Video: Fred’s attack ad — extended edition!
posted at 7:10 pm on November 29, 2007 by Allahpundit
“What’s up with that?” asked Anderson Cooper, stunned almost into silence last night upon calling for Fred’s web promo and seeing unspool before his very eyes the first true negative ad of the season. That was the 30-second version “radio edit”; here’s the LP extended jam. Karol will be comforted to know that Rudy gets his due in this one. It’s hard for blog readers, and HA fans in particular, to fully appreciate the shock value of the spot, I think, because the footage here is old hat by now. Will it work on undecideds who haven’t seen it? If Fred’s profile was higher, maybe. As it is, hard to see it making much of a difference.
Incidentally, remember what he said last week about Fox News being biased against him? Read this. Mmmmm, that’s good editorializing!
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 »
Fred: Going negative because he has no record and nothing positive to say.
I guess he never heard the colloquialism, “if you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”
I’m certainly not shocked that Fred is the first to go negative in ad spots. When you build a foundation on sand, the only thing you can hope for is taking out your opponent’s solid foundations before the tide comes in.
BKennedy on November 29, 2007 at 7:13 PM
You know what would be cool? If Fred could do this in person with a little oomph. He seems to have fine positions but you have to be able to sell them, to rally people to your side and motivate them to follow you.
So far, that’s been a bridge too far for Fred.
Drew on November 29, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Good spot.
bnelson44 on November 29, 2007 at 7:17 PM
There’s nothing in this ad that’s not true, but Fred has to do a better job of selling himself.
packsoldier on November 29, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Therein is a crucial problem. Attack ads are usually more effective if people you’re steering them to don’t hear your name and go “He’s running for President?”.
amerpundit on November 29, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Well, that does it. I’m going to vote for Fred b/c of the Nascar sign in the background.
Meet your guest host for Meet the Press.
In all seriousness, though, this should play as an effective ad. On of the benefits of Fred’s record is that it is ostensibly conservative in appearance, so that should give him the gravitas to pull the party back toward it’s core…if he can get some traction. I’m interested to see how this plays out with the people who haven’t been saturated in political commentary.
Spirit of 1776 on November 29, 2007 at 7:20 PM
I’m not at all convinced you can label that an “attack” ad. It’s not Fred ranting and raving and waving his arms about what liars his opponents are, rather, it’s a very calm and well thought out compilation of other peoples statements on film (forever & ever).
Hell, it’s not nasty at all. It’s straightforward.
commonsensehoosier on November 29, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Are you serious?
Would you seriously call the positions of Mitt, Huck, and Rudy in that ad solid foundations of a conservative candidate?
nailinmyeye on November 29, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Credit where credit is due: That is a great ad.
Zetterson on November 29, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Good ad. I also enjoyed Giuliani’s video – nice to see one Republican trying their hand at the humor ad wars.
Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 7:28 PM
This is a good ad. And it is effective. To use footage of your opponents wherein they propose very non-conservative ideas, is not “going negative.” If the other candidates want to point to those elements of Fred’s past that were less than conservative, then that is fine and shouldn’t be viewed as going negative either. Are we really saying, that to quote your opponent, and point to his record is not allowed? I will say that the use of Mitt’s footage is borderline, because he has flatly stated that his previous position was wrong. But I still think Fred’s underlying proposition is justifiable concerning both Huck and Mitt.
Weight of Glory on November 29, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Add to that Rudy as well
Weight of Glory on November 29, 2007 at 7:29 PM
commonsensehoosier on November 29, 2007 at 7:22 PM
And it’s the truth, in thier own words. Hard to counter your own words. As Rush pointed out, Fred showed himself to be the ONLY full-on conservative running last night.
jdawg on November 29, 2007 at 7:30 PM
That was kickass!
emmaline1138 on November 29, 2007 at 7:30 PM
I tend to think this is true as well. But, then, why is he not doing all that well…at all?
nailinmyeye on November 29, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Exactly. And there is no more effective technique then the one that uses opposing candidates own spoken words against them. This ad is going to be a poll mover. Ultimately I don’t think it will change the outcome of the elections but it will effect things.
Zetterson on November 29, 2007 at 7:32 PM
the truth must be painful… I didn’t see anything that was untrue… or negative. what’s negative about playing people’s own words?
who is HotAir.com backing?
Kaptain Amerika on November 29, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Good ad, not too nasty, just letting his opponents talk themselves into a corner.
I like the idea of roundtable debates too, as long as the moderator is someone who isn’t tainted by a liberal agenda. Otherwise, forget it, as they will just try to portray the Republicans as a bunch of snaggle-toothed, sister-lovin’, knuckle-draggin’ troglydytes.
And c’mon Fred, show some fire to match your policy ideas. I want to like you … but you’ve got to sell it, man.
thirteen28 on November 29, 2007 at 7:35 PM
NO MORE RINOs! PLEASE.
Like Rush said- only one real conservative runnin’- Fred.
Ex-tex on November 29, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Conservative Ideals appear to finally get traction in the campain. The lime light is shining on the pretenders. You can see who the hacks are. Look at the supporters of Guilianni, and Romney. Their supporters are terrified of their records and almost never refer to them. Guilianni and Romney are pretty far from conservative. Huck is a nanny-starer, no tax to big.
Rode Werk on November 29, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Can’t wait for Mitt, Rudy, and Huck to object at Fred using their very own words and records against them. Really effective ad IMHO.
Buzzy on November 29, 2007 at 7:38 PM
well… I’ve decided that Fred is my candidate. If Fox wants to factually state what Fred’s poll numbers are, that’s fine. But to characterize his performance as “lackluster” in a news story is just unnecessary and inaccurate in my opinion.
Huck would be the second coming of GW Bush. Huck would probably more socially conservative and more fiscally liberal the Dubya. I mean why don’t we give away all of the American taxpayers’ money to God’s children? There a lot of them out there.
Gulliani and Mitt barely qualify as conservatives.
While Huck is charming and quick on his feet, I really think he would be a bigger spender than Bush if that’s possible. I’ll back whoever our nominee is, but I’m with Fred.
bigbeas on November 29, 2007 at 7:39 PM
In the video age, this is how ads will run against the left next year. There are databanks of mateirals waiting to be assembled.
Bill Clinton can’t inhale and exhale, depending on the latest whim of a poll fluctuation. Hillary can’t either. Nor can Mitt, Rudy or Fred. It’s going to be the 2008 way.
Entelechy on November 29, 2007 at 7:39 PM
Its real early still a full month away from a Caucus – a caucus – not even a poll – its 45 days away from a state that has delegates in the double digits
7 weeks with blogs and newsmedias showing this its going to leave a mark.
EricPWJohnson on November 29, 2007 at 7:39 PM
Right, because no way would Mitt or Rudy go negative…
…oh wait- you mean they have? Repeatedly? Nevermind.
Hollowpoint on November 29, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Huckabee: “And…some have suggested….that a baby….get in my bel-ly. And I…. I am ok with that.”
Criminy – that dude was hitting the loaves and fishes hard in the ’90s.
amish on November 29, 2007 at 7:45 PM
I agree that this is a good ad. And it isn’t going negative, especially in the commonly used way of getting down and dirty about opponents.
So, Fred contrasted the conservative position with the positions of his opponents for the viewers, but he has only asserted he is one himself. Now he has to prove it. To do so, he should have one (or more) commercials proving it running alternately with this one.
Dusty on November 29, 2007 at 7:48 PM
He doesn’t have Mitt’s metrosexual good looks, and doesn’t rely as much on cheap, scripted, over-rehearsed jokes as much as the others.
Given how shallow the voting public (including professional pudits) is proving to be, maybe he should’ve run stayed in character as Aruthur Branch rather than run as Fred Thompson. After all, no one seems to care about actual policy or record, only how smooth, fiesty and funny they are on TV. Just say what you think they want to hear (doesn’t matter if it 100% contradicts what you’ve said in the past), have nice hair, a good writing staff and you’re in.
Hollowpoint on November 29, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Birds of a feather:
Bernard Kerik 12/15/2004:
Flock together:
Rudy Giuliani 11/29/2007:
I think the Giuliani campaign should stop worrying about distancing themselves from Kerik and his scandals and concentrate on the skeletons in Rudy’s closet.
*
HT: Michael ‘A.J. Sparxx’ Illions
MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Dusty: How do these grab you?
see-dubya on November 29, 2007 at 7:51 PM
I don’t think that’s entirely it. In addition to having good policy proposals, a candidate has to show an ability to communicate those proposals in a way that gets people behind him. The issue with Thompson thus far is that he hasn’t shown an ability to “sell” himself to a group of hungry conservatives, so that doesn’t speak well for his ability to convince people who don’t already agree.
Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 7:53 PM
I like Freddles
TheSitRep on November 29, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Lack of personal charisma, lack of expression of clear understanding of local issues on the stump, lack of strong message on national scene. All of those contribute to a higher popularity before than after his entry in the race.
However, having underwent a lot of instability within his lackluster campaign, it may very well be possible that they are going to make up some ground. Fred has reversed course in some areas (such as when he said he wasn’t going to discuss other candidates issues) so he is showing a different theme, and what appears to be more aggressive/active. I don’t think his debate performance yesterday was anything special, but he did turn in a solid with the last batch of ads, this one included.
Spirit of 1776 on November 29, 2007 at 7:57 PM
I like Mitt, but I have no problem with that ad. How can quoting your opponents be called “going negative”?
I would rather see him out there making his own positions known and making the case for Fred, to be sure. But it’s not a bad idea in the primary to remind voters what these candidates stood for last year.
And as much as I like Mitt, here he is over a wide stretch of time forcefully making his case for legal, plentiful abortions.
Jaibones on November 29, 2007 at 8:05 PM
The spot was professionally produced, but waving a red cape in front of primary voters based on simple ideas you can crib off of any conservative website does not amount to a campaign. It just shows his bank account is not empty. Says nothing about the candidate.
Making a case for why higher taxes hurt the country, or the price we pay for abortion, now that would be a good ad.
pedestrian on November 29, 2007 at 8:10 PM
Mitt: “I have been in favor of abortion since 1970, or until I ran for office, whichever came last”.
Rudy: “Mario Cuomo is the bestest, mostest smartest guy in the world, especially compared to Pataki, since….what? For PRESIDENT?”
Huckabee: “As a theologian, and remembering to render unto Caesar, I present myself as…uh…Caesar…..”
Truth hurts.
HerrMorgenholz on November 29, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Leave Fred Thompson alone!!
But seriously, I’ve always thought Thompson’s profile was high, but Fred himself just doesn’t reach it. He’s playing well below his abilities…and that’s frustrating for us “Fred Heads”.
JetBoy on November 29, 2007 at 8:22 PM
As an early financial supporter of Fred I think this is too little too late.
Fred is metaphorically dead. Too bad, he would have been really good…
Dr. Gecko on November 29, 2007 at 8:22 PM
This spot works because Republican voters want a real conservative candidate, not one who became conservative moments before declaring for the GOP nod. You may not like it Allah, or I suspect you really don’t care; but Fred is the one real Conservative that can win both the nomination and the general. Fred will also be the most articulate spokesman for the conservative movement since Reagan. Get off of your misplaced hero worship (Rudy) and your man-crush (Mitt) and recognize the truth staring you in the face. We can defeat Hillary with Fred, Mitt or Rudy but with Mitt and Rudy the conservative movement will have to be put on hold for another 4-8 years.
edgehead on November 29, 2007 at 8:24 PM
FredRush willalso beremain the most articulate spokesman for the conservative movement since Reagan. :)Spirit of 1776 on November 29, 2007 at 8:26 PM
FOX News’ Carl Cameron bias? You got to be kiddin’ right? Give me Major any day. He’s a good man. Carl is an elf from Clintonville. Dennis’s older bro.
As for Fred. All the other transparent hucksters are repelling me as fast as I can listen to them talk. He’s right. There’s not a conservative amongst the bunch. I at least like the crowd Fred runs with. I will not vote for MitRomne Kerry. John Kerry’s younger bro. Under any circumstance.
Griz on November 29, 2007 at 8:29 PM
[see-dubya on November 29, 2007 at 7:51 PM]
I’ve been having trouble getting vid to work. I had given up on those but they worked this time.
My take? Well, the previous one gave me a little of the Reagan feel but these left me unmoved. Lot’s of folks worked investigating Watergate. Some governor was criminally selling paroles to felons, well, any honest attorney should fight that left or right, and the vast majority do.
Maybe I’m unmoved because I know a lot about Fred Thompson, so I suppose they are okay, but these are also for the early part of the campaign and Fred decided to skip that part. He’s got a month left.
In any event, most people don’t care what you did yesterday. They care what you are going to do tomorrow. The ads I think he should be running alternately would take on a particular hot topic for the next four years — immigration, taxes-pork-budget, domestic security, the war, education. Show he is the “true conservative” by telling us what he will unwaveringly stand up for four years.
He does that and then people can think in an unhanging way: “I support Fred because he WILL …”
Dusty on November 29, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Only in Fredhead Fantasy Land do Romney and Rudy supporters run away from their candidate’s records.
What is Fred’s record by the way?
Oh, McCain Feingold. He supported it.
He let Clinton slide.
He’s lobbied for an abortion group and scuzzy dictators and asbestos companies.
He’s committed the horrid ethical breach of a Washington insider by funneling money to his family for services not rendered.
And we’re afraid of our candidate’s record?
Fred is running on a 3 word slogan, not a record.
Senatorial accomplishments? Run away Fredheads, only McCain Feingold lies there.
Time in Washington? Better not examine it too closely, you’ll find some rather insidery things there.
Of course, he’s more than willing to talk about his stint as fake DA. You can’t have any scandals when you read from a teleprompter.
And of course, Romney and Rudy don’t talk about their records, despite the biggest criticism of Guiliani being that he mentions New York City too often and Mitt Romney referencing his governorship and the olympics constantly.
But don’t confuse Fredheads with the facts. GO FRED 08!
BKennedy on November 29, 2007 at 8:38 PM
The posters who think this is a bad ad…are the ones who think Mitt and Rudy are a true conservatives.
That is what puzzles me; how can you say Mitt is a conservative, when up to just months ago he was a liberal, with liberal policies, and up to just a couple of years ago he claimed he has had liberal leanings since the 70′s?
And Rudy, well he is a hodge podge, tough on war, weak on immigration, gun control, abortion,…I am talking about action, not words.
I know Mitt’s lovers say, “it’s the best he could do in a liberal state”, well Reagan had both parties liberal and kicked their butt…while Mitt was running from Reagan in debates with Kennedy (“I am not a Reagan conservative”, said Mitt…what a disgrace).
right2bright on November 29, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Mitt made that dumb mistake of letting Kennedy frame Reagan 14 years ago. Yeah, I guess that is months, but 168 is a whole lot of them.
Speaking of Reagan, you just quoted the talking points of Republicans who thought Reagan a flipflopper ca. 1979. Funny that.
The ad is a good ad. It is also indicative of Fred’s desperation.
BKennedy on November 29, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Great ad! The more the American people know about the candidates, the better Fred will look.
Gatordoug on November 29, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Yet listening to many (and perhaps most), you’d think that’s the most important factor, above policy and record. Also, Fred isn’t exactly horrible at it- even if he doesn’t have the slick delivery of Mitt or Huckster. Much of his early support was in response to his radio bits after all, and he was an actor.
I agree that his speaking style has hurt him, but come on- is that the the most important attribute to judge? Listening to the pundits, you’d sure think so.
Hollowpoint on November 29, 2007 at 8:54 PM
You forgot the red truck and giving his son money…oh yeah, can’t use that now that Mitt has his sons in a RV touring the country on dad’s dime (that was you guys two big issues, until Mitt did it). But that’s okay, they say what they are doing is just as important as the men and women in the armed services…equating supporting dad (while he supports them) as defending our country.
How much did Bechtel make off of Mitt, and what kind of bonus did they get…after an innocent women was killed through their negligence? Million upon million of overruns, and barely a whisper from Mitt. No wait, he fired a bureaucrat hired by Dems., but kept Bechtel. It is profitable to be a Mitt supporter. And BTW, he was a supporter of Craig for a lot longer than Fred was ever a lobbyist. Three sanctuary cities in his state, anti gun (no, pro gun…no, anti gun… no,…what is he this week?) Well at least he is consistent on abortion…consistently changing his mind…is he pro-life or pro-choice…you tell us, we have no idea.
The good news from Mitt is…he took away your (generic you) BIGOT card, when he made those statements about Muslims.
right2bright on November 29, 2007 at 8:54 PM
He backed up his Reagan retreat with higher taxes (Mitt lovers like to call them fees), anti gun, sanctuary cities, campaign paybacks, etc. It’s about the only time he backed up his statements with action.
Other words, he made the statement 168 months ago, and he went another 158 months backing them up. That’s a good record?
right2bright on November 29, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Come onnnnn primaries…let’s DO THIS!
MadisonConservative on November 29, 2007 at 9:02 PM
I think the tatic of using opponents words and record against them is effective. The problem I have is when the soundbytes used are about something superficial it comes off as a lame negative attack.
-Huckabee attack is maybe okay because he is talking about policy to be enacted by the legislature, ie something that actually matters – the other things do not!
-that Guilini endorses Pataki? who cares in the slightest? it is a lame attack
-that Romney a decade ago said he will do nothing about Roe vs Wade? How is that even relevant it wasnt in his power then or now. A smoking gun would be him saying he supports activists judges. dont have that clip do you Fred?
Resolute on November 29, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Sorry to break the news, but Mitt ain’t no Reagan…no matter how you spin it.
Good try though…no, take that back, that was really weak.right2bright on November 29, 2007 at 9:04 PM
I don’t think it’s the most important attribute, but it’s certainly something to take into account. And the problem with his style is that he seems to lack conviction. He doesn’t speak so much as he recites.
An effective president must be able to communicate. Thompson may be able to do that, but he hasn’t shown it yet. I think he has it in him, he just needs to unleash it.
Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Yeah, he has been superb with set pieces, worse then average on extemporaneous.
I completely agree with the ‘must communicate’ though. That has been a liability to this administration.
Spirit of 1776 on November 29, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Let’s see the choice liberal Rudy, Liberal Mitt, mad McCain, born again huck, or quasi conservative Thompson. Seems like quasi is better than liberal any day.
I wonder were our true leaders are? I mean in a nation of 300 MILLION is this all we got. the Dems are even worse. But voting against something isn’t much better than not voting. Where is a JFK, IKE, Regan, or even a Truman. Where are the sdults?
unseen on November 29, 2007 at 9:37 PM
So, the topic: Fred’s record.
You didn’t address it.
BKennedy on November 29, 2007 at 9:37 PM
YES, speaking style is incredibly important. It’s critical to success, in fact. Bush’s lack of communication skills has been his/our biggest liability in the past 7 years. So many times, a well-delivered speech would have won the day for conservatism if Bush had just tried to convince people from his heart and not ummmed and ahhhed and stumbled unenthusiastically through an uninspiring half-hearted address.
Reagan was a great communicator. Newt is an articulate and passionate communicator. Bill Clinton is an extremely effective communicator (a liar, too, but that’s beside the point). An effective leader–especially a president–absolutely must be able to inspire people with his words and passion alone. You can’t be a leader if you can’t get anyone to follow you, no matter how great your ideas are. Great orators since Cicero have known this.
Now, Reagan had great speech writers and a keen editorial eye that allowed him to deliver such inspiring and finely-honed messages and be a true leader of the conservative movement and not just a Republican president. Fred clearly needs speech writers as well, but he knows his own beliefs and his message well. He can deliver a prepared speech very effectively, but he’s weak on extemporaneous speaking. That’s a problem, but not an insurmountable one. I believe he can be a great speaker with some practice. The run up the the general election would give him that, but he has to capture the nomination first. I think he can still do it, but it’s a long shot.
aero