Fred advisor: He’ll announce “in the coming days;” other advisors “rule out July”
posted at 4:30 pm on July 17, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Either the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing or they’re just jerking us around now. Bad news, whichever it is. Says Rep. Zach Wamp, Fred’s top booster in Congress:
“My view is that he’ll enter the race at some point just in the coming days,” said Wamp, a key supporter of Thompson…
Thompson has long been expected to join the race and the Law & Order star has traveled the country and raised millions. He will take part in a large fundraising event in Washington, D.C. on July 29, but Wamp did not say when a formal announcement would come. The lawmaker said, however, that “a couple dozen members” of the House would publicly support Thompson at the event.
July 29th then, right? Nope:
Sources close to Fred Thompson say the former senator’s official entry into the presidential race with a Tennessee announcement day is “in flux.” Joining the presidential contest could “slip into early September” as advisors describe a September window as “certainly a possibility.” Notably, advisers “rule out July.”
Why? They say they do not see any benefit in getting in right away, and cite how well Thompson is doing in polling and undisclosed fundraising.
MM says she’s still undecided. Might not one but two members of the Hot Air team be sitting it out next fall? That would take something special.
Fortunately, it’s something we do not lack.
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]
Interestingly though, it usually takes longer than the slobbering love-fest over the non-candidate who is nothing but a windbag that parrots the talking points he steals from other conservatives.
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 8:58 PM
The fact that Fred hasn’t announced doesn’t worry me in the least. He’s going to announce and his numbers show he is a serious contender. I’m at the point where I think we have 3 opportunities to beat Hillary Obama Edwards, Fred, Rudy, and Mitt. For me the order would certainly be Fred, Mitt, Rudy but yours may certainly be different.
Maybe the rebel in me likes the fact that Fred isn’t running a “cookie cutter” race. His not announcing yet is causing a major amount of grief for the DEMs. Seems strange that Newt hasn’t announced and if he suddenly did his “delay” would be heralded as great strategy.
Buzzy on July 17, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Damn it. Who is advising him - James Carville?
It’s too late now. All he is doing is hurting the other GOP candidates.
This is going to be a tough fight next year, and I think we need to make sure the people who are actually running are in the best shape possible.
This is just beyond ridiculous.
reaganaut on July 17, 2007 at 9:08 PM
What does Fred think of Intelligent Design versus the evidence for Darwinian evolution as demonstrated by the detached pelvis and vestigal feet of the primordial whale-like creature Dorudon?
profitsbeard on July 17, 2007 at 9:10 PM
Almost. Mary Matalin is.
Spirit of 1776 on July 17, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Wait. So now the single issue you have been flailing Romney for and calling him a flip flopper is not important because you have finally discovered Fred had the exact same position? My, how you have evolved.
Now if you could just explain how Fred supported the worst assault on the 1st Amendment in the last few decades and how that makes him a great conservative, well that would be special. That POS doesn’t make Fred a RINO, it makes him a liberal.
JackStraw on July 17, 2007 at 9:36 PM
If Rudy has his way, nobody will have any guns at all (except metaphoric ones to put to Allah’s head), which is why he will never get my vote, nor will any other gun grabber.
And before anybody reminds me, yes I have heard his various recent “nuanced” statements about the 2nd, and how folks in the country are just plain different from urban sophisticates. Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it with me.
Herikutsu on July 17, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Herikutsu on July 17, 2007 at 10:13 PM
I think that is an interesting perspective. If the other GOP candidates where worthy then it wouldn’t matter what Fred does. If other candidates are being “hurt” then it’s because of their own shortcomings - which Rudy and Mitt have many.
Why does Fred have to participate in the same foolishness as the rest if he doesn’t have to? I think the primaries are too early and the campaigns start too early. Doesn’t it make sense for someone to best position themself to actually win? There will be plenty of opportunity to properly vet Fred in direct comparison to the rest.
It’s interesting how loudly those who obviously don’t support Fred are screaming for him to enter the race.
Weber48IDA on July 17, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Tell me what gets you all hot and bothered about Fred. I’m so sick of people who have no idea who this guy is and what he has done talk about the shortcomings of other candidates. Nobody has made a serious case for this guy other than he just sounds so nifty on Law and Order.
What do you want, some clown who knows how to game the system so he can get the nomination or someone who can stand on a record and beat not just his primary opponents, not just the Democratic candidate, but be a solid President on issues like the economy and the war on terror. What has Fred ever done to lead you to believe he has the ability to do this?
JackStraw on July 17, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Fred will never be the nominee. He’s catching up to his obscure reputation as a lazy person. Foolish
Baphomet on July 17, 2007 at 10:26 PM
And for all you conservatives who yap about gun grabbers, Ronald Reagan:
- Lobbied on behalf of the assault weapons ban
- Lobbied on behalf of the Brady Bill
- Allowed cop killer bullets, undetectable weapons and machine guns to become illegal
He did even more “gun grabbing” as Gov of liberal CA. So I guess that makes him a gun grabbing RINO,
Or maybe, just maybe, and I’m going way out on a limb here, you don’t know what you are talking about.
JackStraw on July 17, 2007 at 10:42 PM
It’s not that abortion itself is important to me, but Mitt’s opportunistic flip-flopping for the campaign including his opinion on Roe v Wade- which IS important to me as a bad decision is what disturbs me. I’ve not seen such a flip-flop from Fred; as far as I know his posistion really hasn’t changed much at all and he’s certainly not done the complete 180 FlipFlop Mitt has just in time for his campaign.
And I’ve explained my position on campaign finance and you know it- it was a bad call on Fred’s part and he’s said as much. I don’t have a problem with regulating campaign finance, but limiting the ability special interest groups- including those that take corporate funding- went too far. I understand the rationale, but would rather err on the side of the Constitution. We’ve no idea how the other candidates would’ve voted because they weren’t in the Senate; if that’s the worst thing that comes up in Fred’s record, I can live with it.
Hollowpoint on July 17, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Dude… no one who utters the words “cop killer bullets” or “undetectable weapons” has any idea what the debate is about or has a clue about firearms. Leave the matter to those who do.
Oh, and news flash: Reagan died. He’s not running.
Hollowpoint on July 17, 2007 at 10:49 PM
I knew I could smoke you out. Guns. They are your catnip.
Assault weapons ban.
Brady Bill.
Go ahead, tell me Reagan wasn’t as conservative as you.
JackStraw on July 17, 2007 at 10:54 PM
And yea, we have a damn good idea how people who believe in the Constitution would have voted on McCain Feingold.
They would have voted against it.
JackStraw on July 17, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Jack:
I appreciate the fact that you know what I don’t know and why I may or not know it. Fred is taking many deliberate steps to share what he thinks. So far I like everything I am hearing. My point was the near level of outrage (thanks for your post) that people seem to have for a guy that hasn’t even declared. “How dare he not declare!”
My point still stands regarding the other candidates. They’ve had plenty of time to seize the day. It may be that Fred isn’t up to the test. He will be questioned more about CFR - as well he should be from my conservative perspective.
I’m sorry you are so upset. My buddy is a White Sox fan and he feels the same way about the Cubs.
Weber48IDA on July 17, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Wouldn’t it have just saved time to say you have no idea what his record is but you hear he is way cool?
JackStraw on July 17, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Jack:
I didn’t know Bush was going to try to give away the country to illegals. What do any of us know when it comes to politicians?
Here’s what I do know:
I know Rudy is a liberal that likes a strong defense. I know Mitt will sway in the wind. I know Ron Paul is nuts. I know that if Duncan Hunter can hang in there he might get another look. I know that of any of them, Fred Thompson has the best mix of representing my views and beating Hillary Clinton.
Winning matters. Whining doesn’t.
Weber48IDA on July 17, 2007 at 11:13 PM
You’re missing the point. fred? wants it both ways and that is an affront to conservative ideals.
fred? brags about his poll numbers. Ya know what? fred? sounds like a AA ball player bragging that he has more homers than a major leaguer.
fred? lies about his pro-choice/pro-life flip-flop.
fred? fakes out his supporters with a fake red pickup trucked he leased.
fred? was a major player in CFR.
fred? lobbied against American citizens who had been victimized by unscrupulous companies.
fred? lobbied for a dictator.
fred? lobbied for a failed nuclear power plant that cost the tax payers 1.7 billion dollars.
fred? has no executive experience.
fred? did next to nothing in the senate. Except CFR.
fred? cannot speak extemporaneously.
fred? is clueless when it comes to the Cuban immigration issue.
So, that IS freds? record and the question still stands…..WHAT exactly has the guy done except give speeches?
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 11:13 PM
If there were not a stunning paucity of leadership in the country these days, I’d say that timing one’s campaign wouldn’t matter. In that case, I wouldn’t care if he announced in December. However, there are some fairly critical issues on the table right now, and by not declaring his campaign, participating in debates, etc. he’s willingly avoiding some of his opportunities to provide the kind of leadership that’s needed. Maybe he can’t do so, but it’s worth a try. Isn’t it?
Big S on July 17, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Really? Tell me all you know about Fred. I’m dying to hear.
Please especially tell me why you favor someone who has assaulted the 1st Amendment. It’s kind of important. That’s why it was 1st.
JackStraw on July 17, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Also, and this is really, really important to me so put some time into your answer, what makes you think Fred can beat Hillary? Hell, Rudy was beating her in NY before he dropped out because of testicular cancer so it should be a snap for you to tell me why a guy with almost an invisible record could whomp her.
NASCAR Dad’s don’t count. Ron Paul could win those.
JackStraw on July 17, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Jack:
I’ve never met Fred Thompson. But I do know that no matter what I say it won’t be enough for you. Conservative Union rating? Not enough. Views on Federalism? Not enough. Calling out Radical Islam for the threat that it is to our way of life? Not enough. I think you just need to come to the realization that I’m stupid. It will help you cope.
I think CFR was a big mistake but I also understand what they were trying to do. I think he got mud on his face and he knows it. And I think when he steps into the spotlight he will need to explain it. FYI… Reagan was a Democrat. People make mistakes. Except, I suspect - “your guy”.
Weber48IDA on July 17, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Mitt! Romney:
fred? “empty suit” Thompson:
hahaha What’s that freddie boy? Sleep in the Lincoln bedroom? Slide down a banister? Ride in Air Force One?
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 11:50 PM
You might be right but unfortunately I don’t think we will lack for “critical issues” anytime soon. That day will come soon enough and then people will find something else to be in crisis mode about and will forget there was a time when Fred wasn’t a candidate. I think there is a lot that remains to be seen about Fred Thompson. Whatever the case, it will all sort out soon enough.
Weber48IDA on July 17, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Oh cry me a river. This place has been a non-stop Fred reach around for months. Not one person has ever said a single substanative thing in his favor but it never stops them, or you, for pointing out the flaws of ever other candidate. And thats the point.
Every other candidate has had the stones to throw his hat in the ring and get tested. Every other candidate has been willing to put his record on the line and get hammered by his fellow Republicans, the media and their opponents. Everyone but Fred.
He isn’t testing the water. It’s not a shock that their is an election coming up in 2008. This is his strategy, stay out as long as possible and not have to defend his crappy record and build his myth in the press through podcasts and speechs. Amd most of the people here are buying it and have been calling the other candidates and those who support them garbage for months. Boo hoo for you.
If Fred doesn’t have the stones to face his primary opponents and run on his record he will get destroyed in the general. And given his record, I could care less.
JackStraw on July 18, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Can’t say this gently. You’re wrong, and foolishly so. Did you not read the full comment? 15 months. ANYBODY is electable, if Clinton was. Don’t believe the hype.
California elected Arnold because they didn’t believe Mcclintock was electable, even though virtually every conservative asked preferred him. And what did California get? A RINO on steroids. Don’t believe the hype.
Freelancer on July 18, 2007 at 12:08 AM
You know what all this “I’m announcing that I’m gonna announce that I’m in sometime later” reminds of all those losers who offer their girlfriends promise rings instead of just going ahead and popping the question.
Joshua P. Allem on July 18, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Never said I idolized Reagan either. Even if I thought he was the best Republican president of all time (and I am not saying that I do)that doesn’t mean I think he was perfect. He had some good points, so do the others, Including Rudy.
When looking at any politician I always envision an old fashioned balance scale with the good points on one side and the bad points on the other. Each point is weighted. For me it takes a whole heap of good points to even come close to compensating for a gun grabbing history.
Since the 2nd is at the very core of our liberties, you mess with it and you are messing with the very thing that this nation is about. A person can’t preach liberty and gun control at the same time without having some critical contradictions in their thinking. This is not an area that I am willing to compromise on.
If you don’t agree, oh well.
Well said Hollowpoint!
Also, machine guns are not entirely illegal at the federal level. Such weapons were first regulated in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and required a federal excise tax of $200 to transfer ownership. Generally, these are known as Title II or Class III weapons. This was followed by the Gun Control act of 1968, which basically made it illegal to import any Class III weapons (only sporting weapons could be imported).
Then the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 basically made it illegal for a civilian to own any Class III gun made after 1986. Actually, using their typical sneaky methods, the law did not exactly outlaw the ownership of the newer Class III weapons. Instead it prohibited the BATFE (knows at the ATF at the time) from accepting the tax for the transfer of ownership of a machine gun, an automatic sear, or any other mechanism that would allow for automatic fire. So the transfer isn’t illegal, just they won’t accept payment so the paperwork can’t get processed.
Gotta love them boys in DC.
As far as the older Class III firearms go, anybody who meets some basic criteria (no felonies, not insane, etc.) and who can pay the tax can own one - provided you live in a state that allows them, such as Nevada or Mississippi. Other states (for example California) do not permit ownership at all.
I know several people in Nevada who legally own machine guns, including a totally awesome restored Tommy gun.
Herikutsu on July 18, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Part of the problem is that his supporters, and to some extent the candidate himself, have made it about Fred Thompson, instead of about issues that are of great importance. He spends just as much time making announcements about announcements as he does outlining policy positions. The discussion has started, and other candidates are fighting it out. It’s OK to decide late, but once you have made your decision (as he said he has, and I assume it’s that he’s running), why not just go for it?
They’ll also forget about his oh so perfect announcement of candidacy, so he should just get it over with and say something useful. If he’s as awesome as some people say, it won’t matter.
Big S on July 18, 2007 at 12:15 AM
Lincoln.
Big S on July 18, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Dude-
Would you like me to be more specific?
Why do you support weapons that can pass through metal detectors?
Why do you support teflon coated bullets?
Why do you support armor piercing bullets?
How are any of these conservative or better yet, protected by the 2nd Amendment? I breathlessly await your answer as does the Supreme Court.
Since you clearly have no idea about the 1st Amendment, I don’t expect your answer to this to be any more logical than “I want my guns!”.
Compelling.
JackStraw on July 18, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Amen and Amen. The base is moving toward a tent the size of a pup tent. May be for different reasons than you but getting spoon fed that we just must support someone who might be the next Reagan is insulting.
I think the Republicans are lining themselves up for a royal beating next year. The base can blame all the so called RINOS and Independents who sat out, but at the end of the day the results will be stunning. Maybe then, more than opinion or view will be acceptable to the base again.
Bradky on July 18, 2007 at 12:52 AM
should have read more than one opinion or view…
Bradky on July 18, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Epiphany! I just found out when Fred? is going to announce!
Fred? will announce so soon as the last republican primary debate is over, then run a mad dash campaign in the last few weeks before the vote.
This way he gets to keep his bold “leader” position by hailing his cowardly cop out to the end as what is actually a brilliant “brave, original, unique” strategy, while still being able to smoke some cigars with Hannity and Leno and write more essays. It’s the perfect plan! Fred? gets to avoid tough questions, ride his Law & Order fueled high poll numbers, and come in as the dark horse in the eleventh hour!
Remember kiddies, being a leader means entering a race at the last minute after all the other guys have already beaten each other up in meaningless debates that are designed as dog-and-pony shows, not actual forums where candidates answer tough questions relevant to the job of President of the United States.
Vote for the Eleventh hour dark horse with the Fifth hour shadow: Vote Fred? Thompson.
BKennedy on July 18, 2007 at 5:27 AM
freds? constant teasing of his “announcement” date appeals to a certain supporter that will do all his dirty work by making BS excuses to the rest of us who want to know what fred? will say when his rhetoric is challenged and he is put on record.
Here are a few of the issues that fred? has been forced to, or accidentally has, put himself on record for and are coming back to bite him in the a$$……..
1) We already know how he feels about Iraq. If his family friends who are serving in Iraq are discouraged, then fred? will be discouraged. fred? also believes that the possibility of unreasonable measures might need to be taken to win the war in Iraq, AND HE WILL NOT USE THOSE MEASURES.
2) Abortion. In 1994 fred? was pro-choice. In 2007 fred? is pro-life, and worse yet, he says he has always been with the pro-life crowd.
3) It has been reported that in 1991 he lobbied for a pro-choice group. When confronted with this, he first had no recollection, then he denied it, now he says it doesn’t matter because of some BS about attorneys and everyones right to representation, etc.
4) fred? again uses the BS attorney/representation line when defending his 20+ year questionable lobbying career, YET, when it comes to the Roberts lobbying, he tosses the attorney/representation line out the window and uses his efforts to prove what kind of Justice he will appoint as POTUS.
fred? is obviously confused with reality and the TV roles he has played. Real life doesn’t work the way his TV show worked. In his TV show, the fans want to believe what they are presented with and suspend believability to make sure that happens. Real people are smarter than that. They can smell a rat a mile away, and the minute fred? has to start taking positions, his ratishness will be clear and his poll numbers will fall faster than a guys erection after one look at a buck naked Helen Thomas!
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Though delayed gratification can be a good thing(waiting…waiting….) it often times can be rather anti-climatic.
captivated_dem on July 18, 2007 at 10:00 AM
For you fred?heads out there.
This is the difference between doing stuff, which Mitt! does, and talking out your ass, which is what freddie boy does.
You are more than welcome to list freds? doings. And puuulllease, no more references to his rhetoric.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]