Oh, Dear: Fred Would Have Picked Up All 47 of Louisiana's Delegates Had He Not Dropped Out?

Louisiana's social conservatives created the winning "Pro-life, Pro-family" slate in early January largely because we didn't know if Fred was still going to be a candidate at the time of our caucuses (turns out that he wasn't, by a few hours). Because we had almost all the state's social conservative leaders for Fred, we were also able to stave off Huckabee by use of this "pro-life, pro-family" slate. I was really pleased with the win last night, as it's not easy to beat McCain, Romney, and Paul without a candidate, but that's what we did.

About 90 percent of the pro-family slate was actually Thompson supporters. If Fred were to jump back into the race, he would almost certainly pick up all 47 of Louisiana's delegates (the whole point of LA's complicated system was to have an early vote while still not losing half our delegates like all the other early states have). That would put him AHEAD of McCain in the delegate count and only narrowly trailing Romney.

Is this proof Fred should have stayed in?

Well, with all due respect: Running an organization which was apparently clueless to this fact and thus dropping out hours before one's first actual win seems to indicate the opposite-- he made the right choice. I hate to be a dick about this, but a politician should have a basic competence at politics, for crying out loud.

From Hot Air, which has a fever, and the only cure is more Romney Florida surge!

Posted by: Ace at 08:03 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1

Meh. People in Louisiana are too busy dynamiting fish in the bayous to vote.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 23, 2008 08:11 PM (FEi9q)

2 Worst run campaign -- ever.
Well, maybe Bush Sr. '92.

Posted by: mesablue at January 23, 2008 08:15 PM (KCOdQ)

3 *Deep breath*

It was not meant to be.

Posted by: See-Dubya at January 23, 2008 08:15 PM (CLmpi)

4 *Happy Face*
ROMNEYROMNEYROMNE...

waaah.

Posted by: See-Dubya at January 23, 2008 08:16 PM (CLmpi)

5 They have enough people to hold an election in Louisiana? I thought they were all killed in some storm or somethin.

Posted by: runninrebel at January 23, 2008 08:16 PM (0n9wc)

6 yay Rinos! Yay Rino loving bloggers!

Posted by: Amish at January 23, 2008 08:23 PM (LHwbh)

7 I want to dynamite fish in a bayou. For real, that sounds really fun.

I hate South Carolina, BTW. They killed McCain's chances back in 2000 when he seemed the best choice, and now they killed Fred! in 2008.

Oh well.

Posted by: funky chicken at January 23, 2008 08:24 PM (I+jPP)

8
Posted by: Amish at January 23, 2008 08:23 PM (LHwbh)

Yeah, I got stood up, so here I am at the prom with a fat girl. Don't rub it in. I'm trying to make the best of things.

Posted by: See-Dubya at January 23, 2008 08:28 PM (CLmpi)

9 Looks like Fred! pulleda boner.
So to speak.

Posted by: Bob Dole at January 23, 2008 08:29 PM (QA8jC)

10 #7

Mccain was never the best choice. Fred wasn't meant to be,
especially with the reports that he never wanted the top job and
intially was only angling for the VP slot.

Posted by: Ken at January 23, 2008 08:32 PM (e7rdm)

11 Goodness, RWS is throwing a little southern hissy fit over at her blog because we are not worshiping at the alter of McCain.

If the main stream media is falling all over themselves to pump him up doesn't that tell you what you need to know?

I would have been happy with Fred, Mitt or Rudy. Obviously it's Mitt or Rudy for me now.

Posted by: discerning at January 23, 2008 08:32 PM (ZJ22h)

12 Fred's dead baby, Fred's dead.

Posted by: Butch at January 23, 2008 08:32 PM (igcvF)

13 "Worst run campaign -- ever.

Well, maybe Bush Sr. '92."
I remember Bush's '92 campaign-polls showed people who saw his campaign ads were MORE likely to vote against him. That had to be the most inept campaign ever.

Posted by: Jack Bauer's Evil Brother at January 23, 2008 08:33 PM (kXmi/)

14 @#$%*@#$%^#

Posted by: CavMedic at January 23, 2008 08:38 PM (rYFmu)

15 What, I don't even get a honorable mention?

Posted by: Walter Mondale at January 23, 2008 08:45 PM (QA8jC)

16 Bush 41 lost Lee Atwater to a brain tumor right when he needed him most. The 1992 campaign never really recovered or found someone to fill his shoes. And lest you forget, it was Mary Matalin who ran the Bush 41 1992 campaign and it is Mary Matalin who was running Fred's campaign.

Posted by: Sara at January 23, 2008 08:49 PM (Wi/N0)

17 Think that's funny? Remember, Thompson is really the most like Reagan and the Gipper is still kind of fondly remembered here in California. As his name is still on the ballots (they're not reprinting them 2 weeks out), there's no need to write-in Fred. Just vote for him. I may still do that.
Now if Fred were to suddenly pop up as second in California, would that be considered a draft?

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 23, 2008 08:50 PM (DFVTW)

18 YEEEEARRRGH1!!!11

Posted by: Nice Deb at January 23, 2008 08:51 PM (vjXNG)

19 And lest you forget, it was Mary Matalin who ran the Bush 41 1992 campaign and it is Mary Matalin who was running Fred's campaign.
Damn, you're smart. Bet yer purty too.

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 23, 2008 08:52 PM (DFVTW)

20 This is just pathetic. Even if he didn't think he was going to get any of the LA delegates, why not stick around the extra couple days to see what happens? What a disappointment. Same with Duncan Hunter. Drops out, and then can't be bothered to endorse anyone until after Fred is gone.

I'm just resigning myself to 2008-2012 being a building season for us. After this, I don't even want to see Fred run in 2012, organized campaign or not. Hopefully we can get Bobby Jindal or some other competent conservative to run.

Posted by: BlameCandida at January 23, 2008 08:54 PM (ODaHq)

21 *sigh*

Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2008 08:54 PM (HgAV0)

22 And Mary Matalin sleeps with old serpent head James Carville.
Enemy action.

Posted by: Joe Mama at January 23, 2008 08:55 PM (QA8jC)

23 Now if Fred were to suddenly pop up as second in California, would that be considered a draft?
YES!
A REAL draft candidate, none of that posturing shit.
2ND LOOK AT FRED!
OK I'm done now.

Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2008 08:57 PM (HgAV0)

24 Damn, you're smart.

Nah, just old.

Posted by: Sara at January 23, 2008 08:58 PM (Wi/N0)

25 Wow. Fred really wasn't paying attention at all, was he? Oh well. Let's go McCain.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 23, 2008 08:58 PM (bXLu6)

26 I'm just resigning myself to 2008-2012 being a building season for us
Except for one thing, it is absolutely not acceptable for a Hillary presidency. Not acceptable at all. Yes, I would pull the lever for Ron Paul if that's what it would take. I'd vote for Alan Keyes, too. You want 4 years to rebuild the party while the country is destroyed? And I mean mayhem. I honestly don't think there would be anything left.
What the democrats still don't understand is that the 90's are over. We simply cannot look the other way anymore. They would destroy anything in their relentless pursuit of power.

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 23, 2008 08:59 PM (DFVTW)

27 This could conceivably redound to someone's benefit.

Posted by: Huge Hewit at January 23, 2008 09:00 PM (QA8jC)

28 I emailed Ace the Margaret Cho talks about her period stains story, but noooooo, he has to post this nasty shit.

Posted by: Nice Deb at January 23, 2008 09:06 PM (vjXNG)

29 Except for one thing, it is absolutely not acceptable for a Hillary presidency. Not acceptable at all.

Oh, don't worry, I'm still voting for whoever is the R nominee. I just don't have a lot of confidence at this point. I spent a few months in the "I'm gonna stay home and teach them a lesson" camp, until I realized that, the national party never actually learns the lesson. I really wish we had someone outside of talk radio who was good at articulating conservative principles. I downloaded and listened to a bunch of old Goldwater and Reagan speeches, and the first thing that struck me was how they were able to bring contemporary issues back to first principles.

One thing the Ron Paul and Alan Keyes get right is that they are selling complete ideologies as opposed to positions on the issues.

Posted by: BlameCandida at January 23, 2008 09:10 PM (ODaHq)

30 I think we can survive a Democrat president. Government incompetence and indifference will interfere with the Democrats' ambitions enough to leave a working country in their wake.

But, uh, don't blow all your savings on Val-U-Rite, 'cuz the economy is gonna go downhill for a while while they do their best to tax anything profitable. Also, don't be middle eastern, because political oppression will be on the upswing again over there.

Posted by: sandy burger at January 23, 2008 09:16 PM (Uuy++)

31 it was Mary Matalin who ran the Bush 41 1992 campaign and it is Mary Matalin who was running Fred's campaign.
Kiss of death. I wasn't happy when I found out she was one of Fred's advisors.

Posted by: mesablue at January 23, 2008 09:22 PM (KCOdQ)

32 Amish, why don't you attempt a reality check?

Before Fred dropped out, you were always on me to push Fred.

Now that the guy ISN'T EVEN IN THE RACE ANYMORE, you're still pushing Fred.

At some point, man, you've got to fucking let it go.

He's out of the race. Not my fucking fault. Now please excuse me while I and other non-demented people show our RINO stripes by picking from the candidates who are, actually, candidates.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2008 09:24 PM (SXBHu)

33 This makes no sense. We vote in the primaries in Louisiana. We don't have a caucus. Feb 9 is the date I think.

Posted by: Kevin at January 23, 2008 09:25 PM (f0QzP)

34 I think there's a chance that Fred had a very good idea what was about to go down in Lousiana and realized he would be unable to drop out afterwards. It ties directly into him wanting the VP slot initially -- he may have cut a deal with Mitt after South Carolina.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at January 23, 2008 09:26 PM (Tk5HT)

35 What the hell?
I guess Duncan Hunter wasn't such a great guy after all:
Hunter endorses Huck�heads explode

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at January 23, 2008 09:31 PM (IbAEW)

36 Kevin,

It's a complicated thing. They had the caucus early so they had early impact, BUT the official date is later, so the party doesn't punish them for going early.

But, apparently, most of the delegates chosen in the caucus would be the actual deletages.

Hermit Dave,

Yeah, probably he figured that a rather small caucus in LA (is anyone even covering it?) wouldn't have been enough to give him bounce anyway, so he might as well just accept the inevitable and drop out.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2008 09:31 PM (SXBHu)

37 Louisiana, a state that has a history of making really bad political choices (Huey Long), a state that re-elects Mary Landrieau (a boob), is going to do something that no other state has yet to do in a primary -- vote for Fred Thompson.
Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Posted by: Bart at January 23, 2008 09:35 PM (HuOVU)

38 I was trying to make sense out of Louisiana yesterday and failed. All I got was that there are 47 delegates, but the caucus only determines 15 delegates to their convention, but there is a primary on Feb 9th, which was never explained and I never did get the 47/15 delegate business.

Wasn't that helpful? NOT!

Posted by: Sara at January 23, 2008 09:39 PM (Wi/N0)

39
Louisiana, a state that has a history of making really bad political
choices (Huey Long), a state that re-elects Mary Landrieau (a boob), is
going to do something that no other state has yet to do in a primary --
vote for Fred Thompson.
Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Yep -- this tale reeks of BS.

Posted by: Tinian at January 23, 2008 09:44 PM (1Mq7K)

40 Tinian, didn't you comment yesterday that you'll be voting for Hillary or Obama?

Posted by: Bart at January 23, 2008 09:47 PM (HuOVU)

41 I thought Fred's mom was real sick. Was that bullshit?

Posted by: Fred at January 23, 2008 10:00 PM (BJAMK)

42 I was a Fredhead from a year ago, and I will probably be a Fredhead for a long time. One thing that has been made clear in all of this, a lot of people became excited about the message, ideology and principals brought to to table, and for that alone I thank him. It's about time someone started talking about real conservative ideas.
Ace (and everyone else) is absolutely correct when he slams the way Fred conducted his campaign, it was horrible! Fred was no where near the whole package, and that is what it takes to win a Presidential election. I can only hope that someone will pick up the conservative ball and run with down the road.

Oh, and as far as the Beast destroying the Country in four years, don't panic, not gonna happen...if Jimmy Carter and a Dem. Congress couldn't do it , there's no way in hell she can do it. Don't forget; Nixon beget Carter who beget Reagan.
(Ford was a janitor.)

Posted by: A. Weasel at January 23, 2008 10:02 PM (8H2CH)

43 Conservative Blogosphere:
"Fred is dead. Fred lost SC. Fred is dead. Fred is dead. If you can't see it, you're an idiot. Fred is hopeless. Fred is dead. Fred should drop out. Fred is just splitting the conservative vote handing it to McCain/Huckabee. Fred is a loser. Fred is dead."
Fred wins LA even after dropping out.
Conservative Blogosphere:
"WTF? Fred woulda won? And he didn't realize it? What, did he listen to us or something? What a FUCKING idiot. What a loser. Fred -should- be dead."
Un freaking believable.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 23, 2008 10:05 PM (/FDfc)

44 Louisiana, a state that has a history of making really bad political choices (Huey Long), a state that re-elects Mary Landrieau (a boob), is going to do something that no other state has yet to do in a primary -- vote for Fred Thompson.
Riiiiiiiiiiight.
Yes, don't let a totally silly and immaterial fact like every one of those other primaries was an open primary in which independents and democrats could vote factor into thatat all.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 23, 2008 10:08 PM (/FDfc)

45 Ron Paul!

Posted by: SGT Dan at January 23, 2008 10:11 PM (oOQel)

46 Goddamnit all to hell. The Dems have guys like Carville and Begala running their campaigns and we get a guy who would be a great president like Fred and he's saddled with morons. What the hell does this say about the state of American politics for the conservative movement?

Posted by: Dudley Smith at January 23, 2008 10:16 PM (DM12b)

47 qwinn, stop blaming other people for Fred's campaign missteps. It's not my job to run his campaign for him. If he wanted me in that capacity, he should have hired me.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2008 10:16 PM (SXBHu)

48 Ever occur to you morons that he might have quit when he did because he was about to win in LA? Especially if the VP-trial-balloon story posted yesterday is true, winning LA would have seriously impaired his ability to exit gracefully from a race he didn't think he could win (after SC), and that he never really wanted to run in the first place.

Loose shit, ace - you can't post both stories as true then knock Fred as some dumbass as if they're not related.

Posted by: The Black Republican at January 23, 2008 10:25 PM (TJwIL)

49 Qwinn #43, you're just making up stuff.
Qwinn #44, your point and my point have nothing to do with each other.
You and I both know that Fred ain't winning shit. Not now, not before, not later. He made himself a fringe candidate eversince he launched his half-in/half-out campaign. Fred has been getting his "feet wet" and "testing the waters" since 9 months ago.
Everyone else jumped in an he's STILL sitting on the edge of the pool dangling his feet in the shallow end. And to think that he'd magically win a purple state such as Louisiana is a pipe dream fantasy. Or just some lie by some crafty spinner.

Posted by: Bart at January 23, 2008 10:26 PM (HuOVU)

50 "qwinn, stop blaming other people for Fred's campaign missteps. It's not my job to run his campaign for him. If he wanted me in that capacity, he should have hired me."
I'm sorry, ace, but I gotta call bullshit on this.
You'll note I'm one of the people who defended you, and strongly, when people claimed you weren't giving Fred a fair shake. That was like a monthor more ago though. In the last2 weeks of the campaign, frankly, I thought you started to sound a lot more like Allahpundit when it comes to Fred. And by the time he lost SC, you were right there with pretty much everyone else in saying that he's dead, were you not?
The only twovoices in the right blogosphere that said Fred shouldn't drop out that I can recall were Jim Geraghty at NRO and Glenn Reynolds. The rest of it was a rousing chorus (among the blogheads, and half the comments) that Fred was done, finit, gone. Including here.
You expect Fred not to care about that? FFS, aren't we supposed to -want- apresident who will listen to what we have to say?Aren't we all psyched and glad when people notice that we're all on the same side on immigration, etc.?
But then Fred isn't supposed to listen to the entire conservative blogosphere - WHERE HE HAS HAD THE BEST SUPPORT - suddenly turn around and stab his candidacy in the back by doing everything it can to turn his respectable16% showing beating a guy who spent 4 million dollars in the state into a political debacle and a tragedy that only a complete buffoon could make?
Doesn't the premise of this post - that he won LA, that maybe he could've won the whole thing but then he's a moron for dropping out - kinda put a wrench in your position that he's run a "crappy campaign" and I should blame him? If he wasn't going to lose, it wasn't a crappy campaign, no matter how much Malkin, AP and, at the end, you turned it into.
Yes, you matter. So does MM, so does AP. You guys -want- a voice in politics, that's why you're in this game. Well, guess what. You used it to tear him down, he heard you, he listened, he saw his supposed supporters throw him overboard like a used douche, you all said he was a no-hoper, and then you have the balls tocall him a moron for dropping out, as if that wasn't what you were suggesting all along?
I repeat - freaking unbelievable. I'm only bothering to point this out so that maybe, hopefully, NEXT time we get a decent candidate, you actuallysave all your "drop out, your campaign sucks, you lost, get out of the race" for a candidate whose poll numbers really -deserved- it, like Giuliani, and spared it from the most conservative candidate in the race till after we actually got a primary where independents and liberals couldn't sabotage it. Oh wait, that's too much to ask.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 23, 2008 10:28 PM (/FDfc)

51 Bart,
I'm making shit up? Okay, right, pointing out that LA "reelected Mary Landrieu"without mentioning that, in the actual -last- election less than a year ago they elected a rock-solid ultra conservative right in Fred's mold named Bobby Jindal doesn't represent any bias or bullshit on your part.
As you put it. Riiiiiiight.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 23, 2008 10:30 PM (/FDfc)

52 don't panic, not gonna happen...if Jimmy Carter and a Dem. Congress couldn't do it , there's no way in hell she can do it.
A. Weasel, you can't draw those parallels so finely. Things have changed. With all of the technology on the loose now literally at people's fingertips, the stakes are much higher. Weapons of mass destruction are no longer in the hands of a single evil empire.
Of course the president and a dem congress can do a lot of damage in 4 years. Look at the damage Bush and the Republicans did...and they were on our side.

Posted by: Bart at January 23, 2008 10:30 PM (HuOVU)

53 Dammit, I forgot to bold the quote in #52.

Qwinn, Bobby Jindal getting elected was a fortunate fluke. Louisiana is a purple state with a rich history of making very bad political decisions. Fred was never going to win Louisiana. Has even spent any time or money in Louisisana?

Posted by: Bart at January 23, 2008 10:35 PM (HuOVU)

54 "Fred Would Have Picked Up All 47 of Louisiana's Delgates Had He Not Dropped Out?"

Yeh, right. Not likely. Potential perhaps, but realistically I think Romney would have taken it. Just look at the average poll - I haven't seen one that's got a large cross section of counties that show Fred in any kind of lead.

I'm beginning to agree with whoever it was that said Skroo it, let's just get Billary in there along with some Commies in the other two branches and hope they'll fuck it up so badly that finally people pay attention. The mediocrity we "conservatives" end up sending to the general election will be the end of us.

Posted by: Whatever at January 23, 2008 10:36 PM (OLHsx)

55 Yes, you matter. So does MM, so does AP. You guys -want- a voice in politics, that's why you're in this game. Well, guess what. You used it to tear him down, he heard you, he listened, he saw his supposed supporters throw him overboard like a used douche, you all said he was a no-hoper, and then you have the balls to call him a moron for dropping out, as if that wasn't what you were suggesting all along?

Qwinn, if the "conservative blogosphere" led by Michelle and Allah and Ace took down a presidential candidate then he would have made a shitty president. It's that simple. I'm sorry your guy didn't want to run a campaign like everyone else. I'm sorry he let you down. But you're arguing for something completely absurd.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 23, 2008 10:41 PM (1Ug6U)

56 Lawyers are usually bad managers. Most of them don't have experience running large organizations. So they're not always cut out to be chief executives. They make great legislators though because they're using to arguing over where to put a comma in a sentence.
Running a campaign is, in a way, a decent test of a candidate's managerial competence. Part of it is planning ahead and putting a team together way in advance to hit the ground running. As much as I loved Fred on the issues, he just didn't get it done as the head of a national campaign.
I would gladly have a disorganized Fred over a ruthlessly efficient Hillary- that's not my point. But since my guy didn't produce I'm ready to move on and support Mitt and then if he falls, Rudy. I don't want to think much past themat the moment.

Posted by: Matt at January 23, 2008 10:43 PM (yMYo2)

57 > I emailed Ace the Margaret Cho talks about her period stains story

A female stand-up comic discussing her private anatomy with uncompromising detail? Will wonders never cease!

Posted by: Guy T. at January 23, 2008 10:47 PM (6KqWD)

58 You know, if I were a crafty Democrat political operative and activist, I would spam the blogosphere with the message of "let the Dems win so it helps the Conservative movement in the long run."
Pretty slick move, if you ask me.
It's assinine to think that a sitting president with low approval ratings can't get elected -- look at Bush in 2004.
And why did Clinton, who everyone knew was a piece of shit, get reelected in 1996? That's right, because the best we had, our "Reaganite candidate," was Bob Dole.
But this time, in 2012, we're going to have a really really good conservative candidate and the whole country is going to fall in love with him or her. Get real. We go to the polls with who we have, not who we want to have.

Posted by: Bart at January 23, 2008 10:49 PM (HuOVU)

59 Bart at January 23, 2008 10:30 PM (HuOVU)

Bart,
damage, yes
destroy, no.

Sorry I was making dinner, and now I just have to go play poker.

Later

Posted by: A. Weasel at January 23, 2008 10:50 PM (8H2CH)

60 Save it, Gabriel.
The monolithic and endless "Fred can't win, Fred's campaign sucks" monotony was inexcusable. Giuliani has done a hundred times more to deserve all that negativity than Fred has, but the very first time I heard someone say Rudy was running a shitty campaign was... yesterday.
You'd like to blame Fred for that, which makes no sense to me. Rudy's campaign is obvoiusly objectively worse. His results are worse. His decisionson where to campaign have beenterrible. He's been far far lazier by any objective measure than Fred. But you saved all your rancor and angst for Fred's campaign. You'd like to tell me that's Fred's fault. I call bullshit on that. If the candidate's -actual fault- really mattered, if what we really cared about was how they campaigned and how much of their potential to win they actually realized, we'd all have been talking about what a shitty campaign Rudy has run. But it wasn't the actual objective performance that mattered. It was these stupid media generated memes that the conservative blogosphere drank like the freshest kool aid on the block.
Yes, the conservative blogosphere can take down a conservative candidate. Who else could do it better? Are you guys imagining that after Rathergate, after Harriet Miers, after the immigration bill, after all that shit, that you're really just on the sideline as cheerleaders? Heh, okay, if that's all you are that's fine, but then you should recognize that cheerleaders are -most- influential in a presidential campaign.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 23, 2008 10:51 PM (/FDfc)

61 Eventually, Thompson supporters are going to have to reach stage five in the grief process.

I understand the anger, as I threw a few bucks Thompson's way in the
hopes he'd prove to be a viable conservative candidate. But he didn't, and as unfortunate as that is, it's not the fault of the conservative blogosphere.

Is it the fault of blogs that Thompson missed deadlines to get on the ballot in a few states? Is it the fault of blogs that he didn't set up an adequate campaign structure in Iowa, or New Hampshire? Is it their fault his campaign was slow to answer the queries of volunteers, or applicants who wanted to work for Thompson?

Organization matters in campaigns, and Thompson didn't have it. That's not MM's fault, or Allah's fault, or ace's fault. It's Thompson's, and the people he chose to hire.

Posted by: Slublog at January 23, 2008 11:02 PM (2CDh8)

62 Qwinn,
I was a Fred-head as well, but it's over. Let it go, and don't make Ace get the taser out.
Fred's dead and he's not coming back. And you know who killed him: the voters did.

Posted by: Maetenloch at January 23, 2008 11:02 PM (ZOH2r)

63 "Is it the fault of blogs that Thompson missed deadlines to get on the ballot in a few states?"
No. But the only state I heard about it was Delaware. And you know what? It -is- the fault of the blogs that that story was spread as "Thompson couldn't even find 500 supporters in Delaware", which is a lie, instead of the actual story: "Thompson's campaign in Delaware provided500 signatures for his ballot in DE, but they were unaware of the fact that independents do not qualify for valid ballot signatures". This after we've just had 7 primaries where independents not only qualify for signatures but can actually vote in the primary. Yes, you can bitch about the latter, someone's head should've rolled for a bureaucratic gaffe like that, but the former formulationis both factually incorrect and much much more damning to Fred personally than the second, and that's the formulation that Malkin and others put forward. If the liberal media misrepresented a story to that extent, we'd all be bitching, but I guess it's okay when we do it to our own.
"Is it the fault of blogs that he didn't set up an adequate campaign structure in Iowa, or New Hampshire?"
His showing in Iowa was pretty damn respectable. He actively and purposefully didn't bother to expend resourcesin NH. EVERY SINGLE CAMPAIGN has decided to skip some states, but Fred is the -only- candidate I've seen to get bitched at for not having an "adequate campaign structure" in a state he wasn't even bothering to campaign in. Where's the bitchingabout how stupid Giuliani was for not having an "adequate campaign structure" in Iowa? Or any of the next 6 primary states for that matter?
"Is it their fault his campaign was slow to answer the queries of volunteers, or applicants who wanted to work for Thompson?"
These have all been anecdotal. And you know when I saw this meme first start? In that same DE not-enough-signaturesstory. Fred was supposed to -really- suck because he "couldn't come up with 500 signatures" while he had a guy volunteering to collect them for him get turned down.Fred's guys in DE -had- 500 signatures, and didn't know that any of them weren't valid. So why should they saddle some guy, even a volunteer, with getting more signatures when they believed they had all they needed? Again, the way the conservative blogosphere falsely framed this story - "Fred couldn't even get 500 signatures" was a blatant lie, and it hurt him badly (hell, even you're using it to justify why Fred sucks so much),and you bet your fucking ass I blame the conservative blogosphere for BS like that.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 23, 2008 11:12 PM (/FDfc)

64 I'm as much of a Fredhead as anyone, but Ace is correct.

Posted by: jdm at January 23, 2008 11:15 PM (Uqwv1)

65 >>>He's been far far lazier by any objective measure than Fred.

Bullshit, he's been all over Florida for a month. Doing, get this, MULTIPLE CAMPAIGN APPEARANCES PER DAY where he ACTUALLY MEETS AND SHAKES THE HANDS OF VOTERS.

Fred didn't bother with such silliness.

Rudy's going to lose, of course, but at some point you have to give up your They Swift Boated Fred conspiracy theories and accept that THE CANDIDATE HIMSELF, and not fucking bloggers, has the primary responsibility of pushing his own fucking candidacy.

You need to accept reality at some point. Accept reality and stop spitting your anger and disappointment on to others.

You really don't get this -- you loved Fred. I merely LIKED him. I am not goddamned obliged to distort the truth (he WAS lazy) and push a candidate more than I personally want to just because it's so hellzapoppin' important to you.

Fred had to earn my enthusiastic support with his own enthusiastic work, he didn't, tough shit, that's life.

I am so goddamned sick of this goddamned bullshit that I had some goddamned DUTY TO FUCKING CARE MORE ABOUT FRED'S CAMPAIGN THAN FRED HIMSELF.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2008 11:15 PM (SXBHu)

66 Again, the way the conservative blogosphere falsely framed this story -
"Fred couldn't even get 500 signatures" was a blatant lie, and it hurt
him badly (hell, even you're using it to justify why Fred sucks so
much),and you bet your fucking ass I blame the conservative
blogosphere for BS like that.

"Why fred sucks so much?" I gave him money. I supported his campaign.

Unbelievable.

Eh, frig it. You've obviously got too much invested in being rancorous and bitter about this to see the facts about Thompson's campaign shortcomings. Enjoy that.

Posted by: Slublog at January 23, 2008 11:17 PM (2CDh8)

67 Bullshit, he's been all over Florida for a month. Doing, get this, MULTIPLE CAMPAIGN APPEARANCES PER DAY where he ACTUALLY MEETS AND SHAKES THE HANDS OF VOTERS.Fred didn't bother with such silliness.
And this is outright bullshit. Fred very much did do just that sort of campaigning, and in fact according to the campaign calendars there were a whole bunch of weeks in December and January where Fred had more scheduled events thanany candidate on -both- sides of the aisle. But I guess you can still say "Fred didn't bother" because all criticism of Fred is fair on it's face.
When it's Fred's campaign, 2nd place in Wyoming, 3rd place in Iowa and 3rd place in SCclearly isn't good enough, but for Rudy, 6th place everywhere is perfectly fine. Gotcha.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 23, 2008 11:19 PM (/FDfc)

68 "You really don't get this -- you loved Fred. I merely LIKED him. I am not goddamned obliged to distort the truth (he WAS lazy) and push a candidate more than I personally want to just because it's so hellzapoppin' important to you."I never asked anyone to distort the truth in his favor. I asked them to stop distorting the truth -against- him, something you're -still- doing in that last post. Fred didn't campaign on the ground? -Really-? You think that's a defensible criticism? What do you think Fred was doing every day in SC since Iowa?
Fred had more campaign stops than anyone in like the last 3 weeks of December and 1st week of January. Every week he had the most stops. The -only- day the media reported was January 1, where he had only one stop. That's the kind of distortion I'm talking about.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 23, 2008 11:21 PM (/FDfc)

69 Qwinn writes:

The monolithic and endless "Fred can't win, Fred's campaign sucks"
monotony was inexcusable. Giuliani has done a hundred times more to
deserve all that negativity than Fred has, but the very first time I
heard someone say Rudy was running a shitty campaign was... yesterday.

Untrue, probably owing to selection bias. You were much more sensitive to stories about Thompson, so you failed to notice that people were criticizing Giuliani too. At least as far back as the Iowa caucus, his "big-state" strategy came under heavy fire. Bloggers from here to the queerosphere were attacking Giuliani for his mayoral record on guns, abortion, and immigration. The on-stage fight between Romney and Giuliani about the "sanctuary city" vs. the "sanctuary governors mansion" was front page material and was recycled in the U.S. section for a week.

Giuliani was leading the national polls at the time and had been for months (while Thompson sat on his hands), during which time he was repeatedly subject to criticism. So when you say that he'd done "a hundred times more" to deserve the negativity, it comes across like your still whining about no one paying proper respect to the Only Conservative Candidate.

You'd like to blame Fred for that, which makes no sense to me.
Rudy's campaign is obvoiusly objectively worse. His results are
worse. His decisionson where to campaign have beenterrible. He's
been far far lazier by any objective measure than
Fred.

Complete bullshit. Giuliani polled way ahead of Thompson throughout the Thompson's campaign, both nationally and in most states. He has a much stronger fundraising team and a professional media machine. Now, in hindsight, we've been criticizing the seeming failure of his "big-state" strategy. And that's exactly what we should be doing. You're playing Monday-morning quarterback now, saying that we should have known that Giuliani's strategy would be a poor one before it had a chance to fail.
But you saved all your rancor and angst for Fred's campaign.
You'd like to tell me that's Fred's fault. I call bullshit on that.
If the candidate's -actual fault- really mattered, if what we really
cared about was how they campaigned and how much of their potential to
win they actually realized, we'd all have been talking about what a
shitty campaign Rudy has run. But it wasn't the actual objective
performance that mattered. It was these stupid media generated memes
that the conservative blogosphere drank like the freshest kool aid on
the block.

I understand that you're upset, although I'm having trouble sympathizing with you right now. Yes, I say that Fred's campaign is his own responsibility. He chose to sit out until September. That was his choice to string everyone along until everyone said, "Screw this," and moved on to a different candidate. I was with Thompson in June. But that's when I thought he'd announce in July.

If he wanted to impress voters, he missed his chance. That's not my fault, it's not Ace's fault, and it's not Giuliani's fault. It's Thompson's fault. I'm sorry, but this sob-story your writing about "media-generated memes" sounds like a convenient way for your cry, "UNFAIR! I'm a VICTIM." But it's just not going to float, Qwinn, because it just isn't true.
Yes, the conservative blogosphere can take down a conservative
candidate. Who else could do it better? Are you guys imagining that
after Rathergate, after Harriet Miers, after the immigration bill,
after all that shit, that you're really just on the sideline as
cheerleaders? Heh, okay, if that's all you are that's fine, but then
you should recognize that cheerleaders are -most- influential in a
presidential campaign.The blogosphere had quite a bit of help from talk radio and legacy media for the events you cite. My point stands. If, according to you, Thompson couldn't withstand the pressure from the conservative blogosphere, which is at least sympathetic to his politics, how in hell do you think he was going to survive
the attention from the legacy media if he made it to the general?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 23, 2008 11:21 PM (1Ug6U)

70 Hey, now it can be told. I was on good terms with Fred's online guy and posted many of the links he sent me (both pro-fred and anti-huckabee... ) and kibbitzed with him about how Fred could do better.

Because I was soooooooooooooo against Fred.

No, I wasn't anti-Fred. I was pro-hard-work and pro-resultls.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2008 11:22 PM (SXBHu)

71 Think that's funny? Remember, Thompson is really the most like Reagan...
I can see that. Both are actors, folksy, tall...and dead. Of course, Reagan put in a hell of a lot of hard work, over many years, crafting the platitudes that Fredonly mouthed, weakly. I, for one, applaud Ace's clear-eyed assessment of the embarrassment thattheThompsoncampaign became.

Posted by: Beloved Weaver at January 23, 2008 11:22 PM (MN3Lr)

72 "Why fred sucks so much?" I gave him money. I supported his campaign. Unbelievable.Eh, frig it. You've obviously got too much invested in being rancorous and bitter about this to see the facts about Thompson's campaign shortcomings. Enjoy that.
In other words, you have no response to the material fact that the blogs completely misrepresented what happened in Delaware, so shoot the messenger.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 23, 2008 11:23 PM (/FDfc)

73 Qwinn, no he didn't, and a recent American Spectator article noted the fact he constantly blew voters off while, for example, waiting for a burger at a diner. Instead of meeting and greeting, he watched a Tennesse Titans game and stood silently.

What-ev-er. I didn't link that becuase I didn't want to rub it in. And because some of you can't HANDLE negative stuff about fred.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2008 11:24 PM (SXBHu)

74 And I can provide about two dozen articles noting his very popular and high energy campaign stops in SC. Are you telling me you're unaware of them?
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 23, 2008 11:26 PM (/FDfc)

75 In other words, you have no response to the material fact that the
blogs completely misrepresented what happened in Delaware, so shoot the
messenger.

Um, no. Thompson also barely made the Texas ballot. But I suppose that's just a distortion of the blogs too, huh?

Posted by: Slublog at January 23, 2008 11:26 PM (2CDh8)

76 BTW, I was also on good terms with Thompson's web guy and was in on a conference call with teh Fred! And as I mentioned previously, I donated to his campaign.

But hey, I criticized him in blog comments, so I guess I'm just part of the anti-Thompson conspiracy, right?

Posted by: Slublog at January 23, 2008 11:28 PM (2CDh8)

77 "Um, no. Thompson also barely made the Texas ballot. But I suppose that's just a distortion of the blogs too, huh?"
Bait and switch? How about acknowledging the distortion I've alreadypointed outbefore switching to a different event? And yes, apparently even "barely making" a ballot is bad now. Who would even notice something like that if not for the supposed bullshit distorted precedent in Delaware?
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 23, 2008 11:28 PM (/FDfc)

78 Uh oh guysQwinn's going Ronulon on us - time for an intervention. Slublog, you distract him with the Law and Order jacket, I'll get him from behind,

Posted by: Maetenloch at January 23, 2008 11:30 PM (ZOH2r)

79 Bait and switch? How about acknowledging the distortion I've
alreadypointed outbefore switching to a different event? And yes,
apparently even "barely making" a ballot is bad now. Who would even
notice something like that if not for the supposed bullshit distorted
precedent in Delaware?

Since I'm a Texan, I noticed it. And yes, barely making a ballot in a huge conservative state is pretty fricking bad.

And what distortion am I supposed to acknowledge? The fact that Thompson didn't make it onto a ballot and some blogs pointed that out? Those bastards!

Posted by: Slublog at January 23, 2008 11:30 PM (2CDh8)

80 Um...a Texan stranded in the cold north, that is.

Posted by: Slublog at January 23, 2008 11:31 PM (2CDh8)

81
And I can provide about two dozen articles noting his very popular
and high energy campaign stops in SC. Are you telling me you're
unaware of them?
And look what that got him. Third place with no delegates. Only 14% behind the next candidate. And that was after Ace and the rest trumpeted his SC debate performance to high heaven. Aren't you conveniently forgetting that?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 23, 2008 11:31 PM (1Ug6U)

82 http://http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12624

Read it. Incidentally, the AmSpec published that Quinn Hillier column right before SC basically begging people to vote for Fred, so can it with the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy jazz.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2008 11:34 PM (SXBHu)

83 Well, McCain won. And Ron Paul, ofall people came in 2nd. This is from the first southern state, Also where Mitt was endorsed by the two congressmen and spent lots of money and spent more time there than any other GOP candidate.Yet he couldn't even beat Ron Paul.
Don't shoot the messenger here.
I wish Fred had stayed in too.

Goodness, RWS is throwing a little southern hissy fit over at her blog because we are not worshiping at the alter of McCain.
First of all, I have never asked anyone to worship McCain. Like him or not, I don't care. 2nd of all, you obviously have never seena southern hissy fit...;-)

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at January 23, 2008 11:34 PM (y/XQ4)

84 Well, McCain won. And Ron Paul, ofall people came in 2nd. This is from
the first southern state, Also where Mitt was endorsed by the two
congressmen and spent lots of money and spent more time there than any
other GOP candidate.Yet he couldn't even beat Ron Paul.

Well, RWS. Good to see you're not smearing another campaign.

Posted by: Slublog at January 23, 2008 11:36 PM (2CDh8)

85 if Jimmy Carter and a Dem. Congress couldn't do it , there's no way in hell she can do it
Jimmuh has always been kind, stupid, naive and incompetent. Hillary is the exact opposite on all counts. She will not hesitate to destroy anyone or anything. Jimmuh passively harmed the nation thru inaction and naivete. Hillary will do aggressively and with relentless cynicism.

Posted by: Penn State Marine at January 23, 2008 11:36 PM (UK1DK)

86 "And what distortion am I supposed to acknowledge? The fact that Thompson didn't make it onto a ballot and some blogs pointed that out? Those bastards!"
Forget it. There's no intellectual honesty in a reply like this. That wasn't the distortion and you know it.
"And look what that got him. Third place with no delegates. Only 14% behind the next candidate. And that was after Ace and the rest trumpeted his SC debate performance to high heaven. Aren't you conveniently forgetting that?"
Again - Fred doesn't campaign. If he does campaign, he didn't do well enough. Meanwhile, Rudy skips 7 states altogether, no one bitches about his "campaign structure" in states he intentionally skips but it's a high crime for Fred to skip a state.
You claim Rudy got a lot of bitching. I personally haven't seen it. I certainly haven't seen it -in the blogosphere-. Maybe the MSM did it, but I don't watch the MSM much. But I didn't see much bitching about Rudy's campaign in the area I'm focusing on - here, MM, AP, and a bunch of other conservative blogs. Let's face it. When it came to bitching about a -campaign- (as opposed to policies), Fred was everyone's favorite whipping boy. Yes, Rudy got slapped on policies, and well he should have. That doesn't even up the score for me, cause that's a hell of a more substantive complaint about the man.
I don't mind criticism of Fred. I do mind blatantly unfair misrepresentation of the facts. And there's plenty of them to go around. But you guys are CLEARLY in some sort of mental point where -all- criticism of Fred is fair. You can't even acknowledge what a bullshit distortion Malkin made about the Delaware situation, and you gleefully defend that distortion here.
And yes, that's pissing me off. I'm perfectly willing to accept that some of the criticism against Fred was perfectly valid. But that's not enough for you guys - you're defending -every- criticism of Fred as eminently fair, and that's where I get pissed off.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 23, 2008 11:37 PM (/FDfc)

87 Well, RWS. Good to see you're not smearing another campaign.
How is that smearing his campaign??? It's just the facts. For God's sake.
I'm just trying to show what the southern states may be like.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at January 23, 2008 11:39 PM (y/XQ4)

88 I'm just trying to show what the southern states may be like.

As Bart would say...riiiight.

Posted by: Slublog at January 23, 2008 11:41 PM (2CDh8)

89 >>>If he does campaign, he didn't do well enough. Meanwhile, Rudy skips 7
states altogether, no one bitches about his "campaign structure" in
states he intentionally skips but it's a high crime for Fred to skip a
state.

1, because Rudy has a strategy that plausibly -- barely -- allows this.

2, because no one has mentioned Giuliani for fucking two months because we all realize it's OVER for him.

Actually, most of us realized it was over for Fred some time ago too, but in the spirit of fairness, and, well, selling out to a large fraction of my readership, I tried not to say so.

No one's talking about Rudy at ALL, bub. We've been talking about Fred because, in deference to you Fredheads, I thought maybe we'd see if your magical thinking on this -- let's just all hope real hard! -- could get him a strong second in SC.

I pretended for a couple of months to be nice. Okay? I'm done pretending. I knew that after the SC Fred would be in or out and I could stop pretending to play along with some of my readers who became furious if anyone pointed out any negative facts about Fred whatsoever.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2008 11:44 PM (SXBHu)

90 Ok, I give up.We can't even be rational here. I understand you guys hate McCain, but that means we can't discuss how these primary states might play out?
I'll say this one more time. I like Romney. I wouldn't be upset he if won the nomination. I would volunteer to work for him and I would work my butt off. I'm not against Romney. Yes, I like McCain more, but I'm not smearing Romney ever. I've had nothing but good things to say about him on my blog.
Just let me know when it will be ok to discuss McCain.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at January 23, 2008 11:45 PM (y/XQ4)

91 Well, McCain won. And Ron Paul, ofall people came in 2nd. This is from the first southern state, Also where Mitt was endorsed by the two congressmen and spent lots of money and spent more time there than any other GOP candidate.Yet he couldn't even beat Ron Paul.
"Well, RWS. Good to see you're not smearing another campaign."Indeed, Slublog. I couldn't disagree with RWS's choice of candidate more, but ifwhat she said qualifies as a smear, I can't -imagine- how you could possibly get so uptight about me describing the things I've pointed out that have been said about Fred as smears. That's very light stuff compared to the things that have been said about Fred regularly, and here.
Of course, pointing out thatFred's supposed non-campaigning-beat- the guy who was endorsed by two congressmen and spent $4 million and has more delegates than anyone else matters not even a little bit. It was still a completely pathetic showing. Don'tcha love how all the candidates are measured by the same standards?
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 23, 2008 11:45 PM (/FDfc)

92 The only single memorable thing, for me, in Fred's campaign was the video response to Michael Moore. That was last summer.
I think most of us thought that was a harbinger of great things to come with Fred in the race. Unfortunately Fred officially entered the race until a little too late and he's been mum on the candid talk since then.

Posted by: Bart at January 23, 2008 11:46 PM (HuOVU)

93 Quinn, it isn't the blogs fault that Fred's campaign was terrible. And as far as Rudy's, no one knew what to make of his strategy until this week, when the polls started indicating he blew it.

BTW, everyone, Malkin has a Louisiana results post up saying McCain won, Paul 2nd, Romney 3rd.

Posted by: Sara at January 23, 2008 11:46 PM (Wi/N0)

94 Again - Fred doesn't campaign. If he does campaign, he didn't do well enough.

What do you want from me, Qwinn? He. Didn't. Do. Well. Enough.

Regardless of whether he did campaign well or did not campaign well, he didn't do well enough. All that's left for you is who to blame. You've picked Ace, for what I see as stupid reasons. Fine, be pissed. I don't really care that much.

You claim Rudy got a lot of bitching. I personally haven't seen it. I certainly haven't seen it -in the blogosphere-.

Missed a little to-do about hiding funding for trips to see his girlfriend, did you? Yeah, that story turned out to be bogus, but it sure as hell got a lot of play in the conservative blogosphere. I think your selection bias is kicking in again.

When it came to bitching about a -campaign- (as opposed to policies), Fred was everyone's favorite whipping boy.

Well, he ran a pretty bad campaign. But your bias is showing. I've already written twice this week about Huckabee's cratering campaign, his amateur staff, and his empty bank accounts.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 23, 2008 11:47 PM (1Ug6U)

95 Anyway, Qwinn...
Now that Fred is out, who will you support?

Posted by: Bart at January 23, 2008 11:47 PM (HuOVU)

96 yeah, come on, she's not "smearing" Romney, Slu.

He did crappy in LA. It's a fact.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2008 11:48 PM (SXBHu)

97 True. I redact my statement, and offer an apology to RWS.

Posted by: Slublog at January 23, 2008 11:50 PM (2CDh8)

98 Shoulda, coulda, fucking didn't.
Fred, Fred, why have you forsaken me??!!

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at January 23, 2008 11:51 PM (p8IOE)

99 " I'm done pretending. I knew that after the SC Fred would be in or out and I could stop pretending to play along with some of my readers who became furious if anyone pointed out any negative facts about Fred whatsoever."
This is bull, Ace. I defended you, and very strongly,when you were given shit for your earlier criticisms, because your earlier criticisms -were- fair.
My bitching now is about the coverage of the last two weeks. And you'll notice I didn't -say- much or post much during those two weeks. Because you kept claiming people were giving you undue shit for your criticisms, and even though I felt you'd stepped it up, I wasn't going to go off about it, as you're the host and we're just guests.
Even after he dropped out, I didn't say anything
But -this- post, where after everyone, including you, said "he's dead" after SC, and then presented with evidence in the LA caucus that that may have been premature, rather than say "Hey, maybe I was wrong about hiim being so dead", YOU BLAME HIM. And that's where I just can't fucking take it anymore. That's just plain -gall-, man. If you're going to claim that after everyone, including you,telling him he's dead, he drops out, and then if it turns out he had a better future waiting for him then -he- doesn't know anything about politics - what does that say about you? Do you not know politics for agreeing he was dead?
THAT is what finally pissed me off to set this rant off. That's just so much gall I can't take it anymore. No, you can't talk about how -dead- he is for days and then call him a moron for accepting that. That's more than I can take, goddamnit.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 23, 2008 11:53 PM (/FDfc)

100 qwinn,

Um, Fred drops out before Louisiana and it's MY fault? I don't know exactly who's fault it is, but I suspect that a stronger case can be made for it being Fred's fault than mine.

Dude, you're a nice guy, but you're obviously still way too emotional about this.

Meanwhile, blame McCain:

Link

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2008 11:56 PM (SXBHu)

101 I had the same thoughts about Rudy as Qwinn. Where's the so-called combative, kick-ass prosecutor? He's been very disappointing in the debates, making stupid jokes, laughing at opponents attacks on him, endlessly invoking 9/11. I want some red meat from the guy to counteract some of the "liberal" charges thrown at him, instead I get Mr. Peepers. Talk about lazy....

Was he saving his invective for the Democrats?

Posted by: Dr. Remulak at January 24, 2008 12:00 AM (6HZYC)

102 yeah he's done a style makeover from the pit bull to the friendly lovable pooch. His image needed softening -- what plays in NY won't play in Peoria -- but criminy, it's way too much.

Anyway, he's done, unless, somehow, he manages to barely eke out a Florida win, which almost isn't a win at all because he's lived down there for months and was, until recently, expected to own florida.

Posted by: ace at January 24, 2008 12:03 AM (SXBHu)

103 "Um, Fred drops out before Louisiana and it's MY fault? I don't know exactly who's fault it is, but I suspect that a stronger case can be made for it being Fred's fault than mine."
No, ace, it isn't directlyyour fault. I think the negativity among his supporters after SC is what caused him to bail, but as an individual I'm not hanging it all on you.
However, as a -part- of the negativity among that blogosphere, as one of the voices perfectly happy to say "it's over", you -do- lose the right to call -him- a moron for dropping out. Period. I don't care if you were hired as his advisor or not,you can't call someone who takes your advise "clueless" and "incompetent".
Actually, most of us realized it was over for Fred some time ago too, but in the spirit of fairness, and, well, selling out to a large fraction of my readership, I tried not to say so.
Okay, guys, get your stories straight. Gabe's telling me that everyone's been talking about Rudy's failed strategy all along and it's all my "selection bias", and ace, you're telling me no one's mentioned him for two months. Which is it?
And then Sara adds a third way to look at it:
And as far as Rudy's, no one knew what to make of his strategy until this week, when the polls started indicating he blew it.
Okay, so no one could tell if Rudy's strategy was losing after scoring 6th placein like 7 primaries in a row, but after Fred gets 2nd in Wyoming, 3rd in Iowa and 3rd in SC, with 6 times as many delegates as Rudy, we know exactly how Fred's campaign will pan out?
That's the kind of bias I'm talking about. It's not a big conspiracy as people are trying to rephrase me as saying. It's about benefit of the doubt, and how much you're willing to extend it. MM and AP pretty much consistently denied him any benefit of the doubt, ever, to the point where they happily repeated distortions (remember AP banging the Politico smears? And the DE story, and there were others). Ace was certainly better than MM and AP, at least until very recently, but again, Fred got cut less slack and was denied the basic benefits of the doubt that everyone else is entitled to. Fuck, we're even claiming -he's- been in a big conspiracy to run for veep, that that's what his campaign has been about all along, and we're saying he "cheated" us all without a single smeg of evidence.
No, Rudy's gotten the benefit of the doubt for his godawful campaign way beyond the point where it should've been obvious he completely screwed up, and Fred got called dead by -many- pundits -long- before it was warranted, effectively creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's my point.
Missed a little to-do about hiding funding for trips to see his girlfriend, did you? Yeah, that story turned out to be bogus, but it sure as hell got a lot of play in the conservative blogosphere. I think your selection bias is kicking in again.
This is called a scandal, not campaign criticism. The closest Fred got to a scandal was that he has a "trophy wife" - nice. Andincidentally, I'll risk a derail (cause it's not comparable) and saythe girlfriendwasn't really all that bogus. I read the defense, and it kinda boiled down to "He did exactly what people are saying he did, but he used creative accounting practices that made it legal." Um, okay. So? I don't think anyone doubted that someone in his position could find a way to make it legal.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 12:09 AM (/FDfc)

104 I gave the Thompson campaign $50, and on several occasions emailed the campaign hqs asking who was the Kansas state organizer -- or, if there wasn't one, how could I go about start the campaign here.

No response.

Not "we aren't allocating resources to Kansas right now." Not "thank you for your efforts, go get a list of Republican voters in your area, hold a house party and come back to us with a check". Nor even a "here's a number, call us after New Hampshire."

No response at all to someone who *wants to volunteer to raise money.*

That, my friends, is an inept campaign.

Posted by: BadLiberal at January 24, 2008 12:09 AM (EQoHt)

105 True, Ace. He dialed it down to about 3, from 11.

Well, if Rudy tanks as expected, I'm down to choice 3, Romney. After that, it's vodka time.

Posted by: Dr. Remulak at January 24, 2008 12:12 AM (6HZYC)

106 ace,
Sorry, I quoted the wrong bit up there in that last post, quoting a bit about Fred when I meant to quote a bit about Rudy. This is what I meant to quote when I asked you guys to get your stories straight:
2, because no one has mentioned Giuliani for fucking two months because we all realize it's OVER for him. ... No one's talking about Rudy at ALL, bub.
while Gabe is telling me:
At least as far back as the Iowa caucus, his "big-state" strategy came under heavy fire. Bloggers from here to the queerosphere were attacking Giuliani for his mayoral record on guns, abortion, and immigration. The on-stage fight between Romney and Giuliani about the "sanctuary city" vs. the "sanctuary governors mansion" was front page material and was recycled in the U.S. section for a week.
and Sara telling me no one's known -what- to say about Guiliani, because only now do we know that his strategy has failed.
If you guys can't geton the same story, can you at least tell me which one I should be arguing against? Or do I have to argue all 3 to make my point? Honestly I think what Sara said represents what most people were really thinking, and I think that is because of the benefit-of-the-doubt thing I described.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 12:17 AM (/FDfc)

107 Sara: And as far as Rudy's, no one knew what to make of his strategy until this week, when the polls started indicating he blew it.

Quinn: Okay, so no one could tell if Rudy's strategy was losing after
scoring 6th placein like 7 primaries in a row, but after Fred gets 2nd
in Wyoming, 3rd in Iowa and 3rd in SC, with 6 times as many delegates
as Rudy, we know exactly how Fred's campaign will pan out?Quinn, that isn't the point. Rudy did not campaign in those early primaries. He did not even try to be competitive, instead opting to put all his eggs in the Florida basket. No one had really tried it before and I doubt anyone will again.

As for Fred, you cannot say he ran even a decent campaign. Everyone likes Fred. But, I've run campaigns and it is a 24/7 operation that starts long before the candidate actually announces. And in a national campaign the two most important assets are a solid organization in every state and a superb advance team that not only can organize but also keep their ear to the ground and their eyes open to developing trends. Fred had neither.

Posted by: Sara at January 24, 2008 12:20 AM (Wi/N0)

108 The reason Rudy doesn't get a lot of criticism, aside from the reasons ace mentioned, is that most conservatives could really give a flying fuck about his candidacy.Few had any emotional investment. Meanwhile, Fred was viewed as someone who could reintroduce actual conservatism into the party, and people got very enthusiastic about him.
So, when people who have been his greatest supporters start feeling blown off or that the candidates heart isn't really into it, they're gonna point that out, if only to try to get his campaign to wake up a bit. I'm disappointed too asI wish people would look more at substance over style, but the you have to be realistic. Fred's campaign simply wasn't geared for the reality of the political race.
I'm not gonna shoot the messenger for pointing that out. And I'm certainly not going to try to claim that any blogger has any responsibility to write other than what he thinks. Hell, even though I often disagree with him, I want ace to write what he thinks, or this blog would be some pablum infested POS. Ace was right about Fred's candidacy. I'm not thrilled about that, but its the simple truth.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at January 24, 2008 12:23 AM (Tk5HT)

109 if the "conservative blogosphere" led by Michelle and Allah and Ace took down a presidential candidate then he would have made a shitty president.
Malor questions Ace's Authoritah?

Posted by: TheEJS at January 24, 2008 12:25 AM (hBYdH)

110 As for Fred, you cannot say he ran even a decent campaign. Everyone likes Fred. But, I've run campaigns and it is a 24/7 operation that starts long before the candidate actually announces. And in a national campaign the two most important assets are a solid organization in every state and a superb advance team that not only can organize but also keep their ear to the ground and their eyes open to developing trends. Fred had neither.
I don't disagree with this. I do think Fred lost because he got in "late", but not for the reasons most people are putting forward, and I don't think thatit reflects on how he would've done as a President. Let me explain.
For one thing, the first guy to sign up for his campaign recently put this out. Apparently this take has surprised a lot of people, which surprised me, as I thought the basic point was pretty obvious.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/fred_thompson_quits_from_presi.php
What point does it make? That the other candidates, by starting 8 months earlier than pretty much anyone ever started campaigning before in history (Fred announced one day later than John Kerry did in 2003), the other candidates sucked up all the campaign talent. Of course. And a lot of those great campaign people actually really liked Fred, and would've happily campaigned for him, but they'd made their commitments and couldn't really break them. And the actual flaws in his campaign (the real ones, not the many many distortions) were a result of that. Yes, as far as campaign organizationsgo, he got the C team. And if he'd started in July, he still would've gotten the C team. If he'd started in April, he'd still have gotten the C team.
Should that disqualify Fred? I don't think so, not even remotely. For one, if he -was- President, he wouldn't have other US Presidents snatching the top talent out away from him. Secondly, the reason he was "late" (i.e. the same time as Kerry in 2003) is because he joined as a result of being drafted by a population unhappy with the slate of conservatives that the party offered up. How's he supposed to know there wasn't a good candidate before all the candidates were in? Ofcourse he was going to be last. That in itself should not be completely disqualifying, but no one ever cut his campaign any slack for the fact that this campaign has had the most number of real candidates pretty much -ever- in US history, and professional campaigners were at a premium and long been sucked up by everyone else. Had Fred jumped into a campaign with only 2 or 3 candidates instead of 6, there would've been enough pros out there still left for him to get areally good team going.
None of those factors in my mind disqualify him, and should've gotten him some slack for his campaign's shortfalls, but no, he got -less- slack than ayone else, and from people who should be smart enough to know better, that's why I'm pretty bitter at the folks who I would've thought would've tried harder to give the benefit of the doubt and see things from the point of view and the limitations ofa guy fighting for what they believe in. But I guess not.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 12:32 AM (/FDfc)

111 TO: Ace
RE: Well....

....I can't say I'm particularly impressed with Fred's, in my honest opinion, pre-mature dropping out.

But then again, I'm not particularly impressed with the Mencken quote that seems come across as your credo.

The point here being that everyone makes mistakes now and then.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Wise men learn from other peoples' mistakes. Most people learn from their own. Fools never learn.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at January 24, 2008 12:41 AM (swmPM)

112 Qwinn,

The stories are conflicting but I think we're talking about different things.

I'm talking about my blog and the blogs I read. Rudy has not been a hot topic for some time.

Gabriel is probably talking about other blogs as well as on-line magazines like the AmSpec which, not being a goofball moronblog, is sort of required to have a story about each major candidate each week (if not more). He's probably out there reading about Giuliani because he's still interested in Giuliani (whereas I wrote him off earlier).

I don't read about Giuliani much because I figure he's done.

At any rate, the people you are currently blaming for Fred's disastrous campaign -- allah, me and the cobloggers here, Malkin -- haven't written about Rudy much. Malkin I think never liked him, and i think allah wrote him off as he did fred, as not being a credible candidate.

so as far as the people you're naming for giving Fred bad juju -- we're not really talking about rudy, for good or ill, very much. Same as we weren't talking about Duncan Hunter.

Your problem is that you always wanted Fred to get greatly disproportionate and uniformly coverage, no matter how shockingly low he fell in the polls. You just couldn't grasp that while you remained a true believer most of the rest of us had lost faith and viewed him as a longshot at best. I COULD have had a story on Duncan Hunter every single day, too.

Posted by: ace at January 24, 2008 12:41 AM (SXBHu)

113 uniformly positive coverage, I mean.

Posted by: ace at January 24, 2008 12:43 AM (SXBHu)

114 that escalated quickly

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 24, 2008 12:48 AM (FXakj)

115 "Your problem is that you always wanted Fred to get greatly disproportionate and uniformly coverage, no matter how shockingly low he fell in the polls."
1) He never fell "shockingly low" in the polls. Repeatedly getting 2nd and 3rd place in a 6 man field isn't "shockingly low". If it -is- "shockingly low", then the other candidates who placed lower should've been hearing the drumbeat about dropping out long before him. No? Isn't that kinda a given? Isn't that called an equal standard?
2) At any rate, the people you are currently blaming for Fred's disastrous campaign -- allah, me and the cobloggers here, Malkin -- haven't written about Rudy much.
I don't blame you for his campaign's actual failures. Read my last post, where I explain -why- his campaign made mistakes, and why I think it was completely understandable and should've gotten him -some- slack rather than -less- slack than any other candidate for his campaign's missteps (and the crap most often brought up, like the DE ballot, like the TX ballot, like people not getting replies, that's exactly the sort of thing that you can -expect- when all the best talent has already been sucked up by 10 other viable candidates in the most consensus-less nationalprimaries in anyone's living memory)
What I -do- blame the bloggers for is for not recognizing the obvious, and cutting him less slack than more, of holding him to even higher expectations than even the guy who was on top of the national polls for half a year, and to notengage in hyperbole bycalling 2nd and 3rd "shockingly low", and not taking flubs like the DE thing that could've been pretty much expected by him getting the dregs of the campaign staff available after everyone sucked it up, and portraying it as even worse than it really was.. I don't think any of that constitutes my asking for "greatly disproportionate and uniformly positive coverage". Your coverage wasn'tuniformly positivewhen I defended it, was it? You made all the same criticisms then as now, didn't you?
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 12:51 AM (/FDfc)

116 qwinn,

he was at 7% in Florida before he dropped out. That is shocking low. That is down by Ron Paul.

Look, we can't collectively pretend our way into a Fred victory. When you're at 7% or so in many states, and just get to 16% in a "must-win" "last-stand" state, you're simply not a serious contender.

Posted by: ace at January 24, 2008 12:53 AM (SXBHu)

117 I'm in Louisiana, and everyone I know, with the exception of the Kool-Aid Kids was for Fred. I got waved at and honked at for driving around with Fredage on my car's rear window. I talked him up every chance I got, I sent money to his campaign. I'm bitterly disappointed that I never got a say in what happened. I'd like to think that everything I invested, more than some, less than others, was not for naught; that maybe he will end up affecting us long-term. You know, when you drop a rock into a pond, the ripples still extend outward even after the rock sinks and isn't seen. Maybe Fred is that kind of rock.
As for him getting in late, I think it'ssubjective. Late, not as in too late in the game overall, but too late after building up all those expectations. Calendar-wise, he was fine, but when you start talking up and getting people excited, you can't wait three months to show them the goods. I was really annoyed about that. I remember him calling in to Hannity one day and just dragging it out, dragging it out, draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagging it out, then... not announcing but saying that he would be announcing when he'd finally decided when to announce, and then that would be worth an announcement in itself.

POTUS Jindal, anyone?

Posted by: LICKERISH at January 24, 2008 12:53 AM (9RsNX)

118 Bear in mind that half of the reason for Fred in the first place was that he had good name recognition and could get lots of money so he *could* enter the race late and prevail.

If he doesn't have that Big Name Factor going for him, what is the point of a Fred candidacy per se? Why not just all support Duncan Hunter? Duncan Hunter's easily as conservative as Fred plus he's a Marine.

If we're getting a longshot nuisance candidate anyway, why do we need Fred for that? Why not draft Jeff Flake or Jeff Sessions or a dozen other very conservative congressmen who ALSO have no chance of winning?

Posted by: ace at January 24, 2008 12:56 AM (SXBHu)

119 Look, I'm proud of you fellas. You all kept your head on a swivel, and that's what you gotta do when you find yourself in a vicious cock fight.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 24, 2008 12:56 AM (FXakj)

120 Discloser: I am/was a Fredead; I proselytized. gave money, sacrificed my neighbr's goat.
I also voted in the Louisiana Caucus in Orleans Parish (aka New Orleans along with the other 3 Replicans in New Orleans.
Every who voted got to vote for 15 delegates. The delegates ran out on platforms, except for "Biship OC", who was just there so everyone could tell an interesting story after meeting him. The McCain people and the Ron Paul people were there in force. There were a couple representatives of the uncommitted slate, whose sole reason for existence was to vote for the candidate who was pro-national defense, family, and guns.
The Ron Paul people ranged from the starry eyed to the bitter mid-40s brokerage house compliance officers. They were also the best organized and the most tech savvy. (Ran Paul's image played on a lap top like a rat terrier's version of Big Brother.)
The McCain people were out in greater force. They consisted of every single person in Orleans Parish with whom I would never willing have a drink.
The uncommitted group were people with whom I could have a beer--notable, though, they could only field 13 delegates.
From what I understand, eadh delegate was free to vote her or his conscience unless a candidate takes more than 50% of the vote in February presidential prefernece poll in Louisiana. So, a candidite could take 49% of the popular vote and receive no delegates (as each delegate could vote as he or she wished). So, if I would have bother, i could have paid $50, convinced my friends (and/or people for whom I bought a drink) to vote for me as a delegate. And so long as no one took more than 50% of the vote in La., I could have voted for Ace as the Republican nominee for president.
I don't know how the rest of the state went, but the uncommitted slate won big in Orleans Parish; I don't know how many delegates on the uncommitted slate won other than a lot, except that the number two vote getter for delegates in Orleans Parish was on the uncommitted slate. The uncommitted delegates to a person seemed to favor Thompson, were lukewarm on Romney, would vote for McCain against Hillary, and would never vote for Guiliani.
And to answer the peanut gallery: there's more people here in Lousiana than there are in South Dakota, at least until the next census. No, despite Houston offering us several draft picks and a player to be named later, we will not trade for the Katrina evacuees. Yes, after all the money I've received in Katrina aid, I now own the Brooklyn Bridge.
I don't know if Fred would have won all of La's votes, but after this comment, Ace is doing as well as the MSM in reporing

Posted by: darth vitter at January 24, 2008 12:56 AM (jx2AC)

121 Biggest problem? Perceived peer pressure:
I really like Fred. I'd vote for him, too, if I knew that everyone else was. If everyone who wanted to vote for him did, instead of worrying about a wasted vote or what others are doing, he'd have been so high in the polls that Huck and McAmnesty would have had sole prints on their foreheads.

Posted by: LICKERISH at January 24, 2008 12:57 AM (9RsNX)

122 so yeah-- shockingly low. Half the point of a Fred candidacy specifically was the promise that he could actually get somewhere above 7% in Florida.

So when he's getting 7% in Florida, well, that's not really the guy I thought I was getting. What's the point? I could have even more conservative integrity by supporting Duncan Hunter.

Posted by: ace at January 24, 2008 12:58 AM (SXBHu)

123 Is no one going to address the point that by being last to jump in in a 10 man field, he got the dregs of professional campaign staff available, and as such it's a little weird to put his campaign to the highest intensity scrutiny of any candidate?
Please note that having jumped in3 months earlier than he did... as Gabe put it, "I would've been happy if he'd jumped in in July"... wouldn't have gotten him any substantially greater choicesthan he did. Everyone else started -so- much earlier, all the talent had already been sucked up.
And when people say "If he can't put a good campaign together, how could he be a good president?", well, if a president has to contend with 10 other co-presidents sucking up all the talent first, then I think it's a valid criticism, but as it is, I really don't.
Come on. I think this is a pretty fair argument, and I even gave a link from his own campaign staff saying this was the problem. Is it not worth a reply?
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 12:59 AM (/FDfc)

124 Darth-

I hear tell there were seven!! of us at that thar cawcus.
How about all those RP signs on the neutral ground? Median, I know!!!

Posted by: LICKERISH at January 24, 2008 01:02 AM (9RsNX)

125 Is no one going to address the point that by being last to jump in in a 10 man field, he got the dregs of professional campaign staff available, and as such it's a little weird to put his campaign to the highest intensity scrutiny of any candidate?
Sure. I'll do that.

He fucked up.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 24, 2008 01:04 AM (FXakj)

126
Is no one going to address the point that by being last to jump in
in a 10 man field, he got the dregs of professional campaign staff
available, and as such it's a little weird to put his campaign to the
highest intensity scrutiny of any candidate?I thought I was done here for the evening, but this needs a reply. Qwinn, who decided to jump in last in a 10 man field? Why in the world should anyone cut Thompson some slack just because he had "the dregs of a professional campaign staff"? That makes no sense at all.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 24, 2008 01:04 AM (1Ug6U)

127 ace,
Because LICKERISH is correct. Everybody liked Fred. He had the highest positives and lowest negatives.
The only reason he didn't win is because he was perceived as being unable to win. If you're one of the people who was pretty much pushing the meme that you didn't think he could win (and even if you pretended for the sake of us Fredheads, it still showed, but thank you for at least not being MM or AP about it), then you were part of the problem.
It was all about the perception of "can he win". But you're telilng me that the people who had access to influencing that perception among thousands and thousands of people in the blogosphere, like MM and AP and you, had nothing to do with it. I'm sorry man, and I know you tried to be fairest out of any of the people I'm calling out here, but it -was- all about the "can he win" perception
Incidentally, "front runner"Rudy -wishes- he could do 7% in a state he's barely campaigned in.
Oh yeah, check this out:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1615502520080117
"Thompson has finished well behind front-runners Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Mitt Romney in the state contests used to choose a Republican nominee for the November 2008 presidential election."
Look at the date on that. And look at the first personReuters claims Fred was "well behind". To say that Fred was "well behind" Rudy on January 16, and calling Rudy a "front runner", was absolutely ludicrous.
When the media does continual smear jobs like this, I expect the conservative blogosphere to call bullshit on it, -not- back it up with "Yeah, he can't win".
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 01:06 AM (/FDfc)

128 Seven Republicans in Orleans Parish? If there were that many Republican voters, it had to be voter fraud.
And yes, the one thing that there were was more of at the Convention Center than Republican voters were Ron Paul signs.

Posted by: darth vitter at January 24, 2008 01:08 AM (jx2AC)

129 "He fucked up".
Alright, I guess I have to repeat this part: he didn't fuck up. He joined specifically because he saw what the rest of the field was, and noted that there wasn't an actual conservative with any chance of winning in the field. His motive wasn't for personal glory and status, his goal was having this country led by conservative principles, and if the Party couldn't put up someone who could do it, then he allowed himself to be drafted. Of course he's going to be last in that scenario. How could it be otherwise?
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 01:09 AM (/FDfc)

130 repeat it all you want.
won't change things.
fwiw, he was my top choice. sorry I didn't overcome his blah blah to make it happen.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 24, 2008 01:11 AM (FXakj)

131 Oh, and Fred lost Louisiana because of Ace's negativity and the fact that he dropped out, but mostly because he dropped out.

Posted by: darth vitter at January 24, 2008 01:12 AM (jx2AC)

132 What sucks most, in my view, is that Fred couldn't even defend himself against the charge that was being levelled against him.
What was he going to say? "You're right, my campaign is making a lost of mistakes, but hey, what do you want, everyone else started 8 months ago andhired upall the real talent, so I'm working with the C team here." That's not exactly how a gentleman displays gratitude to the people working for him, even if it's totally true. If he'd said something like that, half of 'em probably would've walked from the insult.
So we got a continuous drumbeat of "his campaign sucks" "his campaign sucks" "his campaign sucks", without anyone on his side responding with "Well, duh, it's obvious why, but is that what really matters?". Fred couldn't say it himself. We should've said it for him. We could've said, at least, "it's understandable". But FUCK NO. We DON'T understand it. It IS all his fault. Being last is a fucking disgrace and a massive fuckup on his part. Who the fuck cares if he's got the best policies, he's clueless and incompetent for stepping lastinto a field without any viable conservative, and FUCK him for even trying. Don't blame the Party for giving us 6 RINO's to suck up all the viable campaign staffs, blame it all on the one guy who was willing to put up with the mediasmears and the abuse to give us an alternative.
Faced with that? Yeah, I would've dropped out too. But I'd be flipping some people the finger on my way out. He's got more class than me though.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 01:19 AM (/FDfc)

133 Because LICKERISH is correct. Everybody liked Fred.

Almost everybody who's a policy wonk, that is. I liked Fred; I even donated to him.

But regular folks, not so much.
The only reason he didn't win is because he was perceived as being unable to win.

He didn't win because regular people vote based on a gut feeling with almost zero factual basis. I'm sorry if this sounds elitist, but the truth is that when I talk to many of my own friends, they honestly do tend to vote based on impressions, not policy. I've honestly seen people crinkle up their noses at the guy because "he has a trophy wife", for heaven's sake. People suck.

Whatcha gonna do? At least Washington doesn't matter half as much as it thinks it does, ya know?

Posted by: sandy burger at January 24, 2008 01:20 AM (WsonA)

134 BTW, Ace, don't take my criticism too harsh. While your "he's incompetent and clueless for dropping out" up in this post -really- burned me up, and I explained why, and I still think that was way out of line, I do still think you've mostly been fair. Just because I'm calling out MM, AP and you doesn't mean I think you three were the worst.
Rich Lowry. He was the fucking worst.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 01:22 AM (/FDfc)

135 sandy burger,
I'd be tempted to agree with you, and in many situations I do think that's a major factor, but not in this case. I've just known too many people who have said all along "I like Fred best, but I'm voting for someone else because he can't win". Hell, even the Frank Luntz South Carolina focus group people were saying that. What you're saying is a factor, but I think he would've won easilywere it if not for the "he can't win" perception.
Besides, those people who vote for totally trivial reasons tend to cancel each other out anyway, I think. Just as many people would vote for him for trivial reasons (I like him on Law and Order), just as many people would vote against McCain because "he's too old", and for him because "he's a war hero". Nothing you can do about those people, but they tend to cancel each other out.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 01:36 AM (/FDfc)

136 For fuck's sake,
FRED IS OUT!
Unfortunately for those of us who liked him, he was barely in. I can deal with it. Shit happened. Who is a viable candidate to beat the dhimmis?

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at January 24, 2008 01:40 AM (p8IOE)

137 Who is a viable candidate to beat the dhimmis?

There isn't one.

Sucks, doesn't it?

Posted by: Dead Career Sketch at January 24, 2008 01:49 AM (NdG3x)

138 Qwinn, your passion is admirable (to a point). You may even be totally correct. But let it gooooooooooo, there's still months and months ahead of this stuff.

Good night.

Posted by: Dr. Remulak at January 24, 2008 01:54 AM (6HZYC)

139 There isn't one.

Well, there's always the Democrat candidates themselves. We've got nobody viable, but they on the other hand are buffoons. We can't win, but they might lose. So, we've got that going for us.

Posted by: sandy burger at January 24, 2008 01:59 AM (WsonA)

140 This is the first campaign in my life where I was looking forward to voting -for- someone.
I'm not interested in voting against someone in favor of someone who I really would prefer to also vote against.
Romney may be the best of the remaining lot, but this is like going for the guy who's 90% likely to screw us royally because all the other guys are 100% certain to.
There may be months and months left of this stuff, but I don't really see a point in being involved in it anymore.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 02:05 AM (/FDfc)

141 Style over substance.
And the same people who wouldn't vote for him are the ones who are going to whine when we get a stupid RINO in the white house, if we're even lucky enough to get that and not HillDog or Bambi. I wonder if he'll still be on the ballot next month.
www.makestickers.com
Mine?
Don't Blame Me, ISupported Fred!

Posted by: LICKERISH at January 24, 2008 02:08 AM (9RsNX)

142 Quinn,
I understand how you feel. However, one of my first votes was choosing between Edwin Edwards and David Duke. That election truly boiled down to a bumper sticker: Vote for the crook, it's important.
This may turn out to be one of those elections where you have to vote for the least bad candidate. Instead of having to choose between a bigot and a crook, we may have to vote for the candidate who will do his best to keep us safe and hopefully doesn't eff everything else too much.

Posted by: darth vitter at January 24, 2008 02:10 AM (jx2AC)

143 I just think it's funny how much crap about "straitjackets" I was given up there for offering a derivative of Reagan's 11th commandment.
He went as far as to call the 11th commandment, "Never criticize another Republican.", which is way too far for me.
I refine that down to "Don't criticize actual bona fide -conservatives- over dramatically pettycomplaints, the most substantive of whichcould only have been avoided if the conservative had access to a time machine and knowledge of what the Republican field would look like several months in advance."
For that, put me in a straitjacket. I guess Reagan himself should've been euthanized.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 02:13 AM (/FDfc)

144 I've just known too many people who have said all along "I like Fred
best, but I'm voting for someone else because he can't win".

I'd really hate to think that it really came down to that.

I'd hate to think they voted for someone else because he had better name recognition, or better hair, or some other trivial reason, too.

I'd hate to think they voted for someone else because they did nothing but listen to campaign ads, and soundbites. How else would anti-amnesty people in NH end up voting for McCain?

Most of all I'd hate to think they voted for someone else because they're "compassionate conservatives" drawn to big government solutions to problems.

These are the folks who are causing the "conservative crack-up" that dick, David Brooks, at the New York Times keeps talking about.

And really, there's blame to go around for Fred's demise, but I blame the voters, first and foremost.

Posted by: Nice Deb at January 24, 2008 02:13 AM (vjXNG)

145 It's really not that damn hard, this day and age to do a little research about your candidate before you go out and vote for him.

It's the very least you can do.

Posted by: Nice Deb at January 24, 2008 02:17 AM (vjXNG)

146 Does this bear repeating?
"Fred was lazy," and "he had no fire in his belly."
"...but his wife is hot,"and oh,"he might be a good choice for VP."
QED

Posted by: The MSM at January 24, 2008 02:19 AM (fY5hz)

147 Good one, Deb.
I blame the voters as well. As many polls as were taken beforehand, showing him doing well, interviews with people saying how much they were wowed by him after listening to him, all the soundbites of people saying that he was their man...
Yep, blame to go around, but no amount of bad campaigning, short funds, or crappy media coverage will make people not vote for a man that they really, truly felt they should vote for. It wouldn't have stopped me, or apparently, many others on various blogs.
/Homer voice "Stupid voters, D'oh!"

Posted by: LICKERISH at January 24, 2008 02:21 AM (9RsNX)

148
Wow. Just wow.

I understand Qwinn's frustration. It seems like every time somebody criticized Fred for not having enough drive, it was revealed that he had scheduled 200 campaign stops that week; then the criticisms would shift to "but he's not doing well enough."

But I don't think you can blame anybody for this, Qwinn. I saw some statements from Ace like that, but he also supported Fred quite a bit too. So we can count Ace out as an agent of Double Super Secret Fred-hatred. Rather, since everybody else was saying the same stuff, we have to say that something about Fred's campaign performance led people to say these things. Maybe it was something intangible, and yet convincing. Maybe it was a forklift of bull. But Fred somehow made people who liked him and people who didn't like him say the exact same damaging things about him—things that ended his campaign. There's no smoke without fire (in the belly—hah! just kidding!).

Posted by: The Band at January 24, 2008 02:30 AM (/94xL)

149 "But I don't think you can blame anybody for this, Qwinn. I saw some statements from Ace like that, but he also supported Fred quite a bit too."I feel I acknowledged that that's not what I was doing in several posts, most directly in post #136.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 02:46 AM (/FDfc)

150 Quinn, lots of us are disappointed that Fred didn't catch on. If it was a late start and not a lack of enthusiasm, maybe we'll see how he does in 4 years with more experience on his side. But are you reading your own stuff, dude? Between you and JackStraw, I'm starting to wonder which one has the goatee.

I respect your loyalty, passion and possibly obsessive tendencies, but if there were problems with the reporting it was Fred's job to get the message corrected. Actually returning calls from sympathetic reporters might have been a good start. Didn't happen and now it's over. Done. And if hostile media treatment really was enough to sink his primary bid - while Ron Paul endures - what do you think his administration would look like? C'mon, man.

Personally, I'm more inclined to chalking this one up to experience. Probably wouldn't hurt the big guy to run for a governorship or even mayor of somewhere significant to get some executive experience while he waits out the next 4 years. Looks good on the resume for a reason.

But for right now, might be time to move on.

Posted by: VRWC Agent at January 24, 2008 02:50 AM (Z3AmO)

151 "But Fred somehow made people who liked him and people who didn't like him say the exact same damaging things about him�things that ended his campaign. There's no smoke without fire (in the belly�hah! just kidding!)."
There was "fire". I have acknowledged that his campaign had some real flaws, but I've given what I think is a pretty damn good reason for it. I didn't ask people to totally ignore all those flaws, although by virtue of Reagan's 11th commandment I certainly think I -could- ask that, and until we stop throwing each other overboard conservatives are never going to get elected. But at the -very- least, we could've said something like "Yes, his campaign has flaws, but that has more do to with his late entry and lack of available campaign professionals than actual flaws in the candidate itself.". But instead, look at the criticisms people cited in this thread. The American Spectator found somebody who was mad at Fred cause Fred stopped to get something to eat in between campaign stops, therefore he didn't campaign on the ground at all, and to get pissed off when people make such a ridiculous claim, hie thee the straitjacket you Ronulan loon!
Bah.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 02:50 AM (/FDfc)

152 "I respect your loyalty, passion and possibly obsessive tendencies, but if there were problems with the reporting it was Fred's job to get the message corrected."
I already pointed out that Fred couldn't possibly respond truthfully and honestly to the charges being levied against him. What was he supposed to say? "Yes, I know, the people campaigning for me are screwing up something fierce, but hey, who could've predicted this would be a 6way race, all candidateswell funded and able to hire the best staffs, allwithout a single real viable conservative 10 months ago when I could've hired people who actually know what they're doing and will actually respond to phone calls and emails?"
You can't trash your own campaign workers and employees like that. Just because it would happen to be 100% true wouldn't make it any more politically or ethically appropriate to respond that way. Therefore all he could do was keep on chugging and -hope- that someone else with an audience would make this obvious point. No one did. Oh well. I'm not going to bitch at anyone for not giving him the benefit of the doubt, although why the hell couldn't they?, but I sure as hell am going to bitchslappeople who went out of their way to evaluate his campaign with searing intensity, zero benefit of the doubt, and making every single mistake by the lowliest campaign worker directly reflective of Fred himself. Not saying Ace was like that, but plenty of people (and some of his cobloggers) are andwere, and the evidence is in the crap they're -still- laying at his feet even today. Fred stopped shaking hands to order a sammich, the bastard!Know what I mean?
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 03:02 AM (/FDfc)

153
There was "fire".
That was a joke, by the way.
I was trying to say that if people who wanted Fred to do well and people who (we assume, anyway) DIDN'T want Fred to do well were saying the same things, independently, then I don't think we can say it was some grand conspiracy. Instead, I think we can say that something about the campaign gave most people the same idea, whether it was correct or relevant or not. Call it the zeitgeist. Except this time, unlike Al Gore, we use the term with understanding.
And yes, I know what you mean. Off to bed now.

Posted by: The Band at January 24, 2008 03:08 AM (/94xL)

154 "I was trying to say that if people who wanted Fred to do well and people who (we assume, anyway) DIDN'T want Fred to do well were saying the same things, independently, then I don't think we can say it was some grand conspiracy."
Ugh. Find one place anywhere in this thread I ever used the word 'conspiracy'. I never did. Not once. I never even suggested it, because I don't think it.
I don't think it was a conspiracy. I think it was a lot of conservatives being pretty damn stupid letting the perfect be the enemy of the great, patting themselves on the back for putting their own guys under the blazingmicroscope unlike thoselame liberals who'll excuse -anything- their side does, and then wonder why our best guys lose (and better yet, blaming our best guys, just to drive the irony meter through the roof).Reagan made that commandment for a reason, but it looks like conservatives today want to violate it every step of the way and then wonder why they're winding up with RINO's. I'm not charging them with conspiracy. I'm charging them with the stupidity of throwing by far the best policyguy overboard for the sake of trivia and petulance that Fred didn't achieve some superstar ideal that Reagan never had.
You stated that "the guys who wanted him and the guys who didn't want him" made the same criticisms. That's just it. The guys who didn't want him -didn't have to say a word-. We did it to ourselves. We always do. That's why Reagan made that commandment, and no one has listened to it since, and that's why liberals that excuse their own for stealing national security secrets and having $90,000 in a freezer keep getting elected, and why our guys lose because since they stopped to eat a cheeseburger it was considered totally fair game to say theredidn't campaign on the ground at all.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 03:19 AM (/FDfc)

155 Anyways, sleep well.
Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at January 24, 2008 03:19 AM (/FDfc)

156 You would have thought he'd have at least waited until Super Tuesday to drop it. I'm in Florida and he HAD my vote locked up. Now I guess I'll vote for IT DOESN'T MATTER and watch Hillary take the oath next January. Fred, I love ya man but youre a BONEHEAD!!!!

Posted by: Ron J at January 24, 2008 09:31 AM (CQrHo)

157 Qwinn speaks for me. Just reading this has been like therapy.
Thompson was the only guy in this field that I felt like I could enthusiastically vote for, and watching him fizzle was painful. I don't know why he couldn't catch on, and in some sense, it really doesn't matter anymore because now we're stuck with varying shades of pale imitation.
Also, I want to reiterate another point made above: Rich Lowry and many of the dorks at National Review make me sick. And Hewitt is still a dick.
I know this: my interest in this stuff just fell precipitously. I fully expect to read post after post (not necessarily here) and comment after comment about how "we've got to stop the Hilary menace at all costs even if it means voting for a RINO!!" etc. etc, but I've got a real feeling that its just not gonna play with me like it used to.

Posted by: Fred at January 24, 2008 11:29 AM (ivbbD)

158 Ace, Duncan Hunter's not a Marine. His kid might be, but Hunter was a jump-qualified Ranger-tabbed Army infantry officer in the 173rd Airborne Brigade. Big difference, since everyone knows paratroops are even snobbier than Marines.
I'm in the same boat as Qwinn. I can't bring myself to give a fuck about this campaign. Ithink America could use four or eight years of Hillary to punish it for its stupidity and laziness. And the only reason I put a Ron Paul sticker back on my truck today is because they are the only campaign that seems to have anything resembling a set of balls at stopping this slide to socialism we're on.

Posted by: SGT Dan at January 24, 2008 01:13 PM (jCQ+I)

159 We provide all wow goldservices. You can buy World Of Warcraft goldCheap WOW Gold here ! Age of Conan gold(buy aoc gold)is on sale on wow7gold.com.We provide cheap aoc Goldaoc goldLord of The Rings Online goldLotro Goldbuy warhammer golddiablo 3 goldgames gold湖南SEO湖南网站建设网络营销策划VI设计湖南邵阳奇瑞QQhandbags replicawarhammer goldbuy Age of Conan goldbuy aoc gold

Posted by: Age of Conan gold at July 30, 2008 03:15 AM (3BXj6)

160 <A href="http://www.vipwargold.com/" target=_blank>war gold</A>nbsp; nbsp;<A href="http://www.vipwargold.com/" target=_blank>buy war gold</A>nbsp; nbsp; <A href="http://www.vipwargold.com/" target=_blank>warhammer gold</A> <A href="http://www.cheaperzone.com/" target=_blank>warhammer gold</A>nbsp; nbsp;<A href="http://www.cheaperzone.com/Buy-WOW-Gold/WOW-Gold.Html" target=_blank>buy warhammer gold</A>nbsp; nbsp; <A href="http://www.cheaperzone.com/" target=_blank>war gold</A> <A href="http://www.vipwarhammergold.com/" target=_blank>warhammer gold</A>nbsp; nbsp;<A href="http://www.vipwarhammergold.com/" target=_blank>buy warhammer gold</A>nbsp; nbsp; <A href="http://www.vipwarhammergold.com/" target=_blank>war gold</A> <A href="http://www.buyfastgold.com/" target=_blank>warhammer gold</A>nbsp; nbsp;<A href="http://www.buyfastgold.com/buy-warhammer-gold/" target=_blank>buy warhammer gold</A>nbsp; nbsp; <A href="http://www.buyfastgold.com/" target=_blank>war gold</A> <A href="http://warhammer-gold.rgtrcredit.com/" target=_blank>warhammer gold</A>nbsp; nbsp;<A href="http://warhammer-gold.rgtrcredit.com/Buy-warhammer-gold.html" target=_blank>buy warhammer gold</A>nbsp; nbsp; <A href="http://warhammer-gold.rgtrcredit.com/" target=_blank>war gold</A> <A href="http://warhammer.hellgate-pd.com/" target=_blank>warhammer gold</A>nbsp; nbsp;<A href="http://warhammer.hellgate-pd.com/buy-warhammer-gold.html" target=_blank>buy warhammer gold</A>nbsp; nbsp; <A href="http://warhammer.hellgate-pd.com/" target=_blank>war gold</A> <A href="http://www.vipaocgold.com/" target=_blank>aoc gold</A>nbsp; nbsp;<A href="http://www.vipaocgold.com/buy-aoc-gold/" target=_blank>buy aoc gold</A>nbsp; nbsp; <A href="http://www.vipaocgold.com/" target=_blank>age of conan gold</A> <A href="http://www.aocsale.com/" target=_blank>age of conan gold</A>nbsp; nbsp;<A href="http://www.aocsale.com/buy-aoc-gold/" target=_blank>buy age of conan gold</A>nbsp; nbsp; <A href="http://www.aocsale.com/" target=_blank>aoc gold</A> <A href="http://www.gold-warhammer.com/" target=_blank>warhammer gold</A>

Posted by: warhammer gold22 at September 12, 2008 12:13 AM (RgW1f)

161 The miraculous railway tibet tour now closely connects mainland China and remote tibet travel, which will speed up economic development tour in tibet. travel to tibet railway will not only bring about tibet trekking a significant change of the mystical view of the outside world to tibet map, but will also create a better cognition of the Tibetan people by the outside world.tibet tour guide there is a strong belief that tibet will welcome a better tomorrow thanks to this widely hailed sacred road.Want to go to Tibet tour? You can rely on us!We are offering Tibet tours in great discount,We offer Packages: popular Tibet Tour Packages, Tibet Adventure Travel Packages,Tibet Tours of all kinds.We can also customize your tour to tibet.

Posted by: fdsds at September 18, 2008 03:37 AM (MyWd5)

162 This makes no sense. We vote in the primaries in Louisiana.

Posted by: cheap wow gold at October 10, 2008 03:22 AM (JFHlx)

163 Air Jordan Shoes
Warhammer Gold
Warhammer Online Gold
Warhammer Time Card
Warhammer CD Key
Warhammer Gold
Warhammer Online Gold
Warhammer Accounts
Warhammer Power Leveling
Warhammer Online Key
WAR gold
warhammer gold
warhammer online gold
Buy WAR gold
Buy warhammer gold
Buy warhammer online gold
WAR Accounts
warhammer Accounts
warhammer online Accounts

Posted by: wow_gold at October 13, 2008 10:11 PM (NWzsB)

164 Air Jordan Shoes
Warhammer Gold
Warhammer Online Gold
Warhammer Time Card
Warhammer CD Key
Warhammer Gold

Posted by: wow_gold at October 13, 2008 10:25 PM (NWzsB)

165 I want to reiterate another point made above: Rich Lowry and many of the dorks at National Review make me sick. And Hewitt is still a dick.

Posted by: warhammer gold at October 14, 2008 10:47 PM (NWzsB)

166 <a href="http://www.bysneaker.com/"> Air Jordan Shoes</a> <a href="http://www.gmbar.com/"> Warhammer Gold </a>

Posted by: wow_gold at October 22, 2008 02:15 AM (bfb25)

167 <a href="http://www.bysneaker.com/"> Air Jordan Shoes</a> 
<a href="http://www.gmbar.com/"> Warhammer Gold </a> 
<a href="http://www.gmbar.com/"> Warhammer Online Gold </a> 
<a href="http://www.gmbar.com/"> Warhammer Time Card </a> 
<a href="http://www.gmbar.com/"> Warhammer CD Key </a> 
<a href="http://www.gmbar.com/cheap-war-gold.php"> Warhammer Gold </a> 
<a href="http://www.gmbar.com/cheap-war-gold.php"> Warhammer Online Gold </a> 
<a href="http://www.gmbar.com/cheap-war-gold.php"> Warhammer Accounts </a> 
<a href="http://www.gmbar.com/cheap-war-gold.php">Warhammer Power Leveling</a> 
<a href="http://www.gmbar.com/cheap-war-gold.php"> Warhammer Online Key </a> 
<a href="http://www.gmbar.com/cheap_war_gold.php"> WAR gold </a> 
<a href="http://www.gmbar.com/cheap_war_gold.php"> warhammer gold </a>

Posted by: warhammer gold at October 22, 2008 10:24 PM (bfb25)

168 Air Jordan Shoes
Warhammer Gold, Warhammer Online Gold, Warhammer Time Card, Warhammer CD Key，Warhammer Gold, Warhammer Online Gold, Warhammer Accounts, Warhammer Power Leveling, Warhammer Online Key，WAR gold，warhammer gold，warhammer online gold，Buy WAR gold，Buy warhammer gold，Buy warhammer online gold，WAR Accounts，warhammer Accounts，warhammer online Accounts，Buy WAR Accounts，warhammer Accounts for sale，Warhammer Power Leveling,Warhammer Online Power Leveling,War Power Leveling,Buy Warhammer Power Leveling, Warhammer PowerLeveling，Warhammer CD Key, Warhammer online CD Key, Warhammer Timecard, Buy Warhammer Time Card, Warhammer 60 days Time Card，Warhammer EU Gold,

Posted by: warhammer gold at October 22, 2008 10:26 PM (bfb25)

169 cheap wow gold
http://www.gmbar.com/

Posted by: fox at October 22, 2008 10:48 PM (bfb25)

170 Air Jordan Shoes
Warhammer Gold, Warhammer Online Gold, Warhammer Time Card, Warhammer CD Key，Warhammer Gold, Warhammer Online Gold, Warhammer Accounts, Warhammer Power Leveling, Warhammer Online Key，WAR gold，warhammer gold，warhammer online gold，Buy WAR gold，Buy warhammer gold，Buy warhammer online gold，WAR Accounts，warhammer Accounts，warhammer online Accounts，Buy WAR Accounts，warhammer Accounts for sale，Warhammer Power Leveling,Warhammer Online Power Leveling,War Power Leveling,Buy Warhammer Power Leveling, Warhammer PowerLeveling，

Posted by: fox at October 22, 2008 10:49 PM (bfb25)

171 <a href="http://www.bysneaker.com/"> Air Jordan Shoes</a> <a href="http://www.gmbar.com/"> Warhammer Gold </a> <a href="http://www.gmbar.com/"> Warhammer Online Gold </a> <a href="http://www.gmbar.com/"> Warhammer Time Card </a> <a href="http://www.gmbar.com/"> Warhammer CD Key </a>

Posted by: wow_gold at October 22, 2008 11:30 PM (bfb25)

172 [url=http://www.bysneaker.com/] Air Jordan Shoes [/url][url=http://www.gmbar.com/] Warhammer Gold [/url][url=http://www.gmbar.com/] Warhammer Online Gold [/url][url=http://www.gmbar.com/] Warhammer Accounts [/url][url=http://www.gmbar.com/] Warhammer Power Leveling [/url][url=http://www.gmbar.com/] Warhammer Online Key [/url][url=http://www.gmbar.com/] Warhammer Gold [/url][url=http://www.gmbar.com/] Warhammer Online Gold [/url][url=http://www.gmbar.com/] Warhammer Time Card [/url][url=http://www.gmbar.com/] Warhammer CD Key [/url][url=http://www.gmbar.com/cheap_war_gold.php] WAR gold [/url][url=http://www.gmbar.com/cheap_war_gold.php] warhammer online gold [/url][url=http://www.gmbar.com/cheap_war_gold.php] Buy WAR gold [/url][url=http://www.gmbar.com/cheap_war_gold.php] Buy warhammer gold [/url]

Posted by: wow_gold at October 22, 2008 11:31 PM (bfb25)

173 Air Jordan Shoes

Warhammer Gold, Warhammer Online Gold, Warhammer Time Card, Warhammer CD Key，Warhammer Gold, Warhammer Online Gold, Warhammer Accounts, Warhammer Power Leveling, Warhammer Online Key，WAR gold，warhammer gold，warhammer online gold，Buy WAR gold，Buy warhammer gold，Buy warhammer online gold，WAR Accounts，warhammer Accounts，warhammer online Accounts，Buy WAR Accounts，warhammer Accounts for sale，Warhammer Power Leveling,Warhammer Online Power Leveling,War Power Leveling,Buy Warhammer Power Leveling, Warhammer PowerLeveling，Warhammer CD Key, Warhammer online CD Key, Warhammer Timecard, Buy Warhammer Time Card, Warhammer 60 days Time Card，Warhammer EU Gold, Warhammer EU Power Leveling, Warhammer EU CD Key, Warhammer EU Accounts，Cheap Warhammer Gold, Cheap Warhammer online gold, Buy Cheap Warhammer Gold, Buy WAR Gold，Cheap WAR Accounts，Cheap warhammer Accounts，Cheap warhammer online Accounts，Buy Cheap WAR AccountsCheap Warhammer Power Leveling, Cheap Warhammer Online Power Leveling, Buy War Power Leveling, Warhammer EU Power Leveling，buy Warhammer CD Key, buy Warhammer online CD Key, cheap Warhammer CD key, warhammer time card, Warhammer prepaid time card

Posted by: fox at October 24, 2008 04:13 AM (bfb25)

174 please view this website :ugg boots ,UGG Boots Classic tall,UGG Boots Sale

Posted by: ugg boots at February 19, 2010 06:50 AM (Zuuz9)

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0464 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0183 seconds, 183 records returned.
Page size 159 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.