Trust Sarah! But Don’t Be Fooled By Fred!

It really bothers me to see Fred Thompson in the number 4 slot on this list which is also discussed here. I initially supported Fred Thompson because he seemed like the most conservative candidate. What I came to realize, however, was that while Fred talks a good talk, he walks a bad walk. He started the race late, had no “fire in his belly”, and quit early. If you are honest with yourself, you’ll realize that Fred was never really in it to win it.

He was in it to help his “good friend John McCain” win the Republican nomination.

South Carolina was a pivotal primary in 2000, when McCain lost to an evangelical (Governor George W. Bush). Shortly thereafter, McCain gave his “Agents of Intolerance” speech, which he later doubled down on when he refused to apologize and said:

I must not and will not retract anything that I said in that speech at Virginia Beach. It was carefully crafted. It was carefully thought out.

McCain is no friend to evangelicals, but he pretended to be in this election. (Of course, the same is true of Obama)

McCain’s strategy for 2008 required him to win South Carolina. That’s where Fred Thompson comes in. Thompson’s mission was to draw enough votes away from another evangelical Governor, Mike Huckabee, to ensure that McCain won.

Mission accomplished, Thompson quit the race three days later.

Please don’t trust Fred Thompson. He talks a good talk, but his actions in the Republican primary directly contributed to John McCain becomming our party’s nominee.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Don’t be fooled by Fred Thompson.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Trust Sarah! But Don’t Be Fooled By Fred!

  1. Stevan says:

    Huckabee was at 3% in the polls when Fred got in the race. Fred would have to be half evil genious, half Nostradamus to predict the outcome in SC. I think it’s more likely that Fred saw McCain’s campaign was dead in the water (which it was at the time) and thought he would try to catch lightening in the bottle (which he did not).

    I agree that Fred probably cost Huckabee votes in SC, but Fred also cost McCain and Romney votes. I would also argue that if Fred had entered the race earlier, instead of waiting so long, he would have finished at least 2nd in the Iowa Straw Poll, pushing Huckabee to third. Huck never would have gained the momentum he needed to win Iowa in the first place. Basically, all the candidates who were conservative cost each other votes and we nominated the wrong candidate.

    Fred has been one of the strongest defenders of Sarah Palin in the Republican party. If you like Sarah, then you should appreciate Fred, too.

  2. Values Voters can trust the seven Republican presidential candidates who showed up for the Values Voter Debate.

    Values Voters should not trust any of the four candidates who refused to show up for the Values Voter Debate.

    I believe that those four all conspired to create a McCain/Romney ticket, and it was only a revolt by Huckabee’s delegates before the convention that led to McCain picking Palin.

    You say Huckabee was at 3% in the polls. I do not trust most polls, which are financed with people who have a very specific agenda, and use the poll to push their agenda. I say look at the results of the Values Voter Straw Poll, which Huckabee won with 63% of the vote. The other ten candidates combined for the other 37% of the vote.

  3. YouShouldTakeAChillPill says:

    I do not trust most polls, which are financed with people who have a very specific agenda, and use the poll to push their agenda. I say look at the results of the Values Voter Straw Poll, which Huckabee won with 63% of the vote. The other ten candidates combined for the other 37% of the vote.

    Kind of reminds moe of your take on the Presidential Polls vs. the AOL Online Straw Poll. And we know how spot on you were on that.

  4. Jax says:

    So the only polls you trust are the ones that tell you what you want to believe? Why even look at polls then? Why not just sit around the house and poll your cats?

    “Polls have closed, and with Tum Tum and Mr. Sniffles going for the Republicans, Red Pill is ready to call this election for Sarah Palin as a write-in candidate. Traitorous Baron Von Fuzzy was in the tank for Obama, shall receive no dinner and will sleep in the mudroom tonight.”

  5. From ACORN to college students who actively conspired to vote in states where they were not legal residents, there was massive fraud committed on behalf of Obama and other Democrats. Our electoral process is not as secure as needs to be.

    ACORN convinced a large number of people of the lies: “They [Republicans] stole the election in 2000. They [Republicans] stole the election in 2004. We’re not going to let them steal it 2008.” ACORN convinced a large number of people that it was morally justifiable for Democrats to steal the 2008 election, and I believe the 2008 election was stolen. Obama’s intentional removal of security checks on credit card donations was a wide open door for illegal donations. It is no secret that Palestinians actively supported Obama’s campaign.

    Now, it makes perfect sense for fraudulent polls to accurately “predict” the outcome of a stolen election. In fact, it’s practically necessary in order to make people believe that the election was fair, not stolen.

    With the way that Sarah Palin energized the Republican base, Independents, and PUMA Democrats (many of whom voted Republican for the first time in their lives), I really have a hard time believing that Obama would have won an honest election. It was only with massive fraud that he “won”.

    The MSM is lying yet again by repeating the mantra multiple times a day that “Barack Obama is the President-elect”. But Obama is not yet the “President-elect”. The November 4th elections elected Electors, not a President and Vice-President. There will not be a “President-elect” until the Electoral College votes and that vote is confirmed by the Congress. Those Electors, Senators, and Representatives have a sworn duty to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same”. They have a duty to confirm that any candidate they vote for has met the Constitutional prerequisites.

    Obama has not proven that he meets the Constitutional prerequisites for the office of President of the United States. And there are multiple lawsuits being brought to the Supreme Court challenging his eligibility. (Example, example, example) The burden of proof is on Obama. I pray in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for Obama’s fraud to be exposed, prosecuted, and convicted.

    I care about honest media, honest elections, and supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    But you’d rather talk about pussy cats.

  6. YouShouldTakeAChillPill says:

    Now, it makes perfect sense for fraudulent polls to accurately “predict” the outcome of a stolen election. In fact, it’s practically necessary in order to make people believe that the election was fair, not stolen.


  7. Jax says:

    You buried the headline on that one. Your whole thesis on this thing is right in the middle of that post: “I really have a hard time believing that Obama would have won an honest election.” You don’t believe it, ergo it is not true.

    This is reality, Red. You can block it out for so long by only reading blogs that agree with you and only talking to people who agree with you and having little “I’m farther to the right than you” competitions in comment boards. Barack Obama got elected president. It happened.

    Palin didn’t pull Democrats over to her side. Now, Red, you’re going to pull up what is known as “anecdotal evidence.” You’re going to find some reports of some women, somewhere, switching party affiliations to vote for McCain because Sarah Palin was on the ticket and you’re going to link to it. Maybe you could find 10 reports of this happening. Perhaps you could even find 20. Because you believe Obama can’t have been elected and your beliefs are always 100% right, you are going to interpret this as a major groundswell of silent switching behind the scenes for Sarah Palin.

    You’ll be able to find no solid evidence this is occuring, and you’ll discount the enormous pile of evidence from pollsters on the left and right that Sarah Palin, in fact, drove independents away from the ticket. You’ll do this because you don’t believe it. Check that, you’ll do it because you don’t WANT to believe it. Literally, there is no other reason. You’re not interested is what IS true, you like to live with what FEELS true, because the alternative is to admit that we live in an incredibly complicated, chaotic world, where large events that affect your life are largely out of your control.

    So you invent giant Machiavellian conspiracies where Democratic cabals form intricate alliances with every major pollster and steal tens of millions of votes without anyone getting wise, except you, one lone patriot with a laptop and a dream. And God bless, you know? It makes you feel important, so go for it. But you’ll be a lot happier in the long run if you crack a window and let some reality in once in a while.

    Two minor points: You don’t need to tag “of Nazareth” on every time you mention Jesus. Trust me, we know who you’re talking about. Nobody is out there going, “Jesus Christ of Toledo, Ohio? Why would he pray to that guy? He runs a hardware store.”

    Second, the President-elect thing as a proof of how corrupt the media is? Seriously, that’s just silly. keeps transcripts of all the shows going back to the 80s. Do you want me to find literally hundreds of example of W. being referred to as the President-elect before the Congressional session? Clinton? Bush Sr.? Come on, even you must be going “Wow, I’m really grasping at straw here.”

  8. “steal tens of millions of votes without anyone getting wise, except you”?

    Think again.

  9. YouShouldTakeAChillPill says:

    “You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed, and believe whatever you want to believe.”

    Me thinks you took the blue pill my friend.

  10. Jax says:

    Even Malkin, who sees terrorist sympathies in a paisley scarf and would accuse her morning bowl of Alpha-Bits of a liberal reporting bias, is not advocating that the Democrats stole the election. Find me her column, post-election, where she says that it was stolen. You can’t, because she’s moved on to complaining about the bailout package. Malkin, chewing sour grapes through she may be, has accepted reality.

    That’s what all the ACORN stuff was for, so she could make noise if it was close, but it wasn’t close. It was 52.7% to 46%. Obama won by eight and a half million votes.

    That’s a nice big handful of straw you got there, Red. You could make a hat with all that straw.

  11. Scott says:

    Back to Fred…I gave Fred a lot of money and support early on. His campaign staff was dreadful, so I’m not surprised that he never caught on. That famous pic of him wearing Gucci loafers at the Iowa State Fair—-wow, talk about a tin ear and bad instincts (and that’s just an issue of style).
    His substance was good—for the most part—but he depends more on “how” he comes across than anything. I do believe he was sympathetic to McCain; but not to help Mc get the nomination. I believe Fred and Mc are a dying breed of gentlemen politicians who believe in and practice comity; they seem odd, but Reagan carried himself the same way. Don’t get me wrong; neither of these men is Reagan-like in any other way. I don’t put a lot of stock in the depth of Fred—for if there were true depth, he would have not behaved like a spoiled movie star in the early days of speculation about whether he’d run. All that said, as long as he supports conservatism and doesn’t run again (no one else over 65 please!), I’ll be content to let him be. One thing is for sure, I won’t be giving his PAC a nickel. I dropped a hefty sum in contributions during this election, and I’ll think twice before doing that again—even if Gov Palin gets the nod…More action and less talk…

  12. Jax,

    The topic of this post is about Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson. If you want to continue talking about Obama, then choose a post about Obama to reply to the following comment:

    Fraud, in multiple different instantiations, stole this election.

    Rampant online donor fraud is “tip of the iceberg”

    Massive amounts of voter fraud.

    Massive Media Malpractice.

  13. Tom Sawyer says:

    I think Fred Thompson made a critical mistake in entering too late. He had not campaigned since 96, and it showed early on. But if he had started just a couple of months earlier I think he would have been a formidable candidate.

    What really irritates me as a Christian are two things: First, James Dobson (and his huge ego) decided to torpedo Thompson early on. Thanks, Dobson! We got stuck with McCain! Second, foolish evangelicals cast their lot emotionally with Huckabee, and Huckabee was a really lousy conservative. So between Dobson and Huckabee, Thompson never got untracked, so we were stuck with the horrible candidacy of John McCain. McCain was bad enough to make Bob Dole look good in comparison…

    Again, thanks to Dobson and mindless evangelicals supporting Huckabee, we had to watch McCain sink the Republican ship. I held my nose and voted for McCain, but I don’t know if I would have had it not been for the delightful Sarah Palin. McCain would have been a lousy President, and there were only two reasons to vote for him: Sarah Palin and he’s not Obama.

    To James Dobson: By your standards, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would not have been “Christian enough” to be worthy of your support.

  14. Tom Sawyer,

    Thanks for your comment.

    I liked Fred. As I have written previously on this blog, if my state’s primary had been in January, I would have voted for Fred.

    It wasn’t until after Fred dropped out that I began to understand what had happened. Your blame on James Dobson and Mike Huckabee is misplaced.

    Fred, and Fred alone, decided not to attend the Values Voter Debate.

    Fred, and Fred alone, decided to quit the race three days after the South Carolina primary.

    I wish all of the candidates had “gone the distance” all the way to the convention. Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney all helped John McCain by dropping out before he “clinched” the nomination. If they had stayed in, there would have been a real possibility that no one candidate would have crossed the threshold of 1191 pledged delegates. If that had happened, we would have had a brokered convention and likely chosen a better candidate than McCain.

    Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul were the only two candidates who cared enough about our country to keep fighting the good fight until there was a clear (not just “presumptive”) nominee.

    The blame you place on Dobson and Huckabee is better placed on Thompson, Giuliani, and especially Mitt Romney, who not only broke his word and quit the race two days after he promised to fight “all the way to the convention” but also tried to undercut Huckabee and assure McCain the nomination when he “released” his delegates to McCain. Nice back-room deal there, Mitt.

    Tom Sawyer, were you really for Fred Thompson, or were you really for Mitt Romney, and you’re now falsely using Thompson as a smoke screen to attack evangelicals like James Dobson and Mike Huckabee?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s