Replies

Hunter certainly looked good last night, and that's coming from someone who thought Hunter has been flat and repetitive in all the previous debates. I loved the last line of his "fleeting target" answer, where he said it was (paraphrasing) "a responsibility the President will have to take on his shoulders."

Whether that translates into support is still unclear, but I'm at least willing to wait and see if a bump materializes before writing him off. Not terribly likely, but I think he gave more Republicans reason to vote for him last night than Paul or Huckabee did.

Yes, "National Journal", it does seem silly to say Fred needs a "re-launch" after only a month. I think this guy, and the media in general, are in Fred denial. They haven't been impressed with Fred's performance, so they believe the voters haven't been either. The polls and the money suggests otherwise, however. See where he is in another month before you say he needs a relaunch. That is, unless you like eating crow.

One kernel of truth here, "[D]on't write off Paul's supporters as simply angry anti-U.N. black helicopter types. There's been anger from the GOP's less-government libertarian wing for some time, and Paul may be becoming the protest vehicle for those folks." I think there still are Paul supporters that are mainly protesting against the nanny-state, big-spending party the GOP has become, but are still uncomfortable with his kookier views, particularly on foreign policy. I actually think he was a loser last night because, if anything, he made it less comfortable for these supporters to stay on board by his goldbuggery, complaints about the "wealth gap", and his constant mentioning of the war.

The article goes on to say, "It'll be interesting to see which of the front-runners actually 'gets it' and tries to co-opt some of Paul's supporters." I think a candidate who comes out with a hard-line small-government but pro-defense message can benefit from a defection by the less committed (or committable) Paul supporters. Fred can certainly be this candidate if he can clearly and forcefully articulate that his "first principles" would, in a Thompson Administration, include a strong push for a drastic reduction in the size, scope, intrusiveness, and expense of the federal government.

Indeed, Fred's ability to put forth a clear-cut, common sense message that connects with voters from across the conservative movement will likely be the test of his campaign.

The article goes on to say, "It'll be interesting to see which of the front-runners actually 'gets it' and tries to co-opt some of Paul's supporters." I think a candidate who comes out with a hard-line small-government but pro-defense message can benefit from a defection by the less committed (or committable) Paul supporters. Fred can certainly be this candidate if he can clearly and forcefully articulate that his "first principles" would, in a Thompson Administration, include a strong push for a drastic reduction in the size, scope, intrusiveness, and expense of the federal government.

I did think that Freds strongest part of the debate was his answers to WOT. That was what I was looking for, and honestly Mitt fell in my estimation for that topic (otherwise I though Mitt was good), but to tell you the truth, he still didn't show leadership of those issues.

When it comes to WOT, Fred did go up in my book. He will not however, move up to my #1 until I truly think he can beat Hillary, and sorry I did not see him beating anyone last night. He was middle of the pack, and we need more. He has a few more months to prove himself, so maybe a foreign policy debate will improve his chances, but I just did not see him attracting any new voters last night, and if he can't do that in his own party primaries how is he to do that with the general public.