First question of the new year!
posted at 9:21 am on January 1, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
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: 1 2 Next »
Yes
TheSitRep on January 1, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Wake me on January 29
tommylotto on January 1, 2008 at 9:28 AM
I’m not so sure he’s going to wind up finishing ahead of “WRong Paul” here in NH, though.
ConBlog_NH on January 1, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Keeping my finger’s crossed. Polls of any kind are of limited value. If I discount the Des Moines Register, (which I do), how am I to justify CNN except to say that being a leftist, globalist institution, it has no reason to bolster Fred’s numbers. That said, I have no doubt, to both outlets, that Fred and Duncan are the two republicans they and the dems, least want to see succeed.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on January 1, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Then again, who knows? The Iowa caucus system, the prevalence of methamphetamine, etc, might yield crazy results.
TheSitRep on January 1, 2008 at 9:40 AM
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that he’ll be closer to the second place finisher (Huckabee) than people think.
srhoades on January 1, 2008 at 9:42 AM
I am hoping for a Fredalanche! © .
TheSitRep on January 1, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Fred’s the best guy. But if he can’t win the nomination, & Mitt can’t win in Nov., what do we do? Hold our noses & support JMac?
(I’d never support Rudy)
jgapinoy on January 1, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Great. This is what I need to see,
waking upcoming to in the brand new year after someslightmoderateoh, heck…I was wasted on booze and champagne…head pounding a little…And I read a post about Ron Paul maybe beating FRED in Iowa?
Ugh…I better go back to bed and wake up a little later, must still be having some nightmare…
JetBoy on January 1, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Yup- the RINO cannot bear to LOSE CONTROL of the GOP. They would rather have Hillary. After all, she will keep the borders open.
How many of ya’ll were completely disgusted with the GOP leaders during Shamnesty??? Did ya vow to “throw the bums out”??? Did ya holler for a leadership change???
Here’s yer chance, bro.
Don’t forget who was FOR amnesty.
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 9:48 AM
That sounds very familiar, almost positively Senatorial.
steveegg on January 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM
“Negative ad” blowback.
Mitt;
Fred!
Huck?
soundingboard on January 1, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Brooks is the ny times idea of a conservative. The same things he is saying about Romney were said about Reagan. people seem to forget that Reagan was a democrat and a union leader. Wasn’t Reagan behind late in the campaign to carter? Stand Romney on a stage next to hilary or any of the democrat/fascists and see who looks authentic.
Rino brooks and all the defeatist republicans seem to want to lose next year. I don’t understand why they insist on killing there own candidates when the democrats have out and out fascists running for president.
peacenprosperity on January 1, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Peace n’ Prosperity, you have anticipated my thoughts completely. You know if he’s the PBS idea of a conservative, he is anything but. He represents beltway mentality only, the kind we saw from Paul Gigot, another, McNeil favorite, during the Shamnesty debate.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on January 1, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Just remember Howard Dean’s Iowa collapse in 2004. Think happy thoughts and keep hope alive.
flipflop on January 1, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Mitt = Plastic Waffles
Huck = Snake In The Grass
Paul = Fringe(over 5million of em. $1/week each=$$$!!)
Keyes= Passion
Dunc = Brains, Ethics. Conservative, No Chance with MSM bias
Fred = Brains, Ethics, Waited until he had plan for actually being chief exec. to run. Media hates and attacks him so he must be an real conservative
Beto Ochoa on January 1, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Yeesh, I just read the first 5 pages of comments on that page and I’m not sure I want to be on the same side as some of those people. Oh and did you know that Ron Paul won all the debates and is clearly the most popular candidate? There is a serious infestation of crazy over there.
trubble on January 1, 2008 at 10:05 AM
A New Years Eve poll of Crown Royal, Iowa:
1.Fred(by 3)
2.Mitt
3.McCain
4.Huck
5.Giuliani
6.Joy Beher
7.Paul
Limerick on January 1, 2008 at 10:11 AM
I’m putting the laptop away and moving to the desk if I’m going to be spewing coffee on the keyboard and screen.
Beto Ochoa on January 1, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Brooks has credibility with some people? Whodathunkit.
Brooks is about as conservative as Arnold Schwarzenegger and shares the actor’s love of being loved by his lefty friends.
Nessuno on January 1, 2008 at 10:27 AM
I believe that some guy named Murray, seated at the far end of the bar was really in the no.7 spot…with Paul just behind him…
JetBoy on January 1, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Who is Bay Buchanan? Does she throw any weight around in conservative politics?
csdeven on January 1, 2008 at 10:27 AM
I don’t believe that Romney would lose at all.
The further we move along with primaries the better Republicans look and the worse Democrats are shown to be.
The greater disparity is in how much money a candidate can spend getting elected and Romney has that and will blow away any of the liberal candidates in a debate.
Speakup on January 1, 2008 at 10:32 AM
From Redstate:
Why indeed?
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Fred – All the Way!
Ignorant Mensan on January 1, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Bay Buchanan has been very a active force against illegal immigration and for Conservative causes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Buchanan
http://www3.lehigh.edu/News/news_story.asp?iNewsID=2429
Speakup on January 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM
That’s Pat in drag.
Actually, it’s his sister.
Political weight?
Lost a few pounds in the past coupla/three years.
And she wasn’t a heavyweight to begin with.
soundingboard on January 1, 2008 at 10:45 AM
And hey, remember…only TWO candidates (not including incumbents) who have ever won the Iowa Caucus have ever went on to win the White House.
Two. Dubya in 2000, and Carter in 1970’s
Iowa?…not that important.
JetBoy on January 1, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Beat me to it.
And used actual bio info.
One of these days I’m gonna get the hang of this commenting thing.
soundingboard on January 1, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I’m glad to hear Fred got his message out to the Iowa voters. I hope some of them actually listened to that message.
wccawa on January 1, 2008 at 10:55 AM
She was running Tancredo’s campaign. Not really surprising to see her go to Romney, but it means something that both she and he agreed on the next best candidate.
Spirit of 1776 on January 1, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Mitt is a very weak General Election candidate
bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 10:57 AM
True.
bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 10:58 AM
In the last 7 polls Fred has been in the double digits and Ron Paul has been in the single digits. If this were a regular election and not a caucus, I would say Fred has a good probability of beating Ron Paul. But these are caucuses and the organization on the ground is the important thing in caucuses.
bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Agreed. But that could also be construed as spin.
Look, you don’t have to be the winning horse in Iowa, but you do need to be within a length or two to remain viable.
As a Fredhead, I’ve said all along I’d settle for third and would be ecstatic with second. But anything less than that would be a grave disappointment.
That’s the way I see it. No spin.
We’ll certainly know a lot more by the time South Carolina rolls around.
wccawa on January 1, 2008 at 11:07 AM
All cheerleading aside….Iowa is big for Fred. It’s the cash. A poor finish and some of his current pool of donors will pull out and switch to the ‘winner’. A decent finish and he can keep his bus moving. Everything, for Fred, depends on SC. He knows he is going to take a hit in NH. To compete in SC he needs bucks and Iowa can give him that.
Limerick on January 1, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Great minds think alike. lol
I think the biggest factor for Fred here is the “Huckleberry Factor.” How many voters will get off the Huckabus and get into the red truck?
Huckleberry supporters seem like the only logical group Fred can peel voters from. Or, in this case, have Huck throw then under his own bus.
wccawa on January 1, 2008 at 11:11 AM
It appears that Mitt is picking up some substantial endorsements. I’m sure this is because he is the rep candidate who is closest to conservative principles AND appears to be electable in the general.
I’m not so sure about that. Mitt has made strides with the conservative base that many said he could never achieve. It’s possible that he can win over independents and undecideds as well. This makes it tough for me because I am inclined to vote for the guy who polls best against the dems in the general election. Right now that is McCain.
I’m not so blind that I don’t realize that the country wont necessarily react the way I do. Just because a Rudy, Romney, or McCain look OK to me, Americans may decide that fred or Huck are the best. I know my theory relies on polling, and I think polling is fairly accurate (if not perfect) and if the trend is that McCain leads by 10% over the dem, I have to re-think my position.
Ron, we miss you.
csdeven on January 1, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Just because somebody is a billionaire doesn’t mean he has a billion dollars sitting in a safe somewhere, ready to dump into a black hole whenever he feels like it.
Even Mitt Romney can’t afford to keep spending $6,000 per vote for every state in the union. He has bet the farm on the theory that winning the first primary will, after a solid year of campaigning, finally give him a head start. After all the time and money Romney spent in Iowa, if he wins by less than ten points there, the rest of the country will be pretty much out of the question.
The surge of the “charming” Huckabee must be have been real, otherwise the friendly people who live in my TV set wouldn’t have told me about it 500 times last week. But, strangely, as the vote nears, that surge is waning even faster and more mysteriously than it came about in the first place.
And, what do you know? Once all the hullabaloo blows over, it looks like it’ll be an easy top-tier finish in Iowa for Fred Thompson – who has largely ignored that state, and spent more time working on Super Tuesday than any other candidate.
And now my TV friends tell me that Thompson wants to quit, and they say the only question remaining is when he will drop out and give his endorsement to John McCain – whose campaign went bankrupt four months ago.
OK, I’ll admit that they’re saying makes a damned bit of sense; but I figure, hey, has the media ever lied to me before? So to Hell with common sense; my money is staying on Giuliani.
logis on January 1, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Fred also appeals to moderate conservatives and some Libertarian small government types.
Fred will not do well in NH. He might do OK in South Carolina, but if he doesn’t get some momentum before then he probably won’t. I agree, Iowa is important for Fred.
bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 11:18 AM
It does. People whose ear is closer to the ground then mine think he is the correct combination of electable and willing to enforce immigration law and build the fence. Re: principles, there is no question that he has conservative rhetoric now, the question has always been how ‘real’ is it. I give him some slack on that score though, because changing once could be genuine (Dennis Miller, CJ, etc), changing the 2nd time is the killer.
Spirit of 1776 on January 1, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Right now, no Republican leads by 10% over the likely democrats. And only McCain does anywhere near satisfactory in a head to tead with a Democrat (Hillary or Osama). But it is a bit early and I don’t see Mitt dropping out before Florida, and as Allah says, Mitt has the money to go the distance if he wants to. We will have to see what happens when Rudy starts his big push.
bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 11:22 AM
OsamaObama (it really was a slip up)bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 11:23 AM
madison,
If you’re interested, I responded to you on the “gotcha” thread in the headlines area.
csdeven on January 1, 2008 at 11:26 AM
51% of this country may very well deserve what it gets. the other 49% will just get f___ed over. Again and again and again.
David Brooks may be right on this account but he’s either on Methaqualone-[Quaaludes] or brain dead or doesn’t realize the country will not last 8 more years under the current crop of communist PC dems. It’ll all be over. The economy. The future. The war. The immigration. All over. And done. Stick a fork in us.
We’re completing the first quarter of a 30 year war. 30 years if fought correctly and diligently. The dems pull-out PC style will make the war a 100 year war which is exactly what the jihadists are planning on. They can win easily with a 100 year plan. And they know that. And they will.
Griz on January 1, 2008 at 11:26 AM
In the end, I think Mitt is a results guy. If he doesn’t do well going into SC, I think he’ll drop out.
csdeven on January 1, 2008 at 11:29 AM
As always, time will tell. Remember Yogi, ‘it’s never over till it’s over’.
countywolf on January 1, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Why is everyone treating Iowa like its the beginning and the end of the nomination race, “after Iowa, it’s all over.” Iowa is the first and it’s even not the most important primary election of this year. UpHuck may win Iowa but I believe that that is the only one he’ll win.
Ceroth on January 1, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Yep. When the NYT prints an op ed worried about GOP chances to get elected, take it with a grain of salt.
Every now and then the NYT likes to act worried, very worried about the sufferings of conservatives. Worried like a snake
It is predictable that the NYT would choose to print this op-ed.
When I see an article like this, I must assume the NYT is worried, very worried that Romney might win
Here is a list of recent Brooks op-eds at the NYT
In his 10-19-2007 op-ed ‘From the Back of the Pack’ Brooks builds up Huckabee as something the country needs with nary a word about immigration
Nuff said
entagor on January 1, 2008 at 11:41 AM
I think Romney is going to win. But the big question for me is how will the Huckafans go? If Fred can peel even a small percentage of them away from the Huck’s train wreck of a campaign, he’ll place second.
So my best case scenario goes something like this:
1) Romney
2) Thompson
3) Dingleberry
4) McCain/Two First Names
My worst case scenario goes something like this:
1) Dingleberry
2) Romney
3) McCain
4) Thompson/Two First Names
It’s all gonna depend on the Huckster voters. In the end, will they be wise enough to see Huck for the fraud he is? Or will they circle the wagons, close their ears and put him over the top?
wccawa on January 1, 2008 at 11:43 AM
After decades of being ‘dumbed down’ by a socialist school system
….there was Fred!, Adulthood intact….
& when the pavlovian terror-strike of schoolmarm’s command to raise up your hands! (or else)!! fired across the bows of the future commander-wannabees…Fred said NO….( more like FK U!)!!
.
For this wayfaring member of the periphery of thread commentators…
a defining moment of collective mental freedom emerged!
Thompson/Hunter
lobosan5 on January 1, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Good grief! Until real people actually get in there and caucus, nobody really knows what is going to happen. While I personally don’t delude myself into thinking that Duncan Hunter has a prayer of a chance to actually WIN, for the moment his prospects are as good as anyone else.
Moving from IA to NH, I am not sure if a solid win matters in the Granite State. Again, people can lose there, yet recover elsewhere. If there was ever a test for the candidates, South Carolina is probably the real deal.
I can’t believe I wasted so much time actually caring about the first contests. It was media hype, pure and simple, designed to sell papers, jack up viewerships, and otherwise turn bland guys (and one gal) into competitive human beings for the privilege to hold their index finger over “the big button.” Both political parties desire raw power and dominion over the country. Their means of execution are merely in the details.
You guys got me this time around. But not in 2012.
itzWicks on January 1, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Don’t you like how everyone says Romney can’t win in a general election? Yet they cant state why, or they blame his Mormonism, like eveyone in America is a prejudice ignorant bastard. The facts are neither are true, and more importantly when Bloomberg jumps into the race and splits the democratic vote, the republican nominee whoever that wins, wins handily.
paulsur on January 1, 2008 at 11:50 AM
It won’t matter.
If he gets less than 15% of the vote, he drops out on Friday.
rick moran on January 1, 2008 at 11:53 AM
You don’t think he’ll wait until seeing how South Carolina shakes out?
Slublog on January 1, 2008 at 11:55 AM
D. Limbaugh today – Time to Step up Fred:
MT on January 1, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Sorry Rick but you sound like Hugh Hewett, more projection of what you want to happen than anything factual.
doriangrey on January 1, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I’ve read you enough to know you are way smarter than that.
Maybe I’m slow but, this is sarcasm, right?
leanright on January 1, 2008 at 12:10 PM
This should cheer some up but not anyone here
Rassmussen
William Amos on January 1, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Only if something about the race indicates an opening to Fred and his donors, though it’s hard to see how a Huckabee collapse, for instance, that didn’t disproportionately boost Fred rather than McCain or Mitt, would be a sufficiently positive sign. Without something to build on, staying in would merely emphasize his humiliation while annoying the other candidates and, arguably, harming the party’s ability to come together.
CK MacLeod on January 1, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Will add there is SOME good news out of Rasmussen
William Amos on January 1, 2008 at 12:13 PM
As does David Brooks, plantation owner butt-boy.
lol. Trans-partisan candor = comprehensive reform = sellout of America.
What a cretin. A Romney triumph this month would not even by any means guarantee his selection as the Republican Presidential nominee let alone anything else.
MB4 on January 1, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Rick is a strong Thompson supporter.
Slublog on January 1, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Rick Moran actually helped organize the blogburst for Fred this past week. Once again we see the Fredhead groupthink at work: Criticize Thompson in any way, however valid, and it’s evidence that you’re spinning on behalf of another candidate. Yesterday it was Tammy, today it’s Moran.
Allahpundit on January 1, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Events of the last few days have not caught up to the polls yet. I look for a suprise.
Mitt
Fred!
Paul and Huck for a distant third.
conservnut on January 1, 2008 at 12:21 PM
We just got hit by light snow here in Ohio. So have to keep in mind that weather will play a role in Iowa
Also Organization is very important. Caucuses are different than Primaries so someone who is able to get out the vote is better off than someone who cant
That bodes well for Hillary and Ron Paul unfortunately. And poorly for someone like Fred who doesnt have much of an organization
Im afraid Ron Paul may do better than we would want
William Amos on January 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Dang, man. Do you always lump everyone into the same group, or is it just Fred supporters?
wccawa on January 1, 2008 at 12:28 PM
New definition for RINO, the Giuliani candidacy is:
Rudy In Name Only
Speakup on January 1, 2008 at 12:28 PM
The powers that be in the Republican Party are no longer elephants, they’re RINO’s, as was amply demonstrated during shamnesty, and Mitt is the chameleon candidate assuming the guise of a coalition candidate. The RINO’s in control of the Party think the platform Mitt has fabricated will preserve the coalition and allow RINO’s to remain in charge, whether he wins or not.
They’d be wrong. Sure, if Mitt looses the coalition may remain relatively intact, (although great damage has already been done and allegiances may shift regardless), but if Mitt wins, just like RINO Bush was largely responsible for the current sorry state of the conservative coalition, under another RINO the damage will only be compounded, even if at a slower rate.
I truly believe that Fred is the only authentic conservative candidate which can wrest the party back from the RINO’s and truly strengthen the “conservative” coalition. Pretenders can’t repair the damage that has already been done.
FloatingRock on January 1, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Eh my sports teams dont always win and I didnt win the lottery so why get upset over an election ?
I hated when BC won in 1992 but I survived it. I certianly hope a republican can win in 2008 but Im not going to get angry at other republicans even when they elect someone like Bob Dole to run against a weak Bill Clinton.
I still voted for Dole even though I knew he wouldnt win. But I learned long ago not to get angry at anyone other than dems it only makes them stronger
William Amos on January 1, 2008 at 12:33 PM
As Walter Mondale was the last gasp of the fading New Deal coalition, Romney has turned himself into the last gasp of the Reagan coalition./That coalition had its day, but it is shrinking now. The Republican Party is more unpopular than at any point in the past 40 years.
I gather that David Brooks thinks we need to be “trans-partisan” like McCain in order to win a popularity contest, and that we need to dilute the Reagan Coalition and change the party symbol from Elephants to Rinos.
It seems to me that The Republican Party has become unpopular with Republicans precisely because it has done too much of what David Brooks thinks we need to do to win.
Yes, we need Independents, but we also need Republicans. Immigration, taxes, and national security should be winning issues that appeal to both groups.
I realize that we lost both groups last time around, but what about the prior elections? Weren’t the election losses due more to a backlash from not sticking to principles than a sudden shift in voter’s suddenly lured by liberalism?
I find it hard to believe that voters shift so dramatically in such a short time frame from skewing conservative to skewing Left.
Buy Danish on January 1, 2008 at 12:33 PM
In a race with this many candidates, it never ceases to amaze me how people keep ignoring the elephant in the living room: Who voters may go to as candidates drop out.
It seems to me that Fred Thompson is second best in almost every category.
Abortion is the only issue anyone can call Huckabee “conservative” about with a straight face – but even on that issue, he wants the federal government to control the states. When it comes to the only strategy that is feasible: supporting conservative judges and overturning Roe v. Wade’s chokehold on states’ rights, Fred’s record is unimpeachable.
Sure, Tancredo beat Thompson on immigration. But that’s pretty much all Tancredo ever talked about! Mitt Romney plays the “moraler than thou” card with every hand – while he advocates national health care. Giuliani has that tough guy 9/11 and (lowercase) law-and-order image going for him, but what else is he conservative about? McCain is unimpeachable on the issue of national defense – except when it comes to America’s borders, where Thompson is solid.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who beats Thompson in terms of limiting (or maybe even abolishing) the federal government. Thompson is the only other candidate who actually advocates REDUCING spending, instead of trying to make Socialism a little more incremental…. Plus, Thompson has the nice little added side-bonus of not being a complete raving lunatic. And, hey, shouldn’t that count for something – even among libertarians?
When I look at the Republican field, I see a bunch of single-issue candidates – and Fred Thompson. It’s safe to say there won’t still be seven Republicans on the ticket next month; assuming all the losers’ supporters don’t suddenly decide to turn liberal, I see only one main destination for the bulk of the migrant voters. Call me crazy, but right now my electoral crystal ball is telling me the same thing it told me in 1979: “Lazy Actor.”
logis on January 1, 2008 at 12:38 PM
It wasn’t groupthink, AP. It was one-guy-think, and he was mistaken. Many of us are fully aware that Rick is a Fred supporter–albeit a realistically pessimistic one.
aero on January 1, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Brooks is right about Romney being an uninspiring figure, and he should know. It’s very hard to imagine Romney in the general exciting much passion from the party as a whole.
He’s running as a generic Republican at a time when generic Republican doesn’t fare very well – hard as it is for those of us who despise the Democrats to accept. His flip-floppery and his Mormonism open up very personal issues – trust and identification deficits which in turn would complicate tacking to the center for the general election.
In short, Romney’s generic-minus when generic probably isn’t good enough, and even generic-plus faces difficult odds. You couldn’t count him completely out, but you’d need major flubs from the Dems, and his lack of foreign policy and security credentials make him less likely to benefit significantly from external contingencies.
CK MacLeod on January 1, 2008 at 12:50 PM
I am cooking a corned beef, cabbage, black eyed peas w/ ham hocks and corn bread.
Just thought ya’ll’d wanna know.
TheSitRep on January 1, 2008 at 1:06 PM
csdeven lowers the boom on Romney.
Entelechy on January 1, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Don’t forget your daily visit to the Fred video on You Tube. You need to rank it every day and put in a good word for Fred every day. Share the video with your friends:
Honors for This Video:
#2 – Most Discussed (Today)
#1 – Most Discussed (Today) – News & Politics
#12 – Most Discussed (This Week)
#3 – Most Discussed (This Week) – News & Politics
#18 – Most Discussed (This Month) – News & Politics
#4 – Most Responded (Today)
#27 – Most Responded (This Week)
#7 – Most Viewed (Today)
#2 – Most Viewed (Today) – News & Politics
#96 – Most Viewed (This Week)
#16 – Most Viewed (This Week) – News & Politics
#100 – Most Viewed (This Month) – News & Politics
#11 – Top Favorites (Today)
#2 – Top Favorites (Today) – News & Politics
#72 – Top Favorites (This Week)
#5 – Top Favorites (This Week) – News & Politics
#54 – Top Favorites (This Month) – News & Politics
#27 – Top Rated (Today)
#7 – Top Rated (Today) – News & Politics
#44 – Top Rated (This Week) – News & Politics
Link is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VblJq4j0_SE
bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 1:22 PM
1. You say – Giuliani has that tough guy 9/11 and (lowercase) law-and-order image going for him, but what else is he conservative about?
This meme that Guiliani is a liberal is patently absurd, and among other things, he instituted welfare reform and workfare before anyone else.
Guiliani is only a liberal on “gay rights” and abortion, but he would appoint strict constructionist judges, so ultimately it doesn’t matter because those issues will be fought out in the courts.
2. You say, McCain is unimpeachable on the issue of national defense – except when it comes to America’s borders, where Thompson is solid.
How is wanting to close Gitmo and move it to Leavenworth, and opposing Bush on torture provisions “unimpeachable” on national defense? Yes, he has been consitently Hawkish on the War in Iraq, but his liberal Kumbaya side makes him dangerously weak in my view.
(No argument about Fred)
Buy Danish on January 1, 2008 at 1:30 PM
ALLAH- YOU KNOW THAT AIN’T TRUE.
We only get mad when you(who truth be told) HAVE NO EARTHLY IDEA what’s gonna happen of Thursday, insist on sayin’ that FRED has no chance, he’s finished, he’s out.
MY GOD- JUST WAIT TIL THE VOTES ARE CAST.You may not be as smart as you think you are.
You wanna criticize Fred- then have at it. Just stop with the stupid sh*t. (hats,polls,lazy-ENOUGH ALREADY)
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Come on, wccawa, everybody knows that Fred supporters are just a bunch of conservative whackos that haven’t come to terms yet with the fact that their days are numbered and extinction is inevitable. AP is merely trying to help us cope with reality, both for our own benefit as well as that of the new-order of the future, liberal nanny-stater and open-border RINOs.
Sorry, AP, couldn’t help myself. I haven’t taken my medication today.
FloatingRock on January 1, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Wait just a second– THIS is what’s got Allah’s panties all in a twist?? THIS is the BIG FAT Fredhead groupthink thrashin’ that we gave Moran???
Holy Sh*t Allah, grow a thicker hide will ya. What are you 10?
Ex-tex on January 1, 2008 at 1:54 PM
It’s my opinion that we are ALL going to be surprised by the Iowa caucuses. When the undecideds outnumber the projected polls, anything can happen. Even a Ronulan victory.
Tennman on January 1, 2008 at 2:08 PM
As of right now it doesn’t look like weather is going to be much of a problem, at least not in western Iowa, which is the conservative stronghold. Of course that is subject to change at any time.
Gianni on January 1, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Yea, right. I don’t take a Democrats word for who should be the republican candidate and I’m a Pualtard. I dont take rick Moran’s fatalistic view and I’m a mindless Fredhead. I have consistently adhered to the 11th commandment of not attacking or demonizing the candidates of my own party.
I have consistently called for reasoned and logical factual analysis of the strength and weaknesses of each candidates and somehow this ends up us me spinning. I suggest that we allow the American people to make up their collective mind without making a lemming rush for the cliff based upon what some MSM talking head or internet blog pundit thinks and somehow this is a bad thing.
Sorry my opinion doesn’t suit your agenda AP, no disrespect intended, you should know by now that I hold you in very high regard. But what I have posted in every thread on each candidate should speak for itself. I do not doubt Rick Moran’s sincerity or his support for Fred. I just don’t think his opinion is objective or realistic.
I don’t believe that being as reticent to get into the race as he was that Fred will be looking for the first opportunity to get back out. I think based upon his record of consistency and deliberateness to expect him to quite before super Tuesday is to underestimate him as a candidate.
In spite of his support for Fred and his efforts in the blogburst Rick’s prediction sounds like like a projection of his fears and a need to cast aside what he fears will not succeed in order to move on to something that will.
It ain’t over till the fat lady sings, and she ain’t singing in Iowa or New Hampshire, at best she might be warming up a little. There is still a long way to go and what have in the past appeared to be far stronger candidates have fallen by the wayside far later than this only to be replaced by candidates that no one thought had a chance.
Like I said before, it ain’t over till it’s over, and it ain’t even close to being over yet. Declaring it so now is a fools errand. I choose not to be a fool and rush to premature judgment. If Fred drops out as soon as rick expects I will be surprised and a bit disappointed, but I will not be bitter and will support the republican candidate(unless of course it is Ron Paul). I am pretty much ok with Mitt or Rudy and could even hold my nose while voting for McCain or the Huckelberry.
In all honesty I think you do both of us a great disservice responding in this fashion. I am not tasked with the responsibility of running this fine website or generating traffic here and thus cannot appreciate the pressure or stress you are under. but as I said before what I have posted on all the candidates should speak not only for itself but volumes about me as well.
doriangrey on January 1, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Huh?
It’s gonna be a long year, folks.
hillbillyjim on January 1, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Romney will be the player in the end game. McCain will peter out, Rudy loses voter appeal. Fred might be a better choice, but he’s just not going to get it done. Micheal Steele slips into the #2 position.
Not saying it’s perfect, just fate. And just maybe a winning combination against Clinton.
leanright on January 1, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Brooks is a NY CINO. Token Rockefeller Repub. Romney will beat the Hildebeast in a landslide.
roninacreage on January 1, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Humble prediction for 2008:
Trivia question: Who was almost single-handedly responsible for Fred Thompson becoming POTUS?
Answer: Carolyn Washburn
fred5678 on January 1, 2008 at 3:23 PM
SECOND LOOK AT DORIANGREY.
fourstringfuror on January 1, 2008 at 3:44 PM
aero on January 1, 2008 at 3:45 PM
I used to like Brooks, back when he actually seemed to have real insights to offer.
What exactly is this “middle-class anxiety that Huckabee is tapping into”? Everyone but die-hards in the press has “forsaken the trans-partisan candor that McCain [supposedly!] represents.” Can we really count on every “true conservative” around here agree that “the sort of rational planning Mitt Romney embodies never works”? Does anybody really think that “his biggest problem is a failure of imagination.”?
If Brooks wants to talk about Romney’s negatives, how about giving us some actual numbers so we can compare ‘em to Hillary, not to the other Republican contenders — after all, he’s making a prediction about the election, not the primaries
Brooks is dishing out pure-T BS here — and I’m not even in the Romney camp. He poses no winning formula as an alternative, nor does he even attempt to argue that any of the other candidates are any more electable than Romney, so let’s just call this essay what it is: a hit piece.
“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.”
Anybody who bothers to parse that thought out would have to conclude that “some” conservative pundits are just phoning it in.
JM Hanes on January 1, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Hmmm I think I read someplace…Thou shall not tempt the lord thy Allahpundit, for his wrath is sore and fierce… ;P
doriangrey on January 1, 2008 at 3:48 PM
I don’t really get the animus toward Fred! supporters around here. They really, really like their guy. We should all be so lucky.
JM Hanes on January 1, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Just a Grunt at JammieWearingFool:
I finally got around to watching Fred Thompson’s 17 minute video he made for the folks in Iowa. In watching it I more and more believe that the man is not just a stuffed shirt. When he talks about being a leader he talks about what it really means to be a leader. Most politicians I classify as managers. There is a big difference and I have a little bit of experience at being both.
The questions for Republicans and conservatives is can you really handle a conservative leader like Fred? Look inside yourself. Do you really want somebody who will do the tough things required? Or do you just want somebody who can make you feel good and not interrupt your life? Everybody has their own personal list of what they want the president to address. But how many candidates have stood up and actually said they are looking out for the best interest of the country and not whatever special interest group they happen to be addressing at the moment?
I think Fred is that man. You need to give this video a view and watch it and listen, really listen. At the end if you don’t think he is a conservative and you still consider yourself a Republican maybe you need to reevaluate who you consider to be a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Are you looking at the candidates based merely on the “electability” factor or are you willing to vote for someone who will attempt to restore the conservative principles that Republicans used to stand for?
bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 5:23 PM
But what I have posted in every thread on each candidate should speak for itself. I do not doubt Rick Moran’s sincerity or his support for Fred. I just don’t think his opinion is objective or realistic.
These are the “objective and realistic” facts of Fred’s campaign.
1. He has no money in the bank. He is living hand to mouth – whatever comes in goes to paying campaign expenses. He has no direct mail, no telephone banks, no get out the vote operation worth mentioning, and little in the way of an organization in Iowa compared to Romney.
2. Fred’s bus tour has been going well. But where he is drawing 50-75 or maybe 100 people to his events, Huckabee and Romney have been drawing several hundred at each stop.
3. Even if by some fortunate happenstance Thompson gets 15% in Iowa (that’s a threshold number for getting any delegates) he will finish far behind Romney and Huckabee. There will be no “bump” from such a finish. This is what is expected. The candidate himself realizes this and now says he must finish second. He doesn’t finish the thought and say “in order to go on” but the meaning is clear.
4. Thompson missed the filing deadline to get on the ballot in Delaware and unless he files in the next 24 hours, he will miss the filing deadline in Texas. Does this sound like a national campaign to you?
5. In order to compete in South Carolina, Thompson will need at least a couple of million dollars raised between now and January 19. And that’s a minimum. When the FEC numbers come out tomorrow I will be surprised if Fred raised more than $4 million for the quarter. And what about Florida? And Michigan? And the 21 primaries on Super Tuesday?
This is not pessimism or fatalism. It is how things are. Not accepting reality puts you in the position of engaging in wishful thinking. I consider that childish.
I am awaiting your “realistic and objective” dismissal of these facts
rick moran on January 1, 2008 at 5:38 PM
If everyone donated a dollar to Fred…
I wonder how many of you Fredheads here and elsewhere have been sending him cash. He’s not even on the top of my list, but I’d be willing to send him a few bucks just to keep him alive, especially if it would hurt team Huckabee and McCain.
Buy Danish on January 1, 2008 at 5:53 PM
I have send $ 4 times so far and will probably set up a monthly deal as to max out over his campaign after Iowa.
Just go to http://www.fred08.com/ You country needs your support.
TheSitRep on January 1, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »