First question of the new year!
posted at 9:21 am on January 1, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Will Fred finish ahead of Ron Paul in Iowa?
Answer: Probably. The new CNN poll has him five points ahead of Paul and three ahead of McCain, good for third place. Our new leader? Mitt, by three over Huck. Which is within the margin of error.
Update: David Brooks lowers the boom on Romney.
The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins. Others haven’t yet suffered the agony of defeat, and so are not yet emotionally ready for the trauma of transformation. Others still simply don’t know which way to turn.
And so the burden of change will be thrust on primary voters over the next few weeks. Romney is a decent man with some good fiscal and economic policies. But in this race, he has run like a manager, not an entrepreneur. His triumph this month would mean a Democratic victory in November.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
rick moran:
So, are you suggesting that Fred! supporters should just accept your “realistic and objective” assessment that Thompson is toast, quit defending him, and look for another candidate? Seems to me that if Huckabee’s support turns out to be illusory it could certainly help Fred. Oddly enough, if his purported numbers turn out to be solid, I can also see a Huckabee win ultimately helping other candidates too, as lo-his-many detractors (like me!) get serious about taking him out of the running. I don’t see Romney as the exclusive potential beneficiary of such a backlash.
In the wishful thinking department, I sure would love to see someone successfully swim against the conventional campaign wisdom. It may not be particularly realistic to expect to see it happen, or maybe even to hope that Fred!’s the right man for that job, but I hardly think that makes it a childish impulse. Personally, I’d save that adjective for the three ring circus in Iowa and the unfortunate, wildly distorted and distorting, importance attached to it.
JM Hanes on January 1, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Most people start with the position that any dem is totally unacceptable. At that point the rep candidates are judged according to their conservatism. After that, their ability to win the nomination and the general.
Fred has the conservative rhetoric, but his problem is that he isn’t doing what it takes to win the nomination.
Irrespective of Fred’s conservative rhetoric, his actions on the trail have been a series of incompetent missteps. This is where I get the feeling he doesn’t really want the job. If he wanted it bad enough he would campaign in a way to make himself competitive with the rest of the field. It’s like he wants to coast his way through the nomination. And I have no doubt he would do the same in the general. This is a recipe for disaster and would guarantee a dem win in November.
What we see from Fred now is exactly what we will see in the general. And since he can’t keep up with the mild treatment he has received from the reps, there is no way he would stand up against the dems.
Now this has to be a consideration for the Fred supporters. Fred has made his reputation on it and to suddenly change in the general would cast him as just another conniving politician.
csdeven on January 1, 2008 at 7:03 PM
George Washington,
perhaps our greatest President,
did not campaign at all for that office,
& he accepted his election reluctantly.
Fire in the belly, indeed.
jgapinoy on January 1, 2008 at 7:17 PM
So, are you suggesting that Fred! supporters should just accept your “realistic and objective” assessment that Thompson is toast, quit defending him, and look for another candidate?
No, I’m suggesting that when someone challenges your rosy, pie in the sky, la la land tripe about Fred winning you not call him a traitor or a sheep who has been hypnotized by the media.
rick moran on January 1, 2008 at 7:22 PM
We know Fred is on the ropes but none of this should stop us from supporting him and voting for him. This horse race analysis is correct but picking a candidate solely on the basis of the size of their checkbook kind of defeats the purpose of having elections.
I would suggest to all that they should vote their interests and ignore the “electability” question. It is most often just a ruse behind which a RINO hides.
The rhetoric has come from Romney who hasn’t had a conservative record on many issues. Fred has the bone fides. Again, don’t mistake a lack of money with lack of effort. We know how much Mitt has spent in Iowa, yet, he is barely ahead of Huckabee who has a bare fraction of Mitt’s funds.
Bill C on January 1, 2008 at 7:37 PM
It is most often just a ruse behind which a RINO hides.
That’s the kind of bulls**t I’m talking about. Exactly. Thank you for illustrating perfectly why you and other unbalanced Fredheads are badly behaved children and not adults who should be trusted with the franchise.
rick moran on January 1, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Say what? It’s Romney’s fault? I can’t think of a single thing Mitt has said about Fred. If Fred ever manages to be a real contender that would change, but I am stymied as to how you came to this conclusion that it is Mitt’s “rhetoric” that is hurting Fred.
Buy Danish on January 1, 2008 at 7:48 PM
No Sh*t
- it’s not what I expect. Guess we’ll just have to wait’n see which of us is right though, huh.
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Gimme a freaking break.
Tammy got criticized, rightfully, because she was peddling this inane “fire in the belly” meme that rather than offering any intelligent analysis. She was belittling Thompson in essentially substance-free fashion — something you’ve got plenty of experience with yourself, Allah — and she got deservedly slammed for it.
Go screw yourself, Allah.
Centerfire on January 1, 2008 at 7:53 PM
This is a recipe for disaster and would guarantee a dem win in November.
Sort of like nominating a sh*tbag like Romney.
Centerfire on January 1, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Don’t you have to be somewhere else? I’m pretty sure we weren’t callin’ out fer you to come pontificate to us.
We’ve been tryin’ to tell ya nicely.– Just wait until after it’s over- PLEASE. Hard as it is for you to believe YOU MIGHT BE WRONG!
Now, please show us some respect or go back to where ya came from.
I know it’s Allah’s house and all- but we’re guests too- And Dude, yer bein’ real rude.
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 8:02 PM
I don’t always agree with you, but noting that Fred doesn’t have the money to continue his campaign is hardly a crime against conservatism. If anything, it might inspire some Fred Heads to open up their checkbooks.
Reading through some of the comments, it is amazing to me how paranoid some people are, like some people who think that Allah’s comments were directed at them when they wasn’t even here to begin with.
Allah makes a perceptive comment about some Fred supporters and it is perceived by some as a negative comment about all Fred supporters and they are outraged.
It’s kinda disheartening since I expect more rational thinking and less emotion from conservatives.
Buy Danish on January 1, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Groan. Make that [when they weren't even here to begin with.]
Buy Danish on January 1, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Allah makes a perceptive comment about some Fred supporters and it is perceived by some as a negative comment about all Fred supporters and they are outraged.
No, Allah makes an insulting, lazy, and largely false generalization about Thompson supporters, as he’s done throughout the campaign, and it pisses people off.
Centerfire on January 1, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Before you get too hard on Moran, and travel further down the road of bad assumptions, I suggest you read this, and this.
Slublog on January 1, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Yeah, baby.
Go Fred!
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 8:10 PM
If that’s the standard we’re using to pick a candidate, then why don’t we save a lot of time and money and give up now?
Hillary Clinton isn’t about to change parties at this late date. So, unless somebody’s cloned Adolph Hitler without telling anyone, there’s no way we can possibly win on the basis of power lust.
logis on January 1, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Ummm Dude- I don’t have to read about it– I WROTE ABOUT IT ON DEC. 26th. The FIRST ONE ON HOTAIR- BEFORE ALLAH, dude.
Don’t mean I AGREE with his current comments.
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Well, given his strong support and action on behalf of Thompson, one would hope you’d cut Moran a bit more slack.
Slublog on January 1, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Nope. Not on somethin’ this important.
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Nope. Not on somethin’ this important.
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 8:22 PM
And further, I don’t ever cut slack for bad behavior. From anybody.
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 8:26 PM
Review time!
Sorry Rick but you sound like Hugh Hewett, more projection of what you want to happen than anything factual.
How is this a “lazy” and “unfair” attack?
Why don’t you Fred supporters get specific about your complaints instead of just making sweeping statements about how unfair it all is?
Buy Danish on January 1, 2008 at 8:27 PM
One more time just for you jgapinoy:
When are you guys going to give up on this canard? GW was filled with fire. He showed up at the C.Congress in his military dress uniform for crying out loud. Of course he didn’t have to campaign, they made the executive office with him in mind.
Let Fred stand or fall on his own merits I say.
Spirit of 1776 on January 1, 2008 at 8:31 PM
How is this a “lazy” and “unfair” attack?
I’ve helpfully bolded the parts that are insulting, lazy, and untrue.
Centerfire on January 1, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Pointing out the hard facts of Thompson’s campaign situation is “bad behavior?”
Slublog on January 1, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Yup- and then there’s this lovely reposte:
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 8:35 PM
Nope. This is:
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 8:36 PM
Thanks for the frank analysis. That second link to your blog that Slublog put up is excellent. In the space of 10 days, the whole dynamic was changed. I don’t know exactly how that can happen here with out better leadership from the top, but hats off to the effort on your side.
Spirit of 1776 on January 1, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Dude, if it doesn’t apply to you, don’t sweat it!
Spirit of 1776 on January 1, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Man, this is one snarky thread.
Congrats, AP. You got the traffic you wanted with that blunt generalization.
Me? Not so impressed.
wccawa on January 1, 2008 at 8:50 PM
Oh, waaah. Heaven forbid one Thompson supporter get irritated at another Thompson supporter who made all of them look bad.
Slublog on January 1, 2008 at 9:02 PM
That is hyperbole. No one says we should vote for the guy with the most money.
What does Mitt have to do with it? Fred stands on his own and that is how I analyzed him.
csdeven on January 1, 2008 at 9:05 PM
Rick Moran:
“No, I’m suggesting that when someone challenges your rosy, pie in the sky, la la land tripe about Fred winning you not call him a traitor or a sheep who has been hypnotized by the media.”
I must have missed that part. Is this a carry over from something on your blog? I’m assuming you don’t mean me, specifically.
JM Hanes on January 1, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Fred has made missteps since the beginning of his candidacy. What did he do all summer long? He should have hit the ground running and he didn’t. They excused him by saying he was figuring out his positions. Well, again, he should have been doing that during the summer. When he still didn’t get moving they said he was “waiting in the weeds”. And since then we have had to listen to excuse after excuse and irrational rationalization after irrational rationalization. Not from all Fred heads, but certainly a considerable amount.
No! The fact is Fred does not have enough desire to be president because he refuses to put in the hard work it takes to compete with the other candidates. Get the ground support going. Get your staff in order. Get you positions in order. He screwed up on the everglades deal. He screwed up on the Cuban immigration deal. He screwed up on his policy toward Iraq. All very simple policies that he should have been prepared for by the time he went on Leno (another screw up). And since then his support from even the most adamant supports from his summer non-campaign, bailed out on him when he failed to deliver what he originally promised. And he never promised fire in the belly. He promised substance and clarity, and when it came down to delineating his positions in an unscripted environment, he failed again. So, many people bailed out.
Ergo, no fire in the belly. Fred has left it to the Fredheads to have the fire in the belly and convince the rest of us that he’s the guy. Well, I don’t care how enthused the Fredheads are, I want to see Fred EARN the job. And apparently, judging by his struggle to raise 250K, a lot of other people don’t think he’s worth the effort either.
So, our pessimism toward Fred is completely justified and we are not part of some conspiracy to eliminate him from the field. Fred’s doing that all on his own for most of us. Now he certainly can pull it out, but that doesn’t mean our assessment is wrong about Fred. He certainly has and still is performing as we have assessed. It will only mean we are wrong about the electorate and what they want in a candidate. And I haven’t heard Rick or AP claim Fred was absolutely, positively, going to lose in Iowa.
csdeven on January 1, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Maybe this is where I was in error. I have always felt that people who respond to general accusations happen to know that they are exactly what was described and that is why they get pissed.
I never get pissed when someone uses derogatory terms for Rudy or Mitt supporters because I know I don’t fit that group.
Well, that will certainly teach me not to assume in the future.
csdeven on January 1, 2008 at 9:35 PM
My theory is that people like to play the victim. Especially when there are storm clouds on the caucus horizon.
Spirit of 1776 on January 1, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Sorry Rick you are right, it’s not pessimism, its defeatism. I would like to take a moment to thank you for your service, kind of like I would like to thank Sen. Murtha for his service. At the time what you did was a noble and courageous thing.
When you decided to throw the towel in for Fred, before the fight was over is an entirely different matter. It isn’t over until Fred says it’s over, your declaring it otherwise in nothing short of disrespectful. It does nothing but demoralize his supporters and make them feel stupid and foolish for believing in Fred.
Please be so kind as to remind me to never ask for or accept your support in anything that might prove to be difficult, because I would hate to be surprised and have to utter Julius Caesar famous last words to you…Eu tu Rick? Eu tu???
doriangrey on January 1, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Putting most of that paragraph in bold type still doesn’t answer – What’s “untrue”? What’s “lazy”?
As Spirit of 1776 says, if it doesn’t describe you don’t sweat it!
I respect your devotion to the cause, and I believe you are correct when you say that you have not broken Reagan’s 11th Commandment. However, it is a little melodramatic for you to unload on Rick Moran because he presents the cold, hard truth, and to perceive Allah’s comments as a personal attack on you.
Why not take the power of your emotions and redirect them? Maybe try to fire up the Fred Heads to send in $$$$money$$$$ to his campaign? That’s what he is in critical need of at this point. Instead of urging others to do what they can do to help out in a tangible way, you and your fellow FredHeads are spending your energy shooting the messenger.
It seems to me that that is an an awfully counterproductive exercise, but I’m not emotionally invested in Fred so maybe I can’t relate.
Buy Danish on January 1, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Interesting contradiction if you follow the David Brooks link.
His Jan 1 column discusses why he doesn’t think Romney can win, but his previous Dec 11 article discusses why Romney will win, though he doesn’t make the connection himself.
If Mr. Brooks is right that this will be a ‘post-war’ election, McCain’s and Giuliani’s advantage over Romney disappears.
Jason on January 2, 2008 at 1:29 AM
At the risk of making a mute point, I do believe Fred will best R.P. in Iowa by at least 50%. I say mute point because I fear that true conservatism as well as Fred will fall to the wayside in the coming year. To see such a conservative struggle so hard to win support from his party saddens me.
Rudy has never been, is not, nor ever will be a conservative. Yet he enjoys more viability in our party than any of the more conservative foes he faces. Does anyone have an explanation for this phenomenon? You know, one that a conservative can live with?
It is vitally important to defeat Clinton in Nov. Lets not tear ourselves and our party apart in the process. When the footnote politicians start falling out after N.H., lets get behind our party and support the most conservative candidate.
leanright on January 2, 2008 at 7:10 AM
Have you ever read the statement Fred made when he originally endorsed and signed on to the McCain Feingold act? Did you by any chance catch any of his dialogs when he was sitting in for Paul Harvey?
I became a Fredhead while listening to Fred sit in for Paul Harvey, way back in December of 06. He wasn’t running for office yet, in fact the draft Fred movement hadn’t even started yet. It may come as a surprise to some of you, but Fred isn’y raising massive donation for a reason, and it isn’t because he isn’t capable of it. It’s because he is ideologically opposed to billion dollar campaign races.
No I don’t know where the link to he statement on McCain Feingold is any more. But in that statement he made it perfectly clear that his support for CFR was to take the determination of American leadership out of the hands of special interests groups and the uber-financial elite and put it back into the hands of the common American.
Yes CFR failed, and Fred has admitted that it was both a failure and a mistake, but that doesn’t mean that Fred abandoned the idea of returning America’s leadership decision process to the people rather than those with the billions of dollars to manipulate the system.
Fred has made it perfectly clear to anyone actually paying attention to him that he fully intends to run the leanest financial campaign he possible can, and I respect this.
I have been signed up to Fred08 since the day the site went on line, and he has solicited me for contributions exactly one time. So far Fred has shown himself to be a man of his word, and when I feel the time is right he will get my financial support. Probably as he goes into South Carolina. I would have contributed when he asked if I had been able and am even now saving my pennys to do so when I can.
But as I told Rick, this is Fred’s campaign, and Fred is the one calling the shots. I believe that Fred has a plan, and that plan is far greater in scope than simply returning the republican part to its conservative roots. It also involves returning the decision making process back to the people and taking it out of the hands of big money.
This is the real reason that the MSM is working so hard to ignore him. Because if he is successful they lose an enormous amount of power and control over the electoral process.
Sorry for the overly critical response Rick, I know that you mean well. But this is about Fred and how he choses to run his campaign. He is the decider, not you and not me and certainly not the big money or MSM. When Fred decides to call it quits I will be glad to eat as much crow as you care to serve up, but not until then.
doriangrey on January 2, 2008 at 8:59 AM
No I did not hear that interview, but if I had heard his support of McCain-Feingold I would probably have been less, not more inclined to support him.
In any case, I am not questioning why you support him, I am questioning what I view as a melodramatic response to Rick Moran’s reality check.
Personally, I don’t see the a pre-meditated plan to run a campaign without money as a rational tactic, no matter how principled. Honor and nobility only go so far, and at some point one needs the fuel to continue and money is what fuels campaigns. Indeed, it’s a bit like not allowing water boarding even if a nuclear attack in imminent because we have to set an example for the rest of the word.
Certainly, if Fred has a plan like you say, he is doing a very poor job of getting the message out, because you are the first person who has detailed his grand strategy.
I admit that I didn’t listen to every word of his 17 minute video. Was this plan laid out there?
Buy Danish on January 2, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Moot point. Like a cow’s sound, but with a “T” at the end. But yes, I share your lamentation that the real conservatives in the race are getting so little support. I’m pretty much going to vote third party (or not at all) unless Paul or Thompson get the nod (and that seems highly improbable). Hopefully I won’t be alone. Maybe 4-8 years of Hill-bama will send a message and help correct the Republican party. 4-8 years of amnesty, 9/11 juicing, war mongering, gun banning, and slavery to altruism seems unlikely to do it. As much as Republicans complain about Bush, they’re happy to re-elect his failed faux-conservative policies.
Mark Jaquith on January 2, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Mark Jaquith on January 2, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Thank you. It’s been 38 years since my graduation. Obviously I didn’t excel at english composition.
Please forgive me my clumsy attempts, I’m trying.
leanright on January 2, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Reading comprehension is your friend. He is saying that Romney is all rhetoric when it comes to conservatism, in contrast to Fred who he believes is actually a conservative.
Gianni on January 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2