Hope for Fred? Mitt may skip South Carolina
posted at 11:25 am on January 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
The polls are grim (especially the one that has him cratering with five percent), but my black atheist heart bleeds when I see suffering like this. Question, then: Is Mitt’s 15% about to be put back in play, to the possible advantage of the race’s “true conservative”? Keep hope alive!
Romney sources believe the state is coming down to a “knife-fight,” as one put it, between former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Arizona Sen. John McCain, and that one of the two will not survive after the state’s primary results are in…
“The picking-your-state strategy has worked for all the other candidates who cherrypicked which states they were going to do battle in while letting their opponents fight it out in other ones,” said one Romney aide, revealing a trace of bitterness at the chess moves of the four other Republicans. “It’s time for Mitt Romney to give it a try.”…
The move is striking for at least two reasons. First, Romney has touted his ability as the sole GOP candidate with the capacity to play in every state…
The shift is all the more remarkable considering just how much Romney has invested in South Carolina. Romney deployed his first staffer to the state in June 2006 and has been on the air here since Labor Day.
The idea is that Mitt would go to Nevada and try to get an easy win there but that only puts off what Geraghty said yesterday about needing a big win in a close race. Presumably that now becomes Florida, which plays into Rudy’s hands if Huckabee knocks out McCain in South Carolina and then has to contend with Mitt for social cons in his showdown with Giuliani. If instead McCain knocks Huck out in SC — and it sounds from this WaPo piece like Huck might indeed be out if he loses — then I’m not sure who benefits from Romney staying in. Probably Rudy again since McCain would enter the state as frontrunner and draw the bulk of Mitt’s fire as he positions himself as the anti-RINO. Meanwhile, don’t be too dazzled by Mitt’s money take yesterday. It’s impressive but not as much as at first glance.
As for yesterday’s HA poll, here you go. McCain was out big early but Huckabee came back late. I’m suspicious that some pro-Huck site heard of it and spammed it but I can’t find a trail on Technorati so I guess we’ll assume it’s legit. Mind if I ask the people who prefer Huck to McCain to explain their reasoning? He’s as bad as McCain on all the issues McCain is bad on (immigration) and not nearly as good as the issues McCain is good on. Voting for Maverick would be tough; voting for him instead of Huckabee really shouldn’t be.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I think Mitt pulling out of SC could help Thompson, as there’s less to split the conservative vote up.
I don’t know why anyone would vote for the Huckster of McShamnesty, for as bad as they both are, McCain’s better (even if only slightly). Maybe it’s the evangelical vote.
Darksean on January 10, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Karl Rove pointed this out this morning: Burning in a single television ad in every Super Tuesday state will cost nearly $16 million.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 11:30 AM
on top that, there is possibly in the works, a MAJOR REAGAN CONSERVATIVE endorsement for Fred. Quite possibly to be revealed during tonites debate!
ConservativePartyNow on January 10, 2008 at 11:31 AM
OK. So could someone please explain how we actually pick our nominee when it’s so close?
Each state has delegates. Can they be proportionally split or is it winner take all. Then is it the one with the most wins or does it have to be a majority at convention?
I never in my life have seen such bizzareness. Where have all the people gone that were calling DC during the immigration madness. DO NOT tell me they are supporting either McAmnesty or Gomer Huckabee because if they are, they are idiots.
stenwin77 on January 10, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Here’s why Huckabee is much more reliable than McCain: He has principles. True, his principles don’t always lead him to side with the GOP on every issue, but there’s a conviction behind what he does. I feel like I know what he’ll do when he’s elected, and I can live with it. Not ideal, but tolerable.
With McCain, he’ll throw the GOP under the bus whenever he feels like it helps his quest for control. That’s scary.
cameron on January 10, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Where did you hear this?
RobTN on January 10, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Be true Fred! You need not fail.
ncc770 on January 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM
This is a politico article, therefore it should be discounted! Stop buying into the dinosaur liberal MSM Fred-hating machine AP and support the clear, true conservative choice!
Get Freducated! I’m with Fred ‘08! It’s a Fredalanche!
BKennedy on January 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Good luck with that.
a capella on January 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Fred’s problem isn’t not getting endorsements from Reagan Conservatives. Fred’s problem is his lack luster performance during the campaign. He hasn’t motivated the voters.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Get BKennedy in here right now. I want him to expound again on how horrible and elitist and stuck-up it was of Fred to skip New Hampshire.
MadisonConservative on January 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM
What, Zombie Reagan is picking Fred as a running mate?
Frozen Tex on January 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM
This is actually quite a convincing, if not sobering, argument.
How about Mitt bow out of the race today, endorse Fred and say he’ll allow Thompson to use all of his vast resources to make it happen!
Darksean on January 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM
How does the foot taste, my man?
MadisonConservative on January 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM
By the way, it is Jan 10th and Fred has yet to get the $540 he needs “by Jan 11″ on Fred08.com. I am sure he will probably get it by the end of tomorrow, but why does he only make these fundraising drives at the last minute?
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 11:38 AM
I’m not that hopeful that the State of Lindsey Graham will support Thompson. If they vote for Graham, they’ll vote for McCain. I’ll keep my fingers crossed though.
orlandocajun on January 10, 2008 at 11:39 AM
In response: Oh yes, and Mitt proves once again that he wants to be president of some of the United States, not all of them.
Yes Mitt, screw everyone south of the Mason-Dixon line.
MadisonConservative on January 10, 2008 at 11:39 AM
If Mitt pulls from South Carolina, it might actually help him in the long run. If Fred were to pull the miracle win in SC (and Mitt out is about the only way for Fred to do that), it might knock Huck down big. McCain can’t do that in South Carolina; not with his immigration enforcement record. Even a 3-way split there would benefit Romney, since he stands of placing 4th even if he tries. By declaring he’s not competing, he’ll finishing a weaker 4th but will conserve resources.
If it leads to a brokered convention, Mitt stands a good chance of using a string of second place finishes and small wins to walk in with by far the most delegates.
Of course, all this would also keep Fred in the game. Maybe Mitt is looking at a Mitt/Fred ticket as his salvation (and ours). I’d still prefer Fred to lead the dance, though.
michaelo on January 10, 2008 at 11:40 AM
John Edwards has “convictions” that don’t line up with the GOP party either…actually Huck’s principals line up nicely with Edwards’ principals…now why again is Huck an even viable GOP candidate????
ihasurnominashun on January 10, 2008 at 11:41 AM
I don’t think the Arkansas Republican Assembly agrees with your assesment:
http://arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com/2007/11/arkansas-republican-assembly-endorses.html
Plus, he campaigned in Arkansas for Democrats in elections instead of the Republicans.
Huckabee absolutely will throw our party under the bus.
RobTN on January 10, 2008 at 11:41 AM
So let me get this straight, you’re going to call the politico a horrible, biased source, ignore statements straight from Fred’s mouth that amount to “screw you New Hampshire, I prefer South Carolina,” and then you’re going to quote a politico article that conjectures about what Romney may or may not be doing.
I see. Is that cheese hat on too tight there?
BKennedy on January 10, 2008 at 11:42 AM
You mean like the front organizations he set up in Arkansas to funnel money into his pocket for speaking fees, so it didn’t come to him directly from the donors? Those principles?
a capella on January 10, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Maybe the whole Reagan family will endorse him, minus the ballerina (little Ronny).
bert169 on January 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Mitt supporters should go to Fred since Fred is Mitt Romney lite. Relax Fredheads, lite is the sense that Fred just doesn’t have the record, experience, or style that Mitt does. Fred has the rhetoric down pat, and wise Mitt supporters will shun Elmer and El Johnista.
I WISH the Mitt supporters would go to McCain so we can eliminate Huck. Fred will drop out, and Rudy can decimate McCain. That leaves the two best possible choices for real conservatives to choose from. Rudy and Mitt. Both are the best viable candidates we have and are both electable in the general. Rudy more than Mitt. Maybe a Rudy/Mitt ticket? I haven’t heard them go after each other too much. Immigration, but Mitt can apologize and Rudy will forgive him.
csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 11:44 AM
The fine print…
A silver lining ?
Ceterum censeo Fred! esse desumo !!!
elgeneralisimo on January 10, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Because Romney is ahead on delegates, ahead on competing in more races, way ahead on cash, and it would be against Fred’s down country home principles to take another man’s money.
That is of course, if you believe Fred actually has a sense of Southern pride and isn’t just hoping to be coronated so he can “do things only a president can do.” Like take out the curtains and put them in his son’s office, or something.
BKennedy on January 10, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Not at all. Politico is a rag, and I’m not going to assume this is true. However, if it is, you won’t have the guts to admit that your boy Mitt did the exact same thing you admonished Fred for, just like you’re refusing to acknowledge that possibility now.
MadisonConservative on January 10, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Can’t miss a chance to dock someone’s part of the country, can you?
MadisonConservative on January 10, 2008 at 11:46 AM
.
OK…..goin’w/DaFreds
cause the ‘lack-lusters’ jus’got airguns!….
but Ol’Fred….he got INteGRITTY
& a gorgeous wife w/real brains…..
so?????…..how he got dat????
.
.
GO FRED!!!!!
lobosan5 on January 10, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Not a Packers fan, then?
Hey, people complain about eeevil New England liberals all the time.
BKennedy on January 10, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Rasmussen: South Carolina: McCain 27% Huckabee 24%
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 11:48 AM
“black atheist heart bleeds”
I knew it! Allah’s a Black Atheist!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on January 10, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I know Huck’s record on immigration looks bad, but I think it’s better than Mr. Amnesty himself. And I know Huck’s record on taxes looks “mixed” to say the least, but McCain said in the last couple of weeks that he’s glad he voted against Bush’s tax cuts and would do it again.
I think Huck has more room to improve that McCain does, his maverickiness won’t let him back down on any of those positions. Huckabee would probably go along with the base, to appease us. We just have to pray his “soul” won’t disagree.
That’s what it came down to for me: McCain would not change on his negatives. Huckabee might. I’ll take a might over a no chance.
If it comes down to either of those in the general election, my motivation is going to be based on who they choose to surround themselves with in their VP and other positions, particularly with Huckabee. If he has good, solid conservatives around him (hard-core, base type people), I think he has a chance to be okay. I just can’t see Maverick doing the same.
wardrobedoor on January 10, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Actually, I am. And New England elects liberals for president just as much as Wisconsin does. Why are you so upset that someone points that out? Hell, I know my city is essentially the San Francisco of the Midwest. I choose to live here partially in order to create disorder in the city where they actually had a cafe on State Street called “Che’s Lounge”.
So, I repeat: Your response if this is true, which it probably isn’t?
MadisonConservative on January 10, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Does it really matter that much? You asked people to make a snap decision between two people they wouldn’t care to vote for. I said Huck, but one commenter on the other thread said it best…like choosing to blow your brains out with a .45 or a 9mm. If our only options on either ticket are liberals, who cares?
Someone else said something I agree with…If there is going to be a liberal president, why not let the dems take the blame for the terrible state of the country four years from now?
samuelrylander on January 10, 2008 at 11:51 AM
That does make sense. Much as I’d like to see Fred take it, I fear Huck more than I love Fred. Dang!
a capella on January 10, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Floor fights at conventions are fairly exciting! If no one wins the number needed for the nomination, we’ll be in the same boat just prior to the convention as we are now. It won’t matter who has the most delegates if they can’t win the nomination. There will be speeches, votes, more speeches, more votes, until we get a nominee.
No matter who is in the lead right now in the polls, it all comes down to delegates. If you have some, you’re in the fight at the end. If you don’t, then pack it in. The fun thing will be the negotiations for the big states to get back their delegates that were stripped, like Florida, for having their primary too early. So look for that to be included in the fun for the convention.
At this point, anything at all could happen. No clear winner. We’ll end up with the most “acceptable” candidate for the Republican base. If Hillary runs away with the nomination, it may be the one thing that will keep the Republican base energized.
So don’t feel down; rather get energized at the possibility of our real people politics in action at a convention floor.
I’m looking forward to the FUN!
Tennman on January 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM
As a Fredhead, I am unable to grasp your sophisticated irony. I will now be co-opting the phrase “Get Freducated” because it is the most awesome thing ever.
joewm315 on January 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Firsty, I am a Thompson supporter. But I chose Huckabee in that poll because at least he talks about conservatism. At least Huckabee says that he will enforce the border and try to implement a fair tax, even if his record is less than perfect. McCain is unapologetic about raising taxes and supporting his “amnesty that wasn’t really amnesty” bill. So I think as President, Huckabee would actually be better on issues like taxes and immigration than McCain. That said, Huckabee and McCain are my two least favorite candidates; so I don’t like Huckabee. He’s just not as bad as McCain.
bigbeas on January 10, 2008 at 11:54 AM
John Hawkins says it best, though I think Mitt should be his 2nd choice instead of Huck.
HYTEAndy on January 10, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Hey, we’re the state of Jim DeMint, too. You shouldn’t have to guess which one is more popular. Grahamnesty is not very popular, at least in the GOP heavy upstate. His support of McCain will only hurt him here. I cannot see McCain winning (or even coming in 2nd) in SC.
wardrobedoor on January 10, 2008 at 11:54 AM
That’s funny right there boy. And I don’t care who you are.
The road to an innocent Missourian being murdered by a convert to “Huckagrace” is paved with stupidity.
Meanwhile, we have Rudy. The guy who kept it together and was a more reassuring voice in a time when we elected a president who in his first 8 months acted like he couldn’t think his way out of a wet paper bag. We needed a Rudy when we needed him. This country needs a Rudy type now. This country does not need a pastor in chief who would stand behind the pulpit leading from his naivety and the bible rather than the rule of law and common sense.
Give me Rudy (or Mitt) or give me a 4 year vacation to my sealed up basement (with my 27 guns and 5000 rnds of ammo).
csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 11:54 AM
I donated yesterday! And I feel goooood! When people say he is not doing well with his campaign, we are excluding the debates, right? For I know, as that Red State piece lays out, there have been times in the debate where we wanted Fred to lay into someone. But all in all, I think he has done very well in the debates, especially in the later ones.
Weight of Glory on January 10, 2008 at 11:57 AM
When voters are undecided this late, they usually fall back on judging the candidates purely by their stance on the issues.
Given this, Fred Thompson will take votes from Romney fairly easily, and from Huckabee as well.
frode on January 10, 2008 at 11:57 AM
ditto
bigbeas on January 10, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Hey Ya’ll Rick Moran apparently changed his mind and now has HOPE for Fred after all. He organizin’ another Blog-Burst for Fred!
YOU HEARD THE MAN!! START PULLIN’.
Ex-tex on January 10, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I believe it was Ex-tex (or Tennman) who coined the phrase, although it may have been another Fredhead. I simply keep compiling them at the end in order to make the hyperbolic satire more obvious. Fredalanche is TheSitRep’s.
BKennedy on January 10, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Have faith, newly anointed. ;)
MadisonConservative on January 10, 2008 at 11:58 AM
I think the problem for Fred is he needs to contrast the “agent of change” movement and simply characterize his candidacy as the “agent of the status quo” with some added conservatism, which in essence it already is.
He defends the military and Iraq which I think should be trumpeted as a shrewd move by Bush. Others have not, but strategically and historically, it will establish a positive footprint on Iran’s doorstep which is prescient on Bush’s part. Imagine Iran on our northern border. It would be a source or great concern. Immigration and other issues he is ’status quo’ + greater initiative.
Perhaps the country is going the other way and Republicans and Democrats will abandon Iraq, the Middle East, and Al Quida to their own devices. Perhaps historically it is not popular to be pro-active against regimes until attacked, but in the world today, being isolationist until tragedy can have dire consequences. Overstated? We will know in a few years.
Starlink on January 10, 2008 at 11:59 AM
I feel like O’Reilly, and there’s a 6′8″ guy standing in front of my question.
MadisonConservative on January 10, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Please, BK, don’t pin that on me. I use real words in my posts.
Tennman on January 10, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Some folks feel THE Fred! is the only one you can be sure will let you keep those 27 guns. I’m not one of ‘em, but,..just sayin’.
a capella on January 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I think Michael Reagan came out to support McCain or JulieAnnie.
Ronnie Reagan just came out.
(Ronald spins in grave.)
stenwin77 on January 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I have to admit that Fred is a longshot, but there is something working in his favor- the way Republican delegates are apportioned.
States that voted for Bush in 2004 are weighted heavier, getting more delegates than they otherwise would based on their population. Thus there are a lot of delegates to be had in southern and other red states that are more likely to vote for a conservative like Fred instead of a moderate like McCain or Romney.
That said, he needs a minor miracle just to win in SC, and an even bigger miracle to gain enough momentum to win. Huckabee and the gullibility of those who think he’s a conservative really threw a wrench in the works.
Hollowpoint on January 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM
My premise for Fred’s statement was also voiced by ThackerAgency.
It was Fred’s missing of the Delaware primary combined with his shot across the bow at all of New Hampshire (no wonder he got 1.24%) that I use to support my statement. Who wants to bet Fred read the ballot rules for entry into SC, and didn’t leave it until the last minute? I do. It seems that as Fred’s campaign moves north, its sloppiness and lack of organization increases.
BKennedy on January 10, 2008 at 12:03 PM
There IS a God and he hates Huck!!!
csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Yeah, I was kinda sketchy on the origin, but I certainly didn’t invent it. It was too priceless not to steal. (As was Fredalanche)
BKennedy on January 10, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Tennman; have you ever been involved in a convention floor fight? Exciting it is, a model of democracy it ain’t; it’ll more resemble a brass knuckle fight breaking out on the show ‘The Apprentice’. Great TV, but real ugly.
It actually plays a bit into Fred’s hands; he’s the only one who hasn’t earned animosity in any one of the big 3 groups; Giuliani’s probably more out of it at this point than Fred. Of course, there are still plenty of states to go; Feb. 6th will be the first real picture as to whether a brokered convention is in the offing as predicted.
michaelo on January 10, 2008 at 12:05 PM
If it’s Mitt or Rudy you’d better seal off your guns in the basement because who knows which ones they’d let you legally keep.
Hollowpoint on January 10, 2008 at 12:05 PM
I’d love to see a Romney win in Michigan (I’m doubtful) and a Fred win in SC (I’m doubtful again). But the scenario is playing out to make that possible – Romney pooling resources from one to the other, and one would think Romney supporters would be much more inclined to go to Fred then Huck or John who have been snarking on Mitt for weeks now.
Spirit of 1776 on January 10, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Please wash off the stinky cologne. Ron Paul’s supporters are starting to complain that it irritating their allergies.
RobertInAustin on January 10, 2008 at 12:08 PM
That’s pretty funny. What, he’s a pastor so he has principles? Look at his record. He was an open-borders shill two month back, now he has a policy that would make Tanc look proud. He’s ethically challenged if you look at his past in office. He reminds me totally of Bush, but on steroids. Get ready for more huge spending, cronyism, horrible decision-making, throwing economic conservatism under the bus, etc.
Say what you will about McCain, but he is strongly for a balanced budget coupled with cutting pork, and I’ll take that over the Bush economic plan any day. Once you expand govt spending it can never be cut, it’s growth can only be curtailed. McCain does have principles, we may not agree with all of them, but he has them. That is our problem with the guy. His principles don’t always align with ours, but at least we knowwho and what he is, and I at least have come to be comfortable with the thought of him in office. Scary, dude.
RW Wacko on January 10, 2008 at 12:09 PM
That’s my stand after reading a convincing article over at The American Thinker. This whole idea of “any Republican is better than any Democrat” is hogwash, in my opinion. Some of the Republicans are actually just Democrats in ideology who are in the Republican Party for one reason or another. So electing one of them would basically be having Democrat policies enacted over the next 4 years, with the Republican Party getting blamed for their failure. Brilliant strategy.
If the election comes down to a Democrat in Republican Clothing vs a Democrat, then I’ll vote Democrat to have the Democrat Party take the blame for the failures of their policies, rather than destroy the Republican Party. And, this way, the Conservatives we have left in Congress can fight the Democrat President, instead of lay down and not fight a liberal Republican President.
Michael in MI on January 10, 2008 at 12:10 PM
I think Huck can win the general. 85% of the country is Christian. Lots of those folks are gettin’ real tired of the Liberal elites hammerin’ at Christianity. I think that against either Obama or Clinton- Huck wins. I know you think it’s a low blow to mention Obama’s middle name Allah- but trust me- if he’s the nominee, it’s gonna git mentioned PLENTY.
The other reason I’d vote Huck over McShamnesty is the Gang of 14- alot of folks don’t remember what that was about. Basically it was about our GOP majority Senate changing the rules for appointing judges to not require 2/3 of the senate but only 51. In this particular case it would have ALLOWED THE GOP TO FILL MANY VACANT JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS with CONSERVATIVES. JOHN MCCAIN stopped that!!
MY BIGGEST ISSUE IS THE COURTS! And you might be surprised to know that if it was a Dem POTUS and a DEM senate I would still feel the same way- because right now too many slots are goin’ unfilled and it’s stupid.
I’m confident that Huck would appoint conservative justices-McCain not so much.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Ex-tex on January 10, 2008 at 12:14 PM
This is my first comment on this site. I’d like to use it to ask AP a few questions. So, if you’d do me the honor, AP…
1) Most of the time you come across as a liberal-leaning person having some fun at Fred’s expense. So, I’m curious, do you consider yourself a conservative?
2) If your answer to #1 is yes, then why such angst against Fred? There is no reason a conservative person would have such vitriol against Fred (which you obviously do).
3) And finally, who are you throwing your weighty support towards for the republican nomination?
rhinoishere on January 10, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Nope, not me.
Ex-tex on January 10, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Wow…you’re as good as Huckabee in dodging the question.
I repeat: Your response if this is true(Mitt does the same thing you bawled out Fred for), which it probably isn’t?
MadisonConservative on January 10, 2008 at 12:17 PM
I think skipping SC and concentrating on Nevada at this point would be a smart move.
To whom it may concern:
SC is not the only state below the Mason Dixon line that has a primary coming before Super Tuesday so the analogy of Fred skipping NH does not hold.
Way too much Blue on that ticket.
The problem with Fred/Mitt is that Fred talks slow as molasses, clears his throat, and mumbles. I don’t see that as a winning style in the General.
If Fred could win it, there are huge advantages to having him at the top of the ticket. He and Mitt could collaborate on economic issues, and Mitt is young enough to hang around to run again next time there’s an opening. Mitt also has the money Fred needs.
Mitt/Fred is makes less sense because Fred is getting on their in years, and less apt to be able to hang in there for 8 years and then run again.
Buy Danish on January 10, 2008 at 12:18 PM
And finally someone else echoes my fear of Mitt. Glad to see I’m not the only one who cares about the second amendment as much as the first.
MadisonConservative on January 10, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Ex-tex
What would give you such confidence? His ‘conservative’ stances on immigration? His ‘conservative’ history on taxes? Or his ‘conservative’ concerns about what the rest of the world thinks of the U.S. (… close Gitmo because Europe doesn’t like it).
Seeing as how the Huckster is no conservative himself, I don’t see why you think he would nominate conservative justices.
rhinoishere on January 10, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Fred and Jeri on Fox and Friends 01/10 Good stuff!
kerrhome on January 10, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Mitt never said “Screw you New Hampshire” to go along with his theoretical redistribution of resources. I’ve already answered this several times, but just like the DREAM Act, it keeps coming back from the dead.
BKennedy on January 10, 2008 at 12:22 PM
That’s hyperbole. (and I don’t like it because it’s not MY hyperbole :-) )
They aren’t gun grabbers for grabbings sake. Mitt was for restrictions,. Too many for me, but I can live with the ones I have. Rudy did it for the sake of his city. I’ll have to leave it to Tommy for the details, but I trust Rudy’s word more than any other viable candidate next to Mitt.
csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 12:25 PM
If this is true, Mitt will be saying “Screw you South Carolina”. It’s the same thing, and you know it. Instead of accusing a southerner of shunning the north, it will be a northerner shunning the south. As I said, you don’t have the guts to admit that, if this is true, Mitt would do the same thing you scolded Fred for. I guess the admission really isn’t necessary. Your refusal to admit it in the face of the possibility has made you dodge the question more times than Huck dodges the word “amnesty”.
MadisonConservative on January 10, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Nope, His STRONG pro-life stance (and 2nd amendment position) would call for him TO HAVE TO APPOINT STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS.
Ex-tex on January 10, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Yeah- he volunteered that he’s for a federal “assault weapon” ban in the first debate without much prompting. Between that, his former pro-Roe v Wade position and other anti-federalist stances I don’t see him as a constitutional conservative that would fight for constructionist judges.
It would be a shame if the pointless “assault weapon” ban were re-instated after so many worked so hard to make sure it died a deserving death.
Hollowpoint on January 10, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Mitt believes there are such things as “weapons of unusual lethality”. Mitt supported a bill that banned pistol grips and barrel shrouds and folding stocks because all those things make guns UBER-LEET!
Rudy said that crime is only going down while guns are being seized.
You trust either of those men with executive privilege to assign judges to the SCOTUS while they’re considering the biggest gun rights issue in decades?
MadisonConservative on January 10, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Not a Republican convention floor fight, but several with my professional association. Both as a constitution and bylaws chair and as a participant.
Our political system is bare-knuckle with a civilized veneer. It isn’t for the weak-kneed or faint-hearted, but it does, emphatically, reenergize a party or association.
I’m for Fred, and I make no bones about it. I want nothing more than my candidate to sail on to victory. However, if he can’t sail, and if no one else can find the broad reach, I look forward to seeing what will happen at the convention. It won’t be a disaster; it will be democracy in action.
Tennman on January 10, 2008 at 12:29 PM
You know, it’s becoming pretty obvious that Huck and McCain are gaining traction and Fred and Mitt are losing it. I wonder how long before the Republican elite talking heads( aka Rush.. Hannity etc) throw Romney under the bus and get on the Rudy bus? I listened to Hugh Hewitt yesterday and he even seemed negative on Romney and was talking Rudy all of a sudden. Here comes the Rudy surge to combat the McCain/Huck surge!!!
froghat on January 10, 2008 at 12:30 PM
IMO, Mitt/Fred makes more sense than Mitt/Rudy. But I think Rudy/Mitt is a ticket that reaches a broader base without too much duplication in support. No? Yes?
One big diff would be a Mitt/Fred ticket appeals to the evangelicals. The smart ones anyway. Thank goodness most of them are pretty savvy.
There wouldn’t be much difference between a Mitt/Fred ticket than we have with our current Bush/Cheney ticket. We have Steele and some other young conservatives in the wings that could go in 2016.
csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Ahem.
See my 12:18.
Buy Danish on January 10, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Mitt supports banning “assault weapons” at the federal level. He said so in unambiguous terms. Before his current campaign- when he was suing gun manufacterers- Rudy called for federal handgun restrictions. Just because he’s backed off that position for the campaign doesn’t mean he’s credible- I don’t see him vetoing an anti-gun measure given his record of anti-gun activism.
Hollowpoint on January 10, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Screw BKennedy, but I’m a ‘Hawks fan, so screw Madison, too. You can all go to hell!!!!
Editor on January 10, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Fred & Jeri did an excellent interview on F&F this morning. Wonder why it isn’t posted here?
Here’s a link if anyone is interested:
http://fredthompsonnews.blogspot.com/
stenwin77 on January 10, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Ex-tex
As opposed to someone like Fred? Fred would appoint conservative justices and, GASP, would actually govern with conservative principles, too! Huckabee would be a disaster as far as conservatives are concerned, and I have a feeling that evangelicals would feel mightly betrayed by the time his run was done. But then again, maybe ‘evangelicals’ really don’t care as much about conservative principles as I do. I’m a Christian, by the way, and I want a man of faith in the office, but he has to be conservative as well. Huckabee is not a conservative.
rhinoishere on January 10, 2008 at 12:35 PM
By the way, “We want the ball and we’re going to score!!!”
Editor on January 10, 2008 at 12:35 PM
There are weapons of unusual lethality that should be regulated. And as I have said in the past, the 2nd is not the end all for me. The SCOTUS is. And both men have said they will nominate constructionist justices and I believe them. And you will have to make a choice when you are faced with a Rudy or Mitt against a Hillary or the Messiah.
csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Thanks Stenwin77!
BTW, Huck supporters, if you have to rationalize and justify 75% of your candidate’s past positions, it’s time to admit he’s not your guy.
joewm315 on January 10, 2008 at 12:38 PM
The SCOTUS is the final say on the 2nd.
Both candidates have promised to nominate constructionist justices and I haven’t seen one bit of credible data that would support any accusations that either would go back on their word.
csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I hope Mitt skips South Carolina. What is the point trying to get through to these low IQ pin-headed fundamentalist religious bigots. That is Schmuckabee land.
Next election, they should make it fair by holding the very first primary in Utah. Then, we will see how well Schmuckabee and the other bigots can “widen the tent”.
Roger Waters on January 10, 2008 at 12:39 PM
16 and 0, 3 to go.
YOU’RE NEXT!
BKennedy on January 10, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Thompson needs to show amnesty McCain and Grahamnesty standing next to Teddyboy Kennedy over and over in SC. He can get two
turdsbirds with one stone.SouthernGent on January 10, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Mitt/Rudy together won’t win red states. Fred/Mitt would have the most broad based appeal because of how it balances the ticket.
Of course Fred and McKennedy-Feingold are buddies so that’s a possibility but then we have the age problem again, so forget I mentioned it.
Mitt/Barbour would also be a good ticket. That would team up two guys who know how to get things done.
Buy Danish on January 10, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Oh what, you’re gonna have the same gang hand you the SB that Pitt did? Effing East Coast bias!!!!!!!
Editor on January 10, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Because AP hasn’t written up a condescending lead-in yet?
Darksean on January 10, 2008 at 12:44 PM
I’m going with the Black Atheist candidate. However, I fear some 20 year old memos might surface that tie him ideologically to Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. Then, many atheists will go over to Osama Barama and we’ll all be made fools of.
Metro on January 10, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Darksean
Bravo.
rhinoishere on January 10, 2008 at 12:47 PM
I agree, rhinoishere. The majority of Huck’s views are liberal. I think he would be hard-pressed to find a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-illegal immigration, pro-nannystate, soft on crime, squishy on taxes judge. If he can’t, then will the 95% of his liberal views be more important than the five percent that he is actually conservative on? Huck is the most liberal of all of our candidates IMO. I trust him LEAST on judges. The only man I trust 100% in that area is Fred Thompson, as he has been a staunch federalist his entire career… And he would give ALL conservatives what they want — strict constructionist (live by the Constitution) judges.
squeek71 on January 10, 2008 at 12:47 PM
You’re just pissed off because you got the leftovers of Holmgren.
As I’ve said before, what does “unusually dead” mean? A 9MM pistol is lethal if one shot goes to the head. If it fires really fast, does it make the victim “unusually dead”? Super dead? Ultra dead? Excessively dead?
Versus Hillary or Obama, I’ll likely toss Mitt a vote. However, it will be with fear. I won’t give Rudy a tick. he’s more blatant on his gun grabbing, he’s an amnesty shill in waiting, and he’s going to have scandals up the wazoo.
MadisonConservative on January 10, 2008 at 12:48 PM
rhinoishere on January 10, 2008 at 12:14 PM
I’m not AP, not by a long shot, but I’ll give you the gist: He’s not a liberal, but rather a blue state atheist conservative – if that makes any sense for you.
Allah does not hate Fred. In fact, he said in the comment section of one post that Fred is probably the one he would vote for. He’s just not a cheerleader and he is a fatalist. If something can go wrong, Allah believes that’s what’s going to happen.
It’s so funny that all the Fredheads have this big conspiracy theory about how the media (MSM and conservative) hates their guy and is working to keep him down. Fred keep himself down, coming in to late and not living up to the gigantic expectations.
If I voted today, I’d vote for Fred in the primary. I think he is the most conservative of all the candidates, but he has no one to blame for his dismal showing thus for except himself and his campaign. It ain’t AP’s fault your man can’t get past single digits in polls.
I honestly hope he wins, but in this case I share Allah’s cynicism.
wardrobedoor on January 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »