Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Video: Fred rips Huckabee

posted at 10:55 am on November 5, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view

Mike Huckabee is the first presidential candidate out of the gate with a slam on Fred Thompson’s MTP appearance Sunday. During that appearance, Thompson stated that he doesn’t support the Human Life Amendment. Huckabee’s take:

Senator Thompson’s comments on ‘Meet the Press’ were disappointing and disheartening for those who were expecting him to be a solid voice for conservatives. The marriage and life amendments are critical issues for those of us who have been on the front lines of these cultural battles. Sen. Thompson’s philosophy seems to be more ‘cut and run’ when it comes to these issues, rather than stand and lead.

Fred’s response this morning on Fox: Flay Huckabee’s entire record as Arkansas governor.

Thompson manages to pound Huckabee into a fine powder without ever coming across as harsh or even particularly angry. It’s as solid an appearance as I’ve seen Thompson deliver since the official announcement that he’s running.

Takeaway: Don’t mess with the Fred.


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

More lies from FOX News: Fred Thompson didn’t sit down at all through that whole interview.

frankj on November 5, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Huck’s fuming. Fred’s flaming.

Winner: Fred.

MadisonConservative on November 5, 2007 at 11:12 AM

Is it just me or does he come across as Presidential?

Winebabe on November 5, 2007 at 11:15 AM

I’m liking the Fred more and more everyday, now, having said that, I expect csdeven and his two amigos will be coming over to my house to crap on my lawn and strangle my cat any day now.

ChrisM on November 5, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Toasted Huckabee for breakfast. Fred verging on speed-talking there, the time change must have agreed with him.
/kidding.

bbz123 on November 5, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Not for me, my brothers! Not for me!

More proof, obviously, that Thompson is just not Christian enough to be the Republican nominee.

/sarc

Slublog on November 5, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Well, “Bobble head Fred” is back.

PRO-LIFE? Bwahahahahaha!!!!

Just yesterday he said that abortion is murder but since 1994 he has admitted that he was A-OK with murder in the first trimester.

Now he wants to turn murder over to the states to decide on their own. What about equal protecting you vacuous fool? Do unborn humans not deserve the same protections from murder that born humans do?

This guy is an unprincipled jagoff. He thinks terrorists, dictators, and unscrupulous companies deserve representation and protection according to law, but not innocent babies in the womb.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:18 AM

Now that’s the kind of fighting spirit I’ve been wanting to see from Fred.

Good defense of his own pro-life voting record followed up by a cool, calm, clinical dissection of Huckabee and yet was devastatingly effective.

thirteen28 on November 5, 2007 at 11:18 AM

Sounds more like Huckabee rips Thompson. Thompson you remember advocated a more serious debate structure and then declined to debate Huckabee. I wonder why?

Huckabee had a 90% Democrat congress when he was elected and has adequately explained his positions throughout his Governorship. Thompson is the one dwelling in the past here. I would love to see these two debate each other one on one.

One candidate will be left standing to take on Rudi. I think it will be Huckabee or Thompson.

moughon on November 5, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Geeze Fred Thompson’s script writters are simply amazing. Do you know how hard it is to write a retort to a jab then set up an interview to respond in short order. Keep in mind this was all made to look like Fred Thompson can think on his feet and stick to the facts all without resorting to notes or memos. The only explanation is Fred Thompson has a mini transmitter implanted in he right ear.

sonnyspats1 on November 5, 2007 at 11:20 AM

…just not Christian enough to be the Republican nominee.

No one is.

ChrisM on November 5, 2007 at 11:20 AM

No one is.

Well, other than Ron Paul of course.

Slublog on November 5, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Sorry Slu, I forgot about Lord Paul.

ChrisM on November 5, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Two visits in two weeks? Don’t wow us too much “dust bunny”!

As far as Huckabee goes, he RAN a state Fred. You have never run a city, a state, a business, nor a corner store. Oh, I’m sorry, you’ve been running your mouth for 7 months. And most of it is stolen from other conservatives or out right lies that you make up.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:26 AM

Advantage Thompson. If Huckabee’s going to pound on Fred for advocating passable legislation and not being socially conservative enough with the 100% pro-life record, we know who the dead-end candidate is. Although in this case, we may have a twofer, for different reasons.

