Posted on 12/20/2007 6:59:20 PM PST by jern
;>)
Pat gets pretty stupid when any issue involves Jews. But his analysis here is pretty right on. It's pretty much how I see the race shaping up.
Kefauver did defeat Truman in the NH democratic primary in 1952 19,800 to 15,900 [approx. numbers]. Afterwards Truman issued a statement that he would not seek a 3rd term.
I think Pat might be on to something here. I wanted Fred to win but I think my wife was right—it will be Mitt (but then she’s a Mormon).
buchanan is a curmudgeon.
Buchanan left the Republican party in the 1990’s when he joined the Holocaust deniers.
This latest article is just more incredibly wild assertions.
Why do I think that if this article was about Fred having any kind of chance it would be getting more positive reviews? :)
I like a lot of things about Fred and I’m definitely not overwhelmed by Huck, but I think those people who are still convinced Fred is going to turn this thing his way are delusional.
In many ways, I would like to be wrong... but I don’t think I am. Time will tell.
At least everyone is now on record here! We can all check back in a few months and see who really knows what they’re talking about! :)
The funny thing to me—and no one can say Buchanan is wrong about this!—Mitt should be doing much better given all the money he has spent. That his numbers aren’t higher are shocking.
Anybody else at least agree with that?
“Mitt should be doing much better given all the money he has spent. That his numbers aren’t higher are shocking.”
Let’s see how the voting goes, primary voters are notoriously hard to poll accurately.
Fred either surprises in Iowa or he is in big trouble. He needs a strong third or better.
I think it is still a 4 man race, but it will compress pretty quickly once the voting starts.
Yawn....lol...I don’t like Pat..never have...
Just for comparison...last year both twerps...I mean...J F’in Kerry and Slick Edwards were polling in singles digits and ended up 1 and 2 when the dust settled....
Yup, I a seem to recall voyers lying to the pollsters last couple of elections....hmmm.
Hmm, and it seems before 2004...Iowa was one you *didn’t* want to win....kinda like being the Heismann Trophy winner going to the bowls...
That’s like asking if it’s down to Milli or Vanilli.
Did I miss something?
I did not get from the article that Pat wants the race decided now.
Did anyone here read the article...most seem to be Pat bashing out of context...
I don’t agree with Pat on foreign affairs but generally do on domestic.
do folks just spout the correct answer or do they think?
(not you DJ...i know you think)
It was 1990 precisely, when he wrote an article...for I think the NYT
where he questioned the 6 million dead figure as being inflated by groups who had a interest in higher numbers
he has never denied the Holocaust
I personally don't know what the precise figures are nor do I care ...it seems like it was a whole lot regardless and my views on Pat are about 50/50 but to claim he is a Holocaust denier is playing loose with the facts
Yikes.
“But his analysis here is pretty right on. It’s pretty much how I see the race shaping up.”
Unfortunately I agree. Only point of contention is I think McCain has a better chance than Pat thinks assuming McCain wins NH.
Pat is a great American. All his books should be required reading in America’s HS classrooms. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he stimulates thought.
Pat is a great American. All his books should be required reading in America’s HS classrooms. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he stimulates thought.
I just wish Thompson would generate more traction. He's the only candidate remaining (and just barely) who I can stand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.