Quotes of the day

posted at 10:50 pm on November 13, 2007 by Allahpundit

“There was an irrational exuberance for Internet campaigning. When this exaggerated faith in the Net collided with reality, the impact was pretty severe. Once the real campaign began, an organization that placed no premium on having a real campaign was ill prepared to deal with it.”

*

“If Fred’s relying on the online grassroots to put him over the top, he may come to find the grass is distressingly thin.”

Breaking on Hot Air

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

you mean you might want to have an actual campaign BESIDES the intertubes?

A voice of reason on November 13, 2007 at 10:57 PM

That just shows to go ya, you need a smooth candidate and a smooth staff in order to run nowadays.

The Glacier has a simular problem, in reverse. She has a smooth staff in the Clinton machine, but they are having trouble covering for the rough and (not nearly as smooth as Bill) candidate.

conservnut on November 13, 2007 at 11:06 PM

Lacy calls Rietz the “godfather” of the campaign. But what began as a lean, bold, insurgent-style political effort — conceived by Rietz and the handful of people in what the campaign calls “The House” — has morphed into a traditional, big-budget campaign that has so far failed to live up to the hype Rietz helped create last spring.

Yeah, I noticed.

see-dubya on November 13, 2007 at 11:09 PM

see-dubya on November 13, 2007 at 11:09 PM

Me too. If you’re gonna do a intarweb heavy campaign, do it! If he had to transition to a traditional campaign, make it smooth and ease out of the net based campaign, not completely bail and not immediately charge into the traditional campaign. Leaves everybody going WTF happened to Fred? He has time to recover, but not a lot. Get it together Fred!

Bad Candy on November 13, 2007 at 11:16 PM

Fred’s entire campaign stinks of a 40 year old idealist who is mature enough to think she knows it all, but not mature enough to realize she is out of her league.

csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 11:16 PM

From where I sit, it looks like Fred finally announced, and the awesome radio commentaries dried up, and he went off to kiss babies in Iowa and has only rarely been heard from since.

What I do hear, I still like very much. And I’m not surprised he got the NRLC endorsement this week. But I wish he’d stick with some of the stuff that fired up the initial interest.

see-dubya on November 13, 2007 at 11:22 PM

see-dubya on November 13, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Bout where I am, he needs to occasionally return to the net, and he NEEDS to do the media rounds. The occasional Hannity softball session isn’t gonna suffice.

Bad Candy on November 13, 2007 at 11:24 PM

The occasional Hannity softball session isn’t gonna suffice.

Bad Candy on November 13, 2007 at 11:24 PM

He can’t. Look at how bad he looked on MTP last weekend. Blech! Bill O would eat him up.

csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 11:28 PM

He can’t. Look at how bad he looked on MTP last weekend. Blech! Bill O would eat him up.

csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 11:28 PM

I missed it, but I heard he did fine.

Bad Candy on November 13, 2007 at 11:32 PM

Is the Washington Post trying to say something clever,
“former operative for Richard M Nixon”,I could be wrong
but I guess “operative” these days means the coniving
Clinton’s,no!
Mary Matalin,no problem there,so Washington Post thinks
their are difference’s in Hollywood actors,go figure.
So Liberal actors are the real Hollywood actors,and
Republican actors are the wanna-be Hollywood actors,
how convienent.

canopfor on November 13, 2007 at 11:37 PM

So many flair up and burn out. He’s running a slow even campaign. A turtle in a race of rabbits if you will.

- The Cat

MirCat on November 13, 2007 at 11:39 PM

The bad decisions that have plagued the campaign can be traced to Fred himself. The maybe-no-yes-maybe-finally yes beginning, the incredible staff turnovers and brain drains, all of it.

Bryan on November 13, 2007 at 11:43 PM

I think Fred’s grass has already been mowed.

Bradky on November 13, 2007 at 11:44 PM

I missed it, but I heard he did fine.

Bad Candy on November 13, 2007 at 11:32 PM

It must be who you heard it from. He had a few good lines, but those were of the aggressive snarky comments that play to the most basest of instincts. He was his usual vacuous self when it came to substantive answers.

And I believe it was two weeks ago.

csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 11:51 PM

What I do hear, I still like very much. And I’m not surprised he got the NRLC endorsement this week. But I wish he’d stick with some of the stuff that fired up the initial interest.

see-dubya on November 13, 2007 at 11:22 PM

No kidding. Where is the spark. I go his site I know he is out there but he needs to get something viral out there.

Theworldisnotenough on November 13, 2007 at 11:54 PM

He’s ahead of his time. No doubt the internet will play a much MUCH bigger role in future elections.

AlexB on November 13, 2007 at 11:59 PM

Being President isn’t just about policy positions. It’s mostly about executing policy.

A candidate has to show that he can execute an effective campaign before he can be considered a viable candidate. Unfortunately, Fred hasn’t shown that yet. His time is running out.

jaime on November 14, 2007 at 12:02 AM

Fred still has make up for a slow start.
He could just need to keep working his way back up to where he should be.

Maybe some podium pounding speeches on YouTube would help.

Speakup on November 14, 2007 at 12:03 AM

He’s ahead of his time. No doubt the internet will play a much MUCH bigger role in future elections.

AlexB on November 13, 2007 at 11:59 PM

Nope. Someone named Howard claimed that title as well.
from the International Herald Tribune in Jul 2004
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/07/29/scene_ed2_.php

In fact, to his enthusiastic supporters Dean’s loss seems to have proved that he is a visionary, too far ahead of his time to be elected in 2004. “I am here to help elect John

Kerry, but I think Howard Dean could well become the second most important Democrat in the country,” said John Pitkin, a demographer from Cambridge, Massachusetts, who was handing out stickers. “Howard Dean is in touch with the grass roots and will keep up the pressure on the government for action. I hope he stays outside of the government, because that way he can play the role of advocate and conscience.”

Bradky on November 14, 2007 at 12:06 AM

Fred’s entire campaign stinks of a 40 year old idealist who is mature enough to think she knows it all, but not mature enough to realize she is out of her league.

csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 11:16 PM

Yah, but would you kick her out of bed for eating crackers?

MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 12:26 AM

I’m a Fred fan, but gotta chime in. Perhaps, if they are going for a net style campaign, they should listen to what the blogosphere is saying from time to time. Not just the postive either. Oh, and how bout a good ol’ fashioned blog interview or three if thats the campaign style? Don’t give the too busy shrug off thing.

Jay on November 14, 2007 at 12:34 AM

No Fred’s problem is he half assed both the traditional and internet campaigns and waited way too long to start either one. The wait just pissed people off.

bj1126 on November 14, 2007 at 1:08 AM

Rudy has peaked. Mitt will find he “Can’t Buy Me Love”, and Fred will do just fine. We have to remember that people like us are political mutants. Normal people don’t care a year out from an election.

Mojave Mark on November 14, 2007 at 1:25 AM

csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 11:51 PM

It must be who you heard it from.

I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there.

Pablo on November 14, 2007 at 1:31 AM

Mojave Mark on November 14, 2007 at 1:25 AM

We are the mutants.

Mitt will survive, just on money alone. Think about it a record in spending on media. Over 10 mil of his own money (well kind of his own), 10 mil, unreal, and nearly 20 mil overall…and this is months before the first primary. He has unlimited resources, so he will outspend any candidate. Rudy is the only one that can raise that kind of money. Mitt could spend 100 mil of his own money before this is over. He will set a new record, not a proud one, but at least he will have one record.
And Fred’s support is getting about as thin as his hair.

right2bright on November 14, 2007 at 1:40 AM

Normal people don’t care a year out from an election.

But Fred doesn’t have a year. He’s got a few months before the first primaries, and everyone’s still waiting for him to “catch fire.” I guess what frustrates me is that I realized I’ve been waiting and waiting for him to change his strategy, and he’s given us no sign he’s going to do so.

As I said in another thread, it’s all well and good to say you’re running a different type of campaign, but when you try this long and it doesn’t work, it’s time to return to the basics – media appearances, stump speeches and ground-pounding.

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 6:06 AM

Mitt will survive, just on money alone.

He won’t survive without a message that hits home. Romney has been everywhere for 6 months and it is inferred that he is “buying” his place in the rest. Thompson comes off as lazy and disinterested and supposedly all he has to do is “act” like he wants it to succeed.

I’ll take the guy who has made the personal commitment and who is putting forth the effort and not hiding.

peacenprosperity on November 14, 2007 at 6:44 AM

rest=race

peacenprosperity on November 14, 2007 at 6:45 AM

The reason the Fredheads are having difficulty acknowledging that Fred is fading is primarily the thought that at some point they will have to utter the words “CSDeven was right”…

It may be more than they can bear.

Bradky on November 14, 2007 at 6:57 AM

I’ve been waiting and waiting for him to change his strategy,

It’s not a strategy, it’s who he is.

peacenprosperity on November 14, 2007 at 7:00 AM

It’s not a strategy, it’s who he is.

Then he’s not going to be president.

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 7:01 AM

The reason the Fredheads are having difficulty acknowledging that Fred is fading is primarily the thought that at some point they will have to utter the words “CSDeven was right”
…It may be more than they can bear.
Bradky on November 14, 2007 at 6:57 AM

Bwahahahahaha!!! I never considered that. Although I should have, because I tell myself that every day. :-)

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 7:28 AM

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 7:28 AM

LOL his charts at the RCP look like those downward trending charts on the Enzyte commercials!

Bradky on November 14, 2007 at 7:30 AM

I am not pleased by the idea that a person can buy his way into a presidency, or at least into a nomination. Romney is spending so much money just to get the nomination that has to tell you something. Mainly that his message is not enough.

Wyrd on November 14, 2007 at 7:38 AM

I don’t understand the accusations that Mitt is buying the primary. Do you understand what you are inferring about we “mutants” who vote in the primary? It doesn’t wash with reality. Primary voters are, as a whole, very savvy voters. They aren’t going to be fooled by massive amounts of exposure that is void of a resonating message. Mitt is spending money to get name recognition and build a strong organization.

Another thing….look at Hucks resurgence in Iowa. Are the people who jumped from Fred and Rudy over to Huck being bought off? No. Yet these people are in the same primary voting block as those who are supporting Mitt. Are you trying to say that everyone who votes for Mitt are stupid and the rest are the smart ones?

That doesn’t wash with reality in primary elections.

Now, in a general election, lots of cash and BS CAN swing the election because the voters are not as politically savvy.

You savvy?

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 7:38 AM

Reality mowed the lawn

Hening on November 14, 2007 at 7:56 AM

I am not pleased by the idea that a person can buy his way into a presidency, or at least into a nomination. Romney is spending so much money just to get the nomination that has to tell you something. Mainly that his message is not enough.

Oh ye of little faith in Republican primary voters. What’s next? Are the voters of New Hampshire and Iowa just sheeple now, led astray by the flash of green?

It’s not possible to get ahead in polls on spending money alone. Just ask Steve Forbes – as I remember, the same complaints were made about his candidacy, but Republican voters weren’t buying.

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 8:07 AM

Wyrd on November 14, 2007 at 7:38 AM

Mitt is not as well known so he has that hurdle to overcome. Everyone knows who Giuliani is, and people who watch Law & Order know who Fred is, but Mitt doesn’t have that broad name recognition. Hence, he needs to spend more.

On the other hand Mitt is working very hard and has been to New Hampshire 50 times to acquaint himself with voters, while Fred has only made 4 trips there.

Fred is not an impressive campaigner at this point, and I have to wonder how capable he would be in the White House if he can’t even run a decent campaign. He’s like the slowpoke at the relay race, where everyone is shouting “Go, Fred, Go!” but he still lags behind and stumbles along the way.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 8:29 AM

Fred is not an impressive campaigner at this point
Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 8:29 AM

I don’t mean to single you out, BuyDanish. But it seems there is a consensus among conservatives that we are allowing the liberal media to tell us who is impressive and who isn’t. Then we take it from there and try to destroy our own candidates.

It’s early. Not one vote has been cast. Anything and everything can happen in a primary season. If you look at who the candidate is who actually has the plans and is willing to tackle the sacred cows, it’s FDT. For instance, Social Security; military security; taxes; free markets. All solid principles, all solidly Republican.

Fred’s my candidate. I believe him and I believe in him. He’s solidly conservative and I think the best hope for the Republicans.

Tennman on November 14, 2007 at 8:43 AM

But it seems there is a consensus among conservatives that we are allowing the liberal media to tell us who is impressive and who isn’t. Then we take it from there and try to destroy our own candidates.

I don’t mean this to sound harsh, but I’m getting darned tired of being told that every time I or someone else criticizes Thompson, we’re tools of the liberal media. It’s become something of a meme among Thompson supporters, and it’s insulting.

I don’t depend on the media for my opinion of Thompson as a candidate. I am looking at him with the eyes of a voter, not through someone else’s lens. I’ve watched his speeches and have been unimpressed with his inability to clearly articulate a conservative message.

His speeches are too long, too disjointed and full of distracting “uhs” and “harumphs.” Thompson has been compared to Reagan, but it’s clear he’s not. Reagan had the ability to convince people they were conservative – he laid out his philosophy of government and encouraged people to join him. In the speeches I’ve seen so far, Thompson does hot have that ability.

His campaign is almost insulting in its lack of subtlety. Thompson recites conservative talking points and seems to believe that we will salivate like Pavlov’s dogs because we’re looking for an alternative to Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. I don’t simply want conservative ideas communicated – speaking the right words or having the right ideas is not enough. A candidate that wants my vote has to persuade me that he has the ability, the fire and the willingness to fight for those ideas and turn them into workable public policy.

Needless to say, Thompson’s ‘relaxed’ campaign style does not inspire confidence in me that he will fight hard in the general election, or for conservative ideals if he were elected.

Before Thompson announced, he intrigued me and I hoped he would turn out to be a viable conservative candidate. I’ve been disappointed, to say the least. My decision to look elsewhere is not a result of liberal media brainwashing. No one tells me what to think, and I would thank you and other Thompson supporters to give those of us who do not support your candidate the benefit of the doubt on that point.

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 9:01 AM

Tennman,

Believe me, my opinions are not based on the perceptions of the liberal media!

Fred is doing a poor job of campaigning. Even if you think Fred is the greatest conservative since Ronald Reagan, there is no disputing that fact.

Personally, I support Rudy and Romney, and am wary of Fred because of his allegiance with McCain on Campaign-Finance “reform” but I am open to Fred’s candidacy and certainly would support him if he were the nominee. However, he has to DO something to make me take notice, and whining that Romney has more money to spend than he has is a pitiful way to fight.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 9:05 AM

Maybe he found out that campaigning is exhausting and that using the web is easy. He could stay at home with his hottie, eat whatever food, drink a few beers, and campaign…what’s not to embrace? Just need the maid to come by once in awhile and dust him off.
Hey, he could make some ads from his backyard…naw, that’s already being done.

right2bright on November 14, 2007 at 9:13 AM

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 9:01 AM

Well-said!

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 9:14 AM

In all fairness, maybe Fred has a job, and Mitt doesn’t. Spending 20 mill, and just 10 mil on media, is outlandish. Never been done before. Great if he has the 100 mil of his own money, too bad he can’t use his supporters money.
I think Fred/Rudy, or even Rudy/Mitt, could win. But Rudy has to be in the mix, balanced with a right to lifer (Fred) or a person that can convince people he is (Mitt). Mitt is way to unseasoned to be the choice. He has just now formed his political stance, different from a year ago. Let him live in his new image, and make sure that is what who he wants to be.
Using the web is a good way to even the money playing field. You have to overcome the obscene amount of money being spent to win a job…I would rather not be bought, but snared with good, solid, consistent, creative, conservative ideas. And fiscal conservative trumps the social. The social I can handle personally, just get your hands out of my pocket.

right2bright on November 14, 2007 at 9:22 AM

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 7:38 AM

Thanks. You opened my eyes so that I could see Fred more clearly. Didn’t know him from the TV show. But what Slublog said at 9:01 is pretty much what I think about him too.

JiangxiDad on November 14, 2007 at 9:27 AM

I’m not giving up on Fred just yet. I admire him for eschewing the regular style of campaigning. It points to him being an independent thinker and not afraid to try something different. That being said I think most people are right in that you can’t shun one style in favor of another, but rather you have to blend it all together. The internet is just another tool in the box. If it was me, I would make mention of my campaign presence on the internet, even suggesting that my opponenets are afraid to embrace new ideas and then make the suggestion that if you can’t embrace the new world we live in how can you possibly offer solutions for our 21st cnetury issues.
I would also almost make concessions, in a commericial, about how I used the net to gather ideas and get in touch with people outside the beltway and across this nation and now that I have that input it is time to use the more traditional mass market media to convey my message. I would still say I would be a presence on the net because afterall it is the future and we need to look towards the future.

/charge to 1200….STAND CLEAR!

LakeRuins on November 14, 2007 at 9:42 AM

The internet is just another tool in the box. If it was me, I would make mention of my campaign presence on the internet, even suggesting that my opponenets are afraid to embrace new ideas and then make the suggestion that if you can’t embrace the new world we live in how can you possibly offer solutions for our 21st cnetury issues.

What is Fred doing that other campaigns are not? I signed up for campaign updates from each of the major candidates, and they’re all using the web in the same way, as far as I can tell. The only thing Fred has done differently is make a couple of videos. Nothing particularly innovative.

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 9:52 AM

The reason the Fredheads are having difficulty acknowledging that Fred is fading is primarily the thought that at some point they will have to utter the words “CSDeven was right”…

It may be more than they can bear.

Bradky on November 14, 2007 at 6:57 AM

Actually, they’re wondering what CSD will do once Fred is out.

Personally, I’m thinking Ron Paul will suddenly have a new fan. He’s got the gusto for it. ;)

MadisonConservative on November 14, 2007 at 9:57 AM

What is Fred doing that other campaigns are not? I signed up for campaign updates from each of the major candidates, and they’re all using the web in the same way, as far as I can tell. The only thing Fred has done differently is make a couple of videos. Nothing particularly innovative.

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 9:52 AM

In the begining he was more interactive with his use of the net. He held townhall type discussions, fielded questions from folks, posted on various blogs and in general made his presence more known. I think there is still a place for that sort of thing. He could hold online discussions once a week online, since the writers are on strike and there is so much garbage on tv anyway what else have you got to do on say a Wednesday night.
The criticism of leaving one medium to go to another as put forth in the article has a certain amount of merit to it.
Anyway that is just my 2¢ worth.

LakeRuins on November 14, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Never been done before. Great if he has the 100 mil of his own money, too bad he can’t use his supporters money.
right2bright on November 14, 2007 at 9:22 AM

Mitt does use his supporters money. That is why he loans his money to his campaign. His supporters donations pay him back. But don’t fool yourself into thinking it matters. Haters will spin it all different kind of ways.

And Mitt is spending their money on campaigning and not funneling it to his son like Fred does.

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 10:11 AM

LakeRuins on November 14, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Fred’s problem is that he has to interact with people in unscripted events. If you look back on his campaign, his downfall started gaining momentum when he had to get off the net and on the trail shaking hands. And so far he hasn’t done anything to make it better. Even with his endorsement by the NRLC was uneventful. He gave a sound bite saying that their endorsement “made sense”. Duh!

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Tennman on November 14, 2007 at 8:43 AM

Ditto to everyone else’s response to your accusation that anyone who doesn’t support Fred is a liberal tool of the MSM. WE have been watching this clown since early this past summer and like I have been telling you since then, Fred is a fake and can’t speak extemporaneously. The MSM wasn’t on his butt then, but I was. So if anything has happened, it is the MSM who is now MY tool.

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 10:20 AM

I don’t mean this to sound harsh, but I’m getting darned tired of being told that every time I or someone else criticizes Thompson, we’re tools of the liberal media. It’s become something of a meme among Thompson supporters, and it’s insulting.

It’s worked both ways. People who have defended Fred against rather hyperbolic accusational sound bytes have been labeled “Fred Shills” and “kissing Fred’s boots”. It’s been vicious.

MadisonConservative on November 14, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 9:01 AM

Being Conservative is more than just being able to give a rousing speech. It is having a track record of holding conservative positions and sticking to those positions when it counts. Guiliani and Romney both have a records of espousing and implementing liberal policies. So they are the well financed and good campaigners and the Republican voters are eating it up, so far. Remember Lincoln’s admonition: You can fool all of the people some of the time. Right now conservatives are getting fooled into supporting left leaning centrists.

Bill C on November 14, 2007 at 10:50 AM

Right now conservatives are getting fooled into supporting left leaning centrists.

Bill C on November 14, 2007 at 10:50 AM

I challenge you to find anyone here that thinks Rudy is a stanch conservative. All of us have our eyes open to what both Rudy and Mitt are. We cannot say the same for the groupies. But what’s for certain, judging by his statewide polling numbers, no one is being fooled by Fred as he is the most dishonest candidate on the rep side.

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 11:09 AM

But what’s for certain, judging by his statewide polling numbers, no one is being fooled by Fred as he is the most dishonest candidate on the rep side.

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 11:09 AM

I get that you are a Romney supporter. What is really bothersome is your unrelenting and unsupported hatred of Fred Thompson. It is a joke on this site. You go out of your way to assume the worst about him while ignoring the 800 lbs. gorilla of Romney’s electability issues. Fred’s are so minor compared to either Romney or Guiliani it makes me wonder how any conservative can support them over Fred.

Frankly, if we were all true to our principles we’d be supporting Duncan Hunter but the truth is that being able to convey your message is an important part of being President and Fred is failing at that now. I am just not willing to make a fetish of having a polished delivery and a ton of cash. I hope Fred gets back on track but his stumble hasn’t shaken my belief that he is the most electable candidate with the most conservative record.

Bill C on November 14, 2007 at 11:33 AM

Personally I am down to the “Fab Four”
Guillani
Romney
Thompson
Huckabee

My biggest worry is that this presidential election turns into an all New York series with Hillary, Rudy, and Bloomberg.

LakeRuins on November 14, 2007 at 11:35 AM

he is the most electable candidate with the most conservative record.

Bill C on November 14, 2007 at 11:33 AM

I have a few that I support. But not Fred for many reasons. What you perceive as hate is really an extreme disgust for his past history and his current lies. What I don’t get is how you can say he is the most electable when the guy lobbied for a dictator (and other various scumbags), gave legal advice to terrorists, funneled campaign cash to his son, and authored McCain/Feingold. Can you square those facts with his electability?

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 11:51 AM

I hope Fred gets back on track but his stumble hasn’t shaken my belief that he is the most electable candidate with the most conservative record.

Bill C on November 14, 2007 at 11:33 AM

I agree, and I think he could smash Hillary into the ground.

However, his campaign is over. I realize it’s a long time in politics, but give the holidays, he has effectively less than two months till the primaries, and his numbers are pathetic. Barring a real wild card he hasn’t yet deployed, the Fred campaign is dead.

MadisonConservative on November 14, 2007 at 11:53 AM

Bill C on November 14, 2007 at 11:33 AM

I notice you didn’t produce a single person who has claimed Rudy is a stanch conservative. You made a claim that I asked you to back up, and you reverted to talking about me. I have seen this many, many, times from you Fred heads. Whenever you are asked to provide proof, you respond with personal attacks and never give the proof to back up your claims. That my friend is the actions of someone whose argument is untenable.

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 11:54 AM

What I don’t get is how you can say he is the most electable when the guy lobbied for a dictator (and other various scumbags), gave legal advice to terrorists, funneled campaign cash to his son, and authored McCain/Feingold. Can you square those facts with his electability?

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 11:51 AM

What you don’t get is that we’ve heard those four sound bytes from you more times than we can count, and most of us have found the actual details behind them, and discovered that your sound bytes are pretty much hyperbole. They’re not too different in approach than the platitudes used by people who label illegal immigration opponents as “anti-immigration”. When you continue to use them, despite the truth behind them being posted several times, it comes across as something other than educated disgust.

MadisonConservative on November 14, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Whenever you are asked to provide proof, you respond with personal attacks and never give the proof to back up your claims. That my friend is the actions of someone whose argument is untenable.

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Point out where he personally attacked you. Remember, disagreeing with you does not mean attacking you.

MadisonConservative on November 14, 2007 at 11:59 AM

I have a few that I support. But not Fred for many reasons. What you perceive as hate is really an extreme disgust for his past history and his current lies. What I don’t get is how you can say he is the most electable when the guy lobbied for a dictator (and other various scumbags), gave legal advice to terrorists, funneled campaign cash to his son, and authored McCain/Feingold. Can you square those facts with his electability?

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 11:51 AM

The only one of those criticisms that has any validity is his past support for McCain/Feingold which he has repudiated. The other stuff is, as MadisonConservative said, hyperbole. Thompson was a lobbyist and a lawyer who did minimal work for some non-conservative causes. So what. As a public official he has never been pro-choice. Romney and Rudy have.

Bill C on November 14, 2007 at 12:11 PM

I notice you didn’t produce a single person who has claimed Rudy is a stanch conservative. You made a claim that I asked you to back up, and you reverted to talking about me. I have seen this many, many, times from you Fred heads. Whenever you are asked to provide proof, you respond with personal attacks and never give the proof to back up your claims. That my friend is the actions of someone whose argument is untenable.

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Nice straw man argument. Since I never claimed that anyone said Rudy is a staunch conservative so I did not bother to respond. I do claim that Rudy and his supporters have consistently downplayed and obfuscated when it comes to his past liberal positions as have Romney’s supporters of him.

csdeven, I would not and have not personally attacked you. I have criticized your dishonest repetition of the “facts” when it comes to Fred Thompson. I do this because I am sick and tired of it. Also, I don’t see the same vitriol coming from Fredhead’s towards the other Republican primary candidates. (Ok, maybe towards Ron Paul but he deserves it.)

I used to just ignore you but I think your carping might actually be having an effect. So I will do my best to point out when I think you are wrong. Don’t take it personally.

Bill C on November 14, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Thompson was a lobbyist and a lawyer who did minimal work for some non-conservative causes. So what.
Bill C on November 14, 2007 at 12:11 PM

I think you are underestimating the visceral reaction people have to lawyers, lobbyists, terrorists, and dictators. They do not identify with the concept of getting involved with those type of people voluntarily. Those terrorists did not deserve representation from a US lawyer and the families of the victims of Flight 103 will swiftboat Fred’s a$$ so fast he’ll wonder what hit him. He is in the same profession as Abramoff and many people recognize the name Jean Bertrand Aristead. You guys, and Fred, try to pass this off under the old “hyperbole” tag because you don’t see it as a problem. I challenge you to talk to your family and friends who do not follow politics and ask them if they would vote for a guy who did those things. And don’t try to prime them with the “everyone deserves representation” line. Present it to them the way Hillary will and then try to convince them that he was only doing what lawyers do. The reason I want you to do it that way is because THAT will be the way Fred will be attacked. Hillary will begin the assault and Fred will have to react to that assault. Unless you think Fred is going to try and get out in front of this and expose himself before Hillary can. He hasn’t yet, and he wont because he knows it will be his death knell.

Compare to that the time Mitt shut down his entire company to go to NYC to search for an employees family member. Look at the activities that each candidate CHOOSES to be involved in and that is who that person is. The American people will react to that and Fred has a long, long, history of being on the wrong side of causes supported by decent folk.

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 12:35 PM

You can fool all of the people some of the time. Right now conservatives are getting fooled into supporting left leaning centrists.

Again, we’re not being “fooled” into anything. When you say things like that, it shows a fundamental lack of respect for the intelligence of those who support Giuliani or Romney. I can understand disagreeing with someone else’s primary choice, but essentially accusing them of being too stupid to know better is insulting.

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 12:47 PM

csdeven, I would not and have not personally attacked you.
Bill C on November 14, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Yes you did. I, little old csdeven, am NOT the topic of this thread. I asked you a question relating to this comment:

It is having a track record of holding conservative positions and sticking to those positions when it counts.

And you responded by discussing me. That is an argumentative attack on me instead of the thread topic.

Back to your comment…..

That is the description of a stanch conservative. Something no one says that Rudy is. Rudy is a lesser of two evils and the person who polls best against Hillary. If that is not what you meant, then please expand on your comment. I don’t see how it changes what others have said as their reason for supporting Rudy. I don’t see many claims he is a conservative, but rather that he can beat Hillary and that we have every reason to believe that he will honor his campaign promises.

And the truth usually does have an effect on rational people. The facts about Fred are out there for all to see, and I reject your assertion that the people who have changed their minds about Fred are somehow being led astray by little old me. The difference is that I saw him for what he is months ago and others waited for the evidence that their own eyes and ears have provided.

“What’s a dollar?” has screwed himself.

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 12:49 PM

And you responded by discussing me.

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Discussing your regular conduct when discussing Fred (and only discussing Fred) is relevant to answering your posts, and is not an attack. Disagreeing with you is not an attack. Mentioning you is not an attack. What don’t you get about that?

MadisonConservative on November 14, 2007 at 12:53 PM

And Bill, don’t listen to Madisonconservative. She is a stalker.

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 12:57 PM

And Bill, don’t listen to Madisonconservative. She is a stalker.

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 12:57 PM

This, on the other hand, is a personal attack.

MadisonConservative on November 14, 2007 at 1:02 PM

I think you are underestimating the visceral reaction people have to lawyers, lobbyists, terrorists, and dictators.

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 12:35 PM

I think you underestimate the reaction voters will have to videos of Rudy and Mitt espousing their pro-choice views. I am quite a little bit confident the minimal work that Fred did for non-conservative causes will be swamped by the actual positions that Romney and Rudy took as public servants.

Again, we’re not being “fooled” into anything. When you say things like that, it shows a fundamental lack of respect for the intelligence of those who support Giuliani or Romney. I can understand disagreeing with someone else’s primary choice, but essentially accusing them of being too stupid to know better is insulting.

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Being uninformed is not the same thing as being stupid and I think there are a lot of primary voters who are uninformed about all of the Republican candidates and their positions, past and present. Not an attack on Rudy or Romney but a fact that the polls have shown. A lot of people just aren’t paying attention just yet.

Bill C on November 14, 2007 at 4:22 PM

non-conservative causes will be swamped by the actual positions that Romney and Rudy took as public servants.

I’m framing my response in the context of a general election. This country is moderate on abortion. This country is very anti-terrorist. I doubt that when asked to make a decision between Hillary, who only cheats campaign finance rules, and Fred who associated himself with the people I have mentioned, they will have no problem of picking the lesser of those two evils.

In the primary, Fred is steadily losing ground, while Mitt and Huck gain ground. His loss of ground is a result of his poor organization and his lackluster speeches and interaction with the voters. Both Mitt and Rudy’s abortion stances have been discussed time and again and up to this point, only Rudy has been hurt by it. Mitt, the more people hear him, the more they like him. Fred has the exact opposite effect on people. Except of course for people like you who are determined to support him. You are making a serious mistake if you think that other folks will see Fred the way you do. I would again challenge you to talk to your friends about supporting a guy who is a lobbyist, a lawyer, and associated with terrorists and dictators. I would be very interested in your experience.

I have already done this several times, and to a person, conservative and liberal, committed or not to a candidate, the reaction is always the same. A complete look of disgust and abhorrence at the thought of an American citizen engaging in those behaviors.

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 6:50 PM

Tennman on November 14, 2007 at 8:43 AM

You said it! I am ashamed that so many Conservatives are looking for style over substance. And swallowing up all the media is feeding them.

Gatordoug on November 14, 2007 at 7:56 PM

You said it! I am ashamed that so many Conservatives are looking for style over substance. And swallowing up all the media is feeding them.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Nice to know you think so many of us are mindless media-led idiots.

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 8:55 PM