LAT congratulates itself: “Thompson star dims on abortion issue”!
posted at 2:37 pm on July 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
The evidence? Two mild quotes from Paul Weyrich and a bare assertion by a random GOP strategist in New Hampshire that “People who really believe in the pro-life cause will not be happy.” Consider that star dimmed. Meanwhile, the AP reports “wild applause” for his speech to the Young Republican National Convention in Florida yesterday.
While we’re on the subject, have a look at this post by Captain Ed. His source sent me the same info yesterday. If the dates are correct then the Times needs to explain why Fred was retained to lobby for the abortion group before he’d even joined the firm. Was he retained while he was still a sole practitioner and took the client with him to Arent Fox? Or had he already been part of Arent Fox for some time before his FARA registration went through in October? I suspect it’s the latter: he probably applied for registration when he joined the firm and it took a few months for the feds to process the application and approve him. We’ll see. Exit question: If it’s a simple matter of disproving the Times story with dates, why on earth hasn’t the campaign already done that?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Re exit question: Good question. Will be interested to see the answer.
Re his wild applause, the crowd was only 350 or so people. Probably not a very good indicator, good or bad as to his popularity with he young voters.
Bradky on July 8, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Single-issue abortion delegate voters present a small segment of the delegation. This attempt by the Left to deny Thompson the nomination by painting him as moderate on this issue, will not work. His star will only get brighter and if this is all they got on him, the nomination is his.
jihadwatcher on July 8, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Exit question: Perhaps Fred! has the nads to give a big flying “whatever” no-response to the goons in the leftist MSM?
bbz123 on July 8, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Much ado about nothing. I think, as the old saying goes, unless they find a dead woman or a live boy in his bed, he’s probably gonna be ok.
Run Fred! Run!
commonsensehoosier on July 8, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Why are liberals so obsessed with their perceived notion that conservatives are obsessed with abortion!? It’s bizarre!
SouthernGent on July 8, 2007 at 3:00 PM
If they actually knew some pro-life people, they might realize that quite a few of those currently pro-life used to be pro-choice, and that many pro-lifers are even happier with people who have converted to the cause (ever hear of the prodigal son?)
Sheeeeee.
meep on July 8, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Los Angeles Times is just another democratic hack machine that makes no attempts at being objective. The demos own the state of California’s electoral votes so there is no loss in the GOP column in that department.
volsense on July 8, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Most people are pro-choice when young, living a tad carelessly, but change as they get older and have children. It seems remarkable to me anyone who has had a child, ever seen a sonogram etc, could even consider abortion.
commonsensehoosier on July 8, 2007 at 3:03 PM
I’m a Young Republican. I was president of Bryant’s College Republicans for two semesters.
As you know, Fred doesn’t impress me. He’s basically taken the easy appeal to the base position and will be relying on his Law and Order charisma to wow centrists, something that will fail once Thompson realizes being a conservative in Hollyweird nets you zero media allies.
The man insults my intelligence by saying he has a “big announcement” only to tell me that announcement is that the real “big announcement” is in another castle, err, I mean, a month from now.
Fred isn’t inspiring to me. He can toot his horn about Federalism all he wants, but a real Federalist wouldn’t bother teasing the country with parlor tricks. He’s a Wastington Insider and a Senator of no real note, save only his support for McCain Feingold. He has shown no initiative to do anything but sit on Leno’s couch and blow kisses to Hannity.
When he considers getting in for real and testing his metal is actual high-pressure situations, we’ll see how he does. I’m not going to ga-ga over a man whose actions thus far have only convinced me he’s a good essayist. This is not The West Wing; President is not just a role for Fred Thompson to play.
BKennedy on July 8, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Fred T. is a lazy ass that doesn’t want to work very hard. NOT presidential material.
DfDeportation on July 8, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Why do people say Fred is lazy? He’s everywhere. The press is following him like puppies. Lazy people don’t travel that much and go to all of those events. He’s out there as much as any of the other candidates.
speed911 on July 8, 2007 at 3:14 PM
The epitome of a “lazy ass” has already been president . . . his name was Clinton. So, even if Fred is lazy, that has proven not to be an impediment to holding the job.
rplat on July 8, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Countdown to the time when someone comes in here and starts a countdown to when csdeven will come in here and rag on freddie boy……5…4…3…2…
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Exactly speed911. Dims and RINOs may try to bring him down, but the fact is he could beat out Rudy and Hillary if he plays his cards right. And that would be just dandy to me.
