Politico: Sources expect Fred to drop out this weekend unless he finishes a strong third tomorrow
posted at 12:14 am on January 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I thought about saving it for the morning, but … I just had to share.
“Strong” in this case means 15 percent, although even that wouldn’t be assured of third given McCain’s late movement. It’s all just speculation and Fred’s had trouble with Politico before, but it’s in line with what I and pretty much everyone else are thinking. With no money and two social cons more popular than he is to contend with, what’s the point of sticking around until South Carolina?
“Without a solid third-place finish, there’s no point in going on,” a Thompson adviser said Wednesday. “It was an honorable race, and he turned out to be a good candidate. The moment had just passed.”
A Thompson campaign source said there is “a strong likelihood” that if Thompson comes in a distant third in Iowa, with less than 15 percent of the vote, he would drop out soon—most likely before this weekend’s New Hampshire presidential debates.
The Thompson sources said they were describing a consensus expectation that is now widespread among his political circle, not announcing a decision that the candidate himself has definitively reached…
Friends and advisers emphasized that no deal has been cut to have Thompson endorse McCain. But they note that there would be a logic to doing so soon, in order to help a friend and colleague at a moment when he needs it most. In turn, Thompson might be named attorney general in a McCain administration…
[A]dvisers to Thompson described his campaign as “broke” and said that without a shot of momentum from Iowa, continuing the campaign would be pointless and impractical.
He’d make a good VP for McCain, actually, insofar as he’d give him instant credibility on immigration and a little southern mojo for social cons who might otherwise be iffy. I’m not sure if Mac would want a guy on the ticket, though, who flamed out early and wouldn’t be a big asset on the stump. Your exit question: Would putting Fred on the bottom of the ticket warrant a SECOND LOOK AT McCAIN!, or is there simply nothing that can scrub the stain of amnesty from his soul?
Update: Blame the media!
Update: Got the video of Fred calling this story “made up out of whole cloth” right here.
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 »
Gloating already?
If Fred backs out, I pray he does not give his support to Amnesty McCain.
heroyalwhyness on January 3, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Politico also says he’s been saying he needs to finish second in Iowa.
amerpundit on January 3, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Yeah, he said that the other day.
Allahpundit on January 3, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Complete and utter bullshit.
Fred himself said on Iowa TV tonight that this was total dirty-tricks fabrication.
But of course, you know that, and don’t care.
someone on January 3, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Well that’s what you get for joining the race too late and offering up nothing more than half-polished platitudes and sleepy cliche’s. I’m disappointed he made it this far. So we’re left with the Shuckster or Romney. My money is on Romney. McCain will never pull ahead enough to win.
thedecider on January 3, 2008 at 12:21 AM
We could do a lot worse than McCain
bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 12:22 AM
If Fred endorses McShamnasty, I will curse him and all the remaining hairs on his head.
MB4 on January 3, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Its a trick.
NickTx on January 3, 2008 at 12:26 AM
Oh my. The only Reagan Conservative Who Can Save America endorsing The Maverick? That’s going to cause some heads to explode.
I’ve never been able to fully get on the Fred bandwagon but I’d take him over The Maverick any day.
I hope he does well enough to last to S.C. and see how things develop.
Drew on January 3, 2008 at 12:26 AM
I do not believe this statement was meant to be taken seriously. I think he was making a joke about expectations.
Spirit of 1776 on January 3, 2008 at 12:27 AM
He’s done it on two separate occasions, one time making no sound but holding up 2 fingers. I hope you’re right, though.
amerpundit on January 3, 2008 at 12:30 AM
Good Gravy!
Do we need to put a suicide watch on the fredheads?
CRIPES!!!!
Denile is not just a river in Egypt!
THis worries me, I mean really worring!
Folks Please seek help!
I mean Really, Is everyone losing it?
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on January 3, 2008 at 12:31 AM
MB4 on January 3, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Fred thread obligatory post from infidel:
If Iowans do not vote for Fred! I will boycott ethanol and put recycled beer directly into the Mississippi.
Fred!
infidel on January 3, 2008 at 12:33 AM
I wish I had your confidence. I find myself seeing an amnesty-supporting RINO more favorably than I see a dull, sleepy, status-quo Fred.
thedecider on January 3, 2008 at 12:33 AM
Question: What effect does a VP have on a President’s domestic and foreign policy, other than breaking a tie in the Senate?
I ask this, because I don’t really understand why it matters who is the VP when it comes to policy. People keep saying that a conservative running mate will help a liberal nominee with conservatives. Why? Why would a VP’s stances on issues matter? The President is the Executive and makes the decisions, not the VP.
Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 12:38 AM
All 3 of them?
FC, whom do you “curse” more these days, Rudy G. or McCain?
Entelechy on January 3, 2008 at 12:39 AM
I’d say Cheney has had some effect on Bush.
amerpundit on January 3, 2008 at 12:39 AM
This is the kind of crap that pisses me off about Iowa and New Hampshire. What do I care how Midwesterners and New Englanders are voting? The process frenzy needs to stop. There are people elsewhere in the country that would like to have a chance to vote for a conservative candidate because this is serious business.
CP on January 3, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Nothing, not even Tom Tancredo as his VP, could give Juan Plantation McShamnasty any credibility on “immigration”.
Well maybe a full frontal lobotomy on the American people might do it, but other than that.
MB4 on January 3, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Haven’t the lefties always thought that Mr. Cheney is Mr. Bush 43’s brain?
Entelechy on January 3, 2008 at 12:42 AM
amerpundit on January 3, 2008 at 12:39 AM
How so? I don’t know any of VP Cheney’s positions on any policy other than foreign policy.
I’ll get more specific. McCain is pro-amnesty. Let’s say he takes on a pro-immigration enforcement VP. Why should what his VP thinks matter? Is McCain going to defer to his VP when it comes to immigration? And, if that is the case, then do I really want someone who runs his campaign on one policy position, but then defers to his VP’s position when in office?
I just don’t understand why I should care whom a nominee chooses for their VP. Unless the President dies in office, what does it matter who is the VP? Was Dan Quayle anything special? Did people decide to vote (or not vote) for President George H.W. Bush based on his VP selection of Dan Quayle?
Go another route… a Thompson/Romney ticket. Am I supposed to stop supporting Thompson, because I don’t support his VP choice and should be worried that Romney’s policy positions will become Fred’s when in office?
Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Then start ponying up the cash. Fred’s apparently broke (remember the 250K he needed last week?). If you want him to last longer, send in the contributions.
Drew on January 3, 2008 at 12:45 AM
As a tangential issue, what does it say about Fred’s commitment to conservative principles when the man is willing to endorse McCain for president?
Ok, the two were friends in the senate, but doesn’t that just make it worse? He would either be selling out conservatism for some old fashioned back-scratching or for the classic good-old-boy clubbing that is rotting the Republican party from within–Senators especially.
Nessuno on January 3, 2008 at 12:47 AM
If Fred does drop out after Iowa, honestly, I’ll miss him though he never did too much to make me stay. If he does endorse McCain, however, he will earn himself an entirely different moniker.
Spirit of 1776 on January 3, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Slow and steady wins the race.
NickTx on January 3, 2008 at 12:47 AM
That’s the part I was responding to in regards to your question: “What effect does a VP have on a President’s domestic and foreign policy, other than breaking a tie in the Senate?”
Domestic issues such as immigration? Significantly less, I readily admit. But Cheney has had an effect on Bush’s foreign policy, I’m sure.
amerpundit on January 3, 2008 at 12:48 AM
What if McCain will endorse Thompson?
Entelechy on January 3, 2008 at 12:48 AM
My thoughts exactly. Yet I see bloggers and political pundits all over pushing this sentiment that somehow a VP nominee with policy positions counter to the Presidential nominee is somehow supposed to matter. I don’t understand why. Unless McCain dies in office and the pro-immigration enforcement VP decides to completely switch course on Amnesty, what does it matter?
Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Nessuno on January 3, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Check out the article if you haven’t. Fred was one of a handful of Senators to endorse The Maverick on ‘00 and was making phone calls for the guy earlier in ‘07 before he got in the race himself.
The Fredheads are going to have ‘issues’ if this plays out.
Drew on January 3, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Griz on January 3, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Just watched the Luntz Iowa focus group on the H&C replay. Disturbing stuff. Lots of Huck-a-love there. Luntz played the Romney attack ad on Huckabee, showing how the group’s approval dials indicated strong disapproval of Romney and his ad. One of the group members somewhat snottily said that Iowans don’t like attack ads because they’re focused on the issues. When later asked why no-one there likes Giuliani, they said it’s because he “hasn’t shown up” in Iowa much. Issues, huh Iowans? When asked why so few were excited about Thompson, they said he didn’t “appear” to want it badly enough. Appearances–nothing at all about where Fred stands on issues. Issues, huh Iowans? When asked why so many do like Huckabee (over half the group said he’s their guy), they said because he “seems” genuine, like a regular guy. One was impressed with how Huck decided not to run the negative ad after all. Seems. Issues, huh Iowans? The one Thompson guy in the room did point out that Huck is a tax-raiser, one of the only issues mentioned in the session.
Issues, my ass. Thompson is doomed.
aero on January 3, 2008 at 12:53 AM
From the comments in the Politico post:
Here’s the update from the broadcast in Des Moines tonight on KCCI, the most watched local news in Iowa. Fred was asked about what events would take place if he finishes 3rd or last, and if it is true he will endorse McCain. His answer, “Total fabrication, he never said it either privately or publicly, and it was planted by some other campaign” Then he joked with the anchors about imagine that happening in politics!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7682.html
bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 12:54 AM
These are my thoughts on the matter as well. Personally, I don’t base my vote on endorsements, I base them on my positions on the issues. If Fred Thompson endorses John McCain, then he goes against my positions on the issues and thus loses my support. The only endorsement Fred can give, in my opinion, if he were to drop out and to stay consistent with conservative principles is to endorse Duncan Hunter, if Congressman Hunter is still in the race longer than Fred Thompson. If not, then Fred Thompson should just drop out and not endorse anyone.
Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 12:55 AM
Thompson isn’t running against Huck in Iowa.
By the way, Iowa has a history of voting for the Christian Conservative, it doesn’t affect the rest of the campaign. The only state Huck will pick up is probably Iowa.
Mitt though should be worried. McCain is taking NH from him.
bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 12:56 AM
I won’t ‘have issues’, I will simply admit that I was wrong about Fred Thompson and move on. I’m not sure why this campaign has to be filled with people demonizing every candidate’s supporters.
Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 12:57 AM
No one is going to endorse Hunter now. He is pretty much finished this campaign.
bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 12:57 AM
LOL…..this week on HA…’As the Fred Turns’….’All My Fredheads’…..’Days Of Our Fred’.
Fred will be just fine.
Limerick on January 3, 2008 at 12:58 AM
This story has no Fred!ability.
Fred! will get a solid 3rd and spit in the eye of all nay-sayers.
omnipotent on January 3, 2008 at 1:00 AM
If anything Hunter needs to drop and endorse THE FRED!
NickTx on January 3, 2008 at 1:00 AM
That was hilarious.
NickTx on January 3, 2008 at 1:01 AM
He’s got to be running out of money.
bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 1:02 AM
De los tres bastardos?
Hoy a las 10:02 PST?
1) Juan el Plantation McShamnasty.
2) The High Reverend Huckster.
3) Rudy Afrutado Ciudad Santuario CapoTootie.
I maldicion de las tres de esos bastardos al infierno!!!
MB4 on January 3, 2008 at 1:02 AM
I thought the analogy put out there the last day or so about this campaign being like the guy who can’t figure out why girls aren’t going for him, when he is everything that girls say they want. The reality is that girls don’t really want what they say they want. Same thing here. All the talk among the American electorate about wanting a focus on issues and wanting a leader, not a politician, etc is just talk. When it comes down to it, the American electorate is fickle and superficial.
Fred ran a campaign based on believing that the American electorate was sincere. He has found out that the American electorate is as insincere and superficial as most of the politicians they complain about.
Oh well. We will all get what we deserve come November.
Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 1:02 AM
Looks like about 25% of Iowans are undecided and that they might well split between Huck and Romney.
Tomorrow night might be fun around here :)
bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 1:03 AM
I am not saying every Fred supporter will. I was using ‘Fredhead’ to delineate the hardcore types. You know the ones who act as if you aren’t on board with their guy you are a fool and aren’t really a conservative in the first place.
There are a lot of those hardcore types who keep telling everyone Fred’s the only conservative and Maverick is a RINO. They are going to freak out if Fred throws his support to McCain.
Drew on January 3, 2008 at 1:03 AM
CBS News reported on Fred saying he needs to finish second, back on 12/30.
amerpundit on January 3, 2008 at 1:03 AM
A lot of truth there.
bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 1:04 AM
You know, if Bryan ever posts an article with Fred! in it, I’ll be shocked. Jeez, AP, you couldn’t wait until the voting was over to spread speculation about the last hope for this corner of the Milky Way, Fred!?
I’m waiting to see who Ron Paul endorses.
Aardvark on January 3, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Who Fred or Hunter?
We dont actually KNOW for a fact that Fred is low on funds. He probably is…but do we KNOW that?
As Ive said, if he picks up at least 3rd, new endorsements, new money, and the game changes.
NickTx on January 3, 2008 at 1:05 AM
I know. I was just making the point that the only way for Fred to be consistent and stick to his professed conservative principles would be to endorse the only other conservative in the race. If he endorses anyone else, I will see is as politics as usual and admit that I was wrong about Fred being a principled conservative.
Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 1:05 AM
I don’t think he’s going to endorse anyone. He’s no where near viable as the nominee, but he has enough supporters thinking he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread, to keep him afloat.
amerpundit on January 3, 2008 at 1:07 AM
So let’s see….in the prediction thread I took the position that Fred will win Iowa.
If I win do I get an i-Phone? (not that I would know how to use it)
Limerick on January 3, 2008 at 1:07 AM
I was talking about Hunter. But Fred is flat broke right now. Remember he had to go begging for the funds to run his last TV ad in Iowa. If he doesn’t come in a strong 3rd, I don’t know how he expects to get donations. From here on out, it is going to take a lot of organization and a lot of TV spots that costs a lot of money.
McCain would be considering dropping out now if it wasn’t for his surge in the last few weeks which is bringing in money.
bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 1:08 AM
Isn’t Pajamas Media giving away a free iPhone for correct predictions?
bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 1:08 AM
This is a great question, and I for one will be very interested to see what dynamic exists for the next VP. Many consider Cheney as the most powerful VP we’ve had, I think I am in that category myself. How much input they have is dependent on the Pres pretty much.
As a side note for campaigning: Kerry and Edwards had a funny but significant disconnect in their message: one wanted to say help is on the way and the other wanted to say hope is on the way. Tense moments on the campaign trail!
Spirit of 1776 on January 3, 2008 at 1:09 AM
Well, that describes me, except for the freaking out part.
I guess where I am different than others is that I my passion is behind my positions on the issues, my principles and my values. I support Fred Thompson, because I believe he is a leader in line with what I believe. If he strays from that though, I won’t freak. I will simply stop supporting him.
I am not loyal to the man, I am loyal to the principles, values and positions on the issues.
Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 1:10 AM
Yeah, Fred did go begging for the cash, but he didnt say the campaign was out of cash. Could be strategy IMO.
We’ll get 3rd.
NickTx on January 3, 2008 at 1:10 AM
Kinda tricky, though. You have to guess the top 3 from both parties, in both Iowa and New Hampshire, in correct order.
amerpundit on January 3, 2008 at 1:11 AM
Sounds rational to me.
Fred!
infidel on January 3, 2008 at 1:11 AM
Historically none. Cheney has been the exception. The historic role for a VP is to break ties in the Senate, be the attack dog for the administration against their domestic foes in the other party, and check each day to make sure the president is still alive.
bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 1:12 AM
Showing weakness is never a good strategy.
bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 1:13 AM
In two weeks time no one and I mean no one will remember anything about Iowa except the fact that it’s dam cold there.
Griz on January 3, 2008 at 1:13 AM
I could hold my nose and vote for McShamnesty if it were JUST Shamnesty. But add BCRA and the Gang of 14 to that, and it’s pretty unlikely I could do it. And factor in how emotion-driven he is - that’s a real problem for me, with both McCain and Huckabee.
Laura on January 3, 2008 at 1:14 AM
Why would I freak if Fred isn’t in the race? If he ever decides to drop out it won’t be like the Reich just threw the Big Red One off of Omaha Beach.
Pick up, go on, pay the bills, kiss the dogs, kick the kids…or something like that.
Limerick on January 3, 2008 at 1:15 AM
Well, good night/morning all. I have to hit the sack.
amerpundit on January 3, 2008 at 1:15 AM
So… if Hillary finishes third it’s a victory but if Fred finishes third (which he will BTW) it’s the end.
Hmm… So a handful of Iowa party activists who pick the people who pick the people who pick the nominee at convention will end Thompson’s campaign? Riiiiight.
Time will tell.
Mojave Mark on January 3, 2008 at 1:16 AM
If McAmnesty can be broke and stick it out and then comeback let’s hope Fred at least gives it a shot.
Griz on January 3, 2008 at 1:16 AM
I can see a VP nominee mattering if they had a lot of experience with foreign policy matters as Dick Cheney had. But as far as immigration or any domestic policies or appointing people to important positions in government agencies, nominees for the court, etc, I don’t see how the VP would matter.
Maybe having Tom Tancredo as a running mate would make people take a second look at John McCain, specifically because Tom Tancredo is so passionate about the immigration issue. But then one has to wonder who is giving up their passion? Is Tom Tancredo sacrificing his principles on immigration and supporting McCain’s position to be VP or is John McCain sacrificing his principles on amnesty and supporting Tancredo’s position to be President?
Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 1:16 AM
bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 1:13 AM
NickTx on January 3, 2008 at 1:18 AM
She can spin it however she wants but 3rd will be a blow to her. The difference is she’s still got boat loads of cash and ready made organizations in every state.
Fred has neither of those things to fall back on.
Drew on January 3, 2008 at 1:18 AM
I simply can’t vote for McCain. I believe that’s probably how we got “W” but I’d take my chances with anyone [other than Edwards] instead of the ‘Gang of 14′ candidate. He’s a stubborn fool. At least his nomination would allow me to put my own interests above the country’s… He11, with Hillary’s nanny state I could retire. ;)
Griz on January 3, 2008 at 1:22 AM
That’s pretty much what I thought. So why do political pundits keep pushing this talking point?
I suspect it is because they want to try to convince people that the running mate matters, so as to prop up their weak candidate.
Also, as far as breaking the tie in the Senate. Is the VP casting his vote on behalf of the President’s position on the particular vote or on behalf of his own position on the particular vote? Let’s say the VP disagrees with a major policy of the President that is up for vote in the Senate… immigration bill for example. By all this talk about the opinions of the VP mattering, am I to assume that the VP would cast a vote contrary to the President’s policy position on immigration enforcement?
I don’t see that as likely. So, again, I don’t see why it matters who is the VP on issues such as social conservative issues, immigration, appointments, nominations for the Court, etc.
Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 1:23 AM
We’re leaving out the fact that VP’s run for president as soon as it’s expedient. It’s a useless yet essential job.
Mojave Mark on January 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM
Yep, J. Adams considered it most worthless office ever made. But he used the time to write and answer letters, heh. In today’s day and age the value of it (I think) is that it creates a stepping stone to the Presidency, so a supporter of a VP goes in thinking that in 8 years their guy’d be up in the pole position.
Perchance. However even some of the ‘educated’ here at HA called him a sellout for his endorsement of Romney. I don’t think it would matter.
Spirit of 1776 on January 3, 2008 at 1:29 AM
With regards to John McCain and people saying they will not vote for him based on Amnesty…
The issue is not just McCain’s position in supporting amnesty, but also his viewpoint on those who oppose it. He came across as mean and demonizing of anyone who opposed it.
I have been a part of some very reasonable discussions of the pros and cons of amnesty, where I was not insulted as being a “nativist”, “racist” or stupid or somesuch other personal attack. Anti-amnesty people were not given that respect by Senator McCain (and others, President Bush included).
So that is really the kicker for me with John McCain. It is not just his position on the issues, but his utter contempt with which he treats his opponents. If he would have been a better statesman about defending his position and trying to convince others of his position, I would be a lot more open to him right now. But after watching the contempt he has for people who disagree with him, I eliminated him from consideration a long time ago.
Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 1:30 AM
Like the Mormon, right?
Patriot33 on January 3, 2008 at 1:31 AM
Both Politico and AP have been trying to write Fred!s epitaph for months. I’m not biting.
P. James Moriarty on January 3, 2008 at 1:36 AM
Andale, ándale - for all the cursing, your Spanish is improving :) Just kidding you. Sorry I missed you last night - thought the West Coasters went to sleep early, tired or drunk, or both. Are you feeling better, politics aside?
Entelechy on January 3, 2008 at 1:38 AM
Its going to be a long day. There may be some drinking involved.
NickTx on January 3, 2008 at 1:38 AM
Dogs are the best, but don’t kick the kids too hard. Just make them believe that you will :) Thanks for the smiles angelical Fredhead. Glad you’re going to live after Thursday.
Entelechy on January 3, 2008 at 1:41 AM
Even if Thompson would accept a VP position (which he has adamantly said he won’t), McCain would not choose him because he is too old. McCain is perceived as too old, so he needs a youngish and vital-seeming VP to reassure voters that if he kicks off in office, the next guy in line is ready and able to jump in and take over. The two of them together would just beg for commentary about how old and tired the Republican party is, as well as how old and tired a pair they make. Plus, Thompson couldn’t carry the standard in 8 years if McCain served two full terms. We’d be back where we are today with no incumbent VP to take his/her “natural place” in line for the presidency and chaos in the primaries.
I honestly have no idea who McCain would/should choose as his VP if he gets the nom. I can’t think of anyone who could cleanse him of his RINO-ness.
aero on January 3, 2008 at 1:43 AM
After 5 days, still got my cold, but it seems to be going into the fourth quarter anyway.
MB4 on January 3, 2008 at 1:53 AM
Iowa will be voted on with somewhere around 85000 Republican voters. About 45% self identify as Evangelical Christians and overall the state self identifies as Populist.
These two factors lead to skewing of the whole issue with support for Huck that in many other states simply would not be there in the levels it is in Iowa.
Also as Instapundit has observed
I follow many blogs and I see a lot of background support for Thompson beyond what the polls reflect. In most cases the commentary in the threads are well argued and substantial.
If he can hold, many are suggesting that support will shift to him as people get closer to their own primary dates and are faced with the choice of top tier candidates that have major negative points in some aspect of their positions while few point to strong negatives for Fred on the balance.
It is not unreasonable to see shifts to him not so much as an endorsement of all his positions but more a rejection of others.
CommentGuy on January 3, 2008 at 1:55 AM
Politico is peddling a pack of lies! When Mark Levin asked Fred Thompson how he will run while having money troubles Fred ’s answer tonight was “If I finish well in Iowa the money’s there don’t worry.” There really has been some media bias and blackout of FT at certain media outlets.
sonnyspats1 on January 3, 2008 at 1:55 AM
I bet I know who he would like to choose anyway.
His girl friend Lindsey “You nativist Bigots” Graham I betcha.
MB4 on January 3, 2008 at 1:58 AM
Politico is like a Deep Throat with a cold, as far as I can tell. He’s sourcing a “some guy said” sort of thing, and it’s catching wildfire in the media. Apparently even Stephanopoulos (sp) regurgitated it. And, of course, AP gleefully runs with it.
The quote from Fred — who, after all, is probably better than an “unnamed source” for what his intentions are — is this: (Attribution unknown, but from Politico comments)
Tennman on January 3, 2008 at 2:03 AM
McCain - Lieberman 2008
kidding…
McCain - Hunter
anyway…at the end of the day we are all going to be voting against HER
Ropera on January 3, 2008 at 2:03 AM
Horse hockey.
spacemonkey on January 3, 2008 at 2:04 AM
And in Mr. McCain’s case, and he talked about it today or yesterday, he might just be in office for 4 years, and not run for reelection, due to age.
Your statement carries that much more weight then.
MB4, you nailed it with L. Graham, but the amnesty issue has killed that option. The Southerners, and they’re not alone, hate his/their guts.
Entelechy on January 3, 2008 at 2:09 AM
Arizona’s new employers’ legal status employees enforcement laws went into effect today. Will be interesting to follow. Maybe someone will ask Mr. McCain about it soon.
Entelechy on January 3, 2008 at 2:12 AM
The Sultry Beauty said it well.
Entelechy on January 3, 2008 at 2:25 AM
UPDATE
Thompson: Poor finish in Iowa won’t end campaign
AllahPundit, will this be your last hit piece on Senator Thompson or should we get our hip-waders for what you seem to delight in shoveling?
spacemonkey on January 3, 2008 at 2:28 AM
By the way, Rush Limbaugh also kinda “slammed” John McCain today, with regards to not being a conservative. I’m surprised this was not a thread.
There is much more at the link above.
For those who make fun of people who point out obvious media collaboration to push their agenda in their campaign reporting, it is pretty obvious that it is happening.
Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 2:35 AM
I invested in hip-waders after the “silly hat” pile on by AllahPundit, Michelle and Bryan.
Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 2:37 AM
MinMi, there was a Limbaugh thread today, on the left side. A commenter, noted the “parting swipe” at McCain, from Rush.
Entelechy on January 3, 2008 at 2:41 AM
I meant to highlight this part of my quote from Rush above:
Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 2:43 AM
Entelechy on January 3, 2008 at 2:41 AM
The thread was a Limbaugh slams Huckabee thread. There was no focus on his equally tough slam on John McCain. The post by Bryan was solely about Huckabee. Rush slamming Huckabee is not really news. Rush going strongly after McCain is news. Or at least I would have thought. Apparently, not deemed so here.
Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 2:46 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »