Videos: Mitt and Mike go a couple of rounds Update: Fred’s speech on immigration added
posted at 8:57 pm on January 6, 2008 by Bryan
Romney’s interest tonight is in pushing back the Huckabee surge; Huck wants to knock off Romney now, take over as many of his supporters as he can and move on to the bigger states that Giuliani is counting on. So it’s natural that Romney and Huckabee would duke it out tonight, and they have.
So far they’ve gone two rounds against each other directly. Round one was over whether Huckabee raised Arkansas taxes by half a billion dollars during his ten years in office. Huckabee has to be asked the question four times before he finally answers. The smarter move would have been to give his final answer first and defuse the attack. As it played out, Huckabee made himself look shifty and unwilling to answer a straightforward question. And Mark Levin says that Huck didn’t answer honestly once he finally answered.
Round two was over class warfare, and I’m including it because Romney ends it making a point that’s getting lost in all the current populism, namely, that class warfare is counterproductive to creating and maintaining a healthy economy. You can’t have wage earners without wage payers. That used to be basic Republican doctrine, but once again it’s Huckabee whose rhetoric cuts against it in a way that would be more at home on the other side of the political aisle.
I’d score both rounds for Romney, with a solid knock down in the second one. Conservatives just shouldn’t engage in class warfare.
Update: Fred knocks this speech in illegal immigration out of the park. He treats his colleagues well but gets to the heart of one of the reasons open borders policies are bad for everyone, on both sides of the border. He works in support of free trade and turns Mexico’s criticism of the US back on Mexico for its own failed policies. Well done.
Update: My final take is that this was Romney’s best night as a debater. He won the same way the Patriots win, by taking the fight to his opponents and staying on offense from start to stop. But unlike McCain, Romney can go on offense without coming across like a snarling jerk. Fred and Rudy also had good nights, though Rudy left an opening when he said he learns from his mistakes and doesn’t repeat them. Fred was particularly solid on immigration as in the clip above. As for Rudy’s line about not repeating his mistakes, wives one and two might argue with that. The boss sums it up best:
Wallace to Rudy: “Do you have too much baggage to lead the Republican party?” Rudy laughs nervously.
The answer is: Yes, he has too much baggage.
Huck was weak and evasive but he edges McCain by being less irritating.
What say you?
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 3 Next »
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Great idea – you should send it in to the candidates.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 1:35 AM
Whenever you hear words like”compassion” or “children” or ‘comprehensive”, Hide the Women and the Booze!!!
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 1:36 AM
FloatingRock on January 7, 2008 at 1:23 AM
Look, I like Fred Thompson on pretty much EVERY issue, but he is a terrible campaigner. If you have people who are diligent enough to search out and check out his issues for themselves, they’d pick him. But most people don’t pay that much attention. He needs to stand out.
He has no idea how to run a national campaign. He could have won but he was clueless. He should have camped out in New Hampshire and Iowa. He could have won Iowa, and he could have been respectable in NH if he had given them credit for being somewhat important. The people of NH are nice, and they understand the issues. But they want you to think they are important. Rudy messed up there too and he’ll lose badly even though he was leading the polls not too long ago in NH (remember when he was a Red Sox fan?) When Rudy sees he can’t win, he quits. That’s not a leader, and I really hope he doesn’t win the nomination, but I don’t think I’m going to have to worry about that.
I like Fred, he just doesn’t campaign very well at all. He doesn’t get campaigning on a national level.
ThackerAgency on January 7, 2008 at 1:37 AM
I have but they all say that if I do it again they will have me locked up.
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 1:37 AM
Dont forget “Change”
William Amos on January 7, 2008 at 1:40 AM
I didn’t read all of the history on this thread but I can imagine what Danno’s point was, (that the big campaign donors want open-borders, right?). This has been one of my concerns as well.
However, although I’m not certain, I’m pretty sure that Fred and/or Mitt have talked about workplace enforcement in prior debates. I’ve watched all of them, (except the one for foreigners), and although I can’t remember any specific language or which debate it might have been, I think the point has been made before by somebody in addition to Tancredo.
It wasn’t Rudy or Huckabee or McCain. That much is certain.
FloatingRock on January 7, 2008 at 1:40 AM
They’d have to find you first, then fight you :)
William Amos, isn’t it strange how the righties have locked onto that stupid “change” thing too? I loved how Fred said “yes, that’s been around ever since an incumbent needed to be replaced” or something to that effect. Can’t they all be more inspired and inspiring? We have no true leaders, and none running either, on all sides.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 1:42 AM
America is my neighborhood. You are my neighbor:) Night all.
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 1:43 AM
Maybe so, but Fred does get it and is a far more viable, (and sane), candidate than Ron Paul.
FloatingRock on January 7, 2008 at 1:46 AM
I try to be a good neighbor. Hope not to disappoint you. Good night Spirit.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 1:48 AM
BTW, even Duncan Hunter never mentioned workplace enforcement in a debate. Only Fred and Mitt have, I think. (Not counting Tancredo.)
FloatingRock on January 7, 2008 at 1:52 AM
FR, the border item always trumps the employer one, and that’s where they should start now – the laws are already in place.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 1:54 AM
You mean the fence? The fence law was basically gutted by congress recently and is essentially dead. To be honest the fence is superfluous. The key to ending illegal immigration is workplace enforcement.
FloatingRock on January 7, 2008 at 2:05 AM
Video: Duncan Hunter slams Congress for gutting the border fence
FloatingRock on January 7, 2008 at 2:08 AM
If the employers don’t pay, it’s got no sway.
If the employers don’t do jail, we won’t hail.
If the employers don’t hang, it’s got no bang.
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 2:10 AM
If the employers don’t get hammered, we won’t be enamored.
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 2:12 AM
To your last post FC, we put on a gramophone and dance :) No one left here, unless FR joins in.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:13 AM
I’ve been wondering, what does FC refer to, MB4′s initials?
FloatingRock on January 7, 2008 at 2:14 AM
Now, with another funny comment, my previous one s/b to your penultimate post
FC is a secret that only MB and I know about. Must stay this way or we’ll turn blind.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:16 AM
MB4′s nature.
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 2:16 AM
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 2:12 AM
We’re alreay enamored – it’s too late now.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:17 AM
That would be SF.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:19 AM
FloatingRock, what state (geography) are you in?
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:21 AM
Washington State
FloatingRock on January 7, 2008 at 2:23 AM
Fat Chick?
FloatingRock on January 7, 2008 at 2:24 AM
Used to live in Kirkland and worked in Redmond. Both of you are surrounded by liberalism then?
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:24 AM
Dang, thought it was a dance with a prince :(
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:26 AM
I was born in Seattle but raised all over the state. I’ve spent most of my life around the Seattle area but am living in central Washington right now, which is more conservative. Unfortunately liberals are moving here from California and the balance seems to be turning.
Regarding immigration, one of the grade schools here is phasing out English. Seriously.
FloatingRock on January 7, 2008 at 2:29 AM
Incredible.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:31 AM
Washington State!!!
That’s were I grew up!!!
Eastern Washington.
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 2:35 AM
I swam across Soap Lake!
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:36 AM
Yakima?
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 2:37 AM
I remember Soap Lake. You go out a few feet and it’s about a mile deep.
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 2:39 AM
And nothing lives in it – water tastes horrible but it’s healthy.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:40 AM
Wenatchee.
If I’ve been to Soap Lake it hasn’t been since I was a kid. I’ve spent a lot of time at Potholes, Lake Wenatchee, Lake Washington and the San Juan’s, though.
FloatingRock on January 7, 2008 at 2:43 AM
Did you make it to Grand Coulee dam?
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 2:43 AM
Yes, I did, but I drove there. Had lunch at that little cafe.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:44 AM
…and Lake Chelan, among others.
We probably never went to Soap Lake because nothing lives in it.
FloatingRock on January 7, 2008 at 2:44 AM
Sorry, thought the Grand Coulee dam question was for me.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:46 AM
I used to swim behind the dam. About a half mile +/- up.
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 2:47 AM
It was mainly.
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 2:48 AM
Nice for a swim, and it gets so hot there. It gets suicidal with the all-the-time rain in Seattle, and fortunately the other side of the mountains is so close.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:49 AM
Oh I get it now.
You drove as opposed to swam!!!
It would have been a very difficult swim from soap lake.
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 2:50 AM
It’s nice that all three of us were at the same places. Soap Lake is great for waterskiing.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:51 AM
I was kidding you – it’s something you’d do – teacher, teacher!
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:52 AM
Of course I had to drive, seriously!
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:52 AM
I’m signing off. Good night.
FloatingRock on January 7, 2008 at 2:57 AM
Good night FR – and thanks for the councel the other day :)
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 2:58 AM
If you like EXTREME sports,
you’ll love Soap Lake’s
Canoe Race
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 3:00 AM
Gute Nacht.
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 3:03 AM
I don’t like extreme sports any more. Played soccer for years, jogged for years, half-marathoned…now swimming/walking, occasional hiking, and 3 times a week to the gim after work. Older now and more quiet.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 3:04 AM
Gute Nacht und schlaf gut.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 3:05 AM
I agree with your opinions above Bryan,
Rommney won- but only because Fred was shut out. You can tell Fox news has a problem with Fred-o
Fred second, the immigration answer was great, could have been greater and it would have won him the debate.
Third- between Rudy and McCain, I lean Rudy, McCain had too many self-serving referances to his service.
Huck- hurt himself, the wise-ass comments that got him attention in the earlier debates are not working anymore. Guess what Pastor, people acually expect you to bring something to the table other than a smart-ass remark.
conservnut on January 7, 2008 at 7:20 AM
I’ve always been a substance over style guy. I don’t really care too much about the BS on the surface.
I wanna know what you stand for and what you will do. I also want to know that what you say is what you mean. The worst thing people say about Fred is he doesn’t have “fire in the belly” or he doesn’t “want it”.
The worst thing is he can’t be boiled down to 6 second soundbites. He actually took the time to lay out where he stood on the issues and hasn’t kissed the MSM’s collective butts.
I respect that. I also think Rudy, Huck, and Mitt are all liberals in conservative clothing.
Wake up people… Conservatives need to stand for something. How about small government, balanced budget, secure boarders, energy indepedence (Let the arabs drink their oil…) , strong military and low taxes? polling to decide what you sand for is bad standing for “electability” is what democrats/progressives do.
I’m still with Fred.
If perfect teeth were an important issue, then Huck’s out and Romney’s in. But on the issues…. Fred!.
BadBrad on January 7, 2008 at 7:59 AM
The nominee is gonna be Huck or Fred.
It’s lookin’ like Huck.
There is not enough money in the whole of the GOP to make folks like Mitt. (Mitt would lose in a LANDSLIDE to Obama.)
Rudy has too much baggage and by Florida it’ll be Rudy who?
McCain is too RINO, good for the Northeast but nowhere else.
Ex-tex on January 7, 2008 at 8:07 AM
If some one has already posted this link its because, late to the dance, I skipped over the comments which I shall be reviewing after my post. Its Jeff Babbin at Town Hall on the black cy-ops/dirty tricks published in Politico suggesting Fred would drop out on the day of the caucus.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on January 7, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Correction, thats Current Events. Not Town Hall.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on January 7, 2008 at 8:27 AM
THANK YOU for this link! It is obvious the we ‘embarrassing Fredheads’ are gonna have to slueth out the ‘fair and balanced’ stories about Fred on our owm.
Ex-tex on January 7, 2008 at 8:49 AM
The Dhimmicrats are going to be ALL about style this campaign season. The Republicans had better answer with substance because we are certainly not going to out style these guys. Obama is a a scarry kook politically but he’s got James Bond level style.
Fred is the only substance candidate running.
The Huckster is, well, a huckster.
Mitt is perceived as fake because he is.
McCain is too old and he’s a liberal anyway.
Giuliani is way too liberal.
Ron Paul is an escapee from a mental institution; now he’s a rich escapee.
It’s going to take an authentic adult to beat Obama not a phony baloney. Go Phred.
Mojave Mark on January 7, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Your Welcome Tex. Defenders of Politico have their work cut out for them. We have been dismissed as paranoid but those claims are looking more and more flimsy now.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on January 7, 2008 at 9:13 AM
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0108/0108blackout.htm
Just saying…
Kokonut on January 7, 2008 at 9:18 AM
You love your citizenship. What more can a neighbor ask for? Besides I just used that descriptor because someone far wiser than I once gave an imperative about them.
I hope you won’t find it rude that I prefer not to be specific especially after I was teasing you the other day in regard to your profession. When I first decided to comment here I committed myself to refrain from personal references so as not impact the perception of my comments. I have long felt that conservative thought can be universally accessed through common sense and therefore I want the ideas to stand on their own merit; not buttressed up or given artificial weight by my profession or education or accomplishments, etc (or lack thereof as the case may be). I appreciate the social warmth of your query, but I hope you will indulge me on this matter.
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 9:19 AM
etc – region, gender, age. I’m sure you get the picture.
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Excellent column Kokonut. I guess its fair to say we Fred Heads are feeling fairly pissed about now. Thanks for the link.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on January 7, 2008 at 9:37 AM
First post yay! I’m worried that whoever our candidate is, it will open up a torrent of, “i’m just not going to vote at all, this candidate is this or that or the other.”
This will lead to the inevitable Obama/Hillary/Edwards (well maybe not Edwards)victory.
I may not agree with Huckabee’s pardons, or Romney’s flip flops, or Mccain’s campaign finance or amnesty, or Thompson’s seeming lack of energy, or Guiliani’s social liberalism, or Paul’s complete lack of understanding on the Radical Islam problem. But I WILL vote for any of them if it means keeping Hillary, or Obama out of the Presidency.
I wont cut off my nose to spite my face.
MBFlyerfan on January 7, 2008 at 9:38 AM
If only we could have debates every weekend. I enjoyed both nights a ton.
I think that Fred came away as the best canidate. Fred and John seem to be the honest ones, I’m just not very excited about where John wants to go.
Rudy, too much baggage. too many dresses.
Huck, sorry, I’m not a Rockefeller Republican.
Mitt, what wouldn’t you say to be the President, what policy wouldn’t you change? Why don’t you ever get criticized for having ‘too much fire in the belly.’
Sorry, first post, nice to be here, thanks HotAir!
dean_acheson on January 7, 2008 at 9:44 AM
How does Thompson’s supposed “lack of energy” has to do with becoming president? He is the most solid conservative out there and has that true “Reganesque” quality over the others. Ron Paul has loads of energy and “fire in his belly” but you want to vote for that guy? Hey, how about Hillary? Be my guest if you want that criteria over a guy with the most common sense when it comes to protecting America, our economy and our freedom. And that would be Fred Thompson. He’s the kind of guy you can sit down and really talk about serious issues of our time. Some bloggers have no shame and I question their claims of being a conservative when their actions do not support that contention.
Just saying…
Kokonut on January 7, 2008 at 9:49 AM
I always said I wasn’t lookin’ for him to clean my house or do my yardwork. I want him to LEAD MY COUNTRY!
I think he has plenty of energy for that.
Ex-tex on January 7, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Kokonut
Wow, is this the way it goes here? People don’t read what you say and then attack. For a second I thought I was on the Huff post. I never said anything you insinuated. Its like you read the line about Thompson and then whited out the rest of the post. In fact, I have a Fred ’08 bumper sticker on my SUV. Nothing about Thompson however, strikes me as “ReAganesque”. Many of his answers last night were rambling. IMO he needs to pick it up a notch or he will soon be an afterthought. I find alot of what Paul says to be dead on, except his position on foreign policy, where I believe he is COMPLETELY wrong.
I will vote for whoever the nominee is because the alternative is unthinkable. If alot more of us don’t start thinking that way, we have 8 years of Hillary or Obama staring us in the face.
MBFlyerfan on January 7, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Fred is seen to have a ‘lack of energy’ contrasted to the other rabid talkers.
His style is steady, confident and thoughtful, not manic.
Lots of pedestrian misinterpretation on this.
And did anyone notice the lack of questions Fred got? Wallace avoided him throughout the process. Later, in the forum post-mortem, it was alluded that Fred wasn’t aggressive enough, to fight to be heard. To me, it looked like Wallace was going for front-runner headlines, not a fair and balanced presentation.
He ended up with neither.
jimmer on January 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM
First, welcome. Second, unfortunately, it happens. We are all expected to defend our positions, and the more civil “fighters” tend to pick up support.
RushBaby on January 7, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Like I said, Fred Thompson shows common sense. The problem with Ron Paul and illegal immigration is that until recently he never did anything about it. He voted against putting the military on the border and that was quite telling.
Kokonut on January 7, 2008 at 10:29 AM
“a lost cause” Spirit of 1776 lamely belies the chosen name or “cause”. The American Revolution was “a lost cause” according to the same rationale that Spirit of 1776 spews.
Fred!
maverick muse on January 7, 2008 at 10:38 AM
What?
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Mojave Mark on January 7, 2008 at 9:11 AM
The plastic candidate tried conforming to the Fred last night. The most sincere form of flattery is imitation. I want the genuine article, not a mask to flatter. The nation NEEDS the genuine article making decisions, not the flattering image in the mirror of what is real.
maverick muse on January 7, 2008 at 10:44 AM
I could be wrong here but I didn’t get the impression that
Kokonut was responing to you at all. It’s just that the “lack of energy” argument is used ad infinitum against Fred.
Usually if someone IS responding to you- they will use your name or quote you in their post. Like I just did.
Ex-tex on January 7, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Fred is different than the other candidates. He doesn’t talk a blue streak like the others. He’s not full of one-liners and sound bites. He’s just Fred – a man with conservative principles who, I feel, can lead this country through domestic and international issues.
I’ve noticed that the other candidates don’t take jabs at Fred during the debates. What could they say? “Speak quicker! or Clear your throat?” The other guys have baggage and their records that trip them up. And quite honestly, Huckabee scares the be-jezus out of me.
Oink on January 7, 2008 at 10:46 AM
What?–Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 10:40 AM
The “Spirit of 1776″ inspired our Declaration of Independence and created our Constitution and withstood the fantastic odds of revolting from the world’s strongest empire. Your verbiage belies your motto.
maverick muse on January 7, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Oh, you are referring to my comment on his campaign. I’ve followed some tortured logic on this site, but you had completely lost me there.
Here, I’ll restate in a way that might be less offense to you and one that will hopefully save you the trouble having to compare Fred’s campaign to overthrowing the world’s strongest empire.
Fred appears to be running a campaign similar to what incumbent candidates do. I fail to see anyway that can culminate in success for him. For ex, many of the normal donors to campaigns had already committed and he, like all others, need money for publicity. To run an incumbent campaign as a non-incumbent is a lost cause. Or use whatever other analogy you like. It has nothing to do with zeitgeist.
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Huckabee is a better speaker than Romney. I’d give him round two based on that. Romney may be in the right, but I think the average viewer who isn’t as familiar with the issue would have been more impressed by Huckabee’s response. Same thing with Fred: he’s got the right principles, but he doesn’t deliver them well.
Round one was definitely a victory for Romney though.
Baraka on January 7, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Fred makes more sense in 2 minutes than Huck makes in an entire debate. Amnesty is anything where illegals get to stay. Go Fred Go!
HotAirExpert on January 7, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Huckabee came across as shiftless, less than forthcoming, and basically clueless, especially on foreign policy issues. I honestly do not know how anyone watching this debate could take him seriously afterwards.
McCain was dissembling concerning taxes, but strong on controlling spending. He did well on foreign affairs and the need to keep America strong, although his shtick on his captivity is beginning to wear thin. However, his dishonest “answer” on the immigration question reminded me of why I can’t stand him. Clearly, he is pro-amnesty and does not believe illegals should be deported, except for maybe the worst criminals. His pleading for amnesty by positing the worst case scenario (a mother whose son serves in the military) had me screaming at the TV. What about compassion for all the legal working folk and taxpayers in general being hosed by the illegal flood? Worse, he had a totally sanctimonious tone in delivering his bilge on immigration. I hope his performance loses New Hampshire for him and Republicans can forget about him as allegedly being the only possible Republican winner come next November. Illegal immigration is the Republicans’ best issue and McCain takes it off the table.
I thought Guiliani’s performance was generally strong, although he cannot cover up his past love for illegals. Thompson was strong throughout, especially on immigration and countering Huckabee’s stupidity on Guantanimo, but didn’t act like he really wants to be president.
Romney gave a very strong response countering McCain’s blather on immigration, although he could have taken pointers from Michelle (see MichelleMalkin.com commentary) on things he could have said that would have secured his nomination. I think he clearly won the debate and am beginning to lean his way although I have been a Guiliani supporter in the past based mainly on the issue of electability.
ptolemy on January 7, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Imitate Rathergate HotAir has yet on record to acknowledge biased participation in rumor mongering and DEFENSE of the lie. Compensation out of guilt is not the same as clearing the record, still refusing to name the “UNNAMED” SOURCE and hiding the liar. So where does that alliance go?
N.B.: Lacking his own substance, witness the plastic executive’s own choice for assassinating campaign cloak & dagger management. The S.C. smear king is Mitt’s campaign manhandler. The smear king was GW’s man, foiling McCain with push-polling about an illegitimate colored child that in reality is McCain’s adopted child. A substance abuser of the mind, Mitt officially pays and substantiates that UGLY affiliation top tier and closest to heart. Support no villain for anything.
FRED ’08!
maverick muse on January 7, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I like Fred, Romney and Rudy — strengths and weaknesses all.
I don’t care for Huckabee as a candidate. He’s an articulate man, but his Sunday night debate performance left me underwhelmed and unimpressed.
McCain is an honorable man and I respect his service to our country. However, he’s such an insider when it comes to Washington. Yes, he has done his share of curbing wasteful spending, but obviously he hasn’t been able to do enough. And I don’t like some of the alliances he has made over the years with folks like Kennedy and Feingold. Yuck.
For me, I’d like to see a Fred/Romney or Romney/Fred ticket, and–if they were to win–I’d like Rudy to become Attorney General.
eanax on January 7, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Fred is strongest when he is serving up the serious “red meat” to conservative voters as he is laying on the plate in this immigration clip. I thought he did well speaking about his tax plan and social security plan. It is safe to say that he isn’t the best campaigner, but probably the strongest on conservative policy and getting into the specifics of those policies. His manner of speaking doesn’t play well in the north, but he will do much better in SC.
Republicans in the north are a different breed than us down in the south. Not better or worse, we just have different preferences. If Fred can get the funding he needs to run television ads, hit the ground running like the last 2 weeks in Iowa, show as well in the SC debates as he did this weekend and get some help from the grassroots of the SC Right to Life chapter, he will be very tough to beat.
That’s a lot of ifs, but he is still a formidable challenge for the others to beat in SC.
By the way, this is my first post at HotAir. Thanks to Michelle, Allah and Brian, et al for opening up registration so I can be a part of the discussion.
RobTN on January 7, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Would any Romney supporter be so stupid?
Tzetzes on January 7, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Lifenews.com:
National Right to Life is putting its money where its mouth is for Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson in South Carolina. The pro-life group has mailed a postcard touting Thompson’s record to thousands of residents in the third primary battleground state and one where Thompson needs a strong showing.
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) endorsed Thompson back in November saying he has a strong pro-life voting record and stance on both abortion and bioethics issues.
The mailing, sent by the group’s political action committee, features a picture of an infant baby and says, “This little guy wants you to vote for Fred Thompson in the Republican primary” — which takes place in the state on January 19
bnelson44 on January 7, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Romney/Fred with Rudy as Attorney General would be a dream ticket. Huckabee could be Health and Human Services Secretary. I wouldn’t put McCain on the team because….well I just don’t like him.
CABE on January 7, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 10:57 AM–[snark aside] many of the normal donors to campaigns had already committed and he, like all others, need money for publicity.
The uphill battle is obvious, not impossible. Today’s zeitgeist will determine the outcome of our contemporary conservative cause to which you refer as “lost”. The choice is whether to support the modern morph of liberal populism or the GOP party platform. We agree that the tell is with the undecided that should not be aborted as a “lost cause”, either.
We will see about the donors. The GOP fluctuation is now volatile. Since conservatives donate more liberally to a good cause than do liberals Fred appeals to that GOP avenue for revenue. Regular church-goers are used to shelling out; and that their eyes be opened sooner than later I would term a decent prayer rather than “lost cause”. What will be will be. This is now. Now matters.
Fred!
maverick muse on January 7, 2008 at 12:04 PM
We have no way of knowing this of course, but it depends on who the Dem candidate is. Rudy could do very well against Hillary, but I think Mitt would do better against Obama.
Here’s my cabinet:)
McCain as Sec Def, Rudy as AG, John Bolton as Sec State, Fred as Sec Treasury, Huck in HHS, and Sheriff Joe as head of Homeland Security!
Buy Danish on January 7, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Well said, Fred.
larkydozer on January 7, 2008 at 12:13 PM
He hates answering questions. It’s always spin with him, sometimes a one-liner, sometimes with martyr-speak.
Tzetzes on January 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM
I hope Huck’s support peaked and on the descent back to reality. Group think supports the mirages of Huck and Mitt. They contrast in that Mitt will fight terrorists, though Mitt won’t be the good Samaritan with the unborn innocent. Huck would abort national security though he wouldn’t a baby.
maverick muse on January 7, 2008 at 12:21 PM
I would term a decent prayer rather than “lost cause”.
Fine. You have hope that he will turn it around. If he does turn it around, it will be because he ramps up his campaign (ie doesn’t run like an incumbent). I don’t really see how that observation is particularly offense or why that warrants implying I’m a hypocrite. Kucinich’s campaign is an uphill battle and I don’t think he’ll come back. Does that belie my name? (That’s a rhetoric question)
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Glad to hear Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson did well.
Even more glad to see Mike Huckabee exposed more for the liberal policies he espouses.
MarkB on January 7, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 9:19 AM
You’re indulged :)
Also, your initial response was fine. I got it!
On the professional you suggested – you hadn’t guessed it, and I never explained the rest, for the same reasons you gave, above. It’s something challenging and noble, though.
Yes, adore the citizenship – America was founded, so I can enjoy it :) Glad to know you eiher way! Regards, with thanks,
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Major correction – “so I can enjoy her”. She is a grand lady, indeed!
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »