Quin Hillyer: It’s Fred’s turn in South Carolina
posted at 11:30 am on January 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
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.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Geckomon
FIRST POST!
RobertInAustin on January 17, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Wait…wasn’t he at 10% a day ago? Now he’s at 17%, and his ad hasn’t even run yet?
Dude.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 11:33 AM
I think we are all in for a surprise.
Fred!
RobertInAustin on January 17, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I’d be on hog heaven if Fred finishes a strong second in SC…
JetBoy on January 17, 2008 at 11:38 AM
If Fred doesn’t drop out after SC I think the chances of a brokered convention rise significantly. At that point we might see the McCain-Huckabee vs. the Romney-Thompson alliances that everyone had been talking about.
Bill C on January 17, 2008 at 11:38 AM
14% last week.
amerpundit on January 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I agree. I think it comes back to what Rush has said over and over, when we get out of these states and get into the real conservative states Huck and McCain are dead in the water.
Is it just me, or does anyone else love it when Rush imitates McCain?
Go Fred!
RobertInAustin on January 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM
This is why I effin’ LOVE this site…..pure poetry.
Oh yeah, Fred! wins SC by 4 pts. (It could happen….)
omnipotent on January 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Instead of saying grief and depression, AP, can you say “momentum,” or is that too hard?
I can say personally that my hope is that the conservative principles I believe in, and carried by Fred Thompson, will carry the day. My fear is that the “former” Baptist preacher will siphon off a lot of votes by identity politics. The reality is: We don’t know who will come out ahead after the SC primary. We just don’t know. Telephone polling is going the way of the dinosaur because of caller ID. I don’t answer private or toll-free numbers; I doubt many of you all do either.
My prediction is: Fred wins SC.
Tennman on January 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Fredmentumwootinfinityplus™ !
larkydozer on January 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM
I’ve lit my candle, but I have yet to accept any darkness. I guess that puts me in denial. :)
Fred!
RushBaby on January 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM
He’s still in 4th place in almost every poll including the PPP.
davenp35 on January 17, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Go Fred!
Priscilla on January 17, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Down here in Georgia we call that FOURTH PLACE.
EJDolbow on January 17, 2008 at 11:43 AM
You are Correct Sir!
Now I’ve got to go get ready to phone for Fred.
ChrisM on January 17, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Exactly, I haven’t had a “land-line” since 1998 (because of cell phones……my cell phone works at home, but my home phone doesn’t work elsewhere….so byebye home phone).
omnipotent on January 17, 2008 at 11:44 AM
By one point, according to the PPP. Three points from second. You know how quickly that can change? *cough*adat630pm*cough*
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 11:44 AM
RCP poll. meh.
This article is more wishful thinking brought on by denial. With a little stage three mixed in, they come up with the…”It can’t be happening so there must be another reason and I know that smart people will screw their own candidate to prove that it can’t be happening” shtick.
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 11:45 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Appealing to Saudi Arabia to encourage higher oil production to help lower prices is not in the long-term interest of the United States, Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson said on Wednesday.
The White House said President George W. Bush hopes that as a result of his talks this week with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, OPEC would be encouraged to increase production to help alleviate high oil prices, which have touched $100 a barrel.
Appearing on CNN, Thompson was asked whether, as president, he would turn to Saudi Arabia for help as Bush did.
Thompson, a former Tennessee senator, said the problem was a “little bigger” than Saudi Arabia.
“It’s not in the United States’ long-term interest to go hat in hand begging people to do things that in the end we know they’re not going to do,” Thompson said.
“What we need to concentrate on is diversifying our own energy sources here in this country and opening up what oil reserves that we have here … using nuclear more, using clean coal technology more and all the other things that we can do,” Thompson said.
funky chicken on January 17, 2008 at 11:45 AM
In the past week he’s moved 2-3 points. Better be one damn good ad that a chunk of South Carolina sees.
amerpundit on January 17, 2008 at 11:46 AM
PLEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEAZZE!! GOD!!
lobosan5 on January 17, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Fred doesn’t have any momentum.
Technical 3rd in Iowa, Second in Wyoming, Dead Last in New Hampshire, Non-factor in Michigan. The good ship Frednaught doesn’t have any mo, he’s hoping to get it by winning South Carolina, and if he doesn’t he’s toast.
BKennedy on January 17, 2008 at 11:48 AM
C’mon ya’ll, you’re forgetting the point of the primaries here – sure, if a candidate gets, what is it 1131 delegates, they win the RINO nomination. But what is the reality of ANY of the 6 candidates reaching that target? They are all pretty much splitting the delegates across the country. So, the decision then becomes: who is the Republican National Party going to endorse as the “most electable” candidate in November? Who has a better chance of uniting the Republican Party against ANYONE the Dems come up with in November? Answer: Fred Thompson. He will so polarize the differences between parties that even the most naive voters will see the value in a Thompson ticket. He is the only true, rock-solid conservative (who doesn’t sound like a nut) that will surely open the eyes of voters in November.
‘Nuff said
GO FRED!!!
bizznatch14 on January 17, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Excellent,the bus is fueled,the Fredheads are on board, Freds driving,and he’s ready to roll.
canopfor on January 17, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Indeed.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 17, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Well, at least it isn’t the short bus.
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Oh, please, BK. Iowa wasn’t a “technical 3rd.” Third is third. Wyoming didn’t have any candidates but Mitt and Fred visit them, and the last visit was in September. Western Wyoming is heavily LDS. Get the connection?
Fred did not even compete in NH or MI.
I put very little faith in telephone polling. It may be a good indicator that someone is moving up or down, but as far as the numbers? This primary season they haven’t been right.
So, using your all’s fixation on polling numbers, my argument is that Fred’s the only one moving up in the polls. Every other candidate is staying the same or moving down. That’s momentum, using AP’s own measuring stick.
I also say there’s momentum. And that’s merely because, well, I said so. ;)
Tennman on January 17, 2008 at 11:54 AM
I must say as Rudy’s Hot Air familiar and Fred’s bane, I am sort of pulling for Fred in SC for the very reason stated in the article — It would help Rudy in FL. But I am conflicted. Fred is such a worthless, terrorist-enabling, piece of crap that I am eagerly awaiting his inevitable demise so that I can dance on his grave in a Rudy-esque red dress.
tommylotto on January 17, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Well, this is the ad. Whaddya think?
wccawa on January 17, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Can someone please explain to me why the people who should be helping Fred! are so freaking down on him?
He is THE conservative in the race. Is it really too much to ask conservatives to help a brother out?
Fred!
I believe!
SimplyKimberly on January 17, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Go Fred
Tim Burton on January 17, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Thompson will take 3rd or 4th in SC and McCain will win. Thompson will then get out and most Fredheads would NEVER vote for Huckabee or McCain. Romney will win Nevada. Nevada has more delegates than SC. Romney will get boost going into Florida (and most of the Fredheads), giving him vicory there. He will have the monentum going into Super Tuesday. Romney gets the nomination.
davenp35 on January 17, 2008 at 11:57 AM
And you’re a lawyer. What’s your excuse?
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 11:57 AM
If what you cite are the only available data points, most people would call that THIRD PLACE.
Not that it matters much. I’m not sure even a strong second will help at this point.
flipflop on January 17, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Rasmussen will release a new SC poll at 2pm est. In his last Fred was @ 16%, a statistical tie for second…
stlpatriot on January 17, 2008 at 11:59 AM
If Fred can pull out the upset win in SC this race will really be up for grabs. Who knows maybe my vote on April 6th will matter after all. I know the winner will be picked before then, but it would feel good to have a vote that matters. Get in the game North Carolina! Just curious of my fellow conservatives, do we pull together behind the GOP nominee. I know we say I will not vote for him, or I would rather stay at home, however when push comes to shove how important is it to you to keep the GOP in the White House.
chief on January 17, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Umm…what?
JetBoy on January 17, 2008 at 12:02 PM
He attacks Fred and you attack him. What exactly is the purpose for your ad hominem attack on a fellow HA member?
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Please don’t humor the delusional.
Tennman on January 17, 2008 at 12:03 PM
I will not vote for McCain or Huckabee. I just cannot abandon conservative principles when the damage done by either of these two would be horrific for the GOP.
If either of them are the nominee, I will write in my vote for Fred!
SimplyKimberly on January 17, 2008 at 12:03 PM
He didn’t attack Fred, he insulted him. “Worthless piece of crap”, believe it or not, is not a policy complaint.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Oh, and he is a lawyer. You see that as an attack too, eh? ;)
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:06 PM
He’s talking about this:
Thompson briefly provided advice for the defense of the terror suspects.
amerpundit on January 17, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Hey, here’s an Idea.
Why don’t we start a conservative party? We can call it the Reagan party. Its principles will be smaller government, lower taxes, bigger military, equality of trade and federalism.
Any billionaires out there willing to fund such a party?
Tennman on January 17, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Actually if you go to the link the margin is +-3.5, so Fred is statistically in a tie for 2nd
ConservativePartyNow on January 17, 2008 at 12:08 PM
More specifically, 3.5 hours billed (which in any law firm means about 45 minutes of talk) for jurisdictional advice.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I am sorry, but this indeed is desparation. To tell supporters of other candidates that they should consider voting for your guy in South carolina, because it makes them all stronger, is truly grasping for some kind of miracle to occur.
paulsur on January 17, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Not important enought to vote for McShamnesty or Huckabilly!!!!!!
jwp1964 on January 17, 2008 at 12:09 PM
True only if the RNC wants a conservative candidate. That doesn’t appear to the direction it is going.
a capella on January 17, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Either way, you still haven’t answered the question. Why the ad hominem attack on Tommy?
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Call it what you’d like, but it was advice for the defense of the terror suspects.
I’m not taking a position in this argument, only informing JetBoy of what TommyLotto was talking about.
amerpundit on January 17, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Probably because tommy is an annoying, rude little troll.
wccawa on January 17, 2008 at 12:11 PM
One second helping terrorists in one second too long.
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 12:12 PM
He was part of an effort by the Arent Fox firm to keep the terrorists from facing justice except in a corrupt Libyan court. The firm accepted almost $900,000 in fees from the Libyans, and the terrorists were able to avoid justice for 11 years. Good work Fred!!!
tommylotto on January 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM
You do realize that attacking the person weakens your argument?
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM
And if Fred wins SC? Then what? Rudy in FL? If Fred wins SC then brokered convention. If not, Mitt takes the nomination once Fred bows out.
Come on SC! Show the Yanks some southern style!
Browncoatone on January 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Who are you and what have you done with csdeven?
Tennman on January 17, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Not in tommy’s case. He’s special. (shhh….!)
wccawa on January 17, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Okay, boys,
Can we get back to the issues in this thread?
Tennman on January 17, 2008 at 12:16 PM
I wonder how many terrorists learned at the knee of those two while they were out avoiding justice for eleven years.
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 12:17 PM
He posts two things on the board these days: Insults of Fred, and the same worked-over thrice-clarified talking points delivered as sound bytes for maximum impact that he always has, and you used to. He’s not apparently here for intelligent discussion if he’s outright insulting candidates, so why treat him like he is?
I’m not calling it anything. I’m supplying significant details that were not covered in the piece you quoted. I could go on about who the person was who spread this bit of information, and whose campaign he is currently supporting, but I know that people like the one who brought it up will poo-poo such connections, even while I’m sure he’d be just as mortified if a new Hsu scandal started up.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:18 PM
The Fredheads that are paying attention know that I am right on each and every one of my attacks on Fred. So, they call me a troll, hateful, lawyer, anything to get the casual reader to ignore the salient points that I provide. Desperate and dishonest. So sad.
tommylotto on January 17, 2008 at 12:19 PM
By all means, bring it up. Who was it? I’m sure that diminishes the fact the firm admits Fred (for however long) consulted for the defense.
amerpundit on January 17, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Come ‘on folks…
get on the FREDtrain!
sleepy-beans on January 17, 2008 at 12:22 PM
No, we call you a troll, hateful, and a lawyer because you refer to a candidate as a worthless piece of crap. Get that through your head.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Tenman, if that happens, I’m there.
I hope Fred continues to climb in the polls.
Darksean on January 17, 2008 at 12:22 PM
tommylotto, you’re just naive.
HebrewToYou on January 17, 2008 at 12:23 PM
So nice to know that President Thompson will continue the cherished Republican tradition of enduring hate-mongers like tommylotto. And here I was afraid that the tradition would end with Bush.
Browncoatone on January 17, 2008 at 12:23 PM
What I don’t understand is why comments aimed at Thompson are taken so personally by supporters in these threads. Just let it go, folks.
Slublog on January 17, 2008 at 12:23 PM
We know.
Oh, and today’s fun Fred fact:
Fred was born with momentum.
TexasDan on January 17, 2008 at 12:24 PM
You sir, are an evil hateful troll lawyer. I bet you made millions on that assault and battery case brought on by that Potter kid. “Wingardium leviosa” my foot, you said.
BKennedy on January 17, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Here’s the NYT article about the incident:
Marc who, you might ask? Just a guy who spreads money around to Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Bill Richardson, etc…
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:27 PM
This is interesting:
http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=hsnews-000002648396
stlpatriot on January 17, 2008 at 12:28 PM
And I’m only 29 points out of first place! Woo hoo! The Sauron Train is leaving the station ;-\
It looks like Fred will finish 3rd. Can he continue after that? Will he have enough money to do more than a few percent on Feb 5th?
Has anyone heard what percent of SC voters cast absentee ballots?
Vote Sauron 08 on January 17, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I don’t take those comments personally, but it annoys the hell out of me that he brings that kind of tripe into fairly civil discussion.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I just do not understand how Fred has lasted this long with such a disqualifying fact in his personal history. Who cares if he has a good immigration plan — he gave legal advice to terrorists!!! That disqualifies him from the presidency in my book and I think most of America will agree, when and if they find out. That is why this point bears repeating. Anyone thinking about voting for this SOB should know that when he was in private practice he would work for anyone who hired him. He had no scruples whatsoever. His standards were so low that when asked to work for Libyan terrorists responsible for killing 270 innocent civilians, he gave “jurisdictional” advice to the team of lawyers trying to keep the terrorist from facing justice.
Okay, maybe he shouldn’t go to jail for being a scumbag lawyer, but it must at least disqualify him from being elected POTUS!!! Shoot, even Silky represented injured plaintiffs, not international islamic terrorists.
tommylotto on January 17, 2008 at 12:29 PM
The jury was just siding with Hagrid. Never question the giants, right? Racists.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Slublog, it’s because under the guise of making a point tommylotto resorts to epithets like:
How does that further the discussion? Why should anyone let such a naive and childish opinion about a candidate stand unchallenged? The guy is about two sandwiches short of a picnic for saying 3.3 hours of legal counsel is equivalent to terror-enabling.
Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
HebrewToYou on January 17, 2008 at 12:32 PM
You know as well as I that his remarks are the counter to stuff like the article this thread started with. It is just as aggravating for some to read that tripe as it is for you to read the hyperbolic attacks on Fred. The difference is that you are not Fred and the personal investment in Fred is baffling.
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Thanks for the info. Sleezy man, that Fleischaker.
….
Is he wrong about Fred’s consultation for the defense, however long that lasted?
amerpundit on January 17, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Check out your link. He also gave to fellow terrorist enabler Fred D. Thompson.
tommylotto on January 17, 2008 at 12:33 PM
…so you think a person who gave 3.5 hours of jurisdictional advice to a legal team is unfit for the highest office in the land, but a guy who would force all Americans to subscribe to his government-run health care service under threat of punishment IS?
…wow.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I once had Bill Clinton over to my house, tommylotto. Does that make me an adultery-enabler?
HebrewToYou on January 17, 2008 at 12:34 PM
At one time, this thread was witty, intelligent and forward-looking.
Now? Not so much. Have a good day, y’all…
wccawa on January 17, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Simply to establish some context, might I add that Hillary doesn’t have a history of lawyering for terrorists?
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Was it your intention to help him avoid the consequences for his actions?
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 12:36 PM
How do you know he’s not? We’re all anonymous here.
His arguments are not a counter to the topic of this thread. The thread drift here is horrid. The topic is about Quin Hillyer’s article about Fred. Not tommylotto’s obsession with one argument that has nothing to do with reality or sanity.
Tennman on January 17, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Spot on…
JetBoy on January 17, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Not saying he’s wrong, but I’d want a little more confirmation before accepting that claim from someone who obviously doesn’t want him to be president.
Wow. Yeah. 250 bucks, when he knew him personally. Meanwhile, twice as much to Teddy, four times as much to Slick Willie, TWICE. Almost ten times as much to Bill Richardson. Yeah, it’s clear he is someone who supports what Fred is pushing in his campaign.
Of course. Counter “It’s Fred’s turn” with “Fred is a worthless piece of crap”. It’s all so clear. How could I have missed this when I was on the debate team?
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Don’t make me pull out the cackle videos.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Is it your assumption that a lawyers job is to help a client avoid consequences for their action? Because that is pretty naive, too.
HebrewToYou on January 17, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Since this arose back in September, I’d think the Thompson campaign would’ve been furiously denying this. The defense they raised was to claim he couldn’t decide which clients to consult for – not, as far as I know, that he didn’t do it.
amerpundit on January 17, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Oh, plenty of people question the Giants, they’re a rather arrogant football club.
BKennedy on January 17, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Thats my point, its just that anytime tommy posts its always the same cut and paste argument. Look we get it, you think Fred is a scumbag terrorist enabler, fine put it on a bumpersticker and move on.
I also bet you would pander and explain away Rudy signing those security contracts with the terrorist prime minister.
“You have to look at the context of that blah blah blah”
Just.move.on.
broker1 on January 17, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Lawyers practice law. They provide counsel for their clients. They do not, however, wake up every day to make sure their clients go unpunished for their evil deeds. They simply seek to see the law enforced appropriately, regardless of who it is under the long arm.
HebrewToYou on January 17, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Are you threatening a terrorist act?
;-)
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Since this arose back in September, I’ve heard very little of it outside this site. I have yet to hear an interviewer bring it up. If that’s happened in the last few months, I’d be very grateful if you could supply me with a video. I’d like to see how he responded.
Let’s hope arrogant enough that they misunderstrategerize the Pack.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Sometimes you have to use the enemies’ tactics to save the republic.
;)
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:46 PM
BTW, I think it is Fred’s turn and I’d be overjoyed if he did very well. I would not vote against my guy to help him, but it wouldn’t be a bad thing. Fred moves the contest to the right. Even if he drops out, he needs to somehow stay involved so our moderate candidates don’t move to the left.
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 12:47 PM
…you magnificent bastard, I knew it all along! Get over here and give me a hug!
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »