I wouldn’t go that far.
His support was so low anyway, it wouldn’t have mattered if all his supporters were for Hunter instead.
But anyhow, there are clearly as many reasons to give him the ubiquitous “RINO” tag as the average Republican Senator who is alternately tolerated and reviled by freeperdom. He’s hardly the paragon some made him out to be. Still would have much preferred him to McLame or Romney though.
I can’t believe he’s wasting his energy on this silly and doomed attempt to run an end around of the Electoral College. How about Tax reform Fred? Foreign policy? Jim Edgar isn’t a good guy to hang around. (And sadly Edgar was our best Governor in decades)
I cannot believe Fred is taken in by this BS....and I supported him.
Popular vote equals less power for the smaller states and more democrats elected.
It is 100% the WRONG thing to do for people that care about our country.
True, I don't buy the argument that he was in the race to sabotage conservatives so McCain would get the nod. That may have been the unintentional result in South Carolina, but overall he wasn't much of a factor. Still I think his brief stroll-for-the-Presidency is Exhibit A why it's a bad idea to "draft" people for office that won't their heart and soul into the effort. And it's Exhibit B while waiting around to the 11th hour to announce a major campaign is NOT a "brilliant strategy" (are you listening, Palin fans?) ;-)
>> But anyhow, there are clearly as many reasons to give him the ubiquitous “RINO” tag as the average Republican Senator who is alternately tolerated and reviled by freeperdom. He’s hardly the paragon some made him out to be. Still would have much preferred him to McLame or Romney though. <<
You're probably right, looking back he was still better than Rudy McRomney (only because the latter 3 were so bad), but at the time I was looking at the cards we were dealt and I wasn't about to throw my support behind someone who was endlessly "thinking about" running when everyone else was setting up tents in Iowa.
As I've said, there's NO reason for the freepers who were duped by Fred to apologize for voting for him. Alot of us throw our support behind a candidate we later regret, as I noted my most recent example is Pat Hughes in 2010.
What does irk me is the freepers who put Fred on some kind of pedestal as the second coming of Reagan and excused any terrible parts of his record as simply because of Fred's revered "federalist principles" ("why of course Fred hates abortion but he didn't campaign for the human life amendment cuz he's a TRUE FEDERALIST and the ONLY candidate who RESPECTS the intent of our founders... obviously you don't understand the principles of federalism) Most Fred supporters are far more rational and level-headed than Ron Paulites, it was disturbing to hear them talk like Paulies with the "ONLY Fred gets it" stuff and talk down to the rest of us as being clueless. I really don't appreciate being talked down to, either, whenever someone says I don't "understand" the constitution because I don't support their POV. Reminds me of my liberal college professes at Columbia who would sneer that anyone who doesn't agree with their anti-war agenda must be stupid and not understand current events and foriegn policy.
>> I can’t believe he’s wasting his energy on this silly and doomed attempt to run an end around of the Electoral College. How about Tax reform Fred? Foreign policy? Jim Edgar isn’t a good guy to hang around. (And sadly Edgar was our best Governor in decades) <<
While I think the electoral college system could be tweaked and reformed (my preferred method, of course, would be allocating electoral votes by congressional district instead of "winner take all" in a state), I agree it's hardly a top priority. I disagree with the freepers who have the "everything the founder fathers did is perfect" mindset, but with the EC its simply a case that although it's flawed, it's preferable to the main alternatives discussed at the time, either having Congress pick the President or have a nationwide popular vote as Fred wants.
It would at least be entertaining to debate him on this issue, situations like 1960 or 2000 would be a logistical nightmare if you were going to attempt an accurate nationwide recount in a country with 300 million people, given that the margin of victory was 500,000 votes or less. And I would love to see one of Fred's ex-supporters confront him about how going around the constitution with a national vote compact gels with his supposed reverence for "federalism". What irks me more than switching to a national popular vote is the method they're trying to use to impose it. If they passed a constitutional amendment to achieve that, I wouldn't be happy but I'd accept it. But there's something downright creepy about 12 of the biggest states getting together and deciding how the other 38 states will be able to allocate their votes in a presidential election.