Redstate

How the Republicans take down Huckabee will tell you a lot about how they will take on whatever socialist that the Democrats put up.

nt

...will Fred be his Dick Cheney?

nt.

pure gold.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Anteater... I sincerely apologize for thinking that you must be daft...

I'll admit, I can be slow... Help me understand... how is a vote for Fred a vote for the Huckster?

Otherwise, you'll end up voting for the wrong person.

==== 13 ====

If you want to beat Huck, consolidate your support behind either Romney or Fred. The fact that Fred's supporters are not giving up on him only helps Huck. More power to you!

way by predicting this may indeed actually turn out to be a Romney-Huck race rather than a Rudy-Huck or Rudy-Romney race, but it seems to me if you have ANY political intuition, you know that evangelicals are solidly w/ Huck, and Thompson is just not going to happen being at 2% in NH and not truly registering in IA and being crushed in SC and has already had his day in the sun in the polls and has dropped like a rock from it, and Guiliani's tires have been leaking air in national polls to the point that now he's 4 pts behind Huck for national lead in Rasmussen, and only 4 pts ahead of Romney.

One way of looking at it: Huck is VERY likable, but people buying the "Huck's a fiscal liberal" spin of the establishment Manhattan conservatives making mountains out of any molehills in Huck's comments or record are now split 3 ways between Rudy, Guiliani, and Thompson; (McCain has a 'maverick' voting bloc); the longer it takes for Thompson supporters to realize that, the better for us Huck supporters. You're absolutely right.

I suppose from a certain skewed point of view, that your points might make sense...

I'll stick with my initial impression.

we have Huckabots trying to say that it's Manhattan conservative smearing Huckabee.

Whatever narrative they need.

I wouldn't consider the fact Mike Huckabee raised the tax burden on the average citizen in Arkansas by 47%, despite "cutting 97 different taxes" to be a mole hill. Do we really want to go down this road of what are facts and what are distortions? It is pointless, doncha think?

Nothing is Huckabee's fault. The bottom line to ANY answer he has about the flaws in his policies is it wasn't his fault. Whether he says it out right, tries to deflect the discussion to someone else and how he perceives their policies to be flawed, or flat out tells half-truths to bolster himself, it never IS his fault.

The only person in the Republican race MORE to the left than Mike is Rudy. No one is more to the right than Fred Thompson, any legitimate examination of voting records, policy stance and principles, in the past and the present, will allow one to draw a different conclusion. They are all moderates, at best. Except, of course, for Fred Thompson.

Republicans win elections when they stand firmly on conservative principles. From where I stand, Fred Dalton Thompson is the only candidate on solid ground.

"From where I stand, Fred Dalton Thompson is the only candidate on solid ground."

I stand beside you.

Less Fluff and More FRED!

Stranded in a blue section of a red state.

but that's about it, Steve. He does not have the depth of knowledge when it comes to the issues, especially foreign policy. He constantly speaks in platitudes. His record as a governor was not very impressive at all, from a conservative standpoint. And his cross-over appeal to moderates and independents would be very limited because of the fact that they do not want an overtly religious pastor in office.

Combine that with all of the ethical questions and the pardons during his governorship, and you have a general election disaster. Huckabee supporters- re-think the man's electability and cross-over appeal very carefully, because it just isn't there- whether it's within the party (Libertarians, Fiscal Cons, and Security Cons aren't thrilled with him) or outside of it.

Huck has more executive experience than any other candidate running, is most Reaganesque and reminds people constantly that Reagan also didn't have foreign policy experience in the sense people are saying Huck doesn't but as a similar man of conviction (not flip flopper like Mitt or moderate like Rudy) did pretty darn well...

...and tomorrow, Huck says a major announcement will be made while he is in NH that according to Mark Halprin's overhearing someone overhearing Huck "an eye-catching nod in New Hampshire on Friday– weather allowing — that will boster his national security cred and lead to more support"

I'm guessing, btw, Frank Gaffney

The outcome in Iowa is fluid. No one knows who is going to win, who is going to place. And the polls at this point are not a heck of a lot of help.

"A vote for Thompson is a vote for Huckabee" is no more rational or accurate than "a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Romney."

A vote from [Candidate A] is a vote for [Candidate A].

Remember, there is a line of thought which will tell you that Huckabee would be a much better nominee than would be Romney.

you will pry my ballot marked Fred Thompson. :)

No a vote for Hick is a vote for Julie Annie.

A vote for Fred is a vote for America's future.

After the evangelicals take a better look at Huck they may not come back to Mitt but they will come to Fred.

Until now, Fred hasn't come off as serious (perception, not necessarily reality). If (and I'm hoping _when_) Huck pops, the evangelicals won't have anywhere else to go. Giuliani is out. McCain is out. Sadly, Romney is out due to his religion for a good chunk of them.

If Fred is credible and the obvious inadequacies of the Huckster sink in, he is probably set to take the nomination (which I don't mind since he's my #2).

A vote for Huck is a vote for Hillary Clinton. Think about it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

lol. Nice li'l poke, there.

looking forward to the General Election, that a vote for Romney could be considered a vote for Hillary.

Who's the better candidate against her? Think about it.

All they seem to have on Romney is that he patronized a business that hired illegal aliens and is a Mormon. All they have on Huckabee could fill a set of encyclopedias. There won't be enough ad space available on all the cable networks for the attack ads on the guy that just seem to write themselves. Think about it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

All they seem to have on Romney is that he patronized a business that hired illegal aliens and is a Mormon

Romney will be hit by "John Kerry style flip-flop" ads magnified 100 times by the liberal media

Is that he would change positions in the same sentence and be on both sides of an issue at the same time, not that he would change his position on an issue after 10-15 years. That would be comparable to Gore. Gore going pro-choice was pretty much a non-issue in 2000. And you know... it's not like Romney is exactly the only one who has changed his position. Your guy has changed considerably on immigration over the past month or so.

Anyway, that wasn't Kerry's biggest problem. If all we had on Kerry was that he changed some of his positions he would be running for reelection right now.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

... from week to week, day to day, hour to hour, and most infamously within the same sentence.

How that compares to Romney who flipped on a maximum of three issues from just about 3 to 13 years ago, I don't know.

The wheels have already been ran off that wagon.

You hear less and less about it every day. It is OOOOOOOOLD and people are sick of it.

Get serious, Hillary is going to slam someone for being pro-choice once?

It's not just Mitt and Huck that have done this... all five serious candidates on the Republican side has done it. And Hillary has done it, of course. Obama is just too much of a newbie to have flipped on anything yet.

It's not a sin.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It's really looking like IA and NH are likely to split. Fred could make a move in IA but he's below Ron Paul in NH polling. Assuming Giuliani doesn't take NH, it will be showdown between the winner in IA and the winner in NH (McCain or Romney) to take South Carolina and grab the anti-Giuliani momentum going into Feb 5.

South Carolina polling shows an absolute mess right now. Anyone could come out on top.

Of course, all this assumes that the Huckster implodes between now and then (perhaps more a wish than a solid prediction).

when actually they are very clear.

All four of the latest polls realclear politics is showing in SC have Huck way up, the last one 30% to Romney's 19%.

Huck, without the spending, is leading in today's Rasmussen national poll by 4% (and oh, by the way, thats after a week and a half of attacks, and now he's bringing in the dough).

Don't see the "absolute mess", except for hopes of Huckabashers.

You may very well be right. SC certainly sealed the deal for GWB in 2000. SC polling right now is a mess, and it will get messier after IA and NH. MI might be important too. The thing I wonder about is just how solid is Romney's support in NH. It seems to be more solid than might appear at first glance, as he has remained above 30% for weeks now, despite changes elsewhere. Can he withstand a 5% loss in IA, Say 35% Huck, 30% Romney, 15% FRED, 20% OTHERS? I think he can hold his lead in NH. What if it is a 30% loss, say Huckabee 50%, Romney 20%, FRED 15%, OTHERS 15% ... I think that would result in a sudden redistribution in NH. It is not certain that McCain will beat Rudy in NH either ... in either scenario. I hope so, and he is trying, but Rudy is not doing badly in NH despite his lack of effort invested. It is going to be mighty interesting.

MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08

Pardon my unedumacated rantz0r pulease, after all I am from SC.

South Carolina doesn't care who wins in Iowa or New Hampshire. Period.

South Carolinians will vote for who they think is the best candidate. Most SCers certainly could care less who someone from New Hampshire thinks should be president. Different cultures, completely.
Will SC help decide the race? Possibly. Will SC be swayed by other states? Not even remotely enough to change the race in SC.
Maybe this sorta thing happens in other states but not back home. The media has a tendency to blow this kinda thing WAY out of proportion, on BOTH sides of the aisle. Most SCers have made up their minds and who leads in the polls depends on what poll you are talking about and who you are talking to. IMHO, the polls mean nothing. The voting results are what matters. And no one knows what will happen there except God. I hear he doesn't give interviews though, sorry...

FREDHEAD to the bone...

conservatives endorsing Mitt. (Assume you're the same Joe?)
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004124.html

Assume you've seen that Ramesh Ponnuru responded?

Thanks, I had missed Ramesh's post. I almost hate to criticize NR because I like Ramesh so much. But Lisa Shiffren is a prime example of what I was talking about.

I wouldn't expect them to back Huckabee. But for them to skip over Thompson to give the endoresment to Romney was simply jaw-dropping.

Voters love to hear this sort of sarcastic attack. It's honey to their ears, especially in Iowa.

... is going to be in Iowa every day from now till they vote there, according to his campaign. It isn't about who is there first, but who finishes up the best. Whoever gets in the quality time closest to the voting will likely do well there. In SC, this isn't the case which is why Fred is has been all over SC for quite some time until now. SCers already know who they want and none of us will know that decision until the voting is over and the votes are counted... Just like it is every year...

According to the polls leading up to 2000 and 2004, Bush was going to lose, right?
Don't get me wrong, I didn't vote for him. But how can anyone give any weight at all to the polls? Seriously...

asinine comments I read at HotAir.

www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie

And you act just like the other wacko Fred groupies. Tell the group how you're gonna feel when Fred bails out and takes your contributions and funnels them to his family. Heck, you moronic douche bag, why didn't you just write the check out to Jeri to begin with?

Molon Labe!

I'm not endorsing the opinions in the link - just the historical context of the quote the Col. lays out. I can't stand some of the opinions on other things...

got called a jerk, I feel incredibly warmhearted. If I were mean-spirited, I would have written what I am thinking about a mother in Missouri.

www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie

If the goal of "Friends of Fred" is to make people dislike Huckabee maybe they're going to be successful. However, if their goal is to get people to vote for Fred, oh dear. No. Not like that. Fred should decide whether he wants to be a candidate or an anti-Huckabee kamikaze.

Yeah, you would you partisan jagoff. Stupid asses like you should be evicted from your grandmas basement and be made to live in the real world. Of course we'll have to get you some SFP 9000 to protect pasty pale hide from that bright ball in the sky.

Bwahahahahaa!!!

And Rightly So!

This is redstate isn't it? I thought I was at AoS.

My bad and so long.

And Rightly So!

Nixon was a corrupt moderate who left office only after Republican senators told him it was time. They only went to him after the Watergate hearings where Fred did his job helping to expose the cover-up.

As far as the "Abortion Lobbying" question - don't see where Fred has said it was unquestionable & he has answered the question.

The only people I see using these 2 points against Fred are the leftist Fred-haters. Gotta watch the company you keep...

I think everyone was a Fred guy at one point or another, but fortunately some of us have a brain and we figured out his disgusting habit of excusing his despicable behavior by claiming it was his "private life".

Short of Hillary, Fraud Thompson is the most unprincipled scum bag on either side of the political spectrum.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

That's Harsh!

Jim Tomasik

He hasn't even ran a government or a business that I am aware of. He was pretty much a prosecutor, then an actor, then he ran for the US Senate, served one and a half terms, and then appeared on Law & Order.

He had some significant roles and cases in his days as a prosecutor, but that's something almost anyone whose been in the field can say.

He has no "record" to run on, which is why he sounds like a walking, talking version of the RNC's platform and tries to act like a Professor teaching us about Federalism & Government.

has mostly been the coalition and vote building work that doesn't generate headlines or easy things to remember. Which to me means he has a better chance than the rest of the candidates do to actually accomplish the things he wants to. But he lists legislative accomplishments at his website if you really care.