Video: Fred on Iowa and “journalistic malpractice”

posted at 3:09 pm on December 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

The “high teens”? No one since Strategic Visions two weeks ago has had him in the “high teens”.

No matter. The media’s out to get him, whether or not Tammy Bruce realizes it!

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

Thompson/Paul ’08!

The only ticket that can save America!

Harpazo on December 30, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Let the flailing begin! Where’s Gregor and ex-tex?

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 3:20 PM

It is completely inexplicable why Fred continues to underwhelm us at every turn.

Also, I noticed in this interview that he said that candidates weren’t the best people to criticize other candidates. He then went on to criticize other candidates. (rolleyes)

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 3:20 PM

I’ve noticed on a LOT of Fox news polls… including O’Reilly, they consistantly leave Fred out.

I do find that interesting.

Romeo13 on December 30, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Tammy Bruce did what others have done she read PART, no ALL of Thompson’s statement, and pretetended that was all he said.
That type of garbage OUGHT to be below her.

Gatordoug on December 30, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Fred’s running for Veep and hopes that McCain gets the nod. Bank on it.

lorien1973 on December 30, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Naturally, I was very pleased with Fred’s response to the questioner at the Town Hall meeting, even more so after I read the full context. I’m a Fred Head. Fred heads would not be Fred Heads if we were not fully aware of the circumstances of Thompson’s late, some would say reluctant entry into the race.

Also very much enjoyed watching the full interview with Chris Wallace this morning. As red meat goes, it was a 32oz steak, richly marbled and medium rare. Thanks for the clip AP.

Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 30, 2007 at 3:25 PM

Let the flailing begin! Where’s Gregor and ex-tex?

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Do you ever actually say anything?

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 3:25 PM

I would feel better if this guy was President. I would. I just would.

ronsfi on December 30, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Who’s Tammy Bruce?

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 3:28 PM

It is up to the deciders to decide who we should vote for.
I, for one, welcome our media overlords!

Beto Ochoa on December 30, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Do you ever actually say anything?

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 3:25 PM

Yes.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Look. Any car salesman can tell you that excitement sells. That’s why we have Romy and Huckshell in the lead. They are salesmen. America. Do you want a salesman in the White House or a Leader?

EEEYYYOOOUU make the Caaaaallll!

ronsfi on December 30, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Also, I noticed in this interview that he said that candidates weren’t the best people to criticize other candidates. He then went on to criticize other candidates. (rolleyes)

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 3:20 PM

This is exactly the sort of twisting that leaves you with absolutely zero credibility. He said they weren’t “the best people to criticize.” He didn’t say they “should not criticize.”

He was asked a question and he did a pretty good job of outlining why he’s better than the other candidates, without spewing out a bunch of trash.

Your comment is even more interesting when his comment is put in comparison to the attack adds of your own candidate.

This is the problem with you, Tommylotto, and BKennedy. All three of you consistently attack Fred on subjects your own candidates are far worse on.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Fred’s running for Veep and hopes that McCain gets the nod. Bank on it.

lorien1973 on December 30, 2007 at 3:24 PM

They are good friends. You might have that reversed, though.

csdeven, your “superior intellect”, your words, is extremely hard to please. It must be mighty fine in your stratosphere. The rest of us can’t reach that high, try as we might.

Entelechy on December 30, 2007 at 3:30 PM

AP, it is sad, very sad frankly, that you dismiss the way Thompson’s quote was presented in the biased report. Maybe you care more about catchy headlines than facts and maybe you could not care less if the best candidate wins, pretty obvious that is how it is.
Frankly, that is far less than I expect from a “Conservative”, far, far less. So to Hell with principles and ideals, let’s dumb ourselves down with catchy headlines, heck, pretty soon we will be just like the msm, ignoring facts and focusing not on substance, but rather on meaningless sound bites, and whether or not someone put a feaking hat on or not!
When that happens, “Conservatives” will lose and frankly, deserve to lose.

Gatordoug on December 30, 2007 at 3:32 PM

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Someone who cannot be bothered to quote Thompson in context I guess.

Gatordoug on December 30, 2007 at 3:34 PM

I’ve noticed on a LOT of Fox news polls… including O’Reilly, they consistantly leave Fred out.

I do find that interesting.

Romeo13 on December 30, 2007 at 3:20 PM

They are still hoping for a liberal vs. liberal in the general election. They want Hillary as Prez, but would be very happy with Rudy, and almost as happy with Mitt.

Texas Nick 77 on December 30, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Frankly, that is far less than I expect from a “Conservative”, far, far less.

Gatordoug on December 30, 2007 at 3:32 PM

I might be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but I believe Allah is a Libertarian. I don’t consider that conservative. I’m sure THEY do, but Ron Paul is a Libertarian also, so enough said.

Again, I could be wrong. I’m pretty sure he’s not Republican though.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 3:36 PM

For Fred’s response to her hack job, go to Redstate.

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/getting_the_story_straight

Texas Nick 77 on December 30, 2007 at 3:38 PM

I would feel better if this guy was President. I would. I just would.

ronsfi on December 30, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Look. Any car salesman can tell you that excitement sells. That’s why we have Romy and Huckshell in the lead. They are salesmen. America. Do you want a salesman in the White House or a Leader?

EEEYYYOOOUU make the Caaaaallll!

ronsfi on December 30, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Can’t a salesman most accurately be described as a, uh, professional actor?

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 3:38 PM

They are still hoping for a liberal vs. liberal in the general election. They want Hillary as Prez, but would be very happy with Rudy, and almost as happy with Mitt.

Texas Nick 77 on December 30, 2007 at 3:36 PM

The farther to the left the Republican Party turns, the easier it becomes for the Democrats to do likewise.

FloatingRock on December 30, 2007 at 3:39 PM

I’m a Fredhead, but I am also a realist and I think that Mitt Romney is the eventual Republican nominee. As someone that wavered between Romney and Fred for a while, I don’t mind that reality. I think Fred’s folks are going to look back at his campaign and see a lot of missed opportunities. He was tied in the mid 20s nationally with Rudy Giuliani way back in July. Just another blip on the interesting election map.

Check out my Year in Review and how it relates to the 2008 election for an idea on the major events of this campaign.

JustinHiggins on December 30, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 3:36 PM

I do not know. That post was addressed to every “Conservative” here who does care more about silly, meaningless pap than about substance.

I have some Libertarian leanings myself, so I have no issues with that.

Gatordoug on December 30, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Entelechy on December 30, 2007 at 3:30 PM

hahaha

“Superior intellect” = an outrageous statement made tongue in cheek by csdeven

You are intelligent enough to realize that I was just joshin’. :-) You’re starting to scare me babe. I was sure you knew me better than that.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 3:40 PM

I’m just curious to see how the vote turns out.

Speakup on December 30, 2007 at 3:41 PM

I might be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but I believe Allah is a Libertarian. I don’t consider that conservative. I’m sure THEY do, but Ron Paul is a Libertarian also, so enough said.

Again, I could be wrong. I’m pretty sure he’s not Republican though.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Hmmm…Allahpundit is a Libertarian, Ron Paul is a Libertarian..Oh My GOD…Allahpundit is Ron Paul…We are soooooo doooommmmeeedddd…….

doriangrey on December 30, 2007 at 3:43 PM

I’m actually not arguing for a guy. I’m arguing about values. My values just happen to be reflected by Fred’s positions on these issues.

If those values happened to be magically attached to, say, Giuliani, I’d be supporting Giuliani. Or McCain. Or whomever.

Look. I sold my soul supporting GWB (both of ‘em, actually), and don’t care to feel that soiled again.

When the Republican Party looks in the mirror these days, some grotesque ghostly manifestation combining Arlen Specter, Larry Craig and Lincoln Chaffee looks back at them.

So, yeah… I think it’s time to draw a line and not sell out the values that are important to us anymore. Let the other side do whatever they may. It’s important to stick with those things that have gotten us this far. I am so damn sick of focus groups, trade offs and political expediency I could puke.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 3:43 PM

For Gods sake, Just listen to the guy. He actually answers questions, calls a spade a spade, doesn’t have a boatload of baggage, doesn’t pander at all, he knows how to lead and make decisions, and he didn’t just become a conservative recently for this election.

The fire in the belly bullsh$t is just that, bullsh$t.

Tim Zank on December 30, 2007 at 3:44 PM

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 3:30 PM

I didn’t make my point clear. Sorry.

I mean to say that Fred ‘s criticism of the other candidates loses a lot of credibility when he himself says that he isn’t the best person to criticize them.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 3:44 PM

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 3:43 PM

AMEN!!

Gatordoug on December 30, 2007 at 3:44 PM

Hmmm…Allahpundit is a Libertarian, Ron Paul is a Libertarian..Oh My GOD…Allahpundit is Ron Paul…We are soooooo doooommmmeeedddd…….

doriangrey on December 30, 2007 at 3:43 PM

lol

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 3:45 PM

Hmmm… actualy… thinking on it…

Do we really need a firebrand in the Oval Office?

I mean of any political persuasion?

This country needs some time to calm the F Down… not be so divisive… NOT do radical restructuring of society… from any side.

I don’t want a Preacher in the office… I don’t want a militant Atheist in office… I want someone who will leave me alone to believe what I believe…

I don’t want someone who calls abortionists murderers… and I don’t want somoen so far the other way that they will not tell me if my 16 year old daughter wants an abortion.

I want somone who will protect America… but not invade other countries…

I want someone who will enforce the stinkin laws we have… not make a whole bunch of new ones…

I want somone who will give the Feds enough money to do the things they NEED to do… but not get involved in things they shouldn’t have their fingers in…

I don’t WANT a militant President who wants to remake America….

Romeo13 on December 30, 2007 at 3:45 PM

Tim Zank on December 30, 2007 at 3:44 PM

YEP! You hit the nail on the head. But too many Repubs are suffering fron acute blindness it seems.

Gatordoug on December 30, 2007 at 3:45 PM

doriangrey on December 30, 2007 at 3:43 PM

Where is AP’s blimp?

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Where is AP’s blimp?

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Obviously he traded it for his iPhone…Since he doesnt have a soul to sell for the iPhone… ;P

doriangrey on December 30, 2007 at 3:49 PM

Is it me or does Fred look more & more like Dr. Frasier Crane?

Coronagold on December 30, 2007 at 3:49 PM

Maybe “iPhone” is code for blimp? AND has anyone ever seen the two of them together at the same time?

J/K AP. :-)

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 3:50 PM

Is it me or does Fred look more & more like Dr. Frasier Crane?

Coronagold on December 30, 2007 at 3:49 PM

Gerald Ford.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Romeo13 on December 30, 2007 at 3:45 PM

What you describe is FRED.

Strong, thoughful, deliberate, and calm but willing to step on the neck of those that would do us harm and not let up. The fact that he pretty much tells the press to go fork themselves on a regular basis is a big bonus for me too.

Tim Zank on December 30, 2007 at 3:53 PM

*sitting on sidelines of this one – Allah btw, thanks for posting Freds response to the townhall meeting, appreciate it*

broker1 on December 30, 2007 at 3:55 PM

Is it me or does Fred look more & more like Dr. Frasier Crane?

Coronagold on December 30, 2007 at 3:49 PM

I think he looks like that one guy from Law & Order, the D.A. I think…

JustinHiggins on December 30, 2007 at 3:55 PM

Inquiring minds want to know. Will Jeri divorce Fred if he fails to garner the nomination?

sonnyspats1 on December 30, 2007 at 3:59 PM

I mean to say that Fred ’s criticism of the other candidates loses a lot of credibility when he himself says that he isn’t the best person to criticize them.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 3:44 PM

Again, you twist the words and you really just made matters more ironic for yourself. He didn’t say that “he himself” isn’t the best person to criticize them. He said “other candidates aren’t always the best. It’s a broad statement, I’m sure you would agree if you were being honest.

Also, in an attempt to bash Fred, you once again point the finger at your own candidate.

I mean to say that Fred ’s criticism of the other candidates loses a lot of credibility when he himself says that he isn’t the best person to criticize them.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 3:44 PM

So I guess your candidate’s attack ads are lacking any credibility also, huh? Why does this only work for Fred?

You continue to attack Fred with ammunition that’s even more accurate when pointed at your own candidate.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:00 PM

JustinHiggins on December 30, 2007 at 3:55 PM

No way. That guy is a lot younger looking.

lorien1973 on December 30, 2007 at 4:02 PM

It’s a broad statement, I’m sure you would agree if you were being honest.

Also, in an attempt to bash Fred, you once again point the finger at your own candidate.

So I guess your candidate’s attack ads are lacking any credibility also, huh? Why does this only work for Fred?

You continue to attack Fred with ammunition that’s even more accurate when pointed at your own candidate.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:00 PM

Actually, I think the candidates ARE the best people to criticize. My point isn’t the validity of the concept, my point is that Fred got out on a limb with that statement and then cut it off behind himself. A gaff. An unforced error. I was watching his eyes and I think he’s seeing the writing on the wall and he’s really concerned that his message hasn’t held onto it’s original widespread appeal. I’m sure that is the reason for this gaff and his other recent missteps.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 4:08 PM

Here is a video of Fred making his case to Iowa voters
It is well worth your time to watch it. Particularly, those who doubt Fred Thompson.
http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2007/video-freds-message-to-iowa-voters/

Gatordoug on December 30, 2007 at 4:08 PM

Campaigns in the 1800s were soft-spoken campaigns. The candidates wouldn’t really leave their houses, they’d issue press releases, have interviews, and wait for people to come to them.

George Washington didn’t really want the job of President at all. He had to be convinced to run. Same for a boatload of our better Presidents. Does anyone think that Washington, Calvin Coolidge, Abraham Lincoln, or any one of our other understated Presidents who were probably more shy in person than today’s candidates, could win in today’s environment?

Everyone always says that it’s a shame that it’s the taller candidates who can only run for President now, or that it’s a shame that image is so important. Well, now is your chance to voice that complaint. If you want style over substance, or image over character, then don’t vote for Fred. Moreover, if you want to reward that little prick in high school who always had to be student council president, who was always a little too slick for your tastes, who was an obvious type-A jerk, then don’t vote for Fred.

Sydney Carton on December 30, 2007 at 4:12 PM

sonnyspats1 on December 30, 2007 at 3:59 PM

She’s got more class than that.

I am seriously going to watch what happens to his remaining campaign funds for sure. I have already been in contact with the FEC. I spoke to one gal last summer and asked her about his PAC that used his son as a consultant. She actually laughed.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 4:12 PM

My money is on Fred. There is no doubt in my mind that he will make a heck of a lot better showing in Iowa than The Media lets on.

I tell ya, the leftist MSM are trying to dump on Fred as hard as they can but the problem is he is clean and he treats them as just the whores they are.

He aint your run of the mill smarmy politician, He is a man of conservative convictions that this country always needs but now more than ever.

After he surprises the nay sayers in Iowa he will pick up massive support and steam roll right over the Dem candidate.

TheSitRep on December 30, 2007 at 4:14 PM

I’m sure you would agree if you were being honest.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:00 PM

Wait… did you just personally attack someone else? I thought you and ex-tex didn’t do that sort of thing.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 4:14 PM

The fact that he pretty much tells the press to go fork themselves on a regular basis is a big bonus for me too.

Tim Zank on December 30, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Most conservative bloggers feel the same way, traditionally, although for some reason some of them don’t appreciate it when Fred does it.

FloatingRock on December 30, 2007 at 4:14 PM

However he may just not get the “Lesbian Democrat” voting block.
Sorry Tammy and Rosie.

TheSitRep on December 30, 2007 at 4:17 PM

I was watching his eyes and I think he’s seeing the writing on the wall …

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 4:08 PM

You get that everyone? It’s all over. Csdeven was “watching his eyes” and has the ability to read Fred’s mind by doing so. Amazing! You should have told us this months ago dude! You could have saved everyone a lot of wasted time.

So csdeven, why is it you ignore all of your own candidate’s weaknesses, errors, flip-flops, and history of liberal policies?

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:19 PM

Wait… did you just personally attack someone else? I thought you and ex-tex didn’t do that sort of thing.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 4:14 PM

Still waiting for Vizzini to actually say something. Do you even have a candidate?

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:19 PM

Gatordoug on December 30, 2007 at 4:08 PM

I watch every one of these that you guys post and Fred always has the correct rhetoric towards conservative principles. But it’s nothing I haven’t heard from many of us here. We all know what the key points are ourselves and can articulate them very well. So what is the difference for me? Fred is the man behind the curtain in my view. Which Fred is he? The one with the rhetoric or the one with the questionable history (questionable for me anyway)? I have to vet all the candidates the same way. I listen to their words, compare them to their record, and see if they have a semblance of consistency. In that process I have found concerns with ALL the candidates. It’s a real tough choice, and if Fred had a better history of personal associations, I’m sure I’d be much more inclined to trust his rhetoric.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 4:20 PM

However he may just not get the “Lesbian Democrat” voting block.
Sorry Tammy and Rosie.

TheSitRep on December 30, 2007 at 4:17 PM

I’m not sure but I’d guess that Tammy supports the one candidate in this race that wears a dress, and I’m not talking about Hillary.

FloatingRock on December 30, 2007 at 4:22 PM

I think Fred’s folks are going to look back at his campaign and see a lot of missed opportunities. He was tied in the mid 20s nationally with Rudy Giuliani way back in July.

-JustinHiggins on December 30, 2007 at 3:39 PM

What I recall are the organizational problems, with people coming in, Spencer Abraham in particular raising alarm bells with Michelle and Debbie and also, people going out (I can’t recall their names) who had been on the ground floor of the draft Fred movement. As it stood, the campaign had little chance of living up to expectations but the inner-organizational stuggles likely contributed to a sputtering start.

The debates ended up ultimately favoring Huckabee but for all the wrong reasons and Fred’s No Hands moment, came (no fault of Fred), not in prime time and during The Worst Debate in the History of Western Civilization. What it did signal, I believe, was the campaign and Fred finally finding its proper stride. For this reason I believe if Fred can perceiver in Iowa, he yet has a decent chance of catching on.

Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 30, 2007 at 4:23 PM

I’m not sure but I’d guess that Tammy supports the one candidate in this race that wears a dress, and I’m not talking about Hillary.

FloatingRock on December 30, 2007 at 4:22 PM

Go figure, ha ha.

TheSitRep on December 30, 2007 at 4:23 PM

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:19 PM

I believe the eyes are the widow to the soul. The questions he stumbled on were preceded by a change in expression in his eyes. And not the expression of a guy who would whack you with a snowball either. Take a look at Fred’s eyes when he’s on a real roll. It’s a big difference.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Still waiting for Vizzini to actually say something. Do you even have a candidate?

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:19 PM

I reserve my substantive responses to substantive comments. Hint hint.

Oh, and yes, I do.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 4:26 PM

You should have told us this months ago dude! You could have saved everyone a lot of wasted time.
Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:19 PM

Dude! I did tell you all months ago. ;-)

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 4:27 PM

You’re starting to scare me babe. I was sure you knew me better than that.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 3:40 PM

I know you pretty good, not to worry. I sent you that requested spiked recipe. Go check it out, try it – it’s bound to bring you down to Earth, with the rest of us.

p.s. remember when 43 looked into Putin’s eyes. What you think you see is not always what you get. Don’t be so surefooted.

Entelechy on December 30, 2007 at 4:28 PM

Regardless of your opinion on Fred, he’s the only candidate that’s raising the bar in Iowa.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 4:29 PM

Entelechy on December 30, 2007 at 4:28 PM

I don’t remember that event with 43.

Yeah, I liked the recipe because it’s scratch made too.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 4:38 PM

I reserve my substantive responses to substantive comments. Hint hint.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 4:26 PM

Really? Would you like to point out any of your “substantive” comments? Any? Maybe you feel that nobody has made any “substantive” comments on HotAir threads in the last few months? Is that why you haven’t made any comments other than meaningless one line, or one word zingers?

Oh, and yes, I do.

Would you like to share, or are you simply going to sit here and attack other views without sharing your own? Wait! Are you a PaulBot? Do we have a winner! It can’t be so, can it? Are you one of those “special people?”

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:39 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

maverick muse on December 30, 2007 at 4:41 PM

This just in on Drudge:

Will Kane did not want to be sheriff.

(If you can’t tell I’ll wait for the actual caucus to decide how Iowa goes)

Limerick on December 30, 2007 at 4:48 PM

people going out (I can’t recall their names) who had been on the ground floor of the draft Fred movement. … the inner-organizational stuggles likely contributed to a sputtering start. –Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 30, 2007 at 4:23 PM

I heard that Bushies on the ground floor of the draft Fred movement dragged their heels to sputter his onset as rogue inner-organizational saboteurs.

That was then.

FRED IS NOW.

maverick muse on December 30, 2007 at 4:48 PM

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 4:29 PM

your links rule

maverick muse on December 30, 2007 at 4:51 PM

Also, I noticed in this interview that he said that candidates weren’t the best people to criticize other candidates. He then went on to criticize other candidates. (rolleyes)

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 3:20 PM

He didn’t say they shouldn’t. He said they aren’t the best, and that’s right. However, it goes with the territory. First he’s not interested in showing why people should vote for him, so he’s lazy. Now, when he actually criticizes other candidates and makes cases for why they should vote for him, he’s not supposed to?

In any case: It is invariably the case that the people who desire power the most are the ones who should be prevented from attaining their goal at any cost.

MadisonConservative on December 30, 2007 at 4:54 PM

Would you like to share, or are you simply going to sit here and attack other views without sharing your own? Wait! Are you a PaulBot? Do we have a winner! It can’t be so, can it? Are you one of those “special people?”

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 4:39 PM

You got me. I’m a PaulBot. Or was that a FredHead? It’s hard to tell the difference sometimes.

In a general election:
Giuliani, Giuliani, Thompson, McCain — I’d vote for.
Paul — How the hell did this happen?
Huckabee — Not a chance. Sectarian politics run amuck.

I offer my views frequently in these threads, and when a story crops up that warrants a philosophical comment, I’ll certainly offer one as I’ve done in the past. But I don’t take seriously the “FredFredFred or you’re an infidel” meme, and I try to give it what it’s due. Which is somewhere between nothing and jack-diddle.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Substitute one of those Giulianis for a Romney.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 4:57 PM

That was then.

FRED IS NOW.

maverick muse on December 30, 2007 at 4:48 PM

Amen to that! You get no argument from me!

Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 30, 2007 at 4:58 PM

In a general election:

Giuliani, Giuliani, Thompson, McCain — I’d vote for.
Paul — How the hell did this happen?

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Heh. You just made me laugh, Vinnie.

MadisonConservative on December 30, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Substitute one of those Giulianis for a Romney.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Sure easy enough to do, but that doesn’t mean either one is desirable as POTUS, just that they are pretty interchangeable.

doriangrey on December 30, 2007 at 5:07 PM

“While all this hullabaloo is going on around me and everybody is attacking each other and everybody is talking about process and who’s got the most political ambition to drive them, I’m just going to stay stead up the middle with the same conservative common sense message that I’ve had and what I’ve always been in my political life from day one.”

…csdeven notwithstanding…

Dude, google the “I looked into Putin’s eyes” – you’ll learn much, and it makes you more understanding of big miscalculations.

Entelechy on December 30, 2007 at 5:12 PM

You got me. I’m a PaulBot. Or was that a FredHead? It’s hard to tell the difference sometimes.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 4:56 PM

It speaks volumes that you’re unable to differentiate between conservatives who believe that Fred is the only conservative candidate, and PaulBots who want Ron Paul because he’ll legalize drugs, prematurely ejaculate, and most likely charge Bush with treason and war crimes.

You still haven’t named your candidate. Why is that?

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 5:17 PM

It is invariably the case that the people who desire power the most are the ones who should be prevented from attaining their goal at any cost.

MadisonConservative on December 30, 2007 at 4:54 PM

The only persons I believe want to be president for the sake of the power would be Hillary and Edwards. The rest I believe are motivated by patriotism. So Fred’s rhetoric only applies to them and not the rep field.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Hey, Madison. How’d your date go?

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 5:20 PM

So Fred’s rhetoric only applies to them and not the rep field.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Fred did not make that phrase, nor has he ever used it, as far as I know.

Hey, Madison. How’d your date go?

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 5:20 PM

I tickled her.

MadisonConservative on December 30, 2007 at 5:21 PM

She totally digs me. I’m way cool.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Entelechy on December 30, 2007 at 5:12 PM

So you’re saying that Fred wanted to look scared for a reason? Is this more of his “waiting in the weeds” strategy?

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Fred did not make that phrase, nor has he ever used it, as far as I know.
MadisonConservative on December 30, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Well, then in this election cycle, your comment only applies to the dems I named.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 5:26 PM

I have to second the motion that everyone should watch the video that Fred made for Iowa voters. Really.

wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 5:27 PM

The rest I believe are motivated by patriotism. So Fred’s rhetoric only applies to them and not the rep field.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Come on now. You don’t really believe Mitt Romney is motivated by patriotism, do you? Heh. I guess that’s the reason he changes all his positions based on whichever election he happens to be participating at the time.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 5:28 PM

I guess that’s the reason he changes all his positions based on whichever election he happens to be participating at the time.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Oh wait. I forgot that Mitt supporters see this as a positive thing, claiming that he only did what was needed to win.

LOL! Sounds a little like Bill Clinton supporters to me.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 5:30 PM

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Do you have some sort of quote from Mitt that would lead anyone to believe the guy is power hungry?

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Well, then in this election cycle, your comment only applies to the dems I named.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 5:26 PM

When you’ve got numerous candidates flip-flopping on issues just to be elected president, I beg to differ.

MadisonConservative on December 30, 2007 at 5:36 PM

I beg to differ.

MadisonConservative on December 30, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Well, I’ll wait for some sort of substantive proof before agreeing with you.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 5:40 PM

PaulBots who want Ron Paul because he’ll legalize drugs, prematurely ejaculate, and most likely charge Bush with treason and war crimes. …

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 5:17 PM

One of these things is not like the others… can’t imagine why I’m skeptical of you guys.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 5:40 PM

Do you have some sort of quote from Mitt that would lead anyone to believe the guy is power hungry?

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Once again, you dig yourself into a pit of hypocrisy.

The only persons I believe want to be president for the sake of the power would be Hillary and Edwards.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Do you have any quotes that would prove that Hillary and Edwards are power hungry? I’m sure there are many quotes you can claim INDICATE a thirst for power, but these types of quotes can be found being made by pretty much any candidate. We KNOW Hillary is power hungry. We KNOW Edwards is an ego maniac simply by watching his body language during the Cheney vice-Presidential debate. But suggesting that any of these candidates have come out and made statements that they want to rule the world or something is just silly. It’s their actions that are telling. Candidates who are in it for political gain or power can almost always be seen bouncing from position to position depending on the way the wind is blowing. They are all about saying whatever it takes to get elected.

I think you’ll have a pretty tough time arguing that Romney has been consistent throughout his political career. He’s actually one of the worst when it comes to pandering for votes. A man of integrity does not do this. A man of honor has deep convictions that they aren’t willing to sell out for a vote.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 5:44 PM

One of these things is not like the others… can’t imagine why I’m skeptical of you guys.

Vizzini on December 30, 2007 at 5:40 PM

Yet another meaningless comment. Who’s your candidate and why?

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 5:46 PM

Well, I’ll wait for some sort of substantive proof before agreeing with you.

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 5:40 PM

With all due respect, there are videos of Mitt and Rudy flip flopping on gun control, universal health care, and other issues. Some of them have been posted here. Let’s be reasonable and not get into a link duel.

You and I both commented on McCain’s recent “What? Me Amnesty?” crap.

Huckabee, not much to be said.

Paul, less so.

I’d still go for Duncan Hunter if he had significant support, but he doesn’t.

The only really arguable issue that Fred could be called “back and forth” on is abortion, and it’s not accurate. People have said his policies would be pro-choice. If he’s planning on allowing states to outlaw abortion, how is that pro-choice? Now, it could also be said if he’s planning on allowing states to keep abortion, how is that pro-life? It’s neither. It’s, in my opinion, the best compromise, and one that will attract a LOT of people on both sides of the fence, including a torrent of college-age people I’ve talked to. Why else would the NRLC be behind him?

MadisonConservative on December 30, 2007 at 5:46 PM

Do you have some sort of quote from Mitt that would lead anyone to believe the guy is power hungry?

csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Well personally I think spending 17 million of your own personal fortune says I’m power hungry and I’ll do anything to be president louder and clearer than anything else on the planet does…But you know, thats just me…

doriangrey on December 30, 2007 at 5:47 PM

doriangrey on December 30, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Nice point

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 5:48 PM

I guess that’s the reason he changes all his positions based on whichever election he happens to be participating at the time.

Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Just because a candidate betrays his own principles, (assuming he has any to begin with), in pursuit of his goal to become the most powerful man in the entire world doesn’t mean he desires power for the sake of power.

No, wait… yes it does, I have that backwards.

A candidate who stands by his principles, which he’s held all of his adult life, and would accept the highest office in the land if the people would have him, clearly does not desire power for the sake of power.

There we go; that makes sense.

FloatingRock on December 30, 2007 at 5:48 PM

I have to second the motion that everyone should watch the video that Fred made for Iowa voters
wccawa on December 30, 2007 at 5:27 PM

I will second that motion also.

believe the eyes are the widow to the soul. The questions he stumbled on were preceded by a change in expression in his eyes…. Take a look at Fred’s eyes when he’s on a real roll. It’s a big difference.
csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 4:25 PM

csdeven….absolutely zero credibility
Gregor on December 30, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Wacky stuff that judging peoples eye language when they’re looking into a television camera

Beto Ochoa on December 30, 2007 at 6:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2