Vizzini on November 5, 2007 at 11:27 AM

AWESOME!

My litmus test for President includes Phyllis Schlafly endorsement. When she came out against Huckabee that was it for me.

Bill C on November 5, 2007 at 11:28 AM

moughon on November 5, 2007 at 11:20 AM

I don’t follow Huck very closely, but it seems to me he has already addressed the increased tax issue as a requirement by the feds.

I think you’re not seeing the real Fred. The minute the American people find out he is a lawyer, lobbyist, and helped terrorists, he will be completely finished.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:29 AM

Is it just me or does he come across as Presidential?

I do think it’s just you. ;) LOL

I’m not getting that vibe from “Fred!” at all. Quite the opposite.

ConBlog_NH on November 5, 2007 at 11:30 AM

Huckabee should pick on someone his own size – like Ron Paul!

woodman on November 5, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Ouch!

Nice to see something that didn’t evolve into a stump speech rehash.

jdpaz on November 5, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Go Fred!! Boy, did he take ole’ Huck to the woodshed or what?

JimK on November 5, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Really? This is what passes for a Fred Thompson zinger?

LOL…..

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Oh, man. I’ll admit one thing, he has done an incredibly good job at lowering the bar so low that this kinda thing comes across as a big win.

EduardoOTI on November 5, 2007 at 11:41 AM

The minute the American people find out he is a lawyer, lobbyist, and helped terrorists, he will be completely finished.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:29 AM

Haven’t you been banned yet for suggesting other members beat their wives?

MadisonConservative on November 5, 2007 at 11:47 AM

It’s too bad Fred can’t explain his position as well as he insults the other candidates. The politics of hate. He has obviously been practicing it.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:51 AM

EduardoOTI on November 5, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Oh heck, this is nothing. You should have seen him “run away from debating Moore disguised as a smack down” video. Paaaaathetic!

Then of course as some one has already mentioned, he challenged the candidates to a debate and then ran away when Huckabee accepted.

But really, besides all that, all these mistakes are just a super secret awesomely awesome plan that Fred has in place to lure the other candidates into complacency.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Ouch!

Nice to see something that didn’t evolve into a stump speech rehash.

jdpaz on November 5, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Yes that was refreshing. It’s the first time Fred Thompson has been caught thinking on his feet. Someone turn down that ghetto blaster in here!

sonnyspats1 on November 5, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Yes, he’s been doing better. Almost looks like he wants it now. Should help further energize the race. Good thing.

Halley on November 5, 2007 at 12:00 PM

i vote for fred winning this exchange, just b/c csdeven is as obnoxious as a paulbot.

its vintage duh on November 5, 2007 at 12:01 PM

I would love to see these two debate each other one on one.

One candidate will be left standing to take on Rudi. I think it will be Huckabee or Thompson.

moughon on November 5, 2007 at 11:20 AM

WTF?

sonnyspats1 on November 5, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Frederalism

Thompson/Hunter 08

TheSitRep on November 5, 2007 at 12:11 PM

The marriage and life amendments are critical issues for those of us who have been on the front lines of these cultural battles. Sen. Thompson’s philosophy seems to be more ‘cut and run’ when it comes to these issues, rather than stand and lead.

“Battles,” “cut and run” — bellicose words for the topics of abortion and homosexual civil unions. Must everything be made into an aggression contest? Fred looked mighty good here.

Mark Jaquith on November 5, 2007 at 12:12 PM

Huck needed a good spankin, and Fred delivered…and threw a couple of jabs at the flip-floppers posers, Rudy and Mitt. What a great use of time…three for the price of one.

right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 12:13 PM

Oh. My. God.

Did I just hear Freddie extoll his voting record, say the proof is in the pudding, and attack someone’s record on immigration in the same interview???

Oh. My. God.

Can someone explain to him that while he was a Senator he voted time and time again to give our nation away to foreign nationals by siding with his open border La Raza lovin’ crony / co-campaign chairman Abraham. Fred’s voting record on immigration:

2000: Voted for S.2045, a foreign worker bill with no worker protections. Sen. Thompson voted for the Abraham foreign worker bill to nearly triple the number of foreign high-tech workers. Despite a GAO report finding no evidence of a worker shortage and suggesting fraud in the H-1B program, Rep. Thompson voted for this bill that included no worker protections or anti-fraud measures. 
1996: Voted in committee for the Abraham amendment to S.1664. The Abraham amendment to S.1664 stripped all legal reforms from the bill. The legal reforms would have lowered the annual cap on skilled-worker visas and eliminated the category for unskilled workers. S.1664 would have reduced overall legal immigration by about 2.1 million over a ten-year period. The amendment passed. 
1998: S.1723, Voted against the American worker in committee. Rep. Thompson stood solidy against American workers by opposing a Feinstein amendment to S.1723 to reduce the H1B increase from 5 years to 3. The amendment failed by 2 votes.
1998: Voted in committee against American workers. The Kennedy-Feinstein Amendment to S.1723 would have accomplished two important goals: ensuring no American was laid off or displaced prior to hiring an H1B employee; and, requiring that employers demonstrate they had previously taken timely and effective steps to hire a qualified American. 10 Senators helped defeat this amendment.
1998: Voted against offering jobs to Americans first. Rep. Thompson voted against the Kennedy amendment(A-2417) to S.1723 that would have required U.S. firms applying for H-1B visas to check a box on a form attesting that they had first sought an American worker for the job. The amendment failed 39-59. 
1998: S.1723, Voted to allow American workers to be fired and repalced with a foreign worker. Rep. Thompson voted against the Kennedy Amendment (A-2418) to S.1723 that would have protected American workers from being fired and replaced by a foreign worker (H-1B visa holder). The amendment was defeated 38-60.
1998: Voted against protecting American workers. Rep. Thompson was part of the majority in the Senate Judiciary Committee that voted to send S.1723 to the floor of the Senate without safeguards for American workers.  
1998: Voted for S.1723, nearly doubling hi-tech visas. Rep. Thompson helped the Senate pass S.1723 in a 78-20 vote. Enacted into law, it increased by nearly 150,000 the number of foreign workers high-tech American companies could hire over the next three years even though U.S. firms were laying off thousands of workers at the time. 
1997: Voted for an amnesty to illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba. Sen. Thompson voted for a procedural move that helped allow the Mack Amendment to be included in S.1156 (the District of Columbia Appropriations bill). This amendment granted amnesty to illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba and is expected to add close to one million people to U.S. population. 
1996: Voted in committee for the Abraham amendment to S.1664. The Abraham amendment to S.1664 stripped all legal reforms from the bill. The legal reforms would have limited annual refugee admissions to 50,000, as recommended by the Jordan Commission. S.1664 would have reduced overall legal immigration by about 2.1 million over a ten-year period. The amendment passed.
1996: Voted in favor of the immigration lottery Sen. Thompson voted against the Feinstein Amendment to S 1664 that would have eliminated the immigration lottery and significantly reduced chain migration. The Feinstein Amendment was defeated by a vote of 74 to 26.
1996: Voted in committee for the Abraham amendment to S.1664. The Abraham amendment to S.1664 stripped all legal reforms from the bill. The legal reforms would have eliminated lottery visas. S.1664 would have reduced overall legal immigration by about 2.1 million over a ten-year period. The amendment passed.
1996: Voted against the Simpson Amendment to S.1664 to reduce the immigration lottery. The Simpson amendment to S.1664 would have reduced the annual number of visas allocated to the lottery category from 55,000 to 27,000. The amendment failed by 80-20 on the Senate floor. 
1996: Voted in favor of chain migration Sen. Thompson voted against the Feinstein Amendment to S 1664 that would have significantly reduced chain migration by lowering annual admissions of spouses and minor children of citizens to 480,000 a year. The Feinstein Amendment was defeated by a vote of 74 to 26. 
1996: Voted in committee for the Abraham amendment to S.1664. The Abraham amendment to S.1664 stripped all legal reforms from the bill. The legal reforms would have greatly reduced chain migration by eliminating several extended-family categories. S.1664 would have reduced overall legal immigration by about 2.1 million over a ten-year period. The Abraham amendment passed. 
1996: Voted against the Simpson Amendment to S.1664 to end chain migration. The Simpson Amendment to S.1664 would have ended chain migration which the Census Bureau projects will double the U.S. population again in the next century. The Senate voted 80-20 to kill the reform. 
1996: Voted in committee in favor of the Hatch Amendment to S. 1664 to reduce fines against employers who hire illegal aliens Sen. Thompson voted as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of the Hatch Amendment to S. 1664. The Hatch Amendment stripped the provision from S. 1664 that increased fines against businesses that hire illegal aliens, thus making it less attractive for businesses to hire illegal aliens. The Hatch Amendment passed by a vote of 9-8.
1996: Voted in favor of the Abraham Amendment to S. 1644, a vote against of increased interior enforcement Sen. Thompson voted in favor of the Abraham Amendment to strip the voluntary workplace verification program from S. 1644. Workplace verification programs help reduce illegal immigration by withdrawing the job magnet from illegal aliens. The Abraham Amendment failed by a vote of 54-46. 

tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 12:13 PM

Frederalism

Thompson/Hunter 08

TheSitRep on November 5, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Yup, thats the ticket I am hoping for.

doriangrey on November 5, 2007 at 12:17 PM

I’m comin to ya on a dusty road
I’ll be debatin ‘em with a red pickup truck load
And when I debate ‘um you’ll really see something
So dont worry cause I’m Fred and I am coming

Im Fred man
Im Fred man
Listen up America!
Im Fred man
Im Fred man

I got what I got the old fashion way
And I’ll take it to that phony Christian Huckanut in each and every way
So voters dont you fret
Cause you’ve hardly even seen me knockin that sanctimonious twit yet

Im Fred man
Im Fred man
Play it Jeri baby!
Im Fred man
Im Fred man

Listen
I’m all wrapped up in the things America needs
I learned how to be an American almost before I could eat
I come from American heartland stock
When I become President things will really rock

Im Fred man
Im Fred man
Take that you illegal plantation supportin’ Huckanut!
Im Fred man
Im Fred man

I’ll grab your rope and I’ll pull you in
Give you hope and be Americas best friend
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

Im Fred man
Im Fred man
Youre a Fred man!
Im Fred man
Im Fred man

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 12:19 PM

tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 12:13 PM

It should be a crime for “Dust Bunny” to take advantage of gullible people. If only the reporters would challenge them on these lies. Had Carl pointed out Fred’s piss poor record on illegal immigration, we would have seen the real Fred. More vacuous obfuscation and out right lies. I don’t know about others, but watching a candidate lie will being insulting doesn’t impress me in the least.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 12:22 PM

Yup, thats the ticket I am hoping for.

doriangrey on November 5, 2007 at 12:17 PM

You take optimism to new heights my friend. If I even get in the dumps, I’m calling you to cheer me up. ;-)

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 12:24 PM

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 12:19 PM

Is that a made up poem or a rehashed song? If it’s a song, which one is it?

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 12:25 PM

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 12:22 PM

What “outright lies’?

right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Huckabee had a 90% Democrat congress when he was elected and has adequately explained his positions throughout his Governorship.

moughon on November 5, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Compare and contrast Huckabee and Romney as governors. Romney governed about as conservative as he could get away with in a very liberal state. Huckabee governed about as liberal as he could get away with in a conservative, democrat or not, state. That alone should tell people something.

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 12:32 PM

Fred is inevitable.

VolMagic on November 5, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Is that a made up poem or a rehashed song? If it’s a song, which one is it?

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Rehashed song. “I’m a soul man”. They used to play it in 1969 at the impact area at Lawton, Oklahoma. It is seared, I say seared into my memory.

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 12:35 PM

right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 12:27 PM

When he said he has always been with the pro-life groups. The pro-life groups DO NOT think abortion should be legal in the first trimester.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 12:36 PM

What “outright lies’?

right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 12:27 PM

He says he has always been pro-life, but he opposes a constitutional ban on abortion and does not want to criminalize it. (Oh and he lobbied for an abortion group then had his campaign deny it.) He’s pro-life, just that his positions are all pro-choice. You are right, he’s not lying. It’s his positions doing the lying, not him.

tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 12:36 PM

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 12:22 PM
What “outright lies’?
right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 12:27 PM

He only spoke for about 2 minutes, it should be easy for you to pick out his “outright lies”.

right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 12:36 PM

moughon on November 5, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Thompson you remember advocated a more serious debate structure and then declined to debate Huckabee. I wonder why?

You’re joking about that, right? I don’t recall Thompson ever advocating a “more serious debate structure” between himself and bottom-self candidates who were seeking attention.

He was advocating Lincoln-Douglas style presidential debates between the party nominees, and I certainly look forward to that possibility… a Lincoln-Douglas style debate between Thompson and Huckabee? Not interested. I wouldn’t watch it… there would be no point.

Of course, you know that. Huckabee just made that “offer” as a publicity stunt, because he knew there would be some people who weren’t smart enough to recognize it as a cheap ploy and who would actually think it reflected poorly on Thompson, rather than Huckabee. When you are performing as poorly as Huckabee is (or, more importantly, WAS at the time), I guess you take what and who you can get.

DaveS on November 5, 2007 at 12:37 PM

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Yeah, I am that old. lol I just couldn’t place it.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Why is Fred against a Life Amendment, but for a Marriage Amendment? Seems if you’re going to argue for federalism reasons, it would apply to both or neither.

CP on November 5, 2007 at 12:39 PM

Fred is the man.

spacemonkey on November 5, 2007 at 12:40 PM

tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 12:13 PM

Judging purely on what you wrote there, I actually support every one of those votes, with the possible exception of the last two. And I suspect that I would agree with those if I knew the rationale behind the vote.

Some people say that “George Bush voted against giving millions of sick children the health care they need to live be vetoing SCHIP.”

Think long and hard about whether or not you want to be grouped with those sorts of people. Because you definitely just dove head first onto that side.

DaveS on November 5, 2007 at 12:42 PM

DaveS on November 5, 2007 at 12:37 PM

So, Fred doesn’t want to debate the republican candidates in the primary, but would rather debate in the general. He himself said these debates were worthless and then went off into a diatribe about Lincoln/Douglas style debate. Regardless, Huck called him out on it and Fred ran away claiming Huck was a lower tiered candidate. HA! Huck leads “Dust Bunny” in many state polls.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 12:43 PM

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Heh heh heh me and a couple twelve packs of Corona or Sam Adams could cheer up The Grinch……

doriangrey on November 5, 2007 at 12:43 PM

tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Listen to the tape again, he said he has a 100% rating on the national level, which is accurate. The pro-life groups back him, they are wrong? They don’t know a pro-lifer? Didn’t he mention his abortion bill, and I never heard him say that it was the “end all”, he just mentioned his national bill.
In your zeal, you heard much more than he stated, maybe you are the one stretching the truth a little.

Is abortion a state right or constitutional right? And do you think a constitutional amendment could be passed if you feel ist is constitutional? This debate is hardly a debate where one sides beliefs make them a liar.

right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Why is Fred against a Life Amendment, but for a Marriage Amendment? Seems if you’re going to argue for federalism reasons, it would apply to both or neither.

CP on November 5, 2007 at 12:39 PM

I agree. I think the minor distinction would the the applicability of the full faith and credit clause in the latter, making it effectively impossible for a state to outlaw same-sex marriage if even one other state made it legal.

DaveS on November 5, 2007 at 12:44 PM

DaveS on November 5, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Tommy likes diving head first into very shallow pools.

doriangrey on November 5, 2007 at 12:45 PM

I sense some people telling “outright lies” about “outright lies”.

right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Smack-down complete.

The fiscal liberal and nanny state Huckabee best to shut his mouth, or Fred! will shut it for him.

omnipotent on November 5, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Just for CS:

I’m a Soul Man

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Just for CS:

I’m a Soul Man

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 12:47 PM

The blues brothers for the win………

doriangrey on November 5, 2007 at 12:52 PM

I agree. I think the minor distinction would the the applicability of the full faith and credit clause in the latter, making it effectively impossible for a state to outlaw same-sex marriage if even one other state made it legal.

DaveS on November 5, 2007 at 12:44 PM

It’s no minor distiction- it’s the one Thompson has been talking about. He’s basically said that he thinks it should be a state issue, but only to the extent that other states shouldn’t be forced to recognise same-sex marriage if they don’t allow it. He hinted that he has a way around that.

Hollowpoint on November 5, 2007 at 1:14 PM

It’s too bad Fred can’t explain his position as well as he insults the other candidates. The politics of hate. He has obviously been practicing it.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:51 AM

What’s that saying about glass-walled houses and stones (or should I go back into the immediate Hot Air archives)?

steveegg on November 5, 2007 at 1:18 PM

steveegg,
why look in the archives, just scroll up.

ChrisM on November 5, 2007 at 1:26 PM

And I suspect that I would agree with those if I knew the rationale behind the vote.

I’m sure Spencer Abraham could provide you with Fred’s, ehr, “rationale.”

Some people say that “George Bush voted against giving millions of sick children the health care they need to live be vetoing SCHIP.”

I’m not one of them, what’s your point??

Think long and hard about whether or not you want to be grouped with those sorts of people. Because you definitely just dove head first onto that side.

DaveS on November 5, 2007 at 12:42 PM

If I owed political favors to an open border shill like Abraham, I too would agree with Fred’s votes on refugees, chain immigration, visas, foreign workers, etc. But I’m not and I don’t. Nor do I like it when Fred plays the tough xenophobic immigration savior with this kinda of voting record.

So, why do you agree with all these votes?

tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 1:43 PM

Some people say that “George Bush voted against giving millions of sick children the health care they need to live be vetoing SCHIP.”

I’m not one of them, what’s your point??

tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 1:43 PM

Same ball game, jack. You’re just using different players.

MadisonConservative on November 5, 2007 at 2:09 PM

steveegg,
why look in the archives, just scroll up.

ChrisM on November 5, 2007 at 1:26 PM

Very true. That’s part of the immediate Hot Air archives too.

steveegg on November 5, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Some people say that “George Bush voted against giving millions of sick children the health care they need to live be vetoing SCHIP.”

I’m not one of them, what’s your point??
tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 1:43 PM

What’s your point? You are stating that you don’t understand the analogy? That sometimes officials vote against a bill for other reasons than the opposition states? You don’t understand that?

Well stated DaveS, and it exposes the people who have difficulty understanding simple analogies.

right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 2:58 PM

This man will chew up any one of the Dems.

- The Cat

MirCat on November 5, 2007 at 3:03 PM

Not me, I’m voting for Hillary! I figure 4 years of Hillarule© and America will flock back to Republicans.

Nethicus on November 5, 2007 at 3:24 PM

That sometimes officials vote against a bill for other reasons than the opposition states? You don’t understand that?

right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Now I understand. Fred really is tough on immigration, he just voted like an open border shill because of “other reasons,” such as paying back some unrelated political favor to Abraham. It all makes sense now.

But why would any of us consider electing such a craven politician for POTUS?

tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 3:32 PM

The minute the American people find out he is a lawyer, lobbyist, and helped terrorists, he will be completely finished.

The American people already know this about Giuliani, and more besides, and it does not seem to bother them.

flenser on November 5, 2007 at 3:35 PM

…And thus ended the Huckabee campaign.

FloatingRock on November 5, 2007 at 3:41 PM

tommylotto

Nor do I like it when Fred plays the tough xenophobic immigration savior with this kinda of voting record.

Interesting choice of words there, “xenophobic immigration savior”. Got something you’d like to share?

Thomposon has the best record on immigration of any of the “front tier” candidates. Only Tancredo and Hunter are better.

flenser on November 5, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Fred really is tough on immigration, he just voted like an open border shill because of “other reasons,”

He did not vote like an open borders shill. Try again. He has a C from Americans For Better Immigration.

Now Giulaini is an open borders shill.

flenser on November 5, 2007 at 3:44 PM

Thomposon has the best record on immigration of any of the “front tier” candidates. Only Tancredo and Hunter are better.

flenser on November 5, 2007 at 3:41 PM

I’m a Hunter fan but Fred’s platform against illegal immigration is tougher than Hunters, IMO. Hunter is strong on border enforcement but I’ve never heard him discuss workplace enforcement. In that regard I would argue that Fred is in second place behind Tancredo.

FloatingRock on November 5, 2007 at 3:49 PM

I disagree w/ Fred about the amendments, but I acknowledge that he seems to have a principled reason for his position–fedaralism. He doesn’t seem to be someone who raises a moist finger into the wind to forge his core beliefs.

jgapinoy on November 5, 2007 at 3:59 PM

Never realized there were so many Club for Growth lemmings out there.

EduardoOTI on November 5, 2007 at 4:43 PM

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 12:32 PM
DaveS on November 5, 2007 at 12:37 PM

So you are going to use hearsay evidence to tell me that Huckabee is a liberal compared to Romney?

Huckabee is leading Romney nationally according to Rassmussen for a reason

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

Also what did Fred say about debating the Republican field?

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/09/lincolndouglas.html

Huckabee is the real deal and moving up.

moughon on November 5, 2007 at 5:12 PM

I’m a Hunter fan but Fred’s platform against illegal immigration is tougher than Hunters, … In that regard I would argue that Fred is in second place behind Tancredo.
FloatingRock on November 5, 2007 at 3:49 PM

OK, fine, Tancredo beats Thompson on immigration. But that’s pretty much all Tancredo ever talks about. As Thompson said, abortion is nearly the ONLY issue Huckabee doesn’t think the federal government should control. Mitt Romney plays the “moraler than thou” card with every hand – while he advocates national health care. Giuliani has that tough guy 9/11 and (lowercase) law-and-order image going for him, but what else is he conservative about? McCain is unimpeachable on the issue of national defense – except when it comes to America’s borders, where Thompson is solid. Ron Paul is the only candidate who beats Thompson in terms of limiting (or maybe even abolishing) the federal government; unfortunately, Paul has that pesky “batshit crazy lunatic” issue going on…

Did you ever stop and look at the word “conservatism?” It’s the basically the opposite of extremism. Fred comes in right near – but not beyond – the most conservative end of the Republican field on pretty much every major issue. In other words, we have nine single-issue candidates and a one good, solid, all-around common-sense conservative to choose from.

Now that I think about it, maybe it’s not just a gigantic coincidence; maybe there’s a REASON the Fred-haters (regardless of whom they claim to support) all tend to sound so rabidly monomaniacal. Fred Thompson didn’t do anything to create their fixation in the first place; they just see him as a threat to it.

logis on November 5, 2007 at 5:15 PM

What’s that saying about glass-walled houses and stones (or should I go back into the immediate Hot Air archives)?

steveegg on November 5, 2007 at 1:18 PM

We all expect our candidates to be better at expressing our policies than at insulting other candidates and lying about our positions. Fred, as weak as his smack downs are, is even worse at answering direct questions with direct answers.

Besides, I’m not a candidate for president. What I say only matters to people who decide it matters.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 5:21 PM

A good friend in DC says a Fred Thompson/J.C. Watts vs. Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama presidential debate would be a Highlander-esque epic battle for the ages.

Imagine Clinton going shrill when crowd reactions don’t go the way she’d planned during the debate. Imagine Fred! being Fred!

Imagine Obama striding confidently out to the center of the podium to shake hands with Watts, a former pro football quarterback/former Baptist minister/former three-term Congressman/current founder and chairman of a multimillion dollar multinational corporation.

Awesome.

ScottMcC on November 5, 2007 at 5:38 PM

right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 12:43 PM

I do not know which groups are supporting Fred, but I have heard of some very vocal groups reject him completely.

As far as facts go, just because Fred says it, doesn’t make it true. Fred is for abortion through the third trimester for any reason. That’s what he said in 1994. He voted pro-life while in the senate. He says abortion is murder, but wants the murder of unborn babies to be left to the states. THAT is not pro-life. Fred has taken both sides of the issue. He cannot claim to have been 100% pro-life if it wasn’t until he saw his daughters sonograph that he decided that life begins at conception.

Now that position is not unlike other rep candidates. The difference is that the other candidates admit it and Fred tries to occupy both sides of the issue just like Hillary does.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 5:39 PM

I do not know which groups are supporting Fred, but I have heard of some very vocal groups reject him completely.
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 5:39 PM

No matter how vocal they sound to you, the voices technically only qualify as ONE group – at most.

logis on November 5, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Attack au Fer. Touche, Fred.

jaime on November 5, 2007 at 6:06 PM

logis on November 5, 2007 at 5:15 PM

Damn fine post.

Sammy316 on November 5, 2007 at 6:10 PM

logis on November 5, 2007 at 5:15 PM

Nicely done.

jaime on November 5, 2007 at 6:15 PM

Fred 1 Huckabee 0

Gatordoug on November 5, 2007 at 6:19 PM

In other words, we have nine single-issue candidates and a one good, solid, all-around common-sense conservative to choose from.

logis on November 5, 2007 at 5:15 PM

For the most part I agree, except that I don’t consider Hunter to be a single-issue candidate, so I would argue that we have two. On the other hand, only one of them is in the top tier.

FloatingRock on November 5, 2007 at 6:58 PM

At this point, I am really rooting for Fred! if for nothing else but to watch csdeven’s keyboard explode.

CrimsonFisted on November 5, 2007 at 7:02 PM

It’s too bad Fred can’t explain his position as well as he insults the other candidates. The politics of hate. He has obviously been practicing it.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:51 AM

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That’s so rich come from someone who readily calls people around her boot lickers or sissy-marys! There’s that really good self-awareness you talk about.

Sultry Beauty on November 5, 2007 at 7:05 PM

For the most part I agree, except that I don’t consider Hunter to be a single-issue candidate, so I would argue that we have two. On the other hand, only one of them is in the top tier.
FloatingRock on November 5, 2007 at 6:58 PM

Maybe. When I watched the last debate, Hunter was the only one besides Thompson who seemed to sound like any normal human being I had ever met. And sadly, that does constitute a significant accomplishment in today’s political world…

But so what? Hunter didn’t provide the only answer that mattered for most of the candidates at the debate: “Why the Hell are you here?”

Frankly, there is no point to including Hunter in any serious campaign analysis. Don’t get me wrong; the right honorable Representative of Eastern San Diego County has as much right as anyone to throw his hat into the ring. But He’s been campaigning for a whole freakin’ YEAR now and he still barely rates a single digit.

If a candidate can’t catch on with the national electorate after a year of campaigning, he can’t ever do it. I thought the pre-primary primary was an extraordinarily silly idea to begin with – but now they’re burning the candle at both ends. The guys who insisted on starting so insanely early should at least have the common decency to drop out in a timely fashion too.

logis on November 5, 2007 at 7:40 PM

That was FREDilicious.

All you infidel doubters must now phear the Phred!

Mojave Mark on November 5, 2007 at 9:06 PM

I think you’re not seeing the real Fred. The minute the American people find out he is a lawyer, lobbyist, and helped terrorists, he will be completely finished.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:29 AM

Darling, you’ve had months to work on this and mini-America HA went yaaaaaaawn.

Along with dorian, I’ll cheer you up too. It will be bitter-sweet for one of us. It’s just a matter of who.

MB4, I took a European guest to Universal Studios in Hollywood this week and the Blues Brothers sang that song, as we walked by. Frankenstein danced with her. Too funny that you and csdeven should talk about the soul man here.

Entelechy on November 5, 2007 at 9:51 PM

logis on November 5, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Well, it’s your opinion that those groups are minimized. But the fact that so many have run away from Fred, damages the fake facade he has carefully tried to craft over the last several months.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 10:10 PM

At this point, I am really rooting for Fred! if for nothing else but to watch csdeven’s keyboard explode.
CrimsonFisted on November 5, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Why would my keyboard explode?

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 10:11 PM

Sultry Beauty on November 5, 2007 at 7:05 PM

Look, don’t come back in here whining because you started a fight with me and I embarrassed you to the point where you ran away and hid for two days.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 10:13 PM

good gravy.

this is getting almost “Phelps-ian”

Sammy316 on November 5, 2007 at 10:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.