Ok…..I’ve been away since August, but I have a good reason. It’s called school work load. Being invited to do the political science Honors program brings a heavy workload. Anyhoo, I’m back, and I have things to say about this primary election…..

Loyalty is a good thing.

csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 11:40 AM

I admit I hadn’t heard that Huck challenged him to a one-on-one and he refused. That is very disappointing. I will hit up his website and see if I can find some reasoning for it.

Fred’s still my guy until he drops out. That may seem like blind loyalty, but I was a fan of his during his Senate days. His voting record truly does reflect conservative principles, and he speaks on some points that I wish other candidates would, such as the blame for illegal immigration resting on the shoulders Mexico’s corrupt politcal class. If some other candidate was making these points I may not be such a Fredhead, but he’s the only guy doing it.

However, Mitt has really impressed me in the last two debates and will have my full support if Fred is gone by the time Arizona’s primary rolls around.

But you really don’t think he wants to discuss issues?
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 11:20 AM

Joe, let me give you some background on why I feel that way.

It started with the Michael Moore video. He used snarky comments instead of debate.

Next he complained about the debate format and Huck challenged him to a one on one and Fred declined saying Huck wasn’t a top tier candidate.

And lately he uses a lot of these one liners when he could have made his case. The ‘mandate” comment was weak because the mandate wasn’t in the context Fred tried to force it to be. And, let you said, the Kennedy remark was not good. Getting a liberal dem to go along with a conservative plan is not a bad thing.

Plus, a lot of his supporters do the same thing as if it is a valid replacement for a reasoned debate.

muyoso on January 7, 2008 at 11:01 AM

You may well be right. We’ll never be able to peer into that alternate future and see what Hussein would be up to today were he still in power. I, for one, feel that America is safer with him gone. Whether it was worth the cost will be seen in years to come when we know the final toll.

For what it’s worth, whether Ron Paul wins or not, I don’t think we will be engaging in any invasions for a long time. The political will is used up.

BKennedy on January 7, 2008 at 11:01 AM

csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM

The Kennedy comment was a bad moment for Fred. I didn’t like it, and I hope it doesn’t happen again.
But you really don’t think he wants to discuss issues? He has detailed plans on every issue, and was on many issues he was the first candidate to release those plans. He was the first candidate to talk about the corporate tax, now Rusy and Huckabee have both decided that it is a good issue to push.
You can’t deny that Fred leads the way on a lot of issues; you hear the phrase “I agree with Fred” multiple times at every debate. I understand if you don’t think he would be a good president, but he is a good conservative thinker and his campaign has focused on issues, not character attacks. His negative ads have all been about his opponent’s records, just like Mitt’s.

They clearly aren’t impressed with a guy who uses buzz words like “mandate” and “Kennedy” in lieu of real discussion of the issues.

Fred takes after the Fredheads in that they think mouthing the word “Kennedy” is a screaming indictment of someone’s character.

I saw the film and I agree with its message. If we do something we should do it right. I just dont think we should have done Iraq, and frankly, i see our presence there causing more harm than good.

Then there will never be an end to the wars we fight. As long as we are in other peoples countries, telling them what to do, we will ALWAYS have enemies that want to to us harm.

He brought up some good points. I’m still indecided btw, but that’s how I saw it.

Conservatives R Us on January 7, 2008 at 10:29 AM

I agree, and I have come to the conclusion that a candidate isn’t a whole candidate unless he has a likable personality. I really think that is why Fred has been losing ground since his announcement. And I think that is fair. People want to feel good about their president. People should feel good about their candidate. He should be personable along with being clear on his positions. No candidate is more perfect than the other candidates that he can get by on position alone.

Fred’s in your face attitude is great in moderation against the right foes, but when it becomes the only excitement he shows, it looks like he is just cranky.

I don’t know how valid that is because Fred is not in my top 4 for reasons other than those. So that assessment is my opinion only and I have no real data to back it up.

Fred, the only conservative on the ticket….3%.

McCain 32%
Romney 31%

It’s obvious that conservatives in Iowa, Wyoming, NH, and Michigan don’t want a candidate that acts like a cranky constipated old coot who rails at the kids he can’t keep off the lawn. They apparently are not enamored with a guy who only gets animated when he gets to be confrontational. They clearly aren’t impressed with a guy who uses buzz words like “mandate” and “Kennedy” in lieu of real discussion of the issues.

Fred has been on a downward spiral since he announced in spite of the fawning MSM support he got all summer. The guy wasn’t even a candidate and ALL the MSM outlets, and cable news, included him in their polling questions. He got all kinds of free press and was considered to be the guy to beat.

Then he actually had to be a candidate. Well, that’s Fred’s fault, not the MSM or the electorate.

joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 1:11 AM

Since when is lying about his previous stance as pro-choice an eloquent explanation? He has not always been with them. He felt that ALL abortions should be legal in the first trimester. He said so, and sign a position questionnaire to that effect in 1994.

By the way is the phrase “obviously apparent” superfluously redundant?

Soon enough we’ll e-mail via RB’s new site, those who care to. TD has you covered, and MadisonC too.

Entelechy on January 6, 2008 at 11:26 PM

Let me know when the sire is up…

obama has accomplished literally nothing for his constituents

Allah seems to forget that Obama actually has a record; he wasn’t born in DesMoines last Monday. And his record is quite literally blank. He has never done anything; he is a total nothing.

He got elected to the Senate when the GOP committed suicide before the election, and has done exactly nothing as Senator. He skips votes, he votes “present”. Loser.

conservnut on January 7, 2008 at 7:20 AM

Watching the debate on the overnight broadcast with these comments in mind brought a different perspective. I too saw that Fred seemed to have been shut out. It seemed that Chris Wallace would cut Fred off before a he could get his point across, and seemed not interested in what Fred had to say. At the same time, he made an effort to include Guilliani in conversations that didn’t particularly warrant his opinion.
Mitt came across ‘presidential’ at first but the second time around sounded more rehearsed. Why did he end with “Thank you” after his first answer? Sounded too automatic. However, he did sound confident.
I think this Change slogan is getting old. Anytime there is a new election without an incumbent, there will be change. It’s redundant. They are all politicians. When we elect an ‘average joe’ who is not ‘connected’ then there will be change. Till then it will always be the same dance, just different dance trend.

let me answer the question posed by Luntz at the end by stressing that Obama would kill Romney head to head

Although the votes gore and kerry got would seem to support thier view, once again the pundits seem to be underestimating the American people. obama goes out and gives a speach to a crowd of whiners just like the guy who got up at the townhall years ago and asked clinton if he was going to be our father, they go nuts, obama says absolutely nothing, and the pundits get all excited about crowd noise. The guy, so far, is only preaching to a choir. In one on one debates obama will give the same exact answer, change, to every question he is asked and it will soon become apparrent that he is a one trick pony. obama has accomplished literally nothing for his constituents or the American people and that will be galringly obvious. the only way he wins is if the romney been so damaged by the people who are supposedly on his side of the isle that he has to spend the entire general election refuting statements by huckster and mccain.

Live regionalism or die. Anti-South bias lives on! What a bunch of bigoted clods.

saved on January 7, 2008 at 6:52 AM

Not really, but I know what you mean. Barry O’s a black man and will get lots of support in a place w/out blacks. Mitt’s a Morman and will get lots of support in a place w/out Mormans.

I think that a Giuliani in the South or a Huckabee/Thompson in the North is problematic not primarily because the people refuse to accept somebody from another region, but because people have little ability and rather great difficulty seeing the true person behind the regional mannerisms. Also, of course, there are stereotypes afoot that must be confronted and then eliminated.

Moral of the story? If you want to win outside your region, and there’s something particular that identifies the candidate with one region, you better visit often so that voters have adequate opportunities to get past the superficial. Neither Huck nor Thompson did that for NH.

Giuliani/Romney ought to be spending every spare moment in the South.

I do also think they are against Fred because of the snubs. They aren’t going to give him the time of day. Besides, it’s New Hampshire! They like McCain!