Is Fred helping Huckabee by staying in the race?
posted at 11:13 am on January 8, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Think about it. If St. John wins today, he and Huck go into South Carolina as the odds-on favorites to take the state. (Mitt could contend if he takes Michigan next week, but he’s expected to win there and is at a disadvantage vis-a-vis his opponents in hawkish, evangelical SC.) McCain’s already preparing his next moves, in fact, planning a swing through Michigan and then a flight to Charleston tomorrow night to beat the war drum at the Citadel. He’s seven points behind Huck in the state in the new Rasmussen poll, with Mitt and Fred accounting between them for another 26% of, I presume, traditional conservative voters. If either or both of them were to drop out, how would those voters break? I’m guessing towards McCain, although that’s only because I think of Huckabee as a sort of McCain-like figure himself minus the foreign policy strength. What do you gain by choosing Huck over Mac? The answer, I guess, is that one’s a “Christian leader” while the other isn’t, so it would come down to a test of whether Mitt’s and Fred’s voters prioritize the war over “values” or vice versa.
So then. If, as I do (and Ace does, among others), you believe McCain is mildly preferable to Huck, and if you believe the balance of Fred’s voters would shift towards him — especially with a likely endorsement of McCain by Fred following his dropping out — then Fred could be the difference between a Huck victory and a Mac victory in South Carolina. The Fredheads naturally think Thompson can still win the state outright, but imagine this: A week from today, four days before the primary, it’s Huck 35, McCain 35, Mitt 20, Fred 10. Should he drop out then? Yes, yes, ideally Mitt would drop out and his voters would rush off to Thompsonville, but Mitt’s got a bottomless treasury and isn’t getting out soon. Exit question: When is it time to pull the plug, ‘Heads? And as you consider it, bear in mind that the man who not long ago scolded us for punishing the children of illegal immigrants for the sins of their parents is now willing to go this far in pandering to absolve himself.
Update: Maybe the real question is, why is McCain still in the race?
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
AP is a big fan of pro-choice career lobbyists that gave legal advice to terrorists ;-)
tommylotto on January 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I think its your tone of loathing when talking about evangelicals that makes your arguments seem a little…subjective. I’ll agree with the base of your point, but you’re definitely doing a good job of baiting evangelicals into arguments. Mission accomplished?
blankminde on January 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I don’t
bnelson44 on January 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Okay then- straight up Allah- You gonna vote or not???
Ex-tex on January 8, 2008 at 12:03 PM
You sound like Hillary. *tear*
davenp35 on January 8, 2008 at 12:03 PM
A Time Machine in which Fred goes back to September and smacks himself for his stupid announcement decision and campaign gaffes.
BKennedy on January 8, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Exactly! It looks to me like the overhwhelming majority of evangelicals who comment on this site are against Huckabee. We are agreeing he has to be stopped.
Go Fred Go
flyfisher on January 8, 2008 at 12:05 PM
For the benefit of all new posters, this is tommylotto, a pre-programmed AIM bot Allahpundit used to keep csdeven going back in his maverick days.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Ummm- what???
Ex-tex on January 8, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Well, now, let’s just look for a moment… It seems that immigration is the key issue in SC, right? That is potentially Huck’s biggest weakness, so now he comes pandering with his anchor baby nonsense.
Fred needs to punch his lights out on that issue, and do it now. Given that a third of Huck’s backing is “fluid,” that could make quite a difference right there.
Fred needs to hit one out of the friggin’ park at Huckster’s expense. Maybe at Thursday’s debate?
wccawa on January 8, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Never did.
Big S on January 8, 2008 at 12:06 PM
I though AP used MSN bots.
Oniteri-gotto Mr. Roboto.
BKennedy on January 8, 2008 at 12:07 PM
OK, found out: South Carolina is an open primary state. So McCain’s support right now is primarily from Independents and Democrats there. If Fred drops out, Fred will pull some Republicans. If Huck drops out?
bnelson44 on January 8, 2008 at 12:07 PM
This thread is less than an hour hold and it already has over 100 comments.
You know who should fear the Fred?
Hot Air’s servers and IT geeks, that’s who.
Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 12:08 PM
. If Fred drops out, MCCAIN will pull some Republicans. If Huck drops out?
bnelson44 on January 8, 2008 at 12:08 PM
His campaign strategy is certainly a mystery isn’t it. Why he didn’t announce and start running in May or June, when he had the momentum, is beyond me. Some friends who know Fred have told me the timing was driven by his contractual obligations to NBC. Regardless, his inaction killed his campaign before it ever started.
flyfisher on January 8, 2008 at 12:08 PM
I think some of the Huckabee people see Fred actually taking away from them and want McCain to stay in, at least for now.
someguy on January 8, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I bet HotAir keeps posting Fred threads even after he drops out, just to keep the traffic up.
Big S on January 8, 2008 at 12:09 PM
No, I didn’t bring religion into this. Huck did. Huck received 80% of the evangelical vote, ran as the Jesus candidate, and is a stone liberal on most issues. Oh yeah, and he’s a liar. The net I cast is over the moronic evangelicals who support Huck. You are the one who included yourself under the net, not me. That is why I told you to get off the cross.
I happen to know that MOST evangelicals voted for someone other than Huck, but they split between other candidates. What that tells me is that there is a significant evangelical type that cares more about a president governing as a pastor rather than an American governing for the good of all Americans.
csdeven on January 8, 2008 at 12:10 PM
How does Fred have any authority on immigration. He was actually in a position to do something about immigration at the Federal level as a Senator and did nothing during his eight years except vote time and again for his crony Spencer Abraham’s open boarders agenda. Those who live in glass houses…
tommylotto on January 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Fred’s natural support should be those “Hucklicans” that apparently have tunnel vision.
Looking at the poll, the biggest issue for SC is immigration. Huck gets a full third of those voters!
In a bizzaro world, that would make sense. In the real world, not so much.
Fred should be kneecapping Huck on this issue non-stop.
wccawa on January 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM
No one is baiting evangelicals. The evangelicals here do not support Huck, so why would anyone think they could be baited? I am simply expressing the same opinion that others have INCLUDING most evangelicals.
What we have are a couple of people who are too sensitive to their preferred religion and cannot accept that some of the people they share those values with are idiots for supporting Huck. They are what they are and you guys need to understand the difference between criticizing them and you.
csdeven on January 8, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Fred is a great position statement person, and I don’t know how he would govern, but he is a terrible candidate. If he were running for head of the Heritage Foundation, he would be a shoe in, but he isn’t. He needs to attend a few Obama events to see how it’s done.
bnelson44 on January 8, 2008 at 12:15 PM
How about a dose of reality for a change? Rate these guys:
Giuliani
Huckabee
McCain
Romney
Thompson
And tell me who you put on top of the list? Seriously. I’m listening.
wccawa on January 8, 2008 at 12:16 PM
What makes you think Fred won’t be doing that to Huck while in SC? Best stratagy is one you use while in the area in which they (the people) are for… right?
upinak on January 8, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Whatever, you come across as a religious bigot. In your original post you did not limit your disdain to evangelicals supporting Huck; you slammed all evangelicals.
Perhaps they think that is what is good for all Americans. They certainly have the right to that opinion. Lest you misunderstand, I disagree with anyone who feels that way. But I will defend their right to believe as they wish.
This is my last comment on this topic because I don’t want to argue with you. We have a slightly different viewpoint, but we are basically on the same side.
flyfisher on January 8, 2008 at 12:18 PM
I hope he does. Huck has WAY overextended himself with his anchor baby flip flop. Fred needed an opening, and now he has one. We’ll see if he can drive his red truck through it.
wccawa on January 8, 2008 at 12:20 PM
The thing about Fred Thompson is that he will not be President and he knows that.
My theory has always been that he is a place card holder for his dear friend John McCain.
When it will do John McCain the most good, Fred will get out.
EJDolbow on January 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Exactly. Huck and McCain have been asked about it repeatedly. The responses from both”____is a good(decent, fine etc) man. We’ve decided not to attack each other.” It’s like a script.
PowWow on January 8, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Picking a ‘centrist’ candidate goes farther to assure an Obama win as well as a weakened conservative movement in general. Anyone remember the 1976 primary? We stuck with a centrist (Ford) and got whipped by a populist (Carter) and have been living with his foreign policy blunders ever since. If we can’t differentiate policy enough to counter Obama charisma, we are toast.
At the same time, Mitt’s major flip-flops and general ‘oiliness’ make him a loser against Obama.
I’d rather go out with a bang and on principle and go out with a whimper. I’m sticking with Fred!, if for no other reason to tick off the MSM, who wants their anti-Christ dead and buried.
Fred for President! He’d make Ann Coulter Press secretary!
michaelo on January 8, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Haven’t you heard? Bill Gates is a Fredhead. See, there’s this trick in Windows if you press Alt-F4…
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 12:24 PM
*than* go out with a whimper.
michaelo on January 8, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Personally I prefer the Ctrl+W exploit.
BKennedy on January 8, 2008 at 12:25 PM
That will backfire!
Mcguyver on January 8, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Is Fred already out of the 2012 race?
posted at 9:22 am on January 22, 2009 by Allahpundit
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Ok, so conservatives should forego their principals for RHINO principals. I wonder how many times that passed through the minds of the founding fathers? Darn, we would have had national health care now.
No wonder so many people don’t vote. This is just going to result in business as usual.
N4646W on January 8, 2008 at 12:27 PM
True, and lets be honest… the bible belt is the bible belt. You leave the bible belt and realize that not everyone is as “religous” as you would hope they may be.
Fred understands that and isn’t pushing the religon thing in any sense of the word. I am not a religous bible thumping woman, but I believe in God. I don’t want and sure do not like people using it to make me cast a vote.
upinak on January 8, 2008 at 12:27 PM
This one trumps them all.
Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for you following the advice in the link.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Isn’t that the truth. Carter was the one who started dismantling our intelligence services. Carter withdrew support for the Shah of Iran, paving the way for the Ayatollahs, American hostages, etc.
We’ve got to stick to conservative principles for the good of the country and the world.
flyfisher on January 8, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Yeah, I didn’t read that whole poll correctly, I’m working on Folgers coffee today.
So there is hope then?
Weight of Glory on January 8, 2008 at 12:29 PM
As a SC voter, I can tell you ain’t no way McCain is winning SC. He lost here in 2000, when he was better funded and had just won NH.
Social cons are big in SC (which plays well for Huckabee), but so is plain conservatism (which should help Fred). Besides social issues, the top issue is immigration. McCain would be hammered on that here. He’s got no shot and no money, even if he wins NH.
Fred should hope that McCain loses NH and drops out and throws him the endorsement or if not hope that Romney wins MI sending three winners and no real favorite into SC, where Fred has set up his beachhead. He needs to live in SC up until the primary, convincing SC voters and the rest of GOP America that he is the only true conservative running. If he does that he has a shot, but if he loses SC – he’s done.
wardrobedoor on January 8, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I do not think Obama has the ability to go back in time, only to stop it temporarily.
BKennedy on January 8, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Looks like you’re not the only one.
wccawa on January 8, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Polls are useless and annoying junk data. They mean nothing just like Iowa and NH.
Just cause the the blabbedypundits say Fred doesn’t have a chance doesn’t make it so. They just make stuff up in the hopes that their crappy candidate can have his votes. It’s their lame attempt at voter manipulation. Don’t buy it Fredheads, he’s the only horse in the race.
Buttercup on January 8, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Just heard a phone call from Fred on Fox. And it is clear that he is going to hit SC very very hard. We haven’t seen that yet, and things may change….
Weight of Glory on January 8, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Heh.
Weight of Glory on January 8, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Obviously you made an honest mistake. You obviously aren’t up on the politics surrounding Huckabee. It has been said time and time again here on HA that Huck got his support from the kooky evangelicals.
I never said they didn’t but I certainly have the right to criticize them. My feelings are that those types of evangelicals think their beliefs are right for this country. The problem is that I also believe that their version of what is right for the rest of us only becomes right for the rest of us after we convert to their religion or belief system. Therefore I reject their politics of religion whole heartedly.
I pay very close attention to people. I have been very well aware that you are a Christian and of your position on Huck for quite some time now. I just wish you would have taken the same amount of time learning what I believe.
And you wont find a more ardent opposition to religious bigotry than me. It is my suspicion of the religious bigotry of those who support Huck that leads me to criticize them so vehemently. I have been so vocal about the bigotry, that I am not allowed to say the word. I have to use gibotry.
So, perhaps we should start over and try again.
csdeven on January 8, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Fred’s bus tour started today in South Carolina so I can’t get too excited about whatifs.
Fred’s Red Truck campaign is already past $300,000. After a 3rd in Iowa, 2nd in Wyoming and Rush on air assassinating both Huckabee and McCain, it should get interesting.
redneck hippie on January 8, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Ha! The best use of the red pickup yet! I’ll even put gas in the tank!
Great analogy.
csdeven on January 8, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I don’t care if he pulls votes from McCain or Huckabee. I can’t vote for either of them in the long run. It makes me sick at my stomach to think about it.
Aggie85 on January 8, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Sorry Allah, but If Fred drops out, I’ll be going to the Mitt camp as the ‘lesser of the remaining evils’. I don’t know if I’d be able to hold my nose and vote for either Huckleberry or McCAIN, no matter who tells me to vote for them.
LegendHasIt on January 8, 2008 at 12:43 PM
That’s about where I am as well. I remember how angry with McCain I was when the gang of 14 thing was going on. Everything else after that just soured my grapes further.
Weight of Glory on January 8, 2008 at 12:46 PM
I hope so.
Spirit of 1776 on January 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM
csdeven on January 8, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I take back everything I wanted to say to you but couldn’t because I wasn’t registered until yesterday!
redneck hippie on January 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Sadly the answer probably is “yes.” I’d like to vote for Fred, or maybe even Rudy. But they screwed up by not trying harder in Iowa.
I hated McCain for his stand on illegal immigration. But if he can turn to the right just a little, he may be the only candidate who can beat Huckabee, and prevent a Obama landslide in the general.
I still can’t believe Hillary has blown it this bad. I’m happy about it. But I’m stunned.
doufree on January 8, 2008 at 12:55 PM
I posted this on another thread, but it’s warranted here as well…
I think a lot of people underestimate Romney’s chances in the general. The media knows that he has the potential to beat Hillary or Obama, so they push for McCain and Huckabee. If either of them get nominated, the Dems win defacto. Either way they get a liberal in the general. Mitt is the best option for conservatives, because he can win and he would actually govern as a conservative, unlike Huckabee and McCain.
davenp35 on January 8, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Allahpundit’s anti-Fred post #123908689.
Banal tripe.
Same question could asked inserting any candidates in any slot.
Allah is desperate for Fred to lose and to lose big. His self-appointed role of King Maker, or more accurately, King Slayer, depends on it.
This is getting pathetic. Each day I am less inclined to to click into AP’s threads (hmm curious that his posting name is the same as the fauxtography news source). Bryan’s posts keep this site from becoming passe and as I stated above, banal tripe.
Hot Air needs new blood.
Montana on January 8, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Hmmm…
Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Fred needs to stay in at least until super Tuesday. It doesn’t make sense to drop out after a few states. I am no fan of Clinton but even he didn’t win until Georgia. You may be right about Fred but give him a chance. He is the best choice and more people need to be given an opportunity to vote for him.
Rose on January 8, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Hey, how do you do that? Where you link to a specific spot on a thread? That would have come in handy for me a few days ago.
Weight of Glory on January 8, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Why is it that when any group of like minded persons support a candidate, they are applauded for fighting for the issues they care for….
However, for religious people this si a non-no. Some evangelicals are supporting Huck because they relate with him. They have the full right to do so based on religion if that is important to them (Not I, but I can see why others do). The constitution does not prohibit any “test” to be used by the individual voter. He’s apparently is campaigning very well if he’s able to convince these evangelicals that his “Christian identity” trumps everything else. Why doesn’t someone try to convince them that there is a alternative without sacrificing their core beliefs, and the issues that reasonate with those beliefs. I remember when the pundits were saying that evangelicals should just “suck it up” and vote for a pro-choice candidate. Now that they are showing some political capital they are being called names.
AverageJoe on January 8, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Click the timestamp next to your name.
Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 1:05 PM
HotAir is a great “fun” site. There are tons of sites where the FredHeads are in the majority. Here we have to fight for it. I still can’t believe csdeven said something nice about Fred. ANYTHING is possible, now.
redneck hippie on January 8, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Sweeeet! that was magical, thank you very much.
Weight of Glory on January 8, 2008 at 1:07 PM
That political capital is ensuring a democratic victory.
a capella on January 8, 2008 at 1:13 PM
It went from “Fred will leave early” calculated blogging to a “Well, Fred is helping Huckabee win!” stage. And we’ve only done three states so far with 47 more to go.
Whose the real accessory on helping Fred look bad day in and day out is the real question here.
Oh..yeah, a simple answer they’ll reply. “Well, Fred is doing that all to himself!”
Riiiigghht.
Kokonut on January 8, 2008 at 1:13 PM
No. It is the Stupid Wing of the party that’s keeping Huck in the race. They (along with Fred) don’t necessarily care for a lot of his liberal policies (immigration, Cuban relations, scapegoating corporate America, taxation, etc.) , but they like him. And that is so important.
argos on January 8, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Question: when will someone ask Huckabee how he intends to get the 4 constitutional amendments passed, when he may be facing a democratic controlled congress? Especially when pretty much each of those amendments is anethema to the democrats.
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 8, 2008 at 1:18 PM
The media told me Fred would lose to McCain in Iowa. They were wrong. The media told me that Fred would drop out of the race after Iowa. They were wrong.
This discussion is pointless until we get results from South Carolina. And for the record, McCain is not preferable Huckabee IMHO.
bigbeas on January 8, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Edit…. 3 amendments (after he’s now renounced the anchor baby ammendment)
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 8, 2008 at 1:25 PM
The only thing Fred is king of is failing to get 500 signatures on a Delaware ballot to run in the primary.
Fred = Fail.
He has no organization, he spends his money poorly, and he has no grassroots support.
BKennedy on January 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM
He was for anchor babies before he was against anchor babies before he was for them again.
BKennedy on January 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Not really. Look at the entrenchment of lousy, meritless, liberal ideas and politicians he had to go up against then and there. If anything he is the only one who not only is the “Clear Conservative Choice”…he is the only one to have real experience
running against(sorry that would apply to Romney and maybe McCain…Fred is a different breed “combatting” it!RedLizard64 on January 8, 2008 at 1:30 PM
The latest Rasmussen poll in South Carolina has Romney at 15, Thompson at 11. Who do you think will be stronger down the stretch in South Carolina? Romney supporters should switch to Thompson, not the other way around.
bigbeas on January 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM
LOL! That’s one state, and Mitt is still ahead of Fred. Mitt has place 1 or 2 in EVERY contest. I know you like Fred, but reality will set in at some point.
davenp35 on January 8, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Sounds about right. The Wash. TImes really goofed on this. I would have thought they would really checked and double checked that story.
Weight of Glory on January 8, 2008 at 1:40 PM
I’ve been behind Fred since he first started running on a federalist platform in a convincing way- something no other candidate has done for a very long time. However, the reality is that Fred is a longshot at this point (he’s done if he doesn’t win in SC or at least come in a close second). Mitt and Huck would lose in the general. McCain and Rudy would be a loss even if they won.
Face it: Barring a miracle, conservatives (and the Republican party in general) lost. Our principles have been forgotten and abandoned, replaced by identity politics and a shallow and narrow focus on a few hot-button issues. Even there, candidates are mostly judged on “passion” and how “presidential” they look and sound. Nice hair alone is worth 10 points.
The only two conservatives in the race just didn’t campaign effectively, and all that’s left are “moderates” or moderates temporarily pretending to be conservative for the primary race. McCain might be electable, but a McCain win wouldn’t be a win at all.
I think we should focus a bit more on the congressional races in the hope that Republicans are strong enough to block whatever socialistic tripe Obama is going to try and pull.
In 2004, the Dems lost an election they should’ve won because they were foolish in choosing a nominee. In 2008, Republicans appear to be repeating the mistake by nominating someone either someone who can’t win, or who will further fracture the party in the unlikely event they do.
Bottom line: We’re doomed. I just hope that the blow to conservatives and the Republican party won’t be fatal.
Hollowpoint on January 8, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Actually, one of the wire services today (can’t remember which one) said that Fred was in 2nd place in one of the SC polls.
I’ll have to try and find that link…
wccawa on January 8, 2008 at 1:41 PM
And nominating a pro-choice candidate after evangelicals said they would never vote for a pro-choice candidate would also have ensured a democratic victory.
I consider myself an undecided evangelical christian who will not use a candidates failth as the ultimate litmus test, for or against, but I do believe a candidate’s beliefs are important in shaping his/her policy stances.
I dont buy the “I’m a person of faith, but my faith will not shape my decisions as president” line.It better, or your “faith” really doesn’t mean anything to you.
AverageJoe on January 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM
When the crack did McCain become viable? Just because he’s lived in New Hampshire and is doing well he’s ticked off far more people in the Republican party then…well…anyone. His antagonism toward evangelicals, is lax demeanor on immigration. McCain supporters need to shirt their support TO someone like Fred. For goodness sakes it’s like we as a party have lost our minds.
spacekicker on January 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM
None of out candidates come remotely close to the stupidity that was John Francois Kerry, except for Huckabee.
The Dem Nominee is either going to be an inexperienced neophyte or the most hated woman in America.
The way I see it, both of their candidates suck to high heaven, just like Kerry did in 2004. I believe that our candidate sucks less. We’ve got a thoroughly competent administrator with a great organization and grassroots foundation, a war veteran and respected long-time Senator, “America’s Mayor,” and “the clear conservative choice.”
Aside from the religious demagoging half-wit, all of our candidates could run a serious and competent US government. I’m not going to call us all doomed just because my preferred candidate tanked.
I mean come on, Fred couldn’t get 500 signatures in Delaware, and he wants to run the most powerful office on earth? Give me a break. A Fred presidency would be a lame duck from Day 1.
BKennedy on January 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Reality is that if Fred drops out, so do I. If we’re not going to try to elect a conservative lets just let Obama screw things up for a while. I’ll just stay home.
Huck is too religious and too willing to raise taxes, Mitt is too Morman and too slick, Guiliani is too liberal, McCain is too old and too willing to suck up to liberals and the media and Paul is too nuts.
Everyone seems to like Fred’s policies and positions but can’t support him because nobody supports him. Doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?
Fred’s someone that can’t be ‘handled’ by the Party elite and they figure that if they can’t elect someone they can control, they’ll just throw the election and cash in on being the oppostion party.
schmuck281 on January 8, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Problem is, your faith doesn’t mean anything to me and many others. National security and fiscal responsibility do.
a capella on January 8, 2008 at 1:54 PM
For conservatives this would have been a better title.
Hammerhead on January 8, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Fred
Mitt
Giuliani
McCain
Huckabee
…that’s the order for me. But there’s a big dropoff from Fred.
Keep pushing the message, Fred!
Fred 08
frode on January 8, 2008 at 1:58 PM
You miss my point. I’m saying that a candidates own faith, or lack of faith, better have some impact on his own way of thinking. To say that it does not says that the candidate is professing a belief, that they do not really believe in.
Forget religion. Same principle applies to any belief. If I say I believe the founding fathers wrote exactly what they meant in the constitution, not to be re-interpreted later by liberal judges, what would you say if I later said “But that belief will never affect the decisions I make while president.”
AverageJoe on January 8, 2008 at 2:05 PM
McCain is mildly preferable to Huck
Richard Bushnell on January 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Looks like that kind of thought is spreading.
wccawa on January 8, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Obviously you made an honest mistake. You obviously aren’t up on the politics surrounding Huckabee. It has been said time and time again here on HA that Huck got his support from the kooky evangelicals.
csdeven on January 8, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Please bring on the rapture and whisk away all these ignorant evangelicals and leave us godless heathens to save the country.
csdeven on January 8, 2008 at 11:29 AM
flyfisher on January 8, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Well, I’m pretty pragmatic, but let’s use your example. If I interpet the 2nd Amendment literally, I see no control on an individual owning SAMs, hand grenades, explosives, or nukes. I also see no wording which makes having an abortion a constitutional right. Yet, I realize with my first example, some type of control is necessary for the welfare of citizens, and in my second, abortions will happen, legal or otherwise. So, a tightly literal translation of the constitution is as impractical as a literal translation of books of worship. I’m a states’ rights guy, but that can also be abused as we saw before the civil rights legislation.
a capella on January 8, 2008 at 2:21 PM
This post seems to assume that Fred has no chance at all of winning the nomination. That’s what we said about McCain not too long ago. Fred getting only 10% in SC is sheer fantasy. Fred is a southern man and SC is practically his home turf – his numbers can only go up there.
The key, the state that Fred really needs in order to win the nomination, is California which has several times more delegates than NH and Iowa. He does poll well there so maybe we shouldn’t count him out just yet. Remember, Hillary was “inevitable” less than one month ago.
Also, many Fred supporters will not vote for McCain under any circumstances. Some have even taken a pledge to that effect. It seems more likely to me that Fred is hurting Romney rather than McCain. Most Fred supporters I’ve talked to have either Romney or Hunter as their second choice.
Drew W. on January 8, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Buck up, soldier! The real battle hasn’t even joined yet.
argos on January 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM
I’m not a stereotypical conservative like most on this board. So, I’m not hung on on the same things most of them are. So, here you go:
Giuliani
McCain
Romney
Huckabee
ThompsonI really don’t give a rats ass about abortion, Mormons, floating crosses, evangelicals, homo weddings or the purportedly unrestricted second amendment right of civilians to bare military hardware. I want a fiscal conservative who has a history of lowering taxes and shrinking government. I want school vouchers and tax breaks to make private health care more affordable. I’m a true believer in the Clash of Civilizations and I want to win. Rudy is by far the best candidate to execute the war on terror. Though soft on interrogation techniques, I trust Maverick’s judgment more than the rest. Mitt is capable but has no core. Huck is funny, and as a Baptist minister will probably start to feel uncomfortable once the mosques start popping up all over AK — better late than never. Fred is not on the table. His rhetoric is very similar to my own personal value system, but he is an unacceptable candidate. He has too little of the good kind of experience (making difficult decisions as an executive) and too much of the bad kind of experience (mole for Nixon, career lobbyist, will do anything for money lawyer).
On immigration, they all have blood on their hands. They were all guilty during the go go days of rampant illegal immigration in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. Fred was a Senator and did nothing. McCain is king of amnesty. Huck thinks it’s the Christian thing to do. Mitt is a hypocrite and typical of the private sector willing to profit from the cheap labor. Rudy is slammed for running a sanctuary city, but I think that is unfair. He was stuck with 400,000 illegals by the feds, who refused to watch the border and refused to deport. Rudy famously wanted all the illegals suspected of criminal activity to be deported, and he reported thousands a year to INS, but the feds would not even deport the criminals. Better to have the kids in school, than roaming the streets Better to give them emergency health care, than allow them to spread diseases. He made a tough executive decision, one he should not have been required to make, but all things considered, it was probably the right one to avoid chaos in the streets of NYC. He did go too far in one famous youtube momentary pander by welcoming those in an “undocumented status” to his city, but he was a politician and was running for re-election of mayor of NYC. It was a pander statement. Do not confuse that with policy — particularly after the life changing events of 9/11. If Rudy swears to shut down the border, he will. If Rudy swears to identify everyone in the country, he will. Remember, when working for Reagan he rounded up all the Haitian illegals and stuck them into concentration camps. He is not queazy.
tommylotto on January 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Yep.
csdeven on January 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Ha!
csdeven on January 8, 2008 at 2:45 PM
No, but Huckabee is costing Fred the nomination by siphoning off Christian conservatives.
Huck will also insure that a Democrat or a RINO will be our next president.
edgehead on January 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM
We might even have to stop giving them to dead people and illegal aliens.
aero on January 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM
I’m sure they said the same at the Alamo.
Anything’s possible, but it sure looks like we’re getting another Big Government type as our nominee, with a strong possibility of an unelectable one to boot.
Hollowpoint on January 8, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »