Friday, January 11, 2008
|
|
Fred Thompson -- And The Morning After ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
8:16 AM
|
|
Have you noticed that Frank Luntz's focus groups are almost always unanimous? Last night, for example, almost everyone in his focus group agreed Fred Thompson won.
The other night, almost everyone agreed that Mitt Romney won (although that overwhelming performance clearly didn't help him in New Hampshire). My question is: Why are they almost always nearly unanimous? Wouldn't you think that people's analysis of the debates would be a bit more evenly divided? Something's up here ...
In any event, this morning, Joe Scarborough and his Morning Joe crew are accusing Fred Thompson of doing John McCain's "dirty work," by attacking Mike Huckabee last night. Huckabee was on the show, himself, and said he doubted it was a conspiracy, but Scarborough keeps pushing the idea. Based on the fact that a lot of people think Thompson won last night, I suppose if Fred was doing McCain's dirty work, he should keep on doing his dirty work all the way up to the GOP nomination ...
At least one major publication believes Thompson's performance last night was significant. My former blogging home, Human Events has endorsed Fred Thompson.
Human Events is one of the most respected conservative publications in America. This endorsement will rightly be a shot in the arm for Thompson, who needs to win South Carolina.
Lastly, a smart political observer emailed me this about Mitt Romney:
At the post interview with Mitt Romney, Alan Colmes asked him about distancing himself from Reagan/Bush in 1994 and his response was “I went to the funeral and learned about Reagan’s optimism and saw the light? EXCUSE ME, YOU DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT REAGAN AND WHAT HE MEANT TO THE GOP TILL HIS FUNERAL? THAT HAS TO BE THE LAMEST answer and one of the biggest flip flops EVER. NO SERIOUS candidate who wants to carry the Reagan Mantel can honestly say they didn’t believe in Reagan till he died!
PLEASE YOU HAVE TO POST ON THIS!
Things are heating up in South Carolina.
Update: I just watched the video of Romney talking about Reagan's funeral, and (in context) it isn't nearly as bad as it sounded when I read what was emailed to me. I don't see where he is saying he didn't discover Reagan's greatness until his funeral ...
|
|
|
Matt - maybe you should view clips for yourself instead of posting an opinion of some unnamed "smart political observer". I agree with Bensonally that your bias against Mitt Romney is very evident. I would take your blogs seriously if you showed more impartiality. |
|
|
Maybe not quite as bad as it seemed, but still another lame-o "conversion" from Mitt. I suppose it's just a coincidence that his previous positions were advantageous in Mass. and his new, improved positions are advantageous nationally. Coincidence, divine intervention, or political opportunism? To me it's an easy call. |
|
|
With Rush behind him, we will finally see the true conservative (Fred Thompson) rise to the top. Too bad for Mcant and Huckabable or is it Huckabible? |
|
|
Matt, Please post an update to this posting as you have now seen the light and do not agree with the mischaracterization of the email that you so kindly forwarded on. |
|
|
|
Matt, Matt, first we had from you last nights "pandering" comment in the midst of the debate then a "flip flops" posting today from a "smart observer". Similar to McCain's tactics in NH (he attacked Romney with negative third party comments while publicly telling everyone he wasn't going to go negative and attack folks), these comments reveal real negative bias.
If you are are going to portray yourself in the role of an observer/pundit, would expect more impartiality (also more intelligent insight rather than furthering apparently politically motivated caricature).
If that's not possible, Matt, how about being an honest one and tell us who you really support? You don't really know Mitt Romney at all and you harm an honorable man and perhaps the most talented presidential prospect we have had for a generation. |
|
|
Luntz may want to screen or otherwise prepare his groups prevent the effect of dominant people on the final results. I'm not sure the group dynamic presents useful results and group think could be why they always seem to be "unanimous ". |
|
The guys looks like he awoke under a bridge 5 minutes before the debate started. He runs a little peer-pressure experiment; no surprise one person is the "clear" winner. And as we all know, his choice of "undecided" audience members is suspect....
I also saw Romney on Hannity/Colmes. I don't think he said he only learned about Reagan at his funeral. (BTW, this is from a guy who can't stand Romney.) But since Alan had confronted him with his past statements on Reagan, I thought Mitt gave a pretty good answer.
What I don't understand is why everyone bags on Paul. Sure, he is whiny, and a little nuts, but alot of what he says makes sense. We DID used to be the country of limited government and no "nation building." Fox News hurt themselves even more last night, with Cameron's lame questions for him and Hume's disingenuous attack on his reply on Iran. |
|
Frank Luntz now has zero credibility after his You Tube outing. He was shown to have "hand picked" several people from his famous "undecided" groups. Sheesh....
If Huck wins SC and maybe FLA, he is well on his way to wrapping up the Rep. nomination. |
|
Its obvious from this exchange that Joe and Chris are bigots:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: What the hell happened in New Hampshire?
MATTHEWS:“You remember the Lone Ranger and Tonto? I think paleface speak with forked tongue. You hear me? Forked tongue....
I thought this was over. I thought it ended with “macaca."...
I thought white voters stopped being what they didn’t want to be. You know what it tells me? People aren’t proud of who they are. They aren't proud of who they are. If they want to vote for Hillary Clinton, fine. Why don’t they say so?
SCARBOROUGH: I’m used to people saying that we in the South have problems.
MATTHEWS: Tell me about it,
SCARBOROUGH: But talk about New England.
MATTHEWS: Boston? BOSTON? [with a tone of incredulity]
MATTHEWS: There’s different kind of prejudice in the North than in the South. But it exists. It may not be “I think I’m better than you,” but it might be "I don’t want to live next door to you.”
|
|
If Thompson is running interference, I think its for Guiliani. If Thompson can keep the southern vote more split, it defers judgement day until the california and the tristate vote. NJ and NY being winner take all, if things are split Rudy can move into a tie with whoever is left on super Tuesday. Also Thompson drop out and endorsement would help Rudy the most, as it would shore up his conservative credentials.
McCain / Huckabee seems a more realistic deal. The real threat to McCain was Romney would win IA, which would help him win NH. McCain would have been dead. The two never attack each other. They agree on major parts of the economic axis (less, but big goverment; lower, unless you need to raise them taxes), socially they are both "compassionate" law and order types (no torture, amnesty, etc.) and pro-life (with Huck helping to shore up this base) and foreign policy for all McCain's hawkishness, he's still into pleasing the NY Times and "expanding our friendships" - (and serving as his VP would remove 1/3 of Huck's problem with R's the executive experience.) McCain at 72 and not in the best health, well its not a bad place to be an ambitious VP. And the two are both self delusional enough to think it will work, because they will get so killed in the general election. If being the party in power means that those two are my standard bearer, I'd rather be an opposition party. Why? Because at least we'd only have 4 years of Hillary/Barack and we could go on the offensive. With McCain/Huck, we'd be setting ourselves up for 12-16 years of idiotic policies, where we'd have to be in opposition to the leader of the GOP to move things in a conservative direction.
Ugh.
|
|
I think Pundits put too much stock in these debates. Anecdotally I have some very conservative friends and family, my older brother for example is a nra lifetime member, pro-life, and big on tax cutting and small goverment. He's also fairly active in donating and campaigning. He didn't even watch last night.
For Pundits if these debates make a big impact, it gives them something to talk about and obsess about. The big problem for Romney is that I think a lot of people know more or less the profile and facts of the candidate. While they are undecided, they are not uninformed. This leads to going into the booth and pulling the lever for who feels right. For all Mitt's strengths (and I'm a supporter) - I don't see him winning the emotional battle, ever.
|
|
|
I hope he does well in SC. Someone has to put a stop to McHuck there. But, I doubt Fred can move support so quickly, he's way down in the polls. |
|
|
It is starting to look like a Thompson surge is imminent; the drive-by's propped him up way early and then criticized his timing creating the conventional wisdom that he waited too long. These are the same people who have had Rudy ahead nationally for a year, now they want Thompson to be done. What's happening is, a whole lot of conservatives out there who've been hitherto undecided and waiting for a candidate to emerge are beginning to settle on Thompson. Afterall, he is the only consistent conservative in this race. As much as everybody says it's too late, he is right on time if this surge comes to fruition. If he can catch some fire now, he could ride it all the way to super tuesday. This would be great for many reasons; first, Thompson would be a great candidate, conservatives would have a clear choice, and the drive-by media would be proven wrong again. Go Fred, Go! |
|
WHY??? Dude- it's MSNBC.
NO. ONE. CARES.
|
|
Thursday, January 10, 2008
National Review
Jim Gerahty
FRED THOMPSON
Tonight, Fred Reminded Me of Roy Hobbs.
"Winner: Thompson. This performance was so commanding, I wanted his last answer to echo back to the lights in the back of the auditorium, blow out all the lamps and spotlights, for the theme to “the Natural” to play, and for him to trot around the stage in slow motion while sparks showered down in the background."
OH YEAH BABY!
|
|
If Fred Thompson is also employing the media coined 'Rudy Strategy' of writing off Iowa & New Hampshire to concentrate on SC, Super Duper Tuesday and, the southern Conservative vote (which by the way is a strange tactic for Rudy to be employing while it makes perfect sense for a candidate with Thompson's Conservative credentials to use) why are we not being told what a "brilliant strategy" it is for him moreso than it seems to be for Giuliani?
AND
Not that I want to respond to Scarborough but isn't it more likely Huckabee is the "hatchet-man" in the race?
Isn't Mike running only to siphon off a large percentage of one of the largest parts of the Republican base, Evangelical Christians and, with that support attempt to posit himself as a VP candidate? McShame/Huckster anyone?
Is it just a coincidence that the two men have a genuine mutual admiration for each other? Both men seem to harbor the same soft spot for Illegal Aliens as evidenced by Huckabee's Tuition for illegals incentives plan and John's McShamnasty bill. So is it just a coincidence that the two men have a genuine mutual admiration for each other? McShame/Huckster anyone?
Some do see a conspiratorial game plan to bring down other candidates (Romney-NH, Thompson-SC)? But the spoiler in both cases seems to be Likeable Mike!! Whether true or not the question lingers and, in this case can anyone honestly say it isn't a possibility? McShame/Huckster anyone?
Vote like this might be the last vote you'll ever get if you get it wrong. Judgeships are at stake here. McShame/Huckster anyone?
Vote For A Real Conservative
Vote Thompson '08
W/O=
|
|
|
Before gettin all gooey about Human Events you might want to check out the Weekly Standards take on last night. (Real Clear Politics). Last night Fred woke up...and a tree fell in the forest. |
|
|
|