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.

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.

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.

His ego is swelling.

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

You, sir, are a tease.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 12:08 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.