 at 10:53 PM
It’s what you call an effeminate man. It’s still funny because you were acting exactly like a sissy-mary. But you’re a girl so that’s OK.
csdeven on September 10, 2007 at 10:57 PM
There you go again, to quote RWR. You KNOW that I haven’t done any of the things you’ve just generally blamed me for. You can try and trivialize a two-term senator, and you can try to criminalize or impugn motives to a man for hiring his son to manage his PAC if you want to. BTW, do you have any information that 1) A crime was committed; 2) His son was not qualified to run the PAC; 3) A miasma of illegitimacy wafts around this decision; 4) The amount paid was inaccurate or improper?
You can call other Republicans morons, loons, groupies, whatever.
And yet. Those of us who can think for ourselves — without your help, incidentally — believe this man to be a man for his time. Not a demigod, not a savior, not a perfect man, but a man for his time.
I have intentionally and responsibly answered any new questions but have not vilified any other Republican candidate — well, except Ron Paul, of course.
So quit with the name-calling. I believe you said we’d see a different side of you when Fred announced. He announced. Where’s the new csdeven?
Same-o, same-o, same-o.
NNTR
Tennman on September 10, 2007 at 11:16 PM
1) Never said it was a crime
2) He did nothing. No fundraising and basically wrote checks.
3) It ought to.
4) FEC rules state that the salary has to be in line with the efforts.
But like all Fred supporters, you think as long as it isn’t illegal it’s A-OK. It is the behavior of a scumbag Washington insider. He breaks the spirit of the law. He lobbies for scum. He lies about his pro-choice flip-flop. He assaulted the first amendment and now pretends he didn’t know what would happen.
I called the FEC and the gal there LAUGHED at the BS Fred pulled with that PAC money. He screwed the system because he could get away with it. But the American people will find out that Fred is in the same profession as Abramoff was.
csdeven on September 10, 2007 at 11:40 PM
So is it that, as a girl, I’m allowed to be a sissy (and vacuous and shallow and unable to think for myself, etc. etc.–all those things you called me up-thread), or that I’m expected to be those things?
And do all those insults you hurled at me still apply now that you’ve been reminded that I’m not a Fredhead? Am I still vacuous and shallow and foolish and moronic if I’m not currently planning to vote for Fred? Just curious.
aero on September 10, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Yeah, as a girl you’re allowed to let the actions of others turn you from considering the actual issues.
You said it girly, not me. I don’t let what others say affect how I view a candidate.
csdeven on September 10, 2007 at 11:53 PM
You’d better hope Michelle’s not paying any attention to this thread, mister! As if you didn’t have enough enemies on this site, now you feel you have to alienate all the women in one fell swoop? If I weren’t 99% sure that you’re just being a jerk for fun now, I might get mad. Aw, heck, I won’t get mad even if you really are the gigantic chauvinist pig jerk loser you seem to be–I’m feeling generous tonight, I guess. ;-)
aero on September 11, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Shows his lack of backbone years ago, and his flip flops since then prove that he has no backbone. Not what most people want to see in a leader.
Is he for gun control, or against it? I haven’t seen his policy statement this week.
right2bright on September 11, 2007 at 12:14 AM
As opposed to your sainted Fred, who won’t even admit he lobbied for pro-choice groups, and won’t give you a straight answer to a non-scripted question anyway. At least with Romney his history is out there, and your ridiculous yarns about thirteen years ago being equivalent to last week shows your intellectual dishonesty.
Mitt admits he used to be pro-choice, and has since come around. Fred CLAIMS he has always been pro-life, but lobbied for an abortion group in the past.
And Mitt is supposed to be slick?
What about Federalism, Fred was all for individual freedom and state autonomy when he was pushing McCain-Feingold through.
There are plenty of Fred-flops to go around.
BKennedy on September 11, 2007 at 12:37 AM
Don’t blame me for your stupid comment. I would not give a guy a pass on acting like a girl. I will give a girl a pass for acting like a girl. If MM thinks I was insulting her she can come in here and debate me over it. But unlike you, she doesn’t act like a professional victim in the political arena, so I doubt she’s gonna take any offense at it.
csdeven on September 11, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Actually, what say you csdeven, think you and I can muster up a list of Fred-flops to further “annoy” the fine readers at HotAir with that nasty reality business?
Oh, and do try to be more polite csdeven. One of my College Republican friends and the President of another CR organization was a great guy, but his constant unnecessary remarks were grating. Try to tone down the “girly-man” shtick, you sound like the Governator.
BKennedy on September 11, 2007 at 12:40 AM
What have I said that’s even remotely victim-like? It would seem you’re misreading a great deal, because at no point did I feel or convey victimhood. In fact, I’ve been on the offense the entire night, forcing you to the defensive insult-slinging position you often adopt.
aero on September 11, 2007 at 12:42 AM
You want MM to come in here and slap me around for you. Can’t handle it yourself, huh?
csdeven on September 11, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Yeah, you’re right. I just got a bug up my a$$ tonight. I’ll get over it.
csdeven on September 11, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Negative comments about Fred or any other candidate are not annoying. Repeating them incessantly, many times per day, is annoying–particularly if accompanied by personal insults toward anyone not oozing contempt for Fred. New Fred “dirt,” if substantiated, is even welcome, as long as you don’t repeat it 20-30 or more times per day.
*snort* Good luck with that!
aero on September 11, 2007 at 12:46 AM
It’s not my site, or believe me I’d ban you in a heartbeat–would’ve done it long ago, in fact. You really are being a rat-bastard tonight, cs. All I did was ask you to stop being so annoyingly repetitive and insulting. I’ve seen you write thoughtfully, insightfully, and respectfully on non-Fred-related threads. You’re very smart and a real conservative. But I’m telling you the absolute truth that you should be embarrassed about your behavior on the Fred threads. You’re out of control, and people are starting to think you’re a nutcase. If you want to get your anti-Fred message across more effectively, tone down the rhetoric and space your attacks out to one every few days instead of every single time you see Fred’s name. I’m trying to help you out here.
aero on September 11, 2007 at 12:54 AM
That wasn’t a bug, it was my foot. Your a$$ got kicked by a sissy girl tonight, buddy. Better go put some ice on it or it’s gonna leave a bruise. ;-)
Nice sparring with you. And I’m totally serious–if you want to be more effective in your anti-Fred campaign, tone it down. You can do it; I have faith in you.
aero on September 11, 2007 at 1:46 AM
I know Hillary wants my cigaretts and something tells me that she would not object too much to a bullet in the back of my head because I’m a conservative, Christian…
sabbott on September 11, 2007 at 7:17 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2