Rasmussen: New national leader is … Maverick?

posted at 12:19 pm on December 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

Thus does our primary season come full circle. Ironically, just as he’s retaken the lead nationally, McCain’s looking like a loser again in New Hampshire. Both NBC and, ahem, ARG have Mitt back out in front in Iowa; if he wins there, he’ll have a boost in NH, where he’s still ahead of McCain by an average of five points. Not only that, but the independents Mac’s counting on to put him over the top probably won’t be there thanks to … Barack Obama, who’s lured so many unaffiliated New Hampshirites to register to vote in the Democratic primary that there simply aren’t many left to vote for Maverick. Long story short, if Mitt pulls it out in Iowa he’s probably going to pull out New Hampshire too, which in turn means he’ll likely run the table. Read this and tell me, how does that grab you?

One of the Fredheads, bless his heart, flagged the Rasmussen poll in another thread as cause for hope, noting that Fred’s only five points behind the leader. Um, he’s been at 12 percent or so for weeks now, guys. It’s not that he’s gaining, it’s that the leaderboard keeps shuffling around him. And in four days, someone’s going to be out to a big lead. Unless Fred surprises in Iowa, it won’t be him.

To see just how dirty it’s gotten, check this out. I wonder, which Romney opponent is the likeliest suspect in an attack based on religion? Hmmm. Oh, and be sure to read this, too. If anyone’s choosing their primary candidate based on electability, you had better start factoring Bloomberg into your calculations. Personally, I’m not at all sure that Mitt would do better in a three-way race than Huck would. Exit quotations, care of the NYT’s latest profile of our “Christian leader”:

“It’s gone,” said Ed Rollins, who once worked as President Reagan’s political director and recently became Mr. Huckabee’s national campaign chairman. “The breakup of what was the Reagan coalition — social conservatives, defense conservatives, antitax conservatives — it doesn’t mean a whole lot to people anymore.”

“It is a time for a whole new coalition — that is the key,” he said, adding that some part of the original triad might “go by the wayside.”…

“My fantasy out of this race is that Huckabee will create another Christian Coalition,” said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, recalling the group that grew out of Pat Robertson’s 1988 campaign and became a political force for much of the next decade. “If you could have the equivalent of the Christian Coalition, it would be a bulwark for the Goldwater-Reagan wing of the party.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

ARG seems to always be an outliner

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 12:24 PM

I still say Mitt is a weak general election candidate for a lot of reasons, including his faith. If we run Mitt in the general, then say good morning to a Democratic president in 2009.

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 12:26 PM

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 12:26 PM

I’m inclined to agree.

Allahpundit on December 30, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Ok it is down to it it is time for all the pundidts (MM, Brian and Alahpundit) show their card, who wins Iowa and in what order!

KBird on December 30, 2007 at 12:27 PM

McCain – aka – ‘McQueed’ is a dangerous man.

Unstable – dishonest – disloyal.

No way this man survives this election – no way.

jake-the-goose on December 30, 2007 at 12:28 PM

We don’t know this Bloomberg guy out west here. Just who is he likely to pull votes from?

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 12:29 PM

As a Fred guy, I appreciate his approach to the election in so much as hes not doing and saying anything to get the election. If the people want him they will vote for him, unfortunately for Fred, its money and campaigning that wins elections.

So long Fred, it was a nice ride bro. See ya on Law and Order.

broker1 on December 30, 2007 at 12:30 PM

We don’t know this Bloomberg guy out west here. Just who is he likely to pull votes from?

No one knows Romney either and he’s poised to sweep to the nomination. Money buys votes. And few people have as much as Bloomberg.

Allahpundit on December 30, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Grover Norquist – “If you could have the equivalent of the Christian Coalition, it would be a bulwark for the Goldwater-Reagan wing of the party.”

Huh?

But by the early ’90s, there could be no doubt: Goldwater damned the Religious Right at every opportunity, spoke out for abortion rights, and not only supported letting gays serve openly in the military, but even lent his name to an effort to pass federal anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals.

MB4 on December 30, 2007 at 12:39 PM

broker1

I think you’re right. I’ve grown to like Fred Thompson after looking at what he has to say and what he stands for. He’s a simple, common sense, non-nonsense kind of guy…just the kind of guy we need in office (IMO). He fudged the process though – which makes you wonder…Is that person that we need in office electable? If not, how sad is our nation and our political setup?

Dog and pony..

ApartforHaShem on December 30, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Politics is as much about symbolism as it is about candidates. And that is why things are in such a state of flux in the Republican feild.

If I was to say the candidates names and ask you to give a one word reply that is a symbol not an adjective (be honest first thought that pops up) what would you say about each candidate ?

But for many this seems to be the symbol
Huckabee – Christian
Mitt – Money
Guiliani – 9/11
Thompson – Actor
Hunter – Unknown
Paul – ? (Paul means different things to different people)

SO based on those symbols who do you think does well ?

William Amos on December 30, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Grover Norquist – “If you could have the equivalent of the Christian Coalition, it would be a bulwark for the Goldwater-Reagan wing of the party.”

Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell’s ass.
- Barry Goldwater

MB4 on December 30, 2007 at 12:42 PM

MB4-

If people remember correctly, Goldwater actually supported Gerald Ford in the primary against Reagan. Goldwater was never much of a Reagan guy…Reagan was a Goldwater was the stepping stone for Reagan’s turn from Democrat to Republican.

ApartforHaShem on December 30, 2007 at 12:42 PM

I still say Mitt is a weak general election candidate for a lot of reasons, including his faith. If we run Mitt in the general, then say good morning to a Democratic president in 2009.

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Yup. With all the video the Dem have of Mitt flip-floppin’ and outright lyin’ he’s toast in the general.

Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Grover Norquist – “If you could have the equivalent of the Christian Coalition, it would be a bulwark for the Goldwater-Reagan wing of the party.”

I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don’t hurt anyone else in the process.

The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others.

I don’t have any respect for the Religious Right.
- Barry Goldwater

MB4 on December 30, 2007 at 12:46 PM

Closes eyes.. imagines making calls for the eventual Republican nominee…

“Mr. Smith? I’m calling to encourage you to get out and vote for tomorrow.

As you know, embody everything that conservatives stand for. I fully support with all my heart. And so, in conclusion…”

Ugh.

Dude. I can NOT do it. I just can’t. The Repubs will have to dance without me this year unless Fred gets the nod. It just makes me sick.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Like Rush said “redefining conservatism”. On Bloomberg, he has some inovative policies. One for example is pay-the-poor.

25 bucks to see a doctor
150 bucks if your child has 95% attendance record
25 bucks to attend PTA meetings
100 bucks to get a job
400 bucks for each child to graduate

Im kind of torn, its a twist of the welfare state, but it might get people off the welfare rolls.

broker1 on December 30, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Dang. Something went kablooey on that post. It was supposed to have (McCain/Romney/Giuliani/Huckabee/Paul) inserted at several points. Sorry.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 12:48 PM

Dude. I can NOT do it. I just can’t. The Repubs will have to dance without me this year unless Fred gets the nod. It just makes me sick.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 12:47 PM

agreed

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 12:50 PM

Im kind of torn, its a twist of the welfare state, but it might get people off the welfare rolls.

broker1 on December 30, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Uhm, no it won’t. It will enslave them to the state forever.

SouthernGent on December 30, 2007 at 12:51 PM

Romney’s in for a tough general, but so would every Republican. But if Bloomberg does come in, I still don’t think any Republican is hurt, and with a NE Republican, the eastern seaboard is potentially up for grabs. Just gotta hold down the Red states… and a Giuliani VP could very well scramble the Blue map pretty radically.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Same Rassmussen poll:

Among those likely to take part in the Iowa Republican caucuses, 67% now have a favorable opinion of Huckabee. That’s down from 81% a week ago and 76% in late November. The number with a Very Favorable opinion has fallen from 51% to 38% over the past week.

Romney is viewed favorably by 73%, Thompson by 77%, and McCain by 63%. That last figure reflects a six-point gain for McCain.

Just 58% now have a favorable opinion of Giuliani. That reflects a continuing downward trend from 74% a month ago.

LOOK who’s got the Highest FAVORABLES!!! Go Fred!

Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 12:55 PM

If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet, they could do us in. When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Well, I’ve spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ‘Old Conservatism.’ And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength. Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in northern Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?

The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, less the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.
- Barry Goldwater

MB4 on December 30, 2007 at 12:59 PM

I’m not trying to hijack this thread, but here’s Fred’s transcript from Fox this morning. And an interesting piece from ABC.

I didn’t know where else to post it.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 1:01 PM

“If you could have the equivalent of the Christian Coalition, it would be a bulwark for the Goldwater-Reagan wing of the party.”

GAG!

No way is that prostitution the Goldwater-Reagan legacy.

maverick muse on December 30, 2007 at 1:03 PM

I’m not trying to hijack this thread …

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Don’t worry. I’m quite sure csdeven, bkennedy, and Tommylotto will be here soon enough to claim it as their own.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 1:06 PM

LOOK who’s got the Highest FAVORABLES!!! Go Fred!

Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 12:55 PM

All do respect, I have a high favorable view of the Queen of England. I wouldn’t vote for her, even if she could run.

MB4 on December 30, 2007 at 12:39 PM

Yeah, I didn’t get Rollins’ comment, either.

amerpundit on December 30, 2007 at 1:10 PM

OK….I am stupid….wasn’t McCain involved in legislation to put up ‘toll boths’ on the internet & take away internet freedom??
signed: the peasant underground

lobosan5 on December 30, 2007 at 1:14 PM

I’m not trying to hijack this thread, but here’s Fred’s transcript from Fox this morning. And an interesting piece from ABC.

I didn’t know where else to post it.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Thanks for the link. What a refreshing change.
Go Fred! The polls I’m seein’ are puttin’ Fred in 3rd in Iowa. But the MSM is pullin’ out all the stops to convince voters that he’s not even in the race.

I think he’s gonna surprise ‘em.

Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Yeah wow this was a lot to digest.

McCain: I know nobody wants to hear it but could do worse and I think people are realizing there is a lot of worse out there. I like him on foreign policy and uh.. well ok he’s not great but he’s not terrible.

Mitt: Loss for the republicans in the general, not that anyone is a “win”. I’m not seeing his appeal.

Fred: Whatever. Gimme a break with Fred. Good guy, I like him but doesnt have my vote. VP sure but too little too late.

Seriously that NYT profile blew my mind. That’s the Goldwater Reagan legacy? Yikes. I was a political neophyte for the Reagan years but that’s not why I liked him. Strength, less government, personable, fair, likable, positive, American.

Christian coalition. Gimme a break with that.

Dash on December 30, 2007 at 1:15 PM

According to Rasmussen the trends are as follows:

McCain trending up
Huck trending down
Rudy trending down
Fred running even
Romney regaining lost ground

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 1:18 PM

No one knows Romney either and he’s poised to sweep to the nomination.

I just don’t buy that. Romney’s too slick, too polished, too smooth. What’s more, he doesn’t so much look Presidential as he looks like a guy that might play the President in a B movie.

Forget religion. I think you’re way underestimating just how much many people do not like this guy.

Typhoon on December 30, 2007 at 1:18 PM

“Watch Out for McCain” [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Susan Estrich: “There was a consensus, among the Dems anyway, about the Republican race. Watch out for McCain. He’s coming back. And if and when he does, he’s the strongest candidate they’ve got.”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjgwZDBhMzA0YWE1M2RkMWIyYTBhN2QxY2M0ZTQyMGQ=

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 1:19 PM

I think we need to ask ourselves, “Do we really want to win this election?”

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 1:21 PM

In the democratic party is a strong wish for an outside candidate to step in and be the nominee and many wish it to be Gore

So who do we have not in the race we’d like see step in if huck starts to win ?

William Amos on December 30, 2007 at 1:25 PM

All do respect, I have a high favorable view of the Queen of England. I wouldn’t vote for her, even if she could run.

amerpundit on December 30, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Yeah, I see you working. The common practice seems to be to vote for the candidate furthest from what you believe. It’s become sort of a sport. Everyone simply wants to be on the side of the winner, rather than picking someone they actually believe represents their views.

Good luck with that. Hope your kids thank you for it in about 10 years.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Good guy, I like him but doesnt have my vote.

Dash on December 30, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Makes sense to me. Instead, vote for the guy who’s NOT a good guy. Because he can win, right?

You people blow my mind.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Good luck with that. Hope your kids thank you for it in about 10 years.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 1:27 PM

You’re equating a “no” vote on Fred to be a vote that will haunt us in 10 years? That’s, uh, sad.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 1:35 PM

VDH: McCain / Thompson ’08 ?

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 1:37 PM

I think we need to ask ourselves, “Do we really want to win this election?”

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 1:21 PM

Not if we win with someone who ran a magnet sanctuary city for illegal invaders of America.

Not if we win with someone who thinks that those who do not want to pay for tuition breaks for illegal are “un-American, un-Christian and anti-life”.

Not if we win with someone who wants to have a serf class to “do the jobs that Americans are too lazy to do”.

I would rather a democrat be elected and Republicans in congress would then be the opposition to selling out America to plantation owners.

MB4 on December 30, 2007 at 1:38 PM

I think that sometimes we forget that come the general EVERYTHING CHANGES.

It’s kinda like a fresh start for the two nominees. They pretty much both start with the backing of 50% of the voters. That’s the good news.

THEN two things matter:

1.For the next 6-9months the media goes after ‘em. And it’s ugly.
2.The other important thing is the one-on-one tv debates.

So you ask yourself, who can the DEMs and the lefty MSM make look the WORST??
Rudy, Mitt, and Huck got REAL BIG PROBLEMS in this area. Video of cross-dressin’, flip-floppin’ and nutty religious statements(I’m referrin’ to Huck here) are gonna KILL US with these 3.

When it comes to the debates- it’s Fred, McCain, and Rudy are the best because they look like tough strong father-figure types. Any of these 3 would make Hillary look like a small,weak shrew. All 3 would make Obama look young, weak and inexperienced.

Mitt plays terribly in the debate format. He looks like a deer-in-the-headlights trying to find the right pandering answer.

Remember the GOP nominee WILL have the backing of Foxnews, WSJ, Rush, National Review, etc. no matter who it is.

I think our BEST hope is Fred, because in the GENERAL he’s the best choice with the least baggage.
McCain can win too. I just don’t want him.

Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 1:38 PM

Maybe the best thing to happen to the Repubs is four years of Hillary/Obama/Silky Pony. Let’s just friggin’ destroy the RINO party and start over.

It’s gonna happen anyway- in fact, it’s probably happening right now.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 1:39 PM

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Don’t give up yet, son. Not one vote’s been cast. The good guys in the white hats are gonna ride in. Just watch (and pray)

Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 1:44 PM

You’re equating a “no” vote on Fred to be a vote that will haunt us in 10 years?

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Yes, I am. Any other vote is a vote for a fraud and a vote for a candidate who has a history of liberal policies. If you’re a conservative, a vote for any of these candidates is a vote to move your Party even further to the left. IF you’re a conservative, you should absolutely refuse to vote for any other candidate.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 1:45 PM

Here’s an Interesting article that kind of sums up the whole thread, candidate by candidate.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 1:45 PM

I agree 100%.

Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Commercials = Propaganda

Neither commercials nor propaganda ever solved a damn problem.

Common sense works. Vote Fred.

One thing to be seen from Ron Paul’s financial backing, there are disgruntled Republicans, very unhappy with status quo quasi-demo RHINOs and feable-brained pseudo spiritual leaders, thoroughly disgruntled with the MSM and willing to fork out to make a difference. I do wonder, though, if his intake is truly legitimate.

maverick muse on December 30, 2007 at 1:51 PM

RED MEAT for Fredheads.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 1:53 PM

There is no way that either Mitt or Huck can face down either Obama or Osama.

maverick muse on December 30, 2007 at 1:53 PM

maverick muse on December 30, 2007 at 1:53 PM

True. I would say the same for Fred… not enough on the resume.

I kinda like a McCain / Thompson ticket though.

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 2:00 PM

We don’t know this Bloomberg guy out west here. Just who is he likely to pull votes from?

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 12:29 PM

I don’t know that much about Bloomberg, only that he’s liberal nanny-stater, so based on that alone my opinion is that if Republicans nominate a liberal nanny-stater, which seems likely, Bloomberg will probably draw from both Democrats and Republicans. It’s hard to know in what proportion.

However, if Republicans nominate a conservative Bloomberg will probably split the liberal vote and benefit the conservative candidate.

FloatingRock on December 30, 2007 at 2:00 PM

So Ex-tex and Gregor are the FredHeads. Noted.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 2:02 PM

So Ex-tex and Gregor are the FredHeads. Noted.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 2:02 PM

And Vizzini is either not a conservative, or a conservative who doesn’t feel it’s important to stand on his convictions.

As long as “we” win, right?

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 2:02 PM

nothin’ gets past you, vizzini.

Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 2:08 PM

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Susan Estrich strongly believes Hillary to be the best choice for the future of this country. In light of that, it’s tough for me to put much faith in her analysis of the GOP race. I believe Democrats, especially those in the media, are prone to misjudging Republicans, (in particular when it comes to the influence of religion). Estrich likes to think of herself as some sort of pioneer in religion-politics: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316257,00.html I tend to think of her as fundamentally confused. She thinks she understands conservatism and the role of religion. Google her pieces and draw your own conclusions. Hell, if Democrats really understood conservatism, they’d be Republicans, right?

True. I would say the same for Fred… not enough on the resume. bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 2:00 PM

I don’t think Mitt’s resume is the problem. In fact I think his resume makes everyone else look like an amateur, but maybe I’m putting too much stock in the business background than others. I certainly don’t see Rudy, Huck, or Thompson as superior to Mitt in this regard, nor McCain insofar as one values senate experience (which I most certainly do not, especially with McCain’s recent history). I believe the only thing holding Mitt back is the fact that so many believe he’s simply not the genuine article. Were it not for the appearance of pandering, I don’t think so many would take issue with the prospect of a Mitt nomination. Thoughts?

Medicated on December 30, 2007 at 2:16 PM

Dang, folks — gregor, wccawa — elections aren’t held in a vacuum. Please tell me the candidate on the Dem side that leaves you wondering if you could support our nominee?

As always, this is a race between nothing — the Dems — and whomever we choose. Yeah, our choices are mostly flawed, but they beat all hell out of the lib option.

Hillary? She’s the most hated politician in recent memory.
Obama? He’s the student council race novelty choice. He has never accomplished anything.
Edwards couldn’t get re-elected to the Senate in his home state.
OK, I’ll grant you that if Biden runs against Huckabee I give serious thought to putting Greasy Joe in the Oval Office. But that’s it.

Jaibones on December 30, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Both NBC and, ahem, ARG have Mitt back out in front in Iowa; if he wins there, he’ll have a boost in NH,

Tom Tancredo’s endorsement may or may not have thrown many votes into Romney’s camp but Tom thinks its Mitt who could go all the way.

I’m sure Mitt’s personal cash stash was part of the reason for that belief.

Speakup on December 30, 2007 at 2:22 PM

Medicated on December 30, 2007 at 2:16 PM

Estrich is telling you who the Democrats fear running against them and who they think would be an easy target.

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Thanks guys. Just wanted to make sure I wasn’t taking you as unbiased and uninvested.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 2:25 PM

As long as “we” win, right?

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Kind of like Iraq.

Sis, boom, bah, go team!

Win! Win! Win!

Win what?

Oh shut up. Who cares what we win as long as we win!

MB4 on December 30, 2007 at 2:26 PM

Dang, folks — gregor, wccawa — elections aren’t held in a vacuum. Please tell me the candidate on the Dem side that leaves you wondering if you could support our nominee?
Jaibones on December 30, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Excuse me for buttin’ in,
Jailbones, Sometimes it’s not just about winning. Sometimes it’s about seein’ what 8 years of RINO leadership is like AND REFUSING TO GO THERE AGAIN.

Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 2:26 PM

Dang, folks — gregor, wccawa — elections aren’t held in a vacuum. Please tell me the candidate on the Dem side that leaves you wondering if you could support our nominee?

At the moment, I could care less who the other side puts up. This isn’t about that.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 2:29 PM

At the moment, I could care less who the other side puts up. This isn’t about that.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 2:29 PM

I thought it was about electing our guy the President of the United States. Do you have some other goal in mind?

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 2:32 PM

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 2:23 PM

I’m not arguing otherwise, I’m saying that her assessment of what makes an easy target is flawed. She puts far too much stock in anti-mormon bias and thinks that Republicans are led on a leash by religious conservatives. She sees a democratic victory as an inevitibility and I just don’t share the sentiment.

Medicated on December 30, 2007 at 2:34 PM

You’re equating a “no” vote on Fred to be a vote that will haunt us in 10 years?

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Yes, I am. Any other vote is a vote for a fraud and a vote for a candidate who has a history of liberal policies. If you’re a conservative, a vote for any of these candidates is a vote to move your Party even further to the left. IF you’re a conservative, you should absolutely refuse to vote for any other candidate.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 1:45 PM

Joseph Smith wept. You gotta be kidding. What are you people doing?

Some of you honestly believe that if I don’t vote for Fred – for Fred and only Fred – I’m not a conservative?

Oh – and if I don’t support Flip-Flop Romney, I’m an anti-Mormon bigot?

Yet if I speak out against actual anti-Mormon bigotry, I’m being too politically correct?

If I vote for Giuliani – I’m in favor of illegal immigration?

No middle ground? No gray area? No complexities at all? No compromise? Vote Fred! Or you’re a liberal!?!?

This really has to stop, gentlemen (and ladies). This endless ugliness and painfully embarrassing spin really has got to stop.

All of the candidates – even Flip-Flip, even Huckabee, even Paul – are generally descent, accomplished men.

All of them have rather obvious pluses and minuses, pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages.

To call each other names, to insist that support (or non-support) for Candidate X means that you are (insert childish overly generalized insult here) is just beyond stupid.

Good people support Fred. Good people support Mitt. Good people oppose both. Good people even support Paul, if only for the blimp.

Every last one of the candidates is better than Hillary or Edwards or Obama.

I repeat: what are you people doing?

Dang, folks — gregor, wccawa — elections aren’t held in a vacuum. Please tell me the candidate on the Dem side that leaves you wondering if you could support our nominee?

As always, this is a race between nothing — the Dems — and whomever we choose. Yeah, our choices are mostly flawed, but they beat all hell out of the lib option.

Jaibones on December 30, 2007 at 2:20 PM

A voice of sanity in the swirling madness.

I’m going to go drink now and watch the Redskins lose. Pull your heads out of your asses, quit spinning every last thing, and get your eyes on the ball.

By the way, if you don’t root for the Cowboys, you’re a communist.

Peace out, kids. I have got to stay away from here until the primaries are over. And you people need to start drinking.

Professor Blather on December 30, 2007 at 2:34 PM

An observation: If they’re flailing, they’re probably FredHeads.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Thanks guys. Just wanted to make sure I wasn’t taking you as unbiased and uninvested.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 2:25 PM

Huh? What a stupid comment.

“Unbiased?”

Are we not supposed to “choose” a candidate? Are we supposed to simply accept whoever comes along? Are we not supposed to care?

“Uninvested?”

It’s the future of the country. I’d call that an investment every person should have at the top of their portfolio. Many HotAir readers don’t seem to think so. They see the election as sort of a fantasy football game, where you grab the candidate you think will give you the most points and then you win a prize at the end if you happened to have chosen the guy who ultimately scores the most points.

I’ve got news for you. It’s not a game and the person you elect to represent our Party is most likely going to dictate which direction the Party, and the country goes in the future. The fact that every candidate other than Fred is a liberal hack … I would hope that would be enough for most conservatives to make the right choice.

Apparently not.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 2:37 PM

IF they are self flagulating then they are paulies

William Amos on December 30, 2007 at 2:38 PM

I thought it was about electing our guy the President of the United States. Do you have some other goal in mind?

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 2:32 PM

“Our guy?” Why don’t you put on a dress and grab some pom poms?

Do you really think Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani are conservatives? If not, how are they “are guys?”

If you do, then you’re not paying attention.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Come’on now Professor- if you’re gonna attack someone’s statement then ya gotta attack it FAIR. Gregor never said that if you don’t vote Fred you’re not conservative. He said…

If you’re a conservative, a vote for any of these candidates is a vote to move your Party even further to the left.

And I happen to agree. You can be a conservative and vote for whoever you want too. For whatever reason you want too.

You gotta stop gittin’ yer panties all twisted up. Nobody is sayin’ you’re not conservative okay?

And, I DO root fot the cowboys (and FDT), so that means I’m not a communist. Thank God, I was worried there for a minute.

Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 2:43 PM

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Sorry, calling me a RINO or, alternatively, an unprincipled voter doesn’t raise your credibility as an arbiter of good policy and politics. Or maybe it’s because you are just so gosh darned clairvoyant, Gregor, that I just can’t get past my own bias against wanting to win with a candidate — (almost) any candidate — that would govern conservatively than lose with a candidate whose popularity was almost entirely Net-based, and as we’ve cover to discover, almost entirely illusory.

I would hope that would be enough for most conservatives to make the right choice.

Apparently not.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 2:43 PM

Im kind of torn, its a twist of the welfare state, but it might get people off the welfare rolls.
broker1 on December 30, 2007 at 12:47 PM

What’s positive about Bloomberg’s approach is that it is incentive-based, which has been anathema to a lot of Dems.

dedalus on December 30, 2007 at 2:44 PM

Some of you honestly believe that if I don’t vote for Fred – for Fred and only Fred – I’m not a conservative?

Professor Blather on December 30, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Not true. Didn’t say that and I’d appreciate it if you don’t misrepresent my words.

Earlier, I said …

And Vizzini is either not a conservative, or a conservative who doesn’t feel it’s important to stand on his convictions.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 2:07 PM

I’ll assume you just missed the part in bold.

Then, in the comment you posted I had said …

If you’re a conservative, a vote for any of these candidates is a vote to move your Party even further to the left. IF you’re a conservative, you should absolutely refuse to vote for any other candidate.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 1:45 PM

I don’t believe anyone has suggested what you just claimed.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Tom Tancredo’s endorsement may or may not have thrown many votes into Romney’s camp but Tom thinks its Mitt who could go all the way.

I’m sure Mitt’s personal cash stash was part of the reason for that belief.

Speakup on December 30, 2007 at 2:22 PM

Don’t forget all those post election administrative appointments Mitt would make. NTTAWWT. Iraquis aren’t the only ones who like a strong horse. However, if Tanc was wrong on horsepower, he may have some time on his hands for the next four years.

a capella on December 30, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Professor Blather – very well said! I will vote for and strongly support Thompson, Romeny, Giuliani — if any one of them win the nomination.

I will not support — financially or any other way, except with my grudging, through gritted teeth, vote — McCain.

Ron Paul has no chance of winning the nomination.

centralcal on December 30, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Hey Gregor- do ya think csdeven changed his name?

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 2:43 PM

Sure sounds like him. Always sayin’ people are callin’ him names.

Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Yup, I’m csdeven.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Sure sounds like him. Always sayin’ people are callin’ him names.

Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 2:51 PM

No. Csdeven actually attempts to make points and doesn’t resort to name calling or insults alone. Vizzini really doesn’t say much of anything, other than suggesting that anyone voting for Fred is deemed biased and therefore should be discounted.

I guess we should assume Vizzini doesn’t have ANY candidate in mind, and is therefore “un-biased” and should be regarded as the ultimate all-knowing genius on such matters as elections.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 3:04 PM

I guess we should assume Vizzini doesn’t have ANY candidate in mind, and is therefore “un-biased” and should be regarded as the ultimate all-knowing genius on such matters as elections.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 3:04 PM

I’m glad you’re finally seeing it my way!

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 3:09 PM

VDH: McCain / Thompson ‘08 ?

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 1:37 PM

McCain/Thompson is an old, lethargic, tired-looking ticket.

The sad truth that should have been revealed forty-some years ago by the Kennedy election is that the American people prefer a candidate who appears full of youth, vigor, and poise over one who is old and saggy and tired-looking.

And that was half a century ago — how much MORE superficial is our voting population NOW?

Look for a McCain/Thompson ticket to be whipped like a slave in Khufu’s Egypt by the Democrats’ younger-looking ticket (ANYONE looks younger than those two).

Harpazo on December 30, 2007 at 3:14 PM

I’m glad you’re finally seeing it my way!

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 3:09 PM

It doesn’t seem you HAVE a way. Your plan seems to be to simply wait and see who wins the nomination and then run out and cast your vote for that person, regardless of what they stand for.

Makes sense to me.

I bet you’re a Patriots fan, and you were probably a Colts fan last year. Or are you going to wait until after the Superbowl to decide which team is yours?

You wouldn’t want to seem “biased” by making up your mind before the winner is announced.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 3:16 PM

RED MEAT for Fredheads.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Great video, thanks.

This portion is the reason I support Fred, (because I trust him):

“And these principles are the foundation of the conservative movement that I’ve been faithful to throughout my adult life. These are not principles I decided on a few years ago. They are not concepts that I learned from a focus group. And they’re not ideas I came up with to curry favor or to win an election. These principles are a part of who I am….”

FloatingRock on December 30, 2007 at 3:16 PM

bnelson44 on December 30, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Giving McCain full reign? I prefer Thompson at the helm, not allowing McCain full opportunity to relapse.

McCain’s political alliances are with Senate Democrats. If McCain got the ticket, he’d ask for Lieberman to join him.

maverick muse on December 30, 2007 at 3:17 PM

They are not concepts that I learned from a focus group. And they’re not ideas I came up with to curry favor or to win an election. These principles are a part of who I am….”

FloatingRock on December 30, 2007 at 3:16 PM

What?! You mean we shouldn’t just vote for the guy who “looks Presidential?” We have to actually think about who represents our values?

Csdeven, Tommylotto, and BKennedy won’t know what to do now.

DOH!

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 3:19 PM

“And these principles are the foundation of the conservative movement that I’ve been faithful to throughout my adult life. These are not principles I decided on a few years ago. They are not concepts that I learned from a focus group. And they’re not ideas I came up with to curry favor or to win an election. These principles are a part of who I am….”

Fred has admitted he has had a change when he saw the sonogram of his daughter. He also was for 1st trimester abortion in 1994. Those are changes in his principles. He has also regretted CFR. Another change in principle or an admission of seriously poor judgment? Then we have his lobbying and lawyering associations. He doesn’t regret them, so maybe his presidency will consist of more of those types of associations that he will explain as his “personal life”?

Gregor, those are serious thoughtful consideration of Fred’s qualifications as President. He would also have to learn how to be an executive during a very volatile time in our history. Would he be so overwhelmed with foreign policy that the domestic issues would be neglected? What about this Abrhams guy? Is he going to be an adviser? There are lots of accusations that he is an open boarders type.

In the final examination, Fred is in a weak 4th place in Iowa, and is nowhere in NH. Haven’t Huck and Mitt passed him in SC also? People see him as an extremely weak candidate and I doubt a general election matchup with any of the dems is gonna change that.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Dang, folks — gregor, wccawa — elections aren’t held in a vacuum. Please tell me the candidate on the Dem side that leaves you wondering if you could support our nominee?
Jaibones on December 30, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Excuse me for buttin’ in,
Jailbones, Sometimes it’s not just about winning. Sometimes it’s about seein’ what 8 years of RINO leadership is like AND REFUSING TO GO THERE AGAIN.

Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 2:26 PM

If you’re upset because your boy is losing then I can understand your anger. If you and others mean what you say on here and are in fact the biggest cynics on the face of planet Earth, then the Republican Party is indeed done, but not because we nominate people who don’t fit the mold of a perfect conservative, but because people like you allow liberals to make progress just because you’re pissed off. Why do you think there has been a shake up in the LP. Because the purist Liibertarians were being stupid. They put purity over victory and gradual progress. I live in San Diego and get mad all the time at what Schwarzenegger does. But he is 100% beter than having a straight up liberal as governor. A two year old is logical enough to see that partial progress is better than no progress. Sitting out the election like a spoiled brat may be what some people who comment on here want to do, but if you actually do sit it out, YOU will be the one I blame if the party doesn’t win in the general. I’m not trying to attack you personally, but some people on here need to wake up. At least think about what I’m saying.

davenp35 on December 30, 2007 at 3:38 PM

We will Never never never never NEVER FORGET, McCain! Never!that you paired with Kennedyto shove that Amnesty bill down our throats! We did not want it but you knew better? No! No! No!

NEVER!

Fred’s the only right wing conservative running.
What are you going to do Repubs?

ronsfi on December 30, 2007 at 3:51 PM

but if you actually do sit it out, YOU will be the one I blame if the party doesn’t win in the general. I’m not trying to attack you personally, but some people on here need to wake up. At least think about what I’m saying.

davenp35 on December 30, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Thats arrogant, heaven forbid you look inward and realize perhaps you elected someone in the primary that was unelectable in the general. No, that couldnt possible be.

broker1 on December 30, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Not true. Didn’t say that and I’d appreciate it if you don’t misrepresent my words.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 2:45 PM

I misrepresented nothing. This is the entirety of your post, including the comment you pasted, which you were responding to:

You’re equating a “no” vote on Fred to be a vote that will haunt us in 10 years?

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Yes, I am. Any other vote is a vote for a fraud and a vote for a candidate who has a history of liberal policies. If you’re a conservative, a vote for any of these candidates is a vote to move your Party even further to the left. IF you’re a conservative, you should absolutely refuse to vote for any other candidate.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 1:45 PM

Your words speak for themselves. There is no ambiguous meaning there. Read them. I can’t misrepresent something when I post every word.

Unless you went to the Mitt Romney See-Saw School of Semantics, there isn’t even a question about your meaning. I couldn’t have taken them out of context – every word is there.

So now not only are we spinning the candidates words beyond all credulity – we’re even spinning our own posts?

Jesus Herbert Walker Christ.

Don’t take it personally, Gregor. Your post was just a random example of something hideous that’s going on here. There’s plenty of it from all sides.

The point is not your post – or your candidate.

The point is that we better fix what we’re doing. This is all becoming a counter-productive, self-destructive circle jerk.

We. Must. Stop.

Whatever. Cowboys are on. Let the sophomoric hate from all sides continue. You guys have fun.

I quit. Entelechy and WcCawa, meet me at the blimp. Bring Jessica. I don’t care which one. I’m outtie.

Professor Blather on December 30, 2007 at 3:58 PM

broker1 on December 30, 2007 at 3:51 PM

I hate to see conservatives sitting out and letting straight up liberals have their way. I understand the sentiment, but I don’t agree that it will accomplish anything. The conservative party learned nothing from the vote for Perot in 1992. Clinton won and we got 8 years of his escapades and inept handling of our first lines of national defense, which in turn gave us 9/11. ANY rep (except RP) is better than any dem and they certainly will keep our military and intel communities strong. And yes, as much as Fred disgusts me, he would do so also, and therefore I would not stay home on election day.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 3:59 PM

but not because we nominate people who don’t fit the mold of a perfect conservative, but because people like you allow liberals to make progress just because you’re pissed off.

davenp35 on December 30, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Heh. Let me get this straight. You’re suggesting that we vote for liberals to represent what is supposed to be the conservative Party, and you claim WE’RE the ones allowing liberals to make progress?

Interesting.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:05 PM

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 3:59 PM

Im not sitting out, I will fight tooth and nail for Fred and there is nothing anyone can say to sway me of that. Having said that, whoever wins the primary gets my vote. I was just responding to the direct blame of people that sit out.

There are other issues that could cause our loss in the general. Every candidate we have have issues that will be brought up in the general and then you have the impact of either Bloomberg and Ron Paul running independent.

broker1 on December 30, 2007 at 4:07 PM

Your words speak for themselves. There is no ambiguous meaning there.

Professor Blather on December 30, 2007 at 3:58 PM

You’re absolutely correct. My words are quite clearly NOT saying that if you vote for anyone other than Fred you’re not a conservative. I quite clearly said that if you’re a conservative, you SHOULD refuse to vote for any other candidate.

I can’t misrepresent something when I post every word.

You just did, and you didn’t post every word. So now I have to call you a liar. Can you point me to the spot in your comment where you posted this?

… or a conservative who doesn’t feel it’s important to stand on his convictions.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Your words speak for themselves. There is no ambiguous meaning there.

Professor Blather on December 30, 2007 at 3:58 PM

You know? It’s really pathetic when readers feel the need to be dishonest in order to support their views. I understand mistakes. I understand misunderstandings. But I just have a hard time dealing with blatent dishonesty.

It might be possible that you misunderstood what I had said the first time, but I then corrected you and pointed you to my specific quote. Unfortunately, you simply ignored it and insisted on leaving it out of your SECOND attempt to misrepresent what I had said. There’s absolutely no way a person can read the following quote and come up with the meaning that you claimed. Especially after I BOLDED the second line for you:

And Vizzini is either not a conservative, or a conservative who doesn’t feel it’s important to stand on his convictions.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 2:07 PM

A CONSERVATIVE who doesn’t feel it’s important to stand on his convictions.

Notice the word “CONSERVATIVE?”

It really sucks and having knowledge of your posts on HotAir I would have expected a simple apology.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:31 PM

broker1 on December 30, 2007 at 4:07 PM

Oh, my mistake. I thought you were gonna sit out the general. Sorry.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 4:34 PM

RED MEAT for Fredheads.–wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 1:53 PM

http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2007/video-freds-message-to-iowa-voters/

Take the time to hear Fred’s complete message, y’all.

The left IS hijacking America, every portion of the population. The Conservative concern should not be dismissed, but appreciated for demanding to be heard instead of drowned by the leftist tsunami.

Fred is the most highly trained and experienced Republican expert on international/domestic law and legal ramifications regarding our national security, and the ONLY candidate combining that expertise with the calm handed prowess to keep domestic liberalism and international fascism at bay from OUR domain.

Fred is the level headed candidate with real intestinal fortitude (not the acid reflux that anal retentive populists demand in guise as “fire in the belly”).

Fred is the most generous candidate with regard to crediting integrity, even that of opponents. He reflects the best character running for POTUS, able to deliver a sincere compliment without losing ground to an opponent. THAT’S EFFECTIVE DIPLOMACY you won’t see from another leading Republican candidate. There’s no way that Europeans could refer to Fred Thompson as the “ugly American” on the international forum. Furthermore, those from the Near and Far East would have no easy mark from President Thompson.

Fred Thompson works efficiently and effectively in the Senate without further compromising conservatism and has made his stand against liberal socialism for his presidency.

Fred Thompson supports States Rights.

There is no other candidate who will protect what I hold dear as an American. During this PRIMARY SEASON I would entreat all conservative Republicans to vote on PLATFORM, and not for an expensive charade.

With regard for my rights and for conserving our Constitutional Government from further erosion from liberalism, I support Fred Thompson.

Don’t deny Fred Thompson your vote because you doubt his chance. Remember, Harry Truman pulled off a victory against the “given” Dewey. Geez, why give Democrats then more show of faith than Republicans today?

Fred has the chance that I and every conservative American give him to win.

fred08.com

maverick muse on December 30, 2007 at 4:35 PM

but not because we nominate people who don’t fit the mold of a perfect conservative, but because people like you allow liberals to make progress just because you’re pissed off.

davenp35 on December 30, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Heh. Let me get this straight. You’re suggesting that we vote for liberals to represent what is supposed to be the conservative Party, and you claim WE’RE the ones allowing liberals to make progress?

Interesting.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Might want to go back and read what I wrote again. You obviously didn’t take it all in the first time.

davenp35 on December 30, 2007 at 4:38 PM

Might want to go back and read what I wrote again. You obviously didn’t take it all in the first time.

davenp35 on December 30, 2007 at 4:38 PM

Yes, I read it all. In fact, I just read it all again just to make sure.

Are you saying that’s not what you said?

If you and others mean what you say on here and are in fact the biggest cynics on the face of planet Earth, then the Republican Party is indeed done, but not because we nominate people who don’t fit the mold of a perfect conservative, but because people like you allow liberals to make progress just because you’re pissed off.

davenp35 on December 30, 2007 at 3:38 PM

I stand by my comment:

You’re suggesting that we vote for liberals to represent what is supposed to be the conservative Party, and you claim WE’RE the ones allowing liberals to make progress?

Interesting.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Sorry. I WILL NOT vote for a liberal to represent the conservative Party and I will NOT vote for a liberal in order to beat another liberal, and I will NOT help to guarantee the end of the GOP as a conservative Party just so we can all jump up and down and yell “WE WIN” at the end.

You go right ahead.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:47 PM

Sorry. I WILL NOT vote for a liberal to represent the conservative Party and I will NOT vote for a liberal in order to beat another liberal, and I will NOT help to guarantee the end of the GOP as a conservative Party just so we can all jump up and down and yell “WE WIN” at the end.

You go right ahead.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:47 PM

Well then you fit my description perfectly. Congrats on being so selfish that you would rather see an actual liberal in charge running our country than have your ego bruised temporarily. Which percentage is bigger 90% or 0%? You are literally saying you would rather have a President with no conservative values than one who is mostly conservative. Grow up.

davenp35 on December 30, 2007 at 5:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2