Video: Fred rips Obama

posted at 4:16 pm on April 25, 2008 by Allahpundit

From last night’s H&C. It ran too long to cut the whole thing so consult the transcript if you want to read him touting McCain and acknowledging the painful reality of which we’re all already aware as regards the fire in his belly. But here’s the reddest red meat: FT on the vice presidency and Obama. Needless to say, he doesn’t think much of either one. Nice to see a prominent Republican “troubled” by Obama’s associations, though, especially with Maverick in such a lather over that NC GOP ad. Hannity should have asked Fred whether he’d have run it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I like Bob “It’s his turn” Dole 2 without all the energy, drive and charisma of the original. Fire in the belly, sure does have it, he vents it on conservatives every chance he gets. Going to be a spectacular splash.

tarpon on April 25, 2008 at 6:35 PM

“Now I’ve got three liberals to choose from. What to do? ”

And all three are whining.

davod on April 25, 2008 at 6:35 PM

Our logic, once again, is irrefutable.

Yes, but the problem, according to CK MacLeod, is that blacks are too stupid to appreciate logic.

P.S. Just a heads-up: I’ve seen an eeevil LSU fan posting here.

misterpeasea on April 25, 2008 at 6:35 PM

I loved his response about the VP option. Something about not wanting to spend his time at state funerals in faraway places.

We don’t blame you, Fred. Stay close to your lovely wife & adorable kids, as you work in govt. or the private sector.

Side note- I recently watched the John Adams miniseries on HBO. Our second president was apparently no fan of the #2 position in the executive branch, either.

cs89 on April 25, 2008 at 6:43 PM

I’m beginning to think the Fred’s close friendship with McCain was that of a Stalking Horse.

Egfrow on April 25, 2008 at 6:43 PM

cs89

I believe Cheney has forever changed the perception for the role of VP.

Egfrow on April 25, 2008 at 6:45 PM

misterpeasea on April 25, 2008 at 6:35 PM

Ugh. They’re probably a Democrat.

Keep fighting the good fight, partner.

VolMagic on April 25, 2008 at 6:48 PM

Side note- I recently watched the John Adams miniseries on HBO. Our second president was apparently no fan of the #2 position in the executive branch, either.

cs89 on April 25, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Thanks for reminding me about that. I just pre-ordered the DVD at Amazon.

RushBaby on April 25, 2008 at 6:48 PM

Our logic, once again, is irrefutable.

VolMagic on April 25, 2008 at 6:27 PM

Yes, totally persuasive to yourselves and everyone else predisposed to agree with you.

The problem with trying to run a non-racialized guilt-by-association ad against the NC Dems is that, once you took out the ranting black-racist reverend and the goofy photos of African-American-loving pols, you’d be left with a really lame argument: These two Dems happen to have endorsed the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, currently supported by about half the population against the Republican alternative. You have to believe not just that Obama’s judgment was bad, not just that he’s overly influenced by some version of Black Liberation Theology, but that anyone who doesn’t entirely agree with you and how you see and weigh those facts should be summarily disqualified as “too extreme” for North Carolina. That’s currently around half the country – which would be an absurd position, or at least has been since 1865.

The ad on its own terms is not an appeal to logic – even less to the better angels of anyone’s nature. Its completely superfluous in its “informational” content, and has already backfired.

CK MacLeod on April 25, 2008 at 7:03 PM

Wow, am I tired of this. Quit getting getting your panties in a bunch and calling others Obama supporters just because they point out pro-amnesty, pro-taxes, pro-spending, anti-free speech, anti-gun McCain.
MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 4:56 PM

If McCain is such the horrible liberal that you all claim he is, then put your money where your mouth is and vote for Obama.

If McCain is such a pro-amnesty, pro-taxes, pro-spending, anti-free speech, anti-gun candidate and will destroy America. I am sick and tired of you people being such annoying crapweasles.

wise_man on April 25, 2008 at 7:10 PM

Egfrow on April 25, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Why, whatever gave you that impression? McCain chum “enters” the race, distracts the attention of the base, bumbles around with no coherent campaign strategy and leaves the race just in time to watch McCain break away from the pack. Nah, no way he’s a stalking horse.

spmat on April 25, 2008 at 7:10 PM

Who woke Fred?

And why?

profitsbeard on April 25, 2008 at 7:11 PM

The problem with trying to run a non-racialized guilt-by-association ad against the NC Dems is that, once you took out the ranting black-racist reverend

Uhm. Why, again, would you take out the ranting black-racist reverend? Because, once again, it’s not his skin color that’s objectionable, it’s the content of his character. And I’m pretty sure the vast majority of black people are familiar with the distinction between skin color and character, or are you saying they’re too ignorant to know about Martin Luther King and his Dream speech? Who, exactly, is the racist here, CK MacLeod?

goofy photos of African-American-loving pols

Why are they goofy, again? Because they’re black people? Who is the racist around here, CK MacLeod?

You have to believe not just that Obama’s judgment was bad, not just that he’s overly influenced by some version of Black Liberation Theology, but that anyone who doesn’t entirely agree with you and how you see and weigh those facts should be summarily disqualified as “too extreme” for North Carolina.

I disagree. One can disagree with me and still think Obama has bad judgment and is overly influenced by BLT. One does not have to entirely agree with me and how I see and weigh those facts to see just how objectionable and extreme they are. They’re objectively objectionable and extreme, or do you disagree?

The ad on its own terms is not an appeal to logic – even less to the better angels of anyone’s nature. Its completely superfluous in its “informational” content, and has already backfired.

Of course it appeals to logic. No one running for President should have a pastor screaming GD America. RACE IS IRRELEVANT. No one running for President should have domestic terrorists for friends. RACE IS IRRELEVANT. Just because you are fixated on skin color does not mean everyone is.

And the point of running the ad is to ensure that the good people of NC know who exactly who they, and their elected representatives, are supporting.

You seem to be arguing that showing a black person in an ad is racist. I disagree that black = bad, and I’ll take my chances that most folks don’t share that view.

Who, exactly, is the racist here, CK MacLeod?

misterpeasea on April 25, 2008 at 7:17 PM

It would have been nice if we have Thompson instead of the maverick? Such a disappointment.

mariloubaker on April 25, 2008 at 7:23 PM

FRED rules! I absolutely love the guy. The things he said last night reinforce why he would make the best president.

It was so refreshing to have a candidate who actually spoke the truth and said what he believed in…. that doesn’t win elections, but wins my eternal respect.

bigred on April 25, 2008 at 7:24 PM

CK MacLeod on April 25, 2008 at 7:03 PM

Ah. So character doesn’t matter? Whew. For a second I thought that the Dems would try to run against a 3rd Bush term. Oh, they are? So what’s your point?

VolMagic on April 25, 2008 at 7:36 PM

Every time I try to talk myself out of writing in Fred Thompson in the general, McCain does something stupid that convinces me to go ahead and do the right thing. The ‘maverick’ will never stop wiping his backside with conservatives, the NC ad was just his latest bowel movement.

nivram1 on April 25, 2008 at 7:55 PM

I am sick and tired of you people being such annoying crapweasles.

wise_man on April 25, 2008 at 7:10 PM

Why? Because we want a TRULY CONSERVATIVE candidate to vote for?

You’re willing to settle for the lesser of two evils in November once again. Some of us are sick and tired of it.

Kowboy on April 25, 2008 at 8:16 PM

You know, I would love to see Fred Thompson give us a dose of his wisdom and insights on a daily basis. How about a one minute Thompson update on the radio everyday. Now THAT would be special.

Mojave Mark on April 25, 2008 at 8:34 PM

Shame that we have McCain instead of Fred.

Who woke Fred?

And why?

profitsbeard on April 25, 2008 at 7:11 PM

McCain did when he criticized NC republicans. By doing that he look like a wimp and a liberal.

jdun on April 25, 2008 at 8:39 PM

I like how Fred Thompson answers and approaches the
questions!

He’s serious,and a straight shooter,and I guess people these
days want a smooth operator,and thats workin pretty good for
the Dems,fast eddie Obama and fast eddie Hillary,both trying
to outbull-sh!t each other!

At least with Fred you know where he stands,ask him and he’ll tell ya,without any Kabuki dances!

canopfor on April 25, 2008 at 8:41 PM

Mitt Romney was the true conservative, right? shaking head

Anyhow, this is for Typhonsentra.

Change you’re not supposed to notice

Hatem El-Hady is the former chairman of the Toledo-based Islamic charity Kindhearts that was shuttered by government in 2006 for Hamas-friendly fundraising. El-Hady now devotes himself to raising money for the Obama campaign. He even has a web page at the official Obama campaign site. Make that had a web page.

On Wednesday Charles Johnson wrote about El-Hady and noted three “friends” listed on his page. One of them was none other than Michelle Obama. This morning Michelle Obama’s name had disappeared. A little later this morning the page itself had disappeared. Fortunately, Charles has screen captures of the magical disappearing friend of Obama and Hamas.

Again, just stating facts here. Obama is the Hamas candidate.

funky chicken on April 25, 2008 at 8:43 PM

goofy photos of African-American-loving pols

Why are they goofy, again? Because they’re black people? Who is the racist around here, CK MacLeod?

Not sure who is or isn’t “the racist,” but I’m wondering if you’ve actually looked at the ad. It shows pictures of the two white Dems, Perdue and Moore, the former being hugged by Obama, over the “he’s just too extreme” tag-line. Almost the entirety of the rest of the ad – other than the film at the end of the Republican sponsor – is Wright in full rant.

Again, you miss the essential point, because, like so many of the national conservative pundits criticizing McCain, you insist on interpreting it purely as an anti-Obama ad – it would in my opinion be problematic even on that basis – but that’s not even how the NC Reps justify it. To the extent their ad had any justification or makes any argument at all, it’s that that Perdue and Moore should be disqualified for endorsing Obama. It’s pure 100% guilt by association, and indirect association at that, as far as the North Carolina contest, the supposed point of the ad, is concerned. There’s no suggestion, for instance, that Perdue and Moore actually subscribe to Wright’s imputed beliefs. All there is the long excerpt from the “god damn America” speech and the statement that Obama sat in the pews for 20 years.

The ad doesn’t even make the argument, explicitly, that you appear to accept – that Obama must subscribe to Wright’s beliefs. It instead questions his “judgment.” (Obama has, of course, denied that he shares Wright’s extreme sentiments. He’s condemned the statements. Not that I accept Obama’s self-defense, and I certainly don’t want to defend Obama here. I’ve thought he was unqualified to be President and dangerously far to the left for months, long before the Wright Stuff surfaced.) The point is that as a political or logical argument, the idea that Perdue and Moore should be held responsible for Wright at his worst, by way of their endorsement for their party’s likely standard-bearer and the resultant association with his poor judgment, is laughably abstract and weak.

The only political power in the ad itself is emotional – a transparent attempt to re-incite anger and attach it to Perdue and Moore. You don’t have to persuade me that Perdue, Moore, and the Democratic Party are in some sense exposed by their selection of Obama along with his disgusting baggage. The political problem is that an ad like this one is intentionally polarizing. Anyone who isn’t, like you and me, already persuaded, but is still persuadable, is much more likely to be turned off and to tune out. And everyone on the other side is going to take it as license to launch their own excessive, scurrilous, and emotional responses.

There’s plenty of “association” to go around if that’s the game you want to play. Maybe it will tell a worse story for the Dems than for the Republicans, and Republicans might win an election or a few elections on that basis. History suggests that such victories are Pyrrhic ones.

CK MacLeod on April 25, 2008 at 8:48 PM

Teh Fred is a joke. The country is in the middle of an existential struggle, the people are overtaxed, the courts are supposedly dysfunctional and so on ad nauseam. But vice-president isn’t the game he wants to play. Because… vice-presidents only go to funerals. It’s not like they are typically responsible for entire sectors of the administration’s policy, it’s not like there’s brainstorming going on… uhm, non-stop in the White House. No, teh Fred is above all that.

Old retarded moron.

freevillage on April 25, 2008 at 8:57 PM

If McCain is such the horrible liberal that you all claim he is, then put your money where your mouth is and vote for Obama.

Way to throw that worthless platitude right back at us with absolutely no sense behind it. What the hell does not liking McCain have to do with Obama? Try to answer it without repeating yourself like a tape recorder.

If McCain is such a pro-amnesty, pro-taxes, pro-spending, anti-free speech, anti-gun candidate and will destroy America. I am sick and tired of you people being such annoying crapweasles.

wise_man on April 25, 2008 at 7:10 PM

I never said he would destroy America. However, everything else is exactly right, and you know it, and you’re ashamed that you would vote for someone like that.

I’m not voting for Obama on election day, and neither are most who think like I do. We’ll write in Fred Thompson, or Tom Tancredo, or Mitt or Rudy, or we’ll vote Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or we won’t vote at all. Get this through your thick head: NONE of the big three candidates should be president, and we won’t cast a single vote towards any of them. Now sit down, shut up, and quit making an argument that sounds ludicrously like “If you don’t (fillintheblank), the terrorists/Obama WINS!!!!!”

MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 9:07 PM

Who is the racist around here, CK MacLeod?

As far as I can tell, yes, and a pandering one at that.

MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 9:08 PM

freevillage

Old retarded moron.

John the Libertarian on April 25, 2008 at 9:15 PM

Madison Conservative?

Madison has only a handful of them, as I recall.
Madison, WI is known for rabid Liberals, fair beer and good cheese.

I still have a Fred08 sticker on my bumper here and will keep it there.

The Clintons are opportunistic Liars and Carpetbagger Grifters.

Obama is a Marxist and a Racist with no credentials.

The Maverick is the best choice other than None of the Above.

Hold your nose and vote against Marxism, Racism, Socialism, Grifters and Liars in November.

If We are in recession, the illegals will go home.
We have a War to Win and that comes first. Jimmy Carter is irrelevent and not a Statesman any more that Obama is a Leader of Anything besides his cult of Neo-Marxists.

Hold Your Nose and get Johnny elected. The alternatives truly suck big time!

old trooper on April 25, 2008 at 9:26 PM

Thank you for being a straight-shooter, Fred. Glad you’re going to keep advocating for conservatism and using your status as a non-candidate to point out Obama’s flaws in a way that the candidate probably can’t. And if you have any influence on your friend John McCain, just keep gently tugging him to the right for us whenever you can, okay?

aero on April 25, 2008 at 9:29 PM

freevillage on April 25, 2008 at 8:57 PM
Were you part of the pack formerly howling that Fred had only been campaigning in order get the VP invitation? The man knows what he’s suited for, and where he can best utilize his talents. If Thompson is not interested in the VP, why is that YOUR concern since evidently you would not support him, anyway?

maverick muse on April 25, 2008 at 9:29 PM

That’s currently around half the country –

CK MacLeod on April 25, 2008 at 7:03 PM

Whoa whoa whoa! You’ve got some serious issues with this statement, babe. Obama currently has around 15 million votes. And how many of those are simply Dems voting against Hillary? A significant number, surley you know. You do know that there are over 300M people in the US, right?

That’s not the only statement of yours that defies logic and reason. Put the beer down and turn on your brain. Please.

shibumiglass on April 25, 2008 at 9:29 PM

Madison has only a handful of them, as I recall.
Madison, WI is known for rabid Liberals, fair beer and good cheese.

I still have a Fred08 sticker on my bumper here and will keep it there.

I asked to be sent one and never got it. On my old car, though, I had Bush/Cheney ’04, Reagan/Bush ’84, and Paul Ryan. The looks I got were priceless, but what was weird is more people gave me positive signals over them. Now on my new car, I only have “Politicians prefer unarmed peasants.”

If We are in recession, the illegals will go home.

old trooper on April 25, 2008 at 9:26 PM

How does that work? In a recession, businesses have less capital, and would be more likely to hire illegal workers in order to fill needed jobs.

MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 9:34 PM

If We are in recession, the illegals will go home.

old trooper on April 25, 2008 at 9:26 PM

Nah, because even in the worst recession/depression we can imagine, the United States will still be a far better place to be than Mexico. Plus, if the U.S. goes into severe economic decline, Mexico (and the rest of the world) will follow suit. Illegals will still have more job chances here–plus welfare, free education for their kids, and free emergency room services. They won’t go home. In fact, we’ll probably get more illegal immigrants as the economy goes into its down-cycle.

But I agree with your basic assertion, which is that McCain is a better option than either Democrat. I wish he were not our candidate, but I’ll vote for him to keep an outright socialist out of office. Obama would exacerbate a recession by raising taxes and trying to institute yet more gigantic government programs and entitlements that our great-grandchildren will still be paying for a hundred years from now.

aero on April 25, 2008 at 9:36 PM

I heard Hannity say yesterday that he would be interviewing Fred, but couldn’t find how to hear it live.

I saw today a fresh new ROMNEY bumpersticker, and thought about pulling my THOMPSON stickers out to use. Statements are important measures to make. I’m glad to have heard from Fred again. That was really good, and it would be better to be able to read what Thompson’s thinking online regularly. That would be really a fine thing to reactivate, his webpage.

Another radio pundit has been replaying LONGER contextual Wright sermons, Hugh Hewitt this evening. Wright in context is much worse than the shorter spliced quotes proved.

McCain really is wrong to get involved defending Wright in any way. Wright’s a big boy, proud of his words and ideas, and doesn’t need any grown white boy wiping his nose for him. That’s the sort of out of touch genteel mannerism that Black Supremacists find to be revolting, anyway. I’ll stick to the conservative color blind perspective, myself.

Lightening storm’s here, signing off.

maverick muse on April 25, 2008 at 9:38 PM

Fred looks like he already spent four years as POTUS just being a candidate.

[email protected] on April 25, 2008 at 9:49 PM

I’m not voting for Obama on election day, and neither are most who think like I do. We’ll write in Fred Thompson, or Tom Tancredo, or Mitt or Rudy, or we’ll vote Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or we won’t vote at all. Get this through your thick head: NONE of the big three candidates should be president, and we won’t cast a single vote towards any of them. Now sit down, shut up, and quit making an argument that sounds ludicrously like “If you don’t (fillintheblank), the terrorists/Obama WINS!!!!!”
MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 9:07 PM

#1. Good luck with that. Actions such as that serve no purpose other than to get Obama elected. You might as well drop the pretenses and eliminate the middle-man.

#2. You must be a lot of fun at parties.

wise_man on April 25, 2008 at 9:51 PM

EJDolbow on April 25, 2008 at 5:09 PM

The sad thing is the only way the Republican party can lose this year is if McCain gets elected. He will ruin the party for years to come.

If Obama is elected, the Republican party will rise from the ashes stronger and more successful than ever.

We have to destroy the village to save it just doesn’t play with me.

You speak as if the preservation of the Republican party trumps the health and future of the nation. This isn’t a parlor game… if Obama or Clinton are elected, they will go full-throttle towards total socialism with the help of a willing Dem-controlled house and senate. The “ashes” may be our nation and it may take 20 or 40 years to fix that damage.

Grudgingly, I’ll vote for McCain in November and will do all I can to steer the party (or a new one) back to a constitutional footing before and after Nov. 2008.

electric-rascal on April 25, 2008 at 10:14 PM

Who is the racist around here, CK MacLeod?

As far as I can tell, yes, and a pandering one at that.

MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 9:08 PM

Maybe God knows what substitute for comprehension led you to justify that assertion. My guess is that’s how you generally move from one “thought” to another.

Like your allies here, you seem determined to see your usual enemies wherever someone disagrees with you. You seem incapable of processing anything alien to your precepts and prejudices. The others tend to seize upon superficial aspects of an argument, get them wrong, then jump upon an imaginary high horse and presume to condescend. In your case, all you’ve managed to do is echo them, which would make you guilty of being a fool by association,.

That’s currently around half the country –

CK MacLeod on April 25, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Whoa whoa whoa! You’ve got some serious issues with this statement, babe. Obama currently has around 15 million votes. And how many of those are simply Dems voting against Hillary? A significant number, surley you know. You do know that there are over 300M people in the US, right?

That’s not the only statement of yours that defies logic and reason. Put the beer down and turn on your brain. Please.

shibumiglass on April 25, 2008 at 9:29 PM

Even at this point, after most of the country has been exposed to the Wright Stuff over and over again, Obama polls neck and neck with McCain, with around 50% approval, but even if his support was only 15 million voters, the statement that merely endorsing him rendered his endorser “too extreme” for North Carolina or any other state would be ludicrous, even apart from the other weaknesses in the pseudo-argument.

Wright’s been doing an excellent job of keeping himself in the news and harming Obama without the Republican Party having to take responsibility for racially inflammatory politics. But go ahead – stay dazzled by the spectacle of Wright, and pretend that the ad would make some useful contribution to conservatism ca. 2008, if only that “liberal” McCain wasn’t standing (or trying to stand) in the way.

CK MacLeod on April 25, 2008 at 10:18 PM

#1. Good luck with that. Actions such as that serve no purpose other than to get Obama elected. You might as well drop the pretenses and eliminate the middle-man.

wise_man on April 25, 2008 at 9:51 PM

That’s it. It’s over. You’ve just shown that you are voting for no other reason than fear. I don’t vote because I fear a candidate. I vote because I want one. You don’t have the guts to do the second.

Now that we’ve established what kind of fearful voter you are, we can all see that your accusations are as empty as your integrity. You’re a scared child who lashes out because he knows he’s weak. It is terrified of meeting adversity and standing up for himself, because it knows it has nothing to stand up for.

We do.

MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 10:19 PM

I am an internet argument master and I just spent several paragraphs talking about how to kowtow to the black voters because they are less intelligent and all hate whitey but we need their votes so let’s lie to them in order to make sure that the letter after the president’s name is R rather than D because political parties mean more than records, positions, and decisions.

CK MacLeod on April 25, 2008 at 10:18 PM

Edited for clarity.

MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Now that we’ve established what kind of fearful voter you are,
MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 10:19 P

Sit down and shut up.

wise_man on April 25, 2008 at 10:29 PM

CK MacLeod on April 25, 2008 at 8:48 PM

True/false questions:

1. North Carolinians, in general, can tell the difference between an attack on one’s character and an attack on one’s skin color.

2. Black North Carolinians, in particular, can tell the difference between an attack on one’s character and an attack on one’s skin color.

Not sure I’m buying any arguments, other than these: Jeremiah Wright is a white-hating, America-hating, conspiracy-peddling hypocritical snake-oil salesman. Barack Obama has closely associated with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, without uttering a peep about Jeremiah Wright’s obvious character deficiencies. Anyone knowing of Barack Obama’s association with Jeremiah Wright and Jeremiah Wright’s deficiencies, who is endorsing Barack Obama for President, is at least implicitly excusing his association with Jeremiah Wright. Anyone who is endorsing Barack Obama who doesn’t know of the Obama-Wright association should know about it. Any candidate trumpeting his judgment as a very large part of his qualifications to be President should expect to have his judgment put under a microscope.

I think that commercial accomplishes the spreading of the knowledge fairly, accurately, and factually. Without the least hint of racism. I’m not going to apologize for Wright being black, or for Obama intentionally seeking to make himself authentically black. He made his bed, he can lie in it.

I would also like for Obama’s connections with Ayers and Dohrn, two white unrepentant terrorists, to be known far and wide.

Obama is a far-left liberal according to his voting record. In his personal life, he associates with people who are even farther to the left. I want those facts shouted from the rooftops.

Anyone who sees racism in associating endorsers of Obama with Obama’s minister and mentor of 20 years is free to vote for Obama anyway, and to scream racism.

misterpeasea on April 25, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Edited for clarity.

MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Snickering condescendingly from my high horse.

————-

Seriously, CK MacLeod, do you not see the soft bigotry of your arguments?

“We have to be extra careful around those black people, they’re easily fooled into seeing racism.”

misterpeasea on April 25, 2008 at 10:45 PM

misterpeasea on April 25, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Excellent, +1

Entelechy on April 25, 2008 at 11:03 PM

Did Fred have the drive to get to be POTUS, no, but he certainly would have made a far better POTUS than any of the remaining 3.

Dang I miss him.

Good to see you Sean H. You did a great job running Fred’s website!

kerrhome on April 25, 2008 at 11:04 PM

Were you part of the pack formerly howling that Fred had only been campaigning in order get the VP invitation? The man knows what he’s suited for, and where he can best utilize his talents. If Thompson is not interested in the VP, why is that YOUR concern since evidently you would not support him, anyway?

I have never said that. I don’t think running for a VP is such a bad idea. He said the primary reason he wasn’t gonna run was because he didn’t want to. Really? In the middle of a war he’s offered a unique responsibility to be the second man in the country and he “doesn’t want to” because he’s better suited for being number one? Is this a sick joke?

P.S. I would have supported Thompson in the generals. I did support Romney in the primaries though.

freevillage on April 25, 2008 at 11:05 PM

We do.

MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 10:19 PM

AMEN

HYTEAndy on April 25, 2008 at 11:10 PM

It shows pictures of the two white Dems, Perdue and Moore, the former being hugged by Obama, over the “he’s just too extreme” tag-line. Almost the entirety of the rest of the ad – other than the film at the end of the Republican sponsor – is Wright in full rant.

And? Why does color mean so much to you? Why is it wrong to claim that Marxist Obama is too extreme? Why is it wrong to run film of Wright doing what he loves to do? (His church sells those sermons on DVD ya know).

What, exactly, is wrong with this?

VolMagic on April 25, 2008 at 11:13 PM

You seem incapable of processing anything alien to your precepts and prejudices.

You mean like not being able to take a political ad at face value?

VolMagic on April 25, 2008 at 11:16 PM

Hold your nose and vote against Marxism, Racism, Socialism, Grifters and Liars in November.

If We are in recession, the illegals will go home.

We have a War to Win and that comes first. Jimmy Carter is irrelevent and not a Statesman any more that Obama is a Leader of Anything besides his cult of Neo-Marxists.

Hold Your Nose and get Johnny elected. The alternatives truly suck big time!

old trooper on April 25, 2008 at 9:26 PM

That’s the plan in our house.

funky chicken on April 25, 2008 at 11:30 PM

MadCon, that’s not fear. It’s just reality. You vote for one or the other. One is worse. The worse choice is Obama.

funky chicken on April 25, 2008 at 11:33 PM

CK MacLeod on April 25, 2008 at 10:18 PM

I hate to badger, but speaking of racism.

——————

MCCAIN ’08: HE’S ONLY LIBERAL ON A FEW ISSUES!

misterpeasea on April 26, 2008 at 12:06 AM

MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 10:19 PM

Yep.

Sit down and shut up.

wise_man on April 25, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Your argument skills are, like, awesome, Dude.

But I agree with you, in a way. Fred sux. All politicians suck, Fred is a politician, therefore, Fred sux. He sux marginally less than McCain, but he still sux. On the other hand, McCain sux less at the margin than Clinton or Obama.

Since politics is a compromise, the trick is to get as much out of it as you can. In other words, the least suckyest candidate on the ballot in November. Unfortunately, that’s McCain.

But for you to say that McCain doesn’t suck…well, that sounds a bit naive. It seems naive to imagine that any politician doesn’t suck.

jaime on April 26, 2008 at 12:12 AM

Sit down and shut up.

wise_man on April 25, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Spoken like a true McCain supporter. That’s basically what he told North Carolina today. Maverick thinks the south is in his back pocket because were afraid of the dems. He’s gonna find out that is just not true.

I’ve been telling myself that I’m somehow gonna vote for McCain no matter how much it hurts me but today has changed my mind. I’ll go vote for my representative but I’ll just skip that presidential space. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, your still voting for evil and the more he talks, the more he sounds like the other two idiots.

I’m an optimistic person. I always believe goods gonna prevail but right now, I’m as down as politics can bring me. Honest to God, if I could, I’d choose Huckabee over John “Chuck Hagel” McCain. What a mess.

Big Orange on April 26, 2008 at 12:34 AM

VolMagic on April 25, 2008 at 11:13 PM

I’m really liking your name!

Big Orange on April 26, 2008 at 12:37 AM

Fred Thompson has awakened from his slumber to engage in boosterism for McCain!

The clear conservative choice.

Seriously folks, we all know Fred was on a vanity run. He’s a backseat conservative who will always follow the lead of others and never take on challenges for himself.

Quite frankly we’re better off not having him. He looks even older than McCain.

BKennedy on April 26, 2008 at 12:50 AM

We do.

MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 10:19 PM

[standing ovation]

Well stated!

dominigan on April 26, 2008 at 12:51 AM

I’m writing in Denis Leary.

Seeing the F-U dance every morning would be infinatly better then this train wreak we’ve got coming.

opusrex on April 26, 2008 at 12:57 AM

If McCain is such the horrible liberal that you all claim he is, then put your money where your mouth is and vote for Obama.

wise_man

I trust that the underline just stands in for a missing three letter euphemism for a person’s posterior or a member of the odd-toed ungulate family.

Otherwise it is completely inappropriate.

There isn’t the slightest bit of logic in that statement, and a truly- Wise Man- should endeavor to be at least somewhat logical when trying to convince others of his wisdom.

LegendHasIt on April 26, 2008 at 1:51 AM

Seriously, CK MacLeod, do you not see the soft bigotry of your arguments?

“We have to be extra careful around those black people, they’re easily fooled into seeing racism.”

misterpeasea on April 25, 2008 at 10:45 PM

I spent a good amount of time attempting to explain why I thought the ad was ill-conceived, both on its own terms and as a piece of political “speech” offered up in the middle of a larger political context.

Anything we say can be received in two ways by whoever’s listening: They can hear what we intend to say, and to a great or lesser extent they will also hear how we say it.

In the case of the NC Republicans, they chose to make what is in my opinion a dubious argument based on guilt by association once removed, guilt by secondary association: That each of two Democratic gubernatorial candidates should be summarily rejected because they have endorsed a presidential candidate who, in the words of the ad, showed poor judgment.

Leaving aside the Obama’s own defenses and equivocations of his participation in Wright’s church, but noting that they have been accepted by a very large number of our fellow citizens, you can still look at the way the NC GOP chose to illustrate their argument: With a ca. 30-second ad that consists of 20 seconds of Wright giving one of his most incendiary sermons, followed by around 10 seconds showing the two candidates, one of them literally in an embrace with Obama.

There’s no “soft bigotry” in suggesting that a self-respecting African American, or for that matter a self-respecting person of any ethnic background, would find that approach insulting. It’s obviously, intentionally polarizing – simplistically so, to the point of brutality. There isn’t even the slightest suggestion of sympathy with or respect for, for example, Obama supporters who might themselves feel embarrassed by the Wright revelations. There are, however, glaringly obvious echoes of traditional racist messages going back hundreds of years. Even the appearance of the Republican chairperson who appears at the end of the tape plays into an ugly iconic tradition.

In short, the same political argument, such as it is, could have been made in a way that respected and reached out to the largest possible audience, and showed some semblance of sensitivity. Instead, the ad goes right for the gut. It’s 30 seconds of humiliation aimed at a set of political enemies who are inevitably identified by racial characteristics, and in a way that virtually demands an emotional response: In exhibiting Wright’s hatred and emotionalism, without a civilized frame, it encourages hatred and emotionalism, both on the part of those who despise Wright and also on the part of Obama supporters. It’s political pornography that reduces both its authors and its objects to stereotypes. It’s also 100% negative: It merely seeks to ostracize a political grouping as “too extreme.” It has zero positive content. Even the infamous “hands” ad at least implicitly supported a particular policy option (end to racial quotas).

Finally, the ad also happens to be a slap in the face of the party’s presidential candidate, who has made it absolutely clear how he would prefer to run this campaign. In addition to painting Republicans as the same old race-baiters, seizing on a political event and stoking the flames of hatred, it also has served to expose them as dis-unified. So now, here and across the internet, TV, and radio, conservatives feel obligated either to support the ad and defy McCain, or to attack the ad and support McCain.

The very way that the discussion here and elsewhere quickly deteriorates into insults and accusations illustrates McCain’s wisdom in rejecting what’s typified by the NC Republicans’ approach. Bring up Wright, show the tapes, analyze him to death, and take Obama to task for his poor judgment and his repugnant equivocations – but do it in a way that, wherever possible, builds up rather than destroys, informs rather than attacks, and demonstrates by example as well as by content what you’d prefer to see in their place.

CK MacLeod on April 26, 2008 at 3:02 AM

In short, the same political argument, such as it is, could have been made in a way that respected and reached out to the largest possible audience, and showed some semblance of sensitivity. Instead, the ad goes right for the gut. It’s 30 seconds of humiliation aimed at a set of political enemies who are inevitably identified by racial characteristics

CK MacLeod on April 26, 2008 at 3:02 AM

And therein lies the rub. You’re basically saying because Obama is black, and Reverend Wright is black, we have no business showing them and their well-known connection in a political, lest we make some black people feel like it’s an anti-black ad.

It’s a stretch to suggest that outlook isn’t soft bigotry, but it’s doable. It is impossible to deny, however, that you are advocating pandering to a group of voters, based on knee-jerk reactions that could only come from people so sensitive about their race, that they are planning on voting only for the candidate that matches their race anyway.

You’re vying for the votes of people who take offense at two black people being in a commercial.

That’s desperation. It’s not politics. It’s not reality. It’s not America. It’s flat-out desperation to defeat the dems, at the expense of the truth about an insane preacher and one of his acolytes.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2008 at 3:51 AM

Can’t we all come together and agree that CK MacLeod is a black racist?

freevillage on April 26, 2008 at 8:48 AM

Get this through your thick head: NONE of the big three candidates should be president, and we won’t cast a single vote towards any of them. Now sit down, shut up, and quit making an argument that sounds ludicrously like “If you don’t (fillintheblank), the terrorists/Obama WINS!!!!!”
MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 9:07 PM

I certainly don’t like the choices on offer, BUT one of the three is going to win the office of the presidency. A protest vote on principle outside of those choices is apt to place the worst candidate in a position of far-reaching power and consequence.

Pressure has to be exerted on McCain to choose a conservative running mate in order to balance the ticket. And I don’t mean Huckabee, who was the real spoiler during the primaries.

Radio and ad spots by Fred Thompson would keep conservative principles before the voters as they go to the polls and might influence McCain’s choice. I think that most Americans embrace the common sense that FT articulates.

onlineanalyst on April 26, 2008 at 9:26 AM

MORE FRED PLEASE.
HE’S GOT A PAIR.

jimmer on April 26, 2008 at 9:51 AM

CK MacLeod,

You make good sense with most of your argument. Except you adhere to a defensive posture while the Left has the attacking initiative. This is a very weak position to take in politics.

Despite McCain running for president, keep in mind and MORE IMPORTANTLY understand that this election is also about House and Senate seats for real conservatives. In fact I would say this is more Imperative than the executive branch at this point. If Maverick turns out to actually continue his Liberal doctrine as the Chief Executive, we will need a Republican conservative to retain this runaway RINO.

Egfrow on April 26, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Fred will always be my first choice. But in order to avoid the trilogy of idiots,(Pelosi, Reid, Obama), and in keeping with my personal goal of not throwing up in the voting booth, I will quickly pull the straight Rep. option and run screaming from the voting booth.
I do hope that Obama gets the Dems nod because the only way we will ever hear the last of that bast–d, is to defeat him once and for all in Nov.
Hey Obama, you were eight years old when Ayers did his dastardly deeds, but how old were you when you accepted Ayers invitation to his home? You lying a$$ b!tch!

leanright on April 26, 2008 at 10:32 AM

And therein lies the rub. You’re basically saying because Obama is black, and Reverend Wright is black, we have no business showing them and their well-known connection in a political, lest we make some black people feel like it’s an anti-black ad.

No – I never said anything of the sort. I have repeatedly stated that I do not consider Wright or the Wright-Obama connection out of bounds, to the contrary. What I have maintained is that the North Carolina ad is inflammatory, negative, simplistic, and insulting in its approach, and that it also happens to fail on its own terms as a political argument, making its ugliness and divisiveness even harder to justify.

It is impossible to deny, however, that you are advocating pandering to a group of voters, based on knee-jerk reactions that could only come from people so sensitive about their race, that they are planning on voting only for the candidate that matches their race anyway.

No – that’s a complete mis-characterization of my position. See above. It’s not “pandering” to voters to treat them, their leaders, and their history with respect, to treat their embarrassments with sensitivity, and to treat one’s own position with humility.

You’re vying for the votes of people who take offense at two black people being in a commercial.

Again, that’s a ludicrous oversimplification and mis-characterization of what I’ve argued.

CK MacLeod on April 26, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Except you adhere to a defensive posture while the Left has the attacking initiative. This is a very weak position to take in politics.

There’s nothing defensive about proceeding forward with well-secured flanks and within a coherent battle plan rather than rushing forward and wasting yourself on the enemy’s strong point.

McCain’s strategy might be wrong. I don’t think it is. I think he wants to win on the issues – including character and, to speak in shorthand, political honor – and, when he does selectively go negative, he wants it to count, not get lost in a political race war. I think the alternative – a helter-skelter de-natured Atwaterism that promises to reinforce perceptions of the Republicans as the divisive irrational backwards racist party for another generation, presuming it even survives intact for that long, would be a lot riskier, even if it happens to result in a few wins in local elections.

The whirlpooling sewer of Democratic Party identity politics gives the Republicans a chance to re-brand themselves and provide a refuge for disgusted voters, to become something closer to the “party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Reagan” that McCain talks about. Efforts like the North Carolina GOP’s ad seem designed to throw away the historic opportunity.

CK MacLeod on April 26, 2008 at 11:09 AM

There is as yet no immediate crisis requiring voter scrutiny of candidates be damned in this POTUS campaign.

Excuse the vernacular implications; my apologies in advance.

McCain ’08 slogan WEEKEND REVIEW and UPDATE…

On McCain vs. GOP
(NC Officials, American Republican Voters, etc.):
“STFU McCain”
On McCain’s rebuttal:
“McCain ’08, FU GOP”

On McCain the Maverick:
“Only as Liberal as Possible”
“Not on Your side”
“Against you since he knows best”
“Not there when you need him”
“Give it away”
“Got GOP? You don’t count.”

McCain freely admits his own liberal squishiness, and wears his record against the rule of law as his badge of honor. Even on securing “non-living document interpreters” Constitutional conservative judges, McCain fudges. Except on wanting low taxes, exactly what is McCain’s platform? We know what his supporters would project as McCain’s platform, but not what McCain himself would substantiate to contrast his own record of progressive legislative agenda.

Now is not the time to project virtues onto McCain that are not his. Now is the time to demand virtues from McCain. He either has conservative interests, or progressive interests. His record is blatantly obvious; McCain is a progressive liberal leading the GOP into further demise. McCain needs to be cuffed with the conservative platform rather than empowered to dissolve that conservative platform he purports to represent SUBSEQUENT TO FOLLOWING THE INTERESTS OF THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA.

If McCain wants my vote, he has his own conversion to process, having claimed to “get” his ephiphany that actually he never will embrace. To McCain, the rule of law is anathema to the power he seeks.

maverick muse on April 26, 2008 at 11:34 AM

upinak on April 25, 2008 at 4:31 PM

I was gonna write “same here,” but after I signed in (which refreshed the page), the video started. I’d hit play before signing in and nothing much happened.

Al in St. Lou on April 26, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Spoken like a true McCain supporter.
Big Orange on April 26, 2008 at 12:34 AM

Actually, that was spoken like a MadisonConservative (April 25, 2008 at 9:07 PM) But don’t let that get in the way, huh?

wise_man on April 26, 2008 at 7:23 PM

VolMagic on April 25, 2008 at 11:13 PM

I’m really liking your name!

Big Orange on April 26, 2008 at 12:37 AM

Crap. It’s a regular infestation. War Damn Eagle, hoss.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2008 at 7:32 PM

wise_man on April 26, 2008 at 7:23 PM

Actually, you left out a word or two.

I’m not voting for Obama on election day, and neither are most who think like I do. We’ll write in Fred Thompson, or Tom Tancredo, or Mitt or Rudy, or we’ll vote Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or we won’t vote at all. Get this through your thick head: NONE of the big three candidates should be president, and we won’t cast a single vote towards any of them. Now sit down, shut up, and quit making an argument that sounds ludicrously like “If you don’t (fillintheblank), the terrorists/Obama WINS!!!!!”

Don’t fret, though. That kind of selective quoting is very MSM. I’m sure you make Dan Rather proud. It’s not lying, it’s editing.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2008 at 7:56 PM

OIC, so you didn’t tell me to sit down and shut up. You said more stuff.

Hooray for you! I can’t wait for the next insult. Here’s a thought. Don’t bother.

wise_man on April 26, 2008 at 8:46 PM

To Quote South Park:

“It’s always between a giant douche and a crap sandwich…”

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 29, 2008 at 6:56 AM