As heart-ache looms, Fredhead recriminations against the media begin
posted at 10:15 am on January 2, 2008 by Allahpundit
The shirt-rending won’t start in earnest until tomorrow night but why not join See-Dub and Patterico by getting a jump on it? This critique of the style-over-substance media is typically the lament of lefties looking for excuses as to why more socialist-leaning Democrats (like Silky) haven’t caught on with the public, but it works just as well for True Conservatives. And there’s more than a grain of truth to it: When Pew asked the public earlier this year how they were enjoying the election coverage so far, fully 77% complained that they weren’t getting enough policy stories. If only the media was more focused on attrition through enforcement instead of, to borrow Patterico’s phrase, Mitt Romney’s pizzazz, America might have a fee-vah and the only prescription would be Fred.
Or, alternatively, maybe he could have done a much, much better job getting those big policy plans of his across on the stump. I leave you with this:
That means trying to win over voters like Marjore Roy, who is backing Fred Thompson because the Bible says Mrs. Clinton needs to be blocked.
“There’s something in the Bible that says a woman’s not supposed to be in the lead,” she said after a Thompson event in Ames this weekend, adding that she’s dismissed Republicans Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney because they can’t compete.
“I just think this guy look like a president” — she nodded at Mr. Thompson yards away — “the others are too pretty.”
Update: Incidentally, the people at National Review seem pretty well up to speed on the policy differences between the candidates and yet they endorsed Romney. What foul media gambit is responsible for brainwashing them?
Update: A sharp comment at Patterico’s.
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
Unfortunately, it is threads like this that perpetuate the perception. I have a heck of lot more respect for people who take a stand and work like crazy for whomever their candidate is. Not taking a stand is the easier, lazier route.
Connie on January 2, 2008 at 11:57 AM
This is about career for all these people, Fred is no exception. He needs to get out of this with at least as much gravitas as he emoted originally. I don’t blame him. He would be my preferred nominee, but I have no illusions as to what drives any of them. That’s why Congressmen like to become lobbyists or “consultants.” Hillary is the only one who appears genuinely dedicated and her motives aren’t pleasant to contemplate.
a capella on January 2, 2008 at 11:58 AM
4-8-12-16 years…and nothing here will be more fun than that. Look at the 2006 outcome.
Too sad for the country and the world, but whatevs…
Entelechy on January 2, 2008 at 11:58 AM
I always look forward to your posts, Ms. E. We think alike on many issues.
Tennman on January 2, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Absolutely, I’m pro-choice too.
But I want a pro-choice candidate that is not a liar about it. Fred is pro-choice — that’s good — but he looks you right in the eye and lies by saying he is pro-life and always has been. That tells you everything about Fred.
I like Fred’s position (better than any of the other candidates, BTW). It is the man that I cannot stand as a candidate — his character and his experience render him woefully inadequate for the job.
tommylotto on January 2, 2008 at 12:02 PM
The NR wasn’t brainwashed at all. They just made a concious decision to back the wrong guy is all. Just because you work at or edit or subscribe to the NR doesn’t make you immune from being a dumb arse.
Tim Zank on January 2, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Tennman, thanks. This cycle has me soured badly and I’m toying with taking a sabbatical. It’s just too crazy and makes no sense any more. We actually will deserve to lose if this kindergarten play continues on all fronts, from top to bottom in the party. It’s time to take a good lashing and reorganize. We have much to ‘thank’ 43 for, and mostly us.
Entelechy on January 2, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Eh…….Fred will be just fine. There is a nice big slice of roast crow on the plate but I’m not ready to dig in just yet.
I’m very interested to see the results matched up to the polls of the last week or so.
I tired of the ‘whining’ about community not trusting the polls.
Limerick on January 2, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Through the magic of the internet, and in conjunction with a mature intellect, we are now able to be truly informed about the POS’s that are running on both sides.
Having identified them as such does not and cannot eliminate them. You merely now know, in advance, that a deeply flawed person will be our next President.
