Thompson picks up Iowa endorsement

Quad City Times ^ | 12/21/2007 | Charlotte Eby

[Fred]

Tancredo's Iowa director backs Thompson

"Tancredo's western Iowa director, Angie Anderson, also announced she was joining Thompson's campaign. Salier suggested Tancredo's decision was based on political pragmatism and not principle. "I'm very confused" about Tancredo's decision, Anderson said."

[ejonesie22]

So are you saying that is ok with you?

Nice to be dedicated to the cause huh?

[unspun]

funny title

[ejonesie22]

Oh, I notice it. There is a very large silent majority for Fred. But id you look at the consistent numbers among the various camps on FR, the ones who post, the numbers are about even.

I think the reason you see the disparity is that the others have something to prove with their guy.

[Rick.Donaldson]

Perhaps you remember such FReepers as Howlin, Onyx, Pukin' Dog, Fair Opinion, all of which were zotted on that thread with others.

Nope, honestly, I don't recall those names specifically. On the other hand, if they were indeed zotted, I am certain they had other issues behind the scenes. I'm a long, long time system admin for a site that had 8 or 9 thousand user/posters. They ALWAYS got banned for bad behavior but ALWAYS accused us of doing it because their opinions differed from ours.

To outward appearances that may have looked like the case, but we usually sent them emais/private messages asking them to 'tone down' their personal attacks. People got MULTIPLE chances. When they finally received their "just deserts" it was based on their BEHAVIOR and we didn't POST the private messages we sent them, as evidence otherwise.

I am CERTAIN that the management staff of this site has nothing but the highest of ethics when it comes to supporting and following their own rules.

I say this because a successful forum site simply CAN NOT be successful by alienating "everyone but a select group". I know, I have the background and experience in running successful sites myself. Occasionally, there is a rogue Moderator who somehow gets into a position of abusing things, but a good Admin will catch that quickly. There's zero reason for me to believe that based on one thread all those people were removed because of their particular dedication to Rudy Guiliani. It's neither logical, nor does it pass the common-sense test.

[kevkrom]

The thread was nicknamed "the bugzapper", actually.

There was a planned exodus of folks leaving to start their own site, and they basically pushed the limits here to get banned so they could leave as "martyrs".

[LexBaird]

They were banned not for being Rudy supporters, but for behavior about which they were repeatedly warned. They got themselves zotted for acts of defiance, not for supporting Giuliani.

As I said, overheated in their tactics and rhetoric. Banned for good reason, IMO.

However, allow me to point out that similar language, tactics and rhetoric are tolerated in support of certain other candidates here without the perps being banned.

[Rick.Donaldson]

I think the reason you see the disparity is that the others have something to prove with their guy.

MAYBE that's the thing I'm getting. I see MANY more posts for (and against) other candidates than I do positive (or even negative) on Fred. But the VOTES are very highly for Fred. So it strikes me that the people supporting Fred (with the possible exception of myself) are not as verbose (as I said, with the exception of myself) on the subject.

It seems to me there'd be less in-fighting among Conservatives, at least publicly than with Liberals. Why? Because Liberals have taught themselves that "The Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease" and that has become their motto in EVERYTHING they do - they yell louder, more obnoxiously than anyone else around them to get the most attention to their issues.

This causes me to believe that people supporting Fred as less "loud" and obnoxious.

[Rick.Donaldson]

There was a planned exodus of folks leaving to start their own site, and they basically pushed the limits here to get banned so they could leave as "martyrs".

We had a huge group of trolls on Anomalies that did that. Let left the "Anomalies Network" and formed the "Angular Momentum" crowd. Nearly every, single poster was at one point or another banned either temporarily or permanently from Anomalies. (We used AN to denote our site when speaking with others, and used AM, and obvious attempt at trying to obfuscate the names of the sites).

I'm fully aware of people like that, and it's precisely why I don't believe the word of one person saying "there was a purge".

The only purge I ever personally performed on Anomalies, for instance was to go through and locate people who had NOT been on the site in many months (I started with a two year list, then a one year list, then six months list). We had close to 10000 people registered as users and only about 3000 regulars. It was believed by most of us that those were "extra accounts" that many of the trolls used to read the site when they got banned.

We tracked IP addresses, associated with user names and were able to verify this time, and time again. When a troll raised a ruckus, we investigated them carefully to see who they were, what they'd posted and made a consensus decision usually (sometimes we could only get one or two people involved in the investigation due to time limitations, or the ferocity of the thread).

I'm not sure how FR's mods and admins work, but they certainly can't be far off from what we did. It's a logical way to handle things.

Even so, EACH moderator had the ability to ban a user outright, and Admins could permanently ban them by name, alias, IP address or any of several other methods (to include blocks of email addresses).

[Rick.Donaldson]

However, allow me to point out that similar language, tactics and rhetoric are tolerated in support of certain other candidates here without the perps being banned.

Well, this was sometime back right? Perhaps the mods and admins have a different way of handling the situation now? Perhaps the "similar language, tactics and rhetoric" are only your opinion of how things are? What I'm saying is, that as a poster here, you and I can't know what goes on in the minds of the Owner, Admins and Mods... this is something that I tried time and time again to explain to posters on our site. They can ACCUSE us of all sorts of things, to the point of it becoming a litany of lies. Which, of course they did (thinking that the more they lied about it, the more they could convince others to leave, and they were successful on occasion but, they still were LYING).

The very fact that I got the word "Nazi" used on me multiple times was sufficient evidence they were trying to discredit the site and the people on it, and those running it. We made a rule - Don't argue with the Mods, or admins, you'll be instantly banned. Simple as that.

I haven't seen ANYONE attacking anyone in the name of Fred Thompson though. Have you?

[LexBaird]

There's zero reason for me to believe that based on one thread all those people were removed because of their particular dedication to Rudy Guiliani. It's neither logical, nor does it pass the common-sense test.

They weren't. They were bounced for being obnoxious, insulting jerks in support of Rudy. I followed the thread and agreed with most instances of the nukings. But the overall effect was to make the more circumspect Rudy boosters duck, or move on to other sites, especially when obnoxious behavior supporting other, more conservative candidates is not bounced as readily.

Fred wins the polls here because Fred is endorsed and supported by the Management. It's a Fred Friendly environment that's unreceptive to hostile towards almost all other candidates. It's not rocket science to see that.

[ejonesie22]

I think that they are also more confident in their man and their conservatism. For a conservative, there is very little to prove in supporting a man like Thompson.

That just leaves the Hunter folks, who are noisy for their own reasons, and guys like me who just like to argue...

[Servant of the Cross]

I would concur with your analysis. I suspect many Fred supporters are not ‘loud’ or ‘flashy’, just like Fred is not. More nod silently than post. Normally, I’d be one of the quiet Fred lurkers but I stepped up my posting believing that it is really important in this particular primary.

[JohnnyZ]

Get real. Did anyone outside of Super Wonks even know who Tanc's local Chair was before this article? Do you know who was his Chair anyplace else?

Just because you have no clue about Iowa politics and don't know who Salier is doesn't mean Iowa caucus-goers are similarly ignorant. He is very well known and respected.

[TexasNative2000]

I’m expecting Thompson to make a major splash in Iowa.

[TheThirdRuffian]

“Normally, I’d be one of the quiet Fred lurkers but I stepped up my posting believing that it is really important in this particular primary.”

I learned how to post articles so as to show my support for Fred.

[codercpc]

They were banned not for being Rudy supporters, but for behavior about which they were repeatedly warned. They got themselves zotted for acts of defiance, not for supporting Giuliani.

On this I agree, I was, and still am (although waivering) a Rudy supporter, and I learned to not join in with the more boisterous crowd. Some did push the limit, and at the owners discretion were banned. Many others just decided to not put up with the BS and quit on their own terms.

I have refrained from promoting Rudy on this site, aside from telling posters that ask why I support him. I have too much respect for the owner, and the other posters to try and push an agenda I know they truly don't want. I have also tried to respect others opinions, while giving my own, on other candidates. I will, I promise, support whoever the eventual nominee is with my time, money, and vote.

But to claim that Free Republic opinion polls reflect the general public is not correct, and that was the point I was trying to get across, that many non Fred supporters are no longer here, whether it be a personal, or management decision.

[LexBaird]

I haven't seen ANYONE attacking anyone in the name of Fred Thompson though. Have you?

In the name of Fred Thompson, as in being an official spokesman? No. As far as I know, only Hunter has an official spokeperson on FR, his son.

As in being an avid and known supporter of Fred on FR? Yes. Again, it gets down to opinion as to what you define as "attack", but analogous language, rhetoric and tactics fom Rudy or Paul, even Hunter supporters against other candidates or FReepers have resulted in inactive accounts, temporary and permanent. Maybe there are behind the scene offenses as well, or maybe the Fredheads are more likely to hit the abuse button, but I see what I see, and that's what it looks like from here.

[moehoward]

"Tancredo has flown the coop. Money?"

I'm sorry to say it's the only thing that makes sense.

[Rick.Donaldson]

They weren't. They were bounced for being obnoxious, insulting jerks in support of Rudy. I followed the thread and agreed with most instances of the nukings. But the overall effect was to make the more circumspect Rudy boosters duck, or move on to other sites, especially when obnoxious behavior supporting other, more conservative candidates is not bounced as readily.

Well, this site IS a Conservative site... and the owner states that if you don't like it go elsewhere. Thus, those who are screaming "Rudy! Rudy" and being obnoxious about it are probably going to get nuked. For anyone that hasn't figured it out yet, Rudy is NOT a Conservative. Thus.... LOGICALLY, people who support him are obviously also less than conservative. THUS, they have more of a chance of getting booted than those that, support, say Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter.

Right? Makes sense to me.

I don't recall anyone saying life, or posting on a forum was FAIR :)

Fred wins the polls here because Fred is endorsed and supported by the Management. It's a Fred Friendly environment that's unreceptive to hostile towards almost all other candidates. It's not rocket science to see that.

I'll agree with you on part of this. However, the site has it's supporters for other candidates, and more power to them. I've made up my mind -- and did so before he announced (Fred) because I've met him, felt he was the right guy at the right time and many other reasons. I wrote numerous letters to him trying to convince him to join the fray. He did, eventually, on his own time and in his own time. I RESPECT him for that, and others ought to as well.

I disagree that this is an unreceptive to hostile environment, for anyone other than Hillary Clinton and other socialists. If you're a socialist (Not you, 'them') then you can EXPECT this to be a hostile environment, and rightly SO. America IS NOT a Socialist state and should never become so. Over my DEAD body it will. Ron Paul has some socialist leaning ideas, but mostly he has some extreme ideas of what to do with America if he CAN. If Ron Paul weren't so... I don't know, I've dealt with many, many people that beliefs similar to his - many of whom are so far out there that they join cults and stuff like that -- I guess my problem with Paul is he has several bad, bad ideas for America and I sure don't want to see him become the front running, especially not against Clinton if she gets in.

I personally don't want him to THINK he is "loved by many" but not good "enough for the Republicans"... because it will push someone like him to go for a third party. THIS is a dangerous proposition -- So you can bet I'm going to point out the weird things he's doing. That is not a bad thing. I WELCOME someone to point out the bad things ALL of them are doing. Including Fred.