Frank Luntz: Fred won the debate

posted at 1:11 pm on November 29, 2007 by Allahpundit

I’m exaggerating a tiny bit but he’s obviously impressed with how high Fred registered on last night’s key issue. He did do well, I thought, especially with his answer about the confederate flag, but except for that video clip in which he flamed Mitt and Huck for being closet liberals he didn’t much seem to factor. Luntz’s data here suggests that perhaps he did. And not a moment too soon.

The night’s loser? The pro-choice, anti-gun, open-borders candidate.

As I’ve already said, and there does seem to be some consensus on this point, Huckabee’s humor and unflappability served him well even when he was being hammered. To wit, two clips: the first is his, Mitt’s, and Rudy’s answers to the Bible question, something of little significance to me except in how much smoother Huck’s response was, and the second is a quick fix of his best lines. There’s no question he’d be our strongest candidate in a debate with the Democrats. Assuming, that is, he didn’t end up agreeing with them.


Related Posts:

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

Assuming, that is, he didn’t end up agreeing with them.

The main drawback to him, right there.

Frozen Tex on November 29, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Frozen Tex on November 29, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Hah I was just getting ready to post that. Huck’s biggest danger like I said yesterday is that he’s a more well spoken W. Whether it be liberal leanings or just trying to be nice he runs the risk of compromising core issues.

bj1126 on November 29, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Another unknown Governor from the state of Arkansas, really? One that Dick Morris supports? Are you guys really comfortable with that?

Ann NY on November 29, 2007 at 1:22 PM

I think hope that there are a lot of stealth Fred supporters. Yeah, I know this sounds ridiculous but it isn’t hard to imagine that with Mitt and Rudy at each others throats plus each has previous liberal positions and with Huck’s ethics, tax, and immigration problems that voters will decide that potentially lazy but right on the issues candidate is the best choice.

Bill C on November 29, 2007 at 1:22 PM

Huck being an ex minister has some conviction talking about religeous issues. However we arent electing a pope.

William Amos on November 29, 2007 at 1:26 PM

Rush Limbaugh just about came as close as possible to endorsing Fred! without actually endorsing him.
“He’s the only true conservative up there”

billy on November 29, 2007 at 1:28 PM

Real live Federalist Conservatism..a popular notion.
Given the option, Americans average vote is center right.

Speakup on November 29, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Well, Huck’s answer was very smooth – and I thought it was a good answer, as far as it goes.

The question, however, and I say this as an Evangelical, creeped me out big time. Dude was weird, and his question was even weirder.

nailinmyeye on November 29, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Rush closed his noon monologue today saying there was only one candidate on the stage who was a conservative last night. He then came back after the cliffhanger break to say that man was Fred Thompson. He did say it wasn’t an endorsement, but it sure is a much needed shot in the arm.

Valiant on November 29, 2007 at 1:31 PM

he night’s loser? The pro-choice, anti-gun, open-borders candidate. CNN

TheBigOldDog on November 29, 2007 at 1:32 PM

Dude was weird, and his question was even weirder.

nailinmyeye on November 29, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Indeed. He felt it important to repeatedly stress, slowly, that he meant the Bible for some reason. Never mind the fact he held it up for most of the video.

amerpundit on November 29, 2007 at 1:33 PM

The night’s loser? The pro-choice, anti-gun, open-borders candidate.

You’re going to have to be more specific. Which one?

Veeshir on November 29, 2007 at 1:33 PM

I thought Thompson & Hunter both did well last night.
They have the best substance and some of the worst style. I’ll just focus on substance in the primary and probably hold my nose in the general.

Sad that the primary is where you try to get what you want and the general is where you get what you can.

ChrisM on November 29, 2007 at 1:34 PM

Valiant on November 29, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Might as well be an endorsement, when Rush gives you “the only conservative there” that’s pretty notable. Fred needs to make his move now. Maybe he’ll finally get somewhere despite the mess his campaign has been.

Bad Candy on November 29, 2007 at 1:37 PM

Valiant on November 29, 2007 at 1:31 PM

The question is: Will he actually put it to good use.

The man received the NRLC’s endorsement, and it’s like you wouldn’t even know it.

amerpundit on November 29, 2007 at 1:39 PM

TheBigOldDog on November 29, 2007 at 1:32 PM

CNN was definitely the biggest loser of the night, and that’s saying something with Ron Paul onstage…

Bad Candy on November 29, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Huckabee’s humor and unflappability served him well even when he was being hammered. To wit, two clips: the first is his, Mitt’s, and Rudy’s answers to the Bible question, something of little significance to me except in how much smoother Huck’s response was, and the second is a quick fix of his best lines. There’s no question he’d be our strongest candidate in a debate with the Democrats. Assuming, that is, he didn’t end up agreeing with them.

Agreed … agreed … and agreed.

I still can’t believe we’re all talking about Mike Huckabee, while Fred is floundering and McCain is … wait, is McCain still running?

I wish Huckabee could make me feel better on a few key points – religion and federalism and taxation.

But setting that aside, the one thing I came away from the debate with was that he is a surprisingly good politician. Who knew?

Who was it yesterday that told me he’d “get slaughtered in the general?” Whoever you were – feel like a wager? I’ll give you 2-1 if its Huck v. Hillary. I think he’d be the one doing the slaughtering.

Whether that’s a good thing or not is an entirely different question.

Speaking of wagers … what’s the latest from Vegas on the primary odds? Anybody know?

Professor Blather on November 29, 2007 at 1:40 PM

amerpundit on November 29, 2007 at 1:39 PM

For conservatives, Rush > NRLC

Bad Candy on November 29, 2007 at 1:41 PM

The night’s loser? The pro-choice, anti-gun, open-borders candidate.

You’re going to have to be more specific. Which one?

Veeshir on November 29, 2007 at 1:33 PM

(snort)

Yeah, I wasn’t exactly sure, either. I assumed he meant Rudy, but maybe I shouldn’t assume.

Professor Blather on November 29, 2007 at 1:42 PM

amerpundit on November 29, 2007 at 1:33 PM

That, and the fact that it is just such a weird question – a weird notion that “all we need to know about you” as a presidential candidate has to do with how you answer this question about this book. I thought is was lame.

nailinmyeye on November 29, 2007 at 1:42 PM

CNN was definitely the biggest loser of the night…

You’re right BC, but have you checked the MSM this morning?
With the Exception of an ABC blog post…
Not. A. Peep.

ChrisM on November 29, 2007 at 1:43 PM

For conservatives, Rush > NRLC

Bad Candy on November 29, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Maybe, but the NRLC is still a major endorsement — one he didn’t run with too much.

amerpundit on November 29, 2007 at 1:44 PM

The night’s loser? The pro-choice, anti-gun, open-borders candidate.

You’re going to have to be more specific. Which one?

Veeshir on November 29, 2007 at 1:33 PM

When I read that line, I was gonna say the same thing, beat me to it.

Bad Candy on November 29, 2007 at 1:46 PM

I don’t understand why Rudy would not believe in the Jonah story. That’s actually physically possible. Death and Resurrection (which is really the only important thing for a believing Christian) is physically impossible.

Huck’s answer was right on. You either believe it or don’t. What you do as a result is not as relevant as whether or not you believe it. That said, it is a personal relationship with the living God that has nothing to do with Earthly politics. YAY God.

ThackerAgency on November 29, 2007 at 1:47 PM

Fred won just by showing up.

Ortzinator on November 29, 2007 at 1:49 PM

Professor Blather on November 29, 2007 at 1:40 PM

I’ll take you up on that bet. I can’t see Huck taking Michigan, Ohio, PA, or Oregon. Too Southy, and too preachy. Smooth, but not in a Dem Clintonesque way. If he was a Dem and not a social con, he’d be friggin’ unstoppable.

I also think that if Huck ran, Hill would counter with Obama as VP out of neccessity to win some Souther states. In fact, no matter who the Republicans throw out there, if she swallows her pride and picks Obama as VP, she wins 2-3 Southern States due to the huge black turnout that would occur, and the game is OVER.

If Giuliani is the nominee, she doesn’t need Obama b/c she will win some states in the South anwyay, since the South (Florida doesn’t count) HATES Rudy anyway. I’m from GA and I hate Rudy instinctively, so I can relate. I can’t see Huck winning much outside of the South.

RW Wacko on November 29, 2007 at 1:50 PM

amerpundit on November 29, 2007 at 1:44 PM

I think that’s in part his poor campaigning, I’m hoping he gets his campaign in order and starts doing so. I think he can turn it around here. People are saying he did well…better than I thought he did oddly, and I like Fred. Might be because I missed a good chunk of the first half.

Bad Candy on November 29, 2007 at 1:50 PM

They all met my expectation to the tee. Scripted from central casting. As usual, Huck was having the most fun. It will be hard for the dems to deal with a guy like him. Huck handles criticism like water on a duck’s back, and keeps on rolling. Mitt and Rudy were too uptight. Fred seemed a little pompus, but he had some laser beam answers.

All in all, no surprises. They all did their things.

saiga on November 29, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Fredhead here….

Fred didn’t win…he was in the middle of the pack along with all the rest of them. Huck did best (sad to say). Fred just needs to get that dander up more often and he will get back in the hunt. All of em had their good and bad moments last night.

And please, RNC, you need to kick Paul to the curb. If you haven’t because you are afraid of a third party run then you are blind. You won’t get the Paulbot vote either way so cut him out now…let him finally have a reason to spend his donations.

Limerick on November 29, 2007 at 1:52 PM

ThackerAgency on November 29, 2007 at 1:47 PM

The question itself, as nailinmyeye said, was just overall strange. As Huck said, not everything is literal (pluck eye out). But I can’t figure out how that tells us “everything we need to know” about a presidential candidate.

amerpundit on November 29, 2007 at 1:54 PM

the questioner was indeed a creep…
seems to me like he was just another plant trying to make religious people look creepy… anyone know who he is?
lib college student/bad actor?

max1 on November 29, 2007 at 1:55 PM

I also think that if Huck ran, Hill would counter with Obama as VP out of neccessity to win some Souther states

The fact that you think Obama will help win the south is just laughable.

bj1126 on November 29, 2007 at 1:57 PM

And please, RNC, you need to kick Paul to the curb. If you haven’t because you are afraid of a third party run then you are blind. You won’t get the Paulbot vote either way so cut him out now…let him finally have a reason to spend his donations.

Limerick on November 29, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Not wise to kick him out. It is very usefull to have a devil’s advocate in the mix. It toughens up the candidates in their journey for the nomination. Also, I think he is good for ratings, because he is so predictable, that he is sometimes unpredictable. People wonder what he will say next.

saiga on November 29, 2007 at 1:59 PM

Can the country afford another smooth talker from Hope?

davod on November 29, 2007 at 1:59 PM

I have said before both Rudy and Mitt are basically running on Hillary’s same platform. Rudy is actually even left of Hillary on most issues. Mitt’s changes in opinion of gun control and abortion are obviously for political expediency.

Rudy’s mouth washing about conservative issues are basically the same thing as Mitt’s. His record does not support what he is campaining on, and he is only saying what polls show appeal to conservatives.

If you had Mitt, Rudy, and Hillary at a debate they would agree on practically everything.

Fred Thompson is the only Republican candidate with the voting record that compares favorably to what he is saying. His voting record has been consistantly pro-life, conservative, and federalist. The notable exception is McCain-Feingold.

Rode Werk on November 29, 2007 at 2:00 PM

The fact that you think Obama will help win the south is just laughable.

bj1126 on November 29, 2007 at 1:57 PM

You see it the way I see it. How can you trust a guy like Obama. He could be another Ramsey Clark.

No thanks.

saiga on November 29, 2007 at 2:02 PM

The fact that you think Obama will help win the south is just laughable.

bj1126 on November 29, 2007 at 1:57 PM

I actually lived near the black folk down here. They are allowed to vote, too.

RW Wacko on November 29, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Add up the black vote and 50% of the woman vote and you have a pretty impressive voting bloc down South. Plus the wussy white guys.

RW Wacko on November 29, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office

I’m not a Huck fan, but that wins, hands down.

MadisonConservative on November 29, 2007 at 2:06 PM

Add up the black vote and 50% of the woman vote and you have a pretty impressive voting bloc down South. Plus the wussy white guys.

RW Wacko on November 29, 2007 at 2:04 PM

They’ll also pick up some of the Hispanic vote.

amerpundit on November 29, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Add up the black vote and 50% of the woman vote and you have a pretty impressive voting bloc down South. Plus the wussy white guys.

RW Wacko on November 29, 2007 at 2:04 PM

You must have not read the link about the “Black KKK” in the headlines above. Horizontal descrimination is far deeper than you seem to realize.

saiga on November 29, 2007 at 2:08 PM

Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office

I’m not a Huck fan, but that wins, hands down.

MadisonConservative on November 29, 2007 at 2:06 PM

Actually that quote was akin to Huck committing sepaku…

doriangrey on November 29, 2007 at 2:09 PM

I like Huck’s desire to send Hillary on the first Mars rocket out of here. That alone is worth the space budget.

saiga on November 29, 2007 at 2:11 PM

I actually think Fred was the most all-around conservative person on the stage as well. Therefore, I agree with those who think Fred won. Solid conservatism was what I was looking for, and Fred was the only one of the frontrunners who delivered it. I’m also very pleased that Fred is the only one outlining actual plans on actual hard issues, like entitlements. I’ve been a Rudy supporter almost the whole time so far, but I found myself hoping that Fred would still manage somehow to pick up some momentum again. Maybe Rush’s almost-endorsement will give Fred the bounce he needs.

aero on November 29, 2007 at 2:15 PM

If Rush wanted to endorse a real conservative he’d go with Hunter, not Fraud!

Or is Rush a fan of McCain-Feingold(-Thompson)?

BKennedy on November 29, 2007 at 2:17 PM

If you had Mitt, Rudy, and Hillary at a debate they would agree on practically everything.

Fred Thompson is the only Republican candidate with the voting record that compares favorably to what he is saying. His voting record has been consistantly pro-life, conservative, and federalist. The notable exception is McCain-Feingold.

Rode Werk on November 29, 2007 at 2:00 PM

I actually think Fred was the most all-around conservative person on the stage as well. Therefore, I agree with those who think Fred won. Solid conservatism was what I was looking for, and Fred was the only one of the frontrunners who delivered it. I’m also very pleased that Fred is the only one outlining actual plans on actual hard issues, like entitlements. I’ve been a Rudy supporter almost the whole time so far, but I found myself hoping that Fred would still manage somehow to pick up some momentum again. Maybe Rush’s almost-endorsement will give Fred the bounce he needs.

aero on November 29, 2007 at 2:15 PM

I’m with you guys. From here on out I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Fred! Head. I live in the OC in SoCal, and he comes here often for some reason. I might even go to his rally in Laguna Woods (previously Leisure World) next week.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 2:19 PM

I’m with you guys. From here on out I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Fred! Head. I live in the OC in SoCal, and he comes here often for some reason. I might even go to his rally in Laguna Woods (previously Leisure World) next week.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 2:19 PM

He likes to spend time with his Hollyweird buddies, then go to the OC to pander a bit.

I fail to see how Romney and Hillary are alike in any way. Care to explain? And please, don’t pull that “do, say anything” crap. Give me actual policies the two agree on.

BKennedy on November 29, 2007 at 2:24 PM

I’m with Rush- FDT the only true conservative on the stage last night!

Ex-tex on November 29, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Give me actual policies the two agree on.

If Rudy had some actual policies I might be able to do that.

ChrisM on November 29, 2007 at 2:28 PM

Anyone for a Fred/Huck ticket? How about Huck/Fred?

Catseye on November 29, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Anyone for a Fred/Huck ticket? How about Huck/Fred?

Catseye on November 29, 2007 at 2:31 PM

NO HUCK!

aero on November 29, 2007 at 2:36 PM

I think as most voters I agree with some of what each said but the way it ended with the plant question I almost forgot the substance of the answers to all the other questions, maybe it is just me. It may be wishful thinking but there has to be one debate without a controversy.

KBird on November 29, 2007 at 2:39 PM

To many things in Rudy’s, Mitt’s & Huck’s public record smell like rino.
No rinos in the primary.

ChrisM on November 29, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Time and time again I look at the candidates and Fred Thompson is the only true conservative on that stage.

I have totally made my mind up as of this debate. Fred Thompson has my vote and I’m sending him money tonight.

msipes on November 29, 2007 at 2:46 PM

In the eyes of a shallow public that values scripted jokes, smooth delivery and sytle over substance- Huck won.

I missed the first 35 minutes of the debate, but it sure seemed like Fred didn’t get a fair shake in terms of time allotment.

Once- just once- I’d like to hear the media judge a debate based primarily on substance rather than delivery. A piece of crap wrapped up in ribbons and bows is still just a piece of crap.

Hollowpoint on November 29, 2007 at 2:53 PM

In Fred’s case people seem to confuse style with desire. No one would put themself through the “crap” of a presidential campaign unless they really wanted to be president. Fred is the most consistent conservative in the race and is the only one who has issued detailed policy statements on most of the “hot button” issues. He has not been getting enough press and too much of what he gets tends to the negative (even at FOX). Hopefully the Rush comments will start to turn things around.

duff65 on November 29, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Right now is when Republicans need to take a stand.
If Republicans want to nominate a conservative let’s nominate a conservative, if we want to nominate a moderate or a rino, lets do that, but voting for someone simply because they can beat the Hill is nuts. Who knows what is going to happen in the next year, I don’t, do you?

As they say in poker, playing your opponents hand instead of your own is a sure fire way to lose.

ChrisM on November 29, 2007 at 2:56 PM

I think The Rude man is toast.
He is way too liberal on Guns and Envaders.

Fred is gonna get the nomination.

TheSitRep on November 29, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Time and time again I look at the candidates and Fred Thompson is the only true conservative on that stage.

I have totally made my mind up as of this debate. Fred Thompson has my vote and I’m sending him money tonight.

msipes on November 29, 2007 at 2:46 PM

After reading your comment, I was moved to go to fred08.com and send him some money.

https://www.fred08.com/ThankYouDonate.aspx

TheSitRep on November 29, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Anyone for a Fred/Huck ticket? How about Huck/Fred?

Catseye on November 29, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Huck sucks.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 3:10 PM

Famous last words:

I can’t see Carter Clinton Bush Huck winning much outside of the South.

RW Wacko on November 29, 2007 at 1:50 PM

It’s not exactly coincidence that you have to go back to Reagan, and before him Nixon, to find a non-Southern president (skipping Gerry, of course). The claim “he can’t win outside the South” wouldn’t worry me a bit if I were a Huckite.

Especially against Democrats like Obama and Hillary.

On the other hand, the phrase “she can’t win the South” ought to terrify Hillary fans. Just ask Presidents Kerry and Dukakis. You can win the presidency without New England or the west coast. Without the South, its impossible.

Find me if Huck actually (against all odds) wins the primaries and we’ll discuss the terms of that wager. It should involve beer. Lots of beer. And Jessica Alba’s phone number.

Professor Blather on November 29, 2007 at 3:14 PM

If he was a Dem and not a social con, he’d be friggin’ unstoppable.

RW Wacko on November 29, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Yup.

I also think that if Huck ran, Hill would counter with Obama as VP out of neccessity to win some Souther states. In fact, no matter who the Republicans throw out there, if she swallows her pride and picks Obama as VP, she wins 2-3 Southern States due to the huge black turnout that would occur, and the game is OVER.

RW Wacko on November 29, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Good point.

I sometimes wonder if Obama is thinking the same exact thing.

Professor Blather on November 29, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Anyone for a Fred/Huck ticket? How about Huck/Fred?

Catseye on November 29, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Huck sucks.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 3:10 PM

Now Fred/Hunter, that I could do. Even Fred/Mitt or Fred/Rudolpho or Fred/McCain.

Now that I write that, what do you think of Fred/McCain? McCain as Veep is a lot more palatable than as POTUS, and he could actually bring some swing/mod votes. What to you political strategist types out there think of that?

peski on November 29, 2007 at 3:17 PM

You must have not read the link about the “Black KKK” in the headlines above. Horizontal descrimination is far deeper than you seem to realize.

saiga on November 29, 2007 at 2:08 PM

Forget when Jesse ran? Only reason Obama is getting mediocre support from blacks so far is b/c they are flocking to Hillary as the first black presidents’ spouse. Blacks love Hillary, with Obama standing next to her, the voting registration drives, church sermons, etc will ensure busing from the inner cities and rural areas that you cannot possible imagine on voting day. 50% of white women plus 95% of blacks plus even 10% of white men plus 70% of Hispanics = game over in the South. Numbers would be MUCH worse up North of course (% wise). Less blacks up there, too, obviously.

RW Wacko on November 29, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Another unknown Governor from the state of Arkansas, really? One that Dick Morris supports? Are you guys really comfortable with that?

Ann NY on November 29, 2007 at

No, Ma’am…..

Janos Hunyadi on November 29, 2007 at 3:18 PM

He felt it important to repeatedly stress, slowly, that he meant the Bible for some reason. Never mind the fact he held it up for most of the video.

amerpundit on November 29, 2007 at 1:33 PM

Saw that too. It specifically said King James Bible on the spine. I’m not Christian. Isn’t that typically the version used by Protestants? I thought he was trying to force Rudy to say that his “Catholic” beliefs were a little different, and Romney to say that he too uses a different bible. Or maybe it was to force Huckabee to say it’s the literal word of God. I thought it was a multi-trick question intended to start a religious fight, but I could be way off base on this. In any case, none of the candidates saw it the way I did.

JiangxiDad on November 29, 2007 at 3:21 PM

“Deeds not Words” Using that simple axiom Fred comes out ahead. When reviewing all of the other anointed front runners when you look at their actions in office compared to what they are saying today it is obvious they will sell out to the highest bidder or poll taker.

LakeRuins on November 29, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Now that I write that, what do you think of Fred/McCain? McCain as Veep is a lot more palatable than as POTUS, and he could actually bring some swing/mod votes. What to you political strategist types out there think of that?

peski on November 29, 2007 at 3:17 PM

1. I don’t think McCain would accept it. After losing last time around, he no doubt feels that he deserves the nomination, and thus a VP slot would be beneath him.

2. It wouldn’t hurt from an election standpoint, but thinking ahead to 2016 McCain would be too old to be the nominee by then.

Hollowpoint on November 29, 2007 at 3:26 PM

A President F. Thompson with a VP like D. Hunter would make me very happy American!!!!!

bucko36 on November 29, 2007 at 3:30 PM

2. It wouldn’t hurt from an election standpoint, but thinking ahead to 2016 McCain would be too old to be the nominee by then.

Hollowpoint on November 29, 2007 at 3:26 PM

I see your point, but shouldn’t that have applied to Bush/Cheney? Well I guess I just reinforced your point – if Cheney was young, healthy, and electable, we wouldn’t be agonizing over HuckaMittIani.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 3:32 PM

If Rush wanted to endorse a real conservative he’d go with Hunter, not Fraud!

BKennedy on November 29, 2007 at 2:17 PM

I like Hunter, and if I had to guess, I’d say Rush probably does too. But it’s far too late now for Hunter to come from so far behind, so he unfortunately has to be discounted. There’s still an outside chance that Fred can surge and take the nomination after all. It doesn’t seem likely with Huckabee sucking all the air out of the room, but you never know. But I do think that Fred is easily the most well-rounded and genuine conservative among the viable candidates. And therefore I hope we do see that surge happen for Fred in the 11th hour.

aero on November 29, 2007 at 3:55 PM

I see your point, but shouldn’t that have applied to Bush/Cheney? Well I guess I just reinforced your point – if Cheney was young, healthy, and electable, we wouldn’t be agonizing over HuckaMittIani.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 3:32 PM

And Bush doesn’t exactly have a stellar record on appointing people based on strategy- remember that Cheney was tasked to find GW a running mate, and he suggested… himself. It’s worked out OK though, because watching Cheney drive the nutroots insane has been kinda fun.

That and I’m not sure that anyone who served as GW’s VP could win at this point.

Hollowpoint on November 29, 2007 at 4:04 PM

I really needed Fred! to deliver last night and he sure did on the borders and the GWOT. Its about time. I too went to fred08.com and made a second donation. I just hope he can ride this mojo.

I too heard Rush give Fred! his non-endorsement endorsement. That should give him a little more support.

Sammy316 on November 29, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Fred/huck for 2008. great Ticket.

unseen on November 29, 2007 at 4:56 PM

I do not know what people see in Huckabee. He is the worst candidate as far as illegal immigration is concerned.

SIJ6141 on November 29, 2007 at 5:14 PM

Fred/Duncan Hunter as good as it gets!

Ex-tex on November 29, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Fred/Duncan Hunter as good as it gets!

Ex-tex on November 29, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Yep. Dream team.

IrishEyes on November 29, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Fred/Duncan Hunter as good as it gets!

Ex-tex on November 29, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Yep. Dream team.

IrishEyes on November 29, 2007 at 7:17 PM

As far as electability between the two of them, I’d say there ya go. I think I’d rather see it the other way around tho.

!Fred, with his past questions on abortion, can’t seem to get over it with all his pro-life rhetoric. His explanation made sense to me but the fact that he can’t manage a simple election campaign(compared to managing the Office of the President) just scares the hell out of me.

I’m looking at Duncan Hunter right now for the primary but Chris M is dead on right:

Sad that the primary is where you try to get what you want and the general is where you get what you can.

ChrisM on November 29, 2007 at 1:34 PM

Pilgrim on November 29, 2007 at 8:15 PM

It specifically said King James Bible on the spine.

I was starting to think I was the only one who noticed that. He said “and I mean specifically this book that I am holding in my hands” as he held up the spine. That not only references Catholics and Mormons, but also anyone who uses the New International Version, etc. It’s a divide-and-conquer tactic.

The Monster on November 29, 2007 at 11:58 PM

see you at the pole! poll.. fred ftw

amend2 on November 30, 2007 at 12:07 AM

this is a mostly beat up thread but I’m sure I heard Rudy say that not all of the Bible (the big black book) is not the inerrant Word of God.

hm.. over

amend2 on November 30, 2007 at 12:13 AM

I’ll take you up on that bet. I can’t see Huck taking Michigan, Ohio, PA, or Oregon. RW Wacko on November 29, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Romney Sr was a very popular governor in Michigan. The older voters remember him well the younger ones not. Nostalgia for the good old days in Michigan makes the Romney name sound great

I don’t see how Huck can get past his support of freebies for illegals in this state without switching parties

Of course this year may be different.. Everyone who can unload his house is considering moving. Who will be left by election time remains to be seen

entagor on November 30, 2007 at 4:47 AM