Quin Hillyer: It’s Fred’s turn in South Carolina
posted at 11:30 am on January 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Worth a post after all the comments on the headlines item. Which stage of Fred-loss grief is Hillyer at? It’s not quite denial since he knows the odds are long. It’s not quite bargaining since he’s only offering recommendations to voters, not a quid pro quo. Let’s call it depression, except that he’s chosen to light a candle rather than curse the darkness. Besides the “true conservative” rationale, he offers you this:
First, there is this purely parochial consideration: Not only is Thompson of a neighboring Southern state, but, more importantly, he gives South Carolinians a chance to set out a marker and decapitate the presidential electoral primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire. Think of it this way: In every Republican presidential contest beginning in 1980, South Carolina has chosen the winner… but, and this is a very big “but”… it always has been forced to choose from a field already narrowed by the two smaller, front-running states. In effect, South Carolina was told it could take the Iowa winner or the New Hampshire winner, but nobody else.
But this time could be different…
[I]f I were a Rudy Giuliani man on Saturday, I would cast a tactical vote for Thompson, thus giving the former New York mayor a clear shot at Florida without a clear front-runner to overcome. I might even do the same if I were a Romney man seeing a Thompson surge in the state, figuring that one more loss by a suddenly shaky McCain or Huckabee in a state in which each was supposed to be strong might knock at least one of them out of the race and out of Romney’s hair. Tactically, it also makes sense for any mainstream conservative to want to give a boost to the most consistent conservative in the race, just to send a message to those who say the old Reagan coalition no longer has relevance. A win for Thompson on Saturday would tell the world that consistency across the full gamut of conservative issues still carries weight at the ballot box.
He wants evangelicals to climb aboard too since Huckabee’s a one-issue candidate who probably can’t win in less religious states. Question re: the parochial consideration: Has anyone ever voted for a candidate to send a message about the relative importance to the primary system of one’s home state? That sounds like one of those clever yet implausible theories concocted by pundits desperate for new angles into the electoral mindset. Is anyone in South Carolina disposed towards Romney but now thinking Fred just to flip the bird to Michigan and hope SC merits a mention in Thompson’s inauguration speech? I’m skeptical. As for the tactical argument, Rudy supporters have nothing to lose but why would Mittheads want to resuscitate the one guy who can most plausibly challenge Romney on the right? Once Fred’s dead, Mitt’s the closest thing left to an across-the-board conservative. If anything, Fredheads worried about a Huckabee or McCain surge into Florida should be considering whether to bail out and vote for Mitt to boost him up, as a surprisingly strong showing would blunt the momentum of whoever wins. That’s why Romney’s trying to paint the state as a lost cause for McCain; anything less than an easy victory becomes a disappointment.
New poll says Fred’s only three points out of second place … and 11 points out of first with 48 hours to go.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
So now we should make it immoral, but not technically illegal, for the accused to have representation? Would the last inquistor turn out the lights in the Star Chamber before he leaves?
Browncoatone on January 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM
I will. As soon as there is no possibility that I will live in a country run by a man with scruples so low he would help a murderous terrorist avoid justice.
P.S. Comparing Fred’s assistance to the actual terrorists responsible for planting a bomb on an airplane to Rudy establishing security contacts with Qatar — an essential US ally in the mideast — is reaching way beyond the pale. Rudy’s contacts with Qatar demonstrate that he has the ability and connections to deal with the war on terror. Fred’s prior legal work demonstrates that his only involvement in the WOT was for the other side.
tommylotto on January 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM
SC Lt Gov endorces Huckabee.
Vote Sauron 08 on January 17, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Hey, if I’m Abdul Mohammad the terrorist, who scares me more? Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney?
funky chicken on January 17, 2008 at 12:51 PM
We can all understand why you wouldn’t want scumbag lawyers to go to jail, Tommylotto.
FloatingRock on January 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM
I haven’t seen it in the last few months. Then again, I haven’t heard a whole lot about the Hsu scandal as of late, either.
He may not have responded in video to an interviewer, but his campaign did respond to the reports by the NYT, saying he couldn’t decide who he consulted for.
amerpundit on January 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM
How do you make this leap in logic? Less than four hours of legal counsel turns Fred! into an enemy of the WOT? Jeebus, tommylotto, deal in hyperbole much?
HebrewToYou on January 17, 2008 at 12:54 PM
OK, I guess a little man love is acceptable considering the circumstances.
**Hug**
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 12:54 PM
True. However, Fred’s efforts were not directed towards defending the terrorists. His efforts and the efforts of his firm were directed at fighting extradition out of Libya — a co-conspirator to the bombing. These lawyers were working to see that the long arm of the law could not reach them in their terrorist nation safe haven. Fred was fighting to protect terrorists from justice — not defend terrorist in a system of justice (a noble pursuit for any lawyer). Can you see the distinction?
tommylotto on January 17, 2008 at 12:55 PM
As long as Fred is in the race Reagan Conservatism still has life. Once Fred is gone we will have totally turned our back on the Gipper.
Come on FRED win one for the GIPPER!
HotAirExpert on January 17, 2008 at 12:56 PM
I’ve read that same argument from you many times, but this time I fully understand the distinction.
Thanks.
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM
And the wind blew…
Heh.
Tennman on January 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Rich. Real rich. Rules change when it’s your candidate, eh? By the way, why not look up where Al Jazeera is? Hint: Not Belgium.
He’ll never get it, man. That’s why he avoids it.
Awww, see?
So what are you doing tonight? *wink*
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:59 PM
OK, that was funny as hell!
JetBoy on January 17, 2008 at 1:00 PM
I loved your last film, but too bloody, but great none the less.
Yeah, I know, but it would be funny if it really was.
Go Fred!
RobertInAustin on January 17, 2008 at 1:02 PM
And to think that gut feeling I had about you was only gas pains.
Go Fred!
RobertInAustin on January 17, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Uh, let’s not dog on Qatar quite so much, OK? Qatar and Bahrain host many of our service men and women and do an admirable job of keeping the bases and transit routes safe.
funky chicken on January 17, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Tommylotto, you’re claiming Fred!’s ~ four hours of legal counsel with respect to extradition law re: Libya is equivalent to working against the War on Terror. Ridiculous! Despite the cheerleading csdeven is providing for you, that just doesn’t play among rational people.
You can continue to rant about how this blip on the radar screen in Fred!’s long career is a big freakin’ deal. I could care less. But make your point with an argument; don’t do it with hyperbole and expletives. It coarsens the discussion and makes you look worthy of contempt.
HebrewToYou on January 17, 2008 at 1:04 PM
I’m in Georgia, and that’s what I was thinking too : )
Buy Danish on January 17, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Tommylotto on January 17,2008 at 12:55PM.
Tommylotto: Please,if your going to paint the candidates
with those lovely words(piece of crap),direct
it to the other team(Lib.)that deserves it!
canopfor on January 17, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Precisely. They were working to get their clients into the most favorable jurisdiction to ensure the best possible verdict. Contemptible? Yes. Legal? Also yes. Part of the best interests for the defendants? Also yes. Doesn’t make me feel all warm and fuzzy, but I should think that you, as an attorney(and I’m not using it in a negative sense for once), should understand that that falls well within the concept of representing your client to the best of your abilities!
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Well, that isn’t the only questionable associations Fred has fostered over the years.
The point is that in this post 9/11 world, ANY associations with terrorists for any length of time will be a burden no one could overcome. Especially for a POTUS.
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Begging your pardon? Bush’s connection with the Saudi royal family, while insanely overstated by BDS sufferers, nevertheless did exist, and they aren’t pleasant to think about.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Nonsense. Close ties with the Saudi Royal family didn’t stop GWB from getting re-elected in a post-9/11 world. You’re quite mistaken, csdeven, for tommylotto is making mountains out of molehills.
HebrewToYou on January 17, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Ha! MC and I are on the same page.
HebrewToYou on January 17, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Michelle likes Fred!
omnipotent on January 17, 2008 at 1:27 PM
According to TommyBoy’s deluded logic, doctors who save murderers are complicit in the murder committed by their patient.
Doctors have the hypocratic oath, do lawyers take such an oath?
omnipotent on January 17, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Tommylotto: It’s a big deal. Here is why….
HebrewToYou: No it’s not. You suck.
P.S. “Fred’s log career”? Just because he is as old as Larry King does not mean he has had a long career in public service. He chased moonshiners to impose the federal will on Tennesseans just trying to enjoy their hooch (some federalist), was a mole for Nixon, was a DC insider lawyer and lobbyist for many years working for dictators, abortionists and terrorists. Was a Senator for only eight years (equal to Hillary) where he botched the investigation of Clinton’s financing, made the situation worse with CFR, voted time and again for Spencer Abraham’s open border agenda, and voted to keep the perjurer in office. Where in that storied career did he contribute anything to the WOT? Oh yeah, he represented those Libyan terrorists, but wait, that IS for the wrong side.
tommylotto on January 17, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Every candidate left and right would dance for and with that Saudi. except for Fred,
No stupid-ass tribal dance with despot rule, you see?
Guiliani would do it in a frickin dress.
TheSitRep on January 17, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Depends on the state bar association, but most of them do.
However, most of these oaths also include the words “honor”. With all due respect, I think nearly every lawyer has broken that oath at some point or another.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 1:34 PM
That’s so mean.
; )
omnipotent on January 17, 2008 at 1:37 PM
It seems that my prediction of Mr Thompson’s chances in the presidential race is panning out. My prediction was purely on superficial reasons (and I might add is precisely why Sen McCain won’t win the presidency either) and not on any merit. I simply predicted that no person born in the “Silent” generation, the generation born between the WW II generation and the Boomers, would be elected president.
So even if Mr Thompson does well on Saturday in S.C. he won’t go much further based entirely on his age category.
Weebork on January 17, 2008 at 1:39 PM
jwp1964 on January 17, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Thanks for the reasonable post.
I agree with you to a limited extent. A good lawyer fights for venue. The cops that beat Rodney King were well served by moving the case from Downtown LA to Simi Valley (home of the Reagan library). OJ was well served moving his criminal case from Santa Monica to Downtown. Those are legitimate fights for a lawyer to get into — all part of serving the client. But Libya, the nation, was responsible for the bombing just as much as the terrorists (who were Libyan intelligence officers). Fighting to get these terrorists a trial in Libya as opposed to Scotland is unacceptable behavior. Is it illegal? – no. Is it unethical from a lawyer’s ethics standard? – no. Is it the type of behavior I want in my POTUS after 9/11? No. Will the Dems make hay out of it in the general? Hell yes.
tommylotto on January 17, 2008 at 1:42 PM
LoL. Nice frame-job, TL.
Look back to your first post. Do you see me using the kind-of language you do?
Grow up.
HebrewToYou on January 17, 2008 at 1:46 PM
MC and Hebrew,
If the Saudis are proven terrorists, which I doubt, I guess an association can be survived. The more accurate comment would be that anyone who tries to give terrorists a leg up avoiding justice will never be acceptable to Americans. Especially for POTUS.
Do you feel better?
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Hence why I said “nearly”.
Again, the point is that he followed the law. He fought for the sake of the clients. He was successful in that. That leaves little doubt in my mind that he’ll apply the same cunning and fight to the WOT, as well as to America in general in fighting to implement federalism. I don’t think you can fairly summarize his potential motives by questioning something he did that was both, as you said, within the law and ethical.
Now, I agree with you on one point: Will the Dems make hay out of it? Damn straight they will. Just like they did with Bush’s drunk driving ticket and with the forged National Guard papers, and they both failed. The Dems are going to bring up even more issues for Romney, Rudy, Huckster and Captain Amnesty. They’re going to do it anyway, so I see two types of candidate I can stand behind:
- One who I can say “He is a conservative.”
- One who I have to say “He is a conservative, but…”
I’ll take the former, because I settle for nothing but the best.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Doctors who save murderers to help them avoid justice would be complicit.
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Not exactly…Attorney’s take the hypocritic oath..
right2bright on January 17, 2008 at 1:58 PM
I find that comment very much inaccurate. Who said Fred! gave them any advice to avoid justice? That’s simply the unfounded allegation laid out by ol’ TL. What if Fred!’s four hours were spent simply detailing the case against his client? What if Fred! simply spent it doing research on the charges? You don’t know how he spent his time, so why are you assuming he intended to skirt justice?
I disagree. How many times have we seen the Democrats stick up for the lawyers representing Gitmo detainees? Why would they want to go and make hypocrites of themselves?
Fred! didn’t do anything wrong by providing legal counsel to someone who paid him for it. He practiced the law. He has every right to do so as he pleases as long as there is no breach of ethics. And, I’m sorry, but a breach of ethics four hours of counsel does not make.
What if the lawyer simply pointed out that the murderer was never read miranda rights? Is that a position that would render the lawyer complicit? Seems bogus to me, csdeven.
HebrewToYou on January 17, 2008 at 2:00 PM
O/T here, but has anyone noticed that even among the general populace, journalists have kind of taken lawyers’ place as most reviled profession?
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Haven’t replaced as much as joined.
tickleddragon on January 17, 2008 at 2:04 PM
FIFY :)
FloatingRock on January 17, 2008 at 2:04 PM
You raise a valid point, Weebork, you can’t get any more superficial than that.
FloatingRock on January 17, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Earlier I watched a video of a Fred appearance at a voc/tech college in South Carolina. His audience was probably on the young side, of course. I had a random thought about what if Fred is not our next president (I pray he will be)?
How many of those young skulls full of mush would look back at their chance to Meet Fred and think the country had been robbed of a great statesman…
Obvious to me that I need to get the coffee pot going and make some more calls to South Carolina.
http://www.fred08.com
redneck hippie on January 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM
They definitely have in my eyes.
I know so many lawyers that it’s hard to have a hatred for the profession.
HebrewToYou on January 17, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Don’t get me wrong, I think Mr Thompson is a great conservative, but his generation archetype has never been elected to the Oval Office in American history! I have no idea why, but history seems to indicate a trend in this regard. Perhaps it has to do with the negative associations attributed to this generational archetype as being “overly complicated” and “indecisive”.
Rightly or wrongly, history may be right again in regards to the plight of this generational archetype.
Weebork on January 17, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Wouldn’t Death be justice?
To me it would…
omnipotent on January 17, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I would argue the point, but I have no idea what you’re blathering about. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean any offense, but you’ve admitted yourself that your analysis is purely superficial. Besides, you haven’t provided a shred of historical evidence to back up your argument, hence my use of the word “blather”.
FloatingRock on January 17, 2008 at 2:39 PM
FloatingRock,
No problem, and I do admit that I am going on about something that I haven’t explained very well. So I apologize for that. My intention for predicting Mr Thompson’s viability, before I knew anything about his conservative credentials, was to simply say that he had no chance of winning because he was born into a certain type of generation that has historically never been elected to the presidency. I will attempt to provide an explanation now.
What I am basing my opinion on is in a branch of sociology describing the cyclical nature of history, or “Turnings”. While this subject has been around for some time, the more recent contributors to this field are Neil Howe and William Strauss with their books “Generations” and “The Fourth Turning”.
So according to the theory, there are four generational archetypes: Civic, Artist, Prophet, and Nomad. Each generation is born when society is going through a particular mood or turning. A turning is a period of about 20 years, the same span as a generation. Each generation has its perks and flaws. (I am trying to explain without deluging you with too much information.)
The Artist generation is born during a Crisis turning. Historical examples of Crisis turnings are WW II (1925-1945), American Civil War (1860-1865), American Revolutionary War (1773-1794). The “Silent” generation is but the most recent representation of the Artist archetype. So far, nobody born in the time lines above were elected president.
I have to correct myself again and say that my reasoning for the demise of Mr Thompson isn’t so much superficial but appears to be more historical in grounding. I was wrong to use superficial, though you are free to disagree.
Sorry for any confusion, I am happy to clarify or explain anything further.
Weebork on January 17, 2008 at 3:07 PM
It’s curious as to why this post hasn’t been bumped to the top yet with the Michelle “straight talk” post as an update.
geckomon on January 17, 2008 at 3:07 PM
What about Spencer Abrahmam?
Michelle
Malkin: Fred Thompson and Spencer Abraham: Bad combo
Jihad Spence: Fred Thompson’s Pan-Islamist Campaign Manager
Chakra Hammer on January 17, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Fred.. we need to workout some kind of deal..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkN2fYnMTBs
Chakra Hammer on January 17, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Fred Thompson and Spencer Abraham: Bad combo
By Michelle Malkin • July 26, 2007 11:41 AM
Fred won’t dance with the Sauds
By Michelle Malkin • January 17, 2008 08:08 AM
Umm . . . timley? Dude, you make it so difficult not to call you irrelevant. Do you even think before you hit submit?
geckomon on January 17, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Chakra Hammer on January 17, 2008 at 3:23 PM
IF Fred drops out, don’t for a minute think that Fred’s base will go shmucks way, i would bet 90% of Fredheads would choose Mitt.. IF, Fred doesnt finish strong in SC, and he in fact drops out, Shmuck is done, period…
Shmuck in fact is the last one i’d vote for if Fred drops out, and i bet you can’t find 1 Fredhead here that would vote shmuck if he did..
stlpatriot on January 17, 2008 at 3:40 PM
I wouldn’t vote for Mikey the Minister .
omnipotent on January 17, 2008 at 4:14 PM
It’s like Penthouse Forum. I love FredPorn.
Sultry Beauty on January 17, 2008 at 4:50 PM
I don’t see the logic of bailing on Fred to go to Mitt who has practically identical numbers in the SC polls. Mitt is barely ahead in most polls with one showing both Fred and Mitt tied for 17%.
Stick with Fred, South Carolinians! I think Fred’s numbers will surprise :)
-Aslan’s Girl (on this side of the wardrobe door…)
Aslans Girl on January 17, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Agreed about Fred. Trouble is Mitt is everybody’s second choice. Let’s hope it’s not that way if he’s the nominee for the general.
Mojave Mark on January 17, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Where in that storied career was the WOT? Sure, the terrorists declared war on us, but we didn’t really respond in kind until 9/11. So you’re asking a question that most people with long careers in public office will not be able to answer well.
For that matter, where was Rudy in the WOT? Yes, he was still mayor of NYC at 9/11, and he did well in the aftermath. But has he done anything in the WOT since? Has Romney? Has Huckabee? Has any Republican candidate except, maybe, John McCain? And McCain may have the worst record, since he undermined our efforts to prosecute the WOT by trying to treat terrorists as if they were honorable enemy combatants in a civilized war, demanding that people who refuse to wear a uniform, attack mainly civilians, and hide in mosques and behind women and children be treated as if they were regular soldiers.
The point is, you’re proposing a standard here that few could live up to, unless they are in the military or the executive branch, and then only in the past six years, and then only in certain jobs.
Furthermore, you’re wrong when you said he represented those terrorists. They were not his clients. The most that could be said is that he gave some legal advice to lawyers he had a professional relationship with who represented them. Furthermore, at the time this advice was given to those lawyers, the accused had not yet been convicted. Remember, this was treated as a crime, which meant these same people had a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Furthermore, unless you know exactly what advice was given, you really don’t know whether he told them anything more than, “the case against you is very strong.” The kind of advice that Fred would have given in this context would not be telling the terrorists what they should try to do, but describing the laws as accurately as possible to the lawyers representing the Libyans. Like it or not, no matter how much you may believe someone is guilty, there are certain rules that have to be followed in a court of law. This is why prosecutors trying to put away a child molester still have to share any evidence they have with the defense, even if it undercuts their case.
The real problem with this whole scenario was that they treated an act of terrorism like a crime, thereby giving the accused all sorts of rights. According to their status as the accused, the scummy terrorists were entitled to the best defense possible.
In fact, the whole reason we have a WOT is because prosecuting terrorism like crime is so ineffective.
But don’t mind me. Just don’t try to blame a lawyer for doing his job as a lawyer, when the real problem is that an act of war was prosecuted like a crime.
tom on January 17, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Why I like Fred!
omnipotent on January 17, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Thanks for the link.
I could not have said it better.
TheSitRep on January 17, 2008 at 10:47 PM
SB, you’re a treasure here! I’d give anything to have seen AP’s reacation to this…
Entelechy on January 17, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Well, sorry s/b reaction.
Entelechy on January 17, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Voting in my first primary tomorrow…FRED all the way!
Let’s take it to the house, South Carolina!
MechEng5by5 on January 18, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2