Video: The new Great Communicator

Where was the edit. I didn’t see it. That was what I remembered from his performance when I saw it. You say there was an edit, but I don’t know. If there was, it was a better job than the guy bouncing the quarters.

The Fredlovers over at Rasmussen have him loosing eight points in five days… The only thing that was impressive about Fred’s performance at the debate was the negative impact it had on him in the polls.

tommylotto on October 12, 2007 at 3:43 PM

While this is common assumption/perception, and a tip to do something about it, this is the latest in speech findings. Who knows? The good thing for Fred is that not all of the voters are speech experts. On the other hand this video might kick him in the shin.

Entelechy on October 12, 2007 at 3:23 PM

My sin is that I say “Okay” too often. I take plenty of depositions and the court reporter takes down everything. I do not say uh, umm, or like too often, but I say “okay” after every response from the witness. I can’t seem to get myself to stop. I think it is me recognizing that he is finished with his answer. But I’m sure someone could put together a tape of me going okay, okay, okay, okay… that would run minutes. I’d sound like Joe Pesce in that bad lethal weapon movie.

tommylotto on October 12, 2007 at 3:57 PM

I really want to like Fred, and do think some of the criticism is over-the-top and completely idiotic (e.g., the Fred-supports-jihad retard-a-thon in the headlines the other day was Exhibit A; exhibit B were the idiots engaging in the most dishonest type of hyperbole).

It does sound completely implausble that a guy like Fred would be a terrorist enabler, doesn’t it? I do not blame you for thinking that is way out there. But when I looked into it, it was more like true than not. He was a part (albeit a small part) of a team of lawyers that were trying to keep Lybian terrorist from being extradited from a terrorist state to face justice in the West. Other lawyers refused to take the case and some resigned rather than remain at a firm that took on the case. Fred, worked on the case.

But tactically, I think Fred waited way too long to announce, spending too much time playing his coy little game. After all of that, he should have been able to enter the race at full speed, but instead he’s still looking … well, less than energized.

Amen!!!

Fred should have jumped into the race, ready or not, when amnesty was a hot topic. While other candidates were still putting their finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing, Fred could have come in guns blazing and unabashedly anti-amnesty/pro-enforcment as one of his major planks. He would have definitely caught the ear of the conservative movement, would have probably zoomed in the polls, and would have been in a better position to weather the inevitable mistakes a campaign makes. It just feels to me like he missed the moment.

thirteen28 on October 12, 2007 at 1:34 PM

You realize that would have required Fred to take astand for something before it was clear which way the wind was blowing. That would be decidedly unFred like.

tommylotto on October 12, 2007 at 4:13 PM

doriangrey on October 12, 2007 at 4:45 PM

It is because I am a lawyer that I know your argument is BS. I will agree with you that every criminal under American jurisdiction, no matter how heinous, deserves a vigorous defense in an American Court. My best friend is a criminal defense lawyer who represents accused murders, drug dealers, child rapists, etc. His vigorous defense of them does not bother me. And if those terrorists had been dragged into an American court and put on trial, they too would be entitled to a vigorous defense and I would not criticize any lawyer for serving that important role in our criminal justice system. However, those terrorists were not in an American court. In fact, Fred’s objective was to make sure the terrorists were tried in Lybia (yeah, right!), and not the US. Fred was NOT playing the important role of a criminal defense lawyer, Fred was advocating against our criminal justice system in its entirety. The object was not to provide a defense within our system, but to avoid our system in its entirety on a technicality.

tommylotto on October 12, 2007 at 5:01 PM

A change of venue from a hostile venue to a neutral or friendly venue is a mandatory defense tactic.

I’d agree. O.J. changing venue from Santa Monica to Downtown was a good defense move. The cops that beat the shiite out of Rodney King changing venue from Downtown LA to Simi Valley was also a good defense move — until it cause the entire city to burn down. That is a change of VENUE. With these Lybian terrorist, the only VENUE question was whether they should be tried in Tripoli or Bengahzi. That was not what Fred and his firm were hired to do. They were hired to make sure the terrorists were tried in Lybia and avoided a trial in the US or Great Britain. That’s not venue and not a legitimate defense. It is the avoidance of justice in favor or a mock trial by a terrorist state.

The system only works when people work within the system. Tom suggest that Fred was supporting terrorists because he did what he was morally and ethically required to do is an affront to our judicial system and all those who practice it ethically and in good faith.

doriangrey on October 12, 2007 at 5:23 PM

SPLATT!! I just threw up.

Fred was not working within the system. He was helping the terrorists avoid the system all together. He was not morally or ethically required to do anything. He could have refused to work on the case, or like Ms. Kennedy, he could have resigned from the firm as opposed to being associated with terrorists. However, as we have learned in the last few days, Fred has a soft spot for terrorists and terrorist sympathizers and enablers. Truly amazing that he is a candidate for POTUS. How stoopid does he think we are?

tommylotto on October 12, 2007 at 6:45 PM