Heart-ache: Fred says he’s not a regular churchgoer
posted at 2:08 pm on September 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Well, neither is his chief rival for the nomination. But then, his rival isn’t expecting to win the south.
Thompson, in his first campaign stop in South Carolina, told a crowd of about 500 Republicans yesterday that he gained his values from “sitting around the kitchen table” with his parents and “the good Church of Christ.”
Talking to reporters later, Thompson, a former Tennessee senator, said his church attendance “varies.”
“I attend church when I’m in Tennessee. I’m in McLean right now,” he said referring to the Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., where he lives. “I don’t attend regularly when I’m up there.”
Thompson said he usually attends church when visiting his mother in Tennessee and isn’t a member of any church in the Washington area…
“I know that I’m right with God and the people I love,” he said in Greenville. It’s “just the way I am not to talk about some of these things.”
I look forward to hearing in the comments whether this is a big deal or not. Meanwhile, WaPo and the LA Times are spinning Rudy’s diminishing lead as evidence of a crumble. Is it? He’s lost nine points since late July in the WaPo poll, four to Fred and two each to McCain and Romney. (Huckabee’s gained three since then, too.) Part of Fred’s gain is due to the announcement bounce, though. The LAT poll of early battleground states is more interesting.
Rudy’s surprisingly close to Mitt in New Hampshire and to Fred in South Carolina given their respective “home field” advantages. Here’s the shocker, though:
It’s amazing that pro-choice, pro-civil union Giuliani only trails Fred by two on social issues in deep-red SC. It’s a testament to two things, I suspect: the depth of ignorance about Rudy’s views on domestic policy and the fact that Mitt hasn’t yet turned his advertising artillery on Rudy in the state, preferring instead thus far to tout his own record. Mitt’s problem with Fred’s entry is that he has to triangulate now between Thompson and Giuliani. If he turns the guns on Rudy, it leaves Fred — his rival for social con votes — above the fray. If he turns the guns on Fred, they split the social con vote and Rudy maybe ekes out a surprise win. Choices, choices.
Meanwhile, the 400-lb. gorilla waits in the wings and, if you believe the Wash Times, prepares to make his entrance. I’m a little nervous that he’ll crush the others in the debates and leave us with a radioactive nominee for the general. Exit question: What are we to make of this?
Update: Uh oh.
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 »
Ditto.
amerpundit on September 12, 2007 at 2:13 PM
It will matter for the primaries, but not a lick for the general.
Limerick on September 12, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Fred’s not a regular churchgoer? Yawn. Neither am I. Well, I ‘regularly’ go on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Easter and around Christmas. The rest of the year, like many people, it’s touch and go. At least Fred is being honest. I welcome a little honesty from a pol. Better that than have him going to church just for appearances, out of pure, industrial-strength political cynicism like Pelosi and dozens of other humanoid politicians.
Thomas the Wraith on September 12, 2007 at 2:15 PM
It doesn’t matter to me. What does he think about the issues we face? What does he plan to do about those issues? These are far more important things to consider for a candidate than statistics on attendance at their church.
Weebork on September 12, 2007 at 2:18 PM
…and what percentage of Americans are “regular” churchgoers these days? I don’t know a single one. I knew one when I was younger. They lived across the street. It was also Seventh-Day Adventists (read: zealots, at least at that church). Considering the new wave of the anti-religion movement, this isn’t really something that should be calculated when electing a president. I want someone who spends time in the oval office, not in a pew.
MadisonConservative on September 12, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Ironic that if Newt enters the race and does as well as we all think he would in debates and actually gets the nomination because of the superiority of his skills at communication and persuasion, that he’d be the doom of the party’s hopes rather than the resurrection of the Conservative Movement. It totally sucks that possibly the best man for the job has been so shredded by the media in the past that he’s regarded as unelectable.
There is the possibility that if Newt enters, he hands the nomination to Rudy by splitting the social conservatives’ votes three ways with Fred and Mitt, leaving everyone else to Rudy.
aero on September 12, 2007 at 2:20 PM
As for Fred’s church habits–doesn’t matter to me. I’m a Christian who doesn’t go to church, too. A lot of people are, even here in the Bible Belt.
aero on September 12, 2007 at 2:21 PM
damn you newt for being unelectable. it sucks that the person i think is the best qualified to run would get creamed in the general election.
lorien1973 on September 12, 2007 at 2:23 PM
More so in the last few years. I’m not a regular church-goer any more, either.
amerpundit on September 12, 2007 at 2:25 PM
What I like is the man’s honesty. He doesn’t hum or haw about it, he just says it like it is. I can really respect that.
At least he wasn’t asked “boxers or briefs”…
jdawg on September 12, 2007 at 2:32 PM
This doesn’t matter to me one bit. If he feels it and acts it, who cares where his tuckus is on Sunday?
What is George Will’s problem anyway?
Darksean on September 12, 2007 at 2:33 PM
I love it when non-believers, like Liberals try to tell us what we should find acceptable. I suppose we’ll be leaving it up to them to define how “regular” is “regular” enough.
TBinSTL on September 12, 2007 at 2:33 PM
47% of American adults attend church in a typical weekend, not including a special event such as a wedding or a funeral. (2005)
jdpaz on September 12, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Big deal. Just the latest in a long line of bashers. Besides, George Will hasn’t exactly been spouting the conservative line anyway, probably to mollify his bosses in the MSM.
jdawg on September 12, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Darn, I was hoping he’d be a regular church-goer like BJ Clinton.
Expectations lowered?
Don’t think so.
fogw on September 12, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Agreed. Were Newt able to convince me he has the potential to win both the primary and general election, I’d support him over Fred, but I just don’t see it yet.
The article says it depends on his ability to get $30 million in financial committments… by the end of September? Did I read that right? I know the guy has some clout, but that sounds pretty ambitous.
*Warning* Unsupported conspiracy theory follows:
Is it possible that Newt is flirting with a run with the intention of building some momentum only to decide not to run and instead endorse Fred?
Hollowpoint on September 12, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Fred’s irregular attendance doesn’t bother me one bit. I’m a Christian with an agnostic girlfriend who’s only morning off during the week is Sunday. Meaning the only night we get to go out is Saturday, making going to church on 5 hours of sleep and a hangover a bit tough.
There are a lot of things I don’t like about each of the main candidates, I’m willing to settle for someone who can beat Clinton.
BadgerHawk on September 12, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Doesn’t make a difference to me, either.
I’m a Christian who does not go to a building to worship.
The world is my church.
bridgetown on September 12, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Thompson/Gingrich ticket anyone?
bridgetown on September 12, 2007 at 2:43 PM
I’m a regular church-goer and I don’t care about Fred’s church habits. The media asks these questions because they know there are a certain amount of people in my demographic to whom this does matter (which I find greatly disappointing).
It reminds me of a story I saw in the MSM in the run up to the 2004 election, stating that Bush was losing support among evangelical Christians. To support that contention, they interviewed a bunch of pacifist Mennonites. The story may or may not have had merit, but either way, Mennonites are certainly not typical of devout Christians-at-large. The point of the story was activist journalism to convince Christians to vote against Bush.
Anyway, when all is said an done, when every issue is weighed and in the end there can be only one…I support Giuliani.
Nosferightu on September 12, 2007 at 2:46 PM
I am from the south..not a regular churchgoer and neither are many people in my family…not a big issue for me.
EnochCain on September 12, 2007 at 2:46 PM
I’M OUTRAGED!!!
Not really. Glad to hear he still goes to the CoC. I may draft up a post on that.
As for George Will’s column, he’s been bashing Fred for a long time now, as you can see in the Hot Air archives. No surprise, and I stopped reading him years ago.
see-dubya on September 12, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Correction..it just hit me…I never go to church. lol
EnochCain on September 12, 2007 at 2:47 PM
PS I’m in church most Sundays.
see-dubya on September 12, 2007 at 2:48 PM
I believe the goal is to win the ‘08 election.
amerpundit on September 12, 2007 at 2:48 PM
I’m kind of partial to Rudy/Newt myself. Rudy has the electability and lures in the party’s centrists and some independents–maybe even a few right-leaning Dems. Newt covers the more conservative side. A full-spectrum ticket, so to speak.
aero on September 12, 2007 at 2:52 PM
He has a home church in Tennessee. It’s not uncommon to have a home church away from where you live, and when that’s the case, many people have a difficult time getting into a new church.
I fall into that category. I came up to Dallas for school and stayed for work, but my home church is in Houston. I can’t stand going to new churches. I really hate it, meeting new people, shaking all the hands, singing songs I’ve never heard before…
You’ve got to understand that a church, for some, is more like a second family than just a place to hear a sermon and sing songs. Getting into another one is an ordeal many tend to avoid.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but it doesn’t bother me.
If he didn’t attend church at all, it would imply that he was just being political when he claimed to be a Christian, but this isn’t really the same thing.
Esthier on September 12, 2007 at 2:54 PM
media would play up the dis-congruity between them. they are opposites on lots of issues. i’m not sure that’d work out very well.
lorien1973 on September 12, 2007 at 2:55 PM
I’m a card carrying member of the Mushroom Party I can’t stand a truthful politico! It’s part of our creed to be kept in the dark and fed BullS*&$!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on September 12, 2007 at 2:56 PM
My 2 cents: doesn’t bother me much, but this stems from my theology concerning the role of civil govt and the Church. I have never voted for a president with the expectation that he would be a leader of Christianity. It is why Mitts Mormonism wouldn’t, alone, be enough to make me sit out if it came down to him and Hillary, even though I believe Mormonism to be a heretical sect that denies certain orthodox truths that were hammered out thousands of years ago. What is interesting about this is that he is not trying to fake it. He was pretty honest with his church-goin’, which is…different.
Weight of Glory on September 12, 2007 at 2:58 PM
I’d have to say a true christian at one with their God would have about as much use for the typical American church as Hillary would have for a mirror.
Griz on September 12, 2007 at 2:58 PM
I have often wondered if Newt really is unelectable, or if we’ve all just inadvertently bought the MSM “common wisdom” that he’s unelectable. I mean, I know a lot of people who think Newt would be the best man for the job, but they say they wouldn’t vote for him because he’s “unelectable.” I wonder if all of us who think Newt’s the best guy just threw caution to the winds and voted for Newt, regardless of his supposed unelectability, if in fact we’d see a landslide. His negatives and “baggage” are no worse than Hillary’s, his marital problems are no worse than Rudy’s, and his government leadership experience far, far, far exceeds everyone else in the field.
As I’ve said before, Newt is the only living person to have successfully led the Conservative Movement to victory. The last true movement leader before him was Reagan. I want to be able to get behind Newt again.
aero on September 12, 2007 at 2:59 PM
I recall Reagan wasn’t much of a church-goer correct? Being under God’s sky alone was where he drew close to the Lord?
Doesn’t bother me. I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that going to church every Sunday makes you far from right, let alone perfect. As long as a man’s heart follows the Lord’s as much as possible then I’m fine with it.
CTDeLude on September 12, 2007 at 2:59 PM
I don’t think Newt is as unelectable as you guys are making him out to be. Sure, he has baggage, but he will be running against Hillary Clinton, and he would wipe the floor with her in debates… probably his long format Lincoln/Douglas ones.
DaveS on September 12, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Oh, aero already said what I said. Ditto to your whole comment.
DaveS on September 12, 2007 at 3:01 PM
So What?
You don’t have to go to church to be a good person.
I don’t go either (except When Mrs OBX Pete makes me go to a wedding or a funeral) and I consider myself to be a good person. I live my life mostly in the teachings of the Christian Church but it would pain me to get up on Sunday morning with a hangover and attend church.
Go getem’ Fred! You da’ man.
OBX Pete on September 12, 2007 at 3:04 PM
It’s OK with me if Fred doesn’t go to church very often. Neither do I. During elementary and middle school I had to go 6 times a week. I figure that was 48 years worth of chuch right there.
jaime on September 12, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Wait, so Fred is just a regular guy? Ploy or not, it’s nice to see. I’ll hazard a guess and say that should he get the nod, the media will be out in force denouncing his lack of church go-ery.
Should Fred get the nod, it might help break the image that the GOP is controlled by the evangelical right.
Krydor on September 12, 2007 at 3:06 PM
I’ve had problems with Fred from the beginning. The church attendance thing is not a big deal. Before Jerry Falwell passed on, I saw him on CNN praising Rudy!, so there ya go.
I’m for Newt. He has the right ideas and he can express them very well. I don’t think he has to be radioactive, although I do concede he has to overcome a lot of negatives. If the Democrats think they can elect unelectable Hillary, why can’t we elect Newt if he’s the best person for the job???
Ordinary1 on September 12, 2007 at 3:08 PM
If anyone should be unelectable, it should be Hillary. She has very high negatives, lots of scandal, policy failure (HillaryCare as First Lady), a completely unlikeable persona, etc, etc, etc. And yet, she’s on track to become the next President of the United States, apparently without too much trouble along the way. Most analysts, even conservative ones, seem to agree (reluctantly, in some cases), that she’s pretty unstoppable at this point.
If someone that unpleasant and “unelectable” is coasting this easily to the big prize, why couldn’t Newt? Everyone knows he could intellectually take down any of the contenders on either side of the fence without breaking a sweat.
aero on September 12, 2007 at 3:09 PM
As long as illegal immigration is not a crime (or half a crime) for him, he will not get my vote.
Valiant on September 12, 2007 at 3:10 PM
He is when he’s in Tennessee but not in Washington D.C. I agree, yawn.
I don’t attend regularly because I live in CA, where church is either you’re damned and burning in hell and there’s no room for contrition, grace, or forgiveness OR it’s the free to be you and me, hug a tree Episcopal USA where they embrace:
When you got no place to go to worship as you were raised, you stay at home, go to a quiet place, and simply read the good book and meditate. Why is it that Antheist or Hard-Core Evangelicals think that you have to actually GO to a church to be faithful. Fred!’s right. He knows where he stands, and if you after listening to him a while think he’s not faithful, you aren’t listening close enough.
BTW~ Seems to me it was all Red Meat when he was filling in for Paul Harvey. Then, when he listened to everyone clamoring for him to give them more Red Meat by putting his hat in the ring, he’s all of a sudden an unfaithful, hollywood type, pseudo-Reaganesque/conservative, RINO, worse than Rudy.
Sultry Beauty on September 12, 2007 at 3:11 PM
You nailed it. I really have to wonder the number of people that would be affected by this revelation. We’re electing a president, not a pastor.
ulyses on September 12, 2007 at 3:13 PM
.
You say that like it’s a good thing.
Hollowpoint on September 12, 2007 at 3:14 PM
He is running for President, not Pope. Or head of the Christian Coalition.
LakeRuins on September 12, 2007 at 3:15 PM
That’s exactly my position. I’ve seen too much behind the scenes at the churches I’ve attended and been members of during my life, but that’s just my personal experience. Your milage may vary.
techno_barbarian on September 12, 2007 at 3:15 PM
I’m a regular churchgoer and have to agree with Esthier. I love my church, and I could attend other churches once or twice if I was out of town for a while. But as long as I have a home church, I wouldn’t feel much need to be a semi-regular attendee at an out of town church whenever I was away.
It’s too bad, though, that more people don’t belong to a good congregation. Is it because too many of the friendly neighborhood churches with once-meaningful music and worship have turned themselves into auditoriums for second-rate entertainment? I never could make that switch myself.
NellE on September 12, 2007 at 3:16 PM
You read it right. He’s probably using his “Winning the Future” movement organization to send out feelers to potential supporters. He’s most likely been doing it for months, which might explain why some big donors are still keeping their powder dry. If he’s asked them for a pledge, they’d be waiting to see if he gets in before committing to anyone else. I think I read somewhere that Newt would even be able to convert some of his donations/funds from his existing organization to funding for a presidential run somehow. I’m not sure about that, though, so don’t quote me. But because he has an existing nationwide organization, Newt would be able to hit the ground running much more quickly and easily than other candidates.
aero on September 12, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Doesn’t matter. Positions on issues matter- church-goin’, not much.
Ex-tex on September 12, 2007 at 3:16 PM
It looks like there’s a lot of support on theis thread for Fred from people who also don’t attend church regularly, which isn’t surprising.
What about the people who do?
see-dubya on September 12, 2007 at 3:19 PM
It is, if it gets a Republican elected and keeps Hillary out of the White House! I’m a pragmatist that way.
Besides, I’d rather have a right-leaning Dem like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman on my side any day than all the wishy-washy “moderates” in the world.
aero on September 12, 2007 at 3:19 PM
There are also a GREAT many on the left that are absolutely terrified and militant regarding ‘ the fundamentalist Christian Right’. Fred! might be able to sway some of the more sane ones our way. Who knows, but we’re going to find out.
techno_barbarian on September 12, 2007 at 3:20 PM
I’m someone Allah would almost surely refer to as a Christianist fanatic (even though I don’t wish for the theocratic government he so appears to dread), but I’m resigned to the fact that neither of the eventual nominees will be informed by any discernable religious influence at all.
My chief concern for ’08 is that, for the sake of the nation, the GOP fields a candidate that can defeat the Glacier—in other words that the GOP nominates Rudy.
clark smith on September 12, 2007 at 3:26 PM
“wither on the vine” – remember how the media just blew that out of proportion and took it totally out of context. that’s a snapshot of newt’s campaign if he made it to the general election.
lorien1973 on September 12, 2007 at 3:26 PM
I think it’s sort of insulting the way the MSM thinks all us Republicans are going to freak out about a candidate who doesn’t go to church regularly. I alway assume the MSM is biased and makes negative assumptions about conservatives every time they float something like this. And then invariably the far “Christian Right” freaks out again and proves the MSM right, much to my dismay. They probably will this time, too. I hope they don’t–not for Fred’s sake, but for the sake of the party as a whole. We’re too fractured, and I think the Christian Right has a lot to do with that. They’re very exclusionary. (Note that I’m saying all this as a Christian who nevertheless doesn’t identify with many of the political stances and motivations of the so-called “Christian Right.” They just go too far most of the time, in my opinion. They tend to shrink the Republican tent instead of growing it, which means none of us win.)
aero on September 12, 2007 at 3:28 PM
I do. And I lead praise and worship for the youth at our church, and preach a message once a month for a local nursing home. I say that to set my opinion that his church attendance doesn’t really matter for me. What matters more for me is his explanation for supporting CFR. Still waiting for more detail on that one.
Weight of Glory on September 12, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Like many of the rest of you, it’s no big deal that he isn’t a regular church goer. Reagan wasn’t either and he was the best. I do go to Mass every weekend but I can honestly say there are a lot of hypocrites at church and I’m also not a big fan of the “Christian Right”.
Catie96706 on September 12, 2007 at 3:31 PM
If Fred does a good job in the debates and conservatives rally around him I don’t think Newt is going to enter the race. I believe that Newt will only enter the race in order to save conservatism and the 2nd amendment, (and thus the rest of the Constitution and BOR), from Rudy, in the event that Fred fails to live up to expectations well enough to win the primary.
It should be a cinch for Fred to win the primary unless he has been misrepresented or overrated, and frankly, if that turns out to be the case then Fred should bow out of the primary and endorse Newt and/or Duncan Hunter.
FloatingRock on September 12, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Unfortunately, you’re probably right. Frustrating as hell, though, to acknowledge it.
The MSM is giving Hillary a complete and total pass on this fundraising scandal, which is huge. They’re in fact applauding her quick action and wisdom in getting out ahead of this and giving the money back promptly. They would never, never, NEVER give Newt (or any Republican, but especially Newt) such a pass. He wouldn’t even have to commit an actual crime like Hillary. He’d just have to be caught picking his nose in public or something equally innocuous and it would all be over for him. He’d have to be absolutely flawless, and that’s impossible.
That said, I’d still like to see him run. It would be so refreshing to have some true intelligence and genuine conservatism out there for a time.
aero on September 12, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I do. Every week. It doesn’t bother me. In my opinion, we’re trying to elect a president, not a priest.
Tennman on September 12, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I attend church regularly and also work at a ministry. I put a good amount of weight on a candidate having a real, and personal, relationship with Jesus. It’s important because a person who knows God personally is likely to stand for what is right in their personal and public decisions. (nobody’s perfect) Not in order to have a theocracy, but to be governed by God fearing men and women who have integrity! (sounds kinda like the founding fathers!)
I stick up for Newt a lot at the ministry where I work. Some of my co-workers can’t get past his past. They don’t like Rudy either because of his stance on abortion. I know quite a few Fredheads at work. I think that IF Newt gets in the race and people start seeing that Newt’s past is past, and that Fred has certain problems as a former lobbyist, that some opinions may change. Newt repented in front of the whole world month’s ago. Christians are supposed to be about forgiveness! The trust takes longer to build, but I think it’ll happen.
As for Fred’s church attendance, sounds like he gave a good honest answer. He has a home church and a relationship with his Savior. That’s cool :-)
Ordinary1 on September 12, 2007 at 3:34 PM
See-Dubya: I’ve been less then stellar in the past few years then I would want going to church but my wife is a regular attendee and she has no issue with it. If he’s away, he’s away and it isn’t easy finding a church that “jives” with you. Different churches have different identities even amongst the same denomination. Large churches small churches all different things and to think that you can walk into any church near you and it would work for you is just bunk really. I’ve come across too many churches myself that either a pastor is just plain uncharismatic or the people themselves lack an acceptance of new people that is inviting.
And basically the Lord is most concerned with your destination in the afterlife (heaven or hell) rather then how many times you went to church. I’d imagine a person in a foreign land where there isn’t a church can be just as in touch with God’s will as anyone else.
CTDeLude on September 12, 2007 at 3:34 PM
The difference is that a lot of her support comes from people who assume that electing Hillary is a means to getting their hero Bill back into the White House.
Newt doesn’t have that- most people aren’t that familiar with the work he’s done since he was an in Congress, but remember that the media told them to think he’s a bad guy for some reason they can’t enunciate.
While Fred only officially entered the race a week ago, he unofficially campaigned for a couple months prior to that. For Newt to start completely from scratch would be pretty tough with regards to the primaries, and his high negatives could make the difference in losing the general. Both Rudy and Fred have pretty high positives and either could potentially beat Hillary. Newt? I’m not so sure, as much as I might like to see it.
Hollowpoint on September 12, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Uh-oh with George Will? I care what a moderate like him has to say about Fred?
Here’s George’s take on Rudy back in June:
So, I’ll assume that he thinks Fred is TOO conservative for the Republican base. Republican’s don’t care about social issues anymore, right? We just want a Manager in the White House.
Sultry Beauty on September 12, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Yes (speaking for self).
I attend church every Sunday that I’m in town but I don’t think it matters what a given candidate’s church attendance are. As many others have said, president, not pope–or pastor.
Aside: for a couple of years, I searched for a church that wasn’t just going through the motions, wasn’t playing the little spiritual games that are sometimes seen on Christian TV programs or wasn’t mainly a floor-show platform, as described in the first quote. I finally found one, but it took work–and prayer. In the intervening time period, I stayed home on Sundays.
baldilocks on September 12, 2007 at 3:45 PM
I agree with you there. But there is definitely a disconnect between the actual Christian Right and the perceived Christian Right. Most of them are closer to political libertarians than authoritarians — they just want to be left alone by the government. They don’t want an established religion (most would consider the established churches of Europe to be compromised, for example). If one gets past any preconceived ideas and looks at what the Christian Right really believe about government they might find a lot of room for common ground…unless the fact of them being Christian is itself too high a hurdle to get past.
Nosferightu on September 12, 2007 at 3:48 PM
what a given candidate’s church attendance are.=what a given candidate’s church attendance habits are.
baldilocks on September 12, 2007 at 3:48 PM
He has been, and I encourage EVERYONE to sign up for the newsletters at newt.org. He’s been giving his side of the story on just about every issue and he has REAL, concrete solutions that would actually work. I wish one of the current candidates had used his answer on the WOT during the debates, it makes the most sense. He’s awesome and all this “unelectable” talk is just our MSM indoctrination rearing its ugly head.
Please give some reasons why he is unelectable. Let’s just hash ‘em out right now.
NTWR on September 12, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Fred says he’s not a regular churchgoer
Well, at least he’s got something right
Opinionnation on September 12, 2007 at 3:52 PM
He went into this pretty extensively on Laura Igraham’s show. Basically, he defends putting in limits on giant soft money checks, argues for higher hard money limits, and disavows the limits on independent groups.
Clark1 on September 12, 2007 at 3:52 PM
So whatcha think, AP? Are you surprised by the overwhelming response from churchgoers and non-churchgoers alike, that Fred’s church attendance is essentially a non-issue?
kjspeedial on September 12, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Here’s another way to look at Newt. If, as all the pundits are correct that Hillary “has the election in the bag”, it doesn’t matter who the Repub nominee is. So, nominate Newt, who most of us agree is the best man for the job. Wouldn’t matter how much baggage he has. He has nothing to lose. And. and, and, well, sometimes strange things happen – remember Truman?
msflea on September 12, 2007 at 4:03 PM
My wife and I got to church at least once a week, I’ve got no problem with what Fred said and in fact, find his honesty refreshing from those who want to appear “holier than thou”.
jdawg on September 12, 2007 at 4:08 PM
That’s an understatement if ever I’ve seen one.
jdawg on September 12, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Excuse me O Allahpundit but why is it exactly a “heartache” if Fred Thompson is not a regular church goer?
Hilts on September 12, 2007 at 4:16 PM
With Fred’s past, I wonder if he’s afraid to attend church for fear of a lightning strike or a collapsed roof etc. :-)
Who gives a crap how often he attends church? I am less likely to vote for him because he mentioned it as part of a campaign speech. This is just more image and less substance from Fred. He is selling a manufactured image that has nothing to do with his real history of behavior. Hell, he didn’t even answer a direct question. Rather he blathered on for 10 minutes on generalities. AGAIN.
That parts of Bush’s policies are A-OK while other parts are sucky.
csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 4:16 PM
From Fred groupies? Heck no I’m not surprised. They’re gonna vote for a guy who is clearly not a conservative except in the TV shows he was in.
He is the savior and it don’t matter what he really is as long as his TV character sounds good. The Fred groupies are exactly like the Paulites in that respect. The only question is: Which group is copying the other?
csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Catie said it – neither was R. Reagan.
He’s a little guy.
Entelechy on September 12, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Given that the house and senate will be democratic in 2008, there needs to be an R in the whitehouse, at least. Unfortunately, it seems, Rudy is that candidate. I don’t like much about him; but realistically, I believe he’s the best shot we got. RINO. Yes. Electable. Yes. We have to have the proper priorities in 2008.
lorien1973 on September 12, 2007 at 4:27 PM
That’s why I’ll probably vote for Rudy when all is said and done. It’s the reluctant but realistic pragmatist in me. Better a RINO than a socialist–there’s just no arguing with that.
I just can’t help a little wishful thinking. Newt’s the only one who makes my little conservative heart go pitter-pat.
aero on September 12, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Oh, great! Look, everyone–csdeven’s here to crap all over the place again. The thread was pleasant for awhile there.
aero on September 12, 2007 at 4:34 PM
No surprises so far.
Tanya on September 12, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Ignorance is bliss for you Fredites ain’t it?
csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 4:39 PM
B’cause religion isn’t good enough for them, unless we do it their way, then religion is okay.
Lawrence on September 12, 2007 at 4:43 PM
The same could be said for McCain- would you vote for him on that basis too?
Already Fred isn’t far behind Rudy in poll matchups against Hillary, and that’s with a significant number of people who either haven’t heard of Fred or aren’t familiar enough with him to form an opinion. I honestly don’t think there’s much difference in electability between Fred and Rudy, at least once people become more familiar with Fred.
Hollowpoint on September 12, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Yes, it was, but just like the moonbats, some people can’t contain the hatred for even a single thread.
jdawg on September 12, 2007 at 4:55 PM
He is the savior and it don’t matter what he really is as long as his TV character sounds good. The Fred groupies are exactly like the Paulites in that respect. The only question is: Which group is copying the other?
csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Not to disagree too much with a fellow Mitt supporter, but it is the conservatives who are Rudy backers who are really really really into, how shall I say, “cognitive dissonance”.
MB4 on September 12, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Haven’t been to church since I was 15. But I still say my prayers every night. (Alas, I wake up in the morning, and still no Playboy Bunny next to me. Is there no God?)
jihadwatcher on September 12, 2007 at 4:57 PM
jihadwatcher on September 12, 2007 at 4:57 PM
You have to remember to leave the door unlocked.
MB4 on September 12, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Thanks MB4, I’ll try that tonight! And put extra cologne on.
jihadwatcher on September 12, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Need I remind you, YET AGAIN, that I’m not a “Fredite,” cs? What’s that you said about ignorance and bliss? You must be the happiest guy on earth.
aero on September 12, 2007 at 5:04 PM
aero on September 12, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Don’t feed the troll.
jdawg on September 12, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Well, when about half of those polled say they would “definitely” vote against him, it’s a bad sign. Yes, this was taken back in May, but I doubt the result has changed much.
Gallup has similar results in June, with Newt having a 27% favorable, 47% unfavorable rating.
Sure, these numbers are in part due to MSM smears, but he’d have a tough time winning over independents even against someone as contentious as Hillary- no need to ask who the MSM would favor.
Hollowpoint on September 12, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Newt is unpopular mostly because his last name sounds like grinch, and he advocated what the liberals termed “orphanages”. So, combine the sound Grinch, with the notion of an orphanage, and you are radioactive for life. In politics, that is all it takes.
jihadwatcher on September 12, 2007 at 5:14 PM
When it comes to Fred, there really is no reason to converse with csdeven unless you want a biased rant against the man.
Esthier on September 12, 2007 at 5:14 PM
I like that a man on the road with his wife can find better things to do on a Sunday than visit a church he’s never been to and pretend he isn’t itching to get home. My wife and I work together but I still take Sundays off to have brunch and sit with her sans distraction.
This just proves Fred can prioritize properly. To me anyway, but I’m a crazed Fredhead on a 15 minute break.
Rob Taylor on September 12, 2007 at 5:30 PM
I’m a Christian and I don’t think it’s that big a deal. As a matter of fact, this little factoid on Fred gives him a little plus in my book. He said he knew that he was “right with God” and that’s what’s important. I’ve known too many people who’ve attended church regularly who have never had or probably ever will have anything to do with God. In fact, this is a problem that’s gotten so big that many Christians today are skipping out on traditional church and bringing it back to where it was originally…in the home. That sounds to me like what Fred’s doing.
Joshua P. Allem on September 12, 2007 at 5:33 PM
It’s kind of sad that somebody that used to be a fairly respected contributor here has earned that title for himself. CSD, we hardly knew ye…
TBinSTL on September 12, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Good grief!!! Stop with the Fred crap already. He is less electable then Newt. Seriously.
Will somebody tell me just one accomplishment of note by Fred that warrants electing him the POTUS. And CFR doesn’t count. If I wanted that, I would vote for McCain. At least he had the decency to put his name on that POS. Did Fred reduce crime in Lynchburg or turn around the Lynchburg county fair? What the heck qualifies this bozo? He has enough experience for a Democratic candidate maybe, but not a Republican. The other candidates have run cities, states, etc. Fred just recites his lines after the make-up girl applies the pancake powder.
If he bambozzels the Rebubbakins and wins the primary, he will be destroyed in the general. How motivated will the evangelical base be to vote on election day when Clinton, Inc., Moveon.org and George Soros demonstrate to eveyone that Fred is a non-church going, pro-choice, former abortion lobbist? Will conservatives be motivated when they find out they are not electing his TV charaters but rather a Hollywood / Washington insider with a history of funneling campaign contributions to his sons?
The Rebubbakins are going to kill us. Rudy can win. Fred cannot.
Go get’em George Will, someone needs to take this empty suit down, and fast, before he does any more damage to our nation.
I’m for Rudy, but I can understand how someone could be for Newt — he represents an intellectually different political philosophy. Fred on the other hand offers nothing but a sexy raspy voice with a slow southern drawl.
tommylotto on September 12, 2007 at 5:38 PM
George Will.
Still preening for Susan Sarandon.
It’s not endearing anymore.
Stephen M on September 12, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »