Video: Fox News is biased against me, says Fred
posted at 12:37 pm on November 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Has it come to this? Yes, Carl Cameron had some fun with his Gucci-wearing, golf-cart-riding ways at the Iowa state fair. And no, the Foxies didn’t stint on reporting his personnel troubles. But has any candidate, Giuliani included, been hyped more consistently or enthusiastically by Sean Hannity than Fred? From the first one-on-one in May to the solo shot while the rest of the field was debating in June to an among-the-people sitdown in July, and on through to September and October, and that’s not including radio appearances or shots on other Fox shows. There’s been a “constant mantra,” all right. Just not the one Fred’s claiming here.
The ultimate irony? Guess which Fox show it was that launched his bid for the presidency.
Update: Will Fox News be blamed for this, too?
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 Next »
Okay, well then this gets to the purpose of blogs then, I suppose. I stopped watching the news and went to blogs, because the bloggers were giving me the news that the mass media was not reporting. If the blogs are just going to highlight the same crap from the mass media, then we are now left with the real news not being reported.
From your take here, I get the sense that the purpose of this blog post is to show blog readers what the ignorant massses are probably seeing and what we need to combat? Well, if that is the case, why doesn’t the full blog post focus on the full interview of Fred and also point out to the blog readers his main points in the interview. I wouldn’t have a problem with that at all.
I have no problem with a post saying “here is what many people are taking from this interview (and what mediamatters is probably going to smear Fred Thompson with), but here are the other main points that Fred Thompson gave in the interview which are much more important as related to his policy as President.” Something along those lines is why I stopped going to the media and started going to blogs.
But a post which just echoes the mediamatters-type straw-focus on one point to try to distract people from the overall interview and all the policy points… I find that beneath us on conservative side.
As I said, in an interview with a Presidential candidate there are probably a number of major points they made. The tabloid way of reporting that would be to frame the interview as “FRED VS FOX NEWS!”. That is what I have come to expect from the mass media, the tabloid FOX News Channel media and the mediamatters types. I don’t expect that from the conservative side of the blogs, because I thought we were more insterested in substance and policy.
And, yes, one could say that they are providing this clip to direct others to find out about the entire interview. But then we could say the same for the mass media that many here and at Newsbusters and other conservative sites criticize.
My expectations of conservative blogs have come to be that they will not just cherry-pick exerpts from speeches and interviews as the mass media has been doing for years. I have come to expect much more.
So are you saying that you want to keep the political discourse in this country ignorant to appeal to the ignorant of the American voting public? Isn’t that the same as our education system dumbing down our public education to the slowest educated of our students? Shouldn’t we expect more from our political discourse? Shouldn’t we want to bring the American voting public’s knowledge of politics up to a healthy level instead of bringing the level of political discourse down to the ignorant level of most Americans these days?
Personally, that is the greatest draw for me to the Rush Limbaugh show, because he doesn’t insult his listeners and assume they are too stupid to understand everything he is talking about. I have learned so much about the political world simply from listening to his show for the past 6 years. I am very glad he does that. I wouldn’t want him to dumb down his show to the “rio linda”s of the country.
Michael in MI on November 25, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Bingo, Gatordoug. If we changed this discussion to the dumbing down of our school systems, instead of expecting more of our children and helping them to live up to their potential, I believe the discussion would be different among people here (though, maybe I am wrong there too?).
We are not okay with the dumbing down of our children, but we are okay with the dumbing down of people with regards to politics? I don’t understand that. And, as you said, I expect more.
Michael in MI on November 25, 2007 at 5:10 PM
I don’t really disagree with you. Sometimes I think the posts have a point-of-view. I hate being led by the nose, so I ignore that and establish my own point of view in my comments. I don’t want to dumb down anything. If you want to object to my commenting that a sound bite will be created of that interview that may not be good for Fred, and that many people will be swayed by it, go ahead. But how you get to thinking that I want it that way is beyond me.
JiangxiDad on November 25, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Fred cried, bloggers lied!
Bradky on November 25, 2007 at 5:19 PM
If getting people to read and comment is the goal, or even a main goal, why is registration almost always closed?
I don’t get it.
MB4 on November 25, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Probably had more to do with keeping some semblance of order. Not sure but I would imagine if registration were wide open AP would spend most of his time moderating comments for spam, advertisements, and language.
Bradky on November 25, 2007 at 5:26 PM
MB4 on November 25, 2007 at 5:27 PM
JiangxiDad on November 25, 2007 at 5:15 PM
What I have come to expect from conservative blogs is for the Headline to be something like “Fred Talks About His Policy as President on FOX News Channel” and then have the post be about what policy positions he discussed. And then at the end say, “But, this will probably be what most people take from the interview”.
I expect to see the focus from conservative blogs to be on substance and then point out the petty things as an afterthought. As opposed to what the mass media does which is focus on the petty things and then mention the substance as an afterthought (if they even do at all).
As I said, it gets to what the purpose of blogs is. We just had a post yesterday discussing the influence of blogs. As I stated earlier, blogs influenced me to start reading them because of their substance. And as I have mentioned in previous blog posts, I have stopped reading HotAir as much over the past few months, because there was much more focus on FOX News tabloid type stuff and focusing on petty things over substance in some cases.
If the blogs want to turn into a print edition of the tabloid mass media, that’s fine. But I hope they also know that they should expect to attract people who are attracted to tabloid style news. If the end of blog views and comments justifies the means of tabloiding the blogosphere, well so be it.
But this is exactly what I was worried about with blogs once they became more popular. I was hoping that the blogosphere was going to improve the discussion of things in society. Certain blogs do that. Such as milblogs have improved the dicsussion of military matters. Yes, commenters will still be childish sometimes, but the blog authors are responsible for their commenters. Blog authors can set the example for what kind of discussion they want of the issues.
No, this is not an attack on AllahPundit, even though I don’t like this particular post. This is just a general opinion on the purpose and future of political blogs going forward. There has been a slow deterioration from intellectual discussion of politics and policy on blogs down to a tabloid-style discussion of things to attract readers and comments. I hope this does not continue.
Michael in MI on November 25, 2007 at 5:28 PM
No. My headline is actually more objective; the way you’ve phrased it is rah-rah “git ‘em, Fred”! You want a Fred cheerleader? Go read Fred File or Blogs for Fred Thompson. I’ve given you ample evidence in this post why Fred’s complaint re: Fox is overblown.
Allahpundit on November 25, 2007 at 5:28 PM
The fact that I am here kind of throws cold water on that theory.
MB4 on November 25, 2007 at 5:29 PM
If AllahPundit or Michelle Malkin ever thought about making registration wide open, I would first suggest they look at any blog with open registration and what they have to deal with when they post on Ron Paul. I read Flopping Aces regularly and when they go after Ron Paul to expose his nuttiness, it never fails, all his supporters spam the site in the comments and the threads are 50+ easy. Granted, most of the time it is not mindless spam, but they are generally interested in debating the issues. But they attack anti-Ron Paul threads like flies on doo.
So that would be my guess too as to why they don’t allow open registration all the time. Too much of a hassle with the spammers, especially with all the hate mail Michelle says she gets. I can imagine she would get alot more in the comments of her posts.
Michael in MI on November 25, 2007 at 5:33 PM
I have good news and bad news for you.
This is actually one of the best blogs for intellectual discussion.
That was both the good news and the bad news.
MB4 on November 25, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Ya think- I’m not so sure.
Ex-tex on November 25, 2007 at 5:36 PM
And I don’t see it. I never hear anything on FOX about Fred without some negative twist of words.
Connie on November 25, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Less corrupt? Neither of them are corrupt. I like them both.
Connie on November 25, 2007 at 5:41 PM
The MSNBC Headline:
WHOA Allah- I think MSNBC even got’ya in the ‘objectivity race’
Ex-tex on November 25, 2007 at 5:42 PM
I actually laughed out loud on that one. :)
I will say this about HotAir… the commenters are very diverse in both their political views and whom they support in politics (well, granted, I think most, if not all, are Republican supporters, but definintely not all conservatives). So, in that sense, there is definitely some good diverse discussion here.
But there can be good diverse discussion without having the discussion be very intellectual. HotAir does have its share of both.
Michael in MI on November 25, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Anyone who watches Fox news on a regular basis knows that Fred is right. So the sound bite will probably elicit agreement. Lucianne’s website is the same way, very anti-Fred, making snide comments against him in her must reads where she or her staff post negative articles about him. These snide comments never have anything to do with his policies but are always about his personality or demeanor. I like Lucianne but don’t understand why there is so much anti-Fred stuff being posted. Fred is only pointing out the obvious about FOX news, they have their candidate and are doing their best to belittle Fred and they are not doing it on the basis of his stand on the issues but by being very shallow.
Rose on November 25, 2007 at 5:44 PM
The Odd Alliance Supporting Ron Paul
Connie on November 25, 2007 at 5:44 PM
It’s not the Paulnuts who keep registration closed, it’s the liberals who’d be flooding in here to spread some of their patented enlightened cheer about Michelle “Maglagong.”
Yeah, I hear this high-minded critique of the blogosphere frequently. There’s some truth to it, just as there’s always some truth to saying “we should be paying more attention to Serious Topic X instead of Frivolous Topic Y.” I’m not a wonk, though, and I’m certainly no tax wonk. If you want an analysis of Fred’s tax proposals, I’m sure there are plenty of bloggers out there willing and able to provide it. That’s the beauty of the blogosphere — collective intelligence. But the truth is, most blogs specialize in general interest/water cooler material, even many of the lefties who’d gasp in horror that I’d suggest such a thing. We can’t give you everything you’d want or need to read, nor would we ever suggest that we could.
Also, I don’t think it’s “tabloid” to devote a post to arguably the most conservative candidate in the race criticizing the most conservative cable news network in America for its coverage of him.
Allahpundit on November 25, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Registration is about maintaining a certain level of civil discourse according to the standards of the site. Each site has its own criteria for civil discourse based upon the biases of those running the site. If you want to get banned here it’s really not very hard, the fact that you make the conscience decision not to post certain inflammatory statements pretty much disproves your own assertion.
AP’s job here is one of traffic control, do what it takes to ensure that the traffic remains high without breaching certain set standards of civil conduct. His snarky style fits the general overall theme of this blog and contributes to a very substantial dialog. He is nothing less than an old fashioned agent provocateur.
doriangrey on November 25, 2007 at 5:47 PM
It is discouraging isn’t it?
Gatordoug on November 25, 2007 at 5:48 PM
lib•er•tar•ian
MB4 on November 25, 2007 at 5:48 PM
The Clinton-Murdoch alliance is well-known.
Valiant on November 25, 2007 at 5:49 PM
You think “Fox News is biased against me, says Fred” is more slanted than “Fred takes Fox News out to the woodshed”? To me, taking someone out to the woodshed is equivalent to delivering a righteous smackdown. There’s a distinct positive connotation to it. Saying “X is biased against me, says Y” is perfectly neutral. Imagine the headline, “Keith Olbermann is biased against me, says Michelle Malkin”? Slanted?
Allahpundit on November 25, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Never leave home without one.
MB4 on November 25, 2007 at 5:50 PM
I appreciate that you’re being (sort of) complimentary but it is depressing sometimes to realize how you guys see me and characterize what I’m trying to do.
Allahpundit on November 25, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Never have… ;)
doriangrey on November 25, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Connie on November 25, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Thanks, Connie. I actually read that the other day after seeing it posted on LGF, I believe. I sent it out to my distribution list.
What I see happening with most conservative and Republican political sites is that once they start supporting a certain candidate, they then go on the attack against the other candidates. That may be what is happening at Lucianne, but I couldn’t say for certain since I don’t read the site.
What I have had a difficult time understanding is the vitriolic attacks going back and forth among conservatives and Republican-voters regarding the Republican field. And then, when I take what they are all saying about the candidates and then say I think about voting 3rd party, they all attack me and say I have to vote Republican, no matter who wins the nomination.
So, after these people get through telling me how completely incompetent, corrupt and utterly unfit to be President are candidate X,Y and Z, they then tell me I must vote for X, Y or Z if they are the Republican candidate. Ummm, okay then…
I know I live in an idealistic fantasy world, but it would be nice if the Republican candidates could simply talk about themselves and leave the attacks alone. If every candidate is the best, they should be able to run on their own merits.
But, yes, I understand that this is the state of our political discourse in our country: smear, lie, smear, misrepresent, smear, attack, smear, etc etc ad naseum. While people may say that this is what it takes for politics, I wonder if anyone stops to think about why half the nation doesn’t bother to vote. It may be because they don’t like the state of politics and don’t want to bother to get involved. I know that was my opinion prior to 9/11.
Michael in MI on November 25, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Imitationattendance is the next sincerest form of flattery.MB4 on November 25, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Well, that’s where we differ in opinion, AllahPundit. I don’t consider FOX News Channel at all conservative. I see it as pretty tabloid. I actually laugh at people when they complain to me in discussions that FOX News Channel is conservative and in the back pocket of the Bush Administration. I just don’t see it. They are just as tabloid as any other cable news channel. I wouldn’t call them conservative as much as I would say they are to the right of the rest of the cable news channels. Which is not saying much at all. It’s like saying Rudy is to the right of Hillary. That doesn’t make him a conservative. It just makes him more conservative than any of the Democrat candidates.
Anyway, we just disagree here. No harm, no foul. I like your work here on most things, which is why I still read it every day. I just think that if a post is going to be made about an interview of a politician, the focus should be on the substance over the petty. His opinion that FOX News channel is not treating him fairly is not newsworthy to me unless he is thinking of using Clintonian tactics to shut them down or censor them.
Michael in MI on November 25, 2007 at 5:59 PM
For better or worse, here is my opinion. Fox is conservative but also very tabloid. So they cover the horse race aspects of the campaign in their news shows and rather sparcely cover more substantive issues during the evening opinion shows. Fred is right that there is a dynamic of build up and tear down that governs horse race coverage but the truth is that he has stumbled in putting together a campaign. I think that is all in the past, we shall see.
Fred has gotten a lot of favorable coverage from Sean Hannity but he has gotten equally unfavorable coverage from Fred Barnes et al. I think the reason is the immigration issue. Remember how Fox covered the amnesty bill? No? That’s because they didn’t. Murdoch is pro-amnesty and so are the most of the Fox News people. Even O’Reilly didn’t touch it that much. The most vocal critic of the bill was Sean Hannity. Fred is, by far, the most pro-enforcement, anti-amnesty Republican candidate and that is why the battle lines have been drawn the way they are at Fox news.
Bill C on November 25, 2007 at 6:00 PM
ROTFLMAO……….you’re killing me…No seriously you’re killing me…I’m a musician AP, I see the world through slightly distorted eyes. Sometimes I see it more clearly than others, sometimes I don’t, but mostly I just see it differently.
I read pretty much everything you post and I am pretty certain of what you are attempting to do here, and that is provoke intelligent rational discussions on a wide range of topics. Not an easy task by any stretch of the imagination. I commend not your efforts, but the results you achieve, you are good at what you do, very good.
doriangrey on November 25, 2007 at 6:01 PM
im pretty tired of the whining. from everyone. i am in the bag for rudy, but as far as im concerned, we have a great crop of candidates this year, far more diverse and experienced than the Dem field.
its vintage duh on November 25, 2007 at 6:15 PM
I do not see anyone whining, yes our candidates are better than the Party of Marx candidates. I think everyone gets that, now it is about picking the best we have, and winning.
Gatordoug on November 25, 2007 at 6:17 PM
You’re fine, chief. You are critical of all the candidates when appropriate. Complaints about it hold little merit, so water/duck’s back. You’re work (and lack of sugar-coating) is appreciated.
Spirit of 1776 on November 25, 2007 at 6:19 PM
You’re = Your, of course.
Spirit of 1776 on November 25, 2007 at 6:20 PM
but it’s not even ever for exmple, “i think rudy is weak in this area, and here’s why”. it’s always “rudy is a nanny-state democrat”.
but that’s just the nature of the blogosphere.
its vintage duh on November 25, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Like doriangrey says, your job is to provoke conversation and there is nothing like a good Fred thread to drum up at least 150 comments.
Well done AP, that I-Phone should be yours soon.
conservnut on November 25, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Good article on Ron Paul. Hadn’t read it. It will be interesting to see if a more viable candidate (Fred?) can grab the Goldwater Republican themes that propelled Reagan and is a appealing to some of the Paul supporters. The idea that government costs too much and interferes too much in private matters is one that motivated the founders and should come more readily to Republicans than Democrats.
dedalus on November 25, 2007 at 6:57 PM
The reason that the woodshed headline was written was to counter-balance the garbage that was already written.
Connie on November 25, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Brilliant observation and SPOT ON!
Ex-tex on November 25, 2007 at 7:27 PM
Let me get this straight Connie:
You link to a clearly, unabashedly Fred biased website, then have the gall to call AP’s headline garbage.
Wake up Fredheads: No one gives a damn about Fred any longer, he had his chance and he burned out. He’s trailing everyone in every primary race that matters, he is second in the state that arguably should be his to lose (South Carolina), and eating the fumes of either Rudy, Mitt, and/or Huckabee in every other race.
Face it Fraud!heads, Arthur Branch isn’t running, Fraud! Thompson is. An unaccomplished inexperienced backwater southern boy who plays fast and lose with the spirit of the law when it suits him, who has never lifted one finger for conservatism, although he has flapped a lot of lip and printed out a bulletted list.
BKennedy on November 25, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Sigh…I have tried to explain this to my nephew to no avail, like most liberals (he’s actually pretty conservative for a whiny ass liberal) he has been so indoctrinated by the liberal media he thinks anything to the right of CNN is John Birch way right wing radical conservative.
doriangrey on November 25, 2007 at 7:34 PM
Come on BK, don’t hold back….Tell us how you really feel.
If you keep holding it in like that you might explode. ;-)
conservnut on November 25, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Even when we had all those bizarre Mitt soundbite misconstrues a couple months ago, I didn’t call AP’s or Bryan’s headlines garbage. I may have said they jumped a gun a little, and later some actual context rolled out and rendered the supposed damning soundbites moot, but even then I kept the snark directed at our fine writers to a minimum, if at all.
And hey, Fred is the one whining about “a constant mantra.” Maybe if he were seriously campaigning in NH, Iowa, or any of the other primary states instead of whining about “a constant mantra” he, you know, wouldn’t be in third place or worse everywhere except South Carolina, where he holds a shaky at best second.
BKennedy on November 25, 2007 at 7:45 PM
ROTFLMAO……..you are expecting what from a KENNEDY???
doriangrey on November 25, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Considering your preferred name is based on a vicious literary character that was granted immortality and eternal youth just so long as he didn’t look at the picture where his soul was laid, gathering up all his sin and darkness, you’re hardly in a position to argue about monikers, are you?
BKennedy on November 25, 2007 at 7:48 PM
Actually all things considered I would say nobody else is more qualified. Perhaps you should re-read the book and pay attention to who Dorian hangs out with…
doriangrey on November 25, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Heh.
I rightly acknowledge the decidedly negative coverage of Fred Thompson after his campaign becomes official and I think media and blogs are out to get Fred? Gimme a break. Commenters on this site have noticed the negative coverage for Fred and the positive coverage for Giuliani before this thread was ever posted. Fred does have a point.
Sine you’re so keen on state polls, should we cover Giuliani in the same way Thompson is being covered? Lets look at those polls… Rudy is 4th in Iowa, 3rd in New Hampshire, 3rd in South Carolina (1 point ahead of Huckabee). South Carolina is, according to electoral history, the state that must be won by any Republican candidate. Would you know this by watching the news? Obvious answer, no.
Giuliani being no better than second in any poll and one point away from being 4th in South Carolina is not newsworthy while any poll lampooning Fred Thompson is newsworthy?
Is it not newsworthy that Giuliani could roll into Florida without a single victory? Do you think that might change his numbers in Florida? Apparently I’m the only man in America that is curious enough to even ask the question. Paid, professional, MSM pundits are somehow less curious than I am? But pundits ready to comment on the disaster that is the Thompson campaign seen to fall from the sky.
One of the pillars of Giuliani’s campaign is that he is “electable” and the “only man that can vanquish the Hildebeast.” Right? Thompson besting Giuliani in a poll against Hillary in Florida (posted by Bryan in another thread), the state that has decided the last two elections, did not warrant a whisper from the MSM. I find that odd as well.
How ridiculous, how preposterous of me to correlate Thompson’s national poll numbers falling while the MSM runs constantly negative reports about him; that’d be crazy!
The coverage is postive towards Giuliani, ambivalent towards Romney, and negative towards Thompson, it is obvious to most people Allahpundit
Theworldisnotenough on November 25, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Me too.
You need to be sent money toward a red Corvette, or whatever sports car you fancy :)
AP is like a bee – when he stings it hurts; otherwise he produces a lot of rare honey (and if you know anything about how hard good honey is made, you understand perfectly), no matter how much he’ll protest to the contrary, on both. It’s a compliment dude, no matter how much you protest. You’re special and hard to please, and that’s a good thing too. If we wouldn’t appreciate and admire you, and especially your intelligence, wit and work, we wouldn’t be back. Take a nice bow, just once. You deserve it and it won’t kill you.
Entelechy on November 25, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Again that Thompson campaign has really taken off ever since he so arrogantly ducked a debate to announce on Leno. /sarcasm. He acted as if by rights the nomination was his. I like FDT a lot but he does come across as lazy, devoid of ideas, and not serious at all about being POTUS.
Hilts on November 25, 2007 at 8:17 PM
If Fox making fun of Fred finally fires him up, then hoo-friggin’-ray
That was a lot of ‘fffs’..
Reaps on November 25, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Fred has put forth more ideas than anyone. It’s not accurate to say he is devoid of ideas. I think he is serious, why would someone put up with so much garbage if they weren’t?
Rose on November 25, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Yes, it is indeed somewhat crazy to think that the states where Fred is spending most of his time these days are tuning him out because of Carl Cameron’s two-minutes pieces on Fox. As you say, national media coverage of Mitt is mixed. How’s Mitt doing in Iowa right now? In New Hampshire? In Michigan? He’s outraising Fred even if you take away his own contributions to his campaign. I don’t see why the Fredheads can’t simply admit the fact that he’s run an underwhelming campaign thus far and that’s what’s hurt him most, not the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy to keep him out of power. His performance is determining the coverage, not vice versa.
And one other thing. To the extent that Fred is suffering right now from failing to meet ridiculously unrealistic expectations, please note: he cultivated those expectations. He’s the one who hovered over the campaign for months like some sort of white knight who needed the perfect moment to enter stage left and conservatism. He’s the one who very hubristically went on H&C for a solo shot the night of one of the Republican debates and pronounced the rest of the field as doing “all right,” as if to say that we should all just wait a bit and see how a real pro handles the campaign when he finally gets in. He pumped this balloon up. Don’t hate the media just because they’re noting the farting sound now as air’s escaping.
Allahpundit on November 25, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Don’t sweat it Big A, I appreciate what you do and show it by my constant patronage.
I am a Fred supporter but I am not going to blame his campaign fizzle on you or any other media outlet. Its true that Fred spun his tires off the line, I just hope he gets traction and lately it seems he just might.
Sammy316 on November 25, 2007 at 8:25 PM
That should have read “enter stage left and save conservatism.”
Allahpundit on November 25, 2007 at 8:25 PM
I love the smacky down – wow Mike Wallace owned, Fred said
I understand the game of buildup and take down
Watch Giuliani’s (and New Yorks) 15 minutes of fame evaporate in 6 weeks at the polls
Yeah the guy who can’t do anything, can’t win anything, too stupid, too lazy, somwhow has it together and is rising in the polls again?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
EricPWJohnson on November 25, 2007 at 8:29 PM
I don’t see how anyone could believe that constant attacks are not going to have an affect on a candidate.
Rose on November 25, 2007 at 8:29 PM
That’s entirely possible. Two bad finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire and Florida might very well be his Waterloo.
Allahpundit on November 25, 2007 at 8:30 PM
But Hilts, shrugging off New Hampshire was
stupidoriginal! It shows he’s an idiotgoes against the mold! It waspointlessbrilliant!/Fraud! spin.
BKennedy on November 25, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Prove your premise that he cultivated those expectations….
Not to me, but to yourself – I respect you very much for reasons beyond the political – but that has to be the most ridiculous post of nonsense I have ever seen – criticism of where Fred goes and what he does and how he dresses and instead of what he says and how he voted.
Really Allah, prove it – do you know for an absolute fact that Fred ASKED Fox to appear?
Thats not what I heard…
EricPWJohnson on November 25, 2007 at 8:33 PM
In fact Allah the reason so many staffers were let go is that they were talking too much and building expectations for Fred – thats not how he runs – he runs on policy, whats good for America
The way many of us want a campaign to be run.
EricPWJohnson on November 25, 2007 at 8:35 PM
And Fox knows exactle why he’s down in the polls is because he’s telling it as it is, not cheerleading, not lying, Freds embraced the third rail of politics and told a generation of voters that don’t look to social security as your retirement
About time an adult took the stage
EricPWJohnson on November 25, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Allah
I’m not anti Rudy, I know some people here in Doha who went to see him in Dubai speak.
He’s a great man, but an extremely flawed man, that its too bad but he’s just not electable nationwide.
Also his firm’s role in the Dubai Ports World and Bracewell and Giuliani having an office in Dubai is going to bite him hard during a national campaign.
EricPWJohnson on November 25, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Yeah, Fred’s all about policy, which is why his debate performances were craptacular, he refused Huckabee’s acceptance of his much vaunted Lincoln-Douglas debates line, and when he has been running, it has been scared, not for president.
Fred blew off the first debate for Leno like it would be no big deal. He hid behind Hannity’s skirt for months before getting into the fray, and then when he realized he couldn’t play with the big boys, his campaign imploded, people got fired, and now only Jeri is keeping his ship from sinking.
Face it, Fred pretended to be above the field like an arrogant little brat, and when he actually got into the fray, he got his face planted in the dirt by the actual candidates. Fred’s sideshow is over. He had better numbers when he was “testing the waters” than he does now. He’s no longer “none of the above” now he’s just big talkin’ no walkin’ dog ain’t huntin’ Fred.
BKennedy on November 25, 2007 at 8:48 PM
What Kennedy says
What we hear Blah, blah, blah, blah…….. same old BS, same old BS blah, blah….
Gatordoug on November 25, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Oh I’m sorry Gatordoug, were you going to back that up?
You’re just like Fred, all bark, no bite.
You still haven’t replied to me in the other thread you know… you kind of shutup when I specifically asked you to point out how anything I said was wrong.
Sorry Gatordoug, just saying something is BS doesn’t work. That dog don’t hunt.
BKennedy on November 25, 2007 at 9:00 PM
BKennedy
The debates are stupid and pointless – Fred made the comment answers to big questions shaping the course of our country and the world in 30 seconds?
Also Huckabee apparently lied everytime during the debates from dinishing a university degree in just 2 years (he took 2 1/2 years to finish a 2 year divinity degree) to 80% voted for the Gas Tax Huckabee had to enact (no Huckabee enacted it on his own April 1, the vote on road bonds took place later in the summer and the two are unrelated)
You can do a great job if networks like Fox let people off the hook telling wholesale fabrications about their backgrond, ethics, spending and taxing records
EricPWJohnson on November 25, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Strange then how you keep pointing to Romney’s wealthy background as a reason to completely and utterly ignore all his accomplishments.
You don’t really think your posts through very well, do you?
BKennedy on November 25, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Neither YOU nor your tired, worn out rhetoric is worth responding to. You are a hack, and everyone here knows it.
Gatordoug on November 25, 2007 at 9:15 PM
BKennedy
Romney has problems
Filing Taxes, signing affidavits
Cutting spending in the 4th most tax burdened state
Telling the truth about abortion
telling the truth about sanctuary cities
Telling the truth about his stances on immigration
Being truthful about the sources of his personal wealth (its relatively easy to make money when mommies uber wealthy friends come and say Mitt Darling could you sell my 100 billion dollar company for me please its so tacky)
Yes he was a successful executive because he was GIVEN the opportunity due to his family
Duh!!!!!!
But I’ve criticised and linked to Romney’s record before
EricPWJohnson on November 25, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Dude!
That was beautiful!
Ex-tex on November 25, 2007 at 9:28 PM
BKennedy
And the only reasons Romney’s wealth and his sources are relevant – is because romney himself made them the focal point of his credentials
You should vote for me cause I’m a great executive – look at how much money I’ve made….
And his own apparent financing of his campaign
If Romney hadn’t made these a focal point I wouldn’t be mentioning them
EricPWJohnson on November 25, 2007 at 9:29 PM
In defense of Romney, isn’t the crux of his executive experience message on two things: Salt Lake and Mass? I don’t recall him really making an issue of Bain Capital or whatever the exact name is.
I’ve said this before, but I don’t that is really a factor. Everyone comes into the race with various pros/cons. He is an unknown, so he uses money to increase his profile just as Fred uses his recognizability from acting.
Btw, I’d like to see the taxes link. I’m sure you have posted before, but I haven’t read it.
Spirit of 1776 on November 25, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Uh no, EricPW, that would be your extreme class envy kicking in.
Mitt has never said to vote for him becuase he’s rich, he has said that he has immense experience in making both businesses and governments efficient and effective at carrying out their goals. Only you have translated this into “vote for me because I’m rich” because you’ve got a massive class envy chip on your shoulder.
BKennedy on November 25, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Your opinion means nothing considering you and your fellow Fraud!heads are the king od one-line snark and obfuscation. Get a life Gatordoug.
BKennedy on November 25, 2007 at 9:38 PM
This whole “issue” is a ridiculous and trivial distraction from the overall Thompson interview. As near as I can tell the blogs took the bait from the dinosaur media and ran with it.
DaMav on November 25, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Pretty much!
Gatordoug on November 25, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Me either. And I’m kinda surprised “AP would Protest too much”
what he said
taterblade on November 25, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Yup, I heard that. Fred’s getting REAL tedious. And slower by the day. The man just doesn’t speak persuasively.
petefrt on November 25, 2007 at 10:24 PM
There ya go. I meant to say that too.
petefrt on November 25, 2007 at 10:28 PM
I haven’t had a chance to read all the previous comments, but just want to fly by and say that I support Fred. He is the most conservative candidate (in the upper tier) running. All of his issues are far right conservative. That is why he won’t be the nominee – conservatives will nominate a liberal like Gulliani or Rommney or a tax & spend open-boarders RINO like Huckabee. Why? Why do they shoot themselves in the foot? Then, once they nominate a liberal, they will complain that they don’t have a Reagan-like nominee! Don’t conservatives know that conservative values will beat liberals any day of the week? Geez, this makes me sick.
Neocon Peg on November 25, 2007 at 10:29 PM
DemocraticUnderground is calling.
They want their comments and attitude back. I heard they’re pissed cuz you’re stealing their shtick.
Professor Blather on November 25, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Regardless of the equities and everything else, Fred was whining. And whining makes him seem weak. Real weak.
petefrt on November 25, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Spirit of 1776
Good question, first he had no effect on Salt Lake City he came in at the end (all the contracts were signed and the construction started all he did was fund raising) because everyone else was quitting or going to jail or both
Also, where would Romney have raised the funds for his governor’s race? Why from himself, that an important point.
Also, if he didn’t seed his presidential campaign with 30 million from himself and mommy’s friends where would his campaign be today?
And he doesn’t talk much about his stint as govenor – it was uneventful – had its ups and downs
We have an uber rich individual trying to buy the whitehouse, not telling the truth on his stances, committing tax fraud in two states etc.
Not really someone we need nor want in the whitehouse.
EricPWJohnson on November 25, 2007 at 10:39 PM
I can understand your point of view. I think it likely that has embellished his resume some.
I don’t have any problem with him seeding his campaign though. Everyone seeds their campaign, some with acting careers, some with political careers (both of which make their faces and names known). Coming from a different, less publicized career, he translates his work into publicity. I don’t have a problem with that. When he pays people for their vote, then we have a problem.
Spirit of 1776 on November 25, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Spirit of 1776
your taxes links right here
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_25/b3788086.htm
Mitt moved to Utah, stayed better part of three years signed affidavits inder penalty of jail to receive 54000 in homeowners tax exclusions in 1999 and 2000 and filed fraudulent tax returns stating he was a Utah resident for those years avoiding a 12% tax on his stock market and captial gains activity in Mass and cutting his state tax on income virtually in half as the Federal amount i partially deductible in Utah but not in Mass.
Worse there’s more
http://cltg.org/cltg/cltg2002/02-02-27.htm
There are new questions, meanwhile, about Romney’s Massachusetts residency.
http://2002.ksl.com/news-6850i.php?p=0
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E0DC173EF935A15755C0A9649C8B63
EricPWJohnson on November 25, 2007 at 10:53 PM
EricPWJohnson – I totally agree with you on Thompson. I don’t understand these rabid Thompson haters. The MSM has practically TOLD all Republicans that Rudy is the only one to vote for. No wonder Fred is pissed. The powers that be are leaning towards Rudy, the liberal and are shutting out all the other contenders. I’ve seen that from the early beginnings of the campaigns. It’s all fixed. Don’t you wonder why Rudy is not worried in the least about Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina? He knows he is the annointed one and that, too, makes me sick.
Neocon Peg on November 25, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Certainly this applies to Fred.
Are you ever going to give up lying about Romney? Romney references his stint as Governor over and over again. Fred says his actions as a lobbyist were his “personal life.” That’s the difference. Fred pretends that the greatness that is Fred Thompson started when his campaign started in July, Romney admits that his positions have changed and he explains why repeatedly.
This however, flies over your head because you absolutely hate the fact Romney has wealthy parents. It envenoms every single solitary post you make.
Come on Eric, I dare you to make a single post abour Romney without mentioning how his mommy and daddy bought him everything instead of the truth, which you and I both know damn well that Romney has worked hard his entire life. A lot harder than dear old Fred who can’t even find the time to meet with people in the early primary states. He must think this is Law and Order: He just enters the stage from afar and his fans all write letters to him and thank him for his brilliant performance.
Fred is first in ZERO states. Mitt is first in two or three at a minimum. You can’t BUY support like that. You must think horribly lowly of the American people if you think waving a few dollar bills for TV spots turns them into mindless Romney drones.
Leaving aside the fact he funneled cash to his son for work never done, stumped for dictators and asbestos companies, and in general was a skeezy pay-for-play lobbyist who is clearly as insidery as a Washington insider can get, this man cannot run a campaign to save himself.
He’s no more conservative than I am. I can give you a bulletted list of conservative talking points. I can pay you a bunch of lip service. Heck, I’m even better than Fred in that I’ve actually worked to help social conservative causes.
Now all I need to do is get an acting job on a popular TV show, and I too can be lauded as the best thing to hit politics since Ronald Reagan, at least by the few people I can razzle-dazzle with my slightly New England inflected drawl.
BKennedy on November 25, 2007 at 11:02 PM
MSM consensus (outside of Fox) was that Rudy would have dropped poll-wise already. If they are pushing anyone, it’s Huck.
Sweet:) Can’t wait to see Fred unveil his conspiracy theories on Alex Jones’s show…maybe RP as VP? (I keed)
Spirit of 1776 on November 25, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Only lately, when Huckabee has seen a surge in Iowa and slightly in New Hampshire. Otherwise, Gulliani owns it and he knows it. All he has to do is to win Florida.
Neocon Peg on November 25, 2007 at 11:13 PM
We conservatives can look for Mr. Right and count angels on the head of a pin all we want, but some of us want the most socially conservative, the most most fiscally conservative, the most foreign policy conservative we can find… WHO CAN WIN in 2008. I was a FredHead a month ago. But today I’m certain of one thing: Fred gets more tedious by the day, and for better or worse, it’s becoming obvious Fred is a sure loser. It’s becoming embarrassing even to watch him on TV interviews. So slow, so uninspiring, so seemingly shallow. Uggh. Wish it were not so.
It’s switching time for the kid. No way am I voting for a sure loser.
petefrt on November 25, 2007 at 11:16 PM
petefrt on November 25, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Your front page is awesome, btw. I laughed
Spirit of 1776 on November 25, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Burn him, he’s a witch!
That’s easy Neocon Peg, Romney has been trying to position himself as the conservative candidate so when someone enters the race with high name recognition and conservative positions he has held for longer than the last election cycle then Romney’s supporters have no choice but to personally attack Fred. Conflate 20 billed hours for a pro-choice group into Fred being pro-choice. Say that Fred’s advice to a colleague in his law firm on extradition means he was aiding terrorism. So on and so forth… I certainly don’t remember if any other candidates supporters have been as vitriolic as Romney’s.
It depends. Was Reagan whining when he said he wanted to speak because he was paying for the microphone? A candidate doesn’t necessarily sound whiny when he complains. Unless that candidate is Bush who always manages to sound like he is whining. We’ll see how Fred’s complaint plays in the heartland.
Bill C on November 25, 2007 at 11:30 PM
I’m so downhearted over our plight that I stopped posting there almost a year ago. Hopefully, that will change.
petefrt on November 25, 2007 at 11:44 PM
I’ll meet your antidotal evidence with antidotal evidence. I’ve been insulted on a personal level by supporters of all the major candidates. Everyone has their supporters that are extremely emotionally invested and can’t abide criticism.
On Romney though, I actually don’t quite understand the base of his support. I mean, your observation seems right to me – the positions he is lauded for he seems to have held for less of a length of time – so what does he bring that no one else does? At least with Rudy I think he’s going to say ‘boo’ with extreme prejudice to terrorism. And Fred, I question his judgment, but at least he has a conservative record of some length.
Spirit of 1776 on November 25, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Lol. Just proves the work is timeless:)
Spirit of 1776 on November 25, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Thanks, Spirit.
In the national debate, we’ve let them put us on defensive so much that I’ve lost interest in that site, until until someone… the most socially conservative, the most fiscally conservative, the most foreign policy conservative I can find… who has a brain, integrity and a mouth that can WIN… finds a spine.
I had high hopes for Fred. I was wrong.
petefrt on November 25, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »