Posted on 12/03/2007 3:16:18 PM PST by PlainOleAmerican
“The “voters” apparently can’t see this “sincerity” that you do.
You aren’t looking very closely at the numbers. They are showing Rudy in a tailspin. Mitt needs one of those T-Shirts that says “I spent $50 million and all I got was this T-Shirt”, he’s tanking in Iowa. Huckleberry, there’s no there there. I wouldn’t count Fred out, he’s a mudder in a wet and sloppy field.
Doesn’t immigration fall in the category of “security”?
Or is immigration a socal issue? Or fiscal?
I guess it is really all three, but first and foremost is has to be a security issue and part of the global war on terror.
There may not currently be a lot of terrorists trying to gain entry into this country via Mexico, some day there might be. The sooner we secure the southern border FOR REAL the better off we will be.
And because the MSM is going to do whatever they can to sink Thompson (or Hunter if he were polling better) I fear that we will be stuck with Rudy. I just hope that he will make the tough choices and fight hard enough to get that darn fence built.
“He’s anything but boring”
But he isn’t currently entertaining and what the public wants to read about. In truth, Paul just isn’t newsworthy. If Huckabee wasn’t “currently” doing the underdog rising up, he wouldn’t be inresting or newsworthy either.
When folks keep coming up with these weird MSM conspiracy theories, it makes me wonder if they also think there is a UFO at Roswell? It is just plain lunacy or sour grapes.
If or when Huckabee, et. al. stories no longer get read or watched, he won’t get coverage. When it becomes expedient, meaning to sell advistisement space, to attack Huckabee the MSM will do so. Folks it is all about where the money is at. Tommorrow, if covering Thompson gets them read or watched, they will be all over it. If it takes “fluff” on Thompson to sell, they will be all over it. The guys paying for the MSM are wanting to make money and more money. They do this buy selling advertisement space. They sell advertisement space by showing advertisers that they are read or watched. They do what it takes to get read or watched.
No doubt the staff of the MSM have a liberal bias. However, they only can exercise it when it doesn’t get in the way of selling space. FOX started out as the more conservative of the MSM...now they appear to have left this. Why? Because it sells more space. Money is want drives this, not idealogies. The most liberal persons that manage to stay on the air or in print do so because they have a significant audience, otherwise they would be gone.
Rush has a loyal backing of listeners, that is why he stays on although a conservative. Should his audience go away, he would also. Conservative, moderate, or liberal it is all about money. The news is about entertainment to get an audience...the bottom line. You must please your target audience.
“FRED THOMPSON is the only realisitc candidate in this group and unification of our party will require a great deal of work.”
I believe Thompson (or Hunter) are probably the most balanced (being conservative in all areas). However, I’m not sure they can even pull the party together. The coalition between pure economic conservatives and pure moral (AKA social) conservatives has always been a tenuous one. The moral conservatives are now the true base of the party, and Huckabee’s current rise is an indication of this. The economic conservatives really hate men like Huckabee and only cooperated as long as the GOP nominee wasn’t too morally conservative. Now that the real deal moral conservative (what the base has wanted) is currently rising, it is urking the heck out of them and the libertarian faction in the GOP.
I am starting to think that the GOP tent has gotten too big. Goldwater types and moral conservative types have got to duke this out and see who is going to dominate.
It's astounding to me that a lawyer and actor like FDT can be such a boring speaker. No sense whatsoever of inflection, tempo, climax, etc.
“I wouldn’t count Fred out, he’s a mudder in a wet and sloppy field.”
I’m not. It is just apparent to me that he is getting no real traction. He gets the NRTL endorsement and Rush gives him an indirect one, but it hasn’t really affected his numbers...he is static.
“false dichotomy”
Wrong, you just don’t know how to interpret a poll. These numbers reflect only post debate polling. Fred is static and going nowhere (at present). His performance in the debate was not great, it was lackluster. The only folks that really see this “sincerity” are Thompson supporters.
I’m NOT saying that Thompson is not sincere. I’m just saying that sincerity isn’t being perceived by voters or they don’t care. This is why I quote Rasmussen.
“No sense whatsoever of inflection, tempo, climax, etc.”
As a public speaker he may be past his prime. He looks allfully old for 65 - probably the result of fighting off cancer. However, he not only looked old, but his mannerisms were those of an older person (older than 65).
This is not an enjoyable thing to write. Senator Thompson is a good candidate, but I’m afraid the public wants more. This is wrong, but it is how it is.
I had not thought of it in that manner. Your analysis is very good. That is why I am hooked on FreeRepublic. I want to learn as much as I can about every candidate. I guess it is a matter of process of elimination that all Conservatives must face.
Thanks very much for your thoughts.
Interesting points.
Here’s the problem in that thinking...not you specifically, but in the idea that it’s the moral part that counts and not the economic one.
Realistically, there are three major factions to conservatism...fiscal, social, and nationalism/defense...the best candidate would shine in all three, like Thompson and Hunter.
If you ignore one of the three, the other two are threatened. Socialism isn’t compatible with social conservatism over the long run, and social liberalism not compatible with free enterprise. If you don’t defend the nation AND ITS BORDERS...both of the other two are threatened.
Ronald Reagan, while not perfect, was able to unite all three of those segments. Bush 43 did so less successfully and still managed to win.
Thompson does it well from a policy standpoint but probably doesn’t sell it as well as we’ve hoped, but I still think he’ll resurge. Romney tries to do it, and Huckabee really only focuses on the moral aspect...which really is important but it’s not the whole thing. Heck, Joe Lieberman does that.
Wrong, you just don’t know how to interpret your own tendencies towards cross dressing.
I’m NOT saying that you don’t really like to wear women’s underwear. I’m just saying that your propensity for wearing women’s underwear is being perceived by many who read your posts in spite of the fact that they don’t care.
This is why I quote you quoting Rasmussen.
“Huckleberry, there’s no there there.”
Oh, there is plenty there ... A big tax-and-spend-nanny-stater RINO is all...
Except that Huckabee is only a pretend moral conservative.
Laura Ingraham repeated press reports on her show today about his campaign fund graft. Huckabee even tried to take the governor's mansion furniture with him when he left office.
A large group of Arkansas Republican legislators support Fred Thompson.
Didn’t they, as a group, in fact, endorse Fred Thompson instead of Huckabee?
In summary, the endorsement convention delegates voted as follows: Fred Thompson 80%; Rudy Giuliani 6.67%; Ron Paul 4.44%; Mike Huckabee 4.44%; Mitt Romney 2.22%, Duncan Hunter 2.22%; John McCain, Tom Tancredo and Allan Keys 0%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.