Bob Krumm: Fred wasn’t McCain’s stalking horse, he was playing chess
posted at 10:05 am on January 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
The idea is that Fred needs to make South Carolina a two-man race to have any chance of winning. Krumm thinks that by attacking Huck last night and then counting on McCain to eliminate Mitt in Michigan, he’s turning SC into a McCain/Thompson showdown. Is he? Does anyone think the big smackdown knocked Huck out in SC last night given the evangelical base there? Here are the five January polls of the state:
The only one of those that puts Fred within single digits of Huckabee is the Fox News poll, and there the margin’s nine. If Mitt drops out entirely after Michigan, Thompson’s got a chance as the bulk of Romney’s support may very well migrate to him. Mitt’s still got a shot at picking up delegates in Nevada (held the same day as SC), though, so if he lingers on for that he’ll still be on the ballot in SC, and in that case how many supporters will he lose to Fred realistically? Maybe five percent? Assume also that Fred’s attack last night knocked three points from Huck’s column into his. That would leave Fred neck and neck with Huck and McCain surging off the expected win in Michigan — a three-man race, which Krumm concedes Fred almost certainly can’t win. In fact, barring some sort of catastrophic fourth- or fifth-place finish in Michigan, there’s simply no way Huckabee’s not going to contend in South Carolina, especially if Dobson rides in with an eleventh-hour endorsement.
Exit question: How significant was Fred’s attack on Huck last night, really? That is, how many points do you think shifted because of it? Think back to all the primary debates you’ve ever seen involving a field of four or five candidates. Has there ever been an attack in those circumstances that dramatically shifted the race the next day? Debates don’t produce big bounces unless they’re one-on-one match-ups, and even then it’s unusual.
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:
Yeah, god love ya Fred but Im afraid its like whipping the horse when there is 15 feet to go in the race.
broker1 on January 11, 2008 at 10:11 AM
I think it will mainly because the criticism that Fred has faced going into this debate is different than whatever criticism the other candidates were facing early on, namely “no fire in the belly.” This was Fred’s main problem area in terms of perception. That opening salvo on Huck will change people’s minds, especially as it is discussed and replayed on fox and other news outlets.
Weight of Glory on January 11, 2008 at 10:11 AM
It was fun to watch, but that’s about it. He showed he can do it if he wants to, but too little too late. At least this theory is better than the stalking horse. That would have been tough to take.
a capella on January 11, 2008 at 10:12 AM
?McCain/Huckabee for 2008?
No?
http://www.mccainhuckabee08.blogspot.com
Mcguyver on January 11, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Never say never! GO FRED!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on January 11, 2008 at 10:13 AM
It was significant in it’s ability to excite his base and stir the fundraising coffers. It will prove to be insignificant in and of itself in the polls because Huckabee scored resounding consolidation points with his base by his answers on Israel and on the question where he got to preach for a couple minutes.
I don’t think Fred can make it a two man race, I think he has to cut at McCain also to make it a three way where he comes out on top because it requires a smaller percentage of voters to win in that case. Presumably he knows that too, so why didn’t he go after McCain? That’s the question and I think the answer, or at least the result, in the long run is going to produce heart-ache for Fredheads.
Spirit of 1776 on January 11, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Fred just upped his gas tank goal to $750,000. He just passed $600,000.
wccawa on January 11, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Thompson needs to start the smackdown hardcore beginning yesterday. I want SC to be a cage match between Chucklebee and Thompson. Near the end, maybe Fred’s old lady can come out in a black sequined dress and an administer a Superflex to Chucklebee’s wife. Then there can be a little chair-throwing, a few heads bashed into turnbuckles, and we can all go home satisfied that Chucklebee is out of the race. I say this because there is NO WAY I am wearing one of those shirts in that Chucklebee family portrait. I’d dress like Colonel freaking Sanders before I’d don one of those things.
Just my 2 cents.
Metro on January 11, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I think Fred’s attack was more significant in FIRING UP potential Fred supporters than in pulling down actual Huck supporters.
I think what Fred needed to do was prove he has the fire and enthusiasm that was sorely lacking up to now and he did that last nite. He may pick up some support now from conservative voters who had been supporting someone else or no one else while waiting for Fred to come alive.
Always Right on January 11, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Not very significant. Fredheads will hate me, but I actually think Huck deflected the Thompson assaults well. The only one where I think Thompson scored a real hit was when Huck made the mistake of saying that the money given to Pakistan was going to their military (And that’s supposed to be a bad thing?). But when Thompson finally got his chance to reply to Huck’s obvious error, it was only after two other people (I think) already had there chances at him. Therefore, what could have been a homerun by Fred turned into just a blooper over the third baseman’s head.
To really put the Fredheads up in arms now: with all the constant promoting of Thompson on this blog and on Hannity’s radio show during the day, expectations for him were raised so high that I only can view his performance as very disappointing.
And the big conservative endorsement? Please tell me it wasn’t Human Events and that they’ll be another one coming today.
bert169 on January 11, 2008 at 10:17 AM
I guess Fred’s 1.2% tally in NH emboldened him….
RWLA on January 11, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Has anyone here noticed that Thompson & Romney never attack each other? Is it wishful thinking that once the air goes out of Huck, Fred would help Romney in the south on a Romney/Thompson ticket, and they both know it?
kcd on January 11, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Mark my words. ‘08 election it is all the fault of the Evangelical community. If you have any Bible believing friends – for the love of God – slap some sense into them before it’s too late.
thareb on January 11, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Interesting comments. There is some merit to the contention that the criticism Fred faces is unlike any I can recall. It’s not his positions or anything substantive… the criticism is “fire in the belly” or “got in too late.” It’s almost like people are begging him to give them a reason to vote for him. He delivered last night.
Honestly? This could be a significant moment in the GOP race, and if the polls start reflecting that Fred is moving up, then yes, by all means, he has a shot at winning. And if he really gets rolling here, nothing is off the table in future states.
As much as we chuckle about Fredmentum, one can NOT rule out the measurable power that true momentum can bring.
wccawa on January 11, 2008 at 10:20 AM
There is no way that Mitt drops out before Febuary 5th. He has too much money and too much organization and too many supporters to leave before the big dance.
And god help the Republican party if it nominates McCain.
Jeff_McAwesome on January 11, 2008 at 10:20 AM
STOP WITH THE EVANGELICAL BASE CRAP!
STOP IT!
It is SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE that is his base. It is only about ‘evangelical’ because the media keeps talking about it.
I’d say that Fred is pretty much done. This contest is basically over. I expect a McCain/Thompson ticket on the R side and a Clinton/Obama ticket on the D side – I think McCain is going to be the next President of the USA.
Thompson didn’t attack McCain because they are friends, and they’ll probably be on the same ticket. Thompson the ‘true conservative’, and McCain the war hero – given all the scenarios, it could be worse.
BUT STOP CHARACTERIZING PEOPLE AS EVANGELICAL please. We’re CHRISTIANS. If you want to call it the ‘Christian’ base, that would be fine. But ‘evangelical’ sounds a whole lot like ‘radical’.
ThackerAgency on January 11, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Did you miss the ‘You love mandates line’ Fred interjected into a Romney answer last debate? It was not a friendly gesture.
Spirit of 1776 on January 11, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Fred struck undecided GOLD last night…
stlpatriot on January 11, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Huck is a scary buffoon.
I live in S.C. and his lead here is full on the non-thinkers.
Scary.
jake-the-goose on January 11, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Guess I did miss that one. Sigh.. just wishful thinking I guess.
kcd on January 11, 2008 at 10:27 AM
This kind of Byzantine strategery is too convoluted for me. I suspect the thinking in the Fred Quarters is allot more simple. Rise in the polls, create renewed interest, attract more funding. A Fred win in SC. will redraw the the contest considerably. As has been shown, polling at this point is of limited value. Go Fred!
Nyog_of_the_Bog on January 11, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Fred did go after Mitt a little during the last two NH debates. Remember the thing about Mitt’s love for Mandates.
Complete7 on January 11, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Fred keeps repeating that he always starts 20 points down in the polls and finishes 20 points ahead. Obviously that’s the only way Fred considers it a fair fight so he’s just been waiting for that 20 point margin before he started to campaign. Now that he has started to campaign the others better back up and give up.
jdog on January 11, 2008 at 10:35 AM
It’s not going to do squat in SC (his constituency are swayed more by emotion than reason) but it does help Fred because conservatives who have been fed up with his lackluster campaign finally have something positive to say about him.
How far this will take him is the question, but at least it stopped the bleeding. He and Mitt would be smart to team up at some point and join forces.
Buy Danish on January 11, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Nonsense. There’s a distinction between Christians and evangelical Christians.
Allahpundit on January 11, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Exactly what I was hoping :)
kcd on January 11, 2008 at 10:41 AM
More than 10% undecided in all of these polls. I think in a race between Thompson and McCain in South Carolina, Thompson wins. With Romney and Huck still in, it’s much more difficult for Thompson.
bigbeas on January 11, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I think a lot of people are worrying about the alternatives, and will gladly warm to Fred if he can keep the interest level up now. McCain is an easy target to be attacked as a back-stabber to real Republicans, using a litany of recent examples along the lines of how he mauled Huck last night, and as a crass opportunist for trying to take credit for Bush’s surge while besmirching a fine man and public servant like Rumsfeld in the process. Very unbecoming things for real Republicans, and eminantly attackable by a guy like Fred. Maybe he really is keeping his powder dry for that.
Extraneus on January 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Isn’t Mitt in the lead now with the most delegates? As long as he keeps placing in the top three in the voting, thereby racking up “points,” why would he drop out? Unless he really tanks in the large states.
Say Mitt does drop out however, what happens to his delegates? Do they get to vote for whoever they want, or do they go to whomever he endorses?
Fred and Mitt are my two top choices. They BOTH can’t drop out or I’m stuck with Rudy (at a very distant third). Rudy b/c I think he will at least be strong on the War on Terror, & if that’s lost then nothing else matters. I do know about his sanctuary city policy, but really, who else is there?
artlover on January 11, 2008 at 10:44 AM
I mildly disagree with this. As I mentioned on another thread, Huck complained that the Pakistanis were using the money to build up their military rather than fight terrorism. At the time I thought, “Man, this is a opening for a Gotcha moment”. But, there are many ways the money could have been used/wasted for military buildup which has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, so while worded a bit clumsily, Huck may have been right, and it pains me very much to say that. Maybe I’m parsing things too closely.
a capella on January 11, 2008 at 10:45 AM
[kcd on January 11, 2008 at 10:27 AM]
Keep wishfully thinking. I am — for a Thompson/Romney ticket — and if “voodoo economics” didn’t kill a merger, then an accusation as low fuel as “loves mandates” shouldn’t be a show stopper.
Dusty on January 11, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Time to let bygones be bygones.
Fred can join McCain, but that would really pizz off conservatives and would be hard to explain from a policy standpoint.
Mitts energy would be a great foil to Fred’s southern drawlish style.
Buy Danish on January 11, 2008 at 10:47 AM
That zinger to Huck was perfect coming on the heels of Mitt’s discussion of how we had to support the Paki general.
Buy Danish on January 11, 2008 at 10:49 AM
The main criticism of Fred throughout his campaign is that he lacks the ability to express his passion in what he believes. How many times have we read, “I agree with Fred on just about everything he says, but I just don’t see the fire or drive to be President.”
Up until now, people haven’t seen it. Now they have. Will this be enough to pull people back to him? I think it will, but he is going to have to cut a little bit deeper on McCain and continue to take Huckabee to the woodshed for being a pro-life liberal.
RobTN on January 11, 2008 at 10:50 AM
For Fred, it is a case of too little, too late. The focus group said that he won this last debate, but remember the Luntz groups also said that Romney won the last two debates in Iowa and New Hampshire, that plus the money spent on advertising was good enough for 2nd place.
I mean seriously even IF Fred came in 1st in South Carolina, that wouldn’t be enough for him to get the nomination. He doesn’t have the money going into February 5th to make a difference, and he doesn’t have the time to raise any. Fred would be smart to endorse Romney in an effort to stop the McCain-Huckabee ticket.
If you think there is going to be a McCain-Thompson ticket you are dreaming. Every thing indicates it’s going to be McCain-Huckabee. McCain has done a lot over the years to distance himself from evangelical voters and is going to need someone who can get out that evangelical vote, he is going to need Huck to show that he’s not anti-Christian. Plus, Hucks people have shown the ability to get out the evangelical base in record numbers – Fred’s people haven’t shown anything so far.
Brace yourself for another big government Republican administration hell bent on compromising and bending over for the Democrats.
joncoltonis on January 11, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Stop that! Stop making the Evangelicals out to be some kind of monster. Huckabee is the one who is at fault, not the Evangelicals.
I keep saying it. Evangelicals do NOT have a hive mind. I’m for Fred and I got to an Evangelical church.
If you have a problem with Huckabee’s message — and I do as well — it’s up to you to tell the truth to as many as you can. But quit making out that a HUGE voter base is hive-minded and it’s our fault if you don’t get your way.
You may now go back to your regularly scheduled commenting. Thank you. Elvis has left the building.
Tennman on January 11, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Wrong. It’s Evangelicals. MOST non-Evangelical Christians are NOT with Huckabee. Evangelicals seem to think it’s some sort of high school football game where you vote for your team regardless of whether or not you like the individual players.
Yes it does, and for good reason. Many of us non-Evangelical Christians have been threatened with Hell fire and brimstone by Evangelical readers who feel they’re the only people on Earth who have been shown the light. Now they’ve closed themselves off from the rest of the world again, and they’ve got their eyes taped so tight they can’t even recognize the lying fraudulent liberal standing right in front of them.
Gregor on January 11, 2008 at 10:59 AM
No doubt. But ThackerAgency makes a point I can relate to. When I hear the term evangelical coming from the MSM, I tend to envision radical street corner, big tent, bible thumping, hit you over the head with sin, type people. It’s wrong and I promise to go to confession for it this weekend.
geckomon on January 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM
No way is it “too little, too late” what Fred needed to do was to raise more money. If he can get his message out with advertising, it will resonate and he will bounce up enough to get the nomination. His late entry did cost him endorsements and a large fund-raising base, since most people had lined up behind one of the announced candidates.
It’s not too late though. Our election can be saved.
lodestonejames on January 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM
[Buy Danish on January 11, 2008 at 10:47 AM]
Totally agree. For me, Thompson has the governmental philosophy that parallels Romney’s free enterprise inclination. Thompson’s policy setting combined with Romney’s management/administrative hand could work wonders at “CHANGING” Washington.
In the general, Thompson would own the south and southwest; Romney would be great asset in the NE, Rustbelt, and NW.
To top all that off, such a scenario would leave Romeny in position to get the gold after Thompson completes his tenure.
Thompson/Romney — the beginning of the next 16 years. w00t!
Dusty on January 11, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Believe it or not, I made my comment before I read yours. GMTA.
And Allahpundit, thank you for your kind thoughts, but I have a hard time accepting a philosophical review of Christianity versus Evangelical Christians as being within your purview — being athiest and all, you’re missing a component or two of the explanation. Faith, belief, and obedience to the Word.
But, again, thanks for your insight.
Tennman on January 11, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Yup.
wccawa on January 11, 2008 at 11:06 AM
No way Romney settles for VP.
benjamin on January 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I think the media prefers the term “evangelical” because it has a more ominous tone to it than simply saying Christian. But as you can see by the definitions, I’m not sure what the big difference is between the terms.
At least they for the moment are not calling us “fundamentalist” and making comparisons with the “religion” of Islam. But I’m sure it will get back to that after the election.
Maxx on January 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM
[benjamin on January 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM]
Depends on the deal and it depends on who’s asking. He wouldn’t if it was merely ceremonial and the VP’s involvement is at the President’s discretion. Of anyone, I think Fred would have the best chance at getting him to say yes.
Dusty on January 11, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Please. What % of Huck’s support even watched the debates, or read about the smackdown? And what % of them would actually change their vote from their guy to someone else’s guy over one debate exchange? Last time I checked, Fred wasn’t a Baptist minister. Is Fred a Christian leader? Does Fred even go to church? This ain’t gonna hurt Huck much. Huck’s base is gonna come out for him up till the end, and we may as well get the hell used to it and settle on the anti-Huck, whether it is McCain or Giuliani.
RW Wacko on January 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM
All these “what-if” scenarios make me go cross-eyed but there is one conclusion I’m beginning to draw. I do believe Huckabee is winning over more evangelicals with each debate performance.
I watched and listened to Huckabee last night gently tugging at the soul strings of the faithful. I imagined a simultaneous disconnection of brainwaves in response as I kept repeating to myself, “economy, taxes, amnesty…” in an attempt to keep my own evangelical soul connected to temporal reality.
It worked for me but how many others made the switch over to Huck after last night’s performance?
On the First day, we were given Reagan conservatism – and it was good. On the Second day, we were given the Contract with America – and it was very good. On the Third day, the Clenis entered the Garden and tempted us. On the Fourth day, Compassionate Conservatism appeared – and it was better than the Clenis, but not great. And on this, the Fifth day, with Conservatism all-but-dead, secular liberalism battles evangelical liberalism – and true conservatives wander in the wilderness.
Or something like that…
CliffHanger on January 11, 2008 at 11:19 AM
LOL.
omnipotent on January 11, 2008 at 11:26 AM
From AoSHQ. This is pathetic, going right after the Evangelicals.
broker1 on January 11, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I think the primary difference between an “evangelical” and a “main-line” Christian has to do with the “personal” relationship aspect. Many main-line faiths discourage the belief of a personal connection to Christ as they believe Church leaders, as God’s ambassadors, should be the sole conduit. I belong to such a church but still consider myself to be an “evangelical” because I also believe I that I have that 1:1 relationship with God through the gift of the Holy Spirit.
CliffHanger on January 11, 2008 at 11:29 AM
They’re basically calling Evangelicals “stupid” and zombie voters.
Will Evangelicals prove them correct?
Gregor on January 11, 2008 at 11:30 AM
I’ve never met a Christian who doesn’t believe they have a 1:1 relationship with God. Evangelical or not.
Gregor on January 11, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Perhaps the reason Fred focused more on Huckabee is that Huck is the most liberal of all of them and Fred finds it the most outrageous that Huck is doing so well? Seems logical to me. I’ve always had the impression that Fred is simply against anything that isn’t conservative, and he’ll point it out when he sees it much like Rush. Huck therefore should be the #1 target for everyone. Huck also probably has the highest percentage of “followers” that could be torn away, because many have chosen him believing him to be conservative because he’s christian and not for what he actually believes. Therefore, telling people what Huck stands for is a great strategy for getting the most votes the quickest. No one is chosing McCain or Romney for their label (ie. Christian).
bburridg on January 11, 2008 at 11:36 AM
This country does not need a Christian leader. We need a leader who is Christian. Understand the difference! We are all free to choose our Christian leaders and most do by deciding which church, if any, to go to on Sunday!
You cannot make me believe that evangelicals (if they know the truth) would vote for Huckabee. Why would God-fearing people want criminals on the street? Evangelicals and most all Americans are law-abiding people so why do we want someone who pardons criminals at an abnormally high number?
Huckabee needs to be exposed!!! Fred started on him last night but I don’t believe for a second that Fred is done. And he’s not yet begun to work on McCain, but believe me friends, it’s coming!!!!!
Oink on January 11, 2008 at 11:40 AM
What’s with this too little too late crap? Peel the bumper stickers off your car and vote for who makes the most sense. Campaign and support for who you believe supports your values and listen during the debates. The debates are here to help people make up their minds. If you go around saying it’s too late then why bother with the debates? You enjoy your pony show and popularity contest while everyone else digs in for their candidate.
Rogue Traveler on January 11, 2008 at 11:40 AM
One of McCain’s advisers (forget her name) was just complaining about “dirty tricks” and bragged about how McCain appeals to “conservative Democrats”. Are there any conservative Dems who are conservatives on fiscal policy? I think of conservative Dems as libs who are still hawks on the W.O.T., but that’s it.
I have made almost exactly the same argument. Mitt also has the money Fred needs.
The only problem is that Fred has to do well enough to make sense to put him at the top of the ticket. Mitt makes more sense at the top at this point, but then we have the problem of Fred as the aging VP which is Déjà vu all over again, as Yogi Berra once said.
Buy Danish on January 11, 2008 at 11:41 AM
The point is that MANY of Huck’s evangelical supporters told us after Iowa that they voted for Huck because of his religion. Those are the ignorant evangelicals that need to be wised up or kicked to the curb with Huck. There is no place in the conservative movement for them or Huck. They are ignorant zealots.
And for the umpteenth time, more evangelicals voted for the other candidates than voted for Huck. There is a big group of the ingnorant types, but most are level headed folks that wouldn’t vote for an Elmer Gantry BS artist.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Fred’s attack on Huck was weak. It was a general slander not backed up with specifics. Whereas Huck responded very well. He explained the rise in taxes under his administration well. Rebuilt roads and improved schools from 49th to 9th. That is very impressive if true. AK was a backwards state and maybe it needed to rebuild its infrastructure. That is one thing the government is supposed to tax and spend for.
tommylotto on January 11, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I have met a significant amount who think they can decide who does have that 1:1 relationship. Huck is one of them.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM
This isn’t a coronation either. We have been listening and until last night he hasn’t performed all that well. It’s time to stop blaming the voters and think about how to move forward with a winning strategy against the Dems.
Buy Danish on January 11, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I think I know what you mean, but I would make the distinction that we need a president that respects the beliefs of others faiths regardless of what they might be. That in itself is a Christian principle. An atheist who followed those ideals would be as acceptable to me as any other person.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Let’s try not to go overboard with the stereotyping.
Me too. As long as they weren’t funded by the ACLU and beholden to them once elected : -)
Buy Danish on January 11, 2008 at 11:55 AM
My understanding is that he never curbed the excessive spending.
Plus his weak stance on law enforcement. And the final nail that makes him unacceptable for POTUS is his use of his “Christian Leader” creds to release murderers back into society. Not only is he a poor judge of character, but he abdicated his responsibility to govern as a secularist when he decided to govern as a pastor.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 11:56 AM
I wasn’t commenting exclusively on Fred. I was saying I’m sick of hearing people decide before the end of the debates who they are going to vote for. I don’t believe there is a clear favorite right now, but I’m also not going to decide this early who I’m voting for while everyone is still in the race.
I just don’t believe it’s too late for anyone yet. Conservatives can’t come up with a winning strategy until we have a clearer view of who is going to last in the primaries.
Rogue Traveler on January 11, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I should clarify…..
People who knowingly vote on the basis of religion rather than qualifications are, IMO, zealots.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 11:59 AM
I agree with that. Evangelicals tend to believe they have the answer to everything related to God while the rest of us know nothing.
My point was in response to what appeared to be a suggestion that only Evangelicals believe in a 1:1 relationship with God. To my knowledge, all Christians believe this.
Gregor on January 11, 2008 at 12:01 PM
That is a consideration. The ACLU would certainly endorese the first atheist candidate, but there is no question in my mind that most of the crazy positions the ACLU are shunned by most atheists. I guess AP could give us some insight into that, but I don’t expect him to give us his personal beliefs on the subject. It’s too personal.
SECOND LOOK AT AP FOR POTUS?
Ha! Just goofing on ya AP.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Yes, I got that and should have made that clear. I agree.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Exactly! Fred is trying to SAVE the true conservative Reagan coalition and the contrast between him and Huck is STARK and easily defined. Huck is clearly trying to liberalize the GOP and he must be stopped. Then we get to McCain who is definitely a hawk and we need someone like that in this time of global terror…I think that is why Fred will pound on him last, because Fred gets the Terror thing. Finally, going against Mitt and Rudy is a little more difficult because they keep changing their stances…or continue to become more conservative as the days go by…except “Change” boy Romney.
Fred is the proverbial Tortoise and he will win it when the TRUE CONSERVATIVES stop worrying about “Fire in the Belly” and start focusing on the only candidate that truly represents what this company and THIS PARTY really needs!
ihasurnominashun on January 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Fred’s performance last night was refreshing (and by the money meter on his website which has cleared 20% more than they were needing, yes I said 20% more), invigorating. His pointing out of Huck’s profoundly pinkish policies reminds me of the recent trip Fred made to Africa…While visiting there, an enraged Fred tThompson charged and killed a Rhino…He hated R(h)INO’s…hahahaha
RedLizard64 on January 11, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Looking at both sides of this campaign we see senators, congressmen, and previous governors and a mayor of a large metropolis. Historically, The U.S. has by far, elected more former governors as our President. We know that a legislator winning the election on the democratic side would dictate and mandate down to the state level. How would a winner of the GOP nomination, being a legislator be different, being that their political life has been one of legislating, and not implementing, which a governor is responsible for? I have a simple understanding of Federalism from a GOP perspective, so how would a Republican legislator, running a presidency, mandate differently; besides the policy differences and ideology?
captivated_dem on January 11, 2008 at 12:23 PM
First, get their attention. Fred called Huck a Democrat, and Huck’s supporters heard that, and some of them went “huh?”
Now he needs to say it again, and follow with the evidence, and keep on Freducatin’ them.
NellE on January 11, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Agreed.
Buy Danish on January 11, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Probably because ideologically he is only about 33.33% conservative. I asked about governors vs legislators because of election history. Also it will be interesting if there ends up being a semi-precedent made, with a legislator being elected our next president in November.
captivated_dem on January 11, 2008 at 12:44 PM
As someone largely unchurched, I’m sure this will be dismissed by some, but:
Christian is a much broader term than evangelical. For example, the latter (as noted above) refers to a type of Protestant. It thus excludes, for example Catholics. And there is a difference, as the Irish will tell you.
For that matter, iirc, Catholicism is at least in theory a hierarchichal church, where the 1:1 thing does not apply. ADAIK, that’s kinda what that whole schism was about with Martin Luther and such.
Again, it’s not my field, so I’ll glad to be corrected.
Karl on January 11, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Incorrect. I am Catholic and a 1:1 relationship with God is the core of our belief.
Gregor on January 11, 2008 at 1:04 PM
I could accept a Thompson/Romney `08 ticket. Give Mitt alittle more training. Being President is alittle more different than being a C.E.O. I would assume.
ThePrez on January 11, 2008 at 1:35 PM
The president IS a CEO. That is why a Mitt/Fred ticket makes much more sense. Fred can be Mitt’s rhetorical bulldog and Mitt can run the country through delegation.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Um, it’s too late for Fred? There’s only been 2 States. Last Time I remember there are 48 more to go.
Egfrow on January 11, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Bingo! We need to push the 2 most coservative people, Romney/Thompson, and stop letting the MSM lead us around by the nose!
kcd on January 11, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Look AP,
How many times do the polls have to be wrong before you accept that do not accuratly reflect the will of the people?
There is on poll that counts, the one cast on primary day. All else is fantasy.
VolMagic on January 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM
.
Iowa proved that!
kcd on January 11, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Perhaps I should have said corporate C.E.O. As they don`t usually have the fate of the free world on their shoulders.
It`s different.
ThePrez on January 11, 2008 at 2:16 PM
kcd on January 11, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Hmmm….
Why does Iowa have anything to do with the SC primary and the polls in SC?
Methinks you don’t quite grasp what I wrote.
VolMagic on January 11, 2008 at 3:02 PM
kcd on January 11, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Or maybe you weren’t being snarky. I can’t tell these things very well.
VolMagic on January 11, 2008 at 3:04 PM
What was the deal with the crowd erupting everytime Paul spoke? Is it possible that there were that many paulnuts there?
melachiro on January 11, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Fred is going after Huckabee because Huckabee is in the lead. To be the man, you have to beat the man.
SoulGlo on January 11, 2008 at 3:50 PM
I really hope Fred can pull this one out and end forever the “if you don’t vote for me you hate Jesus” candidate.
What really bugged me about the Luntz thing last night was how some of those people said it was too late. They don’t vote for another ten days, how is it too late? Maybe SC is NOT as independent as they claim they are.
If we end up with a steaming pile of Huckabee as our nomineee I will have the evangelicals, MSM, and a weak as hell GOP to thank. What kind of nut-job does the Constitution party have running?
Sammy316 on January 11, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Comment pages: