As conservatives make up their mind in South Carolina, Thompson is going up in the polls.

By Erick Posted in Comments (142) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Well, I'm back from South Carolina. It was a fun two days. I rode on the bus (I was the only non-campaign/non-family member on the bus this morning), talked to the candidate, and I got to meet my hero - Campaign Carl Cameron. Yes, he is that cool.

In any event, from the ground it seems objectively clear that Fred Thompson has momentum. While still third or fourth in polling, he is trending up enough that the national media has taken notice and has started paying more attention to him.

At events in rural areas today, despite sleet, snow, and ice, Thompson saw large crowds. Likewise, Huckabee has escalated his attacks. This bears with conventional wisdom from reporters I talked to who have said they are seeing Huckabee going down and Thompson going up in the polling.

It may very well be too late. But with Romney ceding the field and Huckabee going down, it may be possible. One thing that is clear — conservatives are making up their mind and as they do, Thompson is going up.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Nevada Caucus results in the hands of a Bush appointee! [Updated and bumped.]Comments (34) »
As conservatives make up their mind in South Carolina, Thompson is going up in the polls. 142 Comments (0 topical, 142 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

You're going to think this a minor point, but thank you for referring to your candidate by his last name. It allows undecided voters to take him (or anyone else referred to that way) more seriously, in my opinion. It makes the whole thing seem less like a fan club and more like a presidential campaign. Your mileage may vary.

Movements within the margin of error have no meaning, unless they're repeated and confirmed over multiple readings. A one day movement of one point has zero statistical significance.

HTML Help for Red Staters

However it seems in that case a trend determination in SC is largely dependent on where you choose to begin your analysis.

Not sure what the margin of error is on each of the last six polls taken but if it is 3% then the only clear trend from the polls is a downward one for McCain.

McCain and Huckabee in SC.

The fact that 3 polls confirm the same upward movement for Huck is significant.

David Limbaugh has officially endorsed Fred, giving Fred a big push going into his last full day of SC campaigning.

Also, expect the Huckabee dirty campaigning to backfire badly on him. His "I don't condone this" answer was timid at best. He should've fired off at this sleaze group, which speaks volumes about Huckabee's character.

after that trip! Welcome home, I know the kiddies missed you a lot!

The HinzSight Report
Managing Editor

With Mitt Romney leaving to solidfy his likely win in Nevada; this could be used as a way for Fred to move up to 2nd. In some ways, those 2 are battling for the same core conservatives. The question is whether it's better for each of them for the other to drop out. Or is it better to both be in to keep Rudy from winning Florida and leaving them bothe behind.

Ray J. Tuleya

Sorry, I meant to add Fred Thompson's last name and forgot to add it as I previewed my comment.

Ray J. Tuleya

Didn't mean to make my first comment a question. *sigh*

Assuming that he can manage a close third (< 5 pts) behind McCain and Huckabee, does he have anywhere to go from here? It doesn't seem like it.


after your hypothetical 3rd place finish in South Carolina? Well, to a brokered convention in the Twin Cities, then to the White House(ha, ha, ha).

[NOTE: I wasn't taunting. It has something to do with President Grover Cleveland.

He's got some momentum and he's in the state, whereas Mitt is blowing SC off and the voters have been unforgiving to absent candidates.

That said, Fred just has too high a hill to climb to overtake McCain and Huck in SC.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Romney was in South Carolina long enough to smack down an associated press douchebag named Glen Johnson. Johnson overstepped his role in a manner that no AP reporter would ever do to a Democrat or a quasi-Democrat (e.g. McCain or Huckabee). I think some South Carolinians will like to happy to see Romney fight back.

Why should Mitt Headroom object to a reporter calling him on that? I'm tired of a president how doesn't feel he has to take questions from the press as if he's above being questioned. Mitt was saying something that was not true and he got called on it.

John S. McCain III.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I know Mitt Headroom doesn't like that, but it's still true.

John S. McCain III.

For whom does Beth Myers lobby? Or Carl Forti? Or Josh Ginsberg? Or Joe Wall?


Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

The reporter made his point - one of Mitt's big people is a lobbyist. Mitt tried to go all Clinton on what the word 'running' means which is just typical of him. What word will he parse next?

John S. McCain III.

Maybe "amnesty".


Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Hate to tell you but he already did that. He said what McCain offered wasn't amnesty and that he didn't say that in his ads. When it was pointed out that he HAD said that in his ads (that he's supposed to approve) he said it was a mistake and that his ad should not have said that. So I guess it also depends on what the meaning of the word 'approve' is as well.

John S. McCain III.

Insist on a letter-perfect definition of "amnesty" but very flexible on simple words like "running your campaign".

Vaya con carne.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Hey, Mitt was the one who said it wasn't amnesty.

John S. McCain III.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

... any time you can tell us for whom Beth Myers lobbies just let us all know. 'K?

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Mitt used the plural, not the singular so he wasn't just talking about Myers.

John S. McCain III.

You do know McCain is a big liberal don't you? I better be careful or else he'll come up with campaign blogging reform to shut us all up.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

I actually prefer Romney to Fred at this point but I won't mind one bit if Romney supporters vote for Fred in SC; in fact I am encouraging it. We need Fred in the race. We need conservatives to do well. Most importantly, we need Huckabee to do poorly.

The pollster call when his supporters at at events to see him!

Electability question: Do you think that Fred can win a national campaign against a Democrat with Federalism as his main issue? It may be important, but imho it is not a winning issue to anyone besides those that spend their time on blogs.

Fred Thompson is more than just a one issue candidate, but the most well-rounded candidate in either party

the theme of his campaign be?

Those are kind of separate questions. As for issues, Fred has issued REAMS of paper in white papers, he's made numerous statements, there were those weeks when he pinch hit for Paul Harvey. His positions are widely known. To grossly, GROSSLY oversimplify...

(1) No amnesty
(2) Build the fence
(3) Get SERIOUSLY busy with taking the war to the terrorists
(4) Deregulate [put here ANY overregulated area, which to say EVERYTHING]
(5) Make the tax cuts permanent, nuke earmarks, cut spending
(6) Entitlement reform (SS, Medicare) by privatizing (ultimately)
(7) Rebuild military
(8) Originalist judges on all levels

Well, that's a good start. Go to, he's got a WHOLE library section of position papers.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

Any successful campaign needs to make their themes connected to the issue. When you think of politician X you need to think of his campaign theme immediately. All candidates have a library of position papers. Not all have themes that accurately explain his campaign. The theme explains a basic philosophy in governance, which is much more important than anyone issue.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

The theme always has to be concise, memorable, and educational. Obama's is "Change" - which is short for change your drawers when you're all done crapping on yourself with stupid themes!

Hat tip to IMAO, here's Fred's theme:

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

I do take comfort in knowing that the two have ENTIRELY different meanings for that word.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

it looks terrible when politicians try to "borrow" lines from their opponents. Same goes for Clinton with her "ready for change" bs. She was much better off with experience, no one who wants change will vote for her. And Romney would be much better off going on a theme of an experienced business manager/executive.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

"punch the hippies" vote for Fred.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

That is the problem with Fred. That might go over gang busters with overzealous conservatives who are convinced that liberals are "evil", but its just plain wrong to take such an adversarial approach with those with an idealogical difference. Thats not the way to build support for your cause.

There needs to be a greater focus on why the conservative ideals are applicable today with the problems we currently face. For every large governmental program that Hillary and Obama propose, we need a counter strategy that works better --- WITHOUT using words/ phrases like "Hillary care" or "Nanny State".

The truth can only be found by those who seek it.

punch the hippie, evil, etc. Fred uses different language than that. Fred's language is much softer than what you hear on talk radio.

Fred's strength is that he can say conservative things in a matter of fact tone that does not put off moderates.

My wife has voted democrat her entire life, but she finds Fred to be a good candidate. Her read on his demeanor is totally different than yours.

People complained that he had insufficient fire in the belly. You describe him as a firebrand. I think your reaction to Fred is not shared by most people.

Regardless of his position on issues, he has only shown an ability to project two images : tired old man, or angry old man. If I had a baby, I wouldn't let him near it. Much like Romney, he seems to understand what the correct position
on an issue people what to hear, while demonstrating he doesn't have a clue why.

The truth can only be found by those who seek it.

Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan

he is great once a race gets down to 2 people. His laid back "adult" manner is desirable in a two person race because he comes across as more together than the other person.

In a multi-person primary where you need to grab attention to yourself, he is not nearly as effective.

For example, against an aggressive ego-maniac like Hillary, Fred would do better than any of the Republicans. Against Barak, I am less sure.

He's the stereo type of the evil, mean, rich republican. He's not going to win the black, Hispanic, independent or female vote. He'd get creamed at least 60 - 40 overall. I think theres a core of maybe 35% of the population that will always vote republican, so thats probably what he would get against Obama. I'd give him the slight increase against Hillary, simply because there are at least 5% of independents that hate Hillary ( a number that will most likely grow the longer that she feuds with Obama).

The truth can only be found by those who seek it.

He radiates sincerity and authenticity, taking advantage of her biggest weakness. He is calm, so he won't fall into the trap of making Hillary a victim (Rudy would probably fall for this). His matter of fact tone would be appealing to moderates/swing voters, and his likeability factor is the opposite of Hillary.

The truth can only be found by those who seek it.

responsible non-flashy authority figure. I think a lot of swing voters who aren't particularly issue oriented will vote for Fred.

And no, they won't. Even if he were to miraculously make it that far. If he had more charisma, he'd be a front runner. It is indeed shocking that an actor has such a hard time communicating. He is the republican Chris Dodd.

The truth can only be found by those who seek it.

Rush Limbaugh has great charisma, but plays around as an entertainer does, so you bash him. And yet Fred Thompson tells the unvarnished truth, without playing around trying to go Hollywood with the world as it is, so you bash him, too.

How flyerhawkian.

HTML Help for Red Staters

If will help if Fred can communicate that Federalism binds us together in protecting our liberties. It keeps the Federal gov't out of dictating what we do in our bedrooms, it keeps the Federal gov't out of our wallets and telling us how to run our businesses, and it keeps the Federal gov't from harming religious liberties by imposing one-size-fits-all moral standards that trend liberal and hurt social conservatives' goals.

There is something in there for everyone... for libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives, including evangelicals. It is the glue that binds these factions together by achieving shared goals and protecting all Americans from getting railroaded by others with different goals. Likewise, it sends many things back to the States level regarding those debates about policies where we disagree with each other.

It is a win-win for freedom and we all get the vast majority of what we want most. And the founding fathers would be proud because THAT was the model they gave us which we have veered from considerably.

The largest irony of this campaign is that a President Huckabee's "Big Gov't for Jesus" governing philosophy is going to lead to more and more Federal power and precedents which will only empower a future Hillary Clinton-type president to use this expanded power to totally harass and screw over the Evangelical crowd. They'll harass home schoolers, elevate sexual orientation to a point where a Christian private schools won't be able to stay in business when they refuse to hire a lesbian, etc. And it will all be on the basis of further away from Federalism that a well-intentioned President Huckabee will do. (Not to mention that Huckabee's ethics are so problematic that I don't think he is going to be a good witness for Christ... instead, he will be like Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker on display for 4-8 years, abet with different types of sins)

(and I'm an unappologetic, evangelical, literal-bible-believing, fundamentalist Christian)

But I was talking about the general election. My question is what will his campaign look like in the general election, and how he will hope to beat either Obama or Clinton.

Thompson can not communicate. He can yell and call liberals evil, but I haven't read, or heard anything from him that would lead me to believe he could explain any of the reasons why a smaller government is better for everyone. Heck, even Bush with his limited speaking abilities, was able to gesticulate some sense of positive enthusiasm for issues.

The truth can only be found by those who seek it.

even in his more intense debate moments, the harshness was in what he said, not in how he said.

His radio commentaries were awesome---the presidential radio addresses would be a lot better under Fred than George W

He just rubs me the wrong wrong way. I'm not the only one. It would, indeed be difficult to *not* do a better job the Bush on the radio. I wouldn't categorize Thompson as awesome, he's very condescendingly adversarial in tone.

The truth can only be found by those who seek it.

Mitt people in SC Vote Fred. Take out the RINOS

He may not be there, but he is not giving up. In fact, I am going to Greenville tomorrow from Atlanta to help Mitt get the word out.

This is what you call a 50 state campaign. None of the other candidates know what that looks like.


Ceding from the in-fighting. A lot of wishful thinking assumes Romney is no going to be competitive. I think he's happy he's go the targe off his back the way he had it in Iowa and NH. Let the others beat each other up and have a sneaky good showing.

For any candidate that doesn't have a lot of "baggage"... including ethics baggage (Huckabee & Guiliani)... or inconsistency baggage (McCain &, to a lesser extent Romney)... or "read my lips"-like baggage (Huckabee, McCain, & Romney)

Thompson has the least of these.

Otherwise, it will be a cakewalk for just about anyone because the Democrats have shifted so far Left in the just the past several years. In their recent victories, they have had to hide their policies in their ads to "look" no so leftish. They won't get away with it this time.

Also, Democrats won last year because:

(1) Republicans failed us on Spending. (This won't hurt McCain or Thompson or Romney) --but other related things hurt McCain

(2) Republicans failed us on Immigration (this hurts just about everyone but Thompson. But the damage is minimal since everyone is campaigning forcefully on this issue.)

(3) Democrats campaigned as moderates

(4) Democrats campaigned as "we get things done"

(5) The War

Points 1 & 2 no longer apply, especially if we choose the right candidates. Points 3 & 4 no longer apply given the Democrat congress's poor showing on both of these, as shown by their low approval ratings... much lower than Bush, in fact.

And if opposition to the war is getting to be a liablity in the Democrat primaries, it won't help at all in the general election.

So MUCH has changed since last year.

This "landscape" is one of the main reasons so many want the Republican nomination. It won't take that much to win in the general... just as long as we don't select a candidate that gives them too much "dirt" to use.

For any candidate that doesn't have a lot of "baggage"... including...inconsistency baggage (McCain &, to a lesser extent Romney)

What? You have clearly -- by accident, I am sure -- misordered those two names.

McCain CONTINUES in his inconsistencies... and is in denial about them. For example, on Tax Cuts, he is a walking self-contradiction. At least Romney has been consistent the past 2-3 years. (FWIW)

First off let me say that I believe McCain is by far and away the best general election candidate.

Now for your five points.

You are right that point one no longer applies, the Dems will claim to be fiscal conservatives but the Republican will retain an advantage there.

Immigration has not won a single election yet, it is more of a base issue than anything else.

Democrats in 06 did no campaign as moderates, they campaigned against the war. The war is still wildly unpopular, it will be a strength for the Dem nominee.

Also, while congress' approval rating is low, Republicans in congress have a much lower approval rating than the Dems.

It will be a very difficult election for the Republicans, McCain is likely the only one who can win. But even for him it will be tough, depending on if Obama or Clinton is the nominee. Clinton matches up better with McCain, but Obama does better against all other Republicans.

"McCain is by far and away the best general election candidate."

Mostly because of what non-talk-radio-listening Republicans DON'T know about McCain's record. I fear there will be some buyer's remorse by the time the general election happens.

Immigration has not won a single election yet, it is more of a base issue than anything else.

It is hard to know which percent of over-spending vs. lack of progress on immigration caused us to lose in 2006. But, clearly, our turnout was down and this caused a loss of critical percentage points. Personally, I think that it was the combination of the two that created a whole that was greater than the sum of the parts. They multipled together. The fury on both was vast. So I disagree. Immigration was a huge. (Because getting just 1-4% of Republican voters to stay at home is HUGE in these margin won elections.) The reason this isn't hurting McCain more is because this vote is so diluted among so many candidates. but it will effect the general election.

Democrats in 06 did no campaign as moderates, they campaigned against the war.

First, you are totally wrong. They went so far as to promise that they'd do better on spending and, to their credit, they passed a few reforms at the beginning that out to make every high ranking Republican red-faced with shame that the Dems did this. (can't recall the bill.. but I can look it up.) They also kept hidden various aspects of their plans... for example, it wasn't until AFTER the election that we heard about things like Charlie Rangle's "tax the hell out of us" proposals.

The war is still wildly unpopular, it will be a strength for the Dem nominee.

Look for them to "overplay their hand" on this. It will backfire. The move-on crowd and the Ron Paul crowd combined still make up a somewhat small percentage of the general election voters.

Also, while congress' approval rating is low, Republicans in congress have a much lower approval rating than the Dems.

But who is in charge matters. The Democrats control congress. What is done now is on their watch. I think most people see it that way and don't follow legislation enough to make detailed nuanced opinions about what the Republicans do in Congress versus what the Democrats do in Congress. Anything that might make you feel differently is probably more spillover from general long-term views about the parties in general.

But the fact that (A) you support McCain and (B) you seem to follow MSN conventional wisdom ...probably makes a lot of sense... and matches the pattern of who supports McCain and who doesn't.

My Dad is in the same boat. He leans towards McCain... but is not very well informed about McCain's record. I guess I have some work to do. I've been too busy talking down Huckabee and Ron Paul.

I dont support McCain at all. He will never get my vote. I just believe that he would be the strongest in the general election.

I believe that McCain is the only one who can appeal to a wide amount of people and excite the base. He doesnt have the problems that every other candidate does.
Romney- will get killed as a flip flopper, this alone would lose him the election. Plus, there is still anti-mormon bias in this country.
Rudy- ethics will kill him plus abortion/marriage voters won't turn out.
Huckabee- Splits the base.
Fred- Has the second best chance of winning behind McCain, but simply will have lots of trouble appealing to more than just the base. He might have what you think are good policies, and make a great president, but he is a bad politician.

Far be it to disillusion anyone,but talk radio hosts of all stripes have been known to wildly distort the facts, while interjecting all manners of speculative innuendo. My sincere hope is that the silent majority of republicans can see past the infantile blustering of the talking heads. We'd be far better off with out the charlatans pretending to preach to the choir.

The truth can only be found by those who seek it.

I'd trust El Rushbo before I trusted Dan Rather's successors without batting an eye.

HTML Help for Red Staters

The best way to fight any lies is with the unvarnished truth. Rush doesn't do that, there's no money in it. He'd rather whip up the audience with extreme examples of far left activity and superimposing it upon the far more moderate politicians extrapolating it to doomsday scenarios. Its a lot like the Jack Van Impe show where every show is dedicated to worst case doomsday scenarios that are right around the corner.

The truth can only be found by those who seek it.

immigration will be a big general election winner--but it certainly won't be a loser for the Republicans. I'm also not sure that it hurt us in 2006 (I assume you mean the 2006 election and not 2007 stuff)

You missed one major theme that hurt the Republicans in 2006--ethics violations. In my opinion the 2006 election was about spending and ethics. You are also dead on that the Democrat pick-ups were Dems running as "moderates". Here in Indiana they ran as all-out conservatives.

SO. Is Fred hurt on ethics? No. McCain? No. Romney? No. Rudy? YES. Huck? BIG TIME.

Is Fred hurt on spending issues? No. McCain? No. Romney? A little. Rudy? A little. Huck? BIG TIME.

Based on 2006, I think only Rudy and Huck are "unelectable". I think the rest will do just fine.

My fondest hope is that several candidates quit the race and tearfully apologize to Fred Thompson and the Republican Party for even considering running against Frederico El Grande.

My reasonable hope: well, that the polls conceal a McCain collapse that will benefit Thompson.

Here are my average numbers for the three polls taken exclusively last night: SUSA, Rasmussen, and Public Policy Polling (the latter of which is discussed here:

McCain 27.00
Huckabee 23.33
Romney 17.67
Thompson 16.67
Paul 4.67
Giuliani 3.33

My guess is that McCain's numbers do not yet show fully the effect of the Michigan loss--and I'm hoping that benefits Thompson. If Thompson has a PERFECT 48 hours, he might be able to get a last minute surge, akin to the last-minute surge that helped Romney perform 10 points better than the final RCP average (from 30 to 40%) and 6.5 points higher relative to his small lead over McCain in that final average. That would give him a finish in the mid-20s and possibly first place.

That's the best case scenario.

Expectation--he's surging some. Enough to make it close to 20%, but in third place. With McCain and Huckabee about 5 points ahead in a close race.

But let's see how the tracking polls look tomorrow AM and Sat. AM. If the surge remains strong, who knows?

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

In Michigan, the Real Clear Politics Average did not perform so well. Here is the final RCP Average versus the actual performance:

Mitt: 29 / 39 (-10)
McCain: 26 / 29 (-3)
Huck: 16 / 16 (0)

That 10 points off is pretty significant. In polling terms, so is the 3. I believe that they missed the late move toward Mitt. From the (admittedly somewhat biased) blogging reports that I have seen, the movement is toward Fred. 10 points worth? I don't know. But I certainly think 2nd is in easy reach. First is a distinct possibility. Huck's negative push polls (I know, he isn't doing it, but he will pay for it) will also help Fred.

For Fred, the important thing is that he needs to beat Huck and probably Mitt. He does not need to beat McCain, though it would certainly help.

We used to work together at Bellsouth. I have not heard from him in six months. He said he made his mind up this week to vote for Fred and sent me info on Fred. He said he was doing the online phone bank thing. I emailed him back that I have been a Fred supporter since May.

He never supported Huckabee because of the overt religious overtones to his campaign but was torn between Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson and chose Fred because he was consistant in his conservatism...

As long as he beats Huckabee he can continue..

Fred D. Thompson is the man when it comes to issues & principles. I hope that as more people decide for whom to vote, that being the consistent, strong conservative matters.

won't impact this election. It has been a front burner issue only since the failed legislative effort. It was the issue that began Clinton's problems... it IS a key campaign issue, and should be.

Speaking of which.. how does McCain (whom when I last checked, was a Republican member of Congress) profit from the low approval ratings of Congress... in particular, the Republicans?

McCain needs crossover and moderate votes, and those will come at the expense of conservatives who sit out. I don't see how he is the strongest national candidate. At best, we don't have a clue who the strongest is at this point.

Say it ain't so Erick.

There are two people on Fox I can't stand to watch.

Sheperd Smith and Carl Cameron both come off as spoiled fratboys that ruin their reports with "too cool for you" smirks and injection of opinion with smart------ comments.

Can't stand Carl Cameron.


Even as a Fredhead, his question to RP at last Fox Debate about "electability" was shameful, crass, unprofessional and totally without taste.

-- 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 --, McCain is up 9.5 and Thompson is in fifth place. If that holds, I'd love to see Thompson withdraw and endorse McCain, then accept McCain's offer as running mate. The numbers will likely change between now and Saturday, and I'm pretty sure Thompson will go up.

The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2

I think most evryone is referencing the SC polls. Freds in forth place of a tight field.

I punched on the wrong link, and I confess that I am an imperfect blogger. The right link is here, with McCain up by 4.4 and Romney in 4th, for now.

The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2

Too old, too many Senators, no executive experience. Also, Fred's like a foot taller than McCain.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

...Democratic ticket, i.e., Obama-Hillary or Hillary-Obama (I'm assuming they'll kiss and make up). The height difference will be a problem, though. McCain's pretty short.

The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2

I would not be too disappointed in McCain-Thompson.

I am afraid that I don't see any real movement for Fred Thompson. He tends to be a strong fourth in all the polls, and has been in that position for some time now. And fourth isn't good enough, which is a shame.

A Fred staffer from one of the primary states he's lost already writes in to dispute my view that the Thompson campaign lacks an overriding theme and a memorable slogan. This is the view from his state:

Here are some other things missing from the campaign:
1) a finance chair
2) a clear chain of command
3) top-down loyalty
4) a candidate who was willing to campaign for more than 4 hours at day
5) direct mail
6) a college student coordinator
7) a media strategy
Other than that, the campaign had everything.
In New Hampshire, I know of two town chairs for the Fred campaign who wound up voting for other candidates.

W.C. Fields for President!

...I mean, really, ouch. Don't read the message above, Fredheads, or you heads might explode (no pun intended).

Ride the momentum to 4th in SC, Fred!

want their 15 minutes of fame, but yet they don't give out their name...

Texas Proud and Texas Loud

What's truely hilarious is than ANYONE would see any credibility at all in this c***.

Fred haters will grasp at anything at all.

Mayne not, but you're still grasping.

If it came from a new hampshire volunteer then it makes sense....Fred didn't campaign there.

If it came from a Michigan volunteer...then it makes sense...Fred didn't campaign there.

If it came from an Iowa volunteer...then it is a little disturbing but Fred didn't initially campaign there. He went there for 2 weeks b/c he saw an opening.

As far as South Carolina me he has plenty of volunteers and organization there.

So overall, I would call this a pretty cheap hit piece...and pretty pointless.

i doubt steyn was trying to be cheap, though

my guess is he's rather sympathetic to fred

W.C. Fields for President!

What other motivation do you see for posting it?

take it easy, bud. mark steyn is allowed to post critical things about candidates without HATING those candidates.

W.C. Fields for President!

It seems like Fred's campaign exists entirely on the internets and on blogs. :(

I wish they'd get their sorry act together, because I really want to vote for him. I don't want to vote for whatever-candidate-keeps-Huckabee-from-winning (I'm in Alabama, where Huckabee is ahead as of the last polling data).

I've been groveling, begging for people to donate to Thompson's campaign, but stuff like this just makes it harder.

Fred08 - Contribute Now

Here in Texas, I cannot get enough Thompson bumper-stickers to satisfy the demand. Fred has lots of fans, and they are very serious.

And, sadly, true.

Hello all. It seems to me that most here at redstate are very knowledgeable about Thompson and support him. Unlike most independants, the media doesn't sway me much and I prefer to do my own research on candidates. I guess I would describe myself as a fiscal conservative, however socially liberal. However, due to the direction the nation is going, I am leaning towards voting on my economic principles this time around (this is my 2nd prez election.) Anyways, I have a few questions that maybe someone can answer.

1. Anyone knows what Thompson's views are on the failed war on drugs and letting the individual states decide what recreational drugs to legalize or not?

2. Also, could anyone tell me if Thompson would look to lower the captial gains tax from 15% to a lower rate? His white paper states that he will keep it at 15%, but I feel it should be, hmm closer to 0%. Atleast for the first 50,000 USD.

3. Would Thompson cut NASA spending even further, or would he view it as part of 'tech and defense' spending, and increase its funding?

4. What are his views on Nuclear power?

Overall, I think Thompson is the best republican candidate (and the one that could bring together the republican party together). I don't particularly care for overt support for Israel and middle-america social conservative "american" values crap. However I do like his policies on fiscal, immigration, central government (reduction of it of course), and defense (strengthening of) matters.

So here's an undecided that you lot can try to convince to vote for Fred or maybe another (R) candidate, go for it, i'm open to all arguments.


I know he supports a increasing nuclear energy. Like his white papers say, he supports keeping the capital gains tax rate the same. But he does support an optional flat tax. I am not sure about the NASA thing. And I don't know about his position on drugs.

supports increasing*

Rush (I think it was Rush?) used to make a facinating comparison between Barney Frank to Dan Quayle.

(First, Dan is much smarter than the news media made him out to be... but still, he wasn't the brightest light around!)

If you compared Quayle to Frank, there is no question that Frank is worlds smarter and more knowledgable than Quayle. Probably more disciplines and organized than Quayle as well.

But which of these two men would make the better President? Which would sign/veto the right bills? Whose proposals would be better for our country? What kind of judges would each appoint.

For this reason, I frankly could just about care less if Thompson was even more lazy and disorganized than we could ever imagine.

The important thing is that, based no a long term consistent past record, I'm sure Thompson will have no problem picking up that pen and vetoing a new entitlement program that will spend billions of our children's money that a McCain or Huckabee might have signed... and I don't think it takes much physical energy or organization to pick up that pen and veto that bill.

Therefore, ideas and ideology trump all.

These things being equal, organization and discipline might matter. But these things are not equal. Not even close.

You're right, ideas and ideology trump all. However, they're just ideas and ideology unless he is elected, and that takes organization and discipline.

They have GOT to get it together.

Fred08 - Contribute Now

Here is the best reason to vote for FDT:

Overall, I think Thompson is the best republican candidate (and the one that could bring together the republican party together).

Armed men can not be enslaved, only defeated.

I can only answer number 1. Senator Thompson is a strong believer in states rights. I haven' heard him specifically address drug laws, but turning them over to the several states fits his philosophy.

Capable but distracted for a moment.

Jeff by Dersu

I am quite capable, only failed to do so.

If that is a capital offense, so be it.
Snide remarks are no better coming from the queen bee than from the worker bee.

Armed men can not be enslaved, only defeated.

Apparently you failed to do so yet again.

The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

interest in this is what?

I am glad to be here, but not at any price.

Armed men can not be enslaved, only defeated.

It has much more to do with the flow of the thread. If you hadn't posted until tomorrow, your post could be miles away from the subject you are commenting on.

Fred08 - Contribute Now

I really am grateful for your input.
Believe it or not, but not all of us know all of these things.
I am now educated, thanks to you.

Armed men can not be enslaved, only defeated.

Conservatives in IA, NH, and MI made up their minds that Romney was their candidate. The Thompson folks are delusional.

Well after a year campaigning and 15-20 million dollars I would imagine voters in those states would support Romney...what is really surprising is that Romney only managed to win one of those states, despite having a home field advantage in 2 of the 3.

Lets be honest...most voters do not really pay attention to when they see mitts face on tv for a year, they choose to vote for him based on name recognition alone.

Maybe he is the conservative candidate, just like National Review says. Maybe he is the harder worker, the better communicator, the more dedicated, the better informed, the better prepared to lead our nation, and well, just BETTER. Or yeah, maybe he is just buying the damn thing. I'll have to meditate on it.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

Has anyone divided Romney's campaign costs in NH by the number of votes he got? Just curious.... i just wish Fred had the checkbook that Romney has. But wait, wasn't the playing field supposed to be leveled out now?

-- 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 --

I would like to see him finish first or a close second just so the MSM will not be able to say that so and so is now the clear frontrunner going into super Tuesday.

Fred is in 3rd in California, almost tied for 2nd. They award their 173 delegates by congressional districts. Fred's got the Hollywood Hookup!?!

And in this weekend's Nevada Caucuses Fred could get another 'Bronze'...

So a strong 2nd in SC, a close 3rd in Fl, and then there are a handful of states that could go Fred... 1,191 delegates needed. Mitt has 42, Huck 32, McCain 13, Fred 3.

I remember when Hillary was inevitable, McCain was dead, Huck was one of many long-shots, Obama was inevitable, etc.

Come on Fred.

Doesn't Florida award its delegates "winner take all?" I think they do (and so does New York, if I'm not mistaken).

So, in that case, 2nd or 3rd place might mean a ticket to the February 5th Super Tuesday contest, but zero delegates. Agree?

Fred has zero shot at nod

These Fredsters turn many people off

All the signs are looking good for the senator in SC ... and tonight he got the nod from David Limbaugh ( ) and Mark Levin (who told South Carolinians to vote for Fred) ...

“The answer is Fred Thompson.” – Human Events

McCain thinks he’s called the sheriff. Wonder what Teddy calls him? I call him co-conspirator.

why is he being attached on here so much lately!

Conservatism is about empowering people to do the work, not the government!

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service