Vaporman87 on July 8, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Fred!
I don’t care! You still my dog in this hunt right now..
SillyRyno on July 8, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Sununnu says it never happened. No billing records seem to be out. Just two of Hill Clintons sect are making this allegation…
Media is trying to make a story out of nothing, and some here are biteing.
Romeo13 on July 8, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Any day now the LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post will start digging deep into HiLLary or Obama….
any day now
That’s ok though, let them go after Fred, it takes heat off the other candidates (for now).
reaganaut on July 8, 2007 at 3:25 PM
BKennedy….mettle….not metal….
commonsensehoosier on July 8, 2007 at 3:27 PM
If this is nothing, the campaign needs to properly act like it’s nothing. It’s will only get legs if the MSM smells blood.
frankj on July 8, 2007 at 3:28 PM
I posted this on a different fred? thread, but it seems much more apropos here…..
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Answer to the exit question, Allah, because it is much to do about nothing. I believe John Sunnon, oh heavens you know the guy fromm New Hampshire who worked for Bush Sr. said the meeting that was supposed to take place never took place. In other words, much ado about nothing.
Again, if this was 1996 ok maybe, or 2001-2007, hell yes, it would be a story. But it is 1991; hell Mitt Romney has changed his mind six or seven times since then. Rudy hasn’t changed his mind at all. And John McCain tried to nuance the issue when he ran in 2000, when Thompson was his campaign chair. McCain has become more pro-life as the years have gone on, so has Thompson! That’s good, right!
sophiesmom on July 8, 2007 at 3:32 PM
SouthernGent on July 8, 2007 at 3:00 PM
It is projection. Liberals are obsessed with abortion. To them it is their defining issue of the day.
Also liberals believe from polls that the majority supports their view. So they try to use it as a wedge issue. By constantly linking REPs to anti-abortion, they energize their base and drive moderates away. It’s a win-win for them or so they believe.
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Preview feature please…
This was supposed to be in quotations from the NYT article.
“The elder Mr. Thompson helped Daniel through his political action committee as well. In the last two elections, the committee paid Daniel Thompson more than $170,000 in consulting fees, compared with less than $70,000 it paid toward supporting Republican political campaigns.”
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Exit answer: Because it’s not yet an official campaign?
infidel4life on July 8, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Because they believe, and it’s understandable as to why, that when you say “The Christian Right” that also means “conservatives”.
And as the article pointed out, we will have to wait and see if freds? carefully crafted image of always being pro-life, will back-fire on him because he is a liar. That would be adding insult to injury and the downward spiral for fred? may just turn into a fall off the table.
I think he will self-implode for other reasons, but if this bears out any truth, it certainly will not help him.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 3:40 PM
And because they think they can pander to the female half of the voting public by claiming that evil conservatives are against “a woman’s right to choose.”
infidel4life on July 8, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Totally agree. Our resident troll in fact used it the other day to claim KP was no Dem. It’s a litmus test to them that they project on to the right.
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Excellent question. They have already denied it. Perhaps there is some truth to the rumor and he doesn’t want to be too vociferous in his denials until he is sure that there is no proof out there. And the Clinton’s may be hoping he will strenuously deny it so they can produce the proof afterward and destroy him before he even announces?
If that is what happens, I hope all the groupies, fred?heads, and regular old fred? supporters can get their money back.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Triangulation. Privately you let the right to lifers know you support their veiws.
Publically you let the story stand to give the appearance that you are open to other veiws.
Clinton did this repeatedly.
William Amos on July 8, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Fear comes in two colors, red and blue.
Limerick on July 8, 2007 at 3:46 PM
I’m waiting for the presidential candidate who properly states regarding abortion that his/her personal views are irrelevant as it isn’t a federal issue. It should rightly be a state rights issue left to each state legislature to debate. Maybe someone already said that and I missed it.
I’m still in Fred’s camp until/unless someone else does anything to impress me which I find highly unlikely. I don’t think that there is another GOP candidate for whom I would vote. Given a Guiliani ticket, I’ll just leave the presidential vote chads in place.
deepdiver on July 8, 2007 at 3:48 PM
I don’t know about that. fred?, after picking a fight with that scumbag Michael Moore, chickened out with a lame youtube video. His best response, like you say, is no response. But, fred? claims no knowledge and his staff claims it didn’t happen. So he has already started down the slippery slope of denial.
We’ll see.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 3:52 PM
I’d agree with that. Statements like this, “I’d just say the flies get bigger in the summertime. I guess the flies are buzzing,” say nothing. Leaving the hearer or the reader to interject his own meaning.
I wish Fred would interject some substance into this ‘campaign’ of his. Everyone is left to make their own judgment – always pro-life, pro-life since sonogram, pro-life since politically expedience. I don’t think this story in particular has legs, but I wish he would answer with precision and less dismissal.
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Or… just speculating mind you…
Fred! has proof that this is a false allegation, and is using it to flush out and discredit the hit machine.
The American people will listen to an attack, but will NOT forgive false attacks. They tend to fry “reporters” over it.
Romeo13 on July 8, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Didn’t Fred!s people dismiss this the first day?
Sounds like his quote about flies buzzing around is about right… its a non story.
Romeo13 on July 8, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Yes that has stopped me from fully throwing in with Fred. I “think” I hear what he is saying but I’m not 100% sure if what I “think” is what is real.
As far as this particular issue goes I could care less. Fred has publicly stated he thinks the abortion issue belongs at the state level. That’s what I think too. So I could give a rat’s a** what he did or said 16 years ago. I can only vagualy remember what I was doing 16 years ago. I surely can’t remember everything I said 16 years ago.
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 4:12 PM
I agree in this instance, this particular incident is a non-story. But the use of colloquialisms and cliches is tiresome to me.
Your point about his people’s answer is well-received, but my concern is to his personal answers. He does well in set pieces, in scripts, etc, but I want to hear him answer for him and for him to show a handle on the issues. If indeed the man and the times meet, show me that!
I will honestly admit, that my expectations of him are declining even as he rises in the polls.
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 4:17 PM
I can respect that; hopeful yet objective.
Heh. Me neither.
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 4:17 PM
I think it is the Bush factor. We were sold a bill of goods with Bush. Now we want to make absolute sure that what we hear and see is what we get.
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Fred? pretty much said as much in one of his podcasts, if I’m not mistake.
SillyRyno on July 8, 2007 at 4:27 PM
SillyRyno on July 8, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Fred has also stated this on the Hannity and Colmes interview. So there is video and audio of this.
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Off Topic
How come whenever the MSM reports on Fred it “shows a lack of support for a weak Republican presidential field”
But when Gore pulls a Fred on the left, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards never get the “weak Democrat field” argument?
On Topic
Believe half of what you see and none of what you read.
Especially when it comes from a lefty rag.
Fred Fred he’s our man, if he can’t do it… I’m moving to Canada.
VolMagic on July 8, 2007 at 4:29 PM
But when Gore pulls a Fred on the left, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards never get the “weak Democrat field” argument?
VolMagic on July 8, 2007 at 4:29 PM
That’s like asking why water is wet
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 4:33 PM
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Fred didn’t pick that fight, and he made a video response that was funny, pithy, and right on. Why should Fred engage with Michael Moore at all? I don’t get drawn into arguements with the idiot professors I have here in Tennessee. I just know they are wrong, tell them so, and go on my merry way.
I saw this the other day and it fits perfectly with the Michael Moore response. “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
VolMagic on July 8, 2007 at 4:34 PM
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Yeah, I know. I was just “airing” an opinion and wanted to see if anyone else had picked up on that as well.
VolMagic on July 8, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Because all the dems are sticking to their crazy liberal socialist beliefs and most of the reps are more moderate while fred? comes off as a true conservative.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 4:36 PM
That and the MSM is biased.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 4:37 PM
A more important topic in the election which has not been talked about has much. I wonder why?
One powerful organization that may breathe easier at news of a Thompson bid is the National Rifle Association. Each of the “big three” Republican presidential frontrunners has a glaring flaw in the eyes of the organization, although the group has not sought to emphasize its disagreements with the trio.
…
By comparison, Mr. Thompson’s relationship with gun-rights groups is sterling. A 2000 report from a campaign-finance watchdog group, Common Cause, found that the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and the Georgia Gun Owners PAC donated $188,954 to Mr. Thompson between 1993 and 1999; the groups donated more only to Dr. Frist. ( Mr. Thompson was elected in a special election in 1994.)
http://www.nysun.com/article/51866
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Ok, I thought fred? responded to MM ’s lies in his new propaganda film. Still, fred? should have ignored MM and foregone the video response.
At first I thought his video was funny, but as the time has gone by, it has come to be an immature response to the first more immature comment. Kinda like a “I know you are but what am I?” exchange.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 4:42 PM
At first I thought his video was funny, but as the time has gone by, it has come to be an immature response to the first more immature comment. Kinda like a “I know you are but what am I?” exchange.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 4:42 PM
I know I’m going to regret this but:
What are you talking about now? The response was right on target, short and to the point. Fred hit that one out of the ballpark. If you can not even admit when Fred scores a big hit, your arguments all fall apart and you become just a raving fred hating parrot.
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Thanks for the info! Now that you mention it I seem to remember hearing something about that. I haven’t been following things as closely as usual as I am just sick of it all. Yet another reason for me to like Fred.
deepdiver on July 8, 2007 at 4:46 PM
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 4:42 PM
But isn’t that exactly the reponse a blowhard like Michael deserves?
If he did that to a true-blue liberal thinker who is logical and just disagrees with the conservative viewpoint then it would have been inappropriate. But he was responding to freaking Michael Moore. I mean… c’mon.
VolMagic on July 8, 2007 at 4:52 PM
When you re-view that two part video of the Hannity interview, pay special attention to the parts where Sean LEADS fred? to the answers he should give.
I have seen this on three interviews with fred? and he don’t come off as a well informed non-candidate.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Maybe from someone at MM’s own level, but not from a conservative former senator. It demeans him.
Think about it for a second. Just who was fred? trying to resonate with by making that video? Does anyone of any stature think MM is a serious person worthy of attention? So it wasn’t president Bush or others of that stature he was trying to connect with.
fred? had a specific audience in mind. I am not that audience.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 4:57 PM
where Sean LEADS fred? to the answers he should give.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Ok now your getting nuts. Sean does not lead Fred. Heclarifies Fred’s answer down to a soundbite for time reasons and Fred 100% agrees with the soundbite. This is not leading this is called clarification.
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 4:58 PM
fred? had a specific audience in mind. I am not that audience.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Are you sure about that?
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Clinton wasn’t really a “lazy ass” when it came to subverting the security of the United States of America or defending his cronies and pet issues. If we get another “lazy ass” like Clinton, say goodbye to the USA.
BKennedy on July 8, 2007 at 5:00 PM
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 4:57 PM
And for the record others besides you have read “The Art of War” so stop with the mind games. Please.
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 5:00 PM
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 4:57 PM
I guess it’s just a agree to disagree thing.
I thought the video was funny, spot-on and just the right amount of snark to say, “Hey Michael, this is all you’re getting from me.”
Anywho… how do you really feel about Fred? :)
VolMagic on July 8, 2007 at 5:02 PM
bbz123 on July 8, 2007 at 2:58 PM
That doesn’t work.
President Bush has been trying that for a few years now.
It doesn’t work.
Fred! is supposed to be the next “Great Communicator,” so he needs to get his message out when it matters.
So far he’s been doing pretty well, but I agree with Allahpundit on this one.
Where’s the Fred! refutation?
A simple denial doesn’t cut it.
brewt on July 8, 2007 at 5:04 PM
BKennedy on July 8, 2007 at 5:00 PM
We already have one and his name is Bush. Bush has not fought for anything except maybe CIR. He never stays up past his bed time. He pushes all the hard decsions onto someone else (the war czar is a prime example that’s HIS job for crying out loud) and he hates to mess with the “small stuff”. He folds at the first sign of discord. Bush is the definition of lazy. And we as a country are paying for it in spades…
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Fair enough. I can live with you and I not agreeing on everything.
How do I really feel about fred?? I wish he was all that he represents himself to be…..I hope that he is……you know what the rest of my comment would be. :-)
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Agree. It was designed to create excitement among the blogs. It worked.
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 5:07 PM
He folds at the first sign of discord
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 5:05 PM
He seems pretty stubborn on pushing amnesty, despite the huge amount of discord.
VolMagic on July 8, 2007 at 5:07 PM
As far as I’ve heard there is no campaign yet.
Egfrow on July 8, 2007 at 5:08 PM
He’s not running yet. I have no idea when this campaign is supposed to get underway but the attack dogs have the advantage right now with the initiative. If he waits to long he’s going to be instantly on the defensive.
Egfrow on July 8, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Countdown for csdeven to come in here and rag on Fred! in 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5…
eforhan on July 8, 2007 at 5:12 PM
VolMagic on July 8, 2007 at 5:02 PM
csdeven is simply playing mind games. He understands that the video is one of Fred good points. So he must try to plant the seed of doubt in his supporters minds that maybe it wasn’t so great after all. Give it about 4 or 5 more posts and he will be posting that yes it really was terrible now that YOU mention it. Than after some time he will come back to this theme in later Fred posts and use that post to confirm that others think like him. It’s called the death of a thousand cuts. And up until now csdeven has been playing it well but he slipped up on this post and went too far. Now he will retreat or attack with full forceor try to change the subject and come from another angle.
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 5:12 PM
I meant to respond earlier. But better late than never…
You’re dead on about fred?. He has earned his “laziness” reputation, just as he earned his “playboy” reputation.
Wife his pro-life claims and his big announcement claims, he is working on earning a “liar” and “bait and switch” reputation.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 5:14 PM
VolMagic on July 8, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Yes on amensty and the war but notice how he shifts his postion over time to the path of least resistence. Frist he was 100% for amnesty and guest workers, when that didn’t fly he tried to buy us off while softening his stance full fledge amnesty, then he tried to pretend to harden the enforcment portion etc. This is a mark of either a good politician or a lazy man that will not stick to his guns and fight for the victory of his position. Either one is bad IMO
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 5:16 PM
It sure did, but not everyone in the blogs are part of one big monolithic entity.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 5:18 PM
VolMagic on July 8, 2007 at 5:02 PM
see from this reply (csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 5:14 PM)
he chose to come from the flank
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 5:19 PM
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 5:12 PM
I disagree with that assessment. I made a similar argument re:Edwards engaging Coulter. It speaks to the level of influence.
Fred the candidate probably shouldn’t engage Moore. But Fred the political commenter should (and did). So what was impressive then is less so now, as I would imagine Fred would like people to start viewing him less as a commenter and more as a candidate.
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 5:21 PM
You big silly! That’s a count up. And unless you already seen this….
…I beat you to it. And if you did already see it, that was a funny response.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Agree with that as well.
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Great point. Do you think he is trying to have it both ways, having all the benefits of being a commentator and none of the downside of being a candidate?
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Both Fred and Newt have sense enough to stay out of the early going. November ‘08 is an eternity away. Some of you will have to eat some serious crow when Fred is nominated. For dessert how about some humble pie?
Mojave Mark on July 8, 2007 at 5:35 PM
What campaign? Fred hasn’t officially announced yet…yet…
His “people” I’m sure will…probably tomorrow.
JetBoy on July 8, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Fred should ignore the media or diminish them into the insignificant non-entity they have become. Smack them down, just like you did M. Moore or don’t even acknowledge them. The latter would annoy them the most, primadonas that they all are.
On the thread/Fred ‘issue’ of this moment:
1. War on Terror
2. Security of this country
3. Well-being/economy of this country
4. Block soc*alism with all you have; new energy tax, national single-payer healthcare and Fairness Doctrine are soc*alism
6. Screw the NWO – emphasize this in each speech
7. “There is only One America – we’re all in it together”
The rest…yawning…
Entelechy on July 8, 2007 at 5:42 PM
My assessment of Bush is rather that his foremost quality is bullheaded tenacity. Indeed, while Bush may get 8 hours of sleep, he tirelessly goes toward whatever his objective is. The problem is he doesn’t have the good sense of where to direct it. Please, if anything, Bush’s problem is he NEVER folds REGARDLESS of dischord, like with that shamnesty crusade. He hasn’t announced a backout of Iraq yet either, and we had to smack him in the face a couple of times when he put Harriet Myers up.
I don’t know what you’re referencing unseen. If anything, Bush’s hyperactiveness causes more grief than any laziness he might have.
BKennedy on July 8, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Fred Thompson hasn’t announced he’s running for president, and the ’08 election is a year and a half away, yet the Clinton camp is already showing signs of desperation so palpable one would need a chain saw to cut through it – as they try to discredit him.
The Clintons have found the enemy and he is – Fred.
The Clintons are shameless, soulless, and a score of other lessess that have been the hallmark of their existence, yet they continue to retain the liberal ‘don’t bother us with facts’ voting base of 40% who are longing for the return of Camelot III.
And doing their bidding, of course, are the sycophant MSM that, not having found a smoking gun, have gone to manufacturing non-news about him.
Thus far, in interviews and speeches, Thompson has fended off the efforts to discredit him, but unless he gets down and dirty after he announces, what’s remains of the conservative base will say sayonara.
pocomoco on July 8, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Sorry for the delay, I pondered this for a few minutes.
My honest opinion is that he creates an atmosphere that allows people to see what they want to see.
I think it speaks to why the Moore video was so popular. He stirred up the blogs and that has consequently stirred up people to advocate for him. So much so as to claim to have drafted him. Which I don’t think matches the ‘things I want to do only a president can do’ claim – which what might that be again? Did he say and I miss it?
And some of the things said about him are extraordinary and complete projection, which clearly shows some are impressed by illusion. Let’s just say I don’t think that is accidental.
But as to the direct question, I just don’t know…if HE is pushing back the announcement date, then yeah probably, but if people are setting dates just on their own expectation, maybe not. But I expect him to attempt the same strategy after he announces.
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Fred Thompson is not Ronald Reagan. He is and should remain Fred Dalton Thompson. The RR is a media invention. Quit using it.
If Fred is lazy then I want to clone the son of a b*tch because he’s got a secret for success which escapes me, and I want it badly.
The media has tried hard to convince conservatives of the Fred ’shortcomings’, i.e. 24-year-old-wife (I kid you not some conservative friends tell me this), divorced (I kid you not some extremely conservtive acquaintance who’s divorced himself said “did you know he’s divorced?”), abortion, smoking, bla, bla, bla…His and our fortune is that he’s as human as they are and definitely they aren’t any holier than him. On both sides.
It’s really amusing to observe this half-arsed tango from the left and from the right on how to harp on/attack this ‘giant’. But I admit, it’s way too much fun to observe the left kicking into absolute fear. There is something there to fear, otherwise they wouldn’t address such nonsense as ‘trophy wife’, for ex.
He will make it or not, but definitely not based on what they have to say/do. This is going to be a fun, fun year and roughly one half.
csdeven, I’m gettin’ worried about you buying me that drink, friend. Don’t worry, though, my offer stands and I’m a woman of my word :)
Entelechy on July 8, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Could it be that Fred? is full of hot air? (no pun intended)
Darnell Clayton on July 8, 2007 at 6:08 PM
I was 8 years old in 1991, the year when all of this supposedly happened. It pretty much stands to reason that I think a lot can happen in 16 years… a person can change their political philosophy and personal convictions in that time. In 1992, I helped run the mock Clinton campaign in my middle school… a mere 8 years later I would have voted Bush (I turned 18 not quite two months after the election). I was pro-choice as recently as 5 years ago, until I got pregnant. I now have 3 kids and, while I know why I used to feel abortion was okay, I find it horribly repugnant now. I will vote for Fred! next year, not because of his abortion position, but because I believe he’s the man who best represents me.
Personally, I’m glad he hasn’t declared yet. I mean, too many have declared too early, and I’m already weary of the 2008 presidental election. Take 5 months off or something!
the goddess anna on July 8, 2007 at 6:11 PM
One more major item which is so incredibly deja vu is the media’s “he’s dumb”, or “he’s lazy”, or “he’s Law and Order”, implying “he’s another actor”.
Oy, what they have coming. They forgot what RR did to them, graciously. I love nothing better than punishing one’s adversaries gently and gracefully. That hurts them the most.
Entelechy on July 8, 2007 at 6:15 PM
I think the main thing is that Fred’s the fly in the ointment.
The gears have been in motion for eight years now, and every wrench we throw in the works wastes a LOT of their time and planning. Bloomberg makes no sense whatsoever as a third-party spoiler — unless you assume that he was intended as an electoral guided missile, picked specifically to counter Giuliani in New York and Pennsylvania.
There is a REASON that more Democrats voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries than Republicans did, and there is a REASON the media started telling us more than two years before the election that he and Giuliani were our “front runners.” And that reason is not because liberals want a Republican to win in 2008.
For the Clinton’s plans to work, we have to go along with them. And if you think that’s pissing them off now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
logis on July 8, 2007 at 7:11 PM
This is directed at my fellow commentators who consider themselves to be secular libertarians and pro-choice:
Friends, are you aware that many libertarians are also pro-life?
ColtsFan on July 8, 2007 at 8:07 PM
I agree, fred? has carefully crafted that atmosphere, so why should he spoil it by actually taking a chance and answering questions in a hostile environment? The more vague and evasive he can be, the easier it is to get people to fill in the blanks themselves.
You ask different folks what he means and they’ll have to think about it. I read one person here list a few of those things and they had nothing to do with anything he has ever said.
Any interviewer worth his salt catches onto that real fast. Heck even Leno had him squirming in his seat. The Hannity love fest was pathetic. I wondered why fred? was even there as Sean led him right to the answers. Heck, all fred? had to do was say….”Yup”…to just about ever comment Sean made. It was even worse in the Robinson interview. fred? actually started to state his position and then went off into his vague tangents until Robinson basically asked him for a yeah or nay answer about his position on certain issues.
AND on top of that, freds? position on the Iraq war is complete cowardice. He said, on several occasions, that he would be confident in the Iraq war as long as the troops were confident. Does anyone else see the absolute ignorance of the responsibilities of leadership it takes to hold an asinine position like that?
fred? is the least qualified candidate to be POTUS and his statements expose that most perfectly.
Since he is so good at speech making, I suggest when Rudy or Mitt! are POTUS, they create the new position of town crier for freddie boy to fill.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Ya, well, good luck on that.
boomer on July 8, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Why on Earth would women feel that having
menthe federal government force them to have a child the moment they got pregnant is a significant political issue? The reason why the abortion “debate” is so stupid is because you have two sides who can’t even agree what “life” is.Nonfactor on July 8, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Sold a bill of goods? Why did you vote for him a second time? Give me your number because I’ve got some Kirbys, Amway products as well as a little Mary Kay for the missus….
Bradky on July 8, 2007 at 9:19 PM
What irks me is this: If he says he wants to do ‘certain things’ then he has them ALREADY in mind. So saying that he is not a candidate [yet] is meaningless to me, because of that. In contrast, for example, Newt is not a candidate but he will gladly lay out his ideaology for you.
I can encapsulate most candidates with one or two lines: Rudy – WOT; Mitt – fiscal: “can’t wait to get my hands on Washington”; McCain – Aggreviate the base; Tancredo – Immigration; Hunter – Nat. Def, manufacturing, the wall. But Thompson who uses the line ‘certain things’, leaves it in the air, to where well intentioned supporters have to search his Senate record to project possible policy positions.
It’s not Iraq; he’s willing to follow there. It’s not fiscal policy if he’s not prepared to discuss the flat tax (says Novak, as discussed the other day). What does that leave that is a pressing issue on his mind where he thinks about the world he is leaving to his children? I don’t understand (well I do understand actually it’s the atmosphere he’s created) how he is leading or tied in polls without making that clear. It is a creation and projection of the populace that supports him – the refreshing optimism.
Call me crazy, but his connection to McCain makes me think he is probably, when all the fluff is taken away, a lot like him.
Re: the interviews. The one interview that impressed me was Cavuto. Hannity’s was completely unimpressive. I don’t mind Hannity’s generosity in leading him and setting him up, but compare that to when Hannity interviewed Rudy: Hannity set it up, Rudy spiked it. Hannity sets up Fred, Fred just kind of taps it back over the net.
He can put off getting in to the race like Newt, fine, but it just comes back to the same thing: What are these ‘certain things’?
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Just like the 19th century when evil Republicans were against “a southern gentleman’s right to own property”. Democrats have a long history of being…evil.
jaime on July 8, 2007 at 9:47 PM
That’s about as clear and concise as I have heard that articulated. It even makes better sense than the way I say it. :-)
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 9:48 PM
I agree that the Clinton’s are behind this. But they aren’t going to have to do very much. One thing the left can always count on is the conservatives eating their own when they perceive a betrayal of the faith. If this is true, even in the slightest, we (I in particular, and valued based conservatives like me) will destroy fred?. Look at what we did with McCain. fred? better be careful, because hell hath no fury as a conservative betrayed.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Bradky, my e-friend from the not-so-right, but also the not-so-left, for me the answer was simple “he was not John Kerry and there were only two in the race”.
Entelechy on July 8, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Amen! Hail to Hillary, the Chief!
Entelechy on July 8, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Ha. Thanks. If I may add just one more thought to that: I think we can also safely conclude that his ‘pressing issue’ is not immigration either.
That doesn’t even touch on the weaknesses which I’m willing to overlook, such as his lack of executive experience. That’s not a prerequisite for greatness, Lincoln had little citeable executive experience, but take for example his speech at the Cooper Institute, 27 Dec 1860, he shewed a crystal clear understanding of the constitutional issues of the day. Fred gave me McCain-Feingold.
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »