I have several friends, Tom Elliott, Philip Klein and particularly Charlie Prince spring to mind, who are huge Giuliani fans and have been for some time. I am too, I’ve detailed it before, but I have struggled to find a……

The state is a good guinea pig, folks, don’t dismiss it because of some preconceived notion.

Tink on November 23, 2007 at 10:04 PM

The political preference given to Iowa is absurd. It cannot be defended. Do not even try.

With a population that is used to meeting candidates face to face in a small venue and asking their own questions, a few TV commercials aren’t going to cut it.

Fred, if you want to run, then actually RUN. Iowans are spoiled – they don’t want sound bites, they want specifics. They want to watch your body language as they ask those questions – they’re not just looking for the “right” answer, but they’re watching for sincerity, not a scripted 15 second clip.

Romney has practically lived here for the past few months – before the straw poll we were receiving almost daily calls.

BTW, one thing that people seem to overlook when discussing the Iowa Caucus/elections is that historically, Iowa’s voting record is very similar to that of the nation as a whole.

It’s neither a red state nor a blue state, though not racially diverse it is politically diverse and the population is very politically aware. I’ve only been here a few years, but even living in a very rural area. I’ve yet to meet anyone that fits the Iowa stereotype that seems to float around many blogs.

The state is a good guinea pig, folks, don’t dismiss it because of some preconceived notion.

Tink, A Cali refugee now living in Iowa.

So what you’re saying is, The MSM is pushing Rudy because they know he can’t beat Hillary, and trying to demolish Fred because they know he can beat Hillary.

BKennedy on November 22, 2007 at 10:40 PM

I tend to think the MSM is pushing Rudy just in case he does manage to win the general. They would be just as happy with a liberal Republican as a liberal democ rat.

The main reason that Fred is getting so much bad press is that the MSM suspect that he can beat Ms Clinton. I’m sure that he can and that has the MSM tearing their hair out. This is just an “anybody but Fred” because then we might win gambit.

duff65 on November 22, 2007 at 4:14 PM

So what you’re saying is, The MSM is pushing Rudy because they know he can’t beat Hillary, and trying to demolish Fred because they know he can beat Hillary.

So, according to this logic, Huckabee and Romney’s increase in the polls means?

Sorry, this logic of “whatever the MSM says is a lie, therefore the truth is the opposite of what they say” is lame.

Fact is, Fred is the reason his campaign is tanking, not the MSM. Fred is a loser: he had better months 2 months before he came out with his lame “Security. Presperity. Freedom.” claptrap than 2 months after.

Just face the music Fredheads: the reason everyone is doubling over at the sound of Fraud!’s name is because they can’t stop the fits of laughter, not because they fear him.

That’s gibotry.
csdeven on November 22, 2007 at 12:18 AM

I learn something new on Hot Air every day.

Mazztek on November 21, 2007 at 3:27 PM

LOL. Too funny for this thread.

The poll referenced above shows that Fred can beat Hillary. It would appear that he is not loosing momentum as fast as some of the posters here think hope he is.

Rose on November 20, 2007 at 5:04 PM

I think that is what you should have said. I suspect Ol’ Fred may do a bit better than the MSM, csd, and our resident attorney hope.

Looks like Fred’s going bye bye…

Buzzy on November 20, 2007 at 4:47 PM

Not a single vote has been cast in any primary. If we are going to select a president on polls, why bother voting?

I am willing to wait and see where the votes land. I still predict an open convention, no winner on the first ballot. Deals made, positions in the nominee’s cabinet traded for support, etc. Call me an optimist, but I predict Rudy tanking in the south and west. Way too liberal for folks outside New England and the northern states.

right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 11:14 PM

Fred’s staff has admitted his involvement.

Mitt is not a Washington insider. How is he supposed to know what Craig’s habits were? AND even if Mitt knew Craig was gay, what’s the big deal? Do you expect Mitt to eschew a fellow rep because he’s gay? That’s gibotry. Being gay is not a crime ya know.

Mitt disavowed his relationship with Craig because Craig HIMSELF said he was guilty of sexual behavior in a public bathroom.

1) Mitt HAD to have known? Prove that
csdeven on November 21, 2007 at 9:57 PM

Well, Mitt had to have heard the rumors about Craig. Apparently they were all over, is this how Mitt will pick his cabinet, ignore the rumors and not research them? So the question is, what did Mitt know, and when did he know it?

I reposted my quote so you could read it and understand it better. See how it was an editorial, with an editorial question at the end?
You say the rumors weren’t bantered about the halls of congress?

Craig, 62, has faced rumors about his sexuality since the 1980s…August 28, 2007, MPR

Okay, he didn’t know, or didn’t check..how about this? Didn’t Mitt do a background check?, or yeah I already pondered that. You didn’t catch it. Mitt didn’t hear any rumors, is that like, I didn’t know the speed limit so you can’t give me a ticket, defense? It is Mitt’s job to not hire men like Craig.
But then, you don’t understand me stating this, in lieu of you twisting Fred’s record. You don’t get it.

This is you (on the other side)…Fred had relations with a dictator and a terrorist?…prove it, show me the billing records, mail me the records so I can see them. Just because he billed them doesn’t mean he defended them. It was an assistant, a clerk that handled it…prove it. Is his signature on every billing record? What exactly did they discuss, show me the transcripts? You don’t have the transcripts?…you’re a bigot.

right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 12:57 PM

You’re not throwing anything in my face. When you aren’t clear I ask what you meant.

You have explained what you meant and you are comparing apples to oranges.

1) Mitt HAD to have known? Prove that.

2) The record is clear that Fred was involved with an abortion clinic, terrorists, and a dictator. There is no questioning his willing involvement with those people.

A local law enforcement officer stops a car for traveling faster than the posted speed limit. Since he’s in a good mood that day he decides to give the poor fellow a break and write him out a warning instead of a ticket. So, he asks the man his name.

“Fred,” he replies.

“Fred what?” the officer asks.

“Just Fred,” the man responds.

When the officer presses him for a last name, the man tells him that he used to have a last name but lost it. The officer thinks he has a nutcase on his hands but plays along with it. “Tell me Fred, how did you lose your last name?”

The man replies, “It’s a long story so stay with me. I was born Fred Dingaling. I know, funny last name. The kids used to tease me all the time. So I stayed to myself. I studied hard and got good grades.

When I got older I realized that I wanted to be a doctor. I went through college, medical school, internship, residency, finally got my degree so I was Fred Dingaling, MD.

After a while I got bored being a doctor so I decided to go back to school. Dentistry was my dream. Got all the way through school, got my degree so I was now Fred Dingaling MD DDS.

Got bored doing dentistry so I started fooling around with my assistant. She gave me VD. So, I was Fred Dingaling MD DDS with VD.

Well, the ADA found out about the VD so they took away my DDS so I was Fred Dingaling MD with VD.

Then the AMA found out about the ADA taking away my DDS because of the VD, so they took away my MD leaving me as Fred Dingaling with VD.

Then the VD took away my dingaling so now I’m just Fred.”

The officer let him go without even a warning.

Oh, and R2B, you forgot Fred gave legal advice to terrorists and lied about always being pro-life.

csdeven on November 20, 2007 at 6:47 PM

Plus, his wife is a hideous monster spawned from the pits of Hell, some twisted, misshapen mix of Quasimodo and John Elway in drag.*

Two words for you, CSD: Ther-apy. Make it quick.

* Sarcasm alert. Focus, people. Or the terrorists win.

As much as I like youre defending Fred, Mitt and Craig is a non issue – there is nothing there

Mitt has problems

Filing tax returns

Deciding what state he is a legal resident in

Appointing judges

Deciding when to use his faith to change/hide his “evolving” social stances (Huckabee does too)

The Craig thing is an act of kindness to a human being that probably did nothing wrong and had the world crash around him very very abruptly

that in my opinion is a big plus not a negative for Mitt to be one of the few that showed the man a little decency

tommylotto on November 20, 2007 at 6:39 PM

I still think that a lot of conservatives don’t know about Rudy’s record.

csdeven on November 21, 2007 at 12:00 PM

Well, Mitt had to have heard the rumors about Craig. Apparently they were all over, is this how Mitt will pick his cabinet, ignore the rumors and not research them? So the question is, what did Mitt know, and when did he know it?
What I am using is the same techniques you use to come up with these silly notions about Fred. Fred has 20 hours of billing and you blow it up, will Mitt had Craig on his staff a lot longer, and for what real purpose…did they share common interests? Apparently they did, but how “deep” was that interest? Fred has a hottie wife, and you call Fred a male-whore.
Just throwing it in your face, you don’t like the obtuse references to Mitt, and others are tired of your ridiculous statements about Fred. If they are not ridiculous, then Mitt took his “sweet” time throwing Craig under the bus. He obviously got what he wanted from Craig…and I think you know what I mean by “GOT”.

Fred spent 20 hours as a lobbyist, Mitt “held” Craig’s hand longer than that…what is more repulsive?
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 11:44 AM

Well, Fred lied.

I cannot speak to Mitt, because it isn’t clear what the context of hand holding is.

Oh, and R2B, you forgot Fred gave legal advice to terrorists and lied about always being pro-life.

csdeven on November 20, 2007 at 6:47 PM

Fred spent 20 hours as a lobbyist, Mitt “held” Craig’s hand longer than that…what is more repulsive?

Bush did not lie about the intelligence on WMD.

MB4 on November 20, 2007 at 7:54 PM

Don’t forget those other liars: Australia, Italy, Germany, Russia, Saudi Arabia (in fact all of the Arab states), France, Spain, England, Denmark, Sweden, and others.
All part of that vast every-wing conspiracy.