Video: Tammy Bruce on the great Fred letdown; Update: See-Dub reaches stage two
posted at 11:19 am on December 31, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
We’ve all felt it, although not all of us are at the same stage of coping. Tammy and I have reached stage five, i.e. acceptance; what she describes as the “weird, hostile, paranoid remarks I got from what’s called the Fredhead base” indicates a mindset still trapped in stage two — anger. Most of HA’s resident Fredheads seem still to be trapped in stage one. I fear for them come Thursday. Try to at least get to stage three before the results start trickling in, guys, just to cushion the blow.
What’s up with Beckel getting all snotty here with TB? I thought he was one of the “good” Democrats. Exit question: If Fred finishes a distant third, does he drop out on Friday and endorse McCain? He could barely afford that new ad in Iowa; how’s he going to pay for ads in South Carolina if he stays in?
Update: See-Dub indulges the Fredhead within. He’s mostly right about the “fire in the belly” crap — it’s a weak knock, but it’s not coming from nowhere. Such was the hype for Fred this past spring that anything short of Reagan II was bound to disappoint. Criticizing him for lacking “fire in the belly” is just a sort of catch-all, I think, for the overall disappointment most people feel in him.
Update (Bryan): I don’t know where this myth of Bob Beckel being one of the “good” Democrats came from, but it’s not grounded in reality. After the Florida debacle in 2000, Beckel wanted to continue the struggle for the presidency by “persuading” electors whose votes were committed to Bush to switch to Gore. And by “persuading,” I actually mean blackmailing.
* Worst of all, as the Wall Street Journal reported on its front page on November 16, Walter Mondale’s former campaign manager, Bob Beckel, launched an intelligence operation to explore the backgrounds of Republican members of the Electoral College.
“It is information gathering on my part, using my own network” Beckel confessed. “I call on mostly Democrats, but some Republicans, too, and ask, ‘Who are these electors, and what do you know about them?’ I just wanted to know who these electors are.”
Blackmail anyone?
Just three defections from Bush’s 271 electors would secure Al Gore the Oval Office. It’s hard to believe that at least three of these mortals have not cheated on their spouses, cheated on their taxes or sniffed some cocaine here or there. Perhaps their grown children are engaged in behavior they would rather maintain as family secrets. If Beckel can find three such patriots between now and December 18 — when electors vote — who would “put country ahead of party, in the name of national unity,” Al Gore could win the White House after all. As the Journal reported December 8, Florida police were informed of an e-mail to one elector that stated, “We know where you live.”
Three defections would have done the job, and Beckel would have stolen the election for Gore by using very extracurricular means. He’s not one of the “good Democrats.” He’s a snake. I wish Tammy would have clocked him.
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: « 1 [2] 3 »
Rudy isn’t going to take your guns away. That is a third rail issue that no national leader wants to touch, and as president, he’s going to have a lot more on his plate than to spend political capital pissing off a huge block of gun owners for no good reason. Plus, it is a constitutional issue and Congress isn’t going to also commit suicide. Rudy will be in an entirely different position as a national leader than a mayor. Similar to the abortion issue. He can’t do a thing about it, other than appoint Supremes. I’d be a lot more worried about Mitt and his “exceptional lethality” concepts.
These are those warts I mentioned in another thread. They just aren’t a deal breaker for me.
a capella on December 31, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Dude, I never said a word about Doctors. I was talking about David Tennant. :) My experience of Doctor Who is limited to Tennant, Eccleston, and some highly painful moments of staring in disbelief at the Tom Baker versions.
Anwyn on December 31, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Philistine.
MadisonConservative on December 31, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, and Bill Richardson would touch it. When you don’t touch it, people like Ray Nagin get away with it.
MadisonConservative on December 31, 2007 at 12:31 PM
You’re not the first.
It wasn’t Tom Baker, it was the idea that that show as a whole could have inspired the devotion it did. But that’s the difference when you watch stuff as a kid, I guess.
Anwyn on December 31, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Who?
