Sunday night roundtable: The Fox News/GOP debate
Update 1/7 9:09am Eastern. Questions about one of those focus group members.
9:35pm Eastern. Wow. Interesting. Frank Luntz’s focus group was just asked about Romney. Only a few raised their hands to say they supported him before the debate. Almost all raised their hands to say they were supporting him afterward. Look:
Loud agreement among focus group members that Huckabee came across as slick and evasive. I’m telling ya: Shuckabee. The New Hampshirites also agreed that while Fred was good on policy, he didn’t set them on fire. “I just want to shake and wake him up,” one guy said. That’s a regular citizen saying that, ok? Not the Evil Conspiratorial Media.
Last observation: McCain was wearing fangs for the ABC News debate. He left them on the nightstand for tonight’s debate. Must have been difficult not to snarl, though.
9:26pm Eastern. Wallace asks McCain the age question. Wallace: Would you pledge for running for only four years? McCain: No. I’ve got the vigor. It’s exhilirating. I’m excited. I’m older than dirt, more scars than Frankenstein.
Huckabee: I’ve met McCain’s mother. She’s got more vigor. (Crosstalk with McCain.) Wallace breaks up the lovefest.
Told you we wouldn’t get through this without Huck slobbering on McCain.
Bleeeech.
Candidates now giving closing statements. Recycling their talking points. Yawn. Maybe I shoulda had that Red Bull after all. McCain’s last–and I swear he sounds sick and tired of hearing himself. He heaved a big sigh as he launched into his stump mini-speech. SIIIIIGGHHHH. Weird.
Hot Air has vid of some of the livelier moments up here.
9:24pm Eastern. Wallace to Rudy: “Do you have too much baggage to lead the Republican party?” Rudy laughs nervously.
The answer is: Yes, he has too much baggage.
9:15pm Eastern. Back after another short commercial break. Wallace turns to the negative campaign ads. McCain: “I’m running a positive campaign…Everybody runs their own campaign.” Huckabee talks about his negative-positive-flip-flop decision. “I think the people of Iowa rewarded me…looking for a positive, vertical president.”
Who has nasty Ed Rollins running his campaign.
Romney makes distinction between issue ads that scrutinize records and ads that attack character. Romney jokes about Rollins’ threat. Huck: “Chuck Norris is standing outside.” Romney addresses flip-flop charges. “I’m certainly not the only person who has ever changed their mind on an issue.”
8:58pm Eastern. Finally, we move to immigration after everyone has recited their lifetime travel itineraries and CVs. McCain: “I have never, ever supported amnesty and never will.” (It depends on the meaning of “never.”) Wallace is letting him filibuster with his “I will secure the borders” pie-in-the-sky talk. Recycles his Geraldo Rivera line about not wanting to call up a soldier and telling him that he’s deporting his mother.
Romney: We are a compassionate and humane people, but we are also a people who believe in the rule of law. Amnesty in any form–technically or de facto–just doesn’t work. It just attracts more people to do the same thing past people have done. McCain quotes Romney from 2005 saying McCain’s plan was “reasonable” and not amnesty. Wallace turns to Huckabee over DREAM Act endorsement compared to his new, tough on enforcement plan. He reiterates his support for DREAM Act. Romney asks: What about the children in school? Huckabee doesn’t want to respond to Romney. Huck seems rattled. He’ll only talk to Wallace. Wallace says he was going to ask Romney’s question. Instead of asking about conferring special benefit via DREAM Act, Wallace lets him reframe and stick to talking about what he says is his legal obligation as governor to educate illegal aliens. Amnesty rhetoric is “pure nonsense,” says Huck. His is, sure.
Refresher on their immigration/border security records is at Numbers USA.
Giuliani whines about how “complicated” and “difficult” immigration enforcement is. He’s allowed to filibuster on building a fence, introducing tamper-proof ID without addressing what exactly he’d do with the 12 million already here.
This discussion gets a D minus. All platitudes, few reality-based, policy specifics.
How about:
- Should the government continue to provide funding to cities that adopt sanctuary policies or not?
- Should illegal alien ID cards issued by foreign consulates continue to be acceptable in the face of strong opposition from homeland security and law enforcement experts?
- Do the candidates support or oppose the expansion of the federal employer verification system being challenged by the ACLU?
- Would they support increased funding for the 287(g) immigration enforcement training program?
- Are they for or against the DREAM Act?
- Would they repeal Clinton’s Executive Order 13166 – yes or no?
8:51pm Eastern. Wallace brings up McCain’s attack on Rudy for not visiting Iraq. Rudy: “I am the only one here who has had to face an Islamic terrorist attack, at the center of it.” In case you didn’t know about that. He also brings up his return of the Saudi prince’s money again, which he mentioned during the ABC debate last night. In case you didn’t know about that. Thompson gets his turn to recite his curriculum vitae…and then turns to challenge Huck on closing down Gitmo and challenges Romney on Ted Kennedy’s attendance at his health care signing ceremony. Time’s running out and he wanted to cram it all in, I guess. McCain crams in all his endorsements from retired admirals, generals, and secretaries of state.
8:41pm Eastern. Back from a short commercial break. Wallace raises a McCain attack ad on Romney re. national security. Romney answers challenge to his lack of Washington experience, debate between governors vs. senators. Talks about leadership traits–calm under fire, temperament, executive leadership, etc. McCain responds that we haven’t always gotten the best outcomes with governors ascending to White House (Clinton). McCain: I know Musharraf…I’ll leave it to American people to decide whether that’s important. McCain defends his attack on Romney in which he said Romney was looking at his shoes during war; criticizes Romney for not criticizing Rumsfeld. Romney responds: He was running a state. Mentions he did go to Iraq. “I wasn’t looking at my shoes, I was running a state…There have been great governors, Ronald Reagan being one of them. It does not take a US senator to become president of the US.”
Wallace turns his sights on Huckabee–cites all of his foreign policy shortcomings, ignorance of NIE, Pakistani martial law. Huckabee interrupts. OUCH. Huck’s not liking it. Huck cites all the countries he’s been to, executive experience, chairman of Natl Governors Association. Wallace: But what about your pattern of not knowing things or getting things wrong? Huck: Not a pattern. Maybe a slip of the tongue. But not a slip of morals.
8:30pm Eastern. Changechangechange alert. Wallace wants to go back to change. McCain declares that he’s proud to be an Agent of Change. McCain cites change in Iraq tactics, surge. I have been an Agent of Change in Washington. I know how the system works. Agent of Change. Agent of Change. I think we need a t-shirt. Romney: Washington is fundamentally broken. Can’t have someone inside Washington turn Washington inside out. Sending the same people to Washington, but in different chairs, isn’t going to change. Romney talks about executive leadership skill. Fred and Rudy are giggling that Romney is describing Rudy, not himself.
Wallace throws it to McCain. McCain says he has leadership–in military, not management. “Not for profit, but for patriotism.” Ouch. No matter how you feel about McCain, it’s an effective response. Fred gets a chance to make a bland statement about change. Rudy’s statement about change attacks the Democrats. Good call. Rudy: Change is a slogan. The question is: Is it change for good or change for bad?
***8:23pm.*** Romney challenges Huckabee’s class-warfare demagoguery: “You’re not going to help the wage-earner in America by attacking the wage-payer in America.” Very strong, clear defense of free enterprise. Good moment for Romney.
Wallace asks Giuliani about consumption tax, fair tax. He answers with his stump speech about workfare in NYC. He’s dragging on. Wallace should really move on…and he does. Skips to Fred to ask about consumption tax. Giuliani is not a factor in this roundtable.
8:14pm Eastern. Well, Huckabee lost that exchange with Mitt, who quips that the Arkansas governor “makes up facts faster than you can speak.” Should have just answered the question, Gov. Shuckabee. Wallace moves to Giuliani. He reels off his record, cites George Will’s endorsement. Thompson talks Social Security reform. Romney doesn’t want to cut benefits. McCain praises Bush for attempting SocSec reform. Wallace switches topics…shows a video of Huckabee pitching economic populism.
Wallace to Huck: Does Romney remind you of someone who wants to lay you off? McCain’s cackling in the background. Can’t help himself. Huckabee channels John Edwards.
8:02pm Eastern. Here we go. No lengthy intros, no opening statements, no photo-ops. Chris Wallace jumps right in. You can watch the livestream at FoxNews.com. The first question is on tax cuts. Romney jumps right in with a defense of his tax/fees record in Mass. and launches into a challenge to McCain on his opposition to the Bush tax cuts. McCain calls himself a Reagan foot soldier, emphasizes cuts in spending. Wallace is pushing McCain on his opposition to tax cuts. McCain repeats spending cut talking points, mentions the Bridge to Nowhere, pork barrel spending, line item veto. Romney pushes back on tax cuts.
For those of you playing the Change Drinking Game, we have our first mention of “change.” Romney: “Change has to begin with us.” McCain touts his spending cut successes. “I have a record of saving billions for the American taxpayer.” Wallace turns to Huckabee and his tax-raising record. “Does Mitt Romney have a point?” Huckabee challenges the “semantics of taxes versus fees….I’ve cut taxes 94 times.” Brags about Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
It is true that Governor Huckabee fought for an $80 million tax cut package in 1997 that was passed by the Arkansas legislature (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98); cut the state capital gains tax in 1999 (The Commercial Appeal 02/29/99); and passed the Property Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights in the same year, limiting the increase in property taxes to 10% a year for individuals and 5% per taxing unit (AP 03/16/99). However, his record over the rest of his ten-year tenure tells a starkly different story.
* Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98).
* He supported an internet sales tax in 2001 (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07).
* He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002 (Arkansas News Bureau 08/30/02).
* He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003) (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001 (Arkansas New Bureau 03/01/01).
* He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements (Arkansas News Bureau 12/05/02).
* He opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003 (Arkansas News Bureau 11/21/03).
* In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law (The Gurdon Times 03/02/04).By the end of his ten-year tenure, Governor Huckabee was responsible for a 37% higher sales tax in Arkansas, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes according to Americans for Tax Reform (01/07/07), garnering a lifetime grade of D from the free-market Cato Institute. While he is on record supporting making the Bush tax cuts permanent, he joined Democrats in criticizing the Republican Party for tilting its tax policies “toward the people at the top end of the economic scale” (Washington Examiner 09/13/06), even though objective evidence demonstrates that the Bush tax cuts have actually shifted the tax burden to higher income taxpayers.
Finally, Governor Huckabee opposed further tax cuts at a 2005 gathering of Iowa conservatives (AP 09/17/05). On January 28, 2007, Governor Huckabee refused to pledge not to raise taxes if elected President, first on Meet the Press and then at the National Review Conservative Summit. The evidence suggests that his commitment to protecting taxpayers evidenced in his early gubernatorial years may be a thing of the past.
Huckabee and Romney engage over their state tax records. Net-net, did you raise taxes in your state by half a billion dollars? Huckabee refuses to answer. Huckabee complains about Mitt’s campaign ads. Four times, Romney asks. Huckabee won’t answer. Finally mentions a court order…
***
Another GOP presidential debate kicks off at 8pm Eastern tonight on Fox News. Will Rudy continue to be a non-entity? Can Fred turn amiable performances into real momentum? Can Romney defend himself with more zeal without pulling a McCain and looking churlish? Can Huckabee appear in a forum with McCain without leaving slobber all over the floor?
I’ll liveblog again (seems to me there will be enough fireworks to eliminate the need for Red Bull) and Hot Air will have all the video highlights/lowlights. Chris Wallace is hosting–and you can be sure he won’t do the schoolmarm routine. Charles Gibson earned some praise for his hosting duties during yesterday’s debates. But I found him to be, well, unctuous, at times–and I agree with the observation that he tended to tamp down heated disagreement just when things were getting good. Gibson’s superficial knowledge of the immigration issue left him completely unequipped to challenge John McCain’s slippery rhetoric on shamnesty; he also failed at several moments to follow up on the candidates’ sweeping claims (like Giuliani’s 12 commitments).
I’d like to see some tough follow-ups to some of the candidates’ doozies last night (Huckabee’s mischaracterization of his position on the surge, for example, and John McCain’s pharmaceutical company-bashing). What do you think Wallace should ask? He already had a dress rehearsal with Huckabee this morning on Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: In last night’s debate, you said that you supported President Bush’s troop surge when he announced it in January of last year. But let’s take a look at what you actually did say in January, and this is when Mitt Romney had already said that he approved the surge.
You said, “Well, I’m not sure that I support the troop surge, if that surge has to come from our Guard and Reserve troops, which have already been overly stretched.”
Governor, you were not the supporter of the troop surge that you represented yourself as last night.
HUCKABEE: Well, I supported the surge. I questioned the use of our Guard and Reserve in repeated deployments because as a governor, I’d seen what that had done to our own Guard troop.
About 90 percent of our Guard have been deployed now to Iraq, and some repeated deployments, long periods of time, three out of five years. These are citizen soldiers. These are people who certainly are willing to go. I’ve never heard any of them complain.
But it’s a real incredible, I think, challenge for not only the soldier but, more importantly, for their families, their employers and their communities.
And what we’ve done with Guard and Reserve forces has got to be changed. It’s one of the things that I would do as a president.
And my point was and remains that if we’re going to have the kind of war we’re going to have, we’ve got to have more troops at the beginning.
WALLACE: Governor, I’m not saying you’re right or wrong. I’m simply saying that you misrepresented yourself last night when you said you approved the troop surge. In fact, days later you said you weren’t sure you supported the troop surge.
The fact is the Guard and the Reserve have been part of the troop surge.
HUCKABEE: They have been a part of it. And my point was and remains that we need regular Army. We’ve got to beef it up. The surge is working.
I think one of the things we’ve seen is it’s been a dramatic success, and hats off to General Petraeus, and I’m grateful that he’s been in that position.
Stay tuned.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Suitably Flip
- No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » Fox’s turn with the Pubbies - Live Thread
- Riehl World View
- Betsy's Page
- » New Hampshire Debate II: Affirmations Hennessy’s View: the conservative prescription
- Keith Burgess-Jackson » Politics
- The Sanity Blog
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Videos: Mitt and Mike go a couple of rounds Update: Fred’s speech on immigration added
- Stop The ACLU
- Stop The ACLU
- Fox News Roundtable Live Blogging (Lots and Lots of Updates) : The Sundries Shack
- PrestoPundit » Blog Archive » Romney Closes The Deal
- The Unalienable Right » New Hampshire debates
- Macsmind
- Macsmind
- Liberty Pundit
- "What do you do with a candidate like Huckabee?" Pt. 2 [Karl]
- Dave Lucas' Notes
- Michelle Malkin » A focus group campaign plant or a professional undecided voter?
- Captain's Quarters
- politicalpartypoop.com » Blog Archive » Focus group campaign crap - Fraud and Deception
- Mark My Words
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: 2008 campaign, GOP
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
NewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The ObamasRiehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin RisesStop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristGay Patriot
» The O So Hip ObamaLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?Weekly Standard
» DVR Alert: Oprah, Obama, Primetime, ChristmasJustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The Turkey
Rudy held a major metropolitan area together in the aftermath of 9/11 … but I also wonder how much after the first week or so was his own decisions and how much was just implementing the federal decisions … just curious …
Fox news team was right on. Chris Wallace was great. Focus group seemed focused.
And i am for Rudy.
No complaints.
Hey, I liked Fred’s education of Huckabomb on the finer points of the law. He not only plays a lawyer on TV, he actually IS one.
I can’t believe McCain is talking about making spending cuts and stopping the Bridge to Nowhere in the same sentence. First of all, he had little if anything to do with stopping the bridge, according to FactCheck.org:
And, second of all, no spending cuts were involved because when Congress stopped the Bridge they did not cut out the pork. The AP reported that they still gave the money to Alaska to spend as they saw fit:
If these are the accomplishments McCain is choosing to highlight, he must not have much to choose from.
I watched the whole thing and agree witht the focus group. Mitt sounded excellent. Huck has interrupted Mitt with digs a few times but never gets called on it and always plays the victim, Mitt is picking on me, is it me, or has anyone else noticed that? There is way too much Huck does not know and likability shouldn’t be key in an election. I thought he waffled like crazy and was very surprised that most of Brit’s “All Star” panel thought that they all did well.
I am just watching the debate now on Fox (repeat) and I am not sure if Michelle you posted this, but it is IMPORTANT. When McCaine talked about illegal aliens, he said something like, many of them will get deported unfotunatelly [little pause], or fortunatelly depending on how yu look at it. He slipped, he actually thinks deporting illegals is unfotunate. I cannot stand that guy or the Huckster, and I am an Evangelical. I see the Hukster as one of those crooked TV evangelists, who can quote the Bible and lots of unfotunally gullable, though well meaning and good people people, fall for it. The Bible teaches us to look at the fruit of people as evidence. Hukster’s fruit is misplaced compassion for criminals he pardoned, but not the victims and for illegals, not real immigrants and Americans.
I love love Mitt, he was excellent tonight. He is great when he is serious. He needs to stop smiling to look like nice guy, that bugs me and I wish he would read this. Stop smiling so much, be more serious, we need tough (watch this debate over and over and continue to be like that). Rudy, I do not like not just cause of abortion, but he is also an amnesty guy and he admitted it on the ABC debate. I was almost willing to support him, after Fred or Mitt, until he admitted that after the border is secured, he is for path to citizenship, or amnesty or whatever they want to call it.
Well, as far as the “debate” went, my impression was that Romney was the clear winner here. He effectively thwarted the arrows from Huck’n Jive and McCain, who were both gunning for him. Still has not convinced me he is a true conservative, but he is certainly less of a Rhino than the rest of the crowd save Fred.
Thompson came across as the ultimate statesman. And for those who are not looking for pie and the sky, as solid Presidential material. Personally, I liked his style. Pretty obvious Fox was not giving him anywhere near equal time.
What occurs to me is what the Demoncrats would do with them in the general election. My comments are about the debate, with the vulnerabilities the Dems would exploit.
Rudy – Rudy is now running ads here in Texas, playing on his experience with terrorism and how this qualifies him to be President. His real experience lies in dealing in the aftermath of a catastrophe, not avoiding one. hard for me to make that leap.
As far as the debate went, he could not get away from his script. And he ducks and weaves when his RINO past is brought up. He is a democrat in republican clothing. He was pretty evasive, and it is clear he has no plan on how he is going to be a reformer.
As far as the Dems go, they will crucify Rudy. Rudy does not have skeletons in a closet, he has a whole graveyard full of them. Marrying a cousin, dressing in drag, the whole Kerik mess, and the whole girlfriend/wife deal. My bet is there is also some fodder to be had in Rudy’s post mayoral private business affairs. Wasn’t it he and Kerik that were supposed to train Iraqi police? That worked well.
If Rudy gets the nomination, he is unelectable.
Thompson – a solid performance. Hard to believe the Fox post poll people saw the same program I saw. Fred is out in front in proposing solutions to issues, not just whining about them.
The Dems may have a tough time digging anything up on Fred, and to the extent they do, it will likely backfire. It will look petty, like Hillary’s search into Obama’s primary school records. If Obama ends up with the Democratic nomination, Fred’s presence will highlight Obama’s inexperience and his empty suit platform.
McCain – The man wanted to be unleashed, but thought better of it. A brief experience as a Naval Officer 40 years ago is not the kind of leadership that makes a President. He continually retreated into his comfort zone, that being the mantra that he is a war hero who deserves to be President. He told some tall tales tonight – no negative ads, never proposed amnesty, etc. What worries me is that I think he actually believes what he is now saying.
Better behaved, but not one to give a straight answer – OK for a Senator but not OK for a President.
The Dems will excoriate McCain. He knows just how to get Bin Laden? They will paint him as a loose canon who is starting to lose part of his marble collection. And they will trot out his “victories” in the Senate, like McCain Feingold.
His ethics will also play front and center. McCain was one of the Keating five, and while he may have walked unscathed, he still had some mud on him. And don’t dismiss the possibility of him being “swiftboated” by some of his fellow POW’s.
Romney – he was well prepared. The one thing that stuck out with me was his description of the so called “attack ads”. My view all along was that they were not – they were contrasting what the others were saying to what they actually did. That is not an attack, more of an issue piece. And frankly, with the dung heaps being laid by McCain and the Huckster, someone needs to tell us what the hell that smell is.
Pretty much nailed the executive experience.
Good debate, but I cannot get this vision of a rhinoceros out of my head.
I do like the fact that the MSM does not like him. Their New Hampshire minions have endorsed McCain.
The Dems will attack him on the Olympic deal and on his flip flopping. While he is getting close to getting his message out there about flipping, he is not there. Memories of John Kerry keep popping up in my head. The dems will also likely dive into his private business dealings – a venture capitalist makes more than a few enemies, and those folks will be trotted out to speak their peace.
Huck’n Jive – Evasive, condescending and frankly, dumb. Someone explain the discussion about foreign policy has nothing to do with GEICO insuring his Mercedes. He clearly came across as a man with something to hide, and he did a poor job of hiding it.
The man is not a RINO – he is a democrat. I keep thinking he wandered into the wrong locker room.
The least trustworthy candidate out there. What he says today is old news tomorrow.
The Dems will crucify him (as opposed to his self crucifixion up to this point). Those sermons he refused to release will surface, and will undoubtedly reveal some unpleasant things about him. His Willie Hortons (yes, he had more than one) will play daily and his flip flopping will be displayed to make John Kerry seem like a member of the JV team. His outright lies will put the final nail into his Presidential coffin.
Plus, he overplayed the evangelical card in Iowa. That will come back to bite him in more diverse states, which just happen to have a ton of electoral votes.
I thought Mitt came out on top tonight. My main concern is that one of them wins the White House. So, electibility is a top issue. If I want a candidate I agree with 100%, I’ll have to run myself! I could vote for 3 of these guys.
Somebody who knows more can check my math, but didn’t all candidates in Iowa finish in order of age? Its a lousy thing to judge a candidate on, but if young people are pulled to the polls this election….. ???
Wouldn’t amaze me at all, Ladybug! Did you catch this story from Dec 24th?
Illegal immigrants “self deport” as woes mount
snippet:
“The couple are among a growing number of illegal immigrants across the United States who are starting to pack their bags and move on as a crackdown on undocumented immigrants widens and the U.S. economy slows, turning a traditional Christmas trek home into a one-way trip.”
Purplepeep~
That’s “you’d be amazed” was aimed at whoever it was above that was saying we can’t deport 12 million illegals… I did see that story (or one very similar). Also have seen stories from OK about how home construction has slowed down because all the illegal labor has left. Boo-freakin’-hoo, people. I’m sure that once skilled American construction workers who can’t get work where they live because of being undercut by illegal alien labor find out about it, the pace will pick up again…
I know, I was just emphasizing your very good point, bug!
Yup. It’s bad enough places like China and India are savaging American workers from overseas, we don’t need to “import” that problem.
I suppose you’re also infuriated with all the techincal scientific jargon Michelle keeps tossing in just to show you up, such as “debate rating doo-hickey thingy things”? Dang that insightful class!! We’re all just sick about it!!! I need more exclamation marks!!!! And a “harumph” to demonstrate my outrage!!!! Harumph, you esteemed insightful class-ites! (Or is that class-iers?)
Oh, Michelle! I absolutely LOVE IT that you noticed NOBODY was challenging those candidates WHO FLAT OUT LIED about their own record, etc, like you pointed out when McCain claimed he NEVER supported AMNESTY for illegal aliens!
But Fox News put up the QUOTE PAGE to back McCain’s attack against Romney – where were such pages to challenge McCain’s lies???
Also, I was born in 1952, am 56 yrs old – and I want to tell you – NO WAY ON THIS GREEN EARTH is Fred only 9 years older than ME!
The Ron Paul Backlash Hits Fox
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/06/the_ron_paul_backlash_hits_fox.html
Read the comments to understand what Ron Paul is about.
See Ron Paul supporters protesting (especially like the sign, “Don’t Tax Me Bro!”): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFuq3MFv4z4
Ron Paul on Jay Leno tonight!
It’s not too late to join the rEVOLution!
Fed Up
Yes, Ms Malkin, Fred looked tired.
No, Ms Malkin, that does not excuse what you did when you put up the Politico’s lie right before the Iowa debate.
Yes, you are proving yourself to be little better than Geraldo by failing to own up to it.
Good Morning All!
Imagine my surprise when I found this @ LGF…..rubbing my eyes…..but, but….
all the other Blogs said….?….. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28512_Fox_GOP_Forum_Poll&only
The Lizard minion has spoken.
jus’checked it again to make sure I’m not dreaming. nope…..no splainin’ it.
O that sleepy,no belly-fire candidate.
Ol’ Fred may very well debate his way into the White House. Seems like he picks up a few more followers every time they have one.
Go Fred!
I thought you McPain-haters were against such things as McCain Feingold – yet so many of you are Fred-heads.
I guess you haven’t done your investigations on him – just taking him at his word.
Primary mover/shaker on McCain/Feingold/ THOMPSON…
Chairman of Senate Committee to investigate Chinese donations to Clinton campaign funds – diverted and squashed its performance, reduced it to the tit-for-tat, Blame-GOP-Equally Game
Voted with 3 GOP Senators and all but 2 Dim Senators that Perjury from Bill Clinton is a “TRIVIAL MATTER” even in the eyes of our Founding Fathers
MANAGED McCain’s 2000 Presidential Campaign, and knowing that the Arizona GOP CAUCUS had unanimously CENSURED McCain at that time, the same time as McCain winning his re-election to the Senate VIA DIM CROSSOVER VOTES, having been deemed as a better Liberal for the Dim voters than their own Dim candidate - Fred still often says that McCain would be a fine President.
Voted against TORTE REFORM
Voted against Megan’s Law.
Uses “Federalism” to excuse taking NO action against Dim Social Engineering done by OLIGARCHY and NOT BY MAJORITY RULE
No, I won’t vote for Fred under ANY circumstances.
He may consider SELF-SERVING internationally aired and perpetrated Perjury by Bill Clinton to be a TRIVIAL MATTER, but the Supreme Court Justices UNANIMOUSLY BOYCOTTED Bill’s next and last State of the Union Address – first time event in HISTORY, including two seats appointed by Clinton himself – BECAUSE OF THAT BLATANT PERJURY, that Fred AS A FORMER WATERGATE PROSECUTOR was so unconcerned with – JUST AS HE AS A WATERGATE PROSECUTOR WAS ALSO SO VERY UNCONCERNED ABOUT CHINESE DONATIONS to the Clinton Campaign Funds!
No!
Back in the day when Texas was covered with Dim fraudulent Machines like the Kennedy Machine (now we only have a few left – compared to 30 years ago)
THEN, Fred would be known as what WE called NOT AFFECTIONATELY AT ALL a dirty back-room dealing political hack.
I hold him accountable for every one of the dirty pardons that Clinton made on his last day – which included 16 known terrorists.
It appears that the ENTIRE Supreme Court bench of Justices of 1999 and 2000 also felt the same exact way that I do – UNANIMOUSLY!
Since they boycotted that State of the Union Address made possible by Fred Good Ol’ Boy and McCain/Howard Baker butt buddy!
No. We have worked mighty hard to get THAT sort of politician OUT of Texas! And we have come a mighty long way on that job!
Interesting. My husband, who will hopefully be a first time voter, thought exactly the same thing. His exact words were “There is something about that guy I don’t trust”.