The Maha Rushie reacts to the CNN/YouTube debate

posted at 9:45 am on November 30, 2007 by Bryan

This is from Thursday’s Rush Limbaugh Show. El Rushbo comes about as close as he ever does to endorsing a candidate in the primaries. As you’ll note in the clip, he doesn’t endorse any candidate, yet he does pull out one candidate as the only true conservative. And that candidate is…

Partial transcript:

RUSH: …the genuine moderate as opposed to conservative aspects of three of the top-tier, four of the top-tier candidates were on full-fledged display last night. There was one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism or have any of his past forays into those areas displayed, and that candidate was Fred Thompson. … …we have a campaign now where most of the candidates are not genuine conservatives. They may be saying they are, but in their past they have done some things that are not conservative in any way, shape, manner, or form — and I think a lot of those things are being overlooked even by friends of mine in the conservative media because the obsession is Hillary…

While everybody is talking about Fred Thompson, “He’s too lazy. He’s too lackadaisical. He doesn’t seem to have whole lot of energy.” Fine and dandy. I’m not going to argue with people about your perceptions of attitudes and so forth. I will say this. I don’t think anybody would get into this mess running for the presidency, the media and all of these things. You can’t imagine what these people go through. You wouldn’t want to go through it, and I can’t imagine somebody put themselves through it if they really don’t want it. You know, one of the arguments about Fred Thompson is, “Well, I can’t see the fire in his belly.” Well, he’s got a different personality than the others. We’ll just have to see how all this shakes out. But those are the high points that I took.

(h/t to several readers and John Ziegler)

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

The problem is – with our sound byte society, perception IS reality.

Fred – I hope you turn things around – but it doesn’t look good. Too bad, though…

Dr. Gecko on November 30, 2007 at 9:50 AM

There was one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism or have any of his past forays into those areas displayed

There was actually more than one conservative on the stage to the right of Fred.

But hey, if this is a preemptive strike against Rudy McHuckRomney, I’m all for it.

Fred is still the best choice for uniting the base this November.

Valiant on November 30, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Well, he’s got a different personality than the others.

Unfortunately, that happens to be boring and unconvincing. That’s not to say Fred can’t change that perception, but he doesn’t exactly appear to be on his way there.

amerpundit on November 30, 2007 at 9:59 AM

the genuine moderate as opposed to conservative aspects of three of the top-tier,

By means of preemption, this excerpt has to do with the conservative cred. of the top tier. That is an important distinction, when putting Rush’s words in context.

Weight of Glory on November 30, 2007 at 9:59 AM

By means of preemption, this excerpt has to do with the conservative cred. of the top tier. That is an important distinction, when putting Rush’s words in context.

Quite so.

Spirit of 1776 on November 30, 2007 at 10:01 AM

Just don’t want the Duncan Hunter supporters to be too pissed off.

Weight of Glory on November 30, 2007 at 10:01 AM

You know, I like a lot of what Thompson says. There are a couple points we disagree but, on the whole, I respect his point of view. But, if he’s having trouble with the rigors of campaigning(and I don’t know for sure he is), how is he going to stand up against the overwhelming stress of being President? I look at the stress of the campaign as a sort of mini-prep for the real thing.

jeanie on November 30, 2007 at 10:06 AM

Just don’t want the Duncan Hunter supporters to be too pissed off.

Weight of Glory on November 30, 2007 at 10:01 AM

Duncan Hunter is my congressman, and I have voted for him like 5 times, is without a doubt a true conservative, the problem is he really isn’t a top tier candidate. He would without a doubt make a great president or vice president, personally I am hoping for a Thompson/Hunter ticket.

doriangrey on November 30, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Rush would’ve been behind George Allen, had allen not screwed up last year. Fred Thompson filled the Allen vacuum.

jp on November 30, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Dont underestimate the Rush endorsement, the man only has about 30 million listeners daily.

doriangrey on November 30, 2007 at 10:17 AM

doriangrey on November 30, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Couldn’t agree with you more.

Weight of Glory on November 30, 2007 at 10:24 AM

Rush giving a non-endorsement-endorsement could very well, turn Thompsons numbers around. Time is short.

captivated_dem on November 30, 2007 at 10:27 AM

Yeah, Rush was talking about top-tier. I would love to Duncan as prez, but he’s current;y not top-tier.

Callers have mentioned him, but Rush always says it is their job to get noticed. And I agree. I wish Duncan would do something to get noticed.

I read on NRO yesterday that the late Henry Hyde said he was a bit protectionist. If that’s his only problem, bring it on. I am definitely a free trader, but this is not on the same level as murdering babies, securing the border, eradicating the nations enemies, reducing the insane size of the federal budget, etc.

urbancenturion on November 30, 2007 at 10:27 AM

He doesn’t endorse primary candidates? He just did.

Theworldisnotenough on November 30, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Why do people assume that conservatives are looking for an ‘exciting’ candidate in the first place? I’d prefer a steady hand on the tiller, say like Dick Cheney, who is NOT an exciting candidate or speaker or debater. He’s just rock solid. You want excitement? Obama’s your girl.

pistolero on November 30, 2007 at 10:29 AM

captivated_dem on November 30, 2007 at 10:27 AM

I think the effect will not be seen in the polls but in the voting booth.

Theworldisnotenough on November 30, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Duncan Hunter would be terrific, as would Fred! Duncan and Fred would be a dynamite combo. You can almost smell the gravitas.

pistolero on November 30, 2007 at 10:31 AM

I think the effect will not be seen in the polls but in the voting booth.

Theworldisnotenough on November 30, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Yep. I think there will be a lot of surprises in the upcoming elections. Good ones.

techno_barbarian on November 30, 2007 at 10:33 AM

I made this comment in another thread, but it’s worth repeating now. Conservatives all need to get realistic and they need to do so now. It doesn’t matter who you would like to see elected. It really doesn’t. You need to decide between the two electable Republicans, Romney and Giuliani. Fred just isn’t going to get the nomination. Neither is Huck or any other candidate out there right now. Put your fantasies aside and choose between Romney and Giuliani.

davenp35 on November 30, 2007 at 10:36 AM

Theworldisnotenough on November 30, 2007 at 10:30

Ditto.

captivated_dem on November 30, 2007 at 10:38 AM

*waits for BKennedy to come in on csd’s orders*

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Dont underestimate the Rush endorsement
doriangrey on November 30, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Don’t you mean the “nonendorsement” wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no mo’, say no mo’?

Tennman on November 30, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Fred just isn’t going to get the nomination. Neither is Huck or any other candidate out there right now. Put your fantasies aside and choose between Romney and Giuliani.

davenp35 on November 30, 2007 at 10:36 AM

You have no way of knowing this. I’ll support the GOP nominee (unless it’s RP), but I see no reason at all to give up hope before the vote actually happens.

techno_barbarian on November 30, 2007 at 10:46 AM

How will CNN’s Larry King do tonight with his interview with Fred and Jeri Thompson. Larry has asked for email VIDEO questions from his audience. How many Plants does CNN need?
Maybe we will see tonight.

Nelsa on November 30, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Oh come on, Rush! First of all, among the five “major” candidates, three are ex-executives who have not served in significant elected legislative functions, and the other two are Senatirs, who have never served in any significant executive functions. These two senators are actually quite similar when you look at their records in office over the time that they were in office. Fred’s made a lot of headway, apparently, criticizing the others who actually do the work from the sidelines. This is the only way he can be considered more consistently conservative than any of the others.

Big S on November 30, 2007 at 10:50 AM

You need to decide between the two electable Republicans, Romney and Giuliani. Fred just isn’t going to get the nomination. Neither is Huck or any other candidate out there right now. Put your fantasies aside and choose between Romney and Giuliani.

davenp35 on November 30, 2007 at 10:36 AM

Put your fantasies principles aside and choose between Romney and Giuliani.

There. Fixed that for ya.

Redhead Infidel on November 30, 2007 at 10:50 AM

I look at the stress of the campaign as a sort of mini-prep for the real thing.

Not being flippant here, but have y’all checked out photos of Bush 2000 and Bush 2007? The man has aged way more than seven years.

Back to being flippant, Fred! really needs to do something drastic, like kill something… “unexpectedly” strangle a rampaging grizzly bear at a campaign stop with his bare hands.

That’s the image I used to have, at least. If anything would distinguish Fred! from Hillary and Barack, killing a large, powerful animal would do it.

saint kansas on November 30, 2007 at 10:52 AM

*waits for BKennedy to come in on csd’s orders*

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2007 at 10:44 AM

csd’s orders?

Darksean on November 30, 2007 at 10:54 AM

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2007 at 10:44 AM

It may take him awhile to notice we’re talking about Fred since Fred’s name is not in the post’s title, and Fred’s picture is not on it either. Once he realizes it, he’ll be here foaming at the mouth, I’m sure.

aero on November 30, 2007 at 11:02 AM

But hey, if this is a preemptive strike against Rudy McHuckRomney, I’m all for it.

Fred is still the best choice for uniting the base this November.

Valiant on November 30, 2007 at 9:52 AM

That shound really be Mike McRudney

Possibly Huck McRomniani.

Or Mitt McGulabee

Or Romniani McHuck

Or Rudy Huccainey

Really, why should we use anything vestigal of switchback.

And I don’t follow anyone’s orders. Although Fraud!heads do seem to have me as their object of obsession now, rather than CSD.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Well, if the Fred heads are wrong, at least they are in good company.
csd has been very quite since his candidate has fallen into csd’s definition of a “BIGOT”. I think he is in the corner waiting for the paint to dry.

right2bright on November 30, 2007 at 11:07 AM

That’s the image I used to have, at least. If anything would distinguish Fred! from Hillary and Barack, killing a large, powerful animal would do it.

saint kansas on November 30, 2007 at 10:52 AM

He did a pretty good number on his own initial campaign. Now that large, powerful animal is crippled.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Right on cue…

aero on November 30, 2007 at 11:09 AM

I am hoping for a Thompson/Hunter ticket.

doriangrey on November 30, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Yes…

right2bright on November 30, 2007 at 11:09 AM

The American Thinker rant

Ropera on November 30, 2007 at 11:12 AM

Right on cue…

aero on November 30, 2007 at 11:09 AM

To be fair, you did invite me in, milady.

If you must know, I did find csd’s rant on Jeri’s appearance a week or so ago incredibly offensive. I’m sort of wondering if he met the banhammer for that comment too far.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:13 AM

And I don’t follow anyone’s orders. Although Fraud!heads do seem to have me as their object of obsession now, rather than CSD.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Adopting csd’s lame victimhood tactic too, now. Interesting. Regular little disiple it seems.

techno_barbarian on November 30, 2007 at 11:14 AM

doriangrey on November 30, 2007 at 10:09 AM

I couldn’t wish for better, my friend…. and I, too, am concerned that Hunter is the best but won’t be chosen. Damn the media…..IMHO

MNDavenotPC on November 30, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Adopting csd’s lame victimhood tactic too, now. Interesting. Regular little disiple it seems.

techno_barbarian on November 30, 2007 at 11:14 AM

It is not my fault that other people eagerly await my responses with such enthusiasm that they must call me out by name.

They would be let down if I didn’t grant them their wish.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:18 AM

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:13 AM

You know I’m just ribbing you, right? I find you far more tolerable and reasonable than CSD on the topic of Fred. But I suppose that’s not saying much. ;-) At least you’re not a gratuitous name-caller as a general rule.

I hope CSD didn’t get banned. I enjoy his comments on other topics (anything not involving Fred, really). But he did cross a line with the Jeri stuff, that’s for sure. Maybe they just asked him to take a time-out or something. Or maybe he’s preoccupied with family and holiday stuff. ‘Tis the season and all. He’s not a troll–he’s just annoying as hell about this one topic.

aero on November 30, 2007 at 11:20 AM

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:13 AM

I’m thinking you might be right about that one, the head mistress was none to happy about his comments on that thread.

ChrisM on November 30, 2007 at 11:21 AM

I see things in this light. Every potential Republican candidate this time around has something in his favor…even McCain, hell even Paul. I have seen nothing yet that could convince me to vote for any of the Democratic hopefuls for any reason.

Of course I may be biased. The last Democrat I voted for was LBJ, and I’ve regretted that ever since.

Oldnuke on November 30, 2007 at 11:22 AM

It is not my fault that other people eagerly await my responses with such enthusiasm that they must call me out by name.

They would be let down if I didn’t grant them their wish.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:18 AM

See, there’s your problem. You take sarcasm and derision derived by us NOT wanting to see you, you take our levity at your compulsive responding, as an invitation. Truly, we KNOW what you’re going to say and therefore would love it if you would just NOT post in Fredthreads.

But then, your need for attention overrides this truism.

Darksean on November 30, 2007 at 11:22 AM

go easy on Bkennedy his 60 million dollar man just imploded last night

EricPWJohnson on November 30, 2007 at 11:23 AM

See, there’s your problem. You take sarcasm and derision derived by us NOT wanting to see you, you take our levity at your compulsive responding, as an invitation. Truly, we KNOW what you’re going to say and therefore would love it if you would just NOT post in Fredthreads.

But then, your need for attention overrides this truism.

Darksean on November 30, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Oh you’re such a spoilsport. Don’t you people know how to have fun? I already know what our Fred-followers are going to say (I’m particularly a fan of “Fear the Fred!”), they already have an idea of what I’m going to say.

’tis merely a game of cat and mouse. Perhaps you should ligthen up a little.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:27 AM

go easy on Bkennedy his 60 million dollar man just imploded last night

EricPWJohnson on November 30, 2007 at 11:23 AM

I don’t even remember Fred being there. Was he the old guy rambling on for 2 minutes about social security? Sounded like an AARP spokesman.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:28 AM

Fred Thompson/Duncan Hunter
Oh. Yeah.
It doesn’t git any better!

Ex-tex on November 30, 2007 at 11:28 AM

If the lib media can play king maker, so can the conservative media.

GO FRED!

unamused on November 30, 2007 at 11:29 AM

Fred Thompson/Duncan Hunter
Oh. Yeah.
It doesn’t git any better!

Ex-tex on November 30, 2007 at 11:28 AM

If only Hunter could be in the top slot, it would be. A VP’s discretions are hardly useful campaign fodder.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:30 AM

Oh you’re such a spoilsport. Don’t you people know how to have fun? I already know what our Fred-followers are going to say (I’m particularly a fan of “Fear the Fred!”), they already have an idea of what I’m going to say.

’tis merely a game of cat and mouse. Perhaps you should ligthen up a little.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Ah, deflection…

The thing is, some around here would actually like to have a SUBSTANTIVE discussion about him. Your and especially csdeven’s impulsive regurgitation make that impossible.

I’m all for the sport of debate and wordsmithing, but you and he just have no concept of when to quit.

Tell you what. I’ll lighten up again when you take a few of the Fredthreads off from time to time…

Darksean on November 30, 2007 at 11:33 AM

They would be let down if I didn’t grant them their wish.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:18 AM

Overdeveloped sense of ego? Check. You sound just like csd.

That’s not a good thing.

techno_barbarian on November 30, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Sounded like an AARP spokesman.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:28 AM

Exactly the opposite. Fred wants to kill Social Security as we know it. AARP’s leadership is probably behind closed doors as we speak, plotting Fred’s imminent, painful death for having the guts to say that Social Security is broken and seniors will have to give up some of their expected benefits or accept that they are selfish thieves willing to steal the future earnings of their children and grandchildren for their own unplanned retirements. He may say these things in a slow, laid-back way, but make no mistake that he’s the gutsiest one out there to take on this sacred cow. Even when I was an ardent Rudy supporter (like, three days ago), I cheered Fred’s courage in bringing up entitlements and outlining a reform plan. I wish they would all do it, because entitlements will destroy our economy and culture faster than terrorists can if we don’t address it soon–like yesterday.

aero on November 30, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Ah, deflection…

The thing is, some around here would actually like to have a SUBSTANTIVE discussion about him. Your and especially csdeven’s impulsive regurgitation make that impossible.

I’m all for the sport of debate and wordsmithing, but you and he just have no concept of when to quit.

Tell you what. I’ll lighten up again when you take a few of the Fredthreads off from time to time…

Darksean on November 30, 2007 at 11:33 AM

Yeah right. Fredheads only want an echo chamber. I have asked about Fred’s record repeatedly. No one ever wants to have a substantive discussion about it. Usually they engage in deflection and bring up say, Romney’s record or Rudy’s record and repeat “a constant mantra” of RINO RINO RINO. When asked to defend Romney’s record, I do so enthusiastically. I don’t care for Rudy so I leave that to tommylotto. Fredheads don’t find that “substantive” though. You see, criticizing Fred isn’t “substantive” it’s meanspirited attack. When Fredheads spam every Romney or Rudy topic, you don’t find that unusual, but those critcizing St. Fred should take a few threads off.

Fact is, csd and I, and of course, Fred’s own utter ineptitude, have shifted the Hot Air readershup attitude from FRED! in July to Fred… in September to Fred? in November. Fred had his chances, he had loads of chances, he’s been in two debates already and had lackluster performances, a very bad move considering he blew off his first chance to start off with a bang and decided to announce on a late-night talk show instead of at the debate itself, or shortly beforehand.

Fred is the reason his campaign is failing. Perhaps we can have a substantive discussion on that? Or would you rather just continue to deride me for daring not to bow at the altar of St. Fred?

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:48 AM

aero on November 30, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Tackling social security worked out great for Bush, and he had a Republican Congress. Fred’s plan isn’t realistic, not with his slow, lumbering manner. Bush spent hours upon hours and trip after trip trying to get that reform passed, and to no avail.

Fred talks a good game, but in the end it’s all talk. When has Fred ever put his heart into anything conservative? Maybe if he championed one thing, something, anything at all conservative I’d believe he has the passion to follow-through, but he’s always been a sideline conservative cheerleader, never an all star QB.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:53 AM

Thank you Rush, for coming to the right conclusion, and for standing up to the NY media!

FreDunk ’08!

AZCON on November 30, 2007 at 11:57 AM

BK, there is no one here at HA as consistently nasty about any of the other candidates as you, CSD, and tommylotto are about Fred. Yes, people throw punches at all the candidates (often well-deserved), but threads about the other candidates do not get completely derailed by rabid detractors EVERY SINGLE TIME, like Fred threads do.

I agree that Fred is the main reason why Fred is not doing as well as he could/should right now. I do not agree that you, CSD, and tommylotto have swayed many hearts and minds by endlessly repeating the same accusations over and over and over again. As I’ve said before, I think you’re probably hurting Mitt and Rudy more than Fred with your incessant baiting and negativity.

Seriously, you’ve done your job. You’ve raised questions about Fred–kudos. Now back off and see how it goes. As much as I’d like Fred to be a contender, it doesn’t look like he is one (unless Rush’s almost-endorsement works some magic). You don’t have to pound the guy into a bloody pulp when he’s already on the ground.

Just let people talk about Fred without charging in at every opportunity and trying to make the thread about you for a change, ‘kay?

aero on November 30, 2007 at 12:00 PM

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Mitt McGulabee- I’m stealing it!

Valiant on November 30, 2007 at 12:01 PM

Yeah right. Fredheads only want an echo chamber.
BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:48 AM

The echos in the Fred threads are almost always you, cs, and tommylotto.

People have confronted you and dealt with your idiotic parroting of the same distortions you always bring up several times. But you won’t accept or acknowledge that.

You find it much more fun twirling and prancing in the limelight. Substantive discussion would be great. Unfortunately, it’s something of which you don’t seem capable. That’s why I usually scroll over your posts.

I’ve said many times that I will support whomever the GOP nominee is, (except if it’s RP). Will you do the same if it’s FDT?

techno_barbarian on November 30, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Being the most conservative is far different than being the most electable, or even the most qualified (conservative purity doesn’t necessarily translate into most capable wartime leadership). A 100% conservative without the temperament to take on a nuclear jihad is less desirable than a 75% conservative who is. And nominating a 100% conservative who only has a 10% chance of beating the Democrat nominee is shooting ourselves in the foot (while feeling great about our aim).

Halley on November 30, 2007 at 12:03 PM

Tackling social security worked out great for Bush, and he had a Republican Congress. Fred’s plan isn’t realistic, not with his slow, lumbering manner. Bush spent hours upon hours and trip after trip trying to get that reform passed, and to no avail.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:53 AM

So we should all just go back to ignoring the elephant in the room, until it crushes our economy in a few years? Bush failed, so stop trying (because if Bush couldn’t do it, then it just can’t be done)? Stick our collective heads in the sand and don’t offend the senior citizen and soon-to-retire Boomers (a huge voting bloc) like Romney, Giuliani, and the others?

At least Fred brought the looming entitlement crisis back into the public debate. At least he wants to try to accomplish something before it’s too late. How can you honestly criticize that? If Romney had been the one to do it, you’d be singing his praises for being the only one with the balls to take on one of the toughest issues facing us today.

Don’t you ever do things that you’re pretty sure are doomed to failure, just so that you know in the future when the disaster happens anyway that you did all you could to prevent it? Politically speaking, the Republicans had better be able to point out decades of honest, hard effort at bringing the problem to the attention of the American people and attempting to reform it before it was too late. Things like that will help us regain power some day when the liberal-created disasters have struck and the people finally realize who it was that was trying to warn them and actually do something about it the whole time.

aero on November 30, 2007 at 12:08 PM

People have confronted you and dealt with your idiotic parroting of the same distortions you always bring up several times. But you won’t accept or acknowledge that.

If by “dealt with” you mean “obfuscated and changed the subject to either me personally or an attack on Romney or Rudy,” then I agree.

You find it much more fun twirling and prancing in the limelight. Substantive discussion would be great. Unfortunately, it’s something of which you don’t seem capable. That’s why I usually scroll over your posts.

Yes, we all know you’re great at substantive discussion t_b, given all you’ve provided thus far is a scathing indightment of myself.

I’ve said many times that I will support whomever the GOP nominee is, (except if it’s RP). Will you do the same if it’s FDT?

techno_barbarian on November 30, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Yes, but I still think Hillary or some 527 is going to blast him to pieces in an attack ad and, in his standard fashion, he’ll be too slow to react and be caught like a deer in the headlights.

Seriously, if you think csd and I have dirt on Fred, can you imagine what the Clinton grime machine has dug up? The man was a dirty, flithy lobbyist. Just repeating that in an ad all by itself will be enough to cost Fred the margin of error.

Look at the “will not vote for” numbers. Mitt may be the highest, but Fred has him beat by all of 3 points, and unlike Mitt, Fred isn’t showing he has the energy to turn that perception around.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Halley on November 30, 2007 at 12:03 PM

All good points.

aero on November 30, 2007 at 12:11 PM

And nominating a 100% conservative who only has a 10% chance of beating the Democrat nominee is shooting ourselves in the foot (while feeling great about our aim).

Halley on November 30, 2007 at 12:03 PM

Halley, respectfully, I think the dems have so much going against them that they should be seriously fearing this next election. There’s enough video and sound bytes to tie them up in knots. It’s actually going to be fun to watch.

I think the country is as sick of the spineless dems as they are of the pubbies, maybe even moreso.

We’ve got some really good candidates. Perfect? No. But in contrast to the marxists the dems are running, I think the Country will make the right decisions on election day.

The dems are just not that scarey to me, in terms of their ‘inevitibility’. Polyanic on my part? Maybe. But I prefer to think of it as optimism.

techno_barbarian on November 30, 2007 at 12:12 PM

Halley on November 30, 2007 at 12:03 PM

So basically, Rush is right.

Valiant on November 30, 2007 at 12:13 PM

aero on November 30, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Trying seems to be the only thing Fred has ever done.

I don’t want a tryer, I want a doer.

Fred will try to do a lot, and judging by his performances, all his tries are half-assed. He shows up late in the game and then brings nothing new to prove he’s actually the smart one. Seriously, Fred could have turned his late entry into a huge advantage if he converted the “came in late” meme to “Fred knew better than the others,” but that’s just one more failure of the Fred Thompson campaign. I won’t nominate a slouch and a proven failure, but if he does get the nomination, I hope he steps it up, because he looks weak right now.

Fred needs to either stand up, shut up, or get out of the way. None of this “trying” garbage. What do you call the doctor who tried to get his degree? Unemployed.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Yes, but I still think Hillary or some 527 is going to blast him [Fred] to pieces in an attack ad

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Well, we can’t live in fear of attack ads, or we won’t be able to nominate anyone. Is your point that you just want someone who can respond quickly and aggressively to attacks, since attacks will come regardless? Like, say, Fred’s sharply pointed response to Michael Moore, produced and launched on the internet within hours of the attack in question? When Fred gets ticked off, he’s pretty darned quick on his feet, I’d say. My impression is that his laid-back demeanor can be deceptive, and he’s fully capable of aggression when necessary.

aero on November 30, 2007 at 12:20 PM

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Channeling Yoda now, BK?

“Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try.”

I actually agree with the core of what you’re saying here–I had no admiration for the Republican Congress that tried repeatedly to pass stuff like drilling in ANWR and failed repeatedly. Doesn’t count, ’cause we’re still not drilling, are we?

But I’d still rather have someone willing to try than someone who just avoids the problem altogether. Trying with the probability of failing is far less idiotic than ignoring a glaring problem with the certainty that it will explode in your face, and soon.

aero on November 30, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Oh, and to reiterate my main point about trying–

Trying will help us Republicans/conservatives regain power one day, when it will become clear who struggled valiantly against the odds to save us and who made the disaster worse by completely ignoring it (or worse, accelerating it). But that will only be clear if we do try, even in the face of failure. If we don’t try at all and join the Democrats in ignoring this huge looming economic disaster, there will be no difference between the parties/ideologies in the minds of voters, and rightly so. They will not give power back to us to fix it, because we won’t have shown that we deserve it or have any ideas about how to accomplish it.

aero on November 30, 2007 at 12:28 PM

I don’t want a tryer, I want a doer.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 12:18 PM

I can’t believe I left out the most obvious point. NO ONE we elect (assuming a Republican can win the White House at all) is going to be able to accomplish anything proactive with a Democrat-controlled Congress. A Republican president in 2009 is going to have the unenviable task of simply opposing Democrat legislation and trying to mitigate the damage they’ll try to do. A president who can do that AND is willing to use the president’s stature to put some conservative ideas and plans out in front of the people to mull over is a bonus. None of them will be able to get anything “done,” though, so don’t fool yourself about that. All we can hope for is someone who will genuinely try, and can fail with grace and dignity without harming the conservative movement of the future.

aero on November 30, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Where’d you go, BK? You keep yipping about wanting substantive discussions and being tired of repetitiveness on Fred threads. I’m giving you something different to chew on, and you ran away! I’m disappointed. I thought you were here to serve our negative expectations on Fred threads. ;-)

aero on November 30, 2007 at 12:53 PM

I don’t want a tryer, I want a doer.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 12:18 PM

And Mitt is the doer? The only thing he has done is change his mind. Mitt is the only candidate who uses “wite out” as his official campaign product. Huck has done raised taxes, and Rudy, well he has confiscated guns, he has supported abortion, he has made NY a quasi sanctuary city…so he has done somethings. McCain, why he had done past the McCain/Feingold, and he has laid out the welcome mat to immigrants.

No other candidate has published (that’s right, put in writing so they can be called out on it) such detail as Fred in his “white papers)
http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx

Detailed papers, for people to know what he stands for, and yes for others to debated and argue against. The point is he has details that no other candidate dares put in writing.

Fred has been the only consistent candidate that is truly conservative. Now all the other have done something…they’ve become “born again? conservatives, halleluia, they see the light, and Fred led the way.

right2bright on November 30, 2007 at 12:54 PM

Where’d you go, BK? You keep yipping about wanting substantive discussions and being tired of repetitiveness on Fred threads. I’m giving you something different to chew on, and you ran away! I’m disappointed. I thought you were here to serve our negative expectations on Fred threads. ;-)

aero on November 30, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Lunch Break.

Anyway, the idea the congress will still be majority dem after languishing in Bush/2 approval 2 months in and then enduring there in the low teens, possibly untill November next year is not at all certain. Romney certainly knows his way around a Veto pen, although I fear both Huck and Rudy is the second coming of Bush vis-a-vis amnesty and even worse on entitlements. Fred’s only real bargaining has been as a lobbyist, he was a red senator in a red state.

The reason why I trust Romney is that, despite his shifting opinions over the years, they have moved in one direction. Further Romney seems like a noble, honest, trustworthy guy. Some people call it “slick,” but unlike Clinton, Mitt Romney has been a moral avatar. He’s a father of five, married to his first wife, doesn’t even drink, has never, as far as anyone knows, been a horndog, and in his teenage years served on a religious mission. I mean come on, the worst transgression dug up so far is he put a dog on the roof for a family trip. He even made the dog a windshield for cripes sake.

He’s certainly not perfect, but the man is open and honest about where he has been and what he has done, and I have no reason to suspect he is lying now.

Conversely, I don’t trust Fred because political fraud is an abuse of office, one of the highest possible sins a public official can commit. Between this violation and his lackluster performance, there are few reasons why I should put any value on Fred’s word.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 1:05 PM

The reason why I trust Romney…

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 1:05 PM

Thank you, BK, for taking some time to thoughtfully explain why your guy is your top choice, instead of spending your time and energy mindlessly tearing down one of the other guys (who doesn’t even seem to be a serious threat to your guy anyway).

If you’d spend more time talking up Romney and less time foaming at the mouth about Fred, I think you’d make far more headway with your fellow HA readers.

aero on November 30, 2007 at 1:12 PM

It is not my fault that other people eagerly await my responses with such enthusiasm that they must call me out by name.

They would be let down if I didn’t grant them their wish.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:18 AM

No offense, but when I’ve seen you type the EXACT same platitudes as him, (scumbag lobbyist, defended terrorists, et al) and I notice CSD’s long overdue departure, I get suspicious. I’m not a Fredhead, I simply see him as the least of the electable evils on the GOP ticket. I value meaningful debate over his policies, but when I see the aforementioned catchphrases come out, they lead to discussions like the Jeri thread. Again, no offense, but the paper trail on that is as shady as the undecided voters in a CNN debate.

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2007 at 1:13 PM

aero on November 30, 2007 at 12:40 PM

I get your point, but don’t totally agree. That is Mitt’s lovers argument, he was governor of a liberal state so he couldn’t get things done. Well, Reagan had a similar congress and he kicked their ass…that’s what leaders do, and Mitt was no leader (by virtue of his argument, “I can’t control a liberal)

right2bright on November 30, 2007 at 1:17 PM

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2007 at 1:13 PM

The CNN debate can best be describes as a search for who isn’t a plant.

Right now only the black-on-black crime question and the creepy bible guy seems to have come from what you might call real people. Possibly the obligatory scary gun guy and the Stars and Bars champion near the end.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 1:18 PM

I get your point, but don’t totally agree. That is Mitt’s lovers argument, he was governor of a liberal state so he couldn’t get things done. Well, Reagan had a similar congress and he kicked their ass…that’s what leaders do, and Mitt was no leader (by virtue of his argument, “I can’t control a liberal)

right2bright on November 30, 2007 at 1:17 PM

California has a large number of red districts to work with, only San Fran Freako and the other Sans are Blue. Massachusetts? ROFL. Come on r2b, we elect a traitor and a murdering drunkard on a regular basis.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 1:21 PM

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 1:18 PM

I loved the scary gun guy. I want him for Secretary of State once they kick Rice out.

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2007 at 1:22 PM

Ronald Reagan raised taxes as a governor and I think he was pro choice at one time. He would never pass the scrutiny that some of you are giving other candidates. The main thing is, where do these candidates want to take the country? Most of them wonk on policy minutia but don’t describe the “shinning city on a hill”, the place we all want to go. Vision is something lacking in most of these candidates.

The strongest message of conservatism is the fair tax. It would give us back the ownership of our lives. I know most of you think it is unrealistic but just the same it is the best way to regain our freedom taken from us by this tax code.

moughon on November 30, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Fred is inevitable.

VolMagic on November 30, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Fred Thompson/Duncan Hunter
Oh. Yeah.
It doesn’t git any better!

You, sir, are a tease.

saint kansas on November 30, 2007 at 3:02 PM

PLEASE, don’t feed the BK troll.

His ego is swelling.

omnipotent on November 30, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Fred’s campaign is just now starting to get traction and a little momentum. This is a marathon not a 1000 yard sprint. Too many judgment calls to early.

Egfrow on November 30, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Big S on November 30, 2007 at 10:50 AM

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 11:48 AM

Must hurt to have one of the greatest conservative icons endorse the candidate you are trying to destroy. I bet Mitt and the Rombots are sitting around trying to figure out a way to spin this to their favor but it is a fruitless task. Rush has just said the one thing that should propel Fred to the nomination. He has long held conservative principles and Rudy, Mitt, Maverick, and Huck don’t.

Bill C on November 30, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Must hurt to have one of the greatest conservative icons endorse the candidate you are trying to destroy. I bet Mitt and the Rombots are sitting around trying to figure out a way to spin this to their favor but it is a fruitless task. Rush has just said the one thing that should propel Fred to the nomination. He has long held conservative principles and Rudy, Mitt, Maverick, and Huck don’t.

Bill C on November 30, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Perhaps if Rush had actually endorsed Duncan Hunter, the real solid conservative with a real record a while ago he wouldn’t be languishing in last place. Hunter, unlike Fred, is not a corrupt Johnny come lately activist.

The only thing Fred has in common with Rush is they are both entertainers. Rush has done more for conservatism than Fred has, or any candidate really, but I don’t see why he feels the need to prop up an otherwise hopeless candidate.

I respect Rush. I don’t respect Fred, and not even Rush’s opinion can sway me. When Fred becomes frank and honest about his past instead of tooting his 3 noun campaign slogan and his carbon copy conservative Powerpoint presentation, I’ll consider him.

Until then Fred is a load of talk with no action to back it up.

BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 9:16 PM

Well,Rush said it,nothing else
to add.

canopfor on November 30, 2007 at 9:41 PM

Perhaps if Rush had…
BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 9:16 PM

But he didn’t. He used his judgment and called it the way he saw it. Probably didn’t occur to him to use your convoluted logic. Oh, well.

Tennman on November 30, 2007 at 9:53 PM

Hitlery will beat herself.

MSGTAS on December 1, 2007 at 8:19 AM