Slublog on December 31, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Exactly, now please remind me why I would take any advice from a Democrat regarding which Republican I would vote for?
doriangrey on December 31, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Fredheads are
cheap bastardsfiscally responsible and concerned about small, efficient government.see-dubya on December 31, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Please. Has the dishonesty reached this far? She’s a conservative on most issues, including/especially the war and immigration. This is just another Fredhead litmus test equating support for Thompson with “true” conservatism.
I don’t remember many objections to Zell Miller’s endorsement of Bush in 2004, incidentally.
Allahpundit on December 31, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Heh. That reminded me of what either you or ace said after his RNC speech. Something about bin Laden’s head on a stick.
Those were the days…
(Is nostalgic navel-gazing a stage?)
Slublog on December 31, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Sorry, I just don’t agree with that. You are correct in the sense they don’t all fit a traditional conservative mold, but if we are realistic, that kind of candidate won’t appear again. Fred was our best shot at that, and he’s allowed his handlers to run a crappy campaign. If you want a completely concervative candidate, he has to have name recognition, be squeaky clean, have fund raising capacity, a solid history, and good political instincts on how to campaign. I don’t see that on the horizen. Events in the world are moving too quickly for us to have exactly what we want, so I’ll settle for strong national defense and economy. And, term limits on Congress(wink)
a capella on December 31, 2007 at 12:39 PM
The Fredheads are regular folks with jobs. Are the Paulnuts druggies, bank robbers, pimps, and every other imaginable type that make their money off the books?
csdeven on December 31, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Just the facts mam.- Joe Friday from Dragnet.
It’s obvious from her comments the TB is not up to speed on Fred Thompson. The fact is that not only does Fred Thompson have near 100% conservative voting record, but he also has personally crafted innumerable bills and initiated many hearings on things like the misappropriation of federal funds, and the Clinton White House making classified nuclear technology available to China. Fred Thompson is a highly intelligent man. I think he is being mischaracterized as lacking fire in the belly because Fred Thompson knows what he knows what he knows. It is up to you Tammy Bruce, if you are honest about your conservative bona fides, to do your homework on Fred Thompson and stop judging him from appearences. I can understand why the commentors on her blog were upset with her opinions.
Fred Thompson is the best person for the job of President and I will support him till the wheels come off his band wagon.
sonnyspats1 on December 31, 2007 at 12:44 PM
And neo-Nazis.
Was AP hurt by being enthusiastic about a candidate when he was younger? Why is he against joy?
frankj on December 31, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Beckel is a campaign finance law breaking, whore mongering, lying leftist propagandist.
Who ever said he was a good guy?
peacenprosperity on December 31, 2007 at 12:46 PM
It’s pretty obvious he’s not going to go wild for anybody he thinks isn’t going to win. There’s a difference between talking about who you’d like and talking about who you *think* will win.
Unfortunately some people confuse the two, and pronounce that if they don’t like him, he can’t win, or else that they think he has no chance and therefore it’s pointless to like him.
I vote for who I want to win regardless of what most people do. Otherwise how does the guy have a chance? If everybody said “Wow, he’s lagging in Iowa, I guess I won’t vote for him” then … self-fulfilling.
Anwyn on December 31, 2007 at 12:48 PM
That Thompson campaign is really on fire isn’t it?
Hilts on December 31, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Tammy Bruce, if you are honest about your conservative bona fides heh heh nevermind!
sonnyspats1 on December 31, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Why detract from the positive with misinformation?
@11:28 “I just don’t think the sun rises and sets in his *ss the way most of his supporters do.”
“Tammy Bruce on the great Fred letdown”
“Tammy and I have reached stage five, i.e. acceptance”
…so it’s HER *ss where you watch the sun rise and set. Does that vision require spiritual eyes, see/saw?
Why on earth do you CHOOSE to be stuck on letdown?
You are stuck on default; that’s loser mentality.
Winners never quit and quitters never win.
You’re a quitter and you’ll never win.
Don’t quit before you even start.
Come out of the shadows of despondent despair.
Quit lurking behind the curtain of attrition.
CONQUER YOUR FEAR OF/FOR CONSERVATISM, AP.
Be a man.
You can never win if you never try!
Everyone must TRY to win;
either put up or shut up.
GO FRED!
maverick muse on December 31, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Good point. If Fred’s still on the ballot in Georgia, I’m voting for him.
Wrong analysis is wrong. Rudy had a lot more on his plate in New York City, and he still found time to sue gun manufacturers. Rudy Giuliani announces lawsuit against gun companies
“The single biggest connection between violent crime, and an increase in violent crime, is the presence of guns in your society.”
“The more guns you take out of society, the more you’re going to reduce murder. The less you take out of society, the more it’s going to go up.” -Rudy Giuliani, June 20, 2000
Rudy is a gun-grabber and will never get my vote. The video speaks for itself, but if you want more evidence that Rudy is a gun-grabber I will give it to you.
bigbeas on December 31, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Fred probably could have done a better job of guilt-tripping people who think that he’s “probably the best choice of the lot” into actively supporting him rather than passively watching the ship sink, or cheering on the sinking.
Too many candidates have been declared dead and hopeless (or inevitable), too often, by too many people who should have known better. If Fred does fall, lots of people faced with a choice between the other big four are going to miss him. Schadenfreude will be cold comfort.
CK MacLeod on December 31, 2007 at 12:51 PM
He may have been upset by that long, enthusiastic, positive Fredhead thread last night with very little snarking. Time to fix THAT!
a capella on December 31, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Oh, I aint endorsing her, was just clearing up the misconception the she was a Republican.
The only things I have in common with her is:
1. I support the death penalty.
2. I love guns.
3. I love chicks too.
TheSitRep on December 31, 2007 at 12:56 PM
It’s not over yet. It just got started.
Egfrow on December 31, 2007 at 1:02 PM
I’m aware of his history. He’s astute enough to know he doesn’t want to try and climb that mountain as president. He knows he isn’t going to clean up crime on a national level by grabbing guns, and the pain isn’t worth the effort, even if he were so inclined. Just like I don’t pay much attention to that nonsense about Thompson and the Libyan terrorists being a significant issue in how he would lead the country, or Mitt’s religion, for that matter. If Fred doesn’t make it, we need to be able to support our nominee, and single issues just won’t get it done.
a capella on December 31, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Tammy would not make a good president. She’d be firing people faster than she could hire them and that would take up all her time.
Dusty on December 31, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Thursdays come and go each week.
Iowa is only one of fifty; no more, no less.
Iowa is not an only child. Iowa, though first to rally, is not the last to vote. The rest of America does not credit Iowa as the most important in our family of states. Thank God we don’t live in a patriarchal society where all rights divest upon the head of the first born son!
Thursdays come and go each week of every year. This Thursday hosts a big party that I can not attend in Iowa. I’d like to enjoy the outcome, as I enjoy good news and good companionship on a long journey. But my vote will not depend on their party’s success or failure. I do wish them all good will this New Year’s Eve.
Happy New Year, Fred Folk!
maverick muse on December 31, 2007 at 1:07 PM
True, but Thompson seems to regard Iowa as quite important to the future of his campaign.
Slublog on December 31, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Hey Allah, check it out- Drudge linked the Fred Iowa closing speech!
(And without any nasty, snarky comments)
Whoa. Go Fred!
Ex-tex on December 31, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Every time I say we have a weak field of candidates, someone assumes I’m in some fantasy-land waiting for the second coming of Reagan. That’s not what I said. I chose Fred as the best conservative candidate. If he drops out, I will default to Rudy because I have the same priorities you do–defense and the economy.
I’m simply under no illusions about the current field. Every candidate we have this time is seriously flawed in one or more significant ways–personally, electorally, or philosophically. Every one of them has a fatal flaw (even Fred, whose fatal flaw is a crappy campaign organization, which is the least offensive flaw to me but will make it so that I will most likely never get a chance to vote for the guy). I get annoyed at those who disagree and say “we have the strongest field we could possibly hope for” right now. No, we don’t. Among all of the nation’s governors, mayors, legislators, and business leaders, there was a better candidate out there. But it’s too late to try to find that person this time around (or bring him up from the third tier, in the case of Duncan Hunter). I still believe a not-perfect-but-much-closer-to-it candidate can and will emerge for the next round. My concern is that it will be too late and the political balance of power will have shifted so strongly to the left that we conservatives will end up in the political wilderness for a generation or more, even if we put Jesus Himself up as our candidate in 2012.
As for 2008, I will settle for any Republican if we can get him into office. A Dem picking the next 3-4 Supreme Court justices scares the pants off me. Even if all we get is a seat-warmer who will appoint decent judges and do his best to keep the Dem Congress from taxing the shoes off my feet while keeping the terrorists a little scared of America, that’ll be better than a Dem. But I don’t have high expectations if Fred’s not the guy. I’ll definitely be “settling,” whomever the nominee turns out to be.
aero on December 31, 2007 at 1:24 PM
The problem isn’t that Fred needs to do well in Iowa. Obviously, Fred will do better in the southern states, and Iowa is not all that important in the grand scheme of things.
The problem is that Fred needs money. And to make money he needs to do well in Iowa.
So Iowa isn’t a problem. Except that it’s a big problem.
Fred may be a victim of this stupid caucus/primary system.
If any of you kind folk would lend him $40 million, Iowa wouldn’t matter hardly at all.
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 1:25 PM
How is that Fred doesn’t have money but McCain does, where is the money coming from?
Me.
Haven’t y’all guessed? I’m a wealthy oil baroness supporting the McCain Train.
Now you know.
;-)
Seriously. Fred believed that he could run a campaign the way he wanted. But there is a formula that must be followed and a big part of that is gettin your a** out and shaking hands with every single person in Iowa and NH.
He didn’t.
Rightwingsparkle on December 31, 2007 at 1:30 PM
I gotta say with all due respect, following these Fred topics the past week, it seems that you are the one (among a few others as well) who keep intiating reaction of the Fred supporters by throwing fredheads are zealots bombs and then get all snarky when someone reacts. That to me is dishonest.
I respect your political opinion for the majority of the time, but feel that your painting of the fred-supporters here is a bit too broad and unsubstantiated. It is not ‘nutroot’ behavior to support a candidate. I’m really trying to see that behavior that you keep describing, but it just hasn’t surfaced.
Before you get quick with the key-pressing to defend your statment, hold yourself up to the same standard you desire the fred-heads to react with as well.
[The only criticism (/wink) I have to say about some of the "fredheads" here is that they have mainly engaged in OT love-fests and virtual ménage à trois for the past few fred post.]
geckomon on December 31, 2007 at 1:34 PM
It’s called brutal honesty AP. I have never let a democrat choose who I will support or vote for, nor can I fathom any possible acceptable justification for doing so. I am not and have never been a Democrat. I don’t care how conservative Tammy is, Democrats do not decide who Republican candidates are.
As far as Zell Miller, well that is an apples to oranges comparison. Zell Millers endorsement was not unacceptable, but I assure you it by no means affected who the republicans chose as a candidate. If Tammy wants to endorse a republican candidate, like Zells endorsement it will not be an unacceptable endorsement, but likewise it will not be a factor in who republicans chose nor should it be.
You might as well be asking us to accept Hillary Clinton’s suggestion who our candidate should be. Sorry, conservative or not Tammy is a Democrat. Her opinions will be given the consideration they are due in the selection process, and that is none at all.
doriangrey on December 31, 2007 at 1:36 PM
See, I don’t think the question of whether he wants to be president is relevant. He’s in it, and in it to win it.
The question that is relevant to this thread is
Exit question:
Is this really worth a dollar?
Heh.
Tennman on December 31, 2007 at 1:36 PM
“Okay, so if Fred’s a dead man walking, who’s the next best choice for a fiscal conservative?”—aero on December 31, 2007 at 11:44 a.m.
Gotta argee with your assessment here, aero. Just considering the three top-ranked Republican candidates currently, we have a cross-dressing (not that there’s anything wrong with that) gun-hatin’, pro-choicer, a taxer and illegal immigrant advocate, and a medical socialist. Yes, I’ll vote for any one of them in the general election to avoid the Hillmonster but believe me, I’ll have a very long clothes-pin to put on my nose when I do.
second digit on December 31, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Unfortunately, I’ve been unable to contribute due to that pesky paycheck thing. Will do so tomorrow.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 1:38 PM
How did you intercept Allah’s and Bryan’s emails???
lol
terryannonline on December 31, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Hey! I apologized to the HA staff for the rabbit-chasing.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 1:41 PM
and geckomon, we’ll let you in on the lovefest, if you just ask. geez, jealous much? ;) jk
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 1:42 PM
It’s gonna be a Fredalanche©
Note the term Fredalanche© was coined by TheSitRep on Dec 31 2007.
TheSitRep on December 31, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Two things:
1. This post was brilliant! Right on the money.
2. I missed WHAT in the past few threads?!?!?
Darksean on December 31, 2007 at 1:46 PM
I’ll bet you think he was kidding, too.
A few people snorted a bit too much Fred last night. It wasn’t pretty.
It was beautiful.
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Fred-er-cept. It’s a secret development by Fred supporters who won’t got the extra mile and declare themselves Fredheads.
I am a Fred supporter. I’m just not thinking a head. Ye
t.
Tennman on December 31, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Is this common for you southerners as well? heh.
geckomon on December 31, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Fredalanche! ©
Dear Greg
Thanks for all you have done to support Fred Thompson’s campaign. Because of your support, Fred is in the position to have a strong showing in Iowa that will send him on to victory and the nomination.
As we count down to the end of 2007, Americans face an important choice.
Who will be our next President?
Fred provides the clear answer in a compelling 17 minute message. Please view the video here. This is a terrific opportunity for you to hear directly from him why he wants to be President.
I need you to do two things for me today.
After viewing the video, call or e-mail 10 friends and ask them to watch the video. It would be extremely helpful to us in getting Fred’s message directly to the people who need to see it. Take special care to include those friends and family who may live in Iowa.
Finally, make a contribution to help Fred’s campaign. As you know, the first contest is Thursday in Iowa. Last week was great for our online fundraising effort. The Friends of Fred stepped up in a big way, and it will make a difference in the outcome of this race. We still have some work to do; now is not the time to let up. We still need you!
Fred is making an all out effort to have a strong showing in Iowa that will propel him forward into the other early contests.
I know you have done a lot for him already–can you send a $50, $75 or $100 contribution today? It’s our last chance to make a difference before the end of the year.
Thanks again for your support! Here’s wishing you and your family a happy and healthy 2008.
Sincerely,
William B. Lacy
———————————————-
| Paid for by Friends of Fred Thompson, Inc. |
———————————————-
TheSitRep on December 31, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Doriangrey - you still here?
broker1 on December 31, 2007 at 1:53 PM
I didn’t think of your post as “brutally honest”, DorienGrey. I thought of it as narrow minded. So you disregard all thoughts and opinions as irrelevant depending on whether or not a registered republican expressed them? And people wonder what happened to healthy, honest intellectual debate in this country in regards to politics. And you would consider yourself different from, and superior to, a lockstep democrat how?
By the way, I’m a lifelong independent, so feel free to disregard my points.
tomk59 on December 31, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Fred is not ahead, yet, either.
Just a play and not an outing, yet.
geckomon on December 31, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Still here…And yes I have made my case for you over at MPJ…
doriangrey on December 31, 2007 at 1:56 PM
If I can make an analogy, living in St. Louis and being down 3 games to 0 against Boston in the world series, knowing we werent going to come back and win should I have stopped cheering for them?
broker1 on December 31, 2007 at 1:56 PM
I just wanted to say thank you, those arguments were marvelous. Eiether way, I love the site.
broker1 on December 31, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Is what, specifically, common to Southerners, geck?
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Listening to Rushs show today, cant remember who it was, was refreshing to say the least. His defense of Fred was breathtaking. These old ladies from Iowa kept calling in and were throwing out the whole “The media is lying about huckabee” and when he pointed out his shortcomings the argument from the evangelicals calling in was “It seems as if you have bought into the media narrative too and they are all LIES!”
broker1 on December 31, 2007 at 2:00 PM
I have a lot of respect for See-Dubya, but I don’t agree with him about Fred’s lackluster campaign being some sort of unfair criticism.
It’s not just Fred on the campaign trail - it’s Fred on television interviews, it’s Fred in debates. I want to reach into the television and shake him. Wake up! Stop slumping and sit up straight! Do what it takes to make us confident that you can handle the pressures of the job!
Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 2:02 PM
And why is anyone concerned about the fact that the Fredfolk had a party on a FRED thread last night?
Yes, it got off topic, and yes, it was a bit - well - silly, but it was positive, lacking in snark, and was frankly tons of fun.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:02 PM
MPJ?
I WAS listening to Rush’s stand-in, until the NYC station switched to Seton Hall basketball. WTF??
My company is slick too, they do something tech supporty that stopps any radio streaming so I am in the dark here!
Darksean on December 31, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Yep, it was beautiful.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:04 PM
It wasn’t Mark Belling, was it? That snarky jerk is on every day around here, can’t stomach him any more.
MadisonConservative on December 31, 2007 at 2:06 PM
It was scary, after saying “Huckabee is a man of tradition and family values” it was exactly what CAIR does after saying “Religion of Peace”, they stuck their fingers in their ears and yelled “LIES”.
broker1 on December 31, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Nope, I’d remember Mark Belling’s name. Don’t know this guy.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:12 PM
refreshing. And noticeably absent of certain crashers.
geckomon on December 31, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Yep. Exactly like that.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:13 PM
It’s not Belling. Someone different from Minnesota don’tcha know.
Darksean on December 31, 2007 at 2:13 PM
I think its Jason something…
broker1 on December 31, 2007 at 2:14 PM
That it was. Did you get the “the weather is beautiful, wish you were here” postcard I sent you? :)
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Jason Smith? I seem to recall Smith being in there somewhere.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Comparing Tammy Bruce to Zell Miller? OMG.
Look. I love Tammy. She’s a bastion for conservatism on the radio. I just happen to believe that in this case, she’s wrong.
Just like I think you’re wrong to keep declaring Thompson dead and he should just roll over, and just like I think you’re wrong when you keep comparing supporters of Fred Thompson to be queer little ducks (my words) because we have a cause we believe in — conservatism — and a candidate that we believe will be the best man to carry that cause forward.
And whether “the sun rises or sets in his ass” is not a reasonable criteria for my support of a candidate. I would hope that it’s not yours. But, hey. I guess we all have our standards.
Tennman on December 31, 2007 at 2:15 PM
As I recall, prior to that series, Boston had been down 3-0 or 3-1 to the Yankees in the American League Pennant Series. The analogy to me works even better in football terms. New England, down 2 touch-downs to the Giants late in the 3rd, came back to win. As in Football, 4th quarter comebacks in politics happen all the time. The Iowa caucus is a strange animal for which polling is of limited value.
To quote the most cherished son from The Hill, “Ain’t over till its over”
Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 31, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Hey, can we all just agree that no one thinks the sun rises and sets in a candidates a$$, except the Paulnuts?
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:17 PM
It has nothing to do with superiority and everything to do with who decides the candidate for each party. Only a complete fool would allow their opposition to choose their leader. Like it or not there is a reason that the parties don’t choose each others candidates. Sorry for your hurt feelings but this isn’t a everybody gets to be a winner zero competition socialist experiment.
This is partisan politics and it is a competitive venture at its most aggressively competitive state. People who vote independent may have their heart in the right place, but that doesn’t mean that their brains necessarily are. Like it or not, America is a two party political system, where the majority has the greatest potential to dictate public policy.
Independents whether they have the intelligence to recognize it or not always vote for one of the two parties. The simple brutal truth is, that anyone who allows their opponent to chose their champion has made the choice to surrender or be defeated.
Again, like it or not this is a competition to determine whose political ideology will dictate the direction of this nation and the public policies that it follows. As a life long conservative republican I choose not to allow any democrat to make my choice for me.
If America decides to follow the democrat vision for America rather than a conservative republican vision I can live with that. I wont necessarily like it but I can live with it. But what I can assure you is that if America does choose a democrat leader, it wont be because I or any other intelligent honest republican allowed the democrats to chose for us the candidate that they would most prefer to have their candidate face in an election.
If you cant understand that, you have no business being involved in any discussion of politics.
doriangrey on December 31, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Sorry, geckomom. My point was too obtuse. I should have said I’m not thinking I’m a head. Ye
t.
Tennman on December 31, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Exactly, and thats all that Im saying. I am going to cheer and jump up and down until the clock ticks down to zero or the last pitch in the 9th inning.
And I wont be bitter if he loses, well a little bit but, now that my Rams are out I shifted to the Packers and will root for them.
broker1 on December 31, 2007 at 2:21 PM
My Pet Jawa…AKA The Jawa Report..
doriangrey on December 31, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Um, dorian, some of us left the party to make a point. I made mine during Shamnesty. My heart and brain are in this competition. Just because I’m now “Unaffiliated”, doesn’t mean that I am anymore less a conservative. It can be a mistake to assume that those that are not registered Repub don’t have their heads in the game. I can vote in whichever primary I want…so I just have to decide, is my vote needed in the Repub, OR can I use my primary vote to screw with the Dems? LOL.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Yes, we can agree. Just don’t say those two terms in the same sentence again. ;-)
Tennman on December 31, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Tennman,
What? a$$ and Paulnuts?
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Tickle,
Yes. And do not reverse them. (shudder)
Tennman on December 31, 2007 at 2:25 PM
btw, Dorien… NC didn’t have an option for Independent when I pulled from the R party. Is there a difference in your estimation between Independent and Unaffiliated?
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:25 PM
And if this is out of line I apologize to those NOT voting for Fred. But the point was made on Rushs show.
There is a difference between a Conservative and a Republican. I am a Conservative through and through and Fred is the only one that meets my philosphy, the other candidates are Republicans attempting to Redefine Conservatism.
-Smaller govt
-Lower taxes
-Federalism -one of my biggest-
-Pro life
-Getting rid of the NEA
-Peace through strength
-against the welfare state
Sees the presidency as a way he can take his country in the right direction, not as a birthright.
On the other hand on rushs show, he defended Romney and others for flip flopping saying everyone in their lives have done that. And I agree.
broker1 on December 31, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Tennman, I promise to try. ;)
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Im a Fred supporter but his lack of traction has left me with the option of backing John McCain because of the ulternatives of Huck or Mitt.
If Fred Drops out I will hope for Rudy to catch fire else Im left backing McCain for President.
William Amos on December 31, 2007 at 2:26 PM
What I find comical about the Thompson campaign is how much bloggers don’t seem to want him to win. Or even do well. It’s almost like they’re all annoyed with the fact that he doesn’t have much use for them. There must be some reason why so many conservative bloggers don’t like him and cut him down every chance they get.
So now the bloggers are going after his dumb supporters by trying to compare us to the Paulians. We’re delusional now. We’re unrealistic now. We’re fools who are going to be devastated when our boy goes belly up.
It’s very comical. Speaking strictly for myself as someone who gave him money, I really don’t care if he wins. I hope he does, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he craps out. It’d be really nice if he went on to become the nominee. But I don’t expect it. No, I expect politics as usual. It’ll just be nice if he makes it. If he does make it all the way to a nomination, I’ll get off my ass, register to vote, and vote for him in November. If he doesn’t make it, I won’t have to bother getting off my ass.
I also find it annoying that the bloggers like Tammy Bruce still do not understand Fred or his desire to be president. He wants the job, he just hates what he has to do to get it. Which in my opinion makes him the best candidate. It shows he has more than two brain cells to rub together.
Jaynie59 on December 31, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Tickle, you may now resume your regularly scheduled commenting. Thanks.
Tennman on December 31, 2007 at 2:27 PM
broker1 on December 31, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Hear hear. Conservative first. Republican second. (Well, not in my case, technically.)
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Jason Smith? I seem to recall Smith being in there somewhere.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Jason Lewis?
infidel on December 31, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Jaynie59 on December 31, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Very well said.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:29 PM
infidel on December 31, 2007 at 2:28 PM
ON THE NOSEY!
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:29 PM
All good points , Dorian Gray, I took issue with the thrust of your post. Who’s letting anyone decide for anyone. I don’t care who they are; if they talk sense, I listen. If not, I disregard. I always think, and decide for myself. I’ve enjoyed some of your posts in the past; it surprised me that you’d be willing to cut yourself of from ideas and opinions based on something as flimsy as “d” or “r” labels.
And don’t worry about hurting my feelings. I’m made of much better stuff than to have them hurt by pretty much anything, much less internet postings. Just take issue with my comments, and save the slaps for the jackasses and sissies.
As for my business discussing politics, I’ll decide that , thanks. Maybe you and many others , rather than just helping to further advance the parties agendas by playing their games and voting for who they and their pals in the media tell you to, should vote for candidates based on who might be best for the country, and not on things like electability, opinion polls, and party preferances. Otherwise, your just part of the problem, no matter how decent and honorable your intentions.
tomk59 on December 31, 2007 at 2:34 PM
That’s not a great way to bring up the enthusiasm for Fred, and only confirms what those of us who are waiting for him to get cracking have been complaining about.
To imply that his distaste for getting into the fray makes him smarter than the other candidates is a ludicrous conclusion.
Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 2:40 PM
OK….I just got back from the clubhouse where the TVs are many & huge & blaring all sorts of ‘the world @ large’ crap.
I don’t care if TB & Charles are on good terms.
The news about this Thursday’s round of who has the most money & the biggest dog was blaring, & finally, there is not one frkng mention of Fred….no……& the last visual was 3 dems & 2 repubs. hmmmmmmmmmmm……please don’t tell me that the MSM blackout has nothing to do w/ how Fred is doing…….!!!!!!
Just for the sake of sticking it up the A** of the MSM, I hope Fred wins! & no, I don’t vacation @ a river in Egypt.
FREAKING GO!!!!! FRED!!!!! because about the time AMERICANS vote for someone like Fred (’Any religion that thinks killing innocent women & children for their god is acceptable is NOT a religion I want to be any part of.’ aproximite quote,… &! who struck down ’schoolmarm’ by refusing to ‘RAISE YOUR HAND’) is about the time we are on our way to Sanity.
HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL
signed: radical centrist
lobosan5 on December 31, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Jaynie59; your point that Fred wants the job, just doesn’t like what it takes to get it, was very good and insightful. Unfortunately, I think the general impression that he doesn’t really want the job is causing him some damage.
tomk59 on December 31, 2007 at 2:44 PM
There are no “good Democrats,” but Bob is not the worst.
Ali-Bubba on December 31, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Your Rams, Cardinals, Blues, are mine as well. I’m in Maplewood. Perhaps if Fred makes it to MO we can synchronize our watches or something.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 31, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Hell yeah, Im in Ofallon right now but moving to Soulard soon.
broker1 on December 31, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Believe me I do understand. I am not particularly thrilled with the Republican party, nor have I been for a number of years now. That said however I also have a very good idea of how American politics really works. Lets just put it this way. The similarity between my last name (real last name) and the middle name of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave isn’t nothing. As
pointed out I am a conservative first and a republican second. I am also quite pragmatic. Those outside the system do not affect the direction of the system, they are affected by the system.
Those who vote Independent are a part of the system, but they are a very unpredictable and unreliable part of the system. as likely to tilt the system in directions that they do not want as directions that they do want. Ralph Nader and Ross Perot come readily to mind in this respect.
Yes I do see a significant difference. Independent is a political party. Unaffiliated on the other hand is not. Unaffiliated’s which I have been sorely tempted to become vote conscience when the parties they once belonged to have abandoned them.
I feel in many ways that the republican party has abandoned me, but I have not yet lost hope that the conservatives in the party can regain control of the party.
American politics really is a situation where the group who can muster the largest number of votes has the greatest potential of dictating public policy’s direction. Until such a time as this changes I will continue to work within the system to change the direction of public policy decisions.
doriangrey on December 31, 2007 at 2:55 PM
I hate to beat a dead horse about Rushs show today but he made a statement about Ron Paul. He said the reason he has the support he has are his convictions. He has felt the way he does for a long time. The main part is that the government cannot rule outside the constitution. And the rise of this party attempting to redefine conservatism has pushed a part of this party to Ron Paul. His blame america foreign policy not withstanding I agree with a lot of his stances but could never vote for him.
broker1 on December 31, 2007 at 2:59 PM
I took it as my impression until I did the little research
neededrequired for clarity that actually spoke to the contrary.geckomon on December 31, 2007 at 3:00 PM
You have a clear view of things.
TheSitRep on December 31, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Understood and agreed.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »