Wow. Especially surprising to read this coming from the NY Post, which has been divided between supporting Hillary and Rudy, and has given nothing but the back of their hand to Fred.
Even though Frank Luntz said Fred (or Romney) won the debate, I have doubts that Fred is about to soar. I think he’s great and would be a fine president, but I’m afraid in this image conscious age he comes across as too old. I hope I’m wrong.
I agree. We have to have patience. I believe Fred will start to outshine the other front runners. The other top tier candidates seem to have to intellectualize the conservative positions. With Fred, he provides strong conservative answers so easily because he truly understands Federalism in the way our Founders did. Fred understands the beast that is government. He reveres our beloved Constitution and understands the evil of big government.
That's what is hard to fathom. Some of us already know this, what is so hard to see about their being RINOS? Why are the supporters of Rudy McRomney so blind? Is it the media? Is it their loyalty to them somehow? It's not like we have a crystal ball or anything, but seeing Fred now isn't like some new revelation, he was hitting just as hard for a few months now. I'm not complaining, if they jump on the Fred bandwagon, it's better late than never, but come on already, what are they slow?
If I heard right today, Frank luntz said that his work with his groups revealed Fred as the big benefactor of last nights debate.
The debate, if I heard correctly attracted over 5 million people making it the most watched debate yet.
One thing that I am sure of (because we have the transcript) is that on top of that blow out night, Rush made an unofficial endorsement of Fred Thompson as the only true conservative among the front runners.
Wow!!!
Yep! The dog fight between Rudy and Mitt really made Freddie look great. :)
marked
There is your key statement right there...
Fred will win the day because after everything is said and done, he will be the only Conservative adult in the room.
But don't spread that around too much.
HEY EVERYONE, FRED IS LAZY AND IS SINKING IN THE POLLS!!!
(got keep up appearances...)
Fred needs to run as Romney’s VP. It’s the only sensible pairing that can snuff out Huckabee’s incipient surge and cripple Giuliani.
I thought Fred was on his game last night. Dick Morris on Bill O’Reilly’s “Factor” tonight excoriated Fred saying he looked old, tired, did not know what to do not being scripted, etc.
But, who listens to anything the toe-sucker says?
Fred is a big man and a big person, and women like men who are big. Reagan was big.
I believe it’s going to be Fred. If it’s Fred against Hillary, it’s a joke. If it’s Fred against Obama, it’s a fight that turns into a joke. If it’s Fred against Edwards, it’s a trial, where the defense is Edwards and the prosecutor and the judge are the same person, and that’s Fred.
Here’s my two cents.
I’m sick and tired of the liberal and “moderate” media (including beltway Republicans and faux conservatives like Fred Barnes et al) whining about Fred not doing what they think he should. Have they ever ran a campaign? No. I wouldn’t be surprised if they thought Reagan was going to lose in 1980.
I’m also getting tired of hearing people say they are tired of TV personalities and candidates that care more about what they look like on camera and want some substance. And then Fred puts out policy statements and no one cares. All of a sudden it’s “well, he’s not looking good on TV...he’s old, he look tired, where’s the fire in the belly?” etc. Make up your minds. Do you want a real candidate or a media candidate, like Huckabee, that only surges because people, in stupid and meaningless polls, like his one liners.
I don’t get it. The same people that want a real person that doesn’t cater to the conventional wisdom on how CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. want you to run your campaign comes along and they whine about him not catering to them?
And, as usual, all this is moot since not ONE VOTE has been cast. In 1984 it was Gary Hart that was the media darling. In 1988 it was probably some kook. In 1992 Paul Tsongas led the polls while Jerry Moonbat Brown attacked Clinton. Then Ross Perot got favorable treatment simply because he had charts and graphs. I kid you not, I knew people the liked Perot for his “message” while those same people ignored Reagan who had the same message.
Individuals are smart, people are idiots as we know from K in “Men in Black”.
In 2004 we got Howard Dean. He was, according to the conventional wisdom again, the front runner and the favorite until people actually VOTED! He then went “poof”.
Now these same pundits, who get paid for punditry so they have to provide their worthless opinions to make a living, say Fred is dead. Funny, no one has voted yet. They say he’s not doing well in Iowa or New Hampshire. DUH! He’s NOT TRYING TO. Who cares? Why are IA and NH still considered important? Iowa is full of fat cat farmers living on subsidies for worthless ethanol and NH has been diluted by Mass refugees and Vermont lesbians moving over to avoid the high taxes they love.
Fred Thompson doesn’t give a crap about Iowa or NH and he shouldn’t spend a dime in either state. When the feces hits the oscillating blade he’ll move with real voters when we get to SC, Florida and then on Feb 5.
He’s the most conservative running that isn’t a kook like Ron Paul and Huckleberry Hound. Paul is and ostrich and Huckabee is a “born again” like Bush and they are worse than true believers because, like ex-smokers, they all of a sudden believe they can FORCE others to their cause. I’m happy Mikey lost 100 pounds and feels better. Force me to do the same and I’ll shoot him. I like my butter, salt, beer, steak, fat, etc. Hell, I’m going to take up smoking at 48 (I hated it when I tried it at 16) just because the Repulicrats and Demicans want to tax it “for the children.”
Oh, I forgot. I don’t give a crap about the children. I don’t have any. Those that do should raise them themselves and quit asking me to help. I personally don’t care about their well being.
I have read all the stuff about romney, and I do not look at it like the rest of you guys. I researched him a year ago, found his anti amnesty position, he was okay with me. I like Duncan Hunter and Tancredo, Fred might do, Mitt is the one for me. And again, I have read lots and lots and lots of junk posted about him here. Some of it looks petty, like nothing someone would do would never make them happy no matter what. I read about him a year ago and I believe him. So call me any kind of sucker you want,but your friend is right,we’ve heard the crap,and don’t look at it like you do. I think he would be an awesome president. There is an excellent chance he will be our next Prez. I thought he did well last night, was glad to see Bill Bennett and Charles K thought so too,along with those 34 pubbies with Luntz.
Thompson schedule belies ‘lazy’ charge:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1930189/posts
Thompson does keep his own schedule - a busy one.
I was waiting for someone to notice how Fred intimated Rudy wasn’t one to talk trash about someone’s hiring mistakes. It was pure class they way he did it. I knew exactly what he meant. I wish there was more time before the early primaries for him to make headway against the phony candidates.
I also did not like his "campaign ad". It was an attack ad. None of the others used this format for that, and it made him look desperate. I don't mind those type ads late in a campaign, but when you juxtapose it against the others, it didn't make Fred look good.
I also do not think that Fred did anything that made him the story of the night, which he needed. The story of the night was the bickering between Rudy and Mitt, and Mike Huckabees great performance. I am not a Huckabee supporter, but he was by far the winner of the night.
These are my opinions only, but I think the candidates that gained voters that night were Huckabee, Hunter, and maybe John McCain. The candidates that stayed the same were Fred, Tancredo, Paul (unfortuneatly his fans aren't going anywhere), and maybe Rudy. And the loser was Mitt (who looked petty and indecisive).