Thinking that is something new, some people can’t handle that and say they will stay home. Not a good idea. I strongly suspect nothing has really changed fundamentally in regard to candidates’ abilites/pandering/lies, including our “heroes” of the past.
JiangxiDad on January 2, 2008 at 12:07 PM
…kind of like 43 claimed security and pro life…heh, he’s not a pro-lifer, nor is his dad, mom, wife and kids. No need to bring in 500 ‘claims’ to the contrary. Reagan was not a pro-lifer until he ran, nor was 41. Simply, I don’t care what any say any more. Scum of the earth, all.
Besides, constitution, security, economy, and slowing socialism trump all these social issues for me.
Entelechy on January 2, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I’m a Fredhead. One person on a message board doesn’t speak for all of us, thank you very much, you hate-filled bigot.
I have stated before I will never cast a vote for Hillary or Obama. That said, Reagan would not have had the effect he had, had Jimmah not been there for four years. I WILL be refusing to vote for any Republican candidate if they’re a amnesty shill or gun grabber, and most likely I’ll vote for a third party candidate if there is one worth it. Sadly, between Bloomberg and Paul, it won’t look like there will be one.
However, I fully agree that four years of Hillary is deserved when the American people vote on how good a candidate’s commercials are, and not what their policies are. What boggles me is that this was in the original post:
…and people still ignore it.
Meh, I can always hope for Hunter to have a miracle.
MadisonConservative on January 2, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I’m going to quote from my good frenemy/debate stylist csdeven, because, aside from my comments (g) I think he’s hit the nail on the head here.
It is tempting to take the sabbatical and walk away. This derangment we have been facing is a direct result of the ’60s culture coming to the ‘fore in America. What we dream of as children often is hard to reconcile as adults. In short, the Democrats have simply not grown up yet.
As Republicans and Conservatives, it is imperative that we stay the course. We are the solidly ground middle that holds the country together. We are only to the right of the pendulum as it swings its crazy way from center to left.
Our ideas are time-tested because they work. Our ideals are strong. In any battle of ideals or ideas, when we use the entelechy principle of Aristotle, we see that we are complete in ourselves. This idea of change for the sake of change makes no sense.
I guess, in short, I would urge — no, beg — you not to take a leave of absence. We need sane thinkers and people like you who will stick the pin into the inflated egos of all of us bubbleheads.
Besides. The show is now really just starting. How can you turn away from the greatest game of all? ;-)
Tennman on January 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Nope Allah, that’s not entirely true. Fred’s FAVORABLE press ended THE VERY DAY HE ANNOUNCED. If he’d have announced sooner- that’s when the negative stories would have started.
Ex-tex on January 2, 2008 at 12:18 PM
I base my conclusion that Fred is pro-choice from his own words on Meet The Press. The contradictions in that interview are so thick it makes your head spin. His candidacy should have ended right after that show.
tommylotto on January 2, 2008 at 12:19 PM
In my opinion, for what it is worth, you all can forget about FDT being anyone’s Vice-President. He is running for President so that he can be in a position to get good judges on the Supreme Court and try to enact as much of his agenda as possible from the bully pulpit. He is a “political” person but he is not a “politician” who can not exist without being in power. If he does not obtain the Republican nomination he will return to his previous, very personally satisfying life with no qualms and continue his life as before.
Also in my opinion, for what it is worth, America will be the loser, not FDT.
maxine on January 2, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Actually, it started about a month before he announced. A lot of outlets, including blogs, were saying “Where is he?”
MadisonConservative on January 2, 2008 at 12:20 PM
I’m still amazed at how many people revere the SCROTUS as if they have supreme veto power over the other two branches of gubmint – they simply don’t.
The SCROTUS doesn’t ‘rule’ despite the use of the term ‘issue rulings’. They are not kings. Their ‘rulings’ are _opinions_, nothing more. They have absolutely zero force of law.
Sure, you can use their ‘rulings’ in legal arguments in court if you wish, and that may help you win a case, but the law still stands until _the legislature_ repeals it.
If you think that the SCROTUS is so vital in your everyday lives…if you think that Hillary would stuff pinkos onto the bench and bring Americe crashing around our ears…consider this – for all the ‘gun control’ legislation that exists from coast-to-coast, that insults, abuses and offends our individual RKBA…where was SCROTUS? 70-odd years have passed since the last ‘ruling’ on a 2A issue…many appointments to SCROTUS have been and gone in that time, and nothing has changed.
Why do people persist in the belief that SCROTUS are our knights in shining armor? In the vast sea of sh!tty legislation, they actually accomplish very little to benefit our lives.
The _real_ political power has always been right in our backyards…local and state legislatures are the key to thwarting the liberal cancer…not whether-or-not Shrillary is preening herself in the oval office.
Ochlan on January 2, 2008 at 12:20 PM
You’ve said he’s pro-choice. He is proposing to allow states to outlaw abortion or maintain its legality. So, two questions remain:
If he is willing to allow states to allow abortion to remain legal, how is he pro-life?
If he is willing to allow states to outlaw abortion, how is he pro-choice?
Right now, abortion is legal everywhere, and nothing is being done to change that. His policy could only help decrease abortion, not increase it. Net, he is pro-life.
MadisonConservative on January 2, 2008 at 12:23 PM
tommylotto, I’ve already said that I’ll vote for your guy, if he’s it. I get all that. Please, just please, try to get some of the other…or just have a nice, productive legal day, or day off. We’re ok, regards,
Entelechy on January 2, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Blowing off a New Hampshire debate for an appearance on Leno kinda makes you an easy target Ex-tex. Maybe if Fred had a campaign strategy, you know, some way he could make his policy proposals clear to people who don’t feel the instinctive urge to check out ImwithFred08.com for an hour, he’d probably be sitting pretty.
But Fred doesn’t play the silly games the other candidates play with their silly raising money and their idiotic wanting the job enough to sacrifice thier lives 24/7 and their establishing grassroots organizations and their creating strong media spots and showcasing and promoting their strengths.
When will Romney, Rudy, McCain, Huckabee and Paul learn that all that campaigning doesn’t matter on election day, you just have to sit there and be right on policy.
BKennedy on January 2, 2008 at 12:24 PM
This is exactly right. NRO lauded every one of Fred’s policy papers, but looked at the whole package and thought Mitt had a better chance of being electable. Unless this is strictly to generate traffic, I’m not really sure why Allah keeps propping up this strawman of the fanatical Fred Heads that will be committing mass suicide Thursday night. I like the guy a lot and think he’d be the best president, but I will be disappointed, and nothing more, if he finishes a distant third in Iowa and drops out, as I think is the most likely scenario. I also think it’s perfectly fair to point out that our election process has become completely about style and talent for campaigning over real policy issues. How else can you explain that three Senators with an average of one term between them are the prohibitive frontrunners on the Dem side?
Dudley Smith on January 2, 2008 at 12:24 PM
That was so frustrating! He missed the boat big time.
ronsfi on January 2, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Yep. I’m amazed at the amount of effort/passion put forth trying to squeeze one’s favorite candidate into a target of predetermined shape, and create an amorphus mass out of one’s non-favorites. I’m inclined to think the driving force is based on a four year cycle of unique endocrine changes in our citizens, similar to cicada development, and complete with chirping sounds.
a capella on January 2, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Because it’s such a game any more. Worry not though, I’m too addicted to HA.
p.s. thanks for that “entelechy principle in Aristotle” – finally one who cared about it :) It’s what started it all. The rest is a long/complicated, and interesting story.
Entelechy on January 2, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Very apt description. I have not been in a full-fledged cicada hatch, but regarding chirping, my next-door neighbor described it as being louder than a football stadium roar.
Tennman on January 2, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Whatevah!
sonnyspats1 on January 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I think there is a difference between being a good politician and being a good president. I would argue that Bill Clinton is likely the best living American politician. I deplore the man and don’t say that as a compliment. Fred isn’t as good of a politician by a long stretch. And he has not run a very good campaign and I don’t understand what they are thinking. On the other hand, his policies are the closest to mine of all the candidates. I think he would be a much better president than candidate, but in modern televised politics, that doesn’t matter. In another age I think he would have been a shoo-in.
deepdiver on January 2, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Just watched Fred on Fox…
THREE questions about his schedule… and the “Fire in his belly”…
Even after he said he wouldn’t talk about it….
Liked his answer… but even Fox is pushing the meme….
Romeo13 on January 2, 2008 at 12:34 PM
And I would love to hear it some day.
Tennman on January 2, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I guess this is the “realism” some people demand Fredheads accept.
MadisonConservative on January 2, 2008 at 12:37 PM
If McCain chooses Lieberman as his running mate then he would have to think that he can get more Democrats and Independents to vote for him than Republicans.
He is already correctly perceived as a liberal and Lieberman would clinch that perception for him. I think it’s more likely that he would name him to his cabinet.
Buy Danish on January 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Allah, the argument about NRO’s endorsement is a red herring.
Romney wasn’t the consensus pick of the NRO *staff* — Romney was endorsed by the “Senior Editorial Staff”, aka, Kathyrn-Jean Lopez. She’s had a girl-crush on Mitt since at least this time last year, if not longer. She’s just as far in the tank for Mitt as Hugh Hewitt, just a little less obnoxiously so.
Many of the other NRO staffers are on record as saying that the NRO editorial endorsement does not represent their personal choice.
Purple Fury on January 2, 2008 at 12:56 PM
As a Fredhead I must admit that that was the most damning, and sadly, true about Fred.
AlexB on January 2, 2008 at 1:08 PM
My opinion of the National Review recommendation is that, apparently, they are much more trusting of politicians that I am. I don’t trust politicians at all, frankly. A year ago Romney was a liberal and I simply don’t believe that people can truly reinvent themselves in such a short period of time, especially when their motives are clearly self-serving.
Romney is, by and large, the same person he was a year or two ago. You can count on it. Sure people change, but not all at once. This is a simple fact of life.
Why do other people place so much trust in politicians? I have not idea and I wish they wouldn’t be so naïve. I think that some people prefer to follow consensus and others prefer to think for themselves. It’s much easier, for example, to follow the recommendation of National Review than to take the time to understand your own priorities in life, examine the candidates and make your own decisions.
For example, you use NRO’s recommendation of Mitt to bolster your argument, AllahPundit, but if you were to take the time to examine the points the editors at NR made in support of their recommendation of Mitt and then go back and examine my comments here at HotAir in the weeks leading up to NR’s endorsement, you’ll find that I had been making the same exact points. In fact, in one of my comments I said that Fred and Mitt were the only Republican candidates that were trying to appeal to the “broadest spectrum” of the conservative coalition, and now today I see some indication, (which I haven’t examined closely yet), that Mitt is using the same word, “spectrum”.
The problem is that Mitt isn’t REALLY a broad spectrum conservative; he only pretends to be one with the goal of becoming POTUS. Only a few days after NR’s recommendation Mitt went on Meet the Press, (I think it was), and failed to impress 2nd amendment voters that he would stand up for their rights. In the same interview he was also very soft on another principle that is important to conservatives.
The point being that even though Mitt was my number two until that point, (a distant number two), I didn’t “trust” him, as you would have us trust NR’s endorsement now. The problem with supporting a make-believe conservative candidate is that, a few days after you place your faith in them they forget what they’d learned from the results of a focus group and fail to stand up for conservative principles. It’s because they don’t have conservative principles of their own to draw from.
That’s why NR should have recommended Fred, because Fred isn’t pretending to be a conservative, he actually is one, at least close enough..
I’ll finish by saying that most of the people that frequent political blogs are intelligent and informed enough to make their own decisions without following the less informed heard. The recommendations of NR and Tancredo are interesting, but not very influential in my decision making process. We can make up our own minds.
Don’t vote for a make-believe conservative, vote for the real thing.
Vote for Fred!
FloatingRock on January 2, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Months and months ago I was saying Hunter is the guy for “conservatives.” I kept getting told he has no chance. This was before Fred even did his testing the waters thing. Back when the rumours were just starting. People kept telling me the same thing over and over. It got so frustrating, that I stopped commenting at places that I enjoyed commenting at. Because Fred had so underwhelmed me on Leno that night when he said “I don’t desire the job, but I want to do some things only a President can do.” I had got so excited from his buildup. From everyone telling me he was gonna hit the ground running. He was gonna punch the hippies and commies and take no prisoners. I still did pop culture stuff once in a while, or took a shot at a Dim. I still read everything every day, but hardly commented
I’m still a Hunter guy, if he’s around when my primary comes. Though barring Paul, Chucklebee and most likely McAmnesty my vote can be counted on in the general.
Sorry for the long post. Felt like I had to say it.
PowWow on January 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM
I think this is exactly right, and might be the best “plan B” for getting an “R” in the White House (RINO, that is). Still better than the Hildebeast,the Obamination, or the Silky.
peski on January 2, 2008 at 2:11 PM
but you do it so well
Gianni on January 2, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Sweet, sweet flailing.
Vizzini on January 2, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Waah waah waah. Man-crush. Girl-crush.
Maybe we should be running someone like Mickey Rourke for the White House because according to some “conservatives” (who seem to be suffering from the deadly sin of envy) having all you teeth and hair is a bad thing and means you’re nothing but a plastic robot who can’t be trusted.
The fact that he has a brilliant mind and a wealth of experience is irrelevant.
If only Ed Rollins could knock some of those teeth out there’d be something for you all to love.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
Buy Danish on January 2, 2008 at 2:41 PM
This boils down to supreme court nominations. That is the over-riding reason to vote for any rep over any dem.
csdeven on January 2, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I agree with you 100% about the importance of the judiciary. This is the reason I finally threw my hat into the ring for FTD—warts and all. He is the only one that I believe will put through Federalists judges because he is, was, and will continue to be a strong Federalist. At his age he is not going to change his stripes on that issue. As for all the others, we have rhetoric with a large dose “believe me, would I lie to you?”. And yes, for expediency’s sake, I believe some would.
maxine on January 2, 2008 at 2:45 PM
I’ve come to the conclusion that Fred’s ONE big mistake was in assuming that the voters of America have enough common sense and enough interest to make some effort to learn about the people that will run their lives, that he could overcome the RinoNC AND the MSM by speaking plainly and honestly.
LegendHasIt on January 2, 2008 at 2:49 PM
maxine on January 2, 2008 at 2:45 PM
dose of “believe
maxine on January 2, 2008 at 2:51 PM
I’ve come to the conclusion that Fred’s ONE big mistake was in assuming that the voters of America have enough common sense and enough interest to make some effort to learn about the people that will run their lives,
No, I think his mistake was assuming that the average voter had at least a semblance of a brain. To bad they don’t.
duff65 on January 2, 2008 at 3:13 PM
C’mon guys, that isn’t fair. Most of us have made very thoughtful reasoned assessments of the candidates. That includes you Fredheads also. Just because we don’t support Fred doesn’t mean we are barely functioning morons.
This primary season isn’t about average voters. We are close to being political junkies. That is why we vote in the primaries.
csdeven on January 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Sorry, but I’ve never been a fan of cutting off ones nose to spite his face. This boils down to supreme court nominations. That is the over-riding reason to vote for any rep over any dem.
That’s a giant load of crap. The Supreme Court nominees we’d likely get out of a Romney, Giuliani, or McCain presidency would be more Souters and Kennedys: ciphers who coast through the Senate only to turn out to be moderate squishes who screw us over, and guys whose jurisprudence is directed by their own overweening egos rather than constitutional principles.
The only difference is that the Democrats are honest enough to tell us that they’ll make terrible nominations. Romney, Giuliani, and McCain are all singing from the “I’ll nominate strict constructionists” hymnal now, for the purposes of the primary, but there’s no reason to think they’ll actually ever follow through.
Centerfire on January 2, 2008 at 3:23 PM
I agree with your point, except I think his emphasis was not that the average voter would vote for someone other than Fred, but that they would only vote for someone other than Fred because they have no interest in anything but TV spots and poll numbers.
MadisonConservative on January 2, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Most of us have made very thoughtful reasoned assessments of the candidates.
Right, like this “fire in the belly!” anti-Fred carol that people keep singing.
Thoughtful.
Reasoned.
Centerfire on January 2, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Yes, he does.
Ex-tex on January 2, 2008 at 3:36 PM
I’m am sure there are some like that, but I don’t think there are very many participating in the primaries.
csdeven on January 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM
I wasn’t talking about us ‘HotAirheads’ CS.
One could assume that many of us are backing the wrong candidate for any number of reasons, but at least we ARE informed, even if our personal prejudices get in the way of making a wise decision.
However, I don’t believe that ‘only’ political junkies vote in the primaries….. It still will take a heck of a lot of uninformed voters who make their decisions based on stupid things like appearance, or a ten second soundbite from an MSM ‘talking head’ to get through the primaries.
Looking at, and reading the interviews of most of the people expected to vote in the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire doesn’t give me much hope of them voting for a candidate based on being informed. Seems to me like they will be voting for whoever fed them the best meal or shoveled snow out of their driveway or ran the most ads.
By the way, congratulations on your new tone on these FredThreads. You are now much more effective in getting your message across.
LegendHasIt on January 2, 2008 at 3:45 PM
I was one who had real hopes for Fred. After observing that there is very little to observe when it comes to his campaign though, I’m feelin’ this. . .
The Ritz on January 2, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Boy, do I miss Reagan and Goldwater – both with (Conservative) communication skills. I got to campaign for and vote for Goldwater, I voted for Reagan FOUR times (twice as governor), and have been really impressed with Hunter on multiple in-person occasions – NOBODY else is talking about fair trade versus the current unfair exemption of VAT from trade equalization formulae (137 countries have a VAT, which is exempt from equalization.
Hunter and Thompson are the only candidates I am contributing to. One can hope.
fred5678 on January 2, 2008 at 3:52 PM
You and I both know the answer.
Fred is a pro-choice federalist. Fred said the decision should go back to the states and is willing to have states reach conclusions that he personally does not agree with. That is a legal constitutional interpretation position and has nothing to do with abortion. It is the same position that Rudy has BTW.
However, once Roe is overturned and the decision is returned to the states, how would Fred (back in Tennessee) vote on possible legislation dealing with abortion? Answer: He is against criminal prohibitions against women having abortions and doctors performing them — he is pro-choice. He may not like them and may want to restrict them, but he ultimately believes in a woman’s right to choose. Which is the same position as Rudy BTW.
tommylotto on January 2, 2008 at 3:53 PM
So Rudy has pledged to allow states to outlaw abortion? Please enlighten me.
MadisonConservative on January 2, 2008 at 3:57 PM
“I’m just tired of the whining.”
Looks a lot more like a kid pickin’ at a scab to me.
JM Hanes on January 2, 2008 at 3:59 PM
HMMM- Sounds like AllAH to me.
Ex-tex on January 2, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Fred is on Hannity RIGHT now, top of the 4pm EST hour.
Darksean on January 2, 2008 at 4:08 PM
He covets his iPhone like its a religious relic; he’s the very epitome of style over substance. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that he dislikes Fred or the people who suport him. They’re like Allahpundit kryptonite…
liquidflorian on January 2, 2008 at 4:24 PM
You have not made thoughtful reasoned comments about Fred Thompson from the start. Distorting, obfuscation and outright lies have been your game and Romney seems to be your man. God help us if Romney is as ethically challenged as some of his supprters have been on this website.
I’ll bury my hopes for a Fred surge if he bows out. Until then I’ll continue to enjoy the ride. Bumpy as it has been.
Bill C on January 2, 2008 at 4:40 PM
I have not been a fan of csdeven’s rhetoric, however since he was mildly admonished by Bryan a few nights back, I can say that your current assement of csdeven is late-coming and not relevant.
That said, although I’m not entirely in agreement with csdeven (and other fred-opposers), as of lately, he has made his arguments easier to swallow and understand.
geckomon on January 2, 2008 at 4:48 PM
If he repented of his own free will then I would have apologized and accepted his conversion. However, I think my criticism is valid and his claim to thoughtful reasoning is a little hard to swallow.
Bill C on January 2, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Valid, however, he wasn’t threatend as in so much benevolently advised. Not to mention, he is consitently civil now, in comparison. I just don’t want to have the same old personal rhetoric re-emerge just cuz. In other words, the ‘baiting’ culture of some of the discussions here gave me headaches (and for some, heartache).
geckomon on January 2, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Since when would that be up to the POTUS. Its up to the SCOTUS. Rudy has promised to appoint judges that would most likely result in that outcome — strict constructionist — unless of course the Justices found that Roe was precedent, but that would be the case with any Justice appointed to the SCOTUS.
tommylotto on January 2, 2008 at 8:15 PM
No. It’s up to the legislature(s). Judges cannot make law. Presidents cannot make law.
This belief in the judicial ‘power’ of ‘striking down’ law has to stop. The judiciary does not have veto power over the legislature.
Ochlan on January 2, 2008 at 8:29 PM
I hope this was intended to be sarcasm, Allah has been a bit snarky thats true, but that volume of attention he has shown Fred speaks quite a bit about what he thinks, and the vast majority of attention he has given Fred has been positive.
doriangrey on January 2, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Only the legislature or a juror.
TheSitRep on January 2, 2008 at 8:55 PM
When csdeven comes around, he will be a great Fred supporter.
That day will soon be here and I wan’t to preempt it by saying to CS welcome to the fold.
TheSitRep on January 2, 2008 at 8:58 PM
Denial ain’t a river in Egypt…
tommylotto on January 2, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Fred looked really great before he declared his intention to run – and then he began looking like an “also run” candidate. Then and now I come to the same conclusion.
I was mistaken when I thought Fred “got it”. What the majority are looking for is center conservative that does not favor the rich. His policies obviously favor the rich, and a particular disappointment was a plan to cut social security benefits for those that thave contributed all their lives. Those that need this income in later years who needed it the most would have benefits cut at a time when they are in most desperate need.
FRED – WAKE UP! YOUR CANDIDACY IS A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY UNLESS YOU REALIZE THAT YOUR INITIAL SUPPORT CAME FROM THOSE WHO THOUGHT YOU WOULD CHAMPION THE NEEDS OF THE NATION AND PANDER TO THE NEEDS OF THE WEALTHY. THE TWO INTERESTS IN MANY, MOST, CASES ARE OPPOSED.
Contribution to Fred at this point is a waste of time and money.
omegaram on January 2, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Ooops, that should have read:
FRED – WAKE UP! YOUR CANDIDACY IS A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY UNLESS YOU REALIZE THAT YOUR INITIAL SUPPORT CAME FROM THOSE WHO THOUGHT YOU WOULD CHAMPION THE NEEDS OF THE NATION AND NOT PANDER TO THE NEEDS OF THE WEALTHY. THE TWO INTERESTS IN MANY, MOST, CASES ARE OPPOSED.
omegaram on January 2, 2008 at 10:03 PM
…really…so, Huck’s your man?
MadisonConservative on January 2, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Allah, without a doubt, you are the biggest idiot known to man. The NB is run by prep school star Rich Lowry who has probably never held a serious job in his life.
Aside from Steyn, Levin, Robinson, Ledeen, McCarthy, Cliff May, Adler, there are is little of substance from the others at NB.
As for Romney, NB made an endorsement when more competent people like Rush have refused to do so. They made their call too soon in the process for some undetermined reason and are likely to lose some of their subscribers as a result. Now, should Romney fail to deliver in Iowa and NH, where does that premature endorsement stand? It’s hard to put the bullet back in the chamber once fired.
Still, NB tracks and posts much of what Rush has to say day-to-day. Rush has already taken down Huck and McCain. He’s been almost silent about Romney (except for his religious thingy speech) and has said some positive things about Fred!
Captain America on January 2, 2008 at 10:11 PM
you are killing my buzz, man!
TheSitRep on January 2, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Onegaram must be a Ron Paulite.
Captain America on January 2, 2008 at 10:24 PM
I’m voting for Thompson in Georgia on Feb. 5
bigbeas on January 2, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Interesting Fred Thompson post by Peter Robinson (1/2/08 10:31pm)
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
LodeStar on January 2, 2008 at 10:54 PM
The media built up Huckabee. He had no money and no organization. The media created his “surge.” The media made, broke, and is remaking McCain. He was dead in the water, and now he’s being touted as the party’s best hope for victory.
The media could have chosen to create a Fred surge if they had wanted to, regardless of his lackadaisical style. They did not want him because he did not kiss their collective hineys and because he’s too conservative for them. That’s not Fredhead spin. McCain is not very much more exciting than Fred on the stump or in debates. Remember the last Iowa
debacledebate? McCain just phoned it in. He looked old, tired, and bored, while Fred was full of vim and vigor. But now the media tells us McCain is the only one who can beat all three top Dems in head-to-head matchups, so he has to be our guy. The media is telling us who our candidates should be, and too many of us are letting them.That’s not whining, by the way, lest you be tempted to call it such. That’s what we call analysis.
aero on January 2, 2008 at 11:08 PM
let me see if I get what you’re sayin’…..
If we don’t vote for Fred it’s because we just don’t get it. If we support another candidate/s it’s because the MSM told us to.
csdeven on January 2, 2008 at 11:39 PM
“What foul media gambit is responsible for brainwashing them?”
Well. I don’t think I said supporters of other candidates have been brainwashed by the media. Or that Fred has done a great job of getting his message out. Didn’t I acknowledge that he’s a little dull?
But it’s beyond cavil that Big Media is filled with a bunch of superficial morons who pretend to care about substance but don’t.
That was my point — and damned if I’m not right.
Patterico on January 3, 2008 at 3:37 AM
Sorry AP, Tammy Bruce still isn’t gonna switch sides for you…
Is is still trolling if it’s your site?
TBinSTL on January 3, 2008 at 3:47 AM
Allah, I’ve taken up for you in the past when folks said you had an agenda. I didn’t believe it…but it gets more and more believable with each Fred post.
You guys can tell the Fred supporters all day long that we’re whining, and delusional. But most of the positivity on this site, dealing with the election, has been from the Fredfolks.
I’ve got news for you. The reason this site was so wonderful was the positivity, and nearly instant information. The positivity is slowly disappearing.
Let me state once again. I don’t care what the MSM, bashers or the polls say. I will support who I deem best for the job. And will not support the people I deem posers or back-stabbers. Your criticising me for that support – and the requisite positivity about the candidate – will make no dent in that support. But it will make it harder for me to patronize the site.
The hostility on this site is getting ridiculous. Welcome to Kos-Right.
tickleddragon on January 3, 2008 at 10:45 AM
BKennedy on January 3, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2