Time for another left-wing “The GOP is gay for Fred” piece
posted at 2:23 pm on July 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The American Prospect has already been there and done that but the New Republic wants in on this action, so here you go. It’s behind a reg wall so I can’t quote too much; suffice it to say, the diagnosis is part Daddy complex, part Napoleon complex, part whatever the hell it was Champ was feeling for Ron Burgundy in “Anchorman” when he said, “I miss your musk,” and part good ol’ fashioned teh ghey:
Certainly, the Thompson talk in both cyberspace and the traditional media is a study in hero worship, with grown conservatives swooning like cheerleaders smitten over the manliness of the varsity quarterback. There is much rejoicing about the senator’s growling voice, his studly cigar habit, and his physical size. My favorite bit of macho Fred-worship making its way around the Internet is a widely circulated joke about the title of the recent film 300, in which a small troop of Spartans holds the line against the massive Persian army: “If Fred Thompson had been at Thermopylae, the movie would have been called 1.” (Reading posts like this, it’s unsurprising that, according to USA Today, 64 percent of Thompson’s supporters are male, the highest percentage for any presidential hopeful.)
Credit Sullivan at least for a little creativity in this area — in his formulation, it’s Fred who’s the gay one, notwithstanding his long and celebrated list of distaff D.C. conquests.
The piece goes on to claim that Fred might not be “manly” enough for the hard work required of a presidential candidate given his reputation for laziness and suggests that it’s not really Fred himself whom Republicans want to gay it up with but rather his character on “Law & Order.” So why link it? Because there’s an honest to goodness bit of news in there. They say “trophy wife”; I say cherchez la femme:
[L]ate last year, after fellow Tennessean and former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced that he would not run for president, those closest to Thompson once again began whispering in his ear about bigger, better things. Perhaps the most influential of these whisperers has been Thompson’s second wife, Jeri Kehn Thompson.
If Thompson’s first wife put him on the path to law school, it’s widely acknowledged that his second wife is the one driving his presidential run. Blonde, bodacious, and 24 years younger than her husband, Jeri is often sniffily referred to as Thompson’s “trophy wife,” but she is clearly more than that. A one-time Senate staffer and spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, Jeri is regarded around Washington as politically shrewd and fiercely ambitious on behalf of her spouse. In the wake of Frist’s announcement, Jeri promptly contacted Republican p.r. veteran Mark Corallo about serving as her husband’s spokesman and raising his profile inside the Beltway. More recently, after lefty filmmaker Michael Moore took a public poke at Thompson, challenging him to a health care debate and criticizing his penchant for embargoed Cuban cigars, Jeri brought the issue to her hubby’s attention and urged him to call up a friend with a video camera and record his now-famous 30-second Web response. (In it, a cigar-chomping Thompson says he’s too busy to meet with Moore, but wryly warns him to watch his step lest his “buddy Castro” decide to toss him in a mental institution as he has other documentarians. “A mental institution, Michael. That’d be something you oughta think about,” intones Thompson with a meaningful arch of his brow.) Last month, at a reception for party bigwigs and top donors that preceded the GOP gala in Richmond, Jeri diligently stood in line to meet and greet every person in attendance. “She’s been one of the key players,” confirms Tom Ingram.
The more I read about her, the more I think it’d be cooler to land Jeri for a Vent than Fred.
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: « Previous 1 2 3
The issue of freds? alleged homosexuality takes away from the real issues that make him the worst possible candidate or non-candidate for POTUS. I include in that Ron Paul, because Ron Paul is at least honest, whereas fred? lies out of his a$$ all the time.
Here are just a part of the real issues that should be reported on by the MSM.
freds? constant teasing of his “announcement” date appeals to a certain supporter that will do all his dirty work by making BS excuses to the rest of us who want to know what fred? will say when his rhetoric is challenged and he is put on record.
Until that time, if it EVER comes, here are a few of the issues that fred? has been forced to, or accidentally has, put himself on record for and are coming back to bite him in the a$$……..
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 8:21 PM
Holy Moly! You are so right!
RushBaby on July 18, 2007 at 8:24 PM
If you weren’t including it, I would include a naval blockade of Iran’s shipping.
csdeven on July 18, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Okay logis, you are a cunning linquist, you tell me what VolMagic on July 18, 2007 at 6:00 PM intended by his comment.
tommylotto on July 18, 2007 at 8:25 PM
So the same people who attack Fred Thompson’s “conservative credentials” with a fine tooth comb and the zeal of an Inquisitor are opposed to conservatism in general.
Again, knock me over with a feather.
logis on July 18, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Yeah, way to “elevate the conversation” there.
Well that’s fine by me. I got no problem with that.
Listen, pedo, nobody said that what your uncle did to you was your fault. You’re not really trying to blame Fred Thompson for your problems, are you? Face it, you’re trying to blame the whole world. And that’s not fair to anyone – least of all you.
logis on July 18, 2007 at 8:36 PM
I don’t think Fred can win Ohio, which means he loses. Rudy has a much better chance of pulling Ohio and putting other D states into play, causing his opponent to have to spread their money out more than they would with Fred.
Rudy is also more likely to energize those “despicable” RINOs that get such short shrift. After months of being beat over the head about being less than a Republican they may stay at home if Fred is the candidate.
Bradky on July 18, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Agreed, included as part economic blockade.
Spirit of 1776 on July 18, 2007 at 8:46 PM
“Energize” the moderates?
Oh yeah, that’s a hell of a campaign strategy you’ve got figured out there. Good luck with that.
logis on July 18, 2007 at 8:49 PM
As I have said before, in posts not about Fred he is very well spoken and calm.
That said, all I can think of when I see cs in Fred threads is that cs is to Fred what Keith Olbermann is to Bill O’Reilly.
Kowboy on July 18, 2007 at 8:49 PM
While the Democrats have been busy trying to expand their coalition in the past year or two (witness the recruitment of the likes of Tester, Webb, and others, as well as Clinton’s attempted straddles on Iraq), if Republicans insist on nominating someone who is a “reliable conservative” on every issue, they may find themselves beaten in a really ugly way.
Big S on July 18, 2007 at 8:49 PM
We shall see. You don’t respect them – don’t be surprised when they don’t show up to vote for the “chosen one”.
As I said, strategically Rudy poses a much bigger problem for the Dems than Fred does. That’s not just my opinion – there are several pundits saying the same thing.
Bradky on July 18, 2007 at 8:53 PM
tommylotto on July 18, 2007 at 6:09 PM
I intended to say that when someone does a drive-by and suggests that people like me come to HotAir to be gay over Fred, that person has probably been sexually abused in early life, or is a liberal. If you are a liberal, then everything revolves around sexual urges and what type of genitalia you have. If you have been sexually abused it is likely that you are incapable of understanding emotions between two men in a non-sexual context.
P.S. I have a great sense of humor. I love South Park, the Simpsons, pretty much anything on Adult Swim on cartoon network, Seinfeld, and humping robots. They all make me laugh.
VolMagic on July 18, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Well, let’s not take that earth-shaking comment out of context just yet. This was an interview on the Tonight Show, that great paean of intellectual stimulation and sound-bite frenzy. It’s also just a guy not yet tipping his hand.
In my opinion, I trust that Fred will give the specifics that we both want from him. I’ve seen his essays and heard his commentary. They’re right down the line with the way I think and my core values.
OTH, if he doesn’t come up with a plan after he makes his announcement, I will be surely and sorely disappointed. But I don’t expect that I will have to suffer that disappointment.
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 9:19 PM
I thought it was. I read it slowly, and, golly, it looked like one.
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 9:28 PM
It’s not poker.
Big S on July 18, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Yes, but it is a metaphor.
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Exactly. But an atrocious one. In this game, you choose your cards.
Big S on July 18, 2007 at 9:36 PM
If it’s so atrocious, why did you use it?
Poker and politics: Strange bedfellows. You hold a certain hand, you play your cards at the appropriate time, and you take the pot with a winning hand. You don’t tell your opponents what cards you’ve got, or how you’re going to play them. You can even win on a bluff if you’re good enough. You play the percentages, because if you’re really good, you don’t play the cards. You play the opponent.
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Bush took Ohio both elections… and they’re going to go for a East Coast NYC type but not a Tennessean?
Does. Not. Compute.
Hollowpoint on July 18, 2007 at 9:58 PM
What do you mean by “plan?” For the Presidency? I’m sure over the next 17 months, whether he’s “officially running” or not, Thompson is going to keep saying what his positions are on various issues. But his core values ARE the plan.
For a while there, Giuliani kept spewing out those dozen-bullet-point lists of his priorities in office. God that was annoying. It was like some apple polishing jerk sitting in the front row of class trying to prove how amazing his memory is. What in the hell does that prove?
I’m sure all the Republican candidates (with one exception) are God-fearing, terrorist-hating folk. And, at least for the time being, they’re all trying to put together laundry lists of positions on issues that more-or-less meet the general conservative stance. And despite some peoples’ fears, I see no rational reason to suspect that Fred won’t be able to do all that just as well as anyone else can.
But I don’t know of any candidates other than Gingrich and Thompson who are capable of clearly articulating the philosophy of conservatism. I’m sure one guy out of the crowd loves guns a bit more than the rest; one guy hates abortion the most; and somebody else has the most vehement stand on illegal immigration.
But when it comes down to it, that isn’t going to make or break our candidate.
Think about it: what holds the Democrat Party together? What issues do Teamsters, homosexuals, blacks, teachers and pornographers have in common? The answer is nothing – except the ginned-up class warfare rhetoric of the Communists in the party. The moonbats are no liability to them – that’s the glue that makes the Democrats a united force.
Well, there is also a glue that holds all the factions of the Republican Party together. And that glue is republicanism – or, what we are now forced to refer to (in order avoid being simultaneously redundant and oxymoronic) as federalism. As smart as Newt is, Fred GETS that, and he’s able to focus on those key values even more clearly.
They don’t teach that in schools anymore, so most people naturally assume it doesn’t exist – until someone comes along to beat them over the head with it. And then we all sort of collectively start to remember a little bit about what happened 200 years ago, and why it matters more now than it ever did.
Reagan wasn’t America’s hero because he was an actor, or because he was so laid back and amiable – although those were indeed helpful qualities. And it wasn’t because he hated abortion or illegal immigrants more than everyone else – he clearly did not. Or because he gave the best “snappy comebacks” at feeding-frenzy press conferences or so-called political “debates” – he was frankly pretty darned awful at that.
Reagan was America’s favorite because he GOT what this country was all about. And he was able to lay all that out clearly, in well-delivered speeches. Everything else just sort of flowed from there.
logis on July 18, 2007 at 10:10 PM
I stand by my point that you choose your own hand. Anyway, from your idiotic analogy, I can only assume that you applaud politicians who try to win by hiding their positions, bluffing, and refusing to play the game based on their positions (hands), but on appearances and personalities. Sounds awesome!
Big S on July 18, 2007 at 10:12 PM
I stand humbly corrected.
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 10:13 PM
I should add that there’s no point in winning with a crappy “hand” in the game of politics, unless it’s just power you crave. How bad is Fred’s, if he has to reort to bluffing right away?
Big S on July 18, 2007 at 10:16 PM
I can see you weren’t a very good student in inductive reasoning if you can jump to that kind of generalized conclusion based my analysis of the metaphor we both used.
I said nothing of the sort. I said, in poker, you can win on a bluff if you’re good enough. In politics, politicians win on bluffs all the time.
Inductive reasoning gives one a general inference based upon known facts or observations — not specific conclusions. So try not to make specific conclusions on my general observations.
If you want to know my specifics, feel free to ask, but don’t assume you can take inductive reasoning to the incorrect answer on my behalf.
Still want to play?
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Fred Thompson’s clearly has a full house in his hand:
Jokers over douches, err, dueces.
I still stand by my Fred? post in the last topic.
Fred?’s bold strategy for announcing his candidacy will be to wait for the last Republican debate to be over, then try a mad dash in the last few weeks. He’ll pawn off his cowardly cop-out as a “unique leadership strategy” and call the debates nothing more than “dog-and-pony shows that don’t really give a forum for hearing what the presidential candidates will do if elected”
It’s brilliant for Fred?. He gets to ride Law & Order fame on the way in before his poll numbers can drop and hail how mighty his leadership is for “doing something different.”
BKennedy on July 18, 2007 at 10:31 PM
I didn’t say any such thing. I wasn’t referring to Fred. I said he wasn’t tipping his hand…again the metaphor thingy.
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 10:32 PM
BTW, Big S, I read your blog. Good start!
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Okay. Which was it is, just so I don’t put words in your mouth? Are his core values his plan or is the cards that he is still holding the plan? Just so I know how to appropriately respond.
I think it is likely that Rudy or Thompson will be the 2 contenders at the end of the day for the R mantle. So I have every hope that he is everything we all want him to be. But in the meantime you will have to forgive my doubt as it requires a suspension of disbelief for me to believe it now.
Spirit of 1776 on July 18, 2007 at 10:50 PM
I wish I knew. Logis put it very well in his 10:10 post. His reasons are sound for what he thinks the plan is, and I don’t disagree. I’d still like to see specifics, like you would, about what results the core values will bring.
The poker metaphor I originally used was specifically to point out that Fred hadn’t made the announcement and wasn’t going to make it on the Tonight Show; therefore, not tipping his hand.
The metaphor discussion, of course, was a response to the contention that I wasn’t intelligent enough to have used it correctly, and a response to a misconception on what I meant by using it. NBD. More of a visceral response than anything, I suppose, of my own vanity. :-)
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Ah. Well I assure you I do not think you not intelligent enough to understand the use of your own metaphor, and if I take issue with you, I will not do so obliquely. :)
I think Fred’s values are what we make them to be at this stage, though he has given some indication of though his various speeches etc (but even those are generalities). I find that I cannot take him seriously because he said, yes on Leno, but also w/ Cavuto, that there are things that a president, etc. That means specifics were in mind, so since that is his own manner of measuring his worth in this election, I adopt it as my own. Now if he would be so kind as to share them, lol!
Spirit of 1776 on July 18, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Doesn’t compute because you don’t want to consider it. 2004 was about 120,000 votes difference. Are you really that confident that Fred can clinch it?
You are also overlooking what I mentioned regarding strategy. With Rudy the Dems spend a lot more money to hold some states that will not be in play in a Fred matchup. With Fred running they can focus on Ohio, Virginia and a couple of others which would give them the win.
Doesn’t really matter to me – but the Fredheads have stardust in their eyes when thinking he is going to walk on the stage and have everyone bow down – especially moderate Democrats, some of who they will need to win.
Bradky on July 18, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Gotcha. It’s very hard to be patient when we’re faced with Clinton/Obama/Silky Pony every day. I want him in the race now! But I know that I’m not running his campaign, and so far, with no expenditures (other than a few staff) he’s polling very, very well.
I don’t have anything against Rudy or Mitt or any of the other candidates than some muzzy “feelings” and I don’t vote on feelings. If I am faced with the choice of voting for Rudy or Hillary, I’ll cast as many votes as I can (g) for Rudy. Same with Mitt. I’m just hanging my hat on the local boy right now. I think he can win it all.
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 11:27 PM
.
My point is that he gets to choose his hand. The ideas and plans he thinks are best to take the country forward. There’s no reason not to “tip your hand” if you really believe them. Politics should not be treated like poker, and politicians should not try to win based on hiding their positions from voters, or “bluffing.” Neither one of these methods is constructive, so if that’s his M.O., screw him! Some candidates (Reagan) actually sought to debate, going so far as to sponsor them. I have no respect for those who choose not to “tip their hands.”
Big S on July 18, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Big S, I wasn’t saying Fred was hiding anything other than an announcement.
The metaphor was this: Fred was not going to announce his candidacy on the Tonight Show. That’s the whole metaphor. Nothing more; nothing less.
Tennman on July 18, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Announcing that you’re going to announce would be both a logical absurdity and a strategic blunder.
As for the “impatience” thing; it’s perfectly natural to feel that way. But it would be the height of immaturity to imagine that could somehow be blamed on Fred Thompson.
This country has been having Presidential elections for two hundred years now. The media invented this idiotic new pre-primary primary schedule and started telling us all it was the Only Way To Run An Election six months ago.
If somebody we’d never heard of announced in October, it would make sense to wonder what he thinks he’s doing. If Thompson waits until December or later, then that could pose an organizational challenge for him. But even then, so what? Wait until your state’s Primary comes up and see who has the best campaign then.
Who gives a rat’s ass? The airheads on TV, the idiots who think the world revolves around them, and nobody else.
logis on July 18, 2007 at 11:53 PM
I guess I tend to get a little carried away. Sorry. I just feel like we need more discussion of issues, not less. Not only is he sucking up a lot of the political oxygen with this whole campaign announcement thing, he’s spending too much of his own time on it too, in my opinion. He had the opportunity to reach a huge audience and say something really meaningful on the Tonight show, but he gave lukewarm responses to questions. Now, it looks like he might even miss the next Republican debate. I’m just annoyed by the reluctance to get in, and the treatment of the campaign as a game to be won by outsmarting your opponent on tactics rather than on ideas.
P.S. I think you’re the first one to read my poor, neglected blog. Thanks!
Big S on July 19, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Me too. When I get into a debate, Logical-the-Attack-Dog comes out. Forgive my vanity.
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 12:19 AM
If I can venture to interject without taking this off into left field…..
There is no good reason for fred? to play coy with his announcement date. Poker or no, tipping yer hand or no, it shows a serious lack of respect to the people he wants support from. Namely me.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, the other candidates are not watching to see what fred? does. They are running their campaigns on their ideas for the country and what candidates are in the race has little to do with their vision. So, the only other groups left to be affected by freds? non-announcement are the dems, the MSM, and the voters. The dems do not matter before the primary, and the MSM is only brining the message to the target group, so that leaves the voter.
fred? is playing silly games with his announcement date because of the voters. We all know he knows a lot of his support is coming from those who only know him as Cliff Branch. That’s a pretty thin group to rely on, and it’s insults their intelligence when fred? uses them as ignorant pawns in his grab for power. Or I should say for Jeri’s grab for power.
Anyway, if that is not apropos to your discussion, I apologize.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:21 AM
You’re wrong there. Newt has done exactly that and there are lots of folks that still respect him and hope he decides to run.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Another interesting tidbit….I have asked several times if fred? linked to his three dismal interviews on his website. The Leno debacle, the Robinson ruse, and the London Q&A disaster. As of yet, no fred? supporter has provided that info, so I gather he is ashamed of them and doesn’t want anyone to see them. Any of you who are even the slight bit curious about what fred? really thinks, and are interested to watch his changing stances over the months, should watch them and memorize his answers. (or lack of them in most cases) It’ll become clear that fred? will start parroting what others have already said. And his wife will be behind the scenes with the balls and motivation.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Cs, taking that statement at face value, I can understand and appreciate the frustration.
Let’s take it hypothetically and assume for the sake of argument that Fred is doing all the things all the other candidates did in their exploratory phase: Putting together staff, putting out position papers, putting in a national infrastructure for a national campaign — all the things that the law allows a prospective candidate to do before making the announcement.
Further assume that Fred, the prospective candidate is doing the same sorts of things that Mitt and McCain did in their exploratory phase: Going on talk shows, raising money, giving interviews.
Further assume that the idea of a national campaign starting before September or October the year before the primaries is an unwarranted development in this nation’s history, as logis said in his 11:53 post, and as I am reminded that I’ve said the very same thing in the past, as have others. The sheer amount of voter fatigue and uselessly spent money alone should prove that point.
Taking all those assumptions as true, wouldn’t the logical thing for a thinking person, male or female, be to delay the announcement until the proper time? Wouldn’t you say that it absolutely shows more respect for the voters to give a vetting time where the issues are foremost in their minds instead of in the distant past?
You don’t have to agree with the hypothetical, but that’s what I see happening at this time. Anything else, until the proper announcement is made, is purely crystal-gazing, in my opinion.
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 12:37 AM
He’s got all kinds of links, including the RTL, London, and audio commentaries. Here’s the video links. Easily obtainable by anyone.
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Echoed.
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 1:02 AM
That is completely logical and I have considered the same thoughts.
My problem with his tactic is the teasing of dates. He knows about the constant date changing and he should make a clear announcement that he will not announce until after “X” date and that we should all ignore any other dates. He is tacitly allowing the image to be propagated by not making a clear decision.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 1:10 AM
Thanks for linking that. I checked his archive for June yesterday and couldn’t find these vids.
I couldn’t stomach his entire London speech again, but the part I took special exception to was the Q&A afterwards. The transcript didn’t include it and I was wondering if the video did?
But everyone should check out the Hoover interview. It’s a revealing look into the tactics of a professional BS artist….oops, I mean actor.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 1:19 AM
That and his ambiguity do not serve him well I think. In fact, I think it is problematic for his campaign. The issue at this stage, though some may disagree, is momentum. Every candidate has to continue to build momentum.
Rudy, in my mind, is running an excellent campaign by going straight at his weaknesses and trying to build momentum where there is doubt. His judge-list is example. He was front runner from the start and he has stayed there despite some pundits nay-saying.
Mitt to build momentum, needs name-recognition, so this phase includes lots of t.v. ads, etc – even to the point of loaning himself money.
But Fred, again just my take, doesn’t need the name recognition and he doesn’t need to shake the RINO name. For him if he is going to continue to build momentum, he is going to have to start to give some real answers and real specifics.
People can say that it’s early and he doesn’t need to etc, but I disagree. I think his rise so far is one of the familar/congenial/common man/common sense/comfortable sense. That will only take him so far, and regardless of when he officially announces, I think for him to continue to build momentum he will have to do more than he is now – and that means real questions, real answers.
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 1:21 AM
CS, one other note before I mail it in for the night, I find this to be a bit ironic. Remember when he first burst on the scene with the complementary print interview (the one that referred to all the cigar boxes) and then the Cavuto interview… Cavuto said he was impressed with Fred b/c Fred came alone, no entourage, no image consultant, etc. And in that interview, Fred said that what he was waiting for was to check off two groups of boxes, one public, one private.
I bring it up not to denigrate him, but it’s a valid observation I think: the boxes are checked off, yet no announcement. We are told that he will announce when it is deemed most favorable. I have no objection from that from a political point of view, but it’s clearly moved into image and poll-conscious politics. He’s not the same guy, or the image isn’t the same as it was at the beginning of the draft-Fred movement. He’s not the same guy that Cavuto was impressed with.
I think there is a fairly good chance that Fred supporters are going to find out that he is not what they thought he was.
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 1:36 AM
There’s nothing “hypothetical” about any of that. The ONLY difference is between Thompson and the others is that Thompson has been infinitely more SUCCESSFUL at it than any of them were.
I know it’s easier for some people to grow wings than to think objectively. But step back here. All of the other candidates jumped the gun by doing all that stuff more than a year early (in the case of one Democrat candidate, at least five years early.) And then, like so many birds on a wire, they all felt they had to announce insanely prematurely (most around an unprecedented 22 months before the election) because they were all scared to death of losing momentum. Of course any one of them that wanted to could have “cheated” and not announced early – or been even more incredibly evil and “coyly” refused to pre-announce an announcement date.
Is anybody really stupid enough to imagine that would have catapulted him or her up in the polls? Of course not. But now they all turn around and blame Thompson for “cheating.” Why? Simple; because he got more momentum from one offhand comment on a talk show than any of them were able to generate in all that time of media whoring and all out campaigning.
Of course all of that hatred is perfectly understandable – but not one tiny bit of it is rational.
logis on July 19, 2007 at 2:01 AM
Historical precedent for the start of campaigns in the fall have no real meaning beyond the facts that (a) it costs a lot more money to run a year long primary campaign than a five month primary campaign, and (b) people did not generally start to pay attention until about that time. It seems to me that both of these reasons are outdated now, and that the debate about who will be the next President, and what direction they will take the country in, has been going on for a while. I assume (maybe I shouldn’t) that part of the process of deciding whether or not to run involves coming up with a plan as to where to lead the country, and that if Fred is as good a candidate as many hope, that he already has some ideas that he would be willing to defend in a debate. Like I said before, I wouldn’t care when he announces if there were no debates or forums going on, but he’s already missed a couple and does not seem to keen on going to the next one either. He said something in one of his one-on-one Hannity (I think) interviews/shadow debates about 10 candidates on stage and some silly questions denigrating the process. I’d say he’s coming awfully close to that himself.
Big S on July 19, 2007 at 2:03 AM
In only one sense do I agree that fred? is being smart about waiting. He’s being smart in the sense that the less people know about the real fred?, the more they’ll use their imagination to make him what they want him to be. The less specific he is, the less he will have to answer for.
He is the consummate politician whose only reason for running is the grab for power (and in this case it’s his wife that wants the power), and he will fake his way to get that power and he has no regard for what is best for the country.
IE…”I want to “do some things” that only the president can do.” Yeah, fred?, you want to make more connections for your sickening lobbying activities. The guy lobbies for scum for 20+ years, he lobbies for Roberts once, and he thinks that balances it out.
Folks, fred? dalton thompson is nothing but a lobbyist and lobbying is all that he is concerned with and that is all he will ever be concerned with.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 8:10 AM
So, does Roberts hold more or less power than Freds other clients he lobbied for?
News2Use on July 19, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3