Video: Luntz focus group’s verdict? Monster win for … Fred!

posted at 11:07 pm on January 10, 2008 by Allahpundit

He needed a home run. He got it. More thoughts in a minute.

Update: Here’s his much-lauded immigration answer. Wrap-up coming up in another update.

Update: So who won? Dean Barnett e-mails to say Huckabee. He’s so effortless, and his answers on Israel and Christian marriage must have scored huge with evangelicals. I think he and Thompson did the best, McCain didn’t hurt himself, and Romney and especially Rudy were borderline disastrous. Mitt was barely on the stage; as for Giuliani, says the boss, “Am I the only one not listening to Rudy anymore?” Nope. Same points, over and over and over, since day one of the campaign. Unless he somehow ends up as the lone alternative to Huckabee in Florida on the 29th, I think he’s finished.

Verdict: McCain wins, for exactly the reason I gave here. Michael Graham sees it too.

Update: Geraghty’s already mapping out a Thompson victory in South Carolina and the road after. I won’t pee in the Fredheads’ Cheerios, but suffice it to say I’m not staying up late to game out a Thompson/whoever showdown on Super Tuesday.

Update: A “major endorsement” coming for Fred tomorrow? Gov. Mark Sanford would be a huge coup.

Update: A second focus group segment airing on Fox right now has people applauding Fred but saying … it’s too late.

Update: The boss sees it, too. “He doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to go after John McCain.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 11:47 PM

You’re a smart guy and I usually agree with you… but every woman I know instinctively adopts a derisive sneer when they see a man cry.
Rightfully so, I think. That’s why Mitt Romney’s two tear-sessions turned me off to him for so long, until his recent solid performances.

joewm315 on January 10, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Most of the people in the Fox focus group seem like wannabe pundits, rather than everyday normal people. lol They need to fire this Frank guy

froghat on January 10, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Wow…now we’re going to tear ourselves apart over nothing?

“Fred got in too Late”

“Fred is working for McCain”

“Fred cannot win”

Pathetic. Before tonight we had no one to vote for!

Fred is clearly the best choice, stop with the whining and get behind him already.

Dorvillian on January 10, 2008 at 11:53 PM

Michelle Malkin is what’s wrong with the Republican talking heads. They think they have everything figured out and tell people who is right and who is wrong. Hey Michelle, if immigration was such a big deal, why was it listed as #4 in NH and why are McCain and Huck polling well in California and other border states? Pundits can kiss my butt!

Michelle speaks on the subject because she is educating the public on why it is important. She brings heat on other journalists and pundits to keep a white, hot light on the issue.
Michelle is one pundit who I would kiss (on the cheek…she is married after all and I am a gentleman) and I applaud her for her tireless work on this important issue.

MoCoM on January 10, 2008 at 11:53 PM

bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 11:47 PM

Believe me, he connects with women. I happen to be one, and I have a fat, juicy Fred08 bumper sticker on my beautiful Camry. On top of that, I live in SoCal.

BTW~ Have you seen his wife? He connects with women!

P. James Moriarty on January 10, 2008 at 11:47 PM

I feel the wind shifting, just like in 2000. McCain and his Straight Talk Express had Bill Crystal frothing at the mouth, and everyone said we needed a more moderate candidate to beat The Goracal. Now Bill Crystal and his ilk are still at it, but he’s gonna go down the same way. You really think people want that man telling them with his Beavis voice what the Constitution says?

Sultry Beauty on January 10, 2008 at 11:54 PM

I’m sorry Fredheads,
I admire your tenacious support and I can see why.

But this is what it has come too.

Fred waited too long….

I predicted this back in August.

My biggest fear now is McSchamnesty picks Huckabee as the stooge vice-pres.

Fred will not oblige to be vice..

Huck would be happy to “slide-in” as vice with Mac.

The two least desirable nominees on a team… yuck!!!

McCain will betray us again if we let him…. by reaching across the aisle and compromising.

Fred has greatly disappointed us with his laziness.

SORRY!!!!!

Mcguyver on January 10, 2008 at 11:54 PM

Fred goes deep…it’s fair!

If the endorsment tomorrow is big enough, combined with tonight’s performance, I think Fred’s got shot at an upset in SC and a ticket to Florida.

Who knows, if the combo’s hot enough, maybe he shows in Michigan. He called out Huckster tonight and Huckster came up weak. Third place may not be out of the question up there.

SuperCool on January 10, 2008 at 11:54 PM

Michelle Malkin is what’s wrong with the Republican talking heads. They think they have everything figured out and tell people who is right and who is wrong. Hey Michelle, if immigration was such a big deal, why was it listed as #4 in NH and why are McCain and Huck polling well in California and other border states? Pundits can kiss my butt!

froghat on January 10, 2008 at 11:43 PM

BS, you have no comprehension of illegal immigration if you think NH gives a s…t about it. That being said, I disagree w/ MM’s view on this – Fred was better served to attack the Hick than McCain. It was a tactical decision and had nothing to do with guts.

peski on January 10, 2008 at 11:55 PM

He doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to go after John McCain.”

Oh, dry up for heaven’s sake. Fred may have come with a particular plan to go after just one candidate, rather than appearing to “lash out” at simply everyone. It’s part of staying on message–if he had split his time between both Huck and McCain, he wouldn’t necessarily have had a great impact on either.

So he separates Huck from the field and takes him apart. I think if Fred draws supporters as they flee from Huck’s lifeless form it could start a surge for him, which he can leverage for positive media coverage. That’s capital he can use to begin pointed thrusts against McCain.

TexasDan on January 10, 2008 at 11:55 PM

They’re idiots. They said they want a conservative, Fred offers them it and they’re wavering. Wake the hell up, he’s giving you what you want.

doubleplusundead on January 10, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Charles Manson has a better chance of getting out of prison than Fred does of winning the nomination. lol

froghat on January 10, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Fred is clearly the best choice, stop with the whining and get behind him already.

Dorvillian on January 10, 2008 at 11:53 PM

Boom. I agree. If you agree with him and want him to be President, vote for him. Don’t gameplan to death; your predictions are probably wrong.
Remember, though, that this is HotAir. We are all here to play amateur pundit. Most voters don’t try to judge “how a candidate runs his campaign.” They don’t know who Fred’s campaign manager is or how his grass roots outreach works. They listen and they judge, and tonight they judged him worthy.
We’ll see how many were listening.

joewm315 on January 10, 2008 at 11:56 PM

They’re idiots. They said they want a conservative, Fred offers them it and they’re wavering. Wake the hell up, he’s giving you what you want.

What precisely makes him a conservative? I think he and Romney are our current front-runners, but I don’t think either are necessarily “conservative.” We’re really dealing in shades of grey.

emailnuevo on January 10, 2008 at 11:57 PM

Fred has that almost Thatcher look,I mean he looks at the
achor and achorette and explains his position,even when
that Liberal is looking for that juicy soundbite to try
and scr!w him over.

Ronald Star Wars Reagan and Margret Iron Bottom Thatcher
had the brass b!lls to stand up to the media,and get their
message out to the people,oh and know when the media is
trying to repackage his message Liberal style,and I think
or am certain Fred fills the same bill.

Liberals are going to have a handful with Fred,because he
knows the media game.

canopfor on January 10, 2008 at 11:58 PM

They’re idiots. They said they want a conservative, Fred offers them it and they’re wavering. Wake the hell up, he’s giving you what you want.

doubleplusundead on January 10, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Correct. Fred would make the best President.

Charles Manson has a better chance of getting out of prison than Fred does of winning the nomination. lol

froghat on January 10, 2008 at 11:56 PM

About time to stop feeding the troll.

peski on January 10, 2008 at 11:59 PM

What precisely makes him a conservative? I think he and Romney are our current front-runners, but I don’t think either are necessarily “conservative.” We’re really dealing in shades of grey.

emailnuevo on January 10, 2008 at 11:57 PM

SMALL government, federalist, low taxes, strong national defense, family vaules. About sums it up. No gray there. Now maybe some gray with Mitt, rudy, McCain and Huck but not with Fred. What’s gray there?

unseen on January 11, 2008 at 12:00 AM

SMALL government, federalist, low taxes, strong national defense, family vaules. About sums it up. No gray there. Now maybe some gray with Mitt, rudy, McCain and Huck but not with Fred. What’s gray there?

unseen on January 11, 2008 at 12:00 AM

McCain Feingold, and a general lack of legislation he can point to on any issue important to conservatives. He’s a rhetoric board and Fredhead’s give him a pass on what they bash McCain over.

BKennedy on January 11, 2008 at 12:02 AM

What precisely makes him a conservative? I think he and Romney are our current front-runners, but I don’t think either are necessarily “conservative.” We’re really dealing in shades of grey.

emailnuevo on January 10, 2008 at 11:57 PM

Reduce taxes – supply side free market.
Defend the borders.
National defense.
Constitutional originalist.
Federalism – states decide on issues not specifically ceded to the Feds in the Constitution (abortion, smoking, health care, …)

peski on January 11, 2008 at 12:03 AM

LOL @ Romney being “borderline disastrous,” especially considering after his incredible performance Sunday you went out of your way to give him zero praise. Tonight, he didn’t get as much time as usual, but when he did he was great (isn’t this your guys usual line about Fred after one of these things?).

But I will give props to Fred tonight. Going after Huck was far and away the highlight of the night, and I was ecstatic to hear. TAKE DOWN THE HUCKSTER!

Patriot33 on January 11, 2008 at 12:04 AM

emailnuevo on January 10, 2008 at 11:57 PM

peski on January 11, 2008 at 12:03 AM

Oh, sorry. He’s not a preacher.

peski on January 11, 2008 at 12:04 AM

BKennedy on January 11, 2008 at 12:02 AM

As a conservative He SHOULD have a general lack of legistration. Conservatives means SMALL GOVERNMENT. ie. not passing a stupid bill for every little hangnail.

unseen on January 11, 2008 at 12:06 AM

What’s gray there?

unseen on January 11, 2008 at 12:00 AM

As I understand it, he opposes marriage protection legislation on federalist grounds, which is always the sign that the candidate is afraid to take a position. Where;s the family values now?

He in on record saying abortion should be legal in all circumstances. (I’m letting slide that he worked for a pro-abortion lobby.)

He opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which puts him squarely against pretty much the entire Republican party. And also anyone with a respect for rule of law.

Following that trend, he’s an advocate of “bipartisanship,” which means, Republicans be quiet and let the liberals do some stuff. No bipartisanship; it was factions and partisan politics that gave us a Bill of Rights and freed the slaves.

That’s the shades of grey, since you asked.

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:07 AM

Patriot33 on January 11, 2008 at 12:04 AM

Can’t disagree too much – Mitt is the second best man.

peski on January 11, 2008 at 12:08 AM

There are sprinters and then there are marathon runners. The hair and the tortoise. .. oh you get it!

Egfrow on January 11, 2008 at 12:08 AM

A second focus group segment airing on Fox right now has people applauding Fred but saying … it’s too late.

Oh, so you are the best candidate? Too bad I couldn’t figure that out months ago!

Gawd…American voters are so fracking stupid.

flipflop on January 11, 2008 at 12:09 AM


Fred waited too long….Fred has greatly disappointed us with his laziness.

SORRY!!!!!

Mcguyver on January 10, 2008 at 11:54 PM

As far as I am concerned, you’re speaking for yourself on this. Fred got in when a candidate normally would get in for a presidential election. As for laziness, ever looked at or read about his campaign schedule? If Fred’s not your candidate, fine. Just don’t hang him with these two points.

TeeDee on January 11, 2008 at 12:10 AM

As a conservative He SHOULD have a general lack of legistration. Conservatives means SMALL GOVERNMENT. ie. not passing a stupid bill for every little hangnail.

That would be fine, if we didn’t have a Supreme Court decision that declare the killing of the unborn a constitutional right. Or if gay marriage wasn’t coming up in the near future thanks to Lawrence v. Texas.

It’s fine to oppose measures to try and fix the nation’s problems(p.s., the “libertarian” candidate supports legislation to protect the lives of the unborn, so the whole “small government” argument is moot), but don’t proclaim you’re for “family values.”

P.S. Without a national definition of marriage, our economy is in for a doozy. As is our birthrate.

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:11 AM

Without a national definition of marriage, our economy is in for a doozy. As is our birthrate.

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:11 AM

I’m not following you on the economy part.

joewm315 on January 11, 2008 at 12:13 AM

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:07 AM

Explain to me how telling people how to live their lives is a conservative fredom position. I mean that is naany statism at it gets.

Nothing wrong with bipartianship when the otherside compromises to most of your demands.

The impeachment of Clinton got us to this point at this time and for what? a 50/50 divided country. Yeah that worked out real well.

His record is has pro-life as you are going to get.

Sorry no shades of gray there.

unseen on January 11, 2008 at 12:13 AM

As I understand it, he opposes marriage protection legislation on federalist grounds, which is always the sign that the candidate is afraid to take a position. Where;s the family values now?

No, it’s a federalist position. Just not preacherish.

He in on record saying abortion should be legal in all circumstances. (I’m letting slide that he worked for a pro-abortion lobby.)

Not my understanding of his position. Further discussion needed? But also could be construed as federalist – repeal Roe, let the states decide.

He opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which puts him squarely against pretty much the entire Republican party. And also anyone with a respect for rule of law.

I am no Clinton supporter, but that impeachment was not a productive matter. Clinton a lier? Yes. But the whole affair was counter productive. I don’t know why Fred voted as he did, but it’s a non-issue to me.

Following that trend, he’s an advocate of “bipartisanship,” which means, Republicans be quiet and let the liberals do some stuff. No bipartisanship; it was factions and partisan politics that gave us a Bill of Rights and freed the slaves.

That’s the shades of grey, since you asked.

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:07 AM

Well, gee, so he’s willing to compromise? As apposed to Huck, who begged his Dem legislature for tax increases? Rudy, gun grabbing sanctuary man? Come on, it’s a bit of a stretch.

peski on January 11, 2008 at 12:13 AM

BKennedy on January 11, 2008 at 12:02 AM

As a conservative He SHOULD have a general lack of legistration. Conservatives means SMALL GOVERNMENT. ie. not passing a stupid bill for every little hangnail.

unseen on January 11, 2008 at 12:06 AM

So you’re saying the Republican Party and conservatives specifically exist to put butts in seats in the Senate that will not author legislation to advance conservative causes. They should just let RINOS like McCain and Libs like Kennedy author everything and just serve as a perpetual protest vote.

Or are you saying Fred’s complete lack of any action either way outside pressing yay or nay on his voting panel is a good thing?

BKennedy on January 11, 2008 at 12:14 AM

P.S. Without a national definition of marriage, our economy is in for a doozy. As is our birthrate.

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Uh…you don’t really think that people will have babies or not have babies based on what the government says, do you?

flipflop on January 11, 2008 at 12:14 AM

PPS: I loathe Huckabee with every bone in my body. Unlike the (apparent) majority of my party, I’m not fooled by someone whose bedside table probably has a copy of Lights of August right above his Das Kapital. So, while I can see you meant to have the upper hand there, you don’t.

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:15 AM

Uh…you don’t really think that people will have babies or not have babies based on what the government says, do you?

No; that’s not the argument. The dissolution of traditional marriage causes sharp drops in population and leads to cultural death; Mark Steyn and Pat Buchanan have books out on it.Of course, gay marriage would work together with abortion, hedonism, and maybe even “the pill,” but it’s definitely a huge factor.

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:17 AM

Sultry Beauty on January 10, 2008 at 11:54 PM

I could not agree with you more. I’m a woman and younger than Fred’s wife, but whew do I see what she sees in him. He’s a man of integrity and his intelligence shines through. He rocked at the debate tonight and I can’t wait to vote for him.

ging8r on January 11, 2008 at 12:17 AM

I don’t get the “too late” crowd.

It’s only too late after you have voted.

I’m all confused.

geckomon on January 11, 2008 at 12:17 AM

That would be fine, if we didn’t have a Supreme Court decision that declare the killing of the unborn a constitutional right. Or if gay marriage wasn’t coming up in the near future thanks to Lawrence v. Texas.
emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:11 AM

So you living in Texas has the right to tell me living in say NYC how to live my life? Who made you God?

You don’t like the Supreme Court decision. you change the supreme court. It is a waste of time to pass bill after bill knowing full well it will be struck down by that court. Change the court, then change the law.

unseen on January 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:17 AM

You want more marriage change the tax code. you want more children change the tax code. The destruction of the family is not due to cultrual issues. It is due to the governmental tax/welfare code put into place by liberals.

unseen on January 11, 2008 at 12:21 AM

As I understand it, he opposes marriage protection legislation on federalist grounds, which is always the sign that the candidate is afraid to take a position. Where;s the family values now?

No, it’s a federalist position. Just not preacherish.

No, it isn’t! Leaving it up to the states would create chaos! There doesn’t need to be any spending, any expansion of government; thanks to the disastrous ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, there has to be a federal law saying that marriage is one man/one woman, or else

He in on record saying abortion should be legal in all circumstances. (I’m letting slide that he worked for a pro-abortion lobby.)

Not my understanding of his position. Further discussion needed? But also could be construed as federalist – repeal Roe, let the states decide.

If that’s federalist, then we’ve got to repeal the Civil Rights laws, and redefine precisely what it means to be “man” (since all men are endowed by their creator) in every state. And when we have federal laws saying you can kill babies for any reason, then there’s a serious issue that requires a national definition of what it means to be human. If you believe in the sanctity of life, that is, which he supposedly does.

He opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which puts him squarely against pretty much the entire Republican party. And also anyone with a respect for rule of law.

I am no Clinton supporter, but that impeachment was not a productive matter. Clinton a lier? Yes. But the whole affair was counter productive. I don’t know why Fred voted as he did, but it’s a non-issue to me.

The President committed perjury and obstruction of justice. How is that not a big deal?

Following that trend, he’s an advocate of “bipartisanship,” which means, Republicans be quiet and let the liberals do some stuff. No bipartisanship; it was factions and partisan politics that gave us a Bill of Rights and freed the slaves.

That’s the shades of grey, since you asked.

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:07 AM

Well, gee, so he’s willing to compromise? As apposed to Huck, who begged his Dem legislature for tax increases? Rudy, gun grabbing sanctuary man? Come on, it’s a bit of a stretch.

This is not the time to compromise! The other party wants to end the war and kill babies – that’s their two main objectives. And you want to compromise? Come on, I thought this was the GOP.

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:22 AM

The hair and the tortoise. .. oh you get it!

But Fred has no hair?

Mojave Mark on January 11, 2008 at 12:24 AM

Uh, I think the last segment with Luntz pretty much undid all that good, SC feeling about Fred. Happen to catch it AP? The focus group had a little more time to consider it seems.

BJ* on January 11, 2008 at 12:25 AM

Fred won the debate Hands Down.

FredHeads already smashed through the fundraising goal that was set for tomorrow.

Who is going to endorse Fred tomorrow?

FDT is a John Wayne Stud! *

* Reference: Search “John Wayne Stud” on RedState.com

Go Fred!

redneck hippie on January 11, 2008 at 12:26 AM

So you’re saying the Republican Party and conservatives specifically exist to put butts in seats in the Senate that will not author legislation to advance conservative causes. They should just let RINOS like McCain and Libs like Kennedy author everything and just serve as a perpetual protest vote.

Or are you saying Fred’s complete lack of any action either way outside pressing yay or nay on his voting panel is a good thing?

BKennedy on January 11, 2008 at 12:14 AM

If the Reps did nothing but filibuster every piece of crap that comes out of the congress I would consider it a victory.

But to your point. Just because FRed does not hav ehis name on a lot of bills does not mean he didn’t do anything. Names on bills is nothing but grandstanding. do you really thing McCain and Feingold wrote that bill? Do you even thing they knew what was in the bill besides the general guidlines. The bill was written by their staffs, with help from every lobbyist that wanted a special consideration within the bill. After it was written MCCain put his name on it and called it his own.

unseen on January 11, 2008 at 12:26 AM

First,
So you living in Texas has the right to tell me living in say NYC how to live my life? Who made you God?

You don’t like the Supreme Court decision. you change the supreme court. It is a waste of time to pass bill after bill knowing full well it will be struck down by that court. Change the court, then change the law.

I live in Florida, actually. But Supreme Court decisions apply to every state. The court can only strike down bills that are unconstitutional, which would require finding a right to gay marriage in the Constitution, which is a bit of a stretch.

And,

You want more marriage change the tax code. you want more children change the tax code. The destruction of the family is not due to cultrual issues. It is due to the governmental tax/welfare code put into place by liberals.

The welfare program is a social issue, and it is a factor, you’re right, but it’s only a portion. The cultural issues are the lack of will to marry; if women don’t want to have children, and see no need to have children, thanks to the pill and welfare and promiscuity, then they won’t have children (plus, the entire point of becoming ‘married’ in the federal sense is to receive benefits, given to the couples because their cost of living will rise; gays don’t procreate, so their cost of living remains relatively the smae). The birthrate will thus drop. The population needs 2.1 (I think that’s the figure, 2. something) per family just in order to stay stagnant. Therefore, if the birthrate drops, the population drops, and so does their culture.

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:27 AM

Even more incredible (did I dream it?) –

Hugh Hewitt said Fred had a Great Night.

In other words Hugh Hewitt gave it to Fred over Mitt.

Got that Mojo workin!

Go Fred!

redneck hippie on January 11, 2008 at 12:29 AM

Sultry Beauty on January 10, 2008 at 11:54 PM
I could not agree with you more. I’m a woman and younger than Fred’s wife, but whew do I see what she sees in him. He’s a man of integrity and his intelligence shines through. He rocked at the debate tonight and I can’t wait to vote for him.

ging8r on January 11, 2008 at 12:17 AM

Me too.

StephC on January 11, 2008 at 12:29 AM

Gah, a couple posts back I put:

This is not the time to compromise! The other party wants to end the war and kill babies – that’s their two main objectives. And you want to compromise? Come on, I thought this was the GOP.

It should read:

This is not the time to compromise! The other party wants to end the war and kill babies – those are their two main objectives. And you want to compromise? Come on, I thought this was the GOP.

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:30 AM

WTF happened to South Carolina? Most of the people in the Luntz group sounded like they were from New York or some other Yankee place. No offense to Yankees here (my wife is one), but I was a little surprised that there were so few Southern accents in that crowd.

FishFearMe on January 11, 2008 at 12:31 AM

WTF happened to South Carolina? Most of the people in the Luntz group sounded like they were from New York or some other Yankee place. No offense to Yankees here (my wife is one), but I was a little surprised that there were so few Southern accents in that crowd.

FishFearMe on January 11, 2008 at 12:31 AM

Myrtle Beach is a touristy place, and a lot of ‘em end up staying. Go inland a little ways and it looks, feels, and sounds very southern.

joewm315 on January 11, 2008 at 12:34 AM

The welfare program is a social issue, and it is a factor, you’re right, but it’s only a portion
emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:27 AM

funny how divorce shot up when the government became the daddy and men were no longer needed to help pay the bills. Marriage was formed to raise children. so that both people could work and support the child. If you take the need for one of the parties out of the equation you no longer have a need for the compact.

unseen on January 11, 2008 at 12:34 AM

funny how divorce shot up when the government became the daddy and men were no longer needed to help pay the bills. Marriage was formed to raise children. so that both people could work and support the child. If you take the need for one of the parties out of the equation you no longer have a need for the compact.

Historically that roughly coincided with the introduction of the pill, the sexual revolution, and the subsequent legalization of abortion. It’s a good chunk, but not the whole problem (for the family; in regards to size of government its insanely important).

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:37 AM

This is not the time to compromise! The other party wants to end the war and kill babies – those are their two main objectives. And you want to compromise? Come on, I thought this was the GOP.
emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 12:30 AM

That I agree on. Whoever the nominee is, it will be better than letting a man who supports infanticide in office, namely Barack “Messiah” Obama. He is a new kind of candidate: a socialist demagogue who is further left than NARAL on abortion.

joewm315 on January 11, 2008 at 12:38 AM

joewm315 on January 11, 2008 at 12:34 AM

Thanks.

FishFearMe on January 11, 2008 at 12:39 AM

” Sultry Beauty on January 10, 2008 at 11:54 PM
I could not agree with you more. I’m a woman and younger than Fred’s wife, but whew do I see what she sees in him. He’s a man of integrity and his intelligence shines through. He rocked at the debate tonight and I can’t wait to vote for him.

ging8r on January 11, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Me too.

StephC on January 11, 2008 at 12:29 AM

Ditto.

redneck hippie on January 11, 2008 at 12:40 AM

Myrtle Beach is a touristy place, and a lot of ‘em end up staying. Go inland a little ways and it looks, feels, and sounds very southern.

joewm315 on January 11, 2008 at 12:34 AM

True, but Luntz’ group was at the Citadel in Charleston (or Chahhlstun if one prefers). Lots of yankee invaders along the coast from Beaufort (Bewfort) up to Little River.

SouthernGent on January 11, 2008 at 12:43 AM

True, but Luntz’ group was at the Citadel in Charleston (or Chahhlstun if one prefers). Lots of yankee invaders along the coast from Beaufort (Bewfort) up to Little River.

SouthernGent on January 11, 2008 at 12:43 AM

D’oh!
Heh, I was one of those Yankee invaders every holiday weekend when I was stationed at Camp Lejeune… I love Charleston. It is the most beautiful city I have ever set foot in.

joewm315 on January 11, 2008 at 12:45 AM

Is it just me or did a few of the females in the first row of Luntz’ group sound eerily like a certain news editor from Iowa?

Can you say schoolmarmish?

redneck hippie on January 11, 2008 at 12:46 AM

” Sultry Beauty on January 10, 2008 at 11:54 PM
I could not agree with you more. I’m a woman and younger than Fred’s wife, but whew do I see what she sees in him. He’s a man of integrity and his intelligence shines through. He rocked at the debate tonight and I can’t wait to vote for him.

ging8r on January 11, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Me too.

StephC on January 11, 2008 at 12:29 AM

Ditto.

redneck hippie on January 11, 2008 at 12:40 AM

See, Bnelson?? Alpha male wins, crying male loses.

joewm315 on January 11, 2008 at 12:46 AM

The whole “We like Fred but he got in too late” thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If “everyone” thinks that “everyone” is thinking that way, guess what, it becomes so.

If you self-important defeatists would vote your heart instead of your head, Fred would be a shoe-in.

Stop analyzing for a minute and just consider what’s right for the country. Fred is running for President Of The United States and you are judging him as if he were running for Campaign Manager Of The United States.

The popular vote is the one most pandered to.

unamused on January 11, 2008 at 12:56 AM

Stop analyzing for a minute and just consider what’s right for the country. Fred is running for President Of The United States and you are judging him as if he were running for Campaign Manager Of The United States.

While you’re right about the “he got in too late” crowd, I disagree with the “stop analyzing” remark. Figuring out who’s “right for the country” uses reason;one has to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, based on some moral/philosophical scale.

Voters who vote with their “heart” only aren’t GOP-ers. They’re called “Democrats.”

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 1:05 AM

Way to misread my post.

Analyze the man, not the campaign. In our hearts, we know who is right for the job and who will do right by us. But our minds tell us to vote for who is most electable.

unamused on January 11, 2008 at 1:09 AM

Analyze the man, not the campaign. In our hearts, we know who is right for the job and who will do right by us. But our minds tell us to vote for who is most electable.

No, I didn’t misread your post, I just disagree with you. It isn’t our minds that are the problem; it’s idiot officials who decide to listen to what the MSM says, or what the opposition says, and base their “opinions” and nominees on it (they vote on feeling, on emotion, on whether they feel the candidates will “appeal” to non-GOP voters and “connect” with them). Our minds recognize the guy for the job; our feelings and our fear of losing (which is totally irrational, by the way) are what keep us from succeeding.

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 1:13 AM

Everyone who is thinking that McCain is going to win South Carolina is in for a shocker. The pollsters are ignoring the large number of Republican South Carolinians who were incensed at Graham and McCain’s betrayal of conservatives over the illegal alien amnesty bill. Graham may not even survive reelection in his own state!

Be Ready! Fred is going to win South Carolina and win big!

IrishPundit on January 11, 2008 at 1:21 AM

If the logic is a vote for Thompson is a vote for McCain then you can make a counter claim that a vote for Mitt is a vote for Huckabee.

William Amos on January 11, 2008 at 1:54 AM

Id wil expand on what I was talking about. McCain and Fred are the most conservative on Foreign policy. Huck and Mitt are the religeous conservatives in this feild. Fred and McCain steal votes from each other. Mitt and Huck steal voted from each other.

If Fred falls out the foreign policy conservaties go to McCain. If Mitt falls out the religeous conservaties go to Huck.

So Fred staying in keeps McCain down and Mitt staying in keeps Huck down. I hope mitt wins in Michigan and Fred in South Carolina we we get McCain and Huck out of the race.

Then will be between Fred and Mitt and that is a match up I could live with.

William Amos on January 11, 2008 at 1:59 AM

Update: The boss sees it, too. “He doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to go after John McCain.”

If I was Fred, I wouldn’t attack McCain just yet. I would try to narrow the field down more before I debated McCain–and before I challenged him. I wouldn’t ever attack him, except on McCain’s shamnesty support.

But to attack a friend and a bonafide war hero (I would salute McCain if I had ever earned that privilge)…no I wouldn’t attack him. I would debate him. But only after Huck, Paul and at least one more candidate leaves the field.

More and more I would love to see a McCain/Thompson ticket. EEither man in either position, P/VP.

Folks, just because the current thought is “politics is dirty” doesn’t mean that we, or politicians, cannot do otherwise and play nice.

Save the attacks for our true enemies. Islamic Fundementalists, TPS Cover Sheet Managers, and Hillary.

Montana on January 11, 2008 at 2:05 AM

Update: So who won? Dean Barnett e-mails to say Huckabee.

Dean Barnett is articulate and he is a fool.

Verdict: McCain wins, for exactly the reason I gave here. Michael Graham sees it too.

If McVain wins and their is no attractive third party candidate I will be voting for the dim candidate even if they were to nominate Dennis “UFO” Kucinich.

MB4 on January 11, 2008 at 2:14 AM

F-U Frank![/a href>

LOL!

Chakra Hammer on January 11, 2008 at 2:25 AM

A second focus group segment airing on Fox right now has people applauding Fred but saying … it’s too late.

/sticking fingers in ears
Dadadadadadadadaadddaadad… I can’t hear you…

Go Fred!

silverfox on January 11, 2008 at 2:47 AM

I’m really starting to fear that the MSM’s efforts to numb the minds of Americans is actually beginning to work. For months I’ve been hearing the same lines dismissing Fred Thompson as a viable candidate. In fact, I’ve been hearing most of these comments since before he formed up his exploratory commitee.

The truth is, that almost all of the men running for the Republican nomination should be running as Democrats (God knows the Democratic party could use a McCain or Rudy in their ranks) not Republicans.

I read a quote some years back about democracy:

“Saying that democracy is the best form of government is nearly as great an understatement as saying that the Pacific Ocean holds more water than any tin cup you’ve ever seen. The issues are so clear, the truth so solidly anchored, that I have no patience with people who think that there’s even anything to argue about.
“Someone once said to me, ‘Sometimes the people are lazy and stupid, and make poor decisions. It sometimes takes a strong leader to protect them and choose the right course.’
“So a nation of stupid and lazy people, because of a strong, intelligent leader, is saved from its own sloth and folly? Where is the justice in that?
“Democracy isn’t just the best form of government; it’s the only one even remotely worth a damn. Only democracy guarantees that people get what they deserve.

Browncoatone on January 11, 2008 at 3:44 AM

Huge! (?)
[Insert Human Events Endorsement Here]

geckomon on January 11, 2008 at 5:32 AM

Charles Manson has a better chance of getting out of prison than Fred does of winning the nomination. lol

froghat on January 10, 2008 at 11:56 PM

If Huckabee was in charge, that would be pretty good odds…

BadBrad on January 11, 2008 at 7:07 AM

These focus groups have ZERO predictive value. As someone who has done this as a business, I can tell you that this may make for good television ratings, but, really, no one should take this seriously. The only value is for the spin cycle post debate and how that may affect the race

georgealbert on January 11, 2008 at 7:13 AM

Fred made me glad I have that bumper sticker on my SUV. I have decided to stop trying to figure out who has the “best chance to beat the dems” and just vote in the primary with my head and heart. And that vote is for Fred, the only real conservative in the bunch.

In reality, I don’t think there is any faction of the republican party who wouldn’t feel ok about voting for Fred in a general. That IMO tells me he can win.

Polls will tell us otherwise, because people are sometimes afraid to admit what they really think. Because in the upcoming election, they will be called anti-female, or anti-black if they say they aren’t for Barack or Hillary.

But when that curtain is pulled, they will know what to do.

MBFlyerfan on January 11, 2008 at 8:26 AM

I’m voting for Fred! He got my vote last night.

build the wall on January 11, 2008 at 8:32 AM

Luntz is a manipulative scumbag. Period.

fossten on January 11, 2008 at 9:30 AM

I won’t pee in the Fredheads’ Cheerios

AP, this is uncalled for from someone who supposedly is so protective of attacks on MM.

Wade on January 11, 2008 at 9:30 AM

I’m sorry Fredheads,
I admire your tenacious support and I can see why.

But this is what it has come too.

Fred waited too long….

That is weak man.
If you can see why he gets tenacious support then get behind him! Don’t mindlessly vote for the lesser candidate for this.

My biggest fear now is McSchamnesty picks Huckabee as the stooge vice-pres.

The two least desirable nominees on a team… yuck!!!

McCain will betray us again if we let him…. by reaching across the aisle and compromising.

Fred has greatly disappointed us with his laziness.

SORRY!!!!!

Mcguyver on January 10, 2008 at 11:54 PM

Then vote for Fred!
He is not lazy. This is just frustrating and infuriating at the same time.

Hendo on January 11, 2008 at 9:35 AM

Leaving it up to the states would create chaos!

Really? Where was all that chaos! before Roe v. Wade, when the decision was left up to the states where it belongs?

The Constitution doesn’t exist so you or the liberals can use it to set social engineering policy. Overthrow Roe v. Wade? Absolutely. It’s bad law, sets a worse precedent, and the worst example of the SCOTUS overreaching their authority. A Human Life Amendment? Nope, you lost me there. Sorry. That’s not what the Constitution is for. If you live in my state, I will work with you to put as many restrictions on abortion as possible. But I won’t support a HLA any more than I would (or did) the ERA, and for exactly the same reasons.

rightwingprof on January 11, 2008 at 10:40 AM

Just when I thought I was a fredhead no more… The train is moving again… I want to believe (cue UFO picture)

hellyan on January 11, 2008 at 10:59 AM

he doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to go after McCain

But the video here shows Fred criticizing J-Mac’s support of the “amnesty” bill!

jgapinoy on January 11, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Really? Where was all that chaos! before Roe v. Wade, when the decision was left up to the states where it belongs?

The Constitution doesn’t exist so you or the liberals can use it to set social engineering policy. Overthrow Roe v. Wade? Absolutely. It’s bad law, sets a worse precedent, and the worst example of the SCOTUS overreaching their authority. A Human Life Amendment? Nope, you lost me there. Sorry. That’s not what the Constitution is for. If you live in my state, I will work with you to put as many restrictions on abortion as possible. But I won’t support a HLA any more than I would (or did) the ERA, and for exactly the same reasons.

The “chaos” references letting each state decide when life begins and when it doesn’t. The implications for that are far-reaching and scary; if life doesn’t begin at conception, when does it? Is killing a toddler murder, or a “right”? What precisely is murder? If one appreciates the sanctity of life, there is no other option than to have a law proclaiming life begins at conception (which follows, by the way, both “family values” and “Christian leadership” – and is one of the reasons I liked Ron Paul’s congress career).

emailnuevo on January 11, 2008 at 1:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2