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
Share on Facebook | 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 Next »
Yes, don’t vote Fred. Don’t vote any conservative. Don’t vote at all. Let all the radical lefties, who are all sure to vote, many multiple times, do the voting for you. That way, when Hillary wins, you will have much more material to blog about. Very clever.
jihadwatcher on July 17, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Oh you’ll be at the polls and driving the elderly to cast a vote for Fred. No way you sit out a race featuring the Glacier. No, way.
Fred’s keeping them guessing. He’ll let the Dems fall flat on Iraq and announce in September (coincidentally Patraeus will be talking about the glowing developments in al-Anbar around the same time =) ). After the Summer holidays and such. The perfect time, when people will be paying attention to the Presidential race again.
Theworldisnotenough on July 17, 2007 at 4:35 PM
No complaining when the much hyped blue tide sweeps over then, I assume.
:-)
Good Lt on July 17, 2007 at 4:35 PM
You want me to vote for any crap the GOP serves up, even if I don’t find it appetizing? James Dobson gets to draw lines in the sand. How come I don’t?
Allahpundit on July 17, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Trust me. I’m a man of my word.
Allahpundit on July 17, 2007 at 4:38 PM
So, AP. You’re a New Yorker. Is there something about your experience living with Rudy as an executive that keeps you from backing him? Something other than what we already know of him? Just curious.
Slublog on July 17, 2007 at 4:41 PM
I think Fred will announce after the September 17th debate on CNN. It allows him to create a conspicuous absence to try to marginalize the debate and the candidate. That will serve the purpose of framing him as missing puzzle piece for Sept 27th or Oct 14th.
I apologize if that sounds convoluted, I mean it as in much the same way a film doesn’t always introduce the hero in the first frame, I think Fred will try to set up the same dynamic to create the same sense of ‘now the real story begins.’
Spirit of 1776 on July 17, 2007 at 4:42 PM
If we all felt that way, then we might as well welcome the Democrat overlords. Just sayin’ is all.
Ever see that South Park, where the election is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich? You’re Stan.
And I like Stan, and Stan was right in that episode to hold out and vote his conscience.
But also keep in mind the moral of the episode – that every election since the beginning of time has been between some giant douche and some turd sandwich. We aren’t given much of a choice, so picking the lesser of two evil, it would seem, is the most utilitarian option for a discouraged neeeeeocon.
Or put another way, you can have crappy GOPer X, or Hillary Clinton. Your choice. I know what I don’t want.
Hey, bro. You’re still cool. I know you’ll be knocking the decision around in the coming year.
Good Lt on July 17, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Does it really matter to anyone when Fred! enters? I mean really. In the grand scheme of things, what does it matter to you? In what way does it greatly affect your life? If you like him or if you don’t, your still going to vote the same way when he enters.
Vaporman87 on July 17, 2007 at 4:44 PM
He’s the best candidate, he will enter the race, it’s just a matter of time.
Hopefully Fred! is as well endowed with ba**s, I mean, guts, as HA staff.
congsan on July 17, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Is this really upsetting? I mean, really? I didn’t know that a person thinking about dedicating the next 16 months or so of his life to intense public scruntiny had to be on your time schedule.
VolMagic on July 17, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Why would a positive report stop them? They, along with several members of the GOP, pushed for amnesty when only 22% of the nation approved of it. They’re approval ratings are at 14% because their base wants to end the war now, regardless of what Patraeus says. Reid gets his marching orders from Moveon.org – not the American public.
On the contrary, it will start heating up around then. Patraeus will come back with his report, and controversy will swirl. It will be debated on every news network as to whether we should stay based upon his report. The media will be analyzing what Patraeus says, and what it means. Patraues isn’t going to come back, say “Everything’s Doing Great” and the Democrats will back down and admit they’re wrong.
amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Okay, let’s get this very, VERY clear.
2000: The liberals lose. They cry foul over and over, dragging the recounts out till the cows came home. Referred ever since to the “stolen” election. We rolled our eyes because of what sore losers they were.
2004: The liberals lose again. Still some cries of “rigged” and “fixed”, but the vast majority could do the math. Many, MANY liberals sink into despondent states, stunned, saying that voting was “worthless” because they didn’t win. Lots of logically-minded people wonder how much more worthwhile it is to not vote at all, and still lose.
2008: Allah stays at home because he would rather not vote at all, rather than vote for someone OTHER than Hillary or Obama or Silky, regardless of how much better anyone in the Repubs would be. Allah goes to the bar and knocks back a couple with the misery-mired liberals of 2004.
Oops, wait. They’re not there. They’re out voting for Hillary/Obama/Silky because they heard that conservatives are just going to abandon the voting booths. Hillary clinches a huge win thanks to the large-scale missing vote count of the conservative movement, including the blogosphere. The world sees the United States as the newest entrant to the European Union. True martial law is enacted under the auspices of the United Nations.
Allah, for christ’s sake. When you’re starving, do you turn down a piece of bread because it’s stale?
MadisonConservative on July 17, 2007 at 4:50 PM
You seem to not understand how things work. It is not a question of eating what you like. It is a question of which would you allow to be injected into your system, considering one of two substances is going to be shoved down your throat. Either you eat Kraft Dinner or you eat hemlock. If you refuse the Kraft Dinner, because you are above that, being as KD can be slow to come to boil, say bon appetite to hemlock for you and your countrymen.
Blogging about politics in a critical way only has merit, and your views credibility, if you do your part at the polls. Anyone who couldn’t be bothered, hasn’t a shred of moral certitude upon which to pontificate.
jihadwatcher on July 17, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Sorry, but I’m not gonna dismiss Fred just because he’s not announcing soon enough to suit me.
flipflop on July 17, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Vaporman87 on July 17, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Wow, even our wording is similar.
VolMagic on July 17, 2007 at 4:51 PM
He’s paper thin. Like Wamp says at the end of the Hill piece, he’s running on fumes. He’s got two accomplishments: reducing crime in New York and showing all kinds of poise after 9/11. He’ll be remembered forever for both, but if not for the latter no one would be taking him seriously. And surely poise isn’t the key criterion for president. It’s necessary but not sufficient.
Gun to my head, if I had to choose one, I’d choose him, though. The rest are all interchangeable to me, speaking in the same soundbites, pandering to the same groups.
Allahpundit on July 17, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Because Hillary’s already raised over $65 million. Fred isn’t going to join, and everyone’s going to pour their money into his campaign. Notice in that “None of the Above” poll, Fred Thompson is included in the “None of the Above”. Without money, the Clinton machine will be able to slander him on national television day in, and day out, and those who don’t follow politics on a normal basis – the swing voters – won’t know otherwise.
amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Way to stay on message team Thompson!
Valiant on July 17, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Right. I mean, who cares if he does things in his time, instead of the time of the American people?
amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Yeah, I’ve been hearing this argument for six years now: “Vote GOP just to keep the Dems out.” The Republican leadership trusts you to think that way; that’s how come they feel entitled to line up en masse on the side of amnesty. What are you gonna do, vote Hillary?
They’ll continue to dump on you and betray you and display all manner of incompetence so long as they know you’re too afraid of a Democrat to consider disciplining them. The fact is, the next president’s not going to be expand the war no matter which party he/she comes from because we simply don’t have the men and money to do it.
Allahpundit on July 17, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Interesting. If 9/11 had not happened, I’m not sure he would have been remembered that fondly for reducing crime, given how far his stock was falling at the end of his second term.
For all his faults, I can’t help but like the guy. He was on Beck this morning and did extremely well.
Slublog on July 17, 2007 at 4:57 PM
I did’nt want to vote for Bush nor Kerry last election…but I do think it wise to vote against what I consider the worse of two evils…so I voted against Kerry…
DCJeff on July 17, 2007 at 4:57 PM
I lived in New York back in the eighties and it absolutely amazes me how Rudy cleaned up Manhattan…my biggest worry with him is the two looming Supreme Court seats…
DCJeff on July 17, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Fred will announce in the coming days of the year 2011, but we’re not sure if it will actually be July or August. It might be never.
It doesn’t matter anyway. I have no reason to support Fred over any other candidate. No experience, just a load of talk.
BKennedy on July 17, 2007 at 4:59 PM
I trust that, but have you really decided to stay home already? We’ve still got so much time left.
Esthier on July 17, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Gimme gimme gimme!!!!!!
Some of you guys sound like your tickets to the World Series game 7 got mailed to President Chavez and the vendor won’t return your phone calls.
I’ll vote for whoever is on the ballot.
Limerick on July 17, 2007 at 5:04 PM
True, but you have to remember something else. Despite criticism, he was reelected in New York City by 60% of the vote. That was in 1997 – 4 years before 9/11.
amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 5:05 PM
I don’t really regard announcing his candidacy as the “doing work of the American people”, as Clinton was so fond of saying. Now, if elected, and he drags his feet or hems and haws over key decisions, that’s another story.
I think he’s playing some game here, and I don’t pretend to be smart enough to know what it is.
flipflop on July 17, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Yeah, I’m talking of the last six months or so when it was all bad news. Doesn’t change my opinion of the guy, though. I saw him speak in 2004 and was impressed. He’s not afraid to throw out the sarcasm and fight the Democrats.
After seven years of mush from the Bush administration, I’m ready for a scrapper.
Slublog on July 17, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Slublog on July 17, 2007 at 5:07 PM
I think we all are. I also think we should give the man time to do what he needs to do, then let’s see what kind of a candidate he turns out to be.
jdawg on July 17, 2007 at 5:16 PM
I believe he is waiting on ‘events’. Smart or dumb…well I dunno. I’ve been around long enough to not have People Magazine disease. SuperTuesday will sort it all out.
Limerick on July 17, 2007 at 5:17 PM
I’m a Giuliani supporter, so take this with a grain of salt. His record goes back further than his time as Mayor of NYC, from his stint in the Justice Department. I think he did good things there, too, although some are likely to disagree. From my perspective, he has done about as good a job as could be done within his relatively narrow jurisdictions so far, a quality that does not extend to the other GOP candidates (with the possible exception of Romney; I don’t know enough about him or Mass. to judge.) If you call his record “paper thin”, it’s more of an assertion that the NYC mayoralty and a position as associate Attorney General (or whatever the title was) is not sufficient qualification for the Presidency.
Big S on July 17, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Who said anything about the war in Iraq? Let it end, is my view. But surely there is a big difference between Fred Thompson/Rudy and Hillary or Obama bin laden. If there is no significant difference between the two, between how they would run the country, between who they would promote to positions of power, between how they would influence the biggest issues of our time, including the defensive war on the global jihad then why, pray tell, does Hotair run pictures, stories and angles predominantly hostile to Democrats? Surely, even a disillusioned conservative can appreciate the fundamental difference between conservative and liberal candidates if not between their respective Republican and Democrat parties. That is the salient point.
Not voting Republican does not send any meaningful message of change, as you suggest. What it does do is the opposite. It not only puts the lefties in charge of the whole world for four years, but the message that it sends is that America agrees with the Leftist message, the very message this blog rails against. So what will the republicans do in response? Become more conservative, as per your theory? No, they will become even more liberal to try to win back the American electorate that seemed to drift leftward.
If turning America towards conservative ways is your goal, and I don’t know if it is, then vote for the most right-of-center candidate. At least then, even if your candidate loses, you have sent your message of change as recorded by the votes. Not voting, sends no such message.
Right now I believe the most conservative candidate is Tom Tancredo. But since he can’t be elected, I believe the next best ideological choice is Tancredo. Thompson may not be pure like Tancredo, but he sure won’t be McCain, and he certainly will not be Hillary. That should mean a lot when eight years of Bush has been the conservative equivalent of eight years of Clinton. If you believe Thompson is no more conservative than Hillary, then vote for Tancredo.
But no view has value intellectually unless you vote. It would in fact be better, morally, if you voted for Hillary, than not vote at all. At least then you can say you stood for something.
jihadwatcher on July 17, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Make that Thompson.
jihadwatcher on July 17, 2007 at 5:23 PM
KD, eh? You Canadian?
Big S on July 17, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Aside from a few left-appeasing stunts early on as gov, and studying up on some civil engineering, Romney was out to lunch most of his term.
Rudy is a mixed bag, and he’s certainly been tested. We can pretty much judge by now where he stands.
I will likely end up supporting Fred, but he’s a real Wild Card. He may be Everything, but he may turn out to be a dud, and all the air will be taken out of the GOP primary.
cadetwithchips2 on July 17, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Time for another hit piece on that coward fred?. If he’s too scared to get in the game then we’ll have to shame him into defending himself again.
And MM is undecided? Does that mean that liar fred? is still a consideration for her?
Say it ain’t so!
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Is KD a Canadian dish? I thought that was the staple of kids across the entire continent.
jihadwatcher on July 17, 2007 at 5:29 PM
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Good gawd, that didn’t take long.
jdawg on July 17, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Look! Br… Nice hair!
km on July 17, 2007 at 5:29 PM
jihadwatcher on July 17, 2007 at 5:29 PM
heh.
I remember eating that when I was a kid, back in …. oh, never mind ;-}
jdawg on July 17, 2007 at 5:30 PM
i fear you are correct- but if and only if we lose, cross our arms, pout and stomp our feet, all the while whining to each other that the party isn’t listening to us.
The other option is to crack down like we did on the Meirs nomination, and on Shamnesty, then we may [may] have real chance at reforming our party.
We got results then. Why not in ‘08 and beyond?
cadetwithchips2 on July 17, 2007 at 5:32 PM
I grew up in the USA and moved to Canada for a bit before coming back. I had always known it as Krft Mac and Cheese, but up there, they referered to it as Kraft Dinner (apparently, the original name of the product.) The whole ad campaign up there revolves around the slogan “Gotta be KD!” and it’s even more ubiquitous than it is here.
Big S on July 17, 2007 at 5:32 PM
I had KD today. And that is not just metaphorically a vote for Thompson. I actually like the stuff.
jihadwatcher on July 17, 2007 at 5:33 PM
cadetwithchips2 on July 17, 2007 at 5:32 PM
I sometimes think folks would rather just sit it out and ~teach~ those rascally Republicans something, even if it means submitting the country to sharia law, after the Dhims surrender to bin Laden.
That really worked well in 2006, didn’t it?
jdawg on July 17, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Come on guys, remember what Diddy said:
VOTE OR DIE.
Doesn’t that mean anything to you?
Dork B. on July 17, 2007 at 5:35 PM
By that time, it’s too late. Campaigns are supposed to gauge how they’ll act as President. It’s a job interview. Say you have someone come in for a job interview. The person you’re interviewing will be the CEO of your company, should he get the job. When he comes in, he has ketchup stains all over his shirt, his dress shirt is untucked, his hair is all rustled, he’s talking on his cell phone, and has a small resume.
Do you hire him, and hope he does a great job representing the company at corporate functions? Now, say if you hire him, you can’t fire him for four years. Now, I’m not saying Fred is sloppy, but he sure is taking his sweet time walking into our office, when we’re the ones he has to impress.
amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Call me old-fashioned but I think that those who sit out have no grounds to complain…
DCJeff on July 17, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Dork B. on July 17, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Being a Trek fan, I could see some Klingon saying that…
jdawg on July 17, 2007 at 5:40 PM
This is exactly the point. This election is too important to boycott out of some haughty notion that no candidate deserves your conservative vote, when the result of such a boycott by any conservative might result in some institutional changes that could never come about without lefties in power.
jihadwatcher on July 17, 2007 at 5:41 PM
The big difference between reps and dems are the judges they (usually) nominate to the SCOTUS. There are huge differences for the most part.
Aren’t there ANY issues that are important to you that would encourage you to vote for the rep candidate that gets the nomination because of the potential conservative swing the court would have for the next 20 years?
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 5:41 PM
amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 5:39 PM
While I like your CEO analogy, I don’t think it fits here. There’s nothing that says a candidate MUST declare by a certain date. This season is way too early, anyway. I think most folks will be burned out long before it’s over.
jdawg on July 17, 2007 at 5:43 PM
OTOH, maybe him and I just haven’t agreed on a date and time for the interview. ;-)
flipflop on July 17, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Fred Fatigue. Getting. Very. Sleepy.
Labamigo on July 17, 2007 at 5:44 PM
I am far more apt to vote for someone wholeheartedly devoted to winning the war on terror. All else is secondary- without victory, all other issues at home are moot.
Win first, then resume our national in-fighting.
cadetwithchips2 on July 17, 2007 at 5:45 PM
To follow up on amerpundit’s sloppy candidate analogy…I do find the disconnect in his organization vis a vis the timing of his announcement a bit troubling.
flipflop on July 17, 2007 at 5:45 PM
jihadwatcher on July 17, 2007 at 5:41 PM
This particular election is WAY too important to sit out. What’s at stake?
1) The 1st Amendment (Fairness Doctrine)
2) The 2nd Amendment
3) Oh, heck, the whole darned Constitution. If Hitlery gets elected you can bet she’ll rule by fiat.
jdawg on July 17, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Would that interview happen to come anytime before, say, November 2008?
It’s early, I agree. But that doesn’t mean Fred can enter when it usually starts, and expect to be on par with all of the other candidates of both parties. Hillary’s raised $63,075,927. Obama’s raised $58,912,520. That’s money they already have, which they can use to attack Republicans.
Fred isn’t, as I’ve said before, just going to start seeing money pouring in as soon as he declares. I point, again, to the fact that Fred was among those “None of the Above”, and he hasn’t even answered the tough questions in a debate.
amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Hmmm, I wonder if a MM/AP ticket is out of the question (of course, you’d have to give up anonymity, and I am assuming that you’ll be at least 35 on 1/20/2009, and do NOT suggest me, even though I do meet the minimum Constitutional requirements).
If one is upset by the virtual-singular choice offered by the bipartisan Party-In-Government, one is obligated to create an alternative. The Federalists and the Whigs each fell in their turn. Who said the Pubbies had to survive?
steveegg on July 17, 2007 at 5:56 PM
It’s the judges. Stevens and Ginsburg aren’t going to make it through another 8-year presidency. Whoever is president next will very likely shape the SCOTUS for decades to come with those two appointments. Do NOT let a Dem make those two appointments!!!
aero on July 17, 2007 at 5:56 PM
My daughter and I went on her class trip to D.C. and the surrounding area. One day was spent in NYC. We both hated it. It was the worse part of the trip. How could anything good come out of that place?
Rose on July 17, 2007 at 5:57 PM
amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 5:54 PM
In all honesty, has anyone really answered any _tough_ questions?
jdawg on July 17, 2007 at 5:57 PM
When have we (or they) ever had a PERFECT candidate? Fred is the closest thing we’ve got to a REAL (provable) conservative. Take him out of the mix and they are all either RINO’s, new converts, or worse. Romney and Rudy are OK but I think they would ultimately strengthen the wishy-washy Rockefeller wing of the party and further alienate the right. Fred may not have a PERFECT past but he’s head and shoulders above the rest. Fred at least gets this: the base is the strength and the future of this party. And don’t forget, he CAN communicate very well.
edgehead on July 17, 2007 at 6:00 PM
You didn’t see it in the 80s, did you? I used to live in New York – I left because of how bad it was. My street was so dangerous, I couldn’t go outside and leave my cats in the house alone. Why? Because I did once, and it was robbed. One of my cats got out, and I never saw him again.
I ended up getting robbed and almost shot. That was the final straw.
I returned in the late 90s, and my street is lined with beautiful trees, and people were walking down the block with their kids. The subways had all of the graffiti cleaned off, and the city overall was clean.
amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 6:01 PM
To not vote at all to punish your party, is futile. They don’t care if you drop out of the game. The game still continues without you. At least get the ball to your team and work on how it’s played later.
Our responsibilities as self-governing citizens do not end at the voting booth. That is only step one. Step two is making your voice heard after the elections. Punish them with phone calls, letters, e-mails, faxes, lobbying, videos, blogs, and active participation in some way to hold government as well as political parties accountable. Politicians listen to polls and are miserably (but effectively) susceptible to pressure. When we keep the pressure on, they cave.
Don’t sit out the game, VOTE!
blue sky on July 17, 2007 at 6:02 PM
BTW, I’m not saying Giuliani planted trees along my street. I’m just saying that it was safe enough that people actually went out in their gardens and planted them.
Giuliani’s answered questions about abortion. Mitt’s answered about his religion. Even John McCain answered about immigration, even though it wasn’t what we wanted to hear. All of the candidates answered about Scooter Libby.
amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 6:03 PM
All you have to do is look at the results of 2006 to see what sitting out 2008 would do for conservative ideas.
How many analyses (except on talk radio) say “too RINO” for the GOP losses? Or is it always “the Iraq War” and “Culture of Corruption” that get the blame? I suspect much of the pro-amnesty and Iraq surrender talk is based on taking the temperature of those who actually voted.
No matter how vile the choice we have to make in the voting booth, it is important to remember that politicians will always choose to pander to whomever will reliably vote for them. Votes, not passionate ideas, are the center of gravity. Those citizens arrogant enough to have “values” and “core beliefs” are of limited interest, because the system selects for those who would prefer the comfort of a well-bought precinct. This is simply never going to change, we will never “win back the party” because the fight for good can never be won, only fought.
But we can win some small battles. Even if we can’t make it good, we can make it better. So we either get on one side of the rope and pull like hell, or we sit on the sidelines.
But remember, if you sit out, you don’t get the complimentary orange ribbon that says “Everyone’s Special! Great Job, Buckaroo!”
a4g on July 17, 2007 at 6:06 PM
amerpundit,
If that’s the case I applaud Rudy. I wish that someone would do that to Los Angeles. It just keeps getting worse and worse. We live in Ventura county so it’s not too bad. But how sad that Los Angeles has gone so far down hill. I still have trouble trusting Rudy on the judges but I will not sit out this election whoever it is. I just hope the Republican candidate is someone I can wholeheartedly support.
Rose on July 17, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Not just now, but all along.
Liam on July 17, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Fred said in an interview that he had already made his mind up. He just wouldn’t make the announcement just yet. Fred has not declared by now, not because he is undecided, but because he, and his handlers, feel that opportune time has not yet arrived. That means he is taking this very seriously. He is putting more strategy into this than anyone in the past I can think of.
Remember history. In July 1992, Ross Perot lead in the polls for the election over both Bush and Clinton, with 39%. Perot did not announce his independent candidacy until February of that year! February. And in a mere 6 months, he rocketed to the top of the polls on the strength of his charisma and charm alone. (Unfortunately for Ross, he pulled out for his daughter’s wedding, starting acting weird, and never recovered from that debacle.)
Of course, Fred presumably would run as a Republican and would need to win the nomination, but the salient point is that a mere 6 months is the difference between Joe Six Pack never having heard of you and you becoming a household name.
Perhaps if he ran as an independent, he would make an even bigger splash. A lot of people are looking for an independent right now but lack one for want of finding one with any name brand recognition that is not a crank. Fred could fill that void.
jihadwatcher on July 17, 2007 at 6:18 PM
blue sky on July 17, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Worse, in this election, to not vote is to vote for surrender, Marxism, high(er)taxes, an Imperial Presidency held by Hitlery, socialized medicine, and bye-bye freedom of speech – and that’s just the FIRST 100 minutes…
amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 6:03 PM
OK, maybe so, at least on the Republican side. I’m still willing to give Fred! a chance to get into the game and see how he does.
jdawg on July 17, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Rose on July 17, 2007 at 6:09 PM
He’s right. The difference is like night and day. Unfortunately, it seems to have peaked, and there has been a little bit of backsliding (but not too much) in the past three or four years.
Big S on July 17, 2007 at 6:22 PM
With the exception of Scooter Libby, I’m not sure those are such tough questions- they all would’ve anticipated they would’ve been asked long before the debate. Even then Rudy sort of screwed the pooch with the abortion question with his unsure “it would be OK” if Roe v Wade was overturned.
I don’t recall who said what, but the impression I got regarding the Scooter question in the debates was a lot of dodging instead of coming out with a solid position. Though an unpopular stance with the general public, I appreciated that Fred has taken a firm stance on the issue.
That said, I do think Fred should take place in the next debate or risk being taken to task for skipping it, and rightfully so.
Hollowpoint on July 17, 2007 at 6:22 PM
There is no way I’ll pass up the opportunity to vote against Hillary Clinton.
Dork B. on July 17, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Oh for crissakes, Fred, get on with it already.
Either spit or get off the pot.
Im sure that he knows that the day he announces is the peak he will be in the polls; once folks start examining his record, and his role in passing CFR, he wont be quite the Golden Boy after all.
Always Right on July 17, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Well, that leaves fred? out.
Watch this interview and you’ll see the impatience the interviewer has with him. fred? generalizes during almost the entire interview.
The first question dealt with some asinine statement fred? made about globalization etc. freds? response? We are at a crossroads in maby respects. But he doesn’t specifically say what they are and how he plans on addressing them. Robinson dismisses him right away and looks to his notes to ask another question. That was a perfect example of fred? putting together lots of flowery words designed to baffle people, yet address nothing.
Tax code. Again, he says NOTHING except to parrot what others have already said. He says there is “lots to do”. Oh really freddie boy? And what would that entail? Empty suit answer…THEN robinson gives fred? several specific ways to finally answer his question, and what does fred? do? hahaha He agrees with a general principle that someone else had already said! Move along, move along, nothing to see folks.
next question!
How do you handle Iraq?
fred? blows it by exposing himself as a vacuous wannabe non-candidate who has no real answers unless he can prepare them for a podcast.
I especially like how he will abdicate his responsibility for the direction of the war to his two family friends and their feelings. As long as they have optimism and hope, then he will. Yeah, fred? ask your family friends what you should do in Iraq based on their experiences in their very small area of operation. And forget how that would play within the region, all that matters is their “feelings”. What a jerk off! As if the feelings of the troops in the Kurdish north would be the same as those in the worst parts of Iraq!
That’s as much as I could stomach today, but thats about half the “interview”. fred? is a coward, a fake, and a liar, and he needs to get in this race so we can propoerly dispatch him back to the same regions Ron Paul is destined for.
I wonder if fred? has this video linked to his website for all the groupies, fred?heads, and his regular supporters to watch?
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 6:26 PM
I forget how young some of you are, this has been going on for decades (not just 6 years). The dems do it to the blacks and Jews every election, they take them for granted because they know they won’t vote Republican.
right2bright on July 17, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Simply because they were expected questions, doesn’t mean they weren’t difficult. Fred is going to have his own serious of difficult questions.
amerpundit on July 17, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Sorry, forgot to link to the “interview”. Actually it was more like forcing a child to explain himself when the adult requires an answer.
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Yeah, like how does he blame a staffer for filling out a questionaire wrongly, (a questionaire that he signed) when he said the exact same thing in an interview.
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 6:33 PM
If only once, just once, every conservative in the nation could be convinced to ignore the appeal to fear, and truly vote their conscience…
I know, a utopian dream.
But trying to convince people to vote for a Rudy or a Mitt because of the terrifying alternative? Not good enough, not by half.
If the nominee is not Hunter, Tancredo, or Thompson, I will NOT pull the lever for an R. If you want this conservative to be on your side, come with me. I HAVE drawn a line, and I won’t ever cross it again. It really is that simple.
As for the timeline, I’ll remind everybody once again that in January of 1992, nobody outside of Arkansas had a clue who Bill Clinton was. He sucked so bad in the early campaigning, and suffered so much ridicule for the original “bimbo eruption”, that he dropped out. And then suddenly he was the Democrat nominee, and thanks to the Perot oddity he won the electoral plurality.
All that happened in less than 9 months. We are still 15 months from the general, and there’s plenty of time for Hunter or Tancredo to be given the recognition they deserve, as consistent and honorable conservatives who should not be ignored.
Freelancer on July 17, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Dork B. on July 17, 2007 at 6:24 PM
A vote against Hitlery is a vote for freedom!!! And no vote at all is a vote for Hitlery.
jdawg on July 17, 2007 at 6:35 PM
In 2004, when it looked like W was going to get the boot, I convinced myself that it would not be too bad if Kerry were elected. It seemed like the entire planet (including 49.9999% of our country) absolutely hated Bush, everything he stood for and every thing he did or had his name attached to it. Nevertheless, Kerry was promising to be tough on security (in his way — you know, smarter). He really did not have much of a choice on Iraq. He was going to have to continue with the effort in Iraq and in the GWOT. But with a Dem in office, maybe our efforts would not have been so opposed both internationally and in Congress. The Republicans never would have undermined the war effort like the Dems have, and the Press would have been more cooperative too. I know alot of other things would have been bad, but I really think things would have gone smoother and more united in the Iraq war had Kerry been elected.
The same is not true of 2008. The Dems are now hard, anti-war, peace at any cost nutjobs. They think the GWOT is a bumper sticker. They actually use the same talking points as Al Qeada. They would have us immediately retreat from the Islamofacists, have Reno II issue an indictment against Osama, and wait for the next 3,000 civilian American casualties.
tommylotto on July 17, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Freelancer on July 17, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Seems to me there’s another Arkansan running for Prez – oh, yeah, Mike Huckabee. I like him, but I don’t think he stands a snowballs chance of getting elected.
jdawg on July 17, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Gotta agree with that.
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Methinks you need to read the “none of the above” AP article again:
As far as the “debates”, you can barely call them that- it was more question and answer time, mostly with prepared answers to anticipated questions. I want to see Fred debate, but these 9 man debates aren’t very useful.
We don’t know how much money Fred has raised, but right now the competition isn’t with the Democrats but with the other Republicans. I don’t think any of them can compete with Hillary or Obama on the cash front just yet, and won’t be able to without a nominee or clear frontrunner.
Hollowpoint on July 17, 2007 at 6:38 PM
tommylotto on July 17, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Kerry would have supported surrendering before he was against , or something to that effect….
Either way, the WH would be firmly in AQ’s hands by now.
jdawg on July 17, 2007 at 6:38 PM
In Rudy’s defense I thought he did come out with a strong answer concerning Libby.
Rose on July 17, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Actually, if you go back and listen to his whole answer, it shows a legal understanding of Constitutional Law that the other candidates failed to grasp. He said he would be okay if the Sup.Ct. overturned it, but he also recognized it as long standing precedent that had already been up held by another decision. So, he would also be okay if the Sup.Ct. overturned it or view it as precedent and did not overturn it. Either way, he believe their should be restrictions and agreed with the decision on partial birth abortions. Sure his response was nuanced, but so is Constitutional Law.
tommylotto on July 17, 2007 at 6:53 PM
tommylotto on July 17, 2007 at 6:53 PM
I really hate that word.
jdawg on July 17, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Hunter would make a good president, but by now it’s pretty clear that he’s not electable- and electability counts. Just ask John Kerry, who would’ve won if he weren’t such a douche weasel- and thank goodness for that. His numbers have been consistantly low, with no sign of that changing. I suspect the early start to the election cycle really hurt him- Rudy and McCain took the lead based largely on name recognition, and Hunter was unable to gain traction in the large field.
By much the same token, Tancredo is a solid conservative but would get slaughtered in the general election. He’s come across as a one-issue candidate, and should’ve hired one of Silky’s fashion consultants before the debate to trim those bushy rat’s nests he calls eyebrows. He hasn’t come across as presidential. Too bad, because we need a conservative in the White House.
Others have mentioned Huckabee; see above but add in a stance on amnesty that’s pretty close to Bush and McCain.
Newt? One of the best conservative thinkers out there, and would make an excellent president. Unfortunately his negative numbers are even higher than Hillary’s, and with a long legislative career and personal issues probably couldn’t win. Unfortunate because I like him, but at this point I doubt he’ll enter since Fred pretty much stole his potential thunder as the conservative candidate.
Pretty much leaves Fred, who hasn’t spent his entire political career as a RINO as has Romney or Rudy. Perfect? No. But he strikes me as both electable and a reliable conservative with a strong ability to communicate directly to the people.
Hollowpoint on July 17, 2007 at 7:00 PM
What’s Fred’s position on medical marijuana?
(Let’s get the summer doldrums drumming.)
profitsbeard on July 17, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Regardless of how one feels about the abortion issue (it’s not that high on my list in importance), Roe v. Wade and the CT decision it was based on were amonst the most activist, poorly decided decisions in modern times- if ever. To suggest that it would be OK if such a horrible decision were left standing is not what I want to hear from someone promising to appoint constructionist judges.
No “nuance” necessary- it was clearly a bad decision made without a shred of respect for the Constitution and should be overturned, the arrogance of stare decisis be damned.
Hollowpoint on July 17, 2007 at 7:07 PM
You know how “A bad day fishing is better than the best day at work”, or how some guys would rather “push their Ford than drive a Chevy”?
We need a good slogan expressing a similar sentiment that addresses all the potential 08 boycotters.
How about:
“I’d rather be raped by a RINO than romanced by a Donkey…”
Something like that – help me out here…
Dork B. on July 17, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Dork B. on July 17, 2007 at 7:28 PM
I think that’s what McKennedy tried to do with shamnesty. Thank God that thing got stopped.
jdawg on July 17, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Well, clearly a protest vote, or non-vote, has done us well this past voting season.
People often forget that freedom includes being allowed to cut your own nose off if you are so inclined.
Enjoy the new look AP.
unamused on July 17, 2007 at 7:33 PM
Agreed, but from a Constitutional Law perspective, the decision was made over 30 years ago and has since been upheld. Without a compelling change of circumstance, that is considered a powerful precedent.
tommylotto on July 17, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Allah:
The more I read from you the less credible you are, IMHO. The election is over a year away. Suggesting you are going to “sit out” (for whatever reason) with Hillary being the likely opponent is reckless and stupid. You may not be satisfied but that doesn’t mean you have to suddenly have the judgment of a 15 year old girl.
Hike up your Pampers and stop whining. Being critical is one thing. Stupid is dangerous.
Otherwise, I like you and keep up the good work. :)
Weber48IDA on July 17, 2007 at 7:59 PM
Here is the link to the “interview” that fred? gave to the Hoover Institution.
Can any of the fred?heads tell us if this video is linked to from freds? website?
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »