Iowa Rep. Steve King endorses Fred Update: Fred’s Fox & Friends intvu added
posted at 11:26 am on December 17, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Bizarre. He had people from both the Romney and Thompson camps there for the announcement. Did he tell them both to show in the expectation that it was their guy he was backing, to heighten the drama?
Radio Iowa liveblogged it:
“So I’m down to, of course, Romney and Thompson and in the end I have to come down on the side of this — who am I most comfortable with on the issues that I believe in….When I se someone who believes in their core….when they make a decision, if they’re where I am philosophically….so after really, I didn’t sleep last night but I come here to the podium to tell you that I have great respect for all the candidates.”
King now veers into a discussion of faith — an apparent reference to Romney’s Mormonism. King suggests no one should be denied the presidency because of their personal faith.
Now, he’s talking about “fire in his belly” and concludes with this, calling his pick, “the person who I believe destiny has called to be the president of the United States. I will be working for and supporting Fred Thompson for president.”
Patrick Ruffini bucks the CW this morning and says it’s Mitt’s race to lose, especially if McCain upsets him in New Hampshire. How so? Well, if Huckabee takes Iowa and Captain Amnesty pulls a surprise in NH, the 65% of us who are neither evangelical nor cavalier about the border will be desperate for a consensus candidate to deliver us from the prospect of a Huck-Mac showdown on Super Ultra Mega Tuesday. Mitt, being well funded and sort of conservative, is the obvious choice. Fred, being decidedly conservative but less well funded and having run a poor campaign, is the alternative. If McCain knocks off Mitt, leaving him 0 for 2 in the states he staked his campaign on winning, it’ll leave him smelling like a loser and make Fred the Great Anti-RINO Hope in the race by default. The problem is, Mitt has enough of a war chest to stay in the race through February no matter what happens, raising the distressing prospect of he and Fred competing for social con votes in South Carolina with Huckabee the obvious beneficiary. Probably the best outcome from the anti-Huck perspective is Fred losing big in Iowa, Mitt winning New Hampshire, and Fred dropping out and endorsing Mitt to make him the great conservative hope. Not sure where that puts Rudy except hoping against hope that Mitt and Huck split the social con vote in Florida so that he can squeak through.
Because this insane election isn’t yet insane enough, the Journal raises the prospect this morning of evangelicals boycotting the election not only if Rudy wins the nomination but now even if Fred or Mitt wins, too:
Given all the hurdles his campaign faces, the evangelical movement faces a big question: What if Mr. Huckabee fails to win the nomination?
There could be considerable disappointment, and even anger, if supporters feel that Mr. Huckabee wasn’t treated fairly, says John C. Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. “They could return to their previous state of flux,” he says. At the same time, if they believe he got a fair shot, their involvement in the primary may fire up some people and give them a greater stake in the general election, he adds.
How are they going to decide if the shot he got was “fair”? Isn’t their disappointment at his losing going to tilt them towards deciding he was treated unfairly, even if he really wasn’t?
Finally, who’s the best guy to nominate given the increasing likelihood (his repeated denials notwithstanding) of a Ron Paul independent run?
Update (bp): Fred was on Fox & Friends this morning. Here’s that interview. Fred’s laugh is about a million times more palatable than Hillary’s.
Update: Yup, King did it for the drama.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages:
Hell yeah!
hinduconservative on December 17, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Sure, why not? Sorry guys, Jesus was unavailable to run.
amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 11:29 AM
They’re saying that Fred is throwing all his energy into Iowa for the next few weeks. I think it’s clear he’s being very precise in his approach.
MadisonConservative on December 17, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Yep.
amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 11:32 AM
What if? What if Huckabee does not get the nomination? Are you kidding? Even the ‘evangelicals’ can’t see a ‘President HUCKABEE’. Just the name alone is wrong. At least if he had some ability and an impeccable record he might finish high. Otherwise no chance at all.
countywolf on December 17, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Mitt to make him the great conservative hope??
bnelson44 on December 17, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Because (of)this insane election (cycle)…
you should be buying stock in Maloxx, Tums, and Pepto-bismol.
All the mud should be waist deep by Christmas Day and by New Years ya better have a snorkle.
Limerick on December 17, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I am of the mind that Paul will pull from the Libertarians and the anti-war Left. Which means you want a pro-war centrist conservative.
bnelson44 on December 17, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Told you!
We keep referring to this spoiler group as “social cons” and “evangelicals” for lack of a better way to describe and define them. The truth is that they are NOT CONSERVATIVES, and most “evangelicals” have more sense than this, too. They certainly have Christian values like many conservatives; but unlike most conservatives, they want to use the federal government and taxpayers’ money to start programs that impose their value system on everyone. That’s antithetical to conservatism, which I believe is the ideology of smaller government and more personal freedom = better for everyone.
Problem is, as we’ve established over and over, we need them. We don’t have sufficient numbers without them. But I don’t know how to bring them back into the coalition at this point. They’re on the verge of a full-blown hissy-fit pout-fest now. And if we give them what they want, the rest of us will feel alienated and go into a snit of our own over nominating a complete idiot.
Thompson’s our best hope in the short run, but he still seems like such a long-shot.
aero on December 17, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Wow. All his energy? Maybe he’ll start putting in 5-day work weeks.
I’ll go with Fred. He’s saying the right things about Washington spending. Also, unlike Rudy, Fred would prevent a defection of pro-life voters.
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Maybe. But see the part Allah posted.
amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Fred! is a cordial fellow.
And then there’s Fox and Friends… and Hillary.
saint kansas on December 17, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Christmas is next week and Fred is still in VA?
bnelson44 on December 17, 2007 at 11:53 AM
All any republican has to do is pick a VP candidate that appeals to the evangelicals to keep them on the farm. And I doubt they will sit out an election if the dems nominate either hillary or obama.
William Amos on December 17, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Speaking of Fox, there was a chemical explosion at their NYC office.
amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 11:54 AM
“The Thompson Landslide”
Let’s hope it’s like the Reagan landslide…
Something else occurred to me. Anyone notice how in Hillary’s interviews, she’s always waiting that 5 seconds while (I assume) the feed catches up? How come Fred could somehow be responding immediately? Better equipment? Or is he really that prepared to answer?
MadisonConservative on December 17, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Hillary’s makeup exploded when she cackled ?
William Amos on December 17, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Hey! A Fox News show gave Thompson a fair shake! Good for Fox & Friends.
aero on December 17, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Just what is it the evangelicals like in the Huckster? C’mon people. You go to church on Sunday and to the polls on Tuesday.
It is almost to the point where Packer fans will boycott the election if a candidate admits that he is lactose intolerant.
Pull your head out of the pew and vote for who is the best person to lead this country in the 21st century. We are not voting a religious head of state, and I don’t think the Huckster could win that race either.
LakeRuins on December 17, 2007 at 12:01 PM
I’m sticking with Fred. The MSM gives him short shrift because they’re deathly afraid of a Thompson nomination. I firmly believe he’d trounce whichever Dembot gets the nomination, and I think the media thinks so, too.
flipflop on December 17, 2007 at 12:01 PM
aero said:
What do you mean by “imposing their values”?
OhioCoastie on December 17, 2007 at 12:02 PM
I think the most critical thing that has been missing from the Fred Thompson campaign the last six months is a couple hundred cases of Red Bull.
When he is animated and “on” he is as impressive and as cogent as anyone else in the field. He just needs to quaff some Red Bull more often and get out there and kick some butt. The knock against Fred has not been his stand on the issues as his personal lethargy.
And I say that as a Rudy supporter. Fred was billed last spring as the White Knight that would ride in, swoop up the disaffected conservative vote and storm to victory by virtual acclamation.
hasnt exactly happened, has it?
Always Right on December 17, 2007 at 12:03 PM
I do wish everyone would stop speaking of evangelicals as a “they.” We do not take orders from anyone as evangelical Christians. If you want to see diversity of opinion on just about any subject, gather a group of evangelicals together. We are not a block. We are not the same. We are not all conservative, not all white, not all male, not all anything. Stop with the labeling already. The labeling isn’t so much offensive as it’s just, well, really really wrong on most factual points.
Tennman on December 17, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Yes, you are right. Their dislike of Fred is puzzling to me. However, I think in the general a greater number of social cons could be pulled away from Rudy than Fred.
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Lumping evangelicals together as easily-led rubes with temper tantrum problems is just plain foolish, politically.
OhioCoastie on December 17, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Personally, I think the ‘lazy’, ‘lethargic’, ‘no fire in the belly’ meme is just that. Something repeated over and over.
I still can’t understand why it’s important for a candidate for the most powerful position in the world should be expected to do cartwheels and handstands like a circus clown.
I’ve got no problem with Thompson’s style. It’s called gravitas, and I like and respect it.
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Not to knock Mitt or his chances in any way, but right now I’m looking for a Thompson-Romney ticket. It has the most characteristics I like, even if I have presumed a little on some.
First off, it has the Southern states and NE-old Rustbelt character and the ticket would have a huge campaign structure already built up in the latter via Romney.
Thompson is the most close on principles and setting direction and the federalist approach, though not the primary choice of many D’s and some I’s, still gives them opportunities to play Centralist gods in their own states. Romney is a great manager and would be great in getting the various admin sectors in order, maybe even intelligence and state, as well as coordination with R’s in Congress.
Thompson would be good on judges, cabinet, ambassadors and DA’s, especially if Romney was involved in the vetting. I’ll be much more hopeful that the group would stay younger than it would be with McCain or Rudy (as it would probably be with Romney.)
Dusty on December 17, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Well, they actually happen to be my values, too–rooted in Judeo-Christian traditions. However, I do not believe it is our government’s role to force my values on everyone in this country. I believe social values belong at the individual and local government level for the most part. For example, I believe it is good and morally right to give to the poor and make sure as few people as possible are homeless or sick without the resources to get help. But I DO NOT believe it is right for the government to require us all to give money against our will to help the poor and the ill, which is what federal welfare is all about. I think local churches and volunteer groups do a far better job of helping people survive and get back on their feet than the federal government ever could. So I’m a conservative, and I’m a Christian, and I believe in helping the poor. But I don’t believe in taking my neighbor’s money against his will to help the poor. That’s imposing my values on him, and it’s wrong. He should have the freedom to choose whether or not he wants to help the poor or spend his money on a new Nintendo DS for his kid.
aero on December 17, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Mitt has damaged himself badly with the pro gun group. That hasn’t had time to affect the polling yet, but it will be significant, and those folks have a viable alternative in Fred. I project the Huckster starting to fade as the swing voters gain more info. Huck could very well take Iowa, but I suspect Fred may be second instead of the third place he said was absolutely necessary. I’m thinkin’ it will be a very Merry Christmas for Fred, and it will be tough sledding for Huck after Iowa, despite what the polls say now.
a capella on December 17, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Talking about FOX….OT for a second….explosion heard at NewsCorp NYC building….6th ave. closed off…
JetBoy on December 17, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Then you are not part of the “they” to which I’m referring. There IS a block out there that moves together like a school of fish. No-one is giving them orders, but they move together seemingly on instinct. It happens every election without fail. “They” are the ones who stomped their collective foot and just said NO to Rudy. “They” are the ones now gravitating to Huck for no other apparent reason than that he was a Baptist minister. “They” tend to be single-issue voters (abortion) and are less likely to compromise on that than any other members of the Republican coalition. “They” exist, I assure you.
I said the labels “evangelical” and “social conservative” are wrong for this group. I tried to redefine them in an earlier comment, but I failed. I know that a huge number of so-called evangelicals are not part of “them.” I’m Christian myself, and I’m not part of “them.” I also know that they can not truly be defined as conservative the way I define it. I’m a social conservative myself, but I don’t identify with “them.” I don’t know what to call them, in other words. Spoilers, maybe. But they do exist.
aero on December 17, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Good points.
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 12:30 PM
-flipflop-I’m sticking with Fred. The MSM gives him short shrift because they’re deathly afraid of a Thompson nomination. I firmly believe he’d trounce whichever Dembot gets the nomination, and I think the media thinks so, too.
I totally agree. I have been noticing this for some time. Fred will get the nomination if he can just get past the “semi-blackout” by the press. If he gets the nomination he will be the next president regardless of who the Dems choose.
duff65 on December 17, 2007 at 12:30 PM
I agree with you on most things. But not this. Nobody stomped “their” collective foot on Rudy. There has not been a single vote cast yet. People can certainly trend to politicians who share their own viewpoint. But the only poll that counts is the one that is cast at the ballot box. That ballot is not a collective expression; it’s a single expression.
I live in the Bible belt buckle. I can say without a doubt that evangelicals don’t toe the line on any one principle other than our core bedrock principles on salvation. Anything else, state a commandment from one pastor or another and you’ll have a rebellion.
These evangelical leaders that some like to call leaders are not really leaders of a movement. They’re just the noisiest.
Tennman on December 17, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Amen! I’m not evangelical, but in a very Bible Belt state. Most commenters believe evangelicals are some kind of Borg collective. Hardly the reality on the ground. If the ‘church’ we’re that powerful there wouldn’t be 90 different flavors of them.
Limerick on December 17, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Yes, and Huckabee is encouraging this sort of thing with his comments about “the elite” and “the chattering class” not understanding his support or the people who offer it. It’s turning into = reject Huckabee, reject evangelicals.
Slublog on December 17, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Get out the vote people! Fred Thompson is our man.
msipes on December 17, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Beneficiaries of a Thompson endorsement: Paul, McCain. Votes for Thompson will come from Huck, Mitt or Rudy. A sinking tide raises all submarines.
Mark Jaquith on December 17, 2007 at 1:12 PM
You know what….I’m tired of hearing about the possibility of “Evangelicals” boycotting this and that. Let them, I grow weary of this.
jeanie on December 17, 2007 at 1:16 PM
That interview is why Fred! is my man.
Watch out Mitt & Huckster, Fred!s coming on STRONG in the home stretch.
omnipotent on December 17, 2007 at 1:25 PM
For the moment, take all of the legitimate issues off of the table. There is an intangible that has helped many men gain the Presidency over the years;
Likeability.
Ike, JFK, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 all had it.
Fred has it.
edgehead on December 17, 2007 at 1:34 PM
All of the candidates, running around, reading the polls, spending million upon million of dollars…and Fred walks up, deliberately, methodically, with a real conservative message.
He is a leader, while the others are scrambling (and weeping).
It showed in the last debate, and it is showing now…
right2bright on December 17, 2007 at 1:36 PM
From your keyboard to God’s ears . . .
It’s abundantly clear that Rudy (as much as I like the guy) and Huck are simply going to fracture the party if they are nominated. Can’t we all just agree to compromise and go for Fred or Mitt? Neither may be perfect, but they’re both fairly solid all around on the issues that matter to conservatives, and infinitely better than any of the Dems.
Dudley Smith on December 17, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Mighty interesting Monday morning, this one…
Entelechy on December 17, 2007 at 1:49 PM
ok ok .. the show of hands thing is so last week.
amend2 on December 17, 2007 at 3:15 PM
They’ll come from Huck and Mitt. Rudy doesn’t have much support in Iowa, especially among people who would listen to King.
Gianni on December 17, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Maybe this was mentioned somewhere here today, but can’t find it. Rush had an “evangelical” Huckabee supporter call today and Rush asked him how much he knew about the candidate, outside of his relig. beliefs. Caller said he knew little.
Rush “gently” suggested that the caller educate himself about the “one or two” little problems Huck’s past positions and actions present. To the rest of the audience it was clear that Rush was warning against a Huckabee nod. I’m assuming we will hear more of this in the days ahead.
JiangxiDad on December 17, 2007 at 4:10 PM
My view on “you can’t legislate morality” is espressed by a self-invented quip.
Me: “People bring their values, often religiously inspired, with them to the voting booth and expect their representatives to work towards them.”
Senator: “Don’t you know I can’t legislate morality? Separation of church and state and all that. Now please turn around while I write a check to Planned Parenthood and strike down a parental notification law.”
BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Well stated.
Connie on December 17, 2007 at 5:02 PM
At about 2:35 into the interview he made the comment “stay the middle of the road”. Bad comment Fred. We, and I mean most Americans and citizens of the World, don’t want a ‘Middle of the Road” president. We want a ‘Conservative’ President.
If we want the ‘middle of the road’ we have Rudi, Mitt, Huck, and John.
Helloyawl on December 17, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Fred’s saying all the right things. Republicans, are you listening?
…Just being Fred; something that the other candidates have such a hard time doing, just being themselves.
Mojave Mark on December 17, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Helloyawl,
Yeah I cringed a little at that comment too.
Otherwise a great interview for Fred showing him to be both personable and steady.
Go Fred!
burnitup on December 17, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Love the grinny photo of Huckabee they showed!
Tzetzes on December 18, 2007 at 2:19 AM
Hyuck hyuck, ha ha. Ah shucks, Hucks.
(P.S. Fred’s fantastic.)
Tzetzes on December 18, 2007 at 2:20 AM
Comment pages: