Considering McCain has been campaigning for president since 1998 and he still makes Republican nervous about his principles (McCain's "Global Warming probably exists" meaning he would definately regulate/dictate both private and corporate lives becasue we're all God's children:)
while Fred Thompson campaigning since November 2007around two months with a clear, consistant history and message, it is ridiculous to say that Fred Thompson is lazy.
I do hope the Republican appartus is not willing to throw out a solid Big Tent Conservative who offers friendship to so many Americans for another Centrist politican such as McCain.
Good conservative principles are a terrible thing to waste.
clairesolt
· 1 year ago
You can say that McCain came back at Romney on jobs with his stright talk claim, if you know as little about job creation as McCain obviously does. Community college training programs do not create jobs. Governors go out and attract companies, as Romney explained. Senators don't. They just fillibuster!
MrLynn
· 1 year ago
Yes, thanks for pointing out that obvious gaffe on McCain's part. So the Federal government is going to use federal tax money to fund job-training programs--another government program, anyone? It's a typical liberal-congressman response to a problem. And since when are community-college training programs a Federal responsibility? I was yelling at the TV set at that point.
Clairsolt is exactly right. Private business creates jobs, not government.
/Mr Lynn
Bill Mitchell
· 1 year ago
McCain did well? Are you kidding? He looked like a wheezing old man who forgot what he was talking about halfway through his sentences and stumbled through poorly timed and forced "zingers" only to smile and show us his nasty gray teeth.
Presidential? More like, "don't let this man drive a car".
And lemme guess, you didn't like Romney right? HUGE shock there! Lol. Please.
billyoblog
· 1 year ago
Fred....hands down.. Will everyone else please go home now so we can focus our attack on the three stooges on the dems side ? Please ?
brightwinger
· 1 year ago
With tonight's incredible performance by Fred, my guess is that Fred will start getting a heap of donations to start pouring in. I sent mine in.
Can you imagine what he'll do to Hillary or Obama? He literally took Huck out of the race in 90 seconds of absolutely brilliant discussion.
And did you notice the questioner wanted to give Fred 30 seconds of response time, but Fred decided to take 90 seconds by telling the moderator, this isn't a response, it's my answer to an earlier question you asked. If you want to talk about leadership, that was a perfect example.
The moderator didn't dare interrupt, nor did Huck who was getting his a## handed to him on the split screen - Fred has that kind of authority and presence.
JonPrichard
· 1 year ago
Fred didn't merely win the debate tonight. He dominated and when it seemed he was going to be marginalized to the cheap seats he simply took the attention and then went after the Huckster and most everyone else.
Mitt seemed out of focus (in a cinematic way)
Huck evaded substantive attacks or questions and unlike the Captain's opinion I think he did quite poorly on the religion question, especially his defense/non-defense of Paul's (the actual St. Paul) admonishment that women should be subservient to their husbands. He basically touted a modern massaging of the original doctrine but I guarantee that wasn't Paul's original intent.
I didn't like McCain in this debate much. He's on cruise control and not very inspiring.
Giuliani was very effective with his arguments but something seems a little out of place with him.
Ron Paul is somebody's crazy old uncle with long hair in his ears.
terrye
· 1 year ago
Jon:
I was raised in the Southern Baptist church, but I have to admit I have not been in awhile. However, I do happen to know some honest to God church goers and Huckabee's answer was pretty much in line with what they would believe.
This is always the problem with religious questions like that. There is no way to answer without sounding .....religious. I thought it was a dumb question in fact.
JonPrichard
· 1 year ago
I agree with you on that. I go to a Southern Baptist church in Dallas myself. Huckabee's answer is what people generally believe today in reference to Paul's Letter to the Ephesians but its a modern construct. One of the problems with Paul's writings (particularly him as he was not very vague) is that they contrast dramatically with modern sensibilities. Secularists see these contradictions and try to make hay out of them. But I totally agree that sectarian doctrines or key texts from the bible are inappropriate to ask of presidential candidates.
terrye
· 1 year ago
That is thing about scripture, it is difficult to talk about in this day and age and not sound as if you are way out there. I am waiting for someone to ask Huckabee if it is true that we should not suffer a witch to live.
JonPrichard
· 1 year ago
Heh.
Christoph
· 1 year ago
Fred.
brightwinger
· 1 year ago
Fred just did to Huck what Rome did to Carthage.
"...That's not the model of the Reagan coalition - that's the model of the Democratic party!" (Fred's capper to a long list of horrible Huck stances.)
terrye
· 1 year ago
Not really. The truth is Ronald Reagan was very moderate. He spent a lot of money, raised taxes, and would never have built a wall on our southern border. The party has changed since the days of Reagan.
TerryGain
· 1 year ago
Yes, very true. But so is GWB, and that didn't prevent the real extremists (the Dems and their propaganda arm, the MSM ) from painting both as extremists,
TerryGain
· 1 year ago
Terrye I was referring to your moderate commentt . For a sovereign nation not to protect its borders-by building a wall if necessary- is extremely liberal and suicidally stupid. I doubt that Reagan would not be in support of a wall if he were alive today. If not, he would be wrong.
terrye
· 1 year ago
Terry:
Who knows? Reagan tore walls down, he did not build them. He was a man of a different time.
The truth is people would have thought it was a waste of government money back then. Really. It would have been considered a boondoggle. No one talked about the Ruskies coming in across that border or anything else. Reagan thought that they were the problem. He felt he was protecting our sovereignty by going after them.
UncleAl
· 1 year ago
Comparing a wall to keep illegal immigrants out to the Berlin wall is more than a little idiotic.
DayTrader
· 1 year ago
The money was for building our Navy and armed forces making Russia follow suit and destroyed their effort in the process...a good plan and it worked.
The Regan Amnesty was part of a deal for Kennedy to have the border sealed.
Kennedy welshed on the deal ..Blame him because it's right where it belongs.
UncleAl
· 1 year ago
Thanks, I needed an antidote for terrye's misinformation!
LFR_Gary
· 1 year ago
Fred's highlighting the NEA's endorsement because Huckabee would veto a vouchers bill stung Huckabee. That giant sucking sound you hear are conservatives abandoning the Huckster.
McCain gave several good answers but his freely mentioning climate change is off-putting as is his defending the essence of McCain-Kennedy. He's right that the American people don't trust him but that's only part of the trouble. His saying that "I know how to close the borders" was more than a little disingenuous.
kecker
· 1 year ago
Wow....
America, please tell me you were watching that performance by Fred...
terrye
· 1 year ago
Fred was awake at last. I am not sure that he really did all that well, but we are just so used to him being passive that this was a big change, high time.
I thought he did pretty well, but I did not agree with his Reagan answer. Rudy had a good point there. Reagan could get all sorts of people to vote for him from all sorts of states. Other than that he was pretty good.
I did think Thompson was a tad off on the Pak question about military aid. We did not give military aid to Pakistan so that they could intimidate India, they are supposed to be fighting terrorists. So Huckabee did have a point about questioning some of that aid.
Sometimes I think these guys do not remember the real Ronald Reagan. The real Reagan would not have made an issue of half the things these guys argue about. Like immigration. It is as if they have created a myth to replace the man. A man conservatives complained about a lot back when he was actually president.
But it was a pretty good debate.
I wish someone would kick Paul off the debates. The man is an embarrassment.
Qwinn
· 1 year ago
"The real Reagan would not have made an issue of half the things these guys argue about. Like immigration."
Um, in 1986, Reagan had 2.7 million illegals to deal with. Now we've got somewhere between 12 and 20 million.
And you act like "these guys" made it an issue. Quite the opposite, the voters made it an issue when Bush and Congress tried to sweep another amnesty through - repeatedly - while no one was looking. It's hardly an issue cooked up by the political class. The anger over immigration has been as grass roots as it gets, and the political class simply hasn't had the choice to ignore it like they have previously. Fred's on the right side of the issue, the side that the people who supported and honor Reagan's legacy are on. That's "Reagan" enough for me.
Qwinn
Snooper
· 1 year ago
Ronniev Pauliev just needs to go home.
Mwalimu_Daudi
· 1 year ago
Now the Ronulans will drop their cloaking devices and send they Birds of Prey after you!
JonPrichard
· 1 year ago
You need to explain yourself better about your ideas of what Reagan was and would be today. The 'real' Reagan as you put it would make a lot of the issues that dominate TODAY"S debate. Not too many Conservatives had much to complain about as far as Reagan was concerned. Fred is actually the only one in the field that can be called a Reagan Conservative.
terrye
· 1 year ago
I am 56 years old. I remember conservatives complaining about Reagan raising social security taxes, they even complained about his foreign policy until they knew it was actually going to work. He said himself that dealing with people too far on the right or the left was impossible because they refused to compromise. Reagan was inclusive, he reached out to people. He built coalitions, he did go out of his way to enlist people like Huckabee in the party. You can go read his old speeches from the 70's and there he is talking about making the Republican party the party not only of the rich, but of working people. He understood how necessary that was in politics. He had some real battles with conservatives in California.
I am saying people talk and talk about Reagan conservatives, and yet I am not sure they really know what that means.
I would vote for Fred, but Fred is not exactly the same guy who was in the Senate. Fred supported McCain Feingold, in face his voting record is almost exactly the same as McCain's and yet people who dislike him say he is not a real Republican at all.
LFR_Gary
· 1 year ago
I would vote for Fred, but Fred is not exactly the same guy who was in the Senate. Fred supported McCain Feingold, in face his voting record is almost exactly the same as McCain's and yet people who dislike him say he is not a real Republican at all.</bloquote>
McCain's voting record isn't similar to Fred's by a long shot. Yes, Fred voted for BCRA but he's since renounced his vote on it.
McCain isn't a federalist by any stretch of the imagination. He's a populist, someone who, other than national security, votes to do what's popular.
Their approach to immigration is at opposite ends of the spectrum.
BTW, I thought McCain's answer that "I know how to shut the borders down" was laughable. I don't doubt that he know s how. It's that I'm certain that he isn't that interested in shutting it down.
JonPrichard
· 1 year ago
Your points about Reagan are right as far as substance. What I think misses the point is what it means to be a Reagan Conservative. He DID build coalitions that weren't together before him. That's why there is such thing as a Reagan Democrat and Evangelical Republicans (formerly known as the Moral Majority).
Referring to Reagan as a moderate is off base. For certain he shied away from the EXTREMES of either side (largely due to his experiences dealing with extremes in Hollywood) but there's no way he sided with Liberal agendas in any way even close to what Bush does.
This is what Fred Thompson represents, dealing with the issues as a true Reagan Conservative. Thompson's record in the Senate has one glitch, a yeah vote for McCain-Feingold. But he's nothing like the anti-Republican McCain is, e.g., gang of 14, McCain-Kennedy Immigration, McCain-Feingold, Keating 5, man made global warming, voting against Bush tax cuts, etc, etc). One point about Thompson and McCain-Feingold, it was Thompson's amendment that raised the limits for personal contributions.
terrye
· 1 year ago
If you actually look at Thompson's votes and put them next to McCain's votes they are very much the same. And for all his talk today, Thompson has something in common with a lot of the other Republicans who came into office in that time, he did nothing about illegal immigration when he was actually in office. Nothing.
So far the hardliner position has not won one single election. Reagan would not have made a mistake like that. He would have found away to build a coalition and create a consensus even if it meant making some compromises. That was how he operated.
Once again, what exactly is a Reagan conservative? I am told it is not moderate, ok, but then it is not extreme either. Reagan was not all that conservative.
Reagan was not aggressive either. He did not stand up to the mullahs, nor did he worry about Saddam's murderous bent. He did not concern himself with what was happening in Afghanistan once the Soviets were gone either.
Reagan was not a liberal, no, I never said he was, but he was not rigid and he would not have damaged the party for the sake of purity purges. He made a point of saying that politics was about action, not just opinions. He would not have called George Bush, Jorge, I am sure of that. Never. It would have broken his 11the Commandment.
Don't misunderstand me, I like Fred just fine,although I think he has been a bit lazy up until tonight and I worry that it might be too late for him..And I am not sure he is another Reagan. Like I said I am not sure people really remember the man the way he was.
JonPrichard
· 1 year ago
If you compare the votes of McCain and Thompson there is a decided Conservative pattern. The reason McCain gets such guff about being a RINO is that he takes certain positions and pushes them over to a Liberal position. Immigration is a perfect example.
By contrast, Thompson worked to amend various pieces of legislation and aimed them toward a Conservative position. Campaign finance reform is a perfect example.
As for Reagan - our heroes are what we make of them. I'm sure Abe Lincoln wouldn't be a Republican in today's world but I'm not going to throw him off the bus because he took a Liberal position towards slavery.
terrye
· 1 year ago
I do not consider McCain's position on immigration to be liberal. I consider it to be centrist and more conservative than Reagan's.
If Thompson wanted to amend legislation, well he had his chance.
JonPrichard
· 1 year ago
That's the point. He DID get amendments passed in Campaign finance reform. If you think things such as the Z-visa is not Liberal you might want to rethink the definition.
terrye
· 1 year ago
I would like to add one thing. A lot of people on the net might not seem to like Huckabee and the pundits and the talk show hosts might complain about him. But he did not get to where he is without having some appeal for Republican voters. So far he is ahead.
My feeling is that he will probably not last. I honestly do not think he can go the distance, but I think it would be a huge mistake to denigrate the man or his supporters. Because.... while we are on the subject of Reagan, it should be remembered that back in the late 70's Reagan made a point of reaching out to people like Huckabee and bringing them into the party. And Reagan, the real Reagan, made a point of saying he wanted to build a Republican party that put social conservatives into leadership positions and made them not just followers, but candidates as well. That was Reagan's coalition.
So while I am not a social conservative myself and I am not a Huckabee supporte, I recognize that he is every bit as much a Republican as any candidate up there and right now at least it seems a lot of rank and file Republicans feel that way. I think we need to do what we can to keep those people in the fold. Calling them Democrats might not be the best way to do that.
Mwalimu_Daudi
· 1 year ago
And as for the debate itself, Fox acquitted itself well for the most part, but they lose major points for not challenging Paul on the newsletters.
I agree. But perhaps they felt sorry for the little Truther after his goofy answer about the Iranian gunboat issue.
Good point. But they DID call him on his rambling on about a question that was not asked of him.
Snooper
· 1 year ago
Fred The MAN, won tonight, hands down...period.
TerryGain
· 1 year ago
The Romney/Thompson dream tcket (championed by Terry Gain) received a great boost tonight. Thanks for doing your part Ed..
Yours in victory, Mitt
p.s. did you notice Ron Paul was again declared the victor in internet voting.? The kokkids have been busy again tonight.
TerryGain
· 1 year ago
kokkids?
e&oe
Mwalimu_Daudi
· 1 year ago
Too bad (for them ) that they cannot stuff real ballot boxes they way that they do Internet voting. What did they get in NH - a whopping 8%? They finished behind Rudy, who was a no-show! And a goose-egg in Wyoming? Behind Fred Thompson and Romney?
newton
· 1 year ago
Cap'n's final verdict on Ron Paul: "He's insane." Amen, bro!
There you have it, nutsos. Go home.
MrLynn
· 1 year ago
I was glad to see Fred showing a little more life, though there were still too many "uhs" and too much looking down at notes, particularly during his rather forced attack on the Huckster's record as governor. Fred was good on Pakistan, and a little clearer on illegal aliens and 'attrition' than he has been (though not much). But the guy's an actor, for heaven's sake: can't he look straight at the camera?
I think Mitt was better than Ed suggests, though he did have a little 'deer-in-the-headlights' look at times. His answers were generally well-put and thoughtful, and he devastated Ron Paul, who edged further toward becoming a complete caricature of himself. Brit did ask him about all the looney 'truthers' who support him, to which Ron responded, "I can't tell them what to do."
McCain was as good as he generally is, excellent on the responsibilities of the Straits of Hormuz commanders, though he faltered on immigration. It turns out McCain and Mitt are not really any different on what to do with the 10 million (12 million minus the criminals): look at each one individually, they said. So what was all the fuss about last weekend? Fred tried to explain that all you can really do is create reverse incentives to get them to self-deport, and stop the next 12 million from coming in. But he made me wish I were up there to explain it.
Chris Wallace really fumbled the first round of questions, by asking the candidates what they would do to stop the recession that may (or may not) be upon us. Since none of these gentlemen would be in office until a year from now, there is nothing they can do in the short term (except maybe for the congressmen in office), and so they all defaulted to answers about maintaining the economy long-term. Chris foolishly kept pushing the short-term question, and none of the candidates called him on it.
The questioning improved after that. My wife remarked how much more substantial this session was than the last Democrat debate, during which we suffered through questions about 'change' and 'likeability'.
Which reminds me that Rudy Guiliani had a terrific response to the mention of 'change': it depends on what you want to change, and how you do it. More taxes, bigger government, weaker defense--bad change. The opposite, good change. Good point, and time it was made, dammit! Rudy was really very solid. I think he'd make a good, maybe terrific, president.
Oh, and John McCain stuck in his belief that 'climate change' is a real problem, which (he said) we can solve without people shivering in their bedrooms. Huh? Well, what he meant was we could do away with fossil fuels and use subsititutes for energy, I guess. But he might be President--how do we disabuse him of this ridiculous idea that man is overheating the Earth?
Goodnight. It's my bedtime.
/Mr Lynn
TerryGain
· 1 year ago
(Fred) Lynn
You should have your own blog.
billyoblog
· 1 year ago
I didn't realize it but CNN was simutaneously airing the democrat debate.
I am seeing those, I strongly feel, who want to see, what they want to see...
Fred and McCain offered the old Senatorial rhetoric again...
no solid solutions, one liners, with a little more pep, but remained the same old...
there are those with some bias against Romney, who again shows he is the best on the stage, who are now rushing to find some other choice yet again.
Fred is cool, and had the crowd behind him, but isn't up to the challenge...
it shows even tonight, when he was at his best.
hoping the bias, doesn't encourage the liberal placation of John McCain.
Math_Mage
· 1 year ago
We know you're in the tank for Romney by now, so if you want to persuade people you'd best say more than "Fred and McCain = no substance, Fred = tired, McCain = liberal, Romney wins again." That's the same post you make every time regarding these candidates, and you never seem to say anything more, even when you're in a minority of one in the comment thread and need substantive reasoning to change opinion.
HNAV
· 1 year ago
LOL !
I am in the tank for Conservative Republicans...
I am telling it as it is, in my opinion...
A few jokes are not going to win the President, nearly are two old Senators...
I am not here to change opinion and your expression seems insecure about my reaction.
Fred is cool, but again lacked basis and content. He jokes well for example, but doesn't provide a substantial offering after the fine humor.
He was aided by a very friendly crowd to him, but he still has not displayed the energy and insight for the enormous task facing us...
I have said openly I lean towards Romney, know he is the best offering in the GOP Race for the Job with the Conservative interests involved, but remain open to Fred and Rudy.
However, the hype is not going to help our cause.
Hype undermined the election in 2006, and we have to get serious.
Romney remains the best option, in clear fashion.
Math_Mage
· 1 year ago
Perhaps I'm not being sufficiently clear when I say you're "in the tank for Romney." What I mean is what you said - that you've decided Romney is the best candidate for conservative Republicans and decided to openly support him. By this measure, I'm in the tank for Fred, since I picked him on my blog.
I won't dispute whether or not Fred showed substance during the debate, since I didn't watch it; however, he doesn't really have to show any more than what he's already got.
What is this "hype" of which you speak?
Marc
· 1 year ago
"A few jokes are not going to win the President, nearly are two old Senators..."
Based on that line of reasoning the 61 year old Senator from NY ain't gotta chance in hell. She's damn close to collecting her social security check. (Assuming the system doesn't fail before then)
brightwinger
· 1 year ago
"Fred is cool, but again lacked basis and content. He jokes well for example, but doesn't provide a substantial offering after the fine humor."
Huh? Actually Fred is the most substantive candidate of them all. It was no joke when he crushed Huck last night, delineating the differences between them.
Fred also has detailed his platform in writing. That's no joke either, but it is basis and content.
MrLynn
· 1 year ago
PS: Re the 'Reagan Coalition'. Rudy was right that Reagan was a 50-state president. What they all forget is the reason: the 'Reagan Democrats'. We're not going to have another Reaganesque landslide until we have a candidate who can bring along the blue-collar Democrats with the conservative Republicans.
Which of these candidates can do that? I don't know the answer, and I'm not sure there is one.
/Mr Lynn
terrye
· 1 year ago
Exactly.
harleycon5
· 1 year ago
Fred Wins! I have to say that I first heard a change in Thompson's approach while on Sean Hannity's program today, and I wondered about it. After all, so far, Fred has pretty much sounded like droopy dog whenever answering a question. I have to say I like the change. All people want is to know that a candidate truly WANTS to be President. And that is all that Fred Thompson has been lacking.
As for Paul, you get what you expect. Allying with Moderate Arab nations? Which nations are those? The same ones that attacked Israel after it's formation? Oh yah, that would work. lol.
HNAV
· 1 year ago
again, humor is not an indication of someone ready for the job as POTUS...
Fred is cool...
but both Senators are not producing substance and will not get the job done in the General or as POTUS.
JonPrichard
· 1 year ago
Oh please. Thompson has outlined deeply substantive positions on Social Security, Immigration, National Defense and a commitment to what he calls 'First Principles'. He's actually done this in writing with position papers (lauded by the Club for Growth, the Heritage Foundation and many other Conservative think tanks). You can say he's dull on stage sometimes but he's certainly a man of substance. Sheesh, how could he possibly be more substantive?
terrye
· 1 year ago
Where has he been? I wonder about that. Did he have to face losing it all before he could be bothered to work for it? That is what bothers me about Fred.
JonPrichard
· 1 year ago
Yeah, me too but I think that was a misguided strategy...to look like a person drafted and not seeking office. I like what I see now though.
HNAV
· 1 year ago
Writing is one thing, but on a stage, in person, he lacks the ability to convey serious substance.
We know full well, others write the script.
Fred is a fine ACTOR, who can do quite well with a script, hides behind the jokes, offers some Senatorial generics...
That is a sincere problem.
Fred actually helped get McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform passed.
A President has to identify problems, encourage solutions, be able to get solutions implemented, and there is no record of this with FRED or McCain.
this is a Huge problem, and the history of LBJ is a vivid reminder of why Senators are not ready for the responsibility of being a CEO of the USA.
that is the substance...
JonPrichard
· 1 year ago
I'd like to say that's pure baloney but I guess that's your impression. I just don't agree. Most issues of real substance don't sit well in 30-sec sound bites so maybe that's the problem. As for Fred's writing, he's not ghostwritten. He wrote very substantive pieces for the National Review over the past year (before he got into the race). The guy was trial lawyer for 30 years, I'm sure he can argue substantively. He's not an empty suit actor.
brightwinger
· 1 year ago
Fred is a fine ACTOR, who can do quite well with a script,
Fred was a district attorney who put a governor behind bars! Was he reading a script when he did that?
Fred doesn't act...he gets type cast as the authority figure. Hollywood has a lot of actors to choose from, but Fred gets the part because he IS the part.
newton
· 1 year ago
My final verdict: All the candidates did OK, but Fred commanded. Something told me not to discount him. I'm glad I didn't.
Ron Paul is a waste of precious time and money. To all who gave money to him, I offer my sincere condolences. It seems he has infected too many of them with the bug that made him bat**** insane...
newton
· 1 year ago
Guys, check The Corner. It seems the vote for Fred is unanimous... almost.
terrye
· 1 year ago
I think the question is: is is too late for Rudy and Fred to break out...or did their strategy to sit back and twiddle their thumbs pay off? In other words, how many people saw this debate or will hear about it, or even care?
brightwinger
· 1 year ago
If Fred's performance translates into an uptick on donations it helps him a lot.
TexasFred
· 1 year ago
FDT looked better tonight than at any time in this process so far, and Paul looked nuttier...
SwabJockey05
· 1 year ago
The other side is not hiding their agenda.
“If we were all rich, that would be very nice,” Albright said. “If we were all poor, it would be too bad, but we would be the same. What the problem is now is the poor know what the rich have as a result of information technology and the spread, generally, of knowledge. And, it creates a whole new host of problems in terms of disquiet and anger.”
"disquiet and anger"...can there be a better reason for Hildabeast and her lackeys to come take your money away?
docjim505
· 1 year ago
Aux barricades!
Jeanette
· 1 year ago
Fred showed himself to be a very well qualified candidate for president in last night's debate, and now this South Carolina Republican knows for certain she will be voting for Fred in the primary. I may have to vote for someone else in the general, but in the primary I have to be true to myself and vote for the man I believe will make a great president and that man is Fred Thompson.
"Why the Morons Who Run Red State Are a Bunch of Jackasses and I Won't Bother to Comment There Nor Even Read There Again"
Short and sweet. Less than a week after signing up to comment, I was banned. Why? The only conceivable reason is their policy against not letting anyone new to comment who supports Ron Paul.
I threw in the exit question to provoke thought and humor about the Ronbots and "Romulans" furiously texting away to skew the results. But do the idiots who run Red State get the humor or even ask a question before Stalinesquely purging me? Hardly.
I was so not surprised to be banned — because they have a reputation for being a closed shop and are no friends of free speech (not even in this case, seemingly, where my position is in agreement with their position... which is why I refer to them as morons).
Well, I ask rhetorically, what more would I expect of a site co-founded by plagiarist Ben Domenech, who is a blog poster on the site to this day?
- - - Cross posted at various places out of frustration to get my point across. They gave me no warning, nor even an email, and I certainly won't waste my time begging them for posting privileges so I can agree with them and get banned for it.
brightwinger
· 1 year ago
True, true.
UncleAl
· 1 year ago
I gave up on Red State a loooong time ago.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
Fred's problem hasn't been his policy positions, which are well thought out, but his organization, which doesn't have the muscle to propel him into the spotlight.
And that's a problem his performance in this debate can't solve.
docjim505
· 1 year ago
Cap'n Ed: And as for the debate itself, Fox acquitted itself well for the most part, but they lose major points for not challenging Paul on the newsletters. Would they have asked George Allen about "macaca" if he had run for President? Of course they would have. So why not ask Paul about the racist, homophobic, and paranoid rants that appeared in his newsletters over a 17-year period? It's a strange and somewhat craven action to avoid the topic.
In his novel The Right Stuff, Tom Wolfe compares the '50s media to "a Victorian Gent": proper, a bit stuffy, willing to overlook certain improprieties that might shock the sensibilities of its audience. While the MSM today is rather less restrained (unless we're talking about democrats, that is), there is still an echo of "propriety". I suggest that talking about Ron Paul's apparent nuttiness is just an uncomfortable subject, akin to shouting, "WHO FARTED???" at a dinner party.
Either that, or Fox just feels that Paul is such an oddball that deliberately pointing it out is overkill.
MrLynn
· 1 year ago
ROTFLMAO! Another great DocJim post.
Fox, for all the calumny it takes from the left, does maintain a certain amount of decorum, even in its generally tabloid-style approach to news. And Britt Hume on his Special Report is a model of probity (it's also the best news program on TV, in my estimation). I was surprised that he asked Ronpaul about the 'truthers'. It takes a while before the obsessions of the blogs filter through to Britt. Though his 'Political Grapevine' segment shows that he does read them.
My guess is that if Fox invites Ronpaul to another debate, they will ask him about the newsletters. And I suspect that Ronpaul might decline.
/Mr Lynn
docjim505
· 1 year ago
Glad you enjoyed it. Thank you!
olddeadmeat
· 1 year ago
I like your suggestion, it fits pretty well, and by not pressing him, Fox left more time for more important matters.
hikerwoman
· 1 year ago
I thought Fred was outstanding. Mitt & Rudy both held up just fine, with Mitt looking like the best spokesperson. Fred just crushed Huckabee followed by Chris pointing out that taxes were raised consistently with Huckabee at the helm, and then Huckabee explained why the taxes were raised "mostly for government handout programs". John looked to me like he has the same speech problem as Bush, can't quite articulate the message without looking foolish. Ron Paul is just simply nothing more than a complete nutter. Ron never looked more foolish than his performance last night.
I think theh clear winner was Fred. Mitt had one weak moment, but stayed on message and looked very presidential. Rudy looked good, did not harm himself.
The biggest loser last night; Mike Huckabee was exposed... No doubt about that.
keemo
· 1 year ago
From Hugh Hewitt:
The huge loser tonight was Mike Huckabee, thanks largely to Fred and Chris Wallace who peeled the bark off of Huck's ideology. Huck bristled at Wallace at one point, and when pushed on why he raised taxes and spending, barked back, "I raised expectations." That might work with Democrats --though it probably doesn't in this day and age-- but it sure doesn't work with Republican voters. Huck's whining about the religion question was also off-putting coming from a candidate who has so often injected religion into this campaign.
Mitt, Fred and Rudy have generally done well in these settings since they began at the Reagan Library last year, McCain wasn't a factor until recently and he has struggled to get through them, and while Huckabee used the early debates to charm folks, his performance has plummeted as focus on his record has increased. There's a huge message in the last three debates about the issue differences between the candidates on taxes and immigration, with Giuliani, Romney and Thompson on one side and Huckabee and McCain on the other side. And there's a message about who can win these contests in the fall, and it isn't Senator McCain or Governor Huckabee.
The MSM and their bed partners the DNC desperately want Huckaberry or McCain as the opposing nominee. Good reason for that, as the Democrat nominee stands the best chance of winning the general election against either one of these men. Hillary stands no chance of winning against Rudy; Mitt seems to be the one they fear the most. Fred hasn't come up on the radar screen as of yet, but he may have done so with his performance of last night.
When Santorum says that "we’re looking at the media trying to make Barack Obama the president, and make John McCain the shill for him," and "I think they know that John McCain can’t win this election," he is exactly on target.
When Santorum says of McCain that on "the environment, he’s absolutely terrible. He buys into the complete left wing environmentalist movement in this country," he is speaking from Republican Caucus experience.
When Santorum says that about the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill that "John McCain was the guy who was working with Ted Kennedy to drive it down our throats, and lectured us repeatedly about how xenophobic we were, lectured us, us being the Republican conference, about how wrong we were on this, how we were on the wrong side of history," he was there, heard those lectures.
When Michael Gerson says that "I think the main policy problem John McCain has is that I don’t think there’s much evidence that he’s a convert on the pro-growth economic philosophy," and adds that "[w]hen he opposed the Bush tax cuts, it wasn’t just that there was not offsets, and not sufficient cuts," remember that Gerson was at George W. Bush's side through those battles. Gerson remembers that McCain "used our class warfare arguments, 'It’ll only benefit the top 1%' and other things," and concluded "I don’t think he buys the kind of supply side ideology that has really determined American economic policies the last 25 years, particularly under both Reagan and the current President Bush."
Monkei
· 1 year ago
The MSM and their bed partners the DNC desperately want Huckaberry or McCain as the opposing nominee
and yet it is the GOP voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who voted for these guys in the initial primaries. If these guys get the GOP nomination it will be due to the GOP primary voters, but you can blame the MSM for all the woes of the republican party.
keemo
· 1 year ago
I don't blame the MSM for the woes of the Republican party; I blame the "old school" Republicans (such as Trent Lott) for abandoning Republican principles while being wooed by the power and money that was laid before their feet.
I blame the MSM for being 99% Liberal; for failing to do the job they were given special privileges to do; for pushing an agenda rather than reporting the facts and letting the people decide; for fabricating stories; for fabricating documents..... I could go on & on monkei, but that would fall upon deaf ears if I have been reading your posts correctly.
Theresa, MSgt (ret), USAF
· 1 year ago
If Ronald Reagan were alive and coherent today, he would hang his head in shame at what his "amnesty" has done to our country. He gave a damn about America and Americans. Fred Thompson does too. And let's not forget that until the illegal alien marches demanding full citizenship while flying the mexican rag, most Americans didn't care or were oblivious to the issue of the illegal invasion. We can all thank the kennedy's and LBJ for the illegal alien mess we live with today as well as Reagan's amnesty; an amnesty which was meant to fix the problem, but as we are now seeing, amnesty doesn't work without border control and enforcing immigration laws. Fred Thompson has been the only candidate who seems to understand that. The rest of the group is just telling the voters what they think they want to hear. I wouldn't trust anyone except Thompson to follow through on his campaign promises.
Yashmak
· 1 year ago
It's telling that none of the Paulians have come out to defend him today. I'm interested in seeing how they'll rationalize the audience's laughter at their candidate. They'll probably say it was a 'hit job' by Hume.
UncleAl
· 1 year ago
They seem to have disappeared for a few days now.
Mark
· 1 year ago
It's nice to see the pundits and MSM finally picking up on Fred Thompson - the only true conservative in the Republican race. The four RINO's sounded too much like the Democrats they really are. No logins, no registration, no signups, no blogs, no emails; just the facts on videos and news links at www.pinnaclecascade.com
JimBob
· 1 year ago
Saw a quick summary of the debate on CNN this morning. They showed the Huckabee rebuttal but not Fred's smack-down. They are still trying to do the candidate shove. I think the MSM is afraid of Fred. He can be a lot of trouble for the democrats
cveal
· 1 year ago
I think its messed up how the they ask everyone one thing then when they got to Ron Paul they try and drill him about his followers beliefs on 911. Say what you want about Ron Paul but following the Constitution sounds pretty good to me.
JimBob
· 1 year ago
Having read the comments section, I see a couple of things that keep coming back about Thompson. The first one is the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. Fred did vote for it. He has later come out and said that when he read it , it sounded reasonable. But in practice is really bad. The second one was that he has no substance, no ideas past humor. Just read his stands on EVERY issue at his web site. Last night he even stated on how similar McCain's tax plan was to his that he put out a few months ago. If this is all people can come up with, don't waste any more time on anybody else. Fred is the man!
gary
· 1 year ago
Well Ed you got this one wrong. Mitt did great and McCain sucked bad as did Huckabee. Hugh Hewitt called this one perfectly.
brightwinger
· 1 year ago
Hugh Hewitt?
LOL
Monkei
· 1 year ago
Fred did all right last night ... but do we really want a president who sleeps 5 weeks and is up 1 or 2 days and then goes back to sleep ... or one that obviously was missing his bran last night.
He should have ran for President 20 years ago when he was physically able.
All Comments
while Fred Thompson campaigning since November 2007around two months with a clear, consistant history and message, it is ridiculous to say that Fred Thompson is lazy.
I do hope the Republican appartus is not willing to throw out a solid Big Tent Conservative who offers friendship to so many Americans for another Centrist politican such as McCain.
Good conservative principles are a terrible thing to waste.
Clairsolt is exactly right. Private business creates jobs, not government.
/Mr Lynn
Presidential? More like, "don't let this man drive a car".
And lemme guess, you didn't like Romney right? HUGE shock there! Lol. Please.
Can you imagine what he'll do to Hillary or Obama? He literally took Huck out of the race in 90 seconds of absolutely brilliant discussion.
And did you notice the questioner wanted to give Fred 30 seconds of response time, but Fred decided to take 90 seconds by telling the moderator, this isn't a response, it's my answer to an earlier question you asked. If you want to talk about leadership, that was a perfect example.
The moderator didn't dare interrupt, nor did Huck who was getting his a## handed to him on the split screen - Fred has that kind of authority and presence.
Mitt seemed out of focus (in a cinematic way)
Huck evaded substantive attacks or questions and unlike the Captain's opinion I think he did quite poorly on the religion question, especially his defense/non-defense of Paul's (the actual St. Paul) admonishment that women should be subservient to their husbands. He basically touted a modern massaging of the original doctrine but I guarantee that wasn't Paul's original intent.
I didn't like McCain in this debate much. He's on cruise control and not very inspiring.
Giuliani was very effective with his arguments but something seems a little out of place with him.
Ron Paul is somebody's crazy old uncle with long hair in his ears.
I was raised in the Southern Baptist church, but I have to admit I have not been in awhile. However, I do happen to know some honest to God church goers and Huckabee's answer was pretty much in line with what they would believe.
This is always the problem with religious questions like that. There is no way to answer without sounding .....religious. I thought it was a dumb question in fact.
"...That's not the model of the Reagan coalition - that's the model of the Democratic party!" (Fred's capper to a long list of horrible Huck stances.)
I was referring to your moderate commentt . For a sovereign nation not to protect its borders-by building a wall if necessary- is extremely liberal and suicidally stupid. I doubt that Reagan would not be in support of a wall if he were alive today. If not, he would be wrong.
Who knows? Reagan tore walls down, he did not build them. He was a man of a different time.
The truth is people would have thought it was a waste of government money back then. Really. It would have been considered a boondoggle. No one talked about the Ruskies coming in across that border or anything else. Reagan thought that they were the problem. He felt he was protecting our sovereignty by going after them.
The Regan Amnesty was part of a deal for Kennedy to have the border sealed.
Kennedy welshed on the deal ..Blame him because it's right where it belongs.
McCain gave several good answers but his freely mentioning climate change is off-putting as is his defending the essence of McCain-Kennedy. He's right that the American people don't trust him but that's only part of the trouble. His saying that "I know how to close the borders" was more than a little disingenuous.
America, please tell me you were watching that performance by Fred...
I thought he did pretty well, but I did not agree with his Reagan answer. Rudy had a good point there. Reagan could get all sorts of people to vote for him from all sorts of states. Other than that he was pretty good.
I did think Thompson was a tad off on the Pak question about military aid. We did not give military aid to Pakistan so that they could intimidate India, they are supposed to be fighting terrorists. So Huckabee did have a point about questioning some of that aid.
Sometimes I think these guys do not remember the real Ronald Reagan. The real Reagan would not have made an issue of half the things these guys argue about. Like immigration. It is as if they have created a myth to replace the man. A man conservatives complained about a lot back when he was actually president.
But it was a pretty good debate.
I wish someone would kick Paul off the debates. The man is an embarrassment.
Um, in 1986, Reagan had 2.7 million illegals to deal with. Now we've got somewhere between 12 and 20 million.
And you act like "these guys" made it an issue. Quite the opposite, the voters made it an issue when Bush and Congress tried to sweep another amnesty through - repeatedly - while no one was looking. It's hardly an issue cooked up by the political class. The anger over immigration has been as grass roots as it gets, and the political class simply hasn't had the choice to ignore it like they have previously. Fred's on the right side of the issue, the side that the people who supported and honor Reagan's legacy are on. That's "Reagan" enough for me.
Qwinn
I am saying people talk and talk about Reagan conservatives, and yet I am not sure they really know what that means.
I would vote for Fred, but Fred is not exactly the same guy who was in the Senate. Fred supported McCain Feingold, in face his voting record is almost exactly the same as McCain's and yet people who dislike him say he is not a real Republican at all.
McCain isn't a federalist by any stretch of the imagination. He's a populist, someone who, other than national security, votes to do what's popular.
Their approach to immigration is at opposite ends of the spectrum.
BTW, I thought McCain's answer that "I know how to shut the borders down" was laughable. I don't doubt that he know s how. It's that I'm certain that he isn't that interested in shutting it down.
Referring to Reagan as a moderate is off base. For certain he shied away from the EXTREMES of either side (largely due to his experiences dealing with extremes in Hollywood) but there's no way he sided with Liberal agendas in any way even close to what Bush does.
This is what Fred Thompson represents, dealing with the issues as a true Reagan Conservative. Thompson's record in the Senate has one glitch, a yeah vote for McCain-Feingold. But he's nothing like the anti-Republican McCain is, e.g., gang of 14, McCain-Kennedy Immigration, McCain-Feingold, Keating 5, man made global warming, voting against Bush tax cuts, etc, etc). One point about Thompson and McCain-Feingold, it was Thompson's amendment that raised the limits for personal contributions.
So far the hardliner position has not won one single election. Reagan would not have made a mistake like that. He would have found away to build a coalition and create a consensus even if it meant making some compromises. That was how he operated.
Once again, what exactly is a Reagan conservative? I am told it is not moderate, ok, but then it is not extreme either. Reagan was not all that conservative.
Reagan was not aggressive either. He did not stand up to the mullahs, nor did he worry about Saddam's murderous bent. He did not concern himself with what was happening in Afghanistan once the Soviets were gone either.
Reagan was not a liberal, no, I never said he was, but he was not rigid and he would not have damaged the party for the sake of purity purges. He made a point of saying that politics was about action, not just opinions. He would not have called George Bush, Jorge, I am sure of that. Never. It would have broken his 11the Commandment.
Don't misunderstand me, I like Fred just fine,although I think he has been a bit lazy up until tonight and I worry that it might be too late for him..And I am not sure he is another Reagan. Like I said I am not sure people really remember the man the way he was.
By contrast, Thompson worked to amend various pieces of legislation and aimed them toward a Conservative position. Campaign finance reform is a perfect example.
As for Reagan - our heroes are what we make of them. I'm sure Abe Lincoln wouldn't be a Republican in today's world but I'm not going to throw him off the bus because he took a Liberal position towards slavery.
If Thompson wanted to amend legislation, well he had his chance.
My feeling is that he will probably not last. I honestly do not think he can go the distance, but I think it would be a huge mistake to denigrate the man or his supporters. Because.... while we are on the subject of Reagan, it should be remembered that back in the late 70's Reagan made a point of reaching out to people like Huckabee and bringing them into the party. And Reagan, the real Reagan, made a point of saying he wanted to build a Republican party that put social conservatives into leadership positions and made them not just followers, but candidates as well. That was Reagan's coalition.
So while I am not a social conservative myself and I am not a Huckabee supporte, I recognize that he is every bit as much a Republican as any candidate up there and right now at least it seems a lot of rank and file Republicans feel that way. I think we need to do what we can to keep those people in the fold. Calling them Democrats might not be the best way to do that.
I agree. But perhaps they felt sorry for the little Truther after his goofy answer about the Iranian gunboat issue.
BTW: Paul must have forgotten about the USS Cole and what a "little speedboat" did to it.
Yours in victory,
Mitt
p.s. did you notice Ron Paul was again declared the victor in internet voting.? The kokkids have been busy again tonight.
e&oe
There you have it, nutsos. Go home.
I think Mitt was better than Ed suggests, though he did have a little 'deer-in-the-headlights' look at times. His answers were generally well-put and thoughtful, and he devastated Ron Paul, who edged further toward becoming a complete caricature of himself. Brit did ask him about all the looney 'truthers' who support him, to which Ron responded, "I can't tell them what to do."
McCain was as good as he generally is, excellent on the responsibilities of the Straits of Hormuz commanders, though he faltered on immigration. It turns out McCain and Mitt are not really any different on what to do with the 10 million (12 million minus the criminals): look at each one individually, they said. So what was all the fuss about last weekend? Fred tried to explain that
all you can really do is create reverse incentives to get them to self-deport, and stop the next 12 million from coming in. But he made me wish I were up there to explain it.
Chris Wallace really fumbled the first round of questions, by asking the candidates what they would do to stop the recession that may (or may not) be upon us. Since none of these gentlemen would be in office until a year from now, there is nothing they can do in the short term (except maybe for the congressmen in office), and so they all defaulted to answers about maintaining the economy long-term. Chris foolishly kept pushing the short-term question, and none of the candidates called him on it.
The questioning improved after that. My wife remarked how much more substantial this session was than the last Democrat debate, during which we suffered through questions about 'change' and 'likeability'.
Which reminds me that Rudy Guiliani had a terrific response to the mention of 'change': it depends on what you want to change, and how you do it. More taxes, bigger government, weaker defense--bad change. The opposite, good change. Good point, and time it was made, dammit! Rudy was really very solid. I think he'd make a good, maybe terrific, president.
Oh, and John McCain stuck in his belief that 'climate change' is a real problem, which (he said) we can solve without people shivering in their bedrooms. Huh? Well, what he meant was we could do away with fossil fuels and use subsititutes for energy, I guess. But he might be President--how do we disabuse him of this ridiculous idea that man is overheating the Earth?
Goodnight. It's my bedtime.
/Mr Lynn
You should have your own blog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwirWWnzJKM
I am seeing those, I strongly feel, who want to see, what they want to see...
Fred and McCain offered the old Senatorial rhetoric again...
no solid solutions, one liners, with a little more pep, but remained the same old...
there are those with some bias against Romney, who again shows he is the best on the stage, who are now rushing to find some other choice yet again.
Fred is cool, and had the crowd behind him, but isn't up to the challenge...
it shows even tonight, when he was at his best.
hoping the bias, doesn't encourage the liberal placation of John McCain.
I am in the tank for Conservative Republicans...
I am telling it as it is, in my opinion...
A few jokes are not going to win the President, nearly are two old Senators...
I am not here to change opinion and your expression seems insecure about my reaction.
Fred is cool, but again lacked basis and content. He jokes well for example, but doesn't provide a substantial offering after the fine humor.
He was aided by a very friendly crowd to him, but he still has not displayed the energy and insight for the enormous task facing us...
I have said openly I lean towards Romney, know he is the best offering in the GOP Race for the Job with the Conservative interests involved, but remain open to Fred and Rudy.
However, the hype is not going to help our cause.
Hype undermined the election in 2006, and we have to get serious.
Romney remains the best option, in clear fashion.
I won't dispute whether or not Fred showed substance during the debate, since I didn't watch it; however, he doesn't really have to show any more than what he's already got.
What is this "hype" of which you speak?
Based on that line of reasoning the 61 year old Senator from NY ain't gotta chance in hell. She's damn close to collecting her social security check. (Assuming the system doesn't fail before then)
Huh? Actually Fred is the most substantive candidate of them all. It was no joke when he crushed Huck last night, delineating the differences between them.
Fred also has detailed his platform in writing. That's no joke either, but it is basis and content.
Which of these candidates can do that? I don't know the answer, and I'm not sure there is one.
/Mr Lynn
All people want is to know that a candidate truly WANTS to be President. And that is all that Fred Thompson has been lacking.
As for Paul, you get what you expect. Allying with Moderate Arab nations? Which nations are those? The same ones that attacked Israel after it's formation? Oh yah, that would work. lol.
Fred is cool...
but both Senators are not producing substance and will not get the job done in the General or as POTUS.
We know full well, others write the script.
Fred is a fine ACTOR, who can do quite well with a script, hides behind the jokes, offers some Senatorial generics...
That is a sincere problem.
Fred actually helped get McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform passed.
A President has to identify problems, encourage solutions, be able to get solutions implemented, and there is no record of this with FRED or McCain.
this is a Huge problem, and the history of LBJ is a vivid reminder of why Senators are not ready for the responsibility of being a CEO of the USA.
that is the substance...
Fred was a district attorney who put a governor behind bars! Was he reading a script when he did that?
Fred doesn't act...he gets type cast as the authority figure. Hollywood has a lot of actors to choose from, but Fred gets the part because he IS the part.
Ron Paul is a waste of precious time and money. To all who gave money to him, I offer my sincere condolences. It seems he has infected too many of them with the bug that made him bat**** insane...
“If we were all rich, that would be very nice,” Albright said. “If we were all poor, it would be too bad, but we would be the same. What the problem is now is the poor know what the rich have as a result of information technology and the spread, generally, of knowledge. And, it creates a whole new host of problems in terms of disquiet and anger.”
"disquiet and anger"...can there be a better reason for Hildabeast and her lackeys to come take your money away?
Exit question: How'd that happen?
Short and sweet. Less than a week after signing up to comment, I was banned. Why? The only conceivable reason is their policy against not letting anyone new to comment who supports Ron Paul.
But here's the thing. I don't support Ron Paul.
Proof? The very Red State comment thread on the South Carolina Republican debate that caused me to get banned. Here's what I said in comment #288:
And later, comment #292:
I threw in the exit question to provoke thought and humor about the Ronbots and "Romulans" furiously texting away to skew the results. But do the idiots who run Red State get the humor or even ask a question before Stalinesquely purging me? Hardly.
I was so not surprised to be banned — because they have a reputation for being a closed shop and are no friends of free speech (not even in this case, seemingly, where my position is in agreement with their position... which is why I refer to them as morons).
Well, I ask rhetorically, what more would I expect of a site co-founded by plagiarist Ben Domenech, who is a blog poster on the site to this day?
- - -
Cross posted at various places out of frustration to get my point across. They gave me no warning, nor even an email, and I certainly won't waste my time begging them for posting privileges so I can agree with them and get banned for it.
And that's a problem his performance in this debate can't solve.
In his novel The Right Stuff, Tom Wolfe compares the '50s media to "a Victorian Gent": proper, a bit stuffy, willing to overlook certain improprieties that might shock the sensibilities of its audience. While the MSM today is rather less restrained (unless we're talking about democrats, that is), there is still an echo of "propriety". I suggest that talking about Ron Paul's apparent nuttiness is just an uncomfortable subject, akin to shouting, "WHO FARTED???" at a dinner party.
Either that, or Fox just feels that Paul is such an oddball that deliberately pointing it out is overkill.
Fox, for all the calumny it takes from the left, does maintain a certain amount of decorum, even in its generally tabloid-style approach to news. And Britt Hume on his Special Report is a model of probity (it's also the best news program on TV, in my estimation). I was surprised that he asked Ronpaul about the 'truthers'. It takes a while before the obsessions of the blogs filter through to Britt. Though his 'Political Grapevine' segment shows that he does read them.
My guess is that if Fox invites Ronpaul to another debate, they will ask him about the newsletters. And I suspect that Ronpaul might decline.
/Mr Lynn
I think theh clear winner was Fred. Mitt had one weak moment, but stayed on message and looked very presidential. Rudy looked good, did not harm himself.
The biggest loser last night; Mike Huckabee was exposed... No doubt about that.
The huge loser tonight was Mike Huckabee, thanks largely to Fred and Chris Wallace who peeled the bark off of Huck's ideology. Huck bristled at Wallace at one point, and when pushed on why he raised taxes and spending, barked back, "I raised expectations." That might work with Democrats --though it probably doesn't in this day and age-- but it sure doesn't work with Republican voters. Huck's whining about the religion question was also off-putting coming from a candidate who has so often injected religion into this campaign.
Mitt, Fred and Rudy have generally done well in these settings since they began at the Reagan Library last year, McCain wasn't a factor until recently and he has struggled to get through them, and while Huckabee used the early debates to charm folks, his performance has plummeted as focus on his record has increased. There's a huge message in the last three debates about the issue differences between the candidates on taxes and immigration, with Giuliani, Romney and Thompson on one side and Huckabee and McCain on the other side. And there's a message about who can win these contests in the fall, and it isn't Senator McCain or Governor Huckabee.
The MSM and their bed partners the DNC desperately want Huckaberry or McCain as the opposing nominee. Good reason for that, as the Democrat nominee stands the best chance of winning the general election against either one of these men. Hillary stands no chance of winning against Rudy; Mitt seems to be the one they fear the most. Fred hasn't come up on the radar screen as of yet, but he may have done so with his performance of last night.
When Santorum says that "we’re looking at the media trying to make Barack Obama the president, and make John McCain the shill for him," and "I think they know that John McCain can’t win this election," he is exactly on target.
When Santorum says of McCain that on "the environment, he’s absolutely terrible. He buys into the complete left wing environmentalist movement in this country," he is speaking from Republican Caucus experience.
When Santorum says that about the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill that "John McCain was the guy who was working with Ted Kennedy to drive it down our throats, and lectured us repeatedly about how xenophobic we were, lectured us, us being the Republican conference, about how wrong we were on this, how we were on the wrong side of history," he was there, heard those lectures.
When Michael Gerson says that "I think the main policy problem John McCain has is that I don’t think there’s much evidence that he’s a convert on the pro-growth economic philosophy," and adds that "[w]hen he opposed the Bush tax cuts, it wasn’t just that there was not offsets, and not sufficient cuts," remember that Gerson was at George W. Bush's side through those battles. Gerson remembers that McCain "used our class warfare arguments, 'It’ll only benefit the top 1%' and other things," and concluded "I don’t think he buys the kind of supply side ideology that has really determined American economic policies the last 25 years, particularly under both Reagan and the current President Bush."
and yet it is the GOP voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who voted for these guys in the initial primaries. If these guys get the GOP nomination it will be due to the GOP primary voters, but you can blame the MSM for all the woes of the republican party.
I blame the MSM for being 99% Liberal; for failing to do the job they were given special privileges to do; for pushing an agenda rather than reporting the facts and letting the people decide; for fabricating stories; for fabricating documents..... I could go on & on monkei, but that would fall upon deaf ears if I have been reading your posts correctly.
No logins, no registration, no signups, no blogs, no emails; just the facts on videos and news links at www.pinnaclecascade.com
If this is all people can come up with, don't waste any more time on anybody else. Fred is the man!
LOL
He should have ran for President 20 years ago when he was physically able.