Why National Review's Endorsement of Romney over Thompson is a Mistake
By MikeKS Posted in 2008 — Comments (113) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I wrote this on Blogs for Fred Thompson on Thursday:
-----------------
I am a frequent reader of National Review Online, particularly the Corner. I'm probably what many consider to be a junkie on both politics and policy. The National Review has many talented writers, intellectuals, and people with a good sense of politics as well. Though certainly not all alike in their views, I admire their consistent convervatism and willingness to stand up on principle when standing up on principle was called for.
It is for that reason that I think their endorsement was a profound mistake that damages the credibility of the magazine. I'm dissapointed in it, simply because I think we could have expected better reasoning from them. It is almost as if they felt like the "had to endorse" and then, through a combination of faulty reasoning and outright contradictions to their own standards, arrived at what seemed to be a purely political calculation.
I say this, of course, as a FredHead but one that is also just surprised at the gaping holes in their own reasoning.
First of all, they say their first standard has always been to endorse the most conservative viable candidate.
Let's examine viability, to start. There are FIVE viable candidates, by any reasonable standard -- viable meaning double digits in either national or early state polls: Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, McCain, and Guiliani.
Let's examine conservativism, secondly. The National Review claims they want someone who is someone who can appear conservative on both fiscal and social issues, as well as foreign policy. By this standard, the field is trimmed down to Romney, Thompson, and McCain -- and I believe that is justifiable. While no candidate can claim to be 100% perfect, Romney, Thompson and McCain all at least offer, to some degree (the degree of which we will discuss later), a conservative message on all fronts.
Huckabee, though socially conservative, is an economic liberal by all accounts, is quite soft on illegal immigration, has a dismal record on crime with his obsession with pardons, and is a Jimmy Carter on foreign policy. Though certainly offering, by some measures, the gift of gab, and the temptation of someone who could run verbal circles around Hillary and compete word-for-word with Obama, that temptation is not enough to warrant compromising on so many principles. Also, the preachyness and contrived one liners can wear thin. In short, Huckabee, outside of social issues, is a cross between Clinton and Carter. We can do better.
Guiliani, though certainly offering the management policies and foreign policy expertise, as well as a record tough on crime, is simply weak on social issues and immigration. HE is simply not a conservative on a host of issues, and while it's good to have someone like him in the fold, he's better as a Senator or Governor from New York than he is as president, which holds the bully pulpit and thus an important voice on causes like life and immigration. We can do better.
So, I think the National Review was quite right in eliminating them from consideration.
Next you have McCain. McCain has a conservative voting record but too often in his recent histroy has been outright hostile to conservative policy, both on taxes and on immigration. And while he would certainly be solid on spending and on the war, the fact is that McCain really is not part of the conservative movement as a whole, and I think if you spoke to him directly, he wouldn't claim to be. We, again, can do better.
That leaves Romney and Thompson.
Let's first examine their argument on Thompson. They spend one weak paragraph on this, claiming the following:
"Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has distinguished himself with serious proposals on Social Security, immigration, and defense. But Thompson has never run any large enterprise — and he has not run his campaign well, either. Conservatives were excited this spring to hear that he might enter the race, but have been disappointed by the reality. He has been fading in crucial early states. He has not yet passed the threshold test of establishing for voters that he truly wants to be president."
There are a few fundamental problems with this statement, which isn't explained nor backed up with any sound facts:
1. To say "Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney" is the understatement of the year. What we all know, of course, and I suspect the National Review knows, is that Fred Thompson is the most conservative candidate in the race. In fact, "the Editors" admit as much in describing his concrete policy proposals on economic, social, and foreign policy -- thus meeting, by any measure, their own standard. The correct statement would have been: "Fred Thompson is certainly more conservative than Romney and has demonstrated that he understands conservative principles, exemplified by his long standing dedication to the cause -- on economic, social, and foreign policy issues. He also has the record to prove that his conservatism wasn't found on the road to Des Moines, but rather is in his heart and in his soul."
So, it is clear that the National Review, on the "most conservative" standard, blew it. While Romney, I believe, is indeed conservative, many of his positions came very recently, so recently that I think it is unclear whether they are political positions or principled positions -- and there is a difference. In fact, in reading the NR endorsement, it appears they are basically saying "okay, okay, he's not really that conservative in his record, but we think he is now, and well, he's got executive experience and LOOKS pretty!" If Fred wasn't in the race, this could be plausible, but since Fred is, they quickly whizzed by the "conservative" standard -- that they themselves set for endorsements -- in order to make what is, ironically a "lazy" and also superficial argument in judging Thompson's leadership and energy.
2. They say he has been fading in early states. Well, he never was doing anything in New Hampshire but is about where he has been in South Carolina and Iowa (slight fade, maybe). So, while he has dropped back some, the important thing to point out that his slide has been due to the rise of Mike Huckabee, not Mitt Romney. In fact, by pure numbers, it is Romney who has been fading -- and whose fade has been the most tremendous in Iowa. In South Carolina, Romney does no better than Fred, again giving way to Huckabee. And while Romney does have a foothold in New Hampshire, he has lost some ground to McCain -- but Romney's spent a billion bucks and basically lived in both IA and NH. So whose campaign is fading, exactly, particularly when you consider money and time spent? Heck, one gentle 8 or 9% shift to Fred's favor in IA and SC would put Romney in third in both states, Fred in second in IA and first in SC -- and perhaps the momentum he needs to win. And as we've seen in past presidential campaigns, especially the Democrats in 2004 -- that can -- and does - happen in a big hurry. And not only that, Rudy is a distant 3rd or 4th in all three early states, so he is he not demonstrating that he meets the threshold either? Again, he's been in it since January. Again, this is a particularly weak argument by the editors.
3. As to the leadership question, I didn't see "running a large enterprise" as a qualification in the National Review's original standard -- the most conservative viable candidate. If that's going to a new part of the standard, then they better put out a statement disqualifying any Senator who has not previously ran a city, state, or large business that they won't be eligible for the NR endorsement. The President sets the tone and leads, yes, but the executive branch operation is largely ran by managers the President hires. It also ignores the possibility that perhaps the definition of leadership doesn't have to include running a large operation. I think there are plenty of examples in Fred Thompson's history to demonstrate he has leadership qualities. And while they may not have involved running "a large enterprise", they are tests of leadership nonetheless.
The NR claim also ignores the possibility that leadership means LEADING, not following, and that sometimes that means not getting in behind the media -- even the conservative media -- line. Fred Thompson, surely, could have gotten out much earlier. He could have had nationwide bus tours. He could have hired an image consultant to try to appear more cute like Huckabee or polished like Romney. And, certainly there may be items of campaign strategy you could point to and change, but a disagreement over campaign strategy doesn't mean that the man lacks leadership or has run a poor campaign. In fact, I think that his refusal to "play by their rules" and to stay true to who he is -- shows leadership. Could it be possible that perhaps Fred, if successful, could lead to a more common sense approach to presidential campaigns that actually doesn't involve running since high school? Could it be that Fred, if successful, could lead to a new standard where we put aside silly 15-second-clip debates in exchange for Charlie Rose-like interviews or at least, true "forums" where 2 or 3 of the candidates sit down and actually discuss the country? Could it be that what is Fred is doing is the real leadership, but perhaps the NR is so blind by drive-by-media standards they can't see it?
Also, could it be that perhaps Fred's doing it the right way, and perhaps that way just doesn't fit into what the 2008 drive-by-media thinks? Could it be that Fred is different (in both personality, style, and strategy, much like Reagan) in a way that annoys the media, and in fact, the National Review? I've followed Fred since April and it seems to me that he's been fine on the stump, decent in debates, and I haven't found any difficulty in finding numerous video clips of his appearances. I've found his tone refreshing and his policies inspirational. I like the fact he got in late and isn't driven by ambition and power. But rather than discuss those intangible qualities rarely seen today, the NR falls into the Carl Cameron-line that Fred isn't energetic or "wants it". Do you seriously think he'd give up all that time with his wife and kids and his cushy acting job, if he didn't really "want it"? That claim seems to be something Chris Matthews would use, not the otherwise intelligent people at National REview.
But, no. In the National Review's mind, leadership would have meant following the media to a T. Perhaps leadership, to them, means what pair of shoes you choose to wear or whether you comb your hair right. Perhaps leadership to them is image and not substance. Of course, had he done all that, they would have said he wasnt' being himself and was pandering, which itself would be a lack of leadership.
In the end, the National Review ignored its own standards in endorsing Romney. There is little question that Thompson is more conservative than Romney, so they failed that test. So then it goes to viaibility and in that standard, one could argue that Romney is actually fading faster than Thompson, given where he was in the polls vs. where Thompson was. So, if they were going to apply the "fading standard" test to Thompson, they needed to apply it to Romney too, but didn't. The fact is both have faded in the wake of the "Huckaboom."
Given that state of the race, in reality, what you are dealing with is -- who can they endorse to provide a boost to beat back Huckabee and perhaps eventually Rudy? Do you give a boost to Fred, who you know is the true autenthic conservative, who clearly would have appeal in the red states that make up the Bush majority, or do you give a boost to the new-found-conservative in Romney, who comes from the bluest of the blue states, whose only conservative foothold is Utah, where any Republican would win anyway?
We saw just yesterday how just a little boost to a campaign (Fred's "no hand shows" comment) and give it a little energy for some momentum. The National Review could have provided an additional boost to Fred. In fact, it is ironic that the same day Romney is endorsed by the National Review, Thompson has the performance of the campaign and possibly the most memorable moment -- and the talk today is not about the NR endorsement, or even that Mitt did well yesterday -- but about Fred's lines in the debate.
In the end, after all, if you go by their standard, it goes back to who is the most conservative viable candidate. That candidate is clearly Fred Thompson, and the NR, if they truly wanted a candidate at that standard, could have endorsed Fred and given him a boost to help him get the nomination. Instead, they ended up using faulty superficial reasoning -- which they didn't then use against Romney -- and damaged their own crediblity in the process.
I sensed today in reading between the lines on the Corner that perhaps this wasn't the most popular endorsement in the history of the NR, internally, and perhaps there is a little bit of "should we have really done that?" in the wake of Fred's performance. They won't admit it, nor should they, but perhaps there is a little bit of "whoops" going on in their minds.
Make no mistake, Mitt Romney is not a terrible choice and would make a good nominee. And in a race with no "viable conservative", he would be a worthy choice. But that isn't this race. In this race, we have a viable conservative who has the ideas and the mindset to make real conservative change in this country to the likes we haven't seen in, well, ever. And that candidate is Fred Thompson.
It's too bad the National Review, the standard-bearer of substance it usually is, put their perceived sense of style before substance -- and in the process, made their own standard for endorsement null and void.
Mistakes like that cause fence-sitters to worry about what other mistakes he may make.
Like when Thompson made an "off-the-record" comment in November about how he didn't expect to actually become president.
Doesn't he know what the rules are about journalists? (Nothing a presidential candidate says is ever, EVER off-the-record. That's why most candidates use stooges for explosive comments. See "Billy Shaheen" as an example.)
Romney/Barbour 2008
__________________________________________
First State Politics
split the three registered Republicans amongst five candidates?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Carries extra weight. Well, we probably only have like two delegates, but I am 33% of the constituency, so I deserve to be wooed.
"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly
that he didn't expect to become president.
It was a joke, but hey, you can portray it however you like.
Personally, I don't think Reagan really intended to start bombing in 5 minutes either, but you may have taken that seriously too.
==== 13 ====
Most of the asinine commentators are too young to remember Reagan.
*****
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go out and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning
The "off-the-record" comment you're referring to was nothing more than dry humor. Frankly, I can't hardly believe it's being brought up again...I guess this demonstrates the pathetic power of the MSM.
I'm fully aware people are not used to politicians having the intelligence and especially the self-humility to use it but, that's what it was just the same...and it was very funny if you knew the man in not taking it incorrectly.
Carl Cameron sure isn't used to it or he wouldn't have anxiously fretted over a simple joke. Of course, the correct response is laughter and a seldom seen demonstration in the knowledge a man truly gains respect for what he is and not who he is. ( Example; Kerry, "Don't you know who I am?? )
Case in point; The press threw wild tantrums over what little Fred said about the Schiavo case. Although the press and opponent agents previously poured over his personal records looking for dirt, they did find out his daughter had died in 2002 and reported it...but, they mindnumbingly didn't put the two together.
Recently, we've even seen the L.A. Times write what they would call an apology to Fred for jumping the gun in misunderstanding what he said about it...that's amazing in and of itself.
The point is Fred Dalton Thompson is a man on a level of high moral and ethical character that we don't see run for office because they're too smart to want the grief that goes with it but, Fred is running to help us and our country for the future generations...not himself.
“I believe that conservatives beat liberals only when we challenge their outdated positions, not embrace them. This is not a time for philosophical flexibility, it is a time to stand up for what we believe in,” - Fred Thompson
I wish the FredHeads would quit whining. Yall got the NRLC and Steve King. Give it a rest. You won't get them all. Besides, Fred needed all these endorsements about a month ago. It may be a little too late to revive his poorly-run campaign.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
And I don't think Fred needs National Review. But I just thought their reasoning was faulty and much like they have the right to make their endorsement, I have a right to criticize it.
You've got a right to, but that doesn't mean you have to. Mitt and Fred aren't all that different on the issues other than the fact that Mitt is for an amendment against gay marriage. Those two are going to have to work together to avoid a Giuliani-Huckabee ticket next year.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
and thought out. Romney is better than Rudy or Huck, for sure, and in a way, I think Romney's money will help Fred in Iowa as Romney's cash is going at Huck.
I like Mitt but he's not really even close to Fred when it comes to consistent conservative principles. If Fred wasn't in the race I would be a reluctant supporter of Mitt, but as I said in the piece, that's not this race.
Fred Thompson is the man conservatives -- of all stripes -- should support. Not only is he excellent on a wide array of issues, he is consistently so. Fred is different than Mitt on health care, on approach to immigration (Mitt was supportive of Bush's plan just earlier this year, or at least last year), and yes, on marriage -- where Mitt supports an amendment with zero chance of passage while Fred supports an amendment that would virtually accomplish the same thing -- getting the issue out of the courts -- that is more consisent with the conservative principle of federalism.
In the end, I like Mitt and welcome him to the conservative fold but I just am concerned that Mitt's principles may be political ones, not principle-oriented. Also, when it comes to who I think is presidential and can appeal to a wide cross section of voters -- and actually get elected (see my point about Fred coming from red states), I think that man is Fred Thompson.
In the end though, the reason I decided to write about their endorsement of Romney is that I think it is flawed. I don't think that's whining, it's just a disagreement.
Your post was well written and I agree with you that NR blew it.
I've been a decade + long reader of both print and online NR and they have helped shape my thinking on many a topic.
The first thing that came to mind with their endorsement was a 'WTF!' comment. Given the state of the race and the candidates available, they should have either waited until the field trimmed down to three or said nothing at all.
The endorsement casts into doubt the credibility of the editors.
On the other hand, even though they are non-profit, they do need to make a buck to pay the bills. Perhaps there were a few financial worries behind moving sooner than necessary on an endorsement. Maybe it was felt that this would drive some new readers their way. Who knows.
Good writeup.
*****
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go out and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds...unbelievable -DC Talk
"Mitt and Fred aren't all that different on the issues"
Present tense, the statement is relatively true. However, history gives some insights as to the strength and robustness of the different positions on the issues.
The differences grow the further back in time that you go.
Compare them in 2002. 2000. 1996. 1992.
Mitt is my #2, but there is a reason is my #2. Too much evoluation in too short a time.
Yes, I realize that this logic would make me skeptical of the Gipper in the 60s.
Huck is trying to "position himself" to be more viable on foreign policy and economics. The time frame of his conversion appears to be measured in days, not years, but it is hard for Mitt to escapte the same line of thinking.
Serving as Thompson's VP for 8 years will shore up confidence in his conservative conversion.
Seriously, Fred has a lot of leadership experience. No, it's not being an "executive" but so what? It's nice but it's not enough to overcome what Fred has on issues and principles.
Maybe Mitt will make a great cabinet officer!
Considering that they're about even on issues and principles, I'd say that executive experience is kind of a big deal. Not to mention that Romney's overall leadership experience is about twice that of Fred's.
Fred Thompson for Secretary of State!
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
your argument makes a great case for Mitt as Fred's VP. Leadership as President, and VP Mitt can assist in running the business. That's how it usually is done in big business anyways. The Pres rarely really runs the day-to-day business, but rather interacts with other businesses.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?
-- imwithfred --
Is far less than Rudy's.
And quite honestly, one mediocre term as governor is just not very impressive. He's a sharp guy, but I'd consider his experience equivalent to Thompson's.
I suppose his vast non-political experience does not count then?
“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck
Otherwise let's draft Bill Gates.
Besides, we can judge him based on his record in Massachusetts, which is much more pertinent.
I would trust Bill Gates to run the country more wisely than the average senator.
Yes, lets then look at his record then. I was addressing your concern though that he had hardly any executive experience. Feel free to redirect if you wish though.
“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck
Where did I mention Huckabee? Is this an attempt to discredit me by associating me with somebody I didn't mention at all? What's going on here?
Check the way the posts are indented on the page and you can see that I was not responding to you even though my post is right below yours.
A true test is whether people want you back: will they re-elect you?
Romney as governor?
Huck as governor?
Fred as Senator? yes
Just saying.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?
-- imwithfred --
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Re-elect Huck? That would be for governor, then, his last elected office.
Won't happen in Arkansas. His own GOP endorsed Fred. Tells you something.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?
-- imwithfred --
Which explains why he won't run for the United States Senate... because he knows he would have no chance there either.
Some Gop did endorse Fred. I know some of them, they probably would change now. I started out with Fred too. A lot of people did.
Basically you are saying that you are for Huckabee only because he is ahead in the polls? You prefer FDT policywise?
So, when Fred does above and beyond expectations in IA and Huckabee tanks you will switch back? I'm just trying to make sense of your statements.
"if". It is a really big word. If he does survive Iowa and NH. He still is going to have a hard time expanding his base, or getting a base to expand really. But yes, I would support him, I agree with him on almost ever issue. BUT...."if"
You would have only supported the colonists after they had defeated the British. I have been for FDT since day one, and through it all I have supported and will not give up on this since I believe fervently that he can and will win Iowa.
Huckabee only got 4.4% of the vote from Republicans...
Thompson got 80%. No other candidate got over 10% besides Thompson.
Yep... and as you've asked others... PROVE a lot of people switched to Huckabee.
And FYI...where are all those posts of yours where you show support for your number one and number two choices?
but it does not mean I am stupid or a liar. I know you did not say that but it has been implied by others.
I wish the people who think they're conservative would start acting like one and support the only man in the race who IS one....what's your excuse, apart from completely being taken in merely by what the others pander to you??
“I believe that conservatives beat liberals only when we challenge their outdated positions, not embrace them. This is not a time for philosophical flexibility, it is a time to stand up for what we believe in,” - Fred Thompson
I disagree with you. I kind of like Fred but for me Romney is the superior choice and the NR endorsement makes sense to me.
I don't have time to break down all your points - maybe later, when I'm not on the clock...
by their standard. There might be a case for endorsing Romney, but if there is, it isn't the standard they use.
and he didn't put together a campaign. Had he done so, it's likely he would have received the National Review endorsement.
That said, NR probably realized Thompson was too much of a long shot to win even a single state, much less the nomination. The people at NR also weren't naive enough to think that their endorsement would put him over the top.
Fred supporters: If you can't stand the thought of Huck or Rudy as the nominee, I plead with you to re-consider Mitt. Please don't allow our party to go down that road to disaster.
Again, if Romney had such a strong campaign together, why is he dropping like a rock in both Iowa and New Hampshire? Why is he 4th or 5th in South Carolina? Why is he behind Fred nationally?
Again, one can make an argument, I suppose, about Fred's campaign (though again, I like his strategy, and think it will prove successful) but if you're going to make that argument against him, then you have to, in order to be consistent, make the same argument about Mitt -- who, despite spending millions upon millions of dollars, never got above about 35% in either Iowa or NH and never got above the mid teens in national polls, where he is either behind or even with Fred. Now he's losing ground in both early states and is behind Fred in SC.
Fred, meanwhile, is coming off a great debate performance. Polls show internally that he is the second choice of many of the Huck and Mitt fans in Iowa. Huck and Mitt's poll numbers are clearly soft, and Fred can seize that.
Anyone saying Fred is done aren't aware of the facts on the ground or are much of a student of political history.
"why is he dropping like a rock in both Iowa and New Hampshire" I invite you to check out RCP and examine their averages of the polls. Dropping like a rock in Iowa and New Hampshire is silly. Iowa, yes, he dropped 7 average points, but has bounced a bit and plateaued. Mitt's points in NH went down 3 points and bounced too. He is still 13 points above the rest.
South Carolina, fourth or fifth?! Um, no. Try tied for second with Fred.
I do agree with you that "Anyone saying Fred is done aren't aware of the facts on the ground", Fred's not done and he's working on his own surge right now, so we'll see if that goes anywhere.
I can't possibly address all of it without writing a diary of my own.
"why is he dropping like a rock in both Iowa and New Hampshire?"
By "dropped like a rock," did you mean "Mitt has dipped 5 points in Iowa over a whole month, when, in fact, EVERYONE took a hit due to the Huckasurge?"
When you said Mitt "dropped like a rock" in NH, perhaps you meant to say "Mitt has increased his support by 6 points over the last two months?"
"Why is he 4th or 5th in South Carolina?"
Did you mean to say "Mitt is tied for second place in SC?"
"Why is he behind Fred nationally?"
Did you mean, "why is Mitt five points ahead of Fred nationally?"
Your ignorance of all facts and polls is unbelievable. How you can make such hugely incorrect sweeping claims makes me wonder where you get your news. Someone so wreckless has no business posting diaries.
What does it matter that Fred may be the "2nd choice" of Iowa Republicans? Is he awarded some delegates for being a "swell guy" even if he does poorly in the caucuses?
I don't deny that it is a theoretical possibility that Thompson could come back to win the nomination. I'm just a realist and recognize it as HIGHLY improbable. You respond by insinuating that Thompson has run a better campaign than Romney and stands a greater chance of winning the nomination. I don't know you'd find that even the biggest FredHead on this site would agree with you.
I like Fred, but your abrasive dismissal of Romney with no facts to back you up doesn't help Fred at all.
Again, let's look at the facts...
Mitt Romney has been in Iowa since January and spent millions. Yet, he has fallen to second and, depending on the poll, a distant second, in Iowa.
In a quick review of polls, it appears Romney's high water mark in Iowa was 36% in a University of Iowa poll in mid october. Most of the time, Mitt has hung around the upper 20's and lower 30's, despite being the ONLY man with ads up for nearly all year.
Just last week, a Newsweek poll showed Huck at 39 and Mitt at 17.
So, that's a 21 point drop for Mitt and a 30 point increase for Huck. Other polls have shown Huck in the 30's with Mitt in the low 20's, so -- regardless, Mitt has dropped. Even if he dropped not a whole lot -- the fact is, he has faded in relation to Huckabee in dramatic ways, showing that voters in Iowa are not exactly enamored with him.
Fred, on the other hand, has always lingered in the teens in Iowa, never ever getting above 20, largely because he's not been in as long and has focused on a number of states. He's about third in Iowa and is attempting to turn his low teens into a surge, given that many internals show that Fred is everyone's second choice, and a lot of undecideds are open to voting for him.
So, either way Mitt is the fading candidate. Either:
1. He had a higher total (if you believe the 36%) and plummeted, meaning he's lost his popularity.
2. He didn't have such a high total (if you believe the high 20's), meaning he was never that popular anyway. So, if you're national Review and wanting someone who can catch fire, Romney has had a year and never has.
My main point is this is to question the claim that Romney has much more viability than Fred, when I would claim he doesn't and in fact Fred has more upside whiel Romney does not.
As for South Carolina, you point out the Rasmussen poll yesterday that shows Romney tied for the lead. That's great. But at the time I made my post there was another one from CNN that showed romney a close 3rd/4th, a point behind Fred and a few points behind Huck. If you look at all the recent SC polls, and not just the one day snapshot that Ramussen gave, you'll see that Thompson and romney are basically tied. AGain, Romney has been in SC all year, and Thompson just for a while -- so how is it exactly that Romney is more viable?
In New Hampsire, that is still Romney's strongest ground, for sure. McCain is surging there now and believes he can win the state. It will be interesting to see.
In National Polls, it depends what you're looking at. As recent as last week, Thompson remained in front of Romney in an LA Times poll. In others, Romney is a little ahead of Thompson. But it's not substantial and it would be hard to argue that Romney is all that more "viable" than Fred, and if National REview is seriously making its decision based on 3-4 percentage points, that's not much of a standard.
I'm not sure you could make yourself look any more foolish.
You carelessly throw around the accusation of "cherry picking" when, in fact, the numbers I referenced were AVERAGES.
This is where it gets hysterically funny...pay close attention to the severely disordered reasoning here.
Then, in order to "prove" me wrong, you cite (only) two polls from two months apart which are, strangely, the most favorable and unfavorable to Mitt from the past 6 months. The basis of your "dropped like a rock in Iowa" accusation is based ENTIRELY on TWO polls shown to be the distant, polar opposite outliers among all polls from the past six months.
Incredible. Truly incredible.
I'm not quite sure what "facts" you're looking at, but the facts from the poll AVERAGES show Mitt dipped (as everyone not named Huckabee took a hit) 5 points in Iowa in the past month and has stabilized himself at about 23%. Meanwhile, Thompson landed in single digits in the last three Iowa polls cited and remains 14 points behind Mitt in the RCP average.
You say, "you'll see that Thompson and romney are basically tied (in SC)."
Funny, that's exactly what I said in MY post. Mitt is tied for 2nd with Fred and Rudy. I gave no more weight to yesterday's Rasmussen poll than any of the other recent polls. Again, I cited the AVERAGES. You AGAIN chose to focus on individual polls and accuse me of "cherry picking."
I'm still waiting for you to show me how Mitt "dropped like a rock" in New Hampshire. Remember? Those were your EXACT words.
Perhaps you'll be able find some poll from 4 months ago with Mitt in the upper thirties and one outlier from the last two weeks putting Mitt in the mid-twenties and say, "see, he dropped 14 points!"
"and if National REview is seriously making its decision based on 3-4 percentage points, that's not much of a standard."
No, National Review likely gave strong consideration to the fact that Mitt has a plausible path to the nomination and is competetive in ALL seven of the pre-February 5th states.
Fred, on the other hand, doesn't appear to be in a position to win ANY states unless he can pull off a (miracle) 1st or 2nd in Iowa and move on to win SC. Judging by the quality of campaign he has run thus far, his chances of a surprise 1st or 2nd place in Iowa are next to none.
Mitt supporters: If you can't stand the thought of Huck or Rudy as the nominee, I plead with you to re-consider Fred. Please don't allow our party to go down that road to disaster.
We need a candidate with credibility AND a conservative track record who will not be forced to defend his record and changing positions on issues every minute. Mitt may be now saying many good things, but Fred has actually done all of those good things that Mitt can only wish for.
And FWIW, during the last Iowa debate, Mitt actually "flipped" his position on a question in less than 10 seconds. If you watch the video closely, you can clearly see that at first, he raised his hand when asked if Global Warming was caused by human activity. Then Fred told the moderator that he wasn't doing hand shows. What does Mitt do? He applauds, and then says "Im with him". Talk about rudderless. His conversions on issues seem contrived, and he remains shifty to this today. Russert had him backpedalling on his heels for the entire show. Im glad that Congressman King for backed the more solid candidate.
of taking out Huck or Rudy in my opinion. But I don't live in Iowa, SC, or NH, so my opinion doesn't matter anyway. Either Thompson will be clearly dead by that point or somehow he'll be on top and I'll vote for him.
I agree you Mitt supporters should take another look at Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson has not pandered to the MSM or special interest groups. Fred Thompson has stayed true to his federalist conservative beliefs at the risk of upsetting some of the extreme right socons who want Constitutional amendments against gay marriage and abortion (which realistically would never pass)
So please take a second look at Fred Thompson.
He is trusting voters to be adults and not fall for 15 seconds of flash and smiles.
Fred Thompson -- the choice for consistent conservative (adults) -- Hands Down!
I was acting childish and fell for 15 seconds of flash and smiles, maybe I should take a second look at Fred.
Can I recommend for you a book to add to your reading list, "How to Win Friends and Influence People"?
PS, I've taken several looks at Fred and he is my #2, but I do have a #1 for non-childish reasons.
and when I decided to support Mitt, it was because I didn't believe I could trust Thompson to govern as a conservative any more than Mitt (others may see it differently...that's fine).
I figured that, all things being equal, I would support the guy who had a better chance of beating Rudy.
The main disagreement is wheather Fred Thompson is "viable" or not. They simply don't think he is. He would have to rocket up in Iowa to stand any chance at all. Of course Huckabee did it, so it's technically possible, but it's still quite unlikely.
Just a sidenote, you could say that Giuliani is bad on amnesty, but he is very strong on border security. He has promised to "end illegal immigration where it needs to be done, at the border", a bold promise to make. Besides, what mayor was turning in hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants during the 90s? Can you name a single one? He focused on illegal immigrant criminals because the INS would only deport a few thousand a year. As far as the "sanctuary city" nonsense he merely allowed them to send their kids to school, go to the hospital, and report crimes. The alternative is uneducated kids roaming the streets, people with untreated disease, and rampant crime committed without consequence.
then they have to assert Romney isn't either, based on Romney falling apart in a state he led by wide margins in for months.
First, viability.
You say any reasonable standard must include any candidate who is polling in double digits nationally or in the early states.
That arbitrary cutoff ignores all other factors, including money, organization, strategy, momentum, and possible paths to victory.
Evidence that Thompson is not viable:
- Analysts who say his campaign is dead.
- Thompson's campaign's Hail Mary play, throwing all of its resources into Iowa.
- People putting their money on it don't see Thompson as viable. The IEM, for instance, has Thompson valued below "Other."
You may want to dismiss this evidence with talk about double digits, but the National Review is on solid ground when it is siding with the markets.
Second, conservativism.
Romney is a stronger conservative than Thompson.
- Romney threw his hat in with social conservatives. Post-Kerry, position changes in politics is a risky business. But Romney didn't just shrug off social conservatives. He didn't try to convince them that everything would be okay if they elected a social liberal. He staked his position firmly in the social conservative camp. Complaints of a few purists who support other candidates doesn't make Romney less of a conservative.
- Romney fought for conservative principles in Massachusetts. Balanced budgets, taxes, marriage.
- Thompson is, at best, a passive conservative. He has virtually no record. He just showed up (reluctantly, as he admitted), pulled the lever in the default Republican direction, and went home. He was never any sort of leader in conservative circles in the Senate. One of the very rare occasions in which he actually got involved was McCain-Feingold. Thompson seems to have wanted to cast himself as a McCain maverick (which is an image he continues to cultivate to this day).
Both men are right on most issues, but Romney has fought well for these issues, and enjoyed great successes. Thompson never demonstrated commitment by actually fighting for conservative issues. He just (sometimes) showed up. That can make a solid filler senator, but it makes a lousy conservative leader.
The idea that Romney is a stronger conservative than Thompson and has actually fought for conservative issues is somewhat laughable and I dont think a claim that National Review would make. While I agree Romney is a conservative, he is a late one, and just last year he was taking a liberal stand on immigration. Just a few years ago he was taking pro choice stands on abortion. Just a few years before that he was a strong gay rights candidate.
Thompson, on the other hand, has been fighting for conservative principles since day one. And while he doesn't support the kind of marriage amendment some others do, his actually stands a chance of passage while still upholding the bedrock conservative principle of federalism, which so many conservatives have seem to ignore.
Whether it be on taxes, the roll of government, immigration, abortion, marriage, federalism, spending, entitlements, etc., Thompson is clearly the more conservative candidate.
No, that doesn't mean Romney isn't conservative, but to suggest he is more so is simply not true and he certainly hasn't been fighting for them very long.
As to the rest of your posts:
- Analysts?? Are you going to rely on analysts? Was Kerry done in 2004? What about Romney having such a huge lead? Any reasonable analyst might conclude Romney is in deep trouble too.
- Funny you describe thompson's strategy as a hail mary plan. that's not what it is. He's simply focusing on the first state -- Iowa -- where he has a lot of supporters AND a lot of other voters who are considering him based on internal polling. (Mitt and Huck's supporters indicate Fred is 2nd choice, and their support for Mitt and Huck is quite soft). They just need to see more of Fred and they will. He's quite strong in South Carolina (5-6 points behind Huck), so he's hoping for a strong finish in Iowa to give him the big mo for South Carolina.
- The IEM bases their results on current polling and the media and analysts, which has never been in Thompson's corner.
Again, also, Romney is the one plummeting faster than Thompson, partiuclarly given his length of time in the race and the resources he has put in. I think Romney is viable, but if you want to argue whose campaign is faltering, a strong case can be made that at the present time, it is Fred that is improving and Romneyt hat is dropping.
than Romney has. Huck's rise in Iowa, for instance, has drawn more from Thompson than Romney. And Thompson had a lot less room to lose voters.
I don't think Thompson is done yet. Maybe he reignites in Iowa. But if you're a Thompson supporter you shouldn't be talking polls.
In Iowa, Fred has been around 10-15% for a couple months now. Romney used to be in the 30's while Huck was in the single digits. Now Huckabee is in the 30's while Romney barely hangs on to the 20's. Romney LOST HIS YEAR-LONG LEAD there, where he has LIVED and had ads up forever. In NH, McCain is threatning him -- particularly with Lieberman and the Union Leader on board.
In South Carolina, a poll last week showed him behind Fred. Today one shows him ahead of Fred. Fine.
but to argue Romney hasn't dropped like a rocket, particularly in Iowa, ignores the facts.
Now, is he still viable? Absolutely. But in terms of who is losing ground from where they were, it's Romney.
It's not like those Undecideds can change their non-vote, right? Undecideds are the main reason for Huck raise, Romney is too, but not to the extent you're claiming. Dropping like a rocket? Drop, bounce up and trending up is not like a rocket, imho.
Romney fought for conservative principles. Balanced budget, lower taxes, marriage. You say it is "laughable" but cannot deny the specifics.
You assert "Thompson ... has been fighting for conservative principles since day one," ignoring the substance of my argument. 1: He didn't fight for conservative principles in the Senate. He just pulled the lever. 2: He only reluctantly showed up. 3: The rare exception where he did fight for something was McCain-Feingold.
Then the three pieces of evidence:
- Analysts, yes. Analysts over some standard about having double digits somewhere.
- Thompson himself has admitted that Iowa is make-or-break for him.
- The IEM: Iowa Electronic Market. It's a futures market. First go look it up, then try to discredit it. You got the order reversed this time.
By the way, did you see the latest Rasmussen for South Carolina? The Huckasurge has abated, Romney is tied for first once again, and Thompson is way down.
1) Thompson did more than pull a lever to show his conservative principles and values. But the fact that he DID pull the lever the right way shows more of a track record of conservatism that you're giving him credit for.
2) You're right - running for President was not something Fred ever thought he'd do. But it's something he now sees as something he must do for his country. Relunctant attitude cannot be used as a negative NOW. No-one stays in this thing for this long and endures all the criticism, false attacks, and questioning unless they want it.
3) McCain-Feingold was a mistake. If you want to start talking about those, you can look at the candidate you're throwing your support to for plenty of examples of mistakes they wish they could go back and fix. Thompson has admitted that was a mistake. You can't give him flak for that and be upset about the flak Mitt gets for hiring illegals, allowing gay marriage (speaking of "not fighting for something"), and more.
I'm not saying Mitt's a bad candidate, or any less conservative than Fred.
But I will say that Fred has a history of pulling the right lever that Mitt doesn't. Mitt has a history of pulling the wrong one.
And it's easier for ME to believe that Fred will continue to "pull the right lever" than it is to beleive Mitt's converstion to conservatism is heart-felt and not led by his statement after losing the last office he ran for: "I won't run again unless I know I will win." What better way than adopting ALL the right policies of the conservatives? [/devil's advocate]
1) What, radio shows? I want actions, not words. His lever-pulling career doesn't prove much to me. Lever-pullers are a dime a dozen. And he wasn't a very involved lever-puller.
2) I'm not talking about the presidential campaign. I'm talking about as a Senator. He only reluctantly showed up to work.
3) I'm not throwing up McCain-Feingold just as a mistake. It was one of the few times where he showed some interesting in doing something - anything. And it was a huge mistake. And it looks like he was trying to be McCain-lite ("I do things my own way, partner"). I want to see who will be the most conservative leader. Lever-pulling doesn't show me that. That shows me who can be the most conservative follower (Thompson is admittedly good on that score). Thompson's leadership record has precious little to show, but it does have McCain-Feingold.
"And it's easier for ME to believe that Fred will continue to 'pull the right lever'"
That's why I prefer Thompson to Huckabee. At least Thompson probably won't actively destroy us. But I'd rather have a leader than a lever-puller in the White House.
"Mitt has a history of pulling the wrong one."
First, Governors aren't lever-pullers. They can't be. They have to act. Second, the principal complaints against Romney's past aren't what he did, but what he said. He may have been moderate in the abstract sense on a couple of issues, but when it came down to what he would fight for, it was always conservative principles.
"What better way than adopting ALL the right policies of the conservatives?"
Triangulating.
Don't even bother to respond to what I wrote until you can respond to what FLHighLife wrote. You need to get your facts straight before you try to speculate on what they mean.
"Romney is a stronger conservative than Thompson."
Ehhh, wrong. Good grief, there are positive things you can say about Romney, but stating he is a "stronger conservative" than Thompson is something that only the most diehard, overzealous Romney fan who couldn't care a whit about the public record says about their respective careers or their current stances on issues.
There is just no comparison.
And the one thing Fred has plenty of, and Mitt has very little of, is CREDIBILITY, because he's actually been a consistent across-the-board conservative all his life, not just since 2005.
Thompson usually gets gentle handling around here, so I know it might be hard to take any criticisms besides "he's lazy" and "he's a poor campaigner" head on.
Here's an easier to digest version:
Thompson and Romney are both conservative on the issues now.
They diverge at two points:
1) Romney has a larger record of moderate-liberal statements than Thompson does. Both now repudiate those statements.
2) Romney has a greater record of conservative leadership than Thompson does.
Which candidate is the "stronger conservative" depends on whether point 1 or point 2 is more important. I find point 2 much more telling and important.
Point 1 is not very significant to me because I take Romney at his word. I find him credible. Why? a) Because he's an ethical man, b) because he's staked his new position boldly instead of triangulating, c) because I believe his story (it's easy to be liberal on issues until you're the man behind the desk), d) because the story that he did it purely for political gain doesn't make sense, given the obvious flip-flop charges he would face, e) endorsements from men who have talked to him face to face (socially conservative Christian leaders, Bork, etc.), f) because of little details that undermine claims that he is pandering. One is that even though he is pro-life, he doesn't categorically call abortion "murder." (this one resonates with me because I am strongly pro-life, but don't think abortion and murder are always the same thing) A panderer would say "abortionismurderabortionismurderabortionismurder" in a heartbeat.
Point 2 is very significant to me. Why? a) Our country needs a conservative leader, not a "pure" conservative. b) Romney's actions spoke louder than his words. He fought for vital conservative principles, with amazing results considering his environment. c) While a man may see merit in any number of positions in the abstract, what he does when it comes time to act is the truest test of where his heart is. d) Even if Romney were merely mostly conservative leader, he would still do much more to advance the conservative cause than a "pure" conservative with untested leadership.
There is a comparison. And that's mine.
than consistent conservatism. Executive experience is very important, but it shouldn't be the trump card. Fred will govern well as POTUS.
The writer made a great point when he said Romney's positions seem more political than principled. That is a fair criticism.
Your criticism of Fred for being lazy comes right out of the MSM playbook. They said the same thing about Reagan, when they desperately needed something to smear him about.
If you are going to criticize him for something at least find some real reasons. The lazy remark is just "lazy" to be quite honest, and it ain't gonna fly on these boards.
McCain-Feingold is a valid criticism. But seriously which is more important to be wrong about--Roe v. Wade (Romney) or McCain-Feingold (Thompson). Come on--you've got to be kidding.
Your statement "Thompson himself has admitted that Iowa is make-or-break for him" is FALSE. Fred said on Face the Nation yesterday "Iowa is where it's at right now" when asked by Schieffer if Iowa is where it ends with a loss. Hardly a concession that Iowa is make or break.
Before you start lecturing a fellow FredHead about doing his research, might be a good idea to start doing your own.
First, I didn't make a one-liner "lazy" remark. Looking back, I see I didn't even use the word "lazy." Most "lazy" attacks on Thompson have gone to his campaigning efforts, although now that you point it out, my specific criticisms of him also happen to support the idea that he is lazy. If that is inconvenient for him, too bad.
Second, deflecting criticisms as "MSM attacks" is about the laziest way to deal with them. If an attack particularly represents an MSM bias, or came from particular MSM misinformation, that's one thing. But calling out "MSM attack!" at random is a lazy defense.
Third, I didn't bring up McCain-Feingold to show that he was wrong once. I brought it up because it was one of the very, very few times that he actually did something in the Senate, and so is one of the very few instances of what might be some sort of effort at leadership by Thompson. McCain-Feingold doesn't just show that Thompson was wrong on an issue once - it shows that he was wrong on one of the very few issues that he actually took up. This is the third time I've explained the relevance of McCain-Feingold to my argument, all due to lazy reading.
Fourth. Yes, Thompson said "Iowa is where it's at right now" on Face the Nation. Notice that that fact does not contradict what I said. Yet you conclude without further effort that what I said was "FALSE." Even on Face the Nation, Thompson conceded that he must do well in Iowa (that came up some time later in the interview, in case you didn't watch that far).
Before you start lecturing me about doing research or being lazy...actually, don't lecture me about it. You're in no position to.
Fred is my #2 and he is a good man, but he is not above reproach on the lazy argument, just like Mitt is not above reproach on how political his positions may seem to some. This is more than an MSM attack, it's also a general observance.
Since November 1st, Fred made 14 campaign appearances while Huckabee made 44. Giuliani made 45 campaign appearances while McCain made 63. Romney made 78 campaign appearances since November 1st. That is not MSM smear, that's the Fred pickup truck Found On the Road Dead, too bad he's driving a FORD.
Fred was in the senate for eight years and he saw four of his bills pass into laws. I know he was busy with "other" endevours, but it would have been nice for him to actually see more than 1 bill passed into law every two years.
Fred is right on the policies, but please don't try to convince me that he is going to come out of the gate sprinting after he wins the presidency. I think he maybe still working on the truck.
so basing your decision on fred based on how energetically he tries to catch your eye is a lousy criterion for judging his potential as president...mitt and huck are working really hard to appear pretty and pleasing, but that tells me NOTHING about how they will respond to recalcitrant dems or monomaniacal world leaders, except to make me wonder if they will still be primarily concerned about their images...
fred playing a little hard to get is all right with me...im not sure i want a guy who is so hot and bothered about getting the job that he changes principles like he does his underwear...
Goodness knows Thompson gets called on laziness enough. That wasn't even my argument.
My argument is that he has no record of conservative leadership. Thompson is only the "most conservative" if that means "passive conservative." Romney, McCain, and Giuliani have all accomplished more for conservativism than has Thompson. The National Review is not obligated to crown Thompson as "the most conservative" just for a few years of uninvolved lever pulling.
is hilarious until you realize how pathetic it is. If NRO wanted to be respected among conservatives, then they should have remembered what that means. It means sticking to principles and to the person who most CLOSELY models what THAT IS ALL ABOUT no matter where his chances are. Rush Limbaugh has recognized that Fred Thompson is a true conservative. Maybe a little analysis to go along with the research is in order.
FOR FRED, FOR THE FUTURE!
Let me begin with the issue of executive experience. Bill Clinton had executive experience; we saw how that turned out. This notion that having been a governor somehow proves that he is a great leader is moronic. Never mind the fact that while as governor both Huck and Romney governed left of center and ran from conservatism at every opportunity.
Next this notion on new conservatism or old conservatism is pure BS. There is conservatism, moderate liberalism, and extreme liberalism. Fred is the only candidate that has a track record or upholding conservative ideals, period, no longer up for discussion.
Romney, Rudy, McCain, Huckabee, Paul, Clinton, Obama, etc can all say they supported something conservative. The trouble is that they all support more liberalism than they do conservatism.
Those that still support the likes of Romney, McCain, Huckabee, etc do so in blind allegiance. You don't have the courage to find the facts about not only the candidate you support but the facts about the candidate that is the best for the job.
Why do so many of you insist on justifying your support for Thompson on the negatives of Mitt Romney?
Also - just because you all keep repeating that he is the most conservative, or most reliable, doesn't make it true. How about you add a little substance to that claim. I'm not saying it's not true (although, yes, I'm being passive)but you should probably articulate why, otherwise you sound a little like a Paul supporter.
And - praising Romney for the good characteristics he has doesn't take away from Fred, however, when you only speak negatively about Mitt it makes you look insecure about your own support for Fred.
I support Romney. I like Fred and he is my number two but I am really turned off by many of his supporters on this site. This isn't high school, you don't have to put the other guy down to make you feel better about yourself, or in this case, your candidate.
On another note - I think anyone has the right to bash Huckabee for any reason; no substance required. :)
but what I notice is that the people who are the most fervent in attacking others are the same people who squeal the loudest when they sense that their candidate is being attacked. Seems petty and immature overall. Shouldn't we stick to giving mature reasoned responses or just STHU? Or, more properly stick to the golden rule? It works in every other avenue, why not blogging?
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
I don't think you addressed my post at all. Maybe you meant to reply to something else, unless you're using irony to make my point, if so, good show.
"I support Romney. I like Fred and he is my number two but I am really turned off by many of his supporters on this site."
I have watched this election season unfold, and by and large Fred supporters have been the least likely to attack other candidates.
If you look over my history, I have tried to encourage and participate in positive discussions. That said, there are 5 "viable" choices in the Republican party for the nomination, and it is not enough to say one is great in a vacuum, comparisons are necessary.
Lastly, you have been here a short time, and you are clearly not familiar with the flow of the site and the people here. Most of the Fred supporters have written well reasoned, spot on explanations of their support. There is no reason to repeat what one and others have said several times before.
Mitt isn't the guy. Fred is. Hope that clears it up for you.
If Fred weren't running, Mitt would definitely win my award for lesser of two evils, that is someone I don't particularly like, but prefer to the others. I genuinely, completely like FDT, and it is a pleasure to support him, and no nose holding is necessary.
Perhaps it is the vocal minority of Fred supporters who are doing this but it is there. Just do a quick glance through the closest Fred-related blog...okay, I just did it and I counted 12 posts by Fred supporters who followed their statement of support by saying a negative about Romney (9/12), Huck (3/12).
That's what I'm referring to. It probably doesn't apply to you and many other respectable posters but other newbie posters, like me.
I'm just making a point (backed up by facts). Denying that it's there doesn't make it untrue.
You also seem to imply that you doubt that Fred is my number two. Feel free to search through my posts if you'd like but I've been saying it for a while. The problem I have with Fred is that I don't buy that he's really accomplished anything and I think his campaign style doesn't scream enthusiasm, not to mention his poor stage presence at debates. I do like his policies and I like how he detests the media. I do think he'd be a good president, just not nearly as good as Romney.
care that much about the NR endorsement. I only read NRO. Are they edited by the same folks? Anyway, Fred is getting a good quantity of substantive endorsements that are adding organizational strength and concrete campaigning assistance (Rep. King). As with all the poll hoopla over Huck, it won't matter one bit once Fred wins.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
because of the premise. That he could unite all three legs of the republican party. He has no shot at the SoCon's because they are largely made up of evangelical Christians. No matter their leaders say they won't support Romney in the numbers he needs to get elected. Unfortunately that is true of Fred as well. Big mistakes in the beginning saying publicly that he is not much of a church goer. And then the diaster about the right to life amendment on national television. It was like he did not understand who his base would have to be. I read NRO also, and I am starting to go to their site less and less. I have come to the conclusion that Mike Huckabee will probably win. Though not my first choice, his demonization is ridiclous on this site and the MSM. I thought they loved him. He was a solid Govenor in my state.
I swear, I can't get away from you. You are everywhere on this site.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you've stated numerous times that you support Huckabee. If this is not true, then who is your #1? You sure seem to post every time Huck's name comes up.
McCain. I have come to the conclusion that Duncan Hunter can not win. I don't think Fred is lazy, I really don't. I just think he has not run a very smart campaign, and made a couple of bad mistakes early on. And he does look older than even McCain though I know that is not true. I would gladly support John McCain. For me Romney and Rudy are out, unless they are nominated. I have come to the conclusion that Huckabee will win and can win the general election. I know electability. Sorry it is what I think. I like Mike Huckabe, our former govenor and I hate it when he is slandered. He was a good Govenor and would get re-elected in Arkansas and carry the state in a general election. I am sure of that much.
If he was sooo popular, why couldn't he find his "heir apparent" and that man be elected in a walk... but instead, Arkansas elected a Democrat who actually reduced the taxes Huckabee raised.
You are a Huckabee shill. I am of the mindset that it's either you're just lying about your support of other candidates in an attempt to gain a bit of credibility... or you're sooo excited another Arkansas boy has made good that you'll support that person no matter HOW much he is EXACTLY like Clinton.
Just because I came to the conclusion you don't have to insult me. I have not insulted you, I don't think. If I have I did not intend to. Yes, I started in a different place than I am today. Upps, well that sounded like Romney, sorry about that.
So...is it okay for Romney to change his mind, since you did?
Honestly, I was not implying an insult or trying to do so.
It's called looking at what you say and draw conclusions based on said comments. You have NEVER posted about how much you like these other candidates, but that they are your favorites, and then you go on tirades about Huckabee.
His record is VERY much in doubt on a whole host of issues. You may or may not think so, that's fine, but it's honestly foolish to do so. Even if Huckabee wins the nomination, the volume and stories the Democrats will make what Redstate has done look like a nice chair massage in comparison.
And the insulting part for me is how you defend Huckabee on things that are indefensible, like asking the question of Mormonism (when it was pointed out, it's taught in the SBC to ask that question as a way of passive aggressive attack Mormonism) or how he doesn't want to deal with God but all he does is mention his Faith and how it's the cornerstone of his reasoning.
Seriously, if you cannot see the hypocrisy or at least the cognitive dissonnance of his positions, then there is no hope for you.
Just curious - have you posted anywhere a defense of the many accusations against Huckabee. If so, I'd really like to see it. You've called it slander but I don't believe even Huckabee's campaign is denying the facts - number of pardons, number of ethical violations, tax increases, spending increases, etc. If you have responses, or have already responded to these I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.
If you just feel he's the right guy for you then that's fine but if it really is slander and you have the answers, please share them.
Thanks.
1. It is slander to imply that Mike Huckabee pardon anyone. Govenor's don't pardon. NBC has now twice plastered the word 'pardon' on the screen when they no better. Many on this site have done the same thing.
2. They have used a letter he wrote two and half years before Dumond was set free out of context. The letter was written to explain why the Govenor was denying him his request. The next line states it clearly.
3. The word lie is constantly used loosely, about such things as his degree, theology or religion, in some cases these are almost interchangable.
4. He is not a big government guy. Arkansas is hardly an example of that. And no he was never considered a big tax hike guy even by his critics here.
5. This stuff about his son really sucks. He just wanted his son to be treated like anyone else. It is hard for that to happen when you are a public figure, I know.
6. I can go on...if you wish I will, but those examples will do for now.
I think you're overly sensitive. I disagree that any of it is slander but I can see why you feel defensive.
My gut tells me that Huckabee is dishones, unethical and a bigot. The facts show me that I have a very good reason for my gut to tell me that.
If you want to support Huckabee, more power to you, however, I can in all honesty say that I can't comprehend how you possibly can support him - but you're not alone.
Those of us who have known him for years, and have been under is governership do not even know the man described on this site. Must be a different Huckabee. I do not agree with him on a lot of issues, but he is a good man, and somewhat conservative. I would rather have Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson, and maybe even John McCain. I could switch. I just think Huckabee has the best path to the nomination, and I have been around a while. Yes, even when people did not believe in Reagan and said terrbile things about him.
Note the date and time...a Huckabee supporter finally saying it like it is.
"he is a good man... (and the money shot).. and somewhat conservative."
Thank you VERY VERY much, for admitting what so few Hucksters are willing, that he's at most, somewhat conservative.
But I just think that they chose to give the endorsement to someone they feel has a much better chance of victory. As I posted here, Romney is in a very good position going into Jan. 3rd, and his stats in South Carolina--Fred's supposed stronghold--look even better today, with a new poll showing him tied with Huckabee.
There is no doubt that he is fading and fading fast. He spent millions in Iowa and will lose it to Huckabee. Romney is done.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
...contrary to what everyone says about Iowa, Mitt's numbers have not gone down, Huck's have gone up. Whether he spent 250 million or $75 in Iowa is irrevelant, any other candidate with those resources would have done the same thing.
Mitt's numbers have not gone down in any state, and are actually improving steadily in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Romney's number in Iowa went down by more than 7 points in the RCP average, yet those numbers bounced and went back up. He is currently around 23%. We're waiting for more polls to see the true trend right now. Huck is going down and Mitt is going up, but we don't know if that will continue or change.
I agree with you that the money Romney dumped in Iowa is a sunk cost and expectations are that he will come in second which is actually good for him right now. Even with it being a sunk cost, the MSM will talk about it, but it's not as big an issue as some like to make it out to be.
all about. If it weren't heated, it would mean that we probably just didn't care. Every candidate has strengths and weaknesses. We are passionate about our guys, and that is because there are some good men in this race. At the end of the day, we will unite behind one of them and defeat a socialist.
And my first thought is of the damage that it would do not only to NRO, but also to the Romney campaign, and with the news today that he attended a pro-choice fundraiser, it will unravel for him as well.
"damage that it would do not only to NRO", it was the NR that endorsed him, not the NRO. Strike one. "With the news today that he attended a pro-choice fundraiser", what news? This has been known about for a long time. Before he changed his position in 2005, he went and his wife donated a hundred bucks. Big deal, old news. Strike two. "It will unravel for him as well" Yup, Romney needs to pull out of the race, it's all coming crashing down around him. His campaign is running for cover because the NR endorsed him. Strike three. :|
and I was seriously considering re-subscribing to NRO until they endorsed him. And didn't NR first go off the rails over Harriet Miers? I can't trust them anymore.
Anyway, I went with Commentary Magazine instead.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Latest poll has him winning Iowa.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republica...
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third
Brit Hume described Huckabee perfectly the other day, "It's like he's skiing in front of an avalanche." Well, that avalanche has caught up to him and I hope it's about to bury him.
The two latest polls for Iowa and South Carolina show Mitt back on top (at least tied in South Carolina). Fred dropped hard in the SC poll - come on FredHeads get with a winner and say it, say it....President Romney.
For me Fred is #1 & Romney is #2. Good post from my fellow Tennessean above; while we push & campaign for our favorite during the primary, let's not forget what we'll be looking at once the general election is set.
As far as stated positions on specific issues are concerned, Romney is more conservative than Thompson (albeit by a little). On the other hand, Thompson's conservatism is of a much older vintage.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
Romney has had a bump in Iowa, which is good to me. My goal in Iowa is for Fred to finish 2nd to Romney. Winning would be great but 2nd to Romney would be okay.
The last week has been a good one for Fred.