Pat Buchanan: If Fred tanks in Iowa, he’ll drop out and endorse … McCain
posted at 10:38 pm on December 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Yup, probably. They’re old friends from their McCain-Feingold days in the Senate, they’re in sync on the war, and the only alternative is Romney, whom Fred was knocking just today for flip-flopping. There’ll be some discomfort in boosting a guy whose views on immigration are so different from his own, but Mitt’s were the same as McCain’s as recently as last year so that’s easily explained away.
Will Fred’s endorsement do McCain any good, though? The Fredheads here hate him, and if it comes to the point where Thompson’s polling so poorly that it’s not even worth hanging around for South Carolina, how many votes will he reasonably be able to deliver? Not enough to steal SC from Huck and Mitt, probably, but maybe enough to make McCain’s showing respectable enough (second place?) to give him a little momentum going into Florida, where he’ll try to siphon off Rudy’s moderates.
Exit question: If Fred finishes fourth in Iowa, does he pull a Tancredo and throw his weight to the best man left or soldier on, essentially hopeless, to Carolina?
Update: For what it’s worth, Politico says Team Thompson is near broke. Another case study in the limits of blogospheric influence: He’s the runaway favorite of righty bloggers and blog readers and he’s flagging everywhere.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Only problem is that you are missing the facts.
News2Use on December 21, 2007 at 1:09 AM
Here is the full story from the Waverly Democrat on Thompson’s stop (going back to yesterdays Politico report).
Waverly Democrat
Limerick on December 21, 2007 at 1:17 AM
Time will tell.
wccawa on December 21, 2007 at 1:17 AM
Dearest aero, you’re the
manwoman we like. However, I highlit why we come here. That s/b your/our driver, the fact that we like it, including the owner, the editors, all of them, and the commenters, the banter, the humor, the opportunity to be informed, the advocacy, the give/take with a variety of fairly interesting people from all walks, the many choices, which we care for, or may leave alone.AP’s success doesn’t depend on whether or not we like him. That some of us do, just is so. His success is driven by a combination of factors: objectivity, notoriety, cojones (though he claims a beta-version, his courage is incredible), legal expertise, political savvy, excellent writing skills, the best pop-culturist, ability to thread huge amounts of sources on same topic into myriad of posts a day, ability to be cocooned, thick skin, can give/take a lot, excellent work ethics, a tease, and yes a bit irascible. No one’s perfect. His wit is unsurpassed. He doesn’t care if we compliment him or not. He’s indifferent to praise but he’s somewhat more sensitive to criticism, which, for a NewYorker, has always amazed me.
On topic, I think we’ll get through the primaries, with no one having enough votes to make it. Now that s/b interesting. What will happen then?
Entelechy on December 21, 2007 at 1:17 AM
Lim, you’re the sweetest thing around. Best regards,
Entelechy on December 21, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Tend to agree with one of the posters above (forgive me for not searching it out)…..a brokered convention = McCain. The cigar smoke/good ol boy network kicks in.
Limerick on December 21, 2007 at 1:22 AM
Fred….stay in the race and fight it out. You need to surge hard.
msipes on December 21, 2007 at 1:30 AM
Yes, well, he clearly knows what he’s doing, far more than I do. I can’t seem to get my own blog going to save my life. Much more fun to comment on other people’s blogs for some reason. I even bought the URL “nutrootsnation.com” on a lark but have no idea what to do with it. So I’m certainly not telling Allah how to do his job!
I just didn’t want him to lose a massive number of clicks by pissing off a potentially large constituency of readers. It seems by today’s poll results that almost half of HA/MM readers who responded to the poll would like to vote for Fred. I should trust Allah to realize that himself, though, and play it right when the time comes. I’m sure he will. He always does. I often think he’s gone and stepped in it only to see that his loyal readership usually isn’t fazed in the least.
I’m sure readers liking AP doesn’t hurt the click-count, though. ;-)
aero on December 21, 2007 at 1:37 AM
Well if that does happen the fredheads will deserve it considering the horse crap everyone has had to put up with from them for the last 8 months.
csdeven on December 21, 2007 at 2:20 AM
My first reaction: say it ain’t so Fred – endorse McCain?
Then I see it is a prediction by Buchanan, who is always predicting the end of the world as we know it. Buchanan is always implying that I entagor will kiss the heels of the barbarian when they take our land. Kinda makes me feel underestimated
Yet he could be right, If he is I will concede to having been fooled yet another time.
On the mysterious AP, entelechy says
It is possible that AP is not a human being but a machine?
That would explain the superb indifference.
Mere Mortals vs Machine.
The chess game continues
entagor on December 21, 2007 at 3:29 AM
Nooooo! I love Fred!
emmaline1138 on December 21, 2007 at 3:53 AM
If Huckabee wins Iowa and Thompson finishes last then what we have here is confirmation that the Left is in control of the country’s political agenda and it’s a re-affirmation of the MSM’s power and dominance to influence the populace of the United States. Conservatives and Capitalism will have many hard times to come in the ensuing years.
Egfrow on December 21, 2007 at 3:55 AM
This is media hype. Huckabee is a leftist stalking horse for the Media to hype up.
Egfrow on December 21, 2007 at 3:56 AM
I don’t know, he looked like he wanted it tonight when I went to listen to him.
Gianni on December 21, 2007 at 4:08 AM
I just did the same my friend.
TheSitRep on December 21, 2007 at 5:44 AM
Fred: McCain-Feingold, letting Clinton slide.
No Republican is going to sit it out on Romney because he’s a Mormon. Democrats are the party of the anti-religion bigots, remember? And if they’d rather vote for a socialist then a Mormon, then America is dead, and the self-righteous evangelical windbags are to blame.
I really don’t know what gives them the gall to insult someone else’s religion considering theirs shifts with the societal tide. Here’s a hint: Every President that wasn’t John F Kennedy was a heretic vis-a-vis Catholic Doctrine. Only evangelicals seem to think heresy from the “personal relationship with Jesus” via protestantism is a factor for electability.
BKennedy on December 21, 2007 at 5:52 AM
[snark]
AP holds contempt for all that is HOLY and GOOD.
[/snark]
TheSitRep on December 21, 2007 at 5:55 AM
BKennedy on December 21, 2007 at 5:52 AM
It’s not the Mormonism that bothers me. It’s Romneycare, “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom”, his stance on immigration, and position against embryonic stem cell research that do it for me. I’ll sit out or vote 3rd party if Romney’s nominated.
Big S on December 21, 2007 at 6:09 AM
Well, I’m about 60/40 between Thompson and Romney, so if Thompson tanks, OK, I go with Romney, but I’d rather it be Fred.
Huckabee is a deal-breaker for me. If Huckabee gets the nomination, I vote Libertarian next November. I’d rather put up with President Hillary than spend another four years having people tell me they hate conservatives simply because they consider the Republican in the White House — with whom I disagree on more than a dozen major issues — as symbolic of “conservatism.”
If, more than 25 years after Reagan’s election, conservatives don’t even have enough clout to get a conservative nominated on the Republican ticket, that is a colossal failure.
Ali-Bubba on December 21, 2007 at 6:12 AM
Remember it well. There is no delusion worse than false hope, and Allah was the hope-killer, the prescient prophet of pessimism.
I sometimes disagree with Allah, but that man has a finely-tuned B.S. detector, and he never fell for that Karl Rove/Hugh Hewitt/Sean Hannity “the polls are all wrong” happy talk.
Anybody here remember Sean’s radio show on Election Day 2006? He was pumping up hope for the doomstruck Santorum. He was claiming the Senate seats in Ohio, Rhode Island and Minnesota were winnable. He even wasted time talking about that stupid write-in gimmick in Tom DeLay’s Texas district. The opening monologue was a classic of hope-hyping hackery. If hope was dope, Hannity was Pablo Escobar on Nov. 7, 2006.
Thank you, Allah, for your realistic hopelessness.
Ali-Bubba on December 21, 2007 at 6:28 AM
csdeven on December 21, 2007 at 2:20 AM
welcome back
mrfixit on December 21, 2007 at 7:08 AM
I’m a Fred supporter and if he supports McCain, I’ll wonder how sincere he was on all of “my” issues.
I DO NOT TRUST MCCAIN. PERIOD.
stenwin77 on December 21, 2007 at 7:12 AM
Dude. I sooooo want to sit on the other side of a Scrabble board with you!
thejackal on December 21, 2007 at 7:26 AM
Actually, a brokered convention equals a Giuliani/McCain ticket. The RNC has been in the bag for Rudy for the last couple years.
steveegg on December 21, 2007 at 7:44 AM
I would hope this isn’t the case (Fred endorsing McCain if he bows out). I can see it happening because they are friends, but come on!
McCain is great on the WOT (though I vehemently disagree with McCain’s take on torture), but I just can’t in good conscience vote for a guy who will sign amnesty. If Tanc is good for Mitt, then I guess I can be too if no Fred.
There’s no one else who has a shot in hell. I won’t vote for Huck, that’s for sure.
Darksean on December 21, 2007 at 7:45 AM
When you run out of money…you run out of votes. Can’t beat $1 million a week spending Mitt does.
I agree darksean, I didn’t like McCain on immigration, but then Mitt had the same views just a year ago. McCain is a little more honest about changing positions (he misread the public), but Mitt just lies about it never admits that he flip flops.
What a choice, a liar or a man out of touch…I think I will support the man out of touch, he can learn…the liar, well we have plenty of those to choose from, they just happen to be Dems.
right2bright on December 21, 2007 at 8:15 AM
Right2bright, I completely see your point and share much the same views. I will offer up two points though.
Romney is now talking tough on immigration. McCain really isn’t. I haven’t heard anything beyond him saying, “I got the message.”
Second, Romney got Tanc’s endorsement. We DO know how he feels about illegal immigration and how strongly he feels it. I believe that if Romney is good enough for him, he’s good enough for me (at least, BETTER than McCain, Huck and Giuliani).
I just wish Fred had money and better polling data.
Okay, one more point. I think that even if Romney doesn’t buy into a tough illegal immigration stance as we’d like, the conservative constituency will keep him in line BECAUSE he’ll want to be re-elected. I severely doubt President McCain would give a flip.
Darksean on December 21, 2007 at 8:24 AM
ROTL..Yup, you like AP or you hate him, but the one thing you do not do is ignore him.
doriangrey on December 21, 2007 at 8:33 AM
Hey… I’m a Fred Head and I don’t hate McCain. I don’t hate AP either, I just think his adulation of the Beatles and and John Lennon in particular is misplaced.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 21, 2007 at 8:43 AM
Pat Buchanan is a blow hard.
maverick muse on December 21, 2007 at 8:55 AM
Got that right.
I’m startin’ to wonder what it took to get Michelle, et al. to throw in with the open-border flip-floppin’ crowd??!
You folks REALLY think that Mitt can win?? You think he’ll REALLY close the borders?? He’s the biggest panderer out there- Jeez during the debates he looks like a deer in the headlights tryin’ to think what HE’S SUPPOSED TO SAY! He can’t even keep his lies straight anymore!
THE ONLY TIME MITT WINS IS WHEN HE’S THE ONLY ONE PLAYIN’! Folks DON’T LIKE him. And it AIN’T because he’s Mormon- It’s because he’s a plastic, flip-floppin’, lyin’, panderer!
AND, IF Mitt gets the nomination- HE WILL LOSE THE GENERAL. Ya think Hillary or Obama will close the Borders?
Michelle, Allah, Bryan- You’re pushin’ folks RIGHT into Huckabee’s arms- whether you know it or not.
Ex-tex on December 21, 2007 at 8:59 AM
And one more thing- Fred Will NEVER endorse McCain.
Ex-tex on December 21, 2007 at 9:00 AM
Ex, I hope you’ll get off the fence and tell us what you really think! LOL!
Seriously though, I’m intrigued by what you said and I’d like to ask you a question or two.
I have read your subtle inclination that you’re not a big fan of Mitt. I can also tell you want to actually close the borders. I would like you ask what your realistic, real-world solution is? By that I mean, who would you suggest conservatives put their support behind, a person who would not only do what you (we) hope, but also has a legitimate chance of winning the general election?
My point is, we’re not going to get what we ultimately want and might have to settle for what would be good enough. Who/what that is, I’m not entirely sure.
Darksean on December 21, 2007 at 9:04 AM
If Pat Buchenwald says it is true then it must be true. /sarcasm
Hilts on December 21, 2007 at 9:11 AM
“I would like to see him come back,” Wedel added
Those who meet Fred WANT him to stay, an endorsement from the public.
But HotAir propagandists belong to the groupies who promote whichever candidate has the most hair.
HotAir supports the offensive propaganda that money can buy conservative Republican votes, that to vote conservative Republican is loser mentality.
Yellow journalism stinks.
Besides donating directly to Fred’s campaign, I got some great memorabilia and gifts online at his sight–everything MADE IN THE USA.
Go, Fred!
maverick muse on December 21, 2007 at 9:15 AM
Hey there Dark- I’ve said before I don’t judge folks by what they say- I judge’em by what they do. Rudy, Mitt, McCain and Huck have ALL been open-border pro-illegal until, oh about 2 months ago, NOW they all got religion!
You think they have the strength of will to hold that position when the MSM and lib elite start poundin’ on’em?
When BIG BUSINESS wants ILLEGAL slave labor? I don’t.
I think Mitt is a lightweight that blows with the wind. I think in a one-on-one with Hillary or Obama he’d git creamed. BUT IF he did git elected POTUS- I think Mitt would tack left so fast it’d make yer head spin!
I’m with Rush- there is ONLY ONE REAL CONSERVATIVE in this race (not countin’ Duncan Hunter) and it’s FRED.
No matter WHAT you say about Fred- The man has the strength and courage of his convictions. If Fred tells you his position on somethin’ YOU CAN TAKE IT TO THE BANK!
You all go ahead and play your ‘political whose gonna wear the most hats and pander to the most folks’ games and you’re gonna earn us a real lib POTUS next time around no matter what happens.
Me- I’m gonna keep fightin’ for Fred. Because he’s the ONE I want to LEAD my beloved America!
Ex-tex on December 21, 2007 at 9:25 AM
Yeah, but the check always bounces, since Fred never gets off his duff to do anything about it.
Fred: “I support immigration reform! No illegals!”
2 years later:
Fred: “I support immigration reform! No illegals!”
Fred is a conservative only in the sense he has a pulse and a heartbeat. He doesn’t know the meaning of working hard for legislation. The only time he ever tried was McCain Feingold.
BKennedy on December 21, 2007 at 9:29 AM
Here is The analytical case for Fred, notice how high McCain scores.
bnelson44 on December 21, 2007 at 9:31 AM
Ex, I appreciate your conviction and I am with you! I want Fred, for the reasons you state.
BUT who would you vote for in the primary if he’s not on the ballot? I don’t know what state you’re in and if you’ll have a shot at voting for him but I live in PA and our useless primary isn’t until April. There’s a good chance for ME that he won’t even be on the ballot.
So, in the absence of Fred, who do you vote for? What do you consider when choosing? Do you take into account things such as viability in the general election? Who do you believe/trust more on illegal immigration than the others of those you mentioned?
Darksean on December 21, 2007 at 9:34 AM
So Pat Buchanan, the guy who puts Giuliani on a magazine cover as the next Hitler, is now a reliable source.
So Politico, the magazine shown to be as left slanted as Slate, whose recent coverage of Fred was proven to be extremely questionable if not seriously bent by video footage, is now a reliable source.
And Allah, I have a feeling, is not himself. This whole thread has gone without him posting in all caps, which leads me to believe other things are on his mind. When I see:
…I’ll know all(ahp) is well.
MadisonConservative on December 21, 2007 at 9:46 AM
Yeah, it’s been absolutely horrible they way they’ve been enthusiastic and hopeful about their candidate. I can’t believe we had to put up with crap like that! It’s been excruciating, and I can’t wait for them all to be taught a lesson about liking a candidate and having the unmitigated gall to say so in the comments of a blog! Cretins. They deserve to be reduced to tears and mocked mercilessly on the day their candidate pulls out of the race. I can’t wait!
aero on December 21, 2007 at 9:46 AM
Dark- EVERYTHING changes in the general. Whoever the 2 left standin’ are they’re gonna git EQUAL and BRUISIN’ treatment from ALL the media. I don’t see any of the current GOPers winnin’ except Fred (and maybe McCain) because they have STRENGTH OF CHARACTER and make folks feel good. Especially if it’s one-on-one with Hillary. (Oh-I do think Huck can beat Hillary because he WILL use the Christians against the Heathen MSM storyline.- I jus don’t want him for my POTUS)
But can I vote for John McCain? I don’t know if that’s possible for me. I don’t know if I trust him.
The others- not for me. I don’t trust’em as far as I kin throw’em.
Ex-tex on December 21, 2007 at 9:52 AM
You and your attacks on his wife’s looks weren’t missed.
MadisonConservative on December 21, 2007 at 9:55 AM
I’m not defending anti-Mormon sentiment in any way. But it’s real, and it’ll have an impact at the polls, mark my words. I’ve visited more than one fundamentalist church that strongly–strongly–lambasted Mormons in its regular Sunday service. Its always in the form of encouraging the congregation to “save” and convert Mormons, but it’s harshly prejudicial too. Exceedingly so. Shockingly so. The same people who are attracted to Huckabee just because he’s evangelical are the type of people who will absolutely refuse to vote for a Mormon just because he’s Mormon.
They likely won’t actively vote for the socialist. They’ll just stay home. Same effect, though–they’ll lose the election for us.
I repeat, it only takes a few hundred of these people in a key state like Florida staying home and we’re sunk.
I don’t like anti-Mormon bigots any more than you do, BK, but its silly to think they don’t exist in great enough numbers to have an impact. They unfortunately do. Remember all those “I’d never vote for a…” polls that Allah used to publish? There are a heck of a lot of people who said they’d never vote for a Mormon. A heck of a lot.
aero on December 21, 2007 at 9:56 AM
Tanc said that it was Mitt’s record was one of the reasons that made him endorse Mitt. No drivers licenses when he was governor and didn’t approve of in-state tuition and in Tanc’s words, “in a time where it wasn’t the right thing to do political. He’s got a record. I can at least count on that. For the other ones…it’s a flip of the coin”
Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 9:57 AM
Ex, thanks for the dialogue.
So, who WOULD you pull the lever for in the primary, sans Fred?
Darksean on December 21, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Actually, there are both Republicans who will sit out the election and Democrats who will vote against Mitt specifically because he is a Mormon. The number is unknown, but it is probably significant.
bnelson44 on December 21, 2007 at 10:03 AM
I don’t know that I’d pull it.
Ex-tex on December 21, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Correction: McCain is great on the Iraq War.
He is strong on one battlefield, but weak on the war in general. He fails the WOT because of his “But What Will The Terrorists Think Of Us!?!” thinking on rendition/Guantanamo/interrogation.
Lehosh on December 21, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Me neither. If we elect someone who does something that he’s done before in his history that we all hate, I’ll be glad to say I didn’t help put him in there particularly for that reason. Call it picky, but I’ve learned my lesson after the last eight years.
MadisonConservative on December 21, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Okay, BKennedy, here’s a Rasmussen article about people’s willingness or unwillingness to vote for a Mormon. 43% responded to the poll saying that they would NEVER vote for a Mormon. 43% of respondents. Pretty significant, yes? As Allah would say–Dude.
aero on December 21, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Lehosh, I think you’re right.
Ex-tex and Madison, the problem I have with that is that not voting will help the other side get in. You got to say you stood on principle and did the right thing, but in the meantime your taxes will go up, terror attacks will increase, and we’ll become the United States of Mexico.
Sucks all around!!
Darksean on December 21, 2007 at 10:13 AM
True, but square that with 50+% of men who would never vote for Hillary Clinton and 25% of women who wouldn’t.
After all, a generic woman candidate does well. Hillary Clinton? Not so much.
And I must say again, If the Republican base sits out 2008 because Mitt is a Mormon, then shame on us and shame on America. If that happens we seserve to lose, and the evangelical Protestants should shut their dirty mouths for the next decade after. I grow weary of their idiotic holy-rolling. “You have to be a Protestant or you can’t be president.” I hate being sacked every election with those morons, and I say that as a religious Catholic. Grow the *%&% up evangelicals, its not about being “born-again.”
BKennedy on December 21, 2007 at 10:19 AM
I’m a Fredhead, and I don’t hate McCain. I just think half of his policies are dead wrong. I respect and admire him, but Fred or Romney would be a much better president.
peski on December 21, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Just a process of elimination. Tancredo people now have to go somewhere (or nowhere). Fred people as well, so do you go Huckabee? Giuliani? Romney? or McCain. Up to you. Or stay home and cry in your gigantic pillows.
Fred can endorse whomever he wants, for me Rudy is my best choice, but I’d live with McCain or Romney… I guess =p
Dash on December 21, 2007 at 10:29 AM
“IF” and “Buchanan” are the key words here.
I’m sweating it for Fred. Everyone should be. We’ll see what comes out in the wash.
“IF” this is a worst case scenario, I would have to go with Mitt. “IF” it all comes down to Fred dropping out…GOD SAVE US ALL!
NickTx on December 21, 2007 at 10:29 AM
It’s the way it is. Notice no Jew has become President. The only Catholic was a Kennedy. And just replace the word “Mormon” with “Muslim” and see how far that gets you (although the circumstances are certainly more justifiable).
There are religions, and then there are religions that would not be good running the nation. This is an OLD, OLD debate, and it’s not going to change. Getting on a pedestal over it won’t help.
MadisonConservative on December 21, 2007 at 10:30 AM
There’s what should be, and there’s what IS. Two different things much of the time, I’m afraid.
Your youthful idealism is endearing in its way, though.
aero on December 21, 2007 at 10:33 AM
….well, except for the cursing out evangelicals for their beliefs part. Not so endearing, that.
aero on December 21, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Oh, puleeze. Citing Buchanan is akin to citing the Oblebum. Nice for a chat, but taken seriously? Naaaah.
Tennman on December 21, 2007 at 10:36 AM
No one is cursing out anybody for their beliefs… If anyone is getting cursed it’s because they’re electing a pope instead of a president.
Lehosh on December 21, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Lehosh, you misunderstand John McCain’s position on torture as it relates to the War on Terror. John McCain sees the War on Terror as having many facets — military, diplomatic, inelligence and ideological. With respect to the ideological battle, it is John McCain’s view that we have to distance ourselves from torture in order to define ourselves clearly as the good guys with the superior ideology. Remember that John McCain suffered from real torture while a P.O.W. during the Vietnam War, and his adversion to it stems from personal experience that tells him that America must not descend to such barbarity.
As for refraining from torture affecting the terrorist treatment of our own, one reason why the miliary is so adamant against using torture is the concern that the use of torture will undermine adherence to the laws of war that would otherwise restrain behavior as to captives. That is certainly true as to nation signatories to the Geneva Convention. You might question that as to terrorists who are fighting for Islamic jihad, but the standard military reaction that John McCain is expressing is still the same.
Phil Byler on December 21, 2007 at 10:39 AM
I agree with evangelical Christians on about 80-90% of social issues. It’s the “I won’t vote for a non-Protestant” part I could do without. Feel free to call me a papist heretic. Just don’t vote against me in an election solely because of that, especially if my opponent is antithetical to all of your social views and most if not all of your fiscal and foreign policy ones.
BKennedy on December 21, 2007 at 10:41 AM
I quote BKennedy:
And for the record, Lehosh, I also have a problem with those who are apparently choosing Huckabee solely based on his religion. But just like I don’t like seeing them say nasty anti-Mormon things, I also think we should tone down the anti-evangelical rhetoric. Yes, they’re being short-sighted. Calling them names is not likely to bring them back into the fold.
aero on December 21, 2007 at 10:48 AM
I don’t misunderstand his position at all. I think his position is absurd.
The idea that one should never use waterboarding – which at least half of my own family have been exposed to – on KSM to get information that will save lives is absurd. The idea that Al Qaeda is considering how we treat KSM before taking a power drill to their victims is absurd. The idea that any militants in Iraq are considering the ramifications of the Geneva Convention is absurd.
Lehosh on December 21, 2007 at 10:55 AM
By God, I love good ole’ non-PC common sense!
Ex-tex on December 21, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Exactly.
I’m a very chivilrous guy and am a stickler for gentlemanly conflict almost to a fault (just ask my former fencing instructors!). However, we are fighting something more asymmetrical than we ever have before.
Our good form won’t win us a single point with the enemy. In fact, it will hurt us as they will perceive us as weak. We need to DO MORE to protect our people and our allies. I’m ALL for waterboarding and I’m quite open to even more than that. With all of that we might start up in the arena of torture for intelligence procurement, it will STILL be light years better than what they will do to us and ours. We’ll still have our moral high ground, regardless of wha the anti-American UN says.
Darksean on December 21, 2007 at 11:02 AM
which iis why it really means something that the bllogosphere hates mccain for whatever reason.
jummy on December 21, 2007 at 11:06 AM
No real conservative should like McCain . Here are just a few reasons why…
opposition to tax cuts, McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14, the McCain-Kennedy immigration amnesty, and the McCain-Graham theatrics of September, 2008 which derailed many judicial nominations and GOP momentum into the 2006 vote, and questionable mental stability.
If conservatives start to get behind McCain they would be making a HUGH mistake!
davenp35 on December 21, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Why? Because we try to be positive and you enjoy being negative? I would have thought that kind of comment was beneath you. If you have disagreements with Fred Thompson on policy issues, that’s fine, and I’d like to hear them.
Connie on December 21, 2007 at 11:19 AM
I don’t hate him or any of the Republican candidates (though RP comes pretty close), but- large caliber gun to my head- I’d take McCain over Romney as lesser of evils.
As mentioned, Romney agreed with McCain on immigration as recently as 2006, and both have records of “compromise” when it comes to Republican principles. However, McCain is a fiscal conservative, where Romney is a fiscal moderate (at best) who hardly seems to have seen a federal spending program he doesn’t like.
Hollowpoint on December 21, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Let’s turn that around…
No real conservative should like Romney. Here are just a few reasons why:
Tax and fee increases as governor, support for more stringent campaign finance laws, favored McCain-Kennedy amnesty, believed that Roe v Wade should remain law, favors a new federal gun ban, favors spending on subsidies and corporate welfare, favors increasing entitlement spending, was once named in the “Top 10 RINOs” list by Human Events and has questionable honesty.
I don’t plan on voting for McCain- he’s betrayed us too many times- but let’s not pretend that he’s somehow less conservative than Romney, who’s shown ample willingness to betray conservative values when he thought he could benefit from doing so.
Hollowpoint on December 21, 2007 at 11:32 AM
I thought Hugh liked Romney…
MadisonConservative on December 21, 2007 at 11:38 AM
McCain’s stance on illegal immigration and mental instability is reason enough for me to say I would never vote for him (and I dare say most conservatives would agree with me). At least Romney has come around.
@MadisonConservative: HUGE…my bad
davenp35 on December 21, 2007 at 11:43 AM
I don’t think FredHeads hate anything except lying, spinning, flip-flopping, and space cadets.
Connie on December 21, 2007 at 11:45 AM
I’m kinda on the other side of the fence from most here. I could see myself voting for McCain…maybe…a little…Hmmmm.
I’m starting to think that he got schooled with the immigration amnesty. My only real potential dealbreaker is with McCain-Feingold. But then, every other candidate has a dealbreaker just as bad if not worse, so there you go.
JohnTant on December 21, 2007 at 11:51 AM
I don’t know that that is true. I do think McCain’s political convictions are much deeper than Romney’s, but he (JM) is more representative of himself then the conservative movement.
Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Go Git’im Connie! I think the Frednecks are some’a the nicest and most good tempered folks here!
Allah- You willin’ to throw this great country of ours to a lib or a flip-floppin panderer just to mess with the Fredheads?! Dude.
Ex-tex on December 21, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Call me a ReaganHead.
Who want’s to come after me?
Allah?
csdeven?
edgehead on December 21, 2007 at 12:09 PM
McCain’s shameless pandering on the watereboarding issue is the last straw for me. It is VERY debatable as to whether waterboarding is “torture”. It IS very effective, isn’t dangerous, and has saved American lives. In addition, making it an issue now is playing right into our enemy’s hands.
edgehead on December 21, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Tanc likes Romney.
Tanc’s campaign director? Not so much.
wccawa on December 21, 2007 at 12:18 PM
I’m no McCain fan, but my problems with him aren’t with his torture stand. Though I complete agree with the point as there is no moral equivalence between us and our enemies. If waterboarding is done (or was) as it is demonstrated on TV, yeah, no sweat. But if it is done by actually putting water into the lungs as it is otherwise elsewhere reported, then that is controlled drowning – ie controlled death, and philosophically a more difficult issue. Of course, that’s not the argument McCain makes, and I’m not versed enough in the facts to argue one side or the other. It does seem to have been effective though, and negates McCain’s principle objection that it doesn’t work. Though KSM confessed to everything upto and including putting Barney on the tube.
Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Clarity of thought trumps blow hard hot air.
bnelson44 on December 21, 2007 at 9:31 AM–GREAT LINK!
BobKrumm.com
The Analytical Case For Fred
Before adding $.02, follow the bnelson44 reference and read the complete candidate analyses rating national security, fiscal and social conservatism and electability.
maverick muse on December 21, 2007 at 12:28 PM
GREAT LINK! THANKS!
Now Ya’ll go donate to Fred08.com. Do it now. It’s NOT too late.
Ex-tex on December 21, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Predicted order in Iowa:
Mitt, Huck, McCain, Paul, Thompson, Giuliani.
I think Huck’s support in polls rose too quickly to be solid, especially in a caucus state. So I don’t think he’ll take it.
Mark Jaquith on December 21, 2007 at 12:40 PM
It is reasonable to think bloggers are better informed than the general public, but it’s hardly like people are required to listen to us. And there are problems with listening to bloggers. I doubt that the DailyKos people would help the average Democrat pick a good candidate. I could be wrong be wrong, but it strikes me that a saner lefty blogosphere would have pushed for Biden in the limited way Hotair pushed for Fred.
thuja on December 21, 2007 at 12:49 PM
You should note that rival campaigns have been pushing the “Fred’s dropping out” lie as underground “fact” for weeks now.
Not that Politico is any more reliable…
someone on December 21, 2007 at 1:02 PM
VIDEO: Fred Thompson responds to The Politico on the hat story. “”Just remember…we don’t raise our hands when we’re told to, and we don’t wear any hats, unless they’re our own.”
bnelson44 on December 21, 2007 at 1:18 PM
If gambling wouldn’t make me ineligible to vote, I’d find a way to gamble on that one.
My order:
Romney (too much money to not git-r-done)
Thompson (there’s something the pollsters are missing)
Huckabee (Huck-A-Boom)
Paul (see above)
Giuliani
McCain
steveegg on December 21, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Fred Dalton Thompson the next POTUS! Yeah baby.
Ex-tex on December 21, 2007 at 1:25 PM
The end of that video was awesome.
Go Fred!
arkansasmike on December 21, 2007 at 1:59 PM
During the Reagan Presidency there was a controversy about cutting down some huge redwoods. Reagan sided with the tree cutters and made a remark to the effect, ‘if you’ve seen one tree you’ve seen them all.’ There was quite an uproar to his words. Reagan backed down and the trees were not cut. I never forgot that.
Reagan wasn’t right about everything, but he did not go against the public when the public made a loud shout.
Compare that to Bush, and McCain who attempted to force through amnesty against public outrage multiple times
If Romney has a track record like Reagan of following public sentiment within the constraints of his moral beliefs at least he is not a despot.
The AP-Beatles connection has me scared. A typical Beatles fan is a shriveled Methusala with a long grey ponytail or a Cher-doo with white roots who thinks Woodstock just happened. Soon we will have nursing homes filled with them.
I believe the whole Beatles thing is a show to scare us. If we fear AP he controls us
entagor on December 21, 2007 at 2:16 PM
I predict:
HUCK WILL TANK ! THIS IS ALL MEDIA HYPE. THE POLLSTERS ARE PLAYING THE HUCK STUFF, TRYING TO CREATE THE ILLUSION and thus trying to shape the outcome.
Anyone who can’t see what a liberal, socialist Huck is, is just plain ignorant.
My Baptist minister father can see through this and evangelicals aren’t as stupid as the media thinks.
Remember the exit polls showing that Kerry won in 2004 ? Never forget – the media wanted to shape the outcome. They are scum !
stenwin77 on December 21, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Sent my contribution in yesterday. Maybe I should put in another contribution today. This makes me sick. You can all say I’m a poor sport but if I can’t vote for Hillary then I can’t vote for Mitt, Rudy, OR McCain.
1. Do you remember McCain vs. Bush? We got liberal lite. Now you want me to go with liberal strong?
2. If you’re pulling the lever for the guy you think has staying power because he’s got a boat load of money, then I see float your boat baby.
3. Let me add some perspective here: of ALL the candidates that are moderate, I’d hope for Mitt. But let’s all face facts, he can’t win the general. Here are some things to note along those lines…
a) Hillary through her hacks to moderates/Democrats while Mitt’s trying to enthuse Evanglicals to “get out the vote”: He’s plastic, robotic, canned, his hair doesn’t move. Did I mention he belongs to a cult-like religion?
b) Hillary through her hacks to conservatives and evangelicals: You know he really has liberal positions.
c) Think Rudy Mitt debate arguements: She’s gonna attack him big and he’ll just stand there like a doe in the headlights. He won’t fight back. And if he does think Hillary’s Senate campaign.
d) Remember Bill? Vast right wing conspiracy. evil militias, ruby ridge, Waco, or right wing radio.
Sultry Beauty on December 21, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Jesus Christ I swear to god you are the reason America deserves Ron Paul as president. Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. You don’t like Fred, but I swear to god I will vote for who ever you hate the most if Fred isn’t the nominee. America can either choose a true conservative or go up in flames as far as I am concerned. And I will personally light the match because of people like you and Allahpundit.
Suck it up baby, it what you deserve and will get…..
doriangrey on December 21, 2007 at 6:51 PM
I’m glad to see you have finally realized just how misguided you Fred supporters have been over the last 8 months. Several of you, to their credit, wised up after his September “announcement” and realized he has never been motivated to run properly. All his BS rhetoric designed to appeal to the snarky confrontational types has been evident to most of us for several months. We tried to educate his supporters, but they doggedly hung on like the Ron Paul supporters do with him. It doesn’t matter to them how many terrorists he helps, nor does it matter how many dictators he helps. They don’t care about McCain/Feingold and they bury their heads in the sand when his lies about being pro-choice are explained. He has no executive experience and he is lazy.
The guy is the worst candidate on either side, because a Fred nomination puts the dems in the Whitehouse.
I wonder if the supporters he has hoodwinked will be PO’d when Fred starts a PAC and funnels all the cash to his family? He has done it before and it’s entirely possible, and even likely, that he would do it again.
So, for the good of the country, Fred should just bow out and start establishing a new PAC and put his power hungry wife in charge of it. Then only those who were foolish enough to send him money will suffer because of his immoral personal habits.
csdeven on December 21, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »