Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Geraghty: Fred ready to go “all in” in South Carolina? Update: Staff taking pay cuts

posted at 5:19 pm on January 8, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view

Another reason for the ‘Heads to be pulling hard for St. John tonight:

Thompson and the people around him know that South Carolina is a must-win. Mitt Romney may look very damaged by the time South Carolina votes, however, and Team Fred thinks they’re a likely first choice for Romney fans losing faith in their man. (Would Mitt fans go to “Don’t Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers” Huckabee or “You are the candidate of change” McCain?)

Also, expect Thompson to spend an enormous amount of time laying out all the ways that Huckabee is not an across-the-board conservative. Thompson’s people believe the ball is bouncing his way, as he’ll soon be able to make the case he’s the only remaining candidate who can rally all wings of the Republican coalition.

The across-the-board conservative versus Maverick versus Huckabee. Advantage: Huckabee.

Meanwhile, black voters appear to be shifting towards Obama, guaranteeing another crushing Hillary defeat two weeks from now.

Update: Fred trims the sails.

Campaign spokesman Darrel Ng declined to say how much salaries will be reduced, but said the campaign has raised a half million dollars since the Iowa caucuses, and will be gearing up for airtime on local television stations in South Carolina starting Thursday.

“This campaign is going to be a South Carolina campaign,” Campaign Manager Bill Lacy said in a written statement.


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 3

Oops. Copied and pasted a bit too much there.

Hollowpoint on January 8, 2008 at 6:12 PM

And Allah saves the day again, within one minute by deleting it. Awesome.

NTWR on January 8, 2008 at 6:15 PM

Fred lost my vote after his statements at the last debate “We will never be energy independent in ten years that is ridiculous” With a defeatist like him as POTUS we certainly won’t be, that is for sure. That is totally unacceptable. We HAVE to become energy independent now!

I am in investment banking and focused on clean tech/alternative and synthetic fuels and I know for a FACT that what he is saying is pure BS!

We can become 100% energy independent in two years if we really want to. Bad move Fred, time to go back to Hollywood.

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:16 PM

What’s “clip-clop clip-clop clip-clop clip-clop BANG! clip-clop clip-clop clip-clop clip-clop…”

An Amish drive-by shooting

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:16 PM

You just don’t know what you’re going to get? Look at his record as governor for God’s sake. God forbid a record tells you anything about a candidate? Your Romney bashing is getting annoying.

CABE on January 8, 2008 at 6:07 PM

I have looked at his record, and it’s not one of a conservative. If he had a conservative record, he wouldn’t have to flip-flop from it.

Hollowpoint on January 8, 2008 at 6:16 PM

for God’s sake. God forbid a record tells you–CABE on January 8, 2008 at 6:07 PM

The record shows a plastic flipflopper.
And why all the exclusive and vain calling upon the Lord?

maverick muse on January 8, 2008 at 6:17 PM

We can become 100% energy independent in two years if we really want to. Bad move Fred, time to go back to Hollywood.

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:16 PM

In what alternate universe are you posting from?

Hollowpoint on January 8, 2008 at 6:17 PM

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Um….LOL

NickTx on January 8, 2008 at 6:18 PM

It’s not the role of the Federal Government to start a “Moon mission” towards energy independence. Fred is a limited government guy. FEDERALISM. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:18 PM

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Actually it’s a lot tougher than that. I work in biofuels development and the logistics are insanely difficult. Even if we let ourselves use our own oil instead of importing it from enemy countries it would take ten year to get our refining capability up to speed. Thanks to Dems and envirowhackos.

Fred’s a realist.

NTWR on January 8, 2008 at 6:19 PM

In what alternate universe are you posting from?

Hollowpoint on January 8, 2008 at 6:17 PM

Yeah…I dont see THAT happening in 2 years. Not at all.

NickTx on January 8, 2008 at 6:19 PM

Hollowpoint on January 8, 2008 at 6:03 PM

I follow your point, but you already know Mac is going to screw you. But just hoping that Mitt doesn’t. Mitt can’t flip back on the issues or he will never have credibility with anyone anywhere. He stuck with what he says now. I understand your point though.

snickelfritz on January 8, 2008 at 6:08 PM

You wouldn’t sing his praises (regarding common views) to Mac supporters to help convince them they should vote Fred?

Spirit of 1776 on January 8, 2008 at 6:20 PM

Dang- it has been a pleasure readin’ this thread! To all the new Frednecks— Glad Yer Here!!! The torch has been passed to a NEW crop’o Fredheads!

FDT the next POTUS! Yeah baby.

Ex-tex on January 8, 2008 at 6:20 PM

The record shows a plastic flipflopper.

Those are nice talking points that people who don’t think might use whe deciding who to vote for, but they aren’t accurately born out by the facts. First, calling him plastic or a ken doll is just immature and unnecessary. His so called flip flopping is also very debatable. He isn’t anythink like a Kerry or Clinton. He changed positions on two major issues and has perfectly reasonable explanations for this. We get it. You don’t like him, but the logic you used in making this determination is extremely questionable.

davenp35 on January 8, 2008 at 6:22 PM

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:16 PM

vulgar

maverick muse on January 8, 2008 at 6:25 PM

We can become 100% energy independent in two years if we really want to. Bad move Fred, time to go back to Hollywood.

2 years? Sounds inconceivable. I’m sure a lot of people would love to hear how. However, I do agree that the GOP nominee will need a competing vision of the future to counteract Obamania.

Also, the economy being #1 on people’s minds is very bad news for the GOP. So bad that a populist like Huck can contend for the GOP nomination.

dedalus on January 8, 2008 at 6:25 PM

It’s not the role of the Federal Government to start a “Moon mission” towards energy independence.
Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Do you really believe that?? National Security is(should be) the main purpose of the federal gov’t. If we do not provide energy independence we are neglecting our national security.

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:25 PM

I have looked at his record, and it’s not one of a conservative. If he had a conservative record, he wouldn’t have to flip-flop from it.

Hollowpoint on January 8, 2008

Lower taxes, lower unemployment, and a balanced budget is not conservative? Maybe you’re part of that new conservatism Mike Huckabee is talking about?

why all the exclusive and vain calling upon the Lord?

maverick muse on January 8, 2008

It wasn’t in vain, and I didn’t know this was a church!?

CABE on January 8, 2008 at 6:25 PM

I did my part last night for my candidate of choice.

This party is acting so retarded. People please research your candidates. Don’t go with someone because he says “Aw shucks”, smiles, and is likable. And please don’t think a President directly effects your success anymore than determining the rate of your income collects and then redistributes. (I won’t go into essential or otherwise here.)

I don’t care who Chuck Norris votes for, and anyone traveling with a blimp is screwy.

Is anyone serious about the Presidency anymore? Where have all the grown ups gone?

simon on January 8, 2008 at 6:27 PM

maverick muse on January 8, 2008 at 6:25 PM

maverick, vulgar??? I guess you don’t like anything more controversial than the original “why did the chicken cross the road” joke.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:27 PM

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:25 PM

I don’t like to stretch the definition of “National Security”, like the Dems getting the CIA to do reports on Global Warming. As a practical matter, let Buffett and the Google Boys recycle their billions for a good cause.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:30 PM

Hollowpoint on January 8, 2008 at 6:17 PM

It takes approx 1 year to build coal to oil facilities and biomass to oil facilities. We have enough coal and biomass to produce 150% of the total oil that we consume not just the amount that we import. If we did this we would not only produce all of our own oil but we would be able to export oil also. Legislate huge tax breaks(1 year) Build synthetic oil facilities(another year). Done.

People in my business will tell you the investment is not taking place now because the major private equity funds and investors are worried about who will win this election. If a democrat wins they fear that they will shut down the industry in effect, as the democrats are opposed to coal to oil and biomass to oil technologies!

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:34 PM

davenp35
Mitt is plastic.

1: formative creative
2 a: capable of being molded or modeled b: capable of adapting to varying conditions : pliable
3: sculptural
4: made or consisting of a plastic
5: capable of being deformed continuously and permanently in any direction without rupture
6: of, relating to, or involving plastic surgery
7: having a quality suggestive of mass-produced plastic goods; especially : artificial 4
8: relating to, characterized by, or exhibiting neural plasticity. Merriam-Webster Online

Take your pick. (You’d go “sculptural”, least offensive.)
But Mitt’s brain is plastic, whether you like that observation or not. He shifts with the wind. His platform is built on shifting sands. He mirrors what he thinks will give him power, whether conservative or liberal. At heart, because his record is consistently pro-abortion, he is never going to qualify as a conservative. Besides, in good humor, he spends his fortune too liberally in the campaign to qualify as fiscally conservative.

maverick muse on January 8, 2008 at 6:35 PM

As a practical matter, let Buffett and the Google Boys recycle their billions for a good cause.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:30 PM

So you’re a Robin Hood type? I had the impression you were in favor of flatter (or fewer) taxes, and opposed to redistribution.

steadyrock on January 8, 2008 at 6:36 PM

Fred lost my vote after his statements at the last debate “We will never be energy independent in ten years that is ridiculous” With a defeatist like him as POTUS we certainly won’t be, that is for sure. That is totally unacceptable. We HAVE to become energy independent now!

That is not what he said. He said we should tell the truth that we will not be energy independent in the next few years. As others have pointed out, it will likely take 10 to 20 years. How long would it take to get approved and build a nuclear facility or a refinery for God’ sake? Assuming the libs would not block it.

ReaganConservative3 on January 8, 2008 at 6:36 PM

150% of what we consume annually I meant. sorry

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:37 PM

record is consistently pro-abortion

Actually Mitt’s RECORD is very pro-life.

davenp35 on January 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM

Do you really believe that?? National Security is(should be) the main purpose of the federal gov’t. If we do not provide energy independence we are neglecting our national security.

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:25 PM

If that were the case the EPA would be in GTMO. We WOULD be energy independent now if it weren’t for those pesky democrats and environMENTALists making it illegal to drill our OWN oil or build ANY new refineries since the 70’s.
Or use nuclear breeder reactors.
Or put wind farms (not that they generate much power) near Kennedy’s compound.
Or build new dams for hydroelectric power.
etc.

NTWR on January 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM

If a democrat wins they fear that they will shut down the industry in effect, as the democrats are opposed to coal to oil and biomass to oil technologies!

Interesting points, thanks. Good luck weathering the storm in Investment Banking. There’s blood in the streets. Things look really ugly with Bear Stearns. Also, heard that Citi might take a $18B write-down.

dedalus on January 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM

Go Fred!

Bladerunner1701 on January 8, 2008 at 6:39 PM

Patriot33 on January 8, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Dude, he was Governor of the same state that voted for Kennedy and Kerry. Did he compromise his conservative principals to get elected? Or did he run as a right-wing, pro-gun ownership, pro-life, anti-illegal immigration, tax-cutting conservative? I’m not interested in Compassionate Conservative Compromising Incrementalism.

There’s been too much of that going around in Congress as well as in the White House. And you all complain about it too! Why? Because compromise in Washington D.C. has always meant conservatives giving up their principals to get along and pass some liberal laws. It’s never the other way around. Why? Because of the likes of John McCain, Rudy, Romney, et al who give in and compromise their morals to a group that doesn’t have any.

Why don’t I feel like YOU understand that?

Sultry Beauty on January 8, 2008 at 6:39 PM

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:27 PM–perhaps you have not read amish well. Simply, kicking someone who’s down is bad form.

maverick muse on January 8, 2008 at 6:40 PM

davenp35 on January 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, brainwashed or brain dead.

maverick muse on January 8, 2008 at 6:41 PM

If a democrat wins they fear that they will shut down the industry in effect, as the democrats are opposed to coal to oil and biomass to oil technologies!

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:34 PM

I see this in my field (engineering/consulting) too. The publik skools have really made science a joke.

NTWR on January 8, 2008 at 6:41 PM

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:34 PM

Since you’re the economist type: what is your projection about the ripple effect on our economy of turning “biomass” into oil at such an alarming rate? Already we see what a big impact our relatively minor Ethanol subsidies have had on the supermarket prices of corn, wheat, sugar, etc. What do you predict will happen if we suddenly start turning our nation’s food supply into oil, and selling it off to other countries?

steadyrock on January 8, 2008 at 6:41 PM

Fred Thompson John McCain is another Bob Dole.

CABE on January 8, 2008 at 5:34 PM

Fix that…

Sultry Beauty on January 8, 2008 at 6:41 PM

Fred lost my vote after his statements at the last debate “We will never be energy independent in ten years that is ridiculous” With a defeatist like him as POTUS we certainly won’t be, that is for sure. That is totally unacceptable. We HAVE to become energy independent now!

I am in investment banking and focused on clean tech/alternative and synthetic fuels and I know for a FACT that what he is saying is pure BS!

We can become 100% energy independent in two years if we really want to. Bad move Fred, time to go back to Hollywood.

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Sounds a bit naive to me. Two years is way too short for that kind a dramatic change. Not sure 10 years is enough for complete independence unless govt lightens up on refineries and drilling within US. Govt subsidies will only go so far for alternative fuel sources at this point.

Aggie85 on January 8, 2008 at 6:42 PM

steadyrock on January 8, 2008 at 6:36 PM

I’m as free-market as they come. All I’m saying is that there is a ready supply of capital from people who seem intensely interested in “green” technologies, or so they say and who seem to like profit. If there is money to be made from achieving energy independence using “clean” fuels, they are the ones to do it. If there isn’t, it will not be a viable alternative anyway.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:43 PM

in favor of someone who has changed opinions even within the last few months, that’s asking a bit much.

steadyrock on January 8, 2008 at 6:03 PM

More with the erronious flip-flopping charge. Please enlighten me on the positions he’s changed “within the last few months,” let alone the last few years. He’s been running on full-fledged conservatism since day one, governed Mass as conservative as he could under the circumstances, and the so-called flip flops happened several years ago on social issues, leading to the present where he is RIGHT on everything.

But you know what? It doesn’t matter, nothing is going to change your opinion of him. I’m much less a supporter of Mitt Romney than a supporter of the conservative movement, and the latter is about to go down in flames.

So keep bashing Romney and enjoy the RINO we end up with.

RIP Reagan Conservatism, we hardly knew ya.

Patriot33 on January 8, 2008 at 6:43 PM

NTWR on January 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM

Exactly my point. It is the dems who have been preventing us from becoming energy independent. We should not have the same attitudes as them. We can do it!

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:43 PM

The publik skools have really made science a joke.–NTWR on January 8, 2008 at 6:41 PM

I heard someone say “nucular technololy” today! LOL

maverick muse on January 8, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Democraps and liberal democraps especially don’t want us to be energy independent any more than they want us to win in Iraq or to fix social security. These things, while great for our nation, take away their wedge issues and would not enable them to keep power, which is their first and primary pursuit.

ReaganConservative3 on January 8, 2008 at 6:45 PM

maverick muse on January 8, 2008 at 6:40 PM

I just like jokes, and the word “amish” reminding me of that one. If and when I’m kicked out for any reason, you have my explicit encouragement to post and “Igor” joke.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:45 PM

maverick muse on January 8, 2008 at 6:41 PM

I see you’re resorting to ad hominem attacks now. Bad form.

davenp35 on January 8, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Glad you clarified. I took that all wrong at first. ;)

steadyrock on January 8, 2008 at 6:46 PM

What do you predict will happen if we suddenly start turning our nation’s food supply into oil, and selling it off to other countries?

steadyrock on January 8, 2008 at 6:41 PM

It’s actually not the food supply. It’s the stuff leftover after harvest that they want to use, like corn stalks and the straw leftover after harvest that’s usually tilled under or burned. So then the real consideration is how much of that we can use without recreating the Dust Bowl.

NTWR on January 8, 2008 at 6:47 PM

What’s “clip-clop clip-clop clip-clop clip-clop BANG! clip-clop clip-clop clip-clop clip-clop…”

An Amish drive-by shooting

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:16 PM

that was horrible, even if i did laugh…..

dean_acheson on January 8, 2008 at 6:47 PM

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:16 PM, “never” misquote:

ridiculous unrealistic

maverick muse on January 8, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:43 PM

There is a huge difference between ‘green” technologies for the global warming alarmists and real and viable domestic fuels such as coal to oil and biomass(non food biomass) BTW.

The environmentalists are the #1 enemy of these valid technologies.

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:48 PM

This is horrible, to think all the time I’ve been supporting Fred for free!

dean_acheson on January 8, 2008 at 6:49 PM

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:45 PM

I laughed.

Spirit of 1776 on January 8, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Hollowpoint on January 8, 2008 at 6:17 PM

It’s a scary troll. I have my eyes on him.

Sultry Beauty on January 8, 2008 at 6:50 PM

If there is money to be made from achieving energy independence using “clean” fuels, they are the ones to do it. If there isn’t, it will not be a viable alternative anyway.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:43 PM

I think this is Newt’s take on environmentalism and everyone’s calling him a Greeny now. He really just sees the potential for capital gain!

NTWR on January 8, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Coal to oil is what south africa did during apartheid when no one would sell them oil. Now it is improved it costs about$15-$20 per barrel to produce depending on the price of coal.

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:52 PM

The environmentalists are the #1 enemy of these valid technologies.

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:48 PM

It’s SO frustrating! Especially the way they brush off the idea of clean coal. It’s possible, it works great already, let’s do it!

NTWR on January 8, 2008 at 6:53 PM

NTWR on January 8, 2008 at 6:05 PM

From one Fred!head to another…..you’re welcome.

Your wish is granted. Vaya con dios.

Allahpundit on January 8, 2008 at 6:10 PM

Thanks for ridding us of that dingleberry. Chaffing was beginning to occur.

omnipotent on January 8, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Actually Mitt’s RECORD is very pro-life. davenp35 on January 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM

You are wrong. Mitt’s personal fortune and reputation supported abortion specifically. That he’d like to change his tune today does not change his record. Mitt’s legislation that he signed w/o veto specifically supported abortion representation and denied pro-life representation on government board.

maverick muse on January 8, 2008 at 6:55 PM

NTWR on January 8, 2008 at 6:50 PM

There IS a lot of potential for capital gain. Seen some of the Solar stocks lately? Of course the newest mission of the old-style environmentalists is to stop tar sand oil recovery in Canada. If that truly achieves it’s potential, they lose their case for 100 years.

The history of the Federal involvement in alternative fuel research is dirtier than a coal-fired power plant in China.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 6:56 PM

davenp35 on January 8, 2008 at 5:45 PM

It’s kind of hard to ignore that silliness isn’t it? I just don’t even bother much anymore.

csdeven on January 8, 2008 at 6:57 PM

amish on January 8, 2008 at 5:46 PM

AP, He really means you’re just a sissy.

:-)

csdeven on January 8, 2008 at 6:59 PM

Unkind. Unsolicited. Uncalled for.

thejackal on January 8, 2008 at 5:55 PM

But not untrue.

csdeven on January 8, 2008 at 7:01 PM

dean_acheson on January 8, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Could’ve been worse: imagine if it was horrible and you didn’t laugh.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 7:04 PM

csdeven on January 8, 2008 at 6:59 PM

“It’s a schoolyard taunt!”

steadyrock on January 8, 2008 at 7:06 PM

It’s actually not the food supply. It’s the stuff leftover after harvest that they want to use, like corn stalks and the straw leftover after harvest that’s usually tilled under or burned. So then the real consideration is how much of that we can use without recreating the Dust Bowl.

NTWR on January 8, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Actually, very little tilling is done anymore in the midwest. It is mostly no-till which eliminates soil packing and conserves moisture. They just plant right through last years stalks and stubble. Weed and pest control are chemical. Genetically altered seed allows use of herbicides which couldn’t be done in the past. There might be a little concern about losing organic material which could affect soil texture, but that is probably minor. Lot of research going on in the biofuel arena. I don’t think ethanol is going to be viable in the long run, but the other possibilities are endless.

a capella on January 8, 2008 at 7:06 PM

Spirit of 1776 on January 8, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Thanks! And with no caveats. So just for you a new punchline:

“An drive-by shooting in 1776.”

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 7:06 PM

Lot of research going on in the biofuel arena. I don’t think ethanol is going to be viable in the long run, but the other possibilities are endless.

a capella on January 8, 2008 at 7:06 PM

I agree.

NTWR on January 8, 2008 at 7:12 PM

Huckabee’s BS is an endless source of energy. Don’t know if it’s clean though.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 7:13 PM

I hope fred pulls it out in South Carolina.

spacekicker on January 8, 2008 at 7:14 PM

Your wish is granted.

Allahpundit on January 8, 2008 at 6:10 PM

Ooooh! Allah’s granting wishes!

I want a pony. And please make Huckabee scream like Howard Dean.

TexasDan on January 8, 2008 at 7:18 PM

Go all in! Fight for SC! Cut my Staff! …

Get Freducated! I’m with Fred ‘08! It’s a Fredalanche!

BKennedy on January 8, 2008 at 7:25 PM

spacekicker on January 8, 2008 at 7:14 PM

Don’t let anyone tell you that Fred NEEDS to place anywhere in particular in SC. It maybe a motivational or de-motivational trick on the part of whoever, but Fred just needs to increase his delegate count enough by the time of the convention so that he is a strong power broker.

How many people said that he NEEDS to place second in Iowa? And after a week 3rd finish, no problem, Fred is alive and kicking. I doubt that the worthless Huck is beatable in SC. The Bible-thumpers’ and black vote will go to him. The better Fred does, the more delegates he gets. Face it, there is no consensus candidate today and I don’t believe it’s possible to count on any specific one by the convention time. It is a VERY strong possibility that one will not emerge.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 7:26 PM

Get Freducated! I’m with Fred ‘08! It’s a Fredalanche!

I’m getting a Fred-ache. lol sorry just had to say it.

CABE on January 8, 2008 at 7:30 PM

dean_acheson on January 8, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Could’ve been worse: imagine if it was horrible and you didn’t laugh.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 7:04 PM

true ‘dat! I found myself reproaching myself.

dean_acheson on January 8, 2008 at 7:30 PM

O.K. Here is what I learned here today. Allahpundit thinks that Fred is a crappy candidate. I think Romney is a crappy, flip-flopping candidate. I think Fred is the least crappy of the candidates.

What will Fredheads do if McCain endorses Fred? Who cares? That will be McCain’s endorsement and it won’t change anything that Fred stands for and believes in.

Jay on January 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM

I would definitely donate part of my pay by donating to Fred if I was a staffer.

I donate part of mine and I’m just a regular person!!

Oink on January 8, 2008 at 7:37 PM

So keep bashing Romney and enjoy the RINO we end up with.

RIP Reagan Conservatism, we hardly knew ya.

Patriot33 on January 8, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Romney is a RINO…You want someone other than a RINO than your choices are Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson. If you vote for anyone other than one of those two, you have no valid excuse for giving a eulogy to Reagan Conservatism, since you will have helped kill it.

doriangrey on January 8, 2008 at 7:38 PM

TexasDan on January 8, 2008 at 7:18 PM

I don’t want to know how AP might make Huckabee scream. That Mike sure does have a purty mouth, though.

steadyrock on January 8, 2008 at 7:38 PM

Don’t let anyone tell you that Fred NEEDS to place anywhere in particular in SC. It maybe a motivational or de-motivational trick on the part of whoever, but Fred just needs to increase his delegate count enough by the time of the convention so that he is a strong power broker.
Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 7:26 PM

I’ve been behind Fred the entire time, but let’s be realistic- he needs to do well in SC or he’s done.

He was just on Fox News live, and said that SC is his “firewall”, and that he needed to win or do very well there. He’s almost certainly right.

Hollowpoint on January 8, 2008 at 7:46 PM

Amen dorian!

Jay on January 8, 2008 at 7:47 PM

Hollowpoint on January 8, 2008 at 7:46 PM

I hate to say it, but even Fred is a politician. He had pretty much implied that he needed to place second in Iowa, yet it magically morphed into “a weak third is good enough” when that’s what he got. “Do well” is a stretchable concept. I also don’t see a possibility of him placing better than third in SC unless McCain does a sepuku for the old friend, and after Fred’s Iowa performance (whether the “about to drop out” rumor really cost him 2-3 points) I doubt he has some magic powers to see what mere mortals do not.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 7:55 PM

Did you really hate saying that?

Jay on January 8, 2008 at 8:05 PM

I hate to say it, but even Fred is a politician. He had pretty much implied that he needed to place second in Iowa, yet it magically morphed into “a weak third is good enough” when that’s what he got.
Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 7:55 PM

I don’t recall him implying any such thing- he said he needed to do well in IA, but declined to define what “well” was. SC is in the South- where he’d be expected to do best. If he can’t win or place a close 2nd in South Carolina, there’s not many places he can.

I wish he was doing better, and I’m disappointed in the fact that he was unable to capitalize on his early support. Self-delusion isn’t going to change his fate though.

Hollowpoint on January 8, 2008 at 8:06 PM

Prediction:

Numerous otherwise reasonable Fredheads will go “all in” on another crappy campaign commercial for Fred a few days before the South Carolina primary. The result will be similar to that in Iowa-3rd place.

Prediction: You are correct, sir!

Allahpundit on January 8, 2008 at 5:36 PM

And AP will have at least three posts linking to Fred’s site begging for cash, but with snarky comments pissing off the Fredheads.

tommylotto on January 8, 2008 at 8:12 PM

Jay on January 8, 2008 at 8:05 PM

Jay, I really did. He is a lot less of a politician than others. I wish he was more of a politician. The ends don’t justify the means, but ends without means are alternately known as “dreaming”.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 8:23 PM

Hollowpoint on January 8, 2008 at 8:06 PM

I heard him say to a question if finishing third was good enough that it wasn’t. I saw links to him supposedly saying that he needed to finish 2nd, but never followed them up or particularly believed them.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 8:28 PM

FRED is really in trouble….even Ron Paul got more votes…thats pretty sick. The south ought to be more his flavor. GL FRED.

mpax on January 8, 2008 at 8:35 PM

How about blaming your crappy candidate for once, sport?

A bit harsh, AP. Fred certainly made his share of mistakes (they all do, to one degree or another)and, regretfully, those mistakes involved form and process rather than substance and policy.

When it comes to the former, Fred’s record has been…well…crappy. He underestimated the demands of the campaign trail and grossly overestimated both the fairness of the MSM and the political awareness of the average American voter. On the other hand, Fred Dalton Thompson has done a stellar job of presenting his bona fides for the presidency of this still-great nation, with detailed policies and a rock-solid conservative platform that has appeal even for the independent voters. If anyone can unite the Republican party and peel closet conservatives away from the Democrats, it’s Thompson.

Having said that, I am nevertheless confident that events will break in his favor – history sometimes has a funny way of working out like that. If I may offer a strained historical analogy: in December of 1776 things did not look at all good for the Continental Army and were we blogging back then (with quills and parchment, no doubt) we would have engaged in a similar discussion. You would have called the cause of General Washington a hopeless one. He was in retreat, his troops were starved and freezing and they were more or less surrounded by the overwhelming might of the British Army.

Let’s be honest, AP: were we blogging back then you would have derided me as a “George-Head” and dismissed my belief that Washington would succeed as little more than desperate wishful thinking. In response I would have said then what I am saying now: something extraordinary is going to happen – something that will confound pundits and historians for years to come. I am not sure why I know this. I just know it. Perhaps it is irrational, AP. Perhaps I believe what I believe because the alternative is simply too horrible to imagine – just as I would have said the alternative to victory in our war for independence would be too awful to contemplate.

Nevertheless, Washington managed to defy the conventional wisdom and secure a hugely significant (if strategically minor) victory in the Battle of Trenton on December 26, 1776. He had only just BEGUN to fight. And he would triumph at Yorktown 5 years later. And we would become a nation, a nationed destined to be the greatest the world has ever known.

Thompson will prevail. I stand by my prediction.

NemoParticularis on January 8, 2008 at 8:42 PM

mpax on January 8, 2008 at 8:35 PM

Fred may or may not be in trouble, but saying this based on the NH results is…hm…of questionable value. He didn’t have a single campaign even in NH recently and pretty much blew off the entire state in an obvious fashion. The result match the polls very closely, so “woe is Fred” isn’t an appropriate response.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 8:45 PM

Sometimes we forget that we are political mutants here at HA. NOBODY CARES in main stream America. The glance up from work and TV long enough to realize it’s Tuesday and “I gotta vote.” Some of you don’t seem to have a very good perspective on things.

I like the fluidity of the elephant side. It’s more fun this way. We’re still dating the candidates and we haven’t decided on who we want to spend the next four years of our life with. None of them are the perfect candidate but nobody is. We should enjoy the ride more. As Bill Bennet said on his “Morning In America” radio show, “even Ronald Reagan wasn’t ‘Ronald Reagan’ back when he was president.

McCain will probably win tonight due to how the N.H. primaries are set up and for no other reason.

Mojave Mark on January 8, 2008 at 8:46 PM

Everyone conservative should be voting for Fred Thompson in SC.

I’m gonna pray hard and send some money to Fred.

msipes on January 8, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Fred is out. Iowa should have been his big surprise win, not Hucks.

Fred supporters should switch to Mitt unless they are okay with McCain being their guy after fred and huck flame out.

Drunk Report on January 8, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Um, “endgame” with some help I suppose.

Kokonut on January 8, 2008 at 9:06 PM

FRED is really in trouble….even Ron Paul got more votes…thats pretty sick. The south ought to be more his flavor. GL FRED.

mpax on January 8, 2008 at 8:35 PM

Wrong…Fred didn’t campaign in NH, didn’t spend a dime there and is still pulling 1.3 percent of the vote.

doriangrey on January 8, 2008 at 9:18 PM

Right. He knew N.H. wasn’t going to be his thing. Gonna focus it all in S.C.

Kokonut on January 8, 2008 at 9:26 PM

Fred doesn’t have to do anything in particular if nobody can win a decisive majority. At the moment there isn’t a clear path for anyone to do it.

Igor R. on January 8, 2008 at 9:34 PM

Fred lost my vote after his statements at the last debate “We will never be energy independent in ten years that is ridiculous” With a defeatist like him as POTUS we certainly won’t be, that is for sure. That is totally unacceptable. We HAVE to become energy independent now!

I am in investment banking and focused on clean tech/alternative and synthetic fuels and I know for a FACT that what he is saying is pure BS!

We can become 100% energy independent in two years if we really want to. Bad move Fred, time to go back to Hollywood.

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Not to be rude but if you have the answer then I challenge you to share the secret with all of us… It’s easy to make a claim like that and then state that you’re shifting candidates.. Since you are in the biz and stated so, an argument from authority only works if 1. you’re not challenged on the facts OR 2. You’re challenged and produce the facts to substantiate. Number 2 pleaseFredalanche!©

whiskeytango on January 8, 2008 at 9:35 PM


Fred doesn’t have to do anything in particular if nobody can win a decisive majority. At the moment there isn’t a clear path for anyone to do it.

You have seen the glimmer of light that others dismiss as a mirage. Sometimes the best strategy is to sit it out and let your adversaries bloody each other before you enter the fray.

Well done, Grasshopper.

NemoParticularis on January 8, 2008 at 9:56 PM

Fred Thompson finished just behind “write-in” in New Hampshire. I need a drink.

joewm315 on January 8, 2008 at 10:04 PM

Not to be rude but if you have the answer then I challenge you to share the secret with all of us…
whiskeytango on January 8, 2008 at 9:35 PM

It takes approx 1 year to build coal to oil facilities and biomass to oil facilities. We have enough coal and biomass to produce 150% of the total oil that we consume annually not just the amount that we import. If we did this we would not only produce all of our own oil but we would be able to export oil also. Legislate huge tax breaks(1 year) Build synthetic oil facilities(another year). Done.

HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 10:18 PM

Fred Thompson finished just behind “write-in” in New Hampshire. I need a drink.

joewm315 on January 8, 2008 at 10:04 PM

Why? He never bothered to show up in NH and never spent a dime advertising there. Yet people are still voting for him. Granted only 1%, but still considering he never even tried in NH thats not bad.

doriangrey on January 8, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3


You must be logged in to post a comment.