Fred to unofficially launch campaign with ad — during GOP debate; Update: Fred hits the gym
posted at 4:53 pm on September 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Another mistake. Like the New Hampshire Union Leader said earlier this week:
If Thompson waits until after the debate to make his announcement, it will appear to some as if he timed the announcement just to avoid the New Hampshire debate. That would give his foes the chance to say he is either not serious about running for the nomination or is too unprepared to be considered a credible candidate…
Thompson’s main weakness right now is his commitment to the race. Republicans are starting to think that his heart is not in it, and they are getting tired of the teasing. The best way for Thompson to dismiss this concern and prove he is a serious and credible candidate is to take up the challenge and join his rivals on stage on Sept. 5.
Running an ad during the actual debate only reinforces the impression that he wants the audience but isn’t willing to face the other candidates to get it. It’s also tremendously hubristic insofar as it’s transparently an attempt to upstage the rest of the field. Raising expectations further is the last thing he wants to be doing right now. Quoth the Times: “Republicans close to the Thompson campaign felt that the risks [of participating in the debate] would probably be too great for any benefit. In the worst case, he might have made a mistake or come under attack from his Republican rivals, overshadowing the highly scripted rollout he has prepared for the next day.”
Stephen Hayes, who is to the Thompson campaign what Hewitt and my pal Barnett are to Team Romney, lays out the plan:
On Wednesday, September 5, shortly after his Republican rivals debate in New Hampshire, he will appear on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno to announce that he will be launching his campaign the following day in a speech broadcast on his website, imwithfred.com. That evening, he will call in to supporters gathered at Thompson-for-president house parties across the country. Thompson will travel immediately to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina–three critical early primary states. The second leg of the launch tour will include several stops in Florida, which Thompson strategists have long viewed as critical to their bid to win the Republican nomination. He will finish his initial campaign foray with a visit to his hometown of Lawrenceburg, Tenn., on Saturday, September 15…
All of this means one thing: Thompson wants to position himself as the only viable conservative alternative to Rudy Giuliani. In conversations with several Thompson strategists over the past week, one phrase was repeated nearly a dozen times: consistent conservative. It is a not-so-subtle reminder, they say, that Giuliani is not a conservative and that, while Mitt Romney may sound like a conservative now, he has not been consistent.
Take out Mitt and then hope the social con base carries you through. The problem is that Mitt is way ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire, to the point where he’s already a virtual lock to win there. That makes South Carolina a must-have for Fred, where he’s ahead in one poll and will need the win to prove the south is on his side before the showdown with Rudy in Florida on January 29. Expect Mitt to start spending serious money in SC sometime soon to try to steal the state and prove that Fred’s a paper tiger who can’t even win on his (virtual) home turf.
Update: Here’s why he looks thinner lately. Money quotes:
Ari Fleischer, former press secretary to President George W Bush, said: “From the moment that Thompson declares, he has about a one-week window for people to say he’s for real or not. If people get a let-down feeling after his announcement, because he got in so late, it will be harder for him to recover.”…
Thompson will be seeking to detach voters from Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and a Mormon, who has a slick, well financed campaign and is beginning to win over evangelical Christian voters. “If we had Romney’s organisation and Fred’s personality, the race would be over,” said a Thompson insider.
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 »
your analysis seems dead on to me.
zane on September 1, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Hey hey, we’ve got the words “hubris,” “evah” and “nuance” all on the main page today. That’s an Allahpundit trifectah.
I can’t imagine a man from the cranberry juice state winning South Carolina. Maybe Fred’s still going to be in this once he gets in this.
Savage on September 1, 2007 at 5:02 PM
You New Yorkers can spin this all you want to support your boy Rudy, but Fred is going about this correctly and with his Malkins showing. No one will care what any of the non-conservative debaters will say once Fred has his 30 seconds.
I’m sorry but I don’t know any Repubs that will vote for a pro-abortion, pro-gay, open borders, his-own-wives-and family-can’t-trust-him, Rudy.
Mitt might have a chance as Freds VP.
AZCON on September 1, 2007 at 5:16 PM
I’m sorry, these debates just aren’t telling me anything. It’s a stupid system and regardless of what you think about Fred, you’ve got to admire his guts in treating these Hallowed Institutions of Democracy in which CGI snowmen ask questions with appropriate disdain.
What I would like is some guarantee that this nonplussed attitude and refusal to jump through hoops will also be applied to, say, the United Nations.
see-dubya on September 1, 2007 at 5:22 PM
YOU’RE IN THE TANK.
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Now AP is back to where he shines: political analysis.
Dead on again.
Putting an ad on during the debate will come across as weak no matter how strong the ad is and I’m sure it’ll be a doozy.
It would be a lot stronger to just stand there and compete, something he doesn’t seem inclined to do.
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 5:26 PM
i can pick a winner.
see-dubya on September 1, 2007 at 5:26 PM
If Fred wins the election, is he going to still be thinking about it on January 22nd and asking himself if he can do the job?
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Romney’s been impressing me lately, though.
If you would just take off your Huckabee-tinted glasses and see…
see-dubya on September 1, 2007 at 5:27 PM
That a bit of a stretch there don’t you think Allahpundit?
I seam to remeber Howard Dean having a strong lead early, only to flame out once people started paying attention. New Hampshire I’ll grant. Iowa no way. The homosexual lobby is putting gay marriage front and center again. Which in general gives Fred an advantage over Rudy and Mitt. I know, I know. Mitt wanted to get the marriage amendment vote on the ballot and kept Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage, but how detailed will Mitt have to be about his record to get that message out to the electorate, how much of his money and time will that eat? And you have said that primary voters vote for who they identify with. Mitt or Fred? The guy from Massachusetts (gay and liberal) or the guy from Tennesee? Fred hasn’t been in Iowa for nothing.
Yuo mentioned taking a bet on something in another thread. You want to bet on Iowa?
Theworldisnotenough on September 1, 2007 at 5:28 PM
After Fred’s first debate, nobody is going to listen to any idiot screaming about “But, but… He didn’t go to the first five debates!”
Of course, if it turns out that Fred Thompson can’t speak coherent English after all, that will hurt him. But the exact same thing would have happened six months ago.
logis on September 1, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Agreed.
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 5:29 PM
I’ll try to avoid subjects like terrorism from now on.
I gave up on him when he came out for the national smoking ban. HUCKABEE = BLOOMBERG.
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 5:29 PM
This strategy may irritate his opponents, but only because they know it is clever. By avoiding the debate but showing his ad during the debate, he is essentially saying he is above this fray which is between GOP contenders, it does not involve himself, who is not so much a GOP contender, as the next President of the United States. It may be arrogant, but for most people watching, it will be Arther Branch entering the room to the vexation of his subordinate assistant prosecutors.
I like it. For his personality, it is good theatre.
jihadwatcher on September 1, 2007 at 5:29 PM
A compliment in one area is not the same as an insult in another.
Has anyone ever told you you’re rather sensitive?
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 5:31 PM
There we can agree yet again.
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Speaking of Huckabee and being in the tank, I thought this note by Michael Bates was interesting.
see-dubya on September 1, 2007 at 5:32 PM
I agree that he is showing hubris. I think it is unneccesary, but is it to his disadvantage?
Yeah a few pundits will have hissies, mostly because their two cents is benig ignored and Fred is being widely embraced without their approval. They are showing a hubris of their own.
His advantage is who is tuning into the debate that night? Expect better ratings on Leno. And Fred will simply say that his official announcement is tomorrow. Big deal. He is not going on a show directly opposite the debate. Now that would leave a foul taste in the mouths of primary voters. So as long as no presumptive overtones are made indicating he thinks he already has the nomination he should be just fine.
Theworldisnotenough on September 1, 2007 at 5:33 PM
It also leaves him startlingly open to criticism during the debate. If another candidate takes a shot at him, he won’t be there to defend himself. Watch Huckabee for this; he’s got some momentum, has fairly openly criticized other candidates in the recent past, and is playing to much the same audience as Thompson.
Big S on September 1, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Huckabee might take a shot at him but Mitt and Rudy won’t. It’d be crazy to give him extra press when he’s set to launch the next day. It’d just make them look scared, frankly.
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 5:39 PM
If he has the nerve to declare or quasi-declare in a TV ad while the other candidates are out there debating, then he really does deserve to be pumelled. Which may be what he wants, to gain publicity.
Then he can lead with, “The other candidates are scared of me,” or something like that.
Well, you’re the brilliant political analyst, AP (no sarcasm intended); what do you think?
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 5:41 PM
The Fred Mitt battle for the conservative base should be fun to watch, with the winner to slug it out with Rudy. There is a lot to not like about Rudy, and I didn’t think he’d last this long, but the general election electoral math seems to work best for Republicans with Rudy as the nominee. Maybe a Rudy/Huckabee ticket.
dedalus on September 1, 2007 at 5:43 PM
That’s some powerful Fred spinnin there.
When Fred loses the primary his supporters will flood the internets claiming Fred was “too good” for the nomination.
e-pirate on September 1, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Yeah, I think he’s hoping they’ll unload on him. Which is why they won’t, except for Huckabee who needs some buzz of his own. Dragging Fred into a fight is just what the doctor ordered.
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 5:49 PM
I’m not so sure how effective the “they’re scared of me” point is, other than as a way to avoid answering questions on issues. New Hampshire voters are very needy when it comes to attention from candidates, and I can’t see any way in which a spat about not showing up for the debat helps Fred. It’s hard to say others are afraid of you when you appear to be too chicken to share a stage with them in NH.
Big S on September 1, 2007 at 5:49 PM
I agree. His message about the political process is that it is denegreating the office of the POTUS. This only underscores that point.
To quote myself from another thread:
And all those speeches were criticized by conservative pundits as lackluster, not up to par, etc. Every single crowd treated Fred like a rockstar. The MSM will repeat those memes, but to what avail? He will be soundly received and his message will be the most absorbed message because he is the least known, while polls indicate Rudy and Mitt are already well known, that equals a tuning out of nuances of position they will take to compete with Fred. Watch it happen.
Primary voters vote for the person they identify with the most. Republican primary voters are going to identify with who? Mitt, Rudy, or Fred?
Theworldisnotenough on September 1, 2007 at 5:50 PM
The best response for the other candidates should they face a “What do you think about Fred Thompson?” question would be to just give a short dismissive laugh. “Fred who? If he’s runnin for president, where’s he at tonight?”
e-pirate on September 1, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Personally I don’t care if Fred goes to a debate or not, I’m interested in what he has to say about the issues I worry about. Will he confront radical islam or cower if CAIR disapproves of his uttering “Islamofascist”? Will he secure our borders and deport criminal aliens or merely continue the charade we’ve been watching? Will he act to insure that there are jobs here in the USA or watch those jobs continue to be shipped overseas? Will he act to cut spending and eliminate pork from the budget or be yet another spendthrift selling our nation to China a chunk at a time?
I may be only 1 out of 300 million here in the US but the only way for anyone to get my vote these days is through my trust and to earn it a candidate has to answer those questions.
Buzzy on September 1, 2007 at 5:53 PM
You’re right; he seems to prefer a coronation.
Big S on September 1, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Um, no.
No part of this strategy says “outspend Romney in the first three states.” That would be idiotic.
Think of the Republican Primary electorate as three categories:
1) Rockefeller Republican RINOs;
2) “Whoever can beat Hillary Clinton”; and
3) Conservatives.
Right now, Rudy and Romney are splitting the Northeastern Rockefeller Republican vote; this means that the longer Romney stays in, the better off Thompson will be.
Rudy has the bulk of #2 right now, and Thompson and all the “Second Tier” candidates (including, believe it or not, McCain) are splitting #3.
This race will be decided by who can absorb most of the support from the “consistent conservative” second tier candidates as they drop off. And Thompson is perfectly positioning himself for that.
logis on September 1, 2007 at 5:59 PM
in the big picture, I think giuiliani is the only chance the republicans have to keep the white house in 08. given the non-existant chances in the senate/house; i’d say the WH is pretty much mandatory isn’t it?
like huckabee. i’m warming to mitt. i don’t like giuiliani too much; but let’s be realistic. rudy will bring the idgit vote.
lorien1973 on September 1, 2007 at 6:01 PM
AP is completely accurate with his analysis. The groupies keep looking at freds? actions through their own glazed over eyes.
AP is approaching this from a reasoned persons point of view who is more interested in the facts. The groupies spin in this thread is a pathetic attempt at proving they have been right about fred? for 5 months.
csdeven on September 1, 2007 at 6:07 PM
As a Badger fan, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
2:20 left in the 3rd
Bucky 28 and driving
Kim Bauer Bait (Washington State Cougars) 21
steveegg on September 1, 2007 at 6:09 PM
UNNNGGGHHHH!!!!! How did that go in the wrong post?
steveegg on September 1, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Will he or won’t he? Is he if or when? Blah, blah, blah. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I think ol Fred is trying to redefine ‘anti-climactic.’
I blame lawyers; television; mccain-feingold. Oh. And government schools ’cause I like to poke at hornet’s nests.
I think Fred’s current dilemma stems from his contractual obligations associated with NBC’s law & order. Would mccain-feingold or election finance rules come into play if Fred’s mug is being flashed all over NBC via ‘law & order’?
Just wondering.
locomotivebreath1901 on September 1, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Hey, WAY TO GO AP!!!!
I know they always say you shouldn’t kick a guy while he’s down. But I watch a lot of Ultimate Fighting and it turns out, heh, that’s actually the best time to do it!
logis on September 1, 2007 at 6:12 PM
That’s the only other thing I can think of.
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 6:12 PM
If that’s the case, I think it would actually be to his benefit to declare before the Law and Order run is over. He probably would not suffer the consequences of the laws, but NBC would have to figure out how to deal with it. However, it would give him a convenient excuse to bash election laws, and spotlight his “conversion” on McCain-Feingold.
Big S on September 1, 2007 at 6:23 PM
I wish you’d rethink your position on Mitt. Here’s why:
1: MA Healthcare Reform is fast becoming a nightmare.
2: Most of his appointees were replaced by the current Gov. (8-Ball) Deval Patrick within months of Romney leaving office.
3: 220,000 people left MA during Romney’s term as Governor.
(Chris Wallace asked him these very questions a couple of weeks ago and Mitt seemed to squirm in his seat.)
4: The last 2 years as Governor was spent campaigning and raising money for his Presidential campaign and most of the duties were left to his Lt. Gov. Kerry Healy who lost by a landslide to Mr. 8-Ball Deval Patrick.
kiakjones on September 1, 2007 at 6:23 PM
If Mitt is the nominee, we lose. Simple as that.
Then again, we probably lose no matter who’s nominated.
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 6:24 PM
We lose why?
Mitt could beat Silky, I think. He could stand up to Barack pretty well too.
see-dubya on September 1, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Silky may be the strongest challenger in the general election, believe it or not.
We lose because of the war and because there are no genuinely strong candidates in the GOP field. Rudy’s too liberal, Mitt’s too shaky (and probably, sadly, too Mormon for many voters), and Fred’s too … Fred.
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 6:34 PM
I agree with you AP. Against Hillary, Mitt gets you at least Utah. Unlike Rudy he probably doesn’t put much of the North East into play. He’d have to win FL, hold the South and pick off a state like PA in order to win. Against Mitt, Hillary probably gets over 300 electoral votes.
dedalus on September 1, 2007 at 6:34 PM
I have a dream. My dream is as follows: that in the Sept 5th debate there’s an empty podium with Fred’s name on it to represent the point in space where Fred isn’t. During the commercial break while Fred’s commercial is airing, somebody hangs an “Out to lunch, back in a few weeks” sign on it.
Perhaps just a few times, after one of the “candidates” is asked a question, the camera could very briefly switch to the empty podium, (by mistake, of course), before changing to an actual “candidate” for the answer.
Seriously though, if Fred is everything that people claim he is then I will be a likely supporter, but my skepticism has been growing, not diminishing.
FloatingRock on September 1, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Alternatively, the camera should skip to Fred’s podium for a brief moment every time he would’ve been asked a question had he actually been present at the debate.
FloatingRock on September 1, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Glad we agree on that.
Though I have to disagree with the Silky assessment, though I wish you were right, if I had to pick, I’d pick that lightweight dunce over Obama or Hill. Seriously, Silky ain’t gonna win, Cheney pwn3d him in the VP debate in 04. And not just a little smackdown, we’re talking total pwnage here. And Cheney isn’t exactly known for his energy, charisma and likeability.
Bad Candy on September 1, 2007 at 6:55 PM
I used too many thoughs. I need to learn that I have a preview button now.
Bad Candy on September 1, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Or maybe Fred’s commercial should show all the other candidates forming their exploratory committees in utero?
Watcher on September 1, 2007 at 7:01 PM
The smoking ban in NYC currently has the approval of the majority of New Yorkers. It’s good to be able to come back from a club and not have your clothes smell of someone else’s cigarettes. Also, it’s nice to not have cigarette smoke around when I’m in a restaurant with my kids.
The ban was unpopular when it was announced. Bloomberg deserves credit for leading on an issue that didn’t have public support right away.
dedalus on September 1, 2007 at 7:12 PM
And it’s too late Freddy, now it’s too late
Though we really did try to make it
Something inside has died and I can’t hide
And I just can’t fake it
It used to be so easy supporting you
You were new and charismatic and I knew just what to do
Now you look so old and tired and indecisive, and I feel like a fool
MB4 on September 1, 2007 at 7:16 PM
dedalus on September 1, 2007 at 7:12 PM
I agree about the smoking ban, and think it was a good idea for NYC. However, I think it’s an issue that is best left for local communities, rather than having the federal government enforce it; they have enough on their plate already. That said, I wouldn’t be opposed to tying pertinent federal aid being tied to the status of state or local smoking laws in some manner.
Big S on September 1, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Bullsh*t, one ban leads to another and you know it, always starts with bars and restaurants, then it goes to homes, then banned outright, and then what gets banned? I guarantee more vices do get banned, its your gun, your beer or bourbon, your SUV, your fried chicken, and it won’t stop. I don’t wanna live in that kind of world, and I’m guessing you don’t either.
Nuff said. Liberals love to have personal liberties taken away, they love seeing other people’s liberties taken away even more. Nanny staters need to be stopped at all costs, or we’ll end up living under the thumb of Big Brother in no time.
Bad Candy on September 1, 2007 at 7:23 PM
MB4… are you going to repost that in every thread?
Could you please at least try to think of something new to say?
Watcher on September 1, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Hey Fred – you’re a day late and a dollar short. Your 15 minutes are up.
Hilts on September 1, 2007 at 7:25 PM
Yeah, how dare he wait to get into the race until after Labor Day the year before the election… wait, we are still holding the election in 2008, right? Or did Hillary decide that we needed to move that up too?
Watcher on September 1, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Allah don’t forget that Rudy puts NY, NJ, Pa, and CT into play for the GOP as well as bringing home the white ethnics and Reagan Democrats. If the South stands firm we win. He has a better then even chance of beating Hillary especially if the yahoos remember that a President cannot outlaw abortion. Why concede the White House in 2008?
Hilts on September 1, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Bad Candy,
I don’t buy into the fallacy of the “slippery slope”, so I don’t know that “one ban leads to another”. I’m in favor of a much smaller federal government and want the government out of private behavior; however, someone’s right to smoke in a public space is less important than another person’s right to not inhale a cancer agent.
I agree with Big S, that smoking laws are best handled by localities. NYC, especially Manhattan, is such a densely populated place that some laws are going to make sense there that don’t apply elsewhere.
dedalus on September 1, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Hilts,
You are right. Rudy is a nightmare for Dems for the reasons you cite. If he pulls one of the states you mention it gets very tough for Hillary. Even if he doesn’t his strength in the North East would force Hillary to divert resources into states that had been locks for the Dems.
A problem for Rudy would be a potential third party run by a conservative, perhaps Right to Life, candidate.
dedalus on September 1, 2007 at 7:49 PM
dedalus
We park our cars in the same garage. Rudy had to be more liberal then he is in NYC because well let’s face it, a Newt Gingrich type will never win in NYC. Look at the people who hated Rudy – Al Sharpton, Charles Barron, The NY Times, the Village Voice crowd, the Municipal Unions – a man is judged by his enemies and Rudy was a terrific mayor. A lot of todays New Yorkers hwere not here when NYC was a festering toilet during the Lindsay, Beam, Koch and Dinkins years. The only states that Hillary would be guaranteed to win against Rudy are California, Mass., Vermont and maybe Oregon. Rudy would make her fight for every other state. C’mon everyone the stakes are too high!
Hilts on September 1, 2007 at 8:04 PM
Old man Fred, that old man Fred,
He dont say nothin, but he must know somethin
That old man Fred, he just keeps slidin along.
He dont plant taters,
And we all know he dont pick cotton.
But them that plant em, may soon be forgotten, that
Old man Fred, he just keeps slidin along, oh yes he does.
The other candidates all sweatin and toilin,
Their bodies all achin and rackin, now listen!
Lift that bar, youd better, tote that campaignin,
And if ya are too lazy,
Youll land in hades.
MB4 on September 1, 2007 at 8:05 PM
I should have added Maryland as another shoo in for Hillary Clinton.
Hilts on September 1, 2007 at 8:10 PM
Yeah, look at New York, no guns, no smoking, no trans fats (which I’ll lay a fortune they start cracking down on fatty food), and what’ll get banned next? Didn’t they make a ban on the words b*tch and ho in one of the boroughs? You want a restaurant or bar where there’s no smoking…f*cking build one, don’t ban it for everyone else. Municipal buildings, I can understand, they belong to the people, so they get to vote on it. Nannystates don’t stop when you let them establish intrusive rule, this ain’t a slippery slope, its established fact, you reward authoritarianism, and they’ll keep going.
Bad Candy on September 1, 2007 at 8:11 PM
If that’s how you really feel, you should be rooting for Bloomberg, Huckabee, or any of the Dems.
Bad Candy hits the nail on the head. Smoking bans are a slippery slope of un-American nanny state initiatives. What ever happened to individual rights, personal freedoms?
Pubs are privately owned. Why can’t the owners decide whether or not to allow smoking in their own establishments? I recall going to restaurants that were non-smoking years before all the banning started. If someone doesn’t want to go to a pub or restaurant that allows smoking, then they can go to the one around the corner that is smoke-free.
My guess is that if given the choice, probably all restaurants would be smoke-free, but only about 30% of pubs.
IrishEi on September 1, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Your car spews more carcinogens while idling at a red light than an entire carton of cigarettes.
IrishEi on September 1, 2007 at 8:31 PM
He’s comin to ya on a dusty road
He’ll be campainin with a red pickup truck load
And when you see him you’ll really see something
So dont worry cause Fred?’s a coming
Im a Fred? man
Im a Fred? man
Im a Fred? man
Im a Fred? man
He got what he got the lawyer and Hollywood way
And he’ll take it easier each and every day
So voters dont you fret
Cause you aint seen nothing yet
Im a Fred? man
Im a Fred? man
Play it Jeri!
Im a Fred? man
Im a Fred? man
Listen
He was all wrapped up on K street
He learned how to lobby almost before he could eat
He was educated from good Vanderbilt stock
When he starts lobbyin he just cant stop
Im a Fred? man
Im a Fred? man
Im a Fred? man
Im a Fred? man
He’ll grab your rope and he’ll pull you in
Give you hope and be your only best friend
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Im a Fred? man
Im a Fred? man
Youre a Fred? man!
Im a Fred? man
Im a Fred? man
MB4 on September 1, 2007 at 8:35 PM
I did start a business in NYC. The majority of our employees were glad that city law prevented us as owners from allowing smoking in the open spaces.
People don’t have an inalienable right to let their dogs deficate on the sidewalk, to play a loud radio in a park, or to have sex in a public restroom. Cities have been necessarily regulating these things for centuries. One can disagree with a particular policy but can’t reasonably assert that all laws lead to authoritarianism.
dedalus on September 1, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Hi Irish,
I don’t buy the slippery slope angle but I’m with you individual rights. My original point was that Bloomberg lead on an issue and that public opinion later came around to his position. I wouldn’t have written the ban as he did and have enjoyed spending a lot of my younger years in smokey bars in NYC. I never did like cigarette smoke while dining.
I think people have a right to smoke tobacco (or anything else they want) in a private setting. I don’t want to spend my tax dollars so that the government can restrict my private behavior.
dedalus on September 1, 2007 at 8:47 PM
I’ve been saying something along those lines for the past two months. I was hoping to be proven wrong, but Fred is an empty suit, and is therefore easily predictable.
Considering Fred’s supporters have been saying “Fear the Fred!” for the last 3 months, that isn’t exactly going to be a new development, is it?
The only thing Fred has been consistent in is dissapointing. He’s tired and predictable. I keep hoping beyond hope that somehow, some way Fred will prove me wrong and actually show those “Malkins” his fanpeople keep talking about.
Just a note: Arrogance and hubris does not equal Malkins. Sorry Fredheads, making a monumental ass of oneself is not a sign of bravery, its a sign of desperation. Maybe if Fred had more to offer us than a load of smoke up our rears, he might show some guts and join the fun.
BKennedy on September 1, 2007 at 8:49 PM
What exactly would you qualify as “generally strong?”
Because I’m wondering AP, exactly which states will Hillary win that Kerry didn’t. Does she stand a shot in Ohio or Florida, the states that won Bush the last election? I can’t see anything south of the Mason-Dixon line (bar florifa) voting for any of the Socialists. The only one who might pull it off is Richardson by getting the illegal vote.
Are you really saying people would prefer a socialist President to a Mormon?
If so, we probably deserve to lose. Our country is no longer fir to be called America.
BKennedy on September 1, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Rights are typically not required to protect the will of the majority.
Throughout history armed people capable of fighting back have been asked by the elites in their societies to give up their rights willingly, and always “for the good of the majority”, because as long as the populace is sufficiently armed their rights cannot easily be taken by force. Before long people learn to conform to the will of the majority and rights no longer have any real meaning. Besides, there are always excellent reasons for giving up rights; it’s a good thing.
This is when the populace becomes ripe for the picking and the elites can ask for and usually expect to receive their arms, again “for the good of the majority”. But hey, what’s the big deal; most people are part of the majority, right? Well by this point they’d better be, because once the population is disarmed the elites can do with them as they will, and history demonstrates that they do. Even majority rule comes to an abrupt conclusion when only the elites of a society have rights anymore.
FloatingRock on September 1, 2007 at 10:08 PM
“Mitt might have a chance as Freds VP.
AZCON on September 1, 2007 at 5:16 PM”
flip it. fred = cheney. guiliani will not make it past the southern states where he’ll disappoint, even Fla. romney has the energy and it factor to be the top position candidate. thompson says he won’t vp but he will.
pc on September 1, 2007 at 10:10 PM
I its foolish to accept that your rights were denied to you like this. You own the business, you have the right to ban or not ban smoking yourself, if your employees don’t like how you run the show (whether smoking or non), they can start their own business. Nanny Bans are unneccesary and abusive, let the individual person run their business as they see fit.
Bad Candy on September 1, 2007 at 10:37 PM
It’s a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, not some crushing oppression by a police state. Effectively, it’s just one of many sensible rules and regulations that establishments must follow in order to obtain/keep an operating licence from the city.
Big S on September 1, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Bad Candy,
Should the owner of a business be able to construct an office building as they see fit and ignore building codes? What if the employees are injured or killed by a collapsing structure? Should the owner be able to use lead paint? Should the owner be able to create a fire trap? Are you saying that we must get rid of all laws?
As a business owner I hate all of the regulation, but there is a base level that produces an efficient marketplace by allowing consumers to feel safe and confident.
dedalus on September 1, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Strategic Vision (R) poll
8/11/2007
Florida
Rudy Giuliani 34%
Fred Thompson 18%
Mitt Romney 10%
John McCain 8%
Tom Tancredo 3%
Mike Huckabee 3%
Newt Gingrich 3%
Ron Paul 2%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Sam Brownback 1%
Tommy Thompson 1%
Unsure 16%
tommylotto on September 1, 2007 at 11:02 PM
dedalus on September 1, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Right. The city also does health inspections of restaurants and bars to make sure they procure, store, and prepare food and drinks properly. Now, in addition to that, the city seeks to ensure the air quality of such establishments. Some people are against the bans becuase they like to smoke, and I can understand that perspective (although I don’t smoke myself.) However, to claim, as some do, that such a ban is a big step towards authoritarianism, strikes me as silly.
Big S on September 1, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Y’all sound like liberals over abortion/Iraq… except it’s conservatives over smoking, of all the issues.
Priorities!
HYTEAndy on September 1, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Please show me some empirical/medical evidence that backs up your implications. Cigarettes are just legal drugs with no medical benefit.
Cigarettes are for fools.
Soooooo well said that I wish I had a blog so that I could quote that. This is where conservatives get just as hysterical as liberals.
HYTEAndy on September 1, 2007 at 11:50 PM
I see a difference between cigs and trans fats. Your eating trans fat doesn’t make me fat.
HYTEAndy on September 1, 2007 at 11:52 PM
You forgot “jack-booted”.
I would suggest that there’s a difference between a collapsing structure and a personal choice. The lead paint ban is a closer approximation of the issue, but paint isn’t really a personal issue, other than when in the form of art, so if a particular ingredient is banned that is dangerous to children, people aren’t really giving up anything that is a part of their lifestyle. Should lead itself be banned? It’s a very useful element to say the least. If there are industrial applications for lead paint where children are prohibited without supervision and workers are instructed not to gnaw on the machinery, shouldn’t lead paint be allowed in certain environments? Do you have any idea how toxic bottom paint is for boats? What if somebody bought some lead and made their own lead paint for hobby purposes, like for restoring an antique?
After that we could discuss asbestos.
My point is that we can discuss extreme examples to make our points or we can examine the issue at hand, which is the matter of a personal choice. Unlike lead paint, it is difficult to expose somebody to tobacco smoke without their knowledge, so if they allow themselves to be exposed it is due to a conscious decision on their part.
Just how much risk is involved when you’re walking through a park and you notice a hint of tobacco smoke in the air for a moment? Is even a hint of tobacco smoke too much? How about on a sidewalk? Campfires produce lots of smoke and I don’t know about you, but the smoke seems to follow me regardless of where I sit around the fire. Campfire smoke is undoubtedly carcinogenic, as are diesel fumes. Most if not all of the school busses around my area are diesel. They don’t have seatbelts either. Imagine that.
Here’s an interesting question: should an employer be allowed to fire people who don’t smoke at all during working hours, but enjoy a good cigar in the privacy of their home each night? There is at least one corporation in the USA that does not allow their employees to smoke even at home. Period. They are tested for nicotine just like illicit drugs. Does that sound American to you?
(Sorry for all of the rhetorical questions.)
FloatingRock on September 2, 2007 at 12:01 AM
So?
Being foolish should be a crime, then? Who do you propose would be the arbiter of all things foolish, Hillary? Bloomberg? Rudy? What qualifies any of them for the role, do they have royal blood running through their veins or are they descendent from God?
FloatingRock on September 2, 2007 at 12:25 AM
You quite literally sound like a liberal. Sorry, but on this issue it’s true.
Right: priorities. The very principle of conservatism is personal responsibility and the perpetuation of the conditions that allow it.
FloatingRock on September 2, 2007 at 12:42 AM
I guess they’ll want to ban alcohol next. No medical use and it kills hundreds of thousands if you include the victims of drunk drivers, murdered spouses, abused kids, not to mention the direct medical problems of alcoholism on the user himself. Let’s revisit the prohibition again, it worked so well the first time around.
Buzzy on September 2, 2007 at 12:48 AM
By the logic developing on the anti-smoking ban side of the discussion here, the company should be able to do what it pleases, with each worker making the individual choice whether or not to remain in their position of employment. By asking the rhetorical question “Does that sound American to you?” you are implicitly acknowledging that society, by means of government, has an interest in defining the legal boundaries within which a company may operate, out of concern for its employees. I’d argue that this concern extends to a company’s customers and competitors as well; indeed, there are a large number of laws already on the books that specify these boundaries.
Big S on September 2, 2007 at 1:38 AM
When the employee is on the clock you could make that argument, but if you are suggesting that employers own their employees personal lives as well, this is just another extremist position similar to your “crushing oppression by a police state” comment. To suggest that unless something qualifies as “crushing oppression by a police state” it is not still a violation of a person’s liberty is ridiculous, as is your implication that if the government can’t dictate personal choices then as a result employees are virtual slaves.
I am not arguing that there is not cause for certain minimal regulations governing safety standards and the like, but when those standards dictate personal behavior it clearly is an intrusion on liberty that goes beyond the threshold where, for example, restaurants are required NOT to poison their patrons with E. coli.
For myself, I am not too concerned if smoking is outlawed in business offices, especially for companies above a certain size, but when those regulations extent to recreational locations like bars or when smoking is even prohibited outside were the risk to others is minimal, it goes too far. It’s an unwarranted intrusion on the minority by the majority.
And when a company can fire employees for engaging in legal activates in their private affairs, yes, I call that un-American. Don’t you?
FloatingRock on September 2, 2007 at 2:23 AM
Not really. There are tons of stats that show that smokers have more health issues, sick time, and the like. If the employer is providing health insurance they have a right to dictate that they won’t shoulder the costs for smoking related illnesses. You don’t have to work there, you have the freedom as an American not to.
Bradky on September 2, 2007 at 2:29 AM
That’s a good argument but still flawed, IMO. A company has a right to set standards that all their employees have to meet and then hold their employees to those standards. If somebody is sick too often for whatever reason, the employer has a right to terminate his or her employment. If a company doesn’t want to cover employees for a illnesses or injury caused by certain risky behaviors, such as smoking or skydiving or being gay and/or promiscuous, then it could be argued that they have a right not to offer health coverage on related illnesses and injury, and if employees don’t like it they can find work elsewhere. But to target one legal behavior while accepting all the others, and as a result intruding on the personal lives of their employees, I consider that un-American.
FloatingRock on September 2, 2007 at 2:50 AM
I’m an ex-smoker and am sympathetic to some of the rules smokers have levied on them. I’m not a zealot telling smokers they should quit — tough to quit and nagging never motivates anyone.
I can see writing a clause for something like sky diving, much as life insurance policies do. But as far as one’s sex life there is really no way to enforce that, not to mention the numerous equal opportunity laws that would break. Smokers have more sick days and take more breaks than non-smokers. It is a productivity issue for some companies. They may use the health reasons as justification but they have the right to do that.
Skydiving and sex is done on the employee’s own time.
Look at the helmet laws in many states. The taxpayers get hit with the bills for the brain injuries and treatment of many of the survivors. So they pass a law making helmets mandatory for safety.
There is an old saying that goes along the lines of “My rights stop where your rights begin”.
To say it bites I can understand. But un-American? I disagree. Nothing in the constitution I am aware of makes this kind of issue a restriction of one’s freedoms.
Bradky on September 2, 2007 at 3:06 AM
One last comment: The reason I hold this opinion is because otherwise, even in the absence of government intrusion, corporations could potentially dictate personal behaviors simply by fiat. If all the corporations in America disallow smoking or other personal behaviors in their employees “private” lives, either gradually or at once, then the populace would have little choice but to comply. It would create a condition of corporate fascism.
If only a few companies are doing it, it doesn’t really matter because the free market can handle it. My concern is that it could lead to abuse at some point in the future. Unfortunately I suspect that as usual, on any given issue a sizable portion of the “majority” simply won’t care, and in fact would consider the new collective limitations on our personal behavior a positive change. This is why although the government could be employed to prevent this scenario from occurring; it’s unlikely as long as the majority is compliant, which is usually the case with these things.
It concerns me because tyranny is tyranny regardless of its source and while some people are on the watch for it from the government, they may miss it from an alternate source.
FloatingRock on September 2, 2007 at 3:36 AM
Sure there is. Aids and other STD’s aren’t covered unless it’s congenital… but even then, if somebody already has an STD a corporation might not hire them in the first place and perhaps if they contract an STD during employment, they could be fired because they’re liable to miss some work. You’re right that it would be hard to monitor somebody’s sex life, but the consequences of it could be regulated. I don’t know if any of this is legal, I just assume it is because private behavior can be regulated in regard to smoking.
The company which we’re talking about doesn’t allow their employees to smoke either during work hours or “on the employee’s own time”. It’s a zero tolerance policy for nicotine. I saw this on a show a few years ago and don’t remember the name of the company. I’d try to look it up but it’s late and I’m trying to finish this up for the night.
I have. I’m totally against them even though unless I foget, I wear a helmet when I ride my bike. If adults want to ride their bikes or motorcycles without a helmet what business is it of ours? I can sort of understand the sentiment in relation to protecting children, but even then children should be allowed to play and have fun. What’s next, banning tag on playgrounds? When I was growing up, I fell once on my bike when I was about six, skinned my knee, and then rode my bike a few miles a day or more on average, and never once had another bike accident that resulted in injury. I’m sure as hell glad I didn’t have to wear a helmet. I also spent a lot more time than your average person in boats on large lakes and in the Puget Sound and although we had life preserves handy, I only had to actually wear them in rough seas and stormy weather. What a life! I feel sorry for kids now days. For one thing the helmets looks stupid, and maybe that’s why kids are getting so fat because they don’t want to look like dorks.
FloatingRock on September 2, 2007 at 4:00 AM
It’s wrong to suggest that if somebody utilizes government services and thus consumes tax dollars that they surrender their liberty, especially since there’s little doubt the injured party has also paid into the system. The argument is even weaker when you consider that there’s only the possibility that a person might be injured and require medical care.
I rode my BMX and 12 speed constantly all the time I was growing up and never had a bike helmet at any time. I also grew up riding snowmobiles and motorcycles and never consumed any tax dollars with injuries. In fact, my family was well insured. On what grounds should I have given up my right to take some risk in exchange for fun?
It’s a good saying and is the basis for everything I’ve been writing.
FloatingRock on September 2, 2007 at 4:24 AM
Just out of curiousity, has there been a poll taken on a state-by-state basis, that shows how many Electoral Votes the candidates would receive vs. mz rodham? Remember, we elect Electors, not the president. Which of the Republican candidates would carry the most states?
Texas Nick 77 on September 2, 2007 at 6:18 AM
This is a perfect example of what ails the fred?heads.
NO SUBSTANCE. For the last month or so, since the rest of us have put up honest examples of freds? record against all others (and fred? is shown to be seriously wanting for experience, a history as a Washington outsider, and other “stuff”), the fred?heads have constantly bombarded these threads with their accolades for freds? “image”. His folksy colloquialisms and fake image is going to cut it outside Tennessee. The above post shows that even the fred?heads have nothing to brag on him about. Their total effort is towards tearing down those who have the experience and organization that fred? cannot hold a candle to.
All freddie boy can do is spout old ideas that have been rehashed over the years. And even if he did find something new to say, he has no credibility to implement it.
I just can’t believe the guy is this stupid. We know he is simply a slick Washington insider who funnels cash to his family, attacks free speech, and lobbies for scumbags. And he does try to obfuscate that history. Sometimes. The rest of the time he falls back to his natural personality, but strangely he does it in front of the cameras. WHY? The guys a lawyer, he SHOULD be smarter than that.
OH wait a minute! I remember that the lady I spoke to at the FEC said that fred? could run his campaign as stupidly as he wants AND collect contributions. In the end it he can commit a stupid “mistake”, drop out, and convert ALL that lovely, juicy cash into a PAC and then hire his family to “administer” it. What a great way to funnel cash back into your own pocket. Maybe “old fred?” isn’t so stupid?
He’s done it before.
csdeven on September 2, 2007 at 8:16 AM
FloatingRock,
I agree that there is a difference between a collapsing structure and a personal choice. My post was a response to a comment that argued private employers have the right to do whatever they want without interference from the government. I used extreme examples to show that as a matter of principle, that is not the case.
If someone wants to use lead, inhale diesel fumes, or smoke cigarettes as a matter of personal choice I’m fine with that and don’t want the government involved in private behavior. However, cities do have a the right to regulate commercial establishments and the elected officials have to balance the desire of smokers to smoke in a restaurant against non-smokers desire to not breath second hand smoke. My first post on the subject made the point that Bloomberg lead on an issue that public opinion has since come around to favor. Whether I agree with him or not, he does deserve credit for leadership. We’ll see if his efforts on the congestion plan have similar results.
As for your question about whether a business can screen for nicotine with its employees. I’ve heard about that. All I can say is that as an employer we never screened for nicotine or any other drugs. I think it is wrong of an employer to make judgments about employees based on behavior outside of work, but it is legal for them to do so and big businesses are spending more resources than ever before on screening employees.
dedalus on September 2, 2007 at 12:19 PM
I think this poll says it all. Run Fred run. Once he’s “all in” then we’ll have a better idea. I prefer Phred to the lib or the waffle.
Mojave Mark on September 2, 2007 at 8:28 PM
All that poll says to me is that Fred is the “hopes and dreams” candidate, and reality will come crashing down on him in the next 4 days.
BKennedy on September 2, 2007 at 9:29 PM
fred? = the groupie non-candidate
csdeven on September 3, 2007 at 12:00 AM
csdeven = the stalker troll who will probably end up getting himself arrested before this election is over, assuming he doesn’t die from auto-erotic asphyxiation as soon as he sees Fred’s first campaign ad
Watcher on September 3, 2007 at 1:33 AM
Correction:
csdeven on September 3, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Watcher = Douche bag that thinks saying something childish makes him look wise. School yard insults? WOW! How tough and brave are you?!
BWahahahahaha!!
csdeven on September 3, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »