Redstate

Oz

Read my most recent story, "Why I'm with Fred" on First Cut Politics

I needed to see a couple of debates. Plus with Romney fading a bit nationally and Fred's stance on immigration, well, it just all kind of fell into place

Oz

Read my most recent story, "Why I'm with Fred" on First Cut Politics

but picking one and supporting them as best you can is more gratifying.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

National polls have always been Thompson's strongest metric and Romney's weakest metric. Thompson never capitalized on his initial hype and national recognition; his numbers have tanked. Romney's national numbers are fairly steady. In the latest national poll, Thompson only leads Romney by three points.

Thompson is also crashing in the early states. 5th in Iowa. 5th in New Hampshire. And remember Thompson's one must-win state? His one springboard into Big Tuesday? He's 4th in South Carolina in the latest poll. 19 points behind Romney. Ouch.

If numbers were really part of your reasoning, you would have dumped Thompson by now.

It's also a little strange that you mention the debates, since Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Huckabee all outperform Thompson in debates, but that's a more subjective question.

Even though his debate performances have been OK and my wife says he looks old and mad, I agree with him on the issues (especially his Federalist principles) and at the end of the day, that's all you have left once the election is done.

If folks would just learn his positions on the issues and not worry about "electability", he could be a very successfull candidate. That's just my take though.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

what matters is whether he acts like a future president and wins the primary. Few conservatives question Fred on the issues, but if he is our version of Dukakis, the issues will not matter, we will lose on all of them.

If we where lucky, we could have Rudy's fighting spirit and Fred's down the line conservative issues, but we do not have that. It is fine to support Fred, but the rubber will meet the road when HE proves he is a winner.

Molon Labe!

I travel the entire state of VA and parts of NC. I have not seen one - not ONE - HRC sticker. Lots of Edwards, a few Obabmas and even one or two Kucinich, but no Clinton. Lots of Rudy stickers, lots of Fred stickers.

Very interesting to ponder, and ponder I shall.

Here in the Columbus, Ohio area, I sadly report that I have seen some Hillary bumper stickers. I have also seen a handful of Obamas, one or two John Edwards, one Rudy, & several Ron Paul stickers. With our March primary, things will probably be over before we ever get the chance to vote. Likely no one will be interested in us until the general election & then they'll be crawling the state. I often wondered how come W & Kerry didn't have to file Ohio tax forms when people like the New York Yankees do (& they're probably in the state fewer days than W & Kerry were) -- oh well, I digress.

how would Hillary or Obama carry it in 2008?

We are talking about two different aspects of uniting the party.

o You are talking about what SHOULD happen and I agree with you. I WILL BE VOTING FOR THE REPUBLICAN in NOVEMBER OF 2008 even if it's Huckabee.

o I'm talking about the people who DON'T FEEL the way that you and I do. There is also a matter of enthusiasm. I will do my best to drag my pro-life friends to the polls to vote for Guiliani, but I think that it would be much easier to get them to the polls for Thompson.

Oz

Read my most recent story, "Huckabee and Immigration" on First Cut Politics

Everyone thinks that a "particular" candidate can ONLY beat HRC. I don't see that. In my mine..I don't see her winning the General..period!!!

Why does everyone think that? She will not carry the South nor the Midwest..just ain't going to happen.

She is a crappy candidate, she has all the wrong positions on everything, and she is a crappy debator. She showed that on Tuesday in all her glory. I don't have a ton of lib friends, but those I have can't stand her. She is not a viable candidate and she can be schwacked in the general by any repub with the cahones to call her out. Dude, if algore hopped in the race tomorrow, hrc would go down like a lead balloon.

I do not think Fred has what it takes to beat HRC. I switched my thoughts on Fred and have decided that Mike Huckabee is the only candidate that has a real shot at beating her. If you look at his website you will see a lot of first time campaign contributors making donations to him. That says alot right there. I think Fred is doing nothing more than splitting up the Republican vote. Watch out because Mike Huckabee has a real shot at being our next president.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

Molon Labe!

greivance election is in no way comparable to a presidential election when the minds are focused on TWO (hopefully) actual persons, one a liberal and one a conservative. We win those.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Molon Labe!

you say? IMHO, it would be a bad mistake if Fred decided to act like, let's say, Hillary herself, and started jumping up and down and demanding this and screaming at that and complaining about everything else.

The best antidote to a person like Hillary, who likes to make unsupportable statements because they sound good (to her) coming out of her mouth, is to have an unflappable, authoritatve figure who says, "Now wait a minute. There you go again. That's just plain wrong," and who can then explain just why it was wrong and what would be better.

Frenetic arm-waving on Fred's part just wouldn't look right.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

You need to go here, and follow my instructions.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

went back to check for responses to my comments. What a week to look for other sources of excitement! Thanks to everyone for the kind words. I wondered why so many "RECOMMENDS" with so few comments. I think I'll write a follow-up today.

I didn't see your instructions, though. Since I have been appointed by the MSM to be a spokesman for RedState, I guess I should follow your lead, right?

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

Still, my instructions stand:

Take your bow.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

Right, because Rudy has already "locked in" 28 percent of the vote and Romney has solidified his 15 percent, therefore Fred's 24 percent is meaningless.

I am afraid I can't support anyone in the primary that I see as unelectable, and three of the top tier candidates that are unelectable as Republicans are Rudy, Romney and Huckabee.

Don't get me wrong, Rudy would be nearly unstoppable in the gerneral if he was the Democrat Party nominee.

Huckabee would win in a landslide. Romney, yes, would fall like John Kerry fell. Rudy, yes, would be a victim of voters who stayed at home.

John McCain is pretty electable. Fred Thompson is electable in the South, but his campaign reminds me of Bob Dole.

Thompson has come in under 24 percent in the last 18 national polls.

The Rasmussen that finished last night has:

Giuliani 24
Thompson 15
Romney 14
McCain 14
Huckabee 10

My numbers were from a poll I looked at a few days ago, your numbers certainly don't change my point at all. Giuliani has it wrapped up with 24%? Romney unstoppable at 15? This race is still wide open.

But the window is closing fast on McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee to have a serious chance. None of those three will win the primary without a drastic boost.

If he hadn't run a non-campaign for so long, he wouldn't have had a chance to build up his hype for a splashy entrance.

He's tanking because he has failed to deliver.

I have a few points that I want to make.

#1 Fred is leading in VA

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1...

#2 Fred is competitive with the top d's

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1...

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

MN, WI and IA have been competetive the last few presidential elections. I don't believe Rudy can win any of them. Republicans and independents in this area tend to be fiscally somewhat liberal, but pro-life is the name of the game, even with many democrat voters. There are other states this way. Can Rudy add enough squishy independents in "blue/purple" states to make up for the losses among principled independents (people who are ideologically split between the parties)?
The Rudy is the electable one paradigm is tired and I doubt it is based on more than the even more tired paradigm that R's need to be D's in order to win, a paradigm that is 180 degrees from historical fact.

For any R to be electable, they need to not be offensive to any portion of the coalition, and they need to energize at least 2 out of 3 of said factions. That isn't enough to win by itself, but without it you have no chance.

dismal? That's not exactly a fair characterization is it? When so many people (just check the various blogs) saw that Fred did very well. Some even thought he won or or both debates, but dismal? Only someone who felt Fred threatens their preferred candidate would characterize his performance as dismal IMHO.

What I see the problem is here is that we have far too many conservative to semi-conservative candidates in this race. Pull all but one conservative out of the race and put them up against Rudy and let's see what direction our party wants to take. I'm not big fan of any candidates who are no FC, but RC is more important to me personally.

Objectively, he did fine. A couple of awkward moments, a couple of good moments. Nothing that would distinguish him from the pack if he were a second-tier candidate.

But that's just the problem. His status as an automatic first-tier candidate entering the race was in part based on hype of him being a "Great Communicator." By that standard, his performance was dismal.

Yes, there were some Thompson supporters still on the hype train who were trying to justify his performance (even after his campaign begged to be judged by the lowest possible standard, since these were his first debates). So when he had little of substance to contribute while Giuliani and Romney were actually participating in the debate, they called him "statesmanlike."

for a reason. He is the consistent conservative in the race. He is the SC and the FC. No other candidate running for the Republican nomination can say that (as much as they'd like to).

His status of first tier was not based on him being the next "Great Communicator". He was never said to be a great debater/communicator and to say that is just dishonest. His status came from his consistent conservatism. He is pro-life, pro traditional marriage, pro entitlement reform, pro second amendment, pro tax cuts, pro eliminating pork spending, and he has been that way all of his adult life. This is why I signed on to www.draftfredthompson.com back in March. Not because of some "Great Communicator" hype. Go check out www.draftfredthompson.com and you'll see that is the case for the majority of the people there.

There is plenty of substance. Check out www.fred08.com to read all about it. ;)

First thing:

It's one thing to say that you weren't won over by the "Great Communicator" claims. It's another thing to say that "he was never said to be a great communicator" and that I am dishonest to say so.

Thompson "Great Communicator"

Google is your friend.

Second thing:

As I said, that was part of reason for his status. The other reason was that he was the "savior" candidate. He was supposed to be a unity candidate, and part of that was based on ideological purity.

The problem is that showing up to the Senate and voting on the party line doesn't do much to demonstrate commitment to issues. Those votes could be with the party merely by default. There were only a few times that Thompson showed that he cared and actually did something in his Senate career. One of those was McCain-Feingold.

So while he may be ideologically acceptable, his "consistent conservativism" is not particularly rousing. It is a passive conservativism.

What I was trying to say was that neither Fred Thompson nor his campaign had ever stated that Fred was the "great communicator" and it is dishonest of your to say that Fred or his team said this. Just because anyone else has said it doesn't mean that the campaign had anything at all to do with it. Try to find that on Google.

...or dishonest on your part? I was charitable before to not suggest it before, but now you have the nerve to persist in calling me dishonest while you misrepresent my original comment.

Try to find where I said in my comment that Thompson or his team made the "Great Communicator" claim.

Your bad faith comment notwithstanding, whether Thompson's supporters or Thompson's campaign made the claim has no bearing on my point.

I was not dishonest. If you did not say that Fred or Fred's team stated that then I was wrong (I have no problem admitting that). People make mistakes, but I would never deliberately post something that was dishonest. The statement itself still stands that while others may have hyped Fred as the "Great Communicator" it never came from his team.

I certainly don't want to be on your or anyone else's bad side and want to continue to be fair in my posting. My final point here is that neither Fred nor his team hyped him as the "great communicator" and if others did, that's not Fred's fault so why should he be held accountable to someone else's standard? He is who he is. His positions are his consistent conservative positions.

I'll accept that as an indirect apology.

My point is that it doesn't matter whether or not Thompson's campaign made the claim. A higher standard applies to Thompson only insofar as it is necessary to question the presumptive first-tier status he was given based in part on that hype.

Take away the "Great Communicator" bit and you're mostly left with a passive but reliable party-line voting senator. He makes a great Senator (although it is also important for us to have leaders in the Senate), but a silly presidential candidate that some handlers thought they could pass off as the real deal because he was a tall actor.

Fred was not first tier because of someone else's claims, he is first tier because he is what many true conservatives (FC and SC) see as the only consistent conservative in the race. I was not drawn to him because of communication skills. I was drawn and still am drawn to him because of his core principles and what he stands for. He is coming out with more and more on policy and what he says is right for America and wants to do is right for America. He also was not passive. Because he proposed no new grand legislation while a senator? He was a FC and SC while he was a senator and he is inspiring to many people because we can count on him to continuing being that.

Again, at least he's not just an FC or SC and he's certainly not a flip-flopper who says what the current conservative or liberal audience wants to hear. I know where he's going to be yesterday, today and tomorrow and that is conservative.

Evidence that it did: high polling numbers before the guy had even said anything, which have since come crashing down.

Evidence that it did not: kerrhome disagrees.

Glad we have that cleared up.

www.fred08.com

So it's better to not be a conservative, be only a SC, be only a FC, or be a flip-flopping liberal/conservative depending on your audience? I'll stick with Fred and his consistent conservatism on illegal immigration, lower taxes, cutting pork spending, shrinking government entitlements, judges like Roberts and his 100% pro-life rating. That's the man I'll be voting for and supporting. He doesn't sound all that passive. Take a look at www.fred08.com ;)

I'm thinking that the world is divided into two kinds of people: the ones who listen to the music, and the ones who listen to the words. Romney definitely has the words; he has a bunch of them, they come fast, and they are by-and-large good words.

Fred makes better music.

I think all attempts to move the music voters to the words candidates — or the other way around — are doomed to fail.

Beware of Rudy. He has even more words than Romney, they come even faster, and some of it is musical.

Beware also of Fred. He is starting to use actual words.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Pretty misleading to only quote one poll you guy is ahead in for SC. Thompson is up in 3/4 SC polls according to RCP. You probably just want to look at the polls you like though. I'll even concede that Fred is not tops in the polls, but as far as conservative principals, ideals (FC and SC) and plans (immigration, entitlement reform, cutting pork etc) he is the true conservative candidate.

You like your guy, that's fine, but Oz is accurate in all he and others are saying about Fred. There are many good reasons to support the consistent conservative candidate for the Republican nomination. I will support the consistent conservative as well.

A lot could happen in the coming weeks, but you're right.

This is a painful reality that is taking some Thompson supporters a long time to absorb.

A while back they were all about national poll numbers and buzz level. Those two metrics were dispositive of what would happen; nothing else mattered. Now that Thompson has haemorrhaged his national numbers and lost the hype to Huckabee, you don't hear those claims. They can't even turn to the early states, where his performance is, on the whole, even more dismal.

Thompson never had a particularly coherent win scenario (although I think he could still have a shot with a decent plan and a lot of luck - politics is a crazy game).

There is a clear path for Fred and he is fine in the early state, for whatever it's worth at this point. Fred will be fine in IA, SC, FL if not win them. He has the right conservative messages the base wants to hear and he's just now starting to get it out. He will carry the majority if not all of the southern states. To say that Fred "never had a particularly coherent win scenario" is just not supported by the facts. If the party wants to stay true to its conservative values, they will go with Fred. I guess we'll have to wait and see if that's the route we take.

One thing is for sure, Rudy Giuliani has the best chance with a field full of conservatives/semi-conservatives. He only needs to let them fight it out and never let any one of them get too strong. That'll be a hard pill for us to swallow if we end up going that route.

Thompson possibly winning Iowa is supported by the facts? He is in a distant 5th place there.

How could you possibly pick only IA out of all that I had written. Your point was about the "path". My point was about the "path". Your statement that Fred has never had a path is not supported by the facts.

That's how it works. Next time, if you don't want to be called on a crazy claim, just don't make it. Don't think that you can bury it in more plausible-sounding claims and be immune.

on IA. But I wasn't burying it in the rest of my statement. There are polls that have shown him doing alright (2nd) in IA. I think he could be in one of the top three spots there. We'll have to wait and see. That's why I lumped it in. I did say he would be fine or possibly win.

Romney is winning in NH also.

"If we start electing a President for his 'charisma', over his core beliefs and substance, our country is in trouble."

Who said "over". This is an over-the-top pronouncement, and it keeps popping up. Charisma is a consideration. That doesn't mean to the exclusion of or in preference to their core beliefs or substance.

If there is one thing that bugs me to no end about Fredheads, it is the way they put their hands on their ears and yell "la la la" every time you suggest he might need to step up his performance.

Lackluster, lackadaisical salesmanship kills things like Social Security reform, and makes principled objections like those against the SCHIP changes easily targeted by the dramatists in the MSM.

I'm sorry to have to break this to people, but being able to get your message across, and do it well, being able to motivate people and convince people, that is part of leadership whether you really want it to be or not. It doesn't mean selling out your message, it doesn't even mean changing your message. It just means do a better job of presenting it.

Yeesh and criminitly!

absentee

put it better myself.

we will fail as a party if we go into this election without a spokesman who can convince voters our ideas our better than the democrats'.

So take the charismatic FC only, SC only or flip-flopping liberal/conservative (depending on your audience at the time). Forget about your conservative principles and go with charisma. Got it. ;)

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

See? I can hear the "la la la la" from here.

absentee

at all. Just make fun. I think it's probably you with fingers in your ears. The reason you can hear it is because "la la la la" seems to be coming from your direction.

That would be a lot more effective of a response if I hadn't already addressed your point in the very comment you are replying to.

absentee

but I wasn't saying his performance didn't need to be "stepped up" which is what you had stated previously that we FredHeads were trying to ignore. I specifically addressed the substance of Fred and the others. I hope he does step up his performance, but taking a charismatic person who is not a FC and a SC is not the right thing to do. Obviously Fred is not as bad as you paint him, otherwise he wouldn't be doing as well in the polls as he is. He's up 187% in SC in a recent poll, leading the pack, so I guess he can't be doing all that bad.

I will certainly agree that he should and will (and is) do a better job getting his message across and if he doesn't, he can't win. He should win though because he has the right conservative values.

".. but taking a charismatic person who is not a FC and a SC is not the right thing to do."

Didn't say that. In fact, over and over I've specifically said that was not the point.

"Obviously Fred is not as bad as you paint him"

La la la la. There you go again. As I paint him? Don't be ridiculous. I happen to boost Fred all the time, including elsewhere on this very page. I've narrowed my field of favorites to McCain and Thompson, as I've said time and again.

Face it, Fredheads just can't take even mild criticism, and when someone suggests Fred take this or that measure, the standard response is exactly like the one I replied to above. It's exactly what you said in reply to my reply.

"oh I guess we'll just sacrifice principle for nice hair"

It's ridiculous straw man nonsense.

absentee

I criticized Fred's performance myself (re-read my post please). I have no problem reading/writing criticism of Fred, but as a proponent of Fred I think I'll continue to agree with some critism and stick up for him where I think I should.

Sticking up for my principles is not a straw man.

You criticized his performance. Bully for you. I didn't say you didn't. I said you can't accept criticism. Just like the person I replied to. As for re-reading, re-read your own words:

"So take the charismatic FC only, SC only or flip-flopping liberal/conservative (depending on your audience at the time). Forget about your conservative principles and go with charisma. Got it. ;)"

I don't see how I can make this dispute any clearer than I already have. Sticking up for your .... give me about half a break. You present a false choice, you incorrectly categorize my position. Face it, you were straight wrong. Own up.

Yeesh. Principles. Good gosh.

absentee

That of course is not my intention. I'm just here to point out why I support Fred and to accept and make criticism where it is deserved. I'm sure, if you are a conservative (not a knock on you, I just don't know much about you), we'll end up voting for the same candidate anyway.

I don't think I present a false choice. I'm stating what I believe. Sorry if you don't like the way I presented it or that I do believe there is the choice that I wrote about.

Good luck to you and the candidate you support!

Somehow this just isn't breaking through. You do present a false choice. The whole 'what I believe thing' is completely immaterial. Do you believe in being logical? Do you believe in reading things you intend to reply to?

You, and the person I replied to, CONTINUE to answer each criticism about presentation with the response, as I KEEP pointing out, "oh well, if you want style OVER substance ..." yadda yadda yadda.

This is so tiresome. If indeed you are that interested in Fred, I invite you to reread this entire aside, starting with the person I replied to. I repeatedly pointed out, repeatedly, that your concern was unfounded, yet you continue to make it a foundation of your position. The entire discussion has been absurd. I point out that you don't have to look at it as a choice between style and substance, and every BLINKING time I say that, some Fredhead comes in with the tired old "well if you want slick over principled" NONSENSE.

YES, I am upset. I am ALWAYS upset when I repeatedly say the same exact thing to the same exact people and they respond as if I just said completely the opposite.

Case in point is that you still FAIL to get that I DO support Fred Thompson. I have two horses, Fred and McCain. I just got my "I'm With Fred" materials in the mail today. But that has NOTHING to do with this discussion.

My GOSH it is like talking to a brick wall. The candidate boosters around here are really starting to get under my skin. I'm very happy that y'all are happy with your varous candidates. But PLEASE for the love of pete, have enough self-respect to be happy and logical! Please?

/tirade

absentee

You say

'Who said "over". This is an over-the-top pronouncement, and it keeps popping up. Charisma is a consideration. That doesn't mean to the exclusion of or in preference to their core beliefs or substance.'

I 100% agree that "Charisma is a consideration." I just don't think it is the most important consideration and if I didn't agree with the candidate's positions/values or trust them, then the fact that they are charismatic wouldn't mean terribly much to me.

I agree several of Fred's performances have been "lackadaisical". You are right. He is no Mitt Romney in the charisma department. I think he has the right positions/values and needs to work on being a much more charismatic salesman. I hope he steps up. I trust him.

I have continuously, in this thread, tried to see your perspective and just sit back as you attack. I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye on this. I'm expecting another attack for this, but I'm trying to at least get along. Good luck absentee.

South Carolina is shaping to be Thompson's saddest story. It was his one must-win state that would let him bring some kind of success into the big Tuesday. The state is packed with the people who were supposed to best appreciate him.

The four latest polls - from earliest to latest - have him coming in at: 24, 21, 18, and 10. He's not "up 187%," he's down 44%.

with your assessment. We'll have to see what happens when the candidates really start throwing money here. If Fred loses here, he's pretty much done (if he also loses IA and NH).

For the up 187% I was referring to this poll, which in fact he is up 187%: http://www.myetv.org/television/productions/the_big_picture/winthrop_etv...

You are correct about the average of the four latest polls of course.

up 179.7 percent in that poll ;)

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

That's sure not my impression, fox. I hear Hannity and Rush (and Laura) giving Fred at least as much credence as Giuliani and Romney. He gets pretty frequent interviews with Hannity (Rush doesn't really do interviews).

You are asking these talking heads to CHOOSE one, and while I think as individuals that's great for us to do, it's different for conservaative talk. What happens if Hannity backs Rudy, but then Romney gets the nomination? It wouldn't be an unmitigated disaster, but it would cause some repercussions, I think.

To throw your backing behind a candidate, part of that game is accentuating his positives, as well as accentuating the negatives of his primary opponents. That's the nature of 'backing' your guy.

In my opinion, these top talkers are doing what they ought to -- discussing and examining in some detail ALL of the viable ones, pointing out their real or perceived strengths and weaknesses, and I think using their considerable influence to suggest to EACH candidate how best to frame issues and conduct campaigns.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

That's exactly right. It's not their job to "choose" a candidate, just to give them all the forum they need to project their messages. Each candidate can probably choose to call any of those folks and get some air time.

If you want the talking heads to pick a candidate to back and they do, don't be dismayed if it isn't your candidate. (This is directed to the folks who might be agreeing with "oldfox.")

I would hope they also don't start tearing down any of the leaders, either.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

crowd of pundits and radio hosts. And i think this is mainly due to two things that are very understandable:

1 - He made the city they live and play in liveable

and

2 - regional loyalty

more later on this

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

My alias isn't capitalized.

I figure, since that's the only part of my reply you paid any attention to, I'll return the favor.

 |
 |
\/ (lower-case)
absentee

The Giuliani legacy could be enormous, lasting twenty or more years beyond his Administration. That's because Giuliani would not make the same mistake GWB did in leaving tens of thousands of Clinton stooges in place, all around the executive branch bureaucracies, where they could pop out at just the right moment to plant a shiv in his back. How many times did we see that happen to Bush?

No, Giuliani would send the political appointees back to the Brookings Institution and the GS-14's and -15's to the Albuquerque office of the Railroad Retirement Board. If there's one thing Rudy knows how to do, it's play bureaucratic hardball.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

if Fred gets elected and he doesn't do anything except veto harmful laws he will have helped America an awful lot.

I don't know WHEN you got your numbers, but as of today 11/1/07 this is what is reported at Rasmussen on Fred and his Fav/Unfav ratings.

FRED THOMPSON 47% / 37%
History Conservative: 47%
Moderate: 23%
Liberal: 6%
History

Are we the only ones who even care about this stuff?

I ask around at work about peoples opinions and more then half of them don't even know who's running on either side. I'll give them the names and they just look at me with blank stares. Pretty much the only responses I get are either A.) I will NOT vote for a republican no matter who they are, or B.) I will NOT vote for Hillary no matter who she is running against.

Go figure.....this country dosen't vote/care. I figure that voter turnout will be up this cycle based on the 2 above positions but which one drives the most voters to the polls... I gotta want to believe it's the No Hillary vote.

...about Presidential elections some time after the nominating conventions. This is either a searing indictment of the system, or the ultimate confirmation of its greatness. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

"I feel very strongly both ways about that."

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

Or did you not see this?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

but the Clintonesque friction slowly accumulated on him. Rudy will indeed be ruthless with the leftist bureaucracy, and he will prevail, just like he prevailed in NYC against 90+% opposition. “It is better to have a lion at the head of an army of sheep, than a sheep at the head of an army of lions.” --Daniel Defoe

...............................................
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it."
-Rudy Giuliani

that's why rudy's my man. liberals in nyc whined for 8 years that he wasn't a nice person and he was a tyrant as mayor. and you know what? he didn't give a crap what they thought. one of GWB's weaknesses has been that he always wants to play nice with the dems. giuliani could not care less if they hate his guts. i'll take the hard-ass bastard over the softie every time.

It takes a certain hardness to wield the surgeon's scalpel.

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."

and the housing market in Albuquerque has to beat the heck out the one in Occupied Virginia right now.

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."

that leads you to believe that Giuliani will be one bit more successful in pushing legislation through a Democrat Congress than any other candidate/President. All I see here from those who contend as you do is a bunch of "feelings" about how well Giuliani would do.

Frankly, I don't think a rude, pushy NYC-personality-possessing Giuliani will be any more successful. His manner is just as likely to piss people off and make them less likely to cooperate as to get buy-in, in my subjective opinion, (which is just as valid as anyone else's subjective opinion).

Martin posted a front pager about Rudy that shows he can and does get things done in the face of opposition.

Like Martin, I sincerely hope Rudy is not the nominee. But I have to agree that he has a demonstrably effective style.

absentee

as opposed to any other candidate. Any of the candidates (except RP, of course) can cite a resume of accomplishments. I don't deny that Giuliani has a long list of accomplishments, and Martin did a fine job of documenting them. But that doesn't mean Rudy's any more qualified to accomplish things than any of the other guys (except RP, of course).

But it seemed as if the point of the discussion was whether Rudy was particularly suited to push things through in the face of stark opposition, with a hostile media etc. I think Rudy's record, among or as opposed to any other candidate, is particularly strong.

Among the rest, only Mitt has really waded in such a filthy cesspool as Rudy has had to wade in. And Rudy was more effective than Mitt. Huckabee certainly dealt with a lot of Ds but, in my opinion, not in a particularly adversarial way. Thompson and McCain as Senators have no comparable situation.

I personally believe McCain or Fred would be exactly as effective in pushing through obstacles, perhaps less so at selling successes through the media. But that is only my opinion. I believe in the case of Rudy there is some pretty strong real evidence.

Still, here's hoping it's not Rudy.

absentee

>>>I personally believe McCain or Fred would be exactly as effective in pushing through obstacles<<<

I agree wholeheartedly.

I am not familiar enough with NYC political history to know if Giuliani's accomplishments in NYC were "in the face of stark opposition" or not, but as I implied, I don't believe he'll be able to bully his policies through a Dem-controlled Congress. It's one thing to intimidate a city councilman, but quite another to intimidate U.S. senators and congressmen.

beyond a slight Democrat majority in Congress? Easy. There's nothing better than past performance for that, so look at all the conservative policies he got passed an NYC council that had a 90+% majority against him. And NYC liberals are, if anything, as up-in-the-clouds as any you can find out there, and sneakier than most.

...............................................
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it. [...]There are many, many things that can be done in law enforcement to protect us better."
-Rudy Giuliani

feared Reagan post landslides. Clinton feared Newt post 94 takeover.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

That would be why I already said it, above. I thought you weren't interested.

"la la la la" and so it goes.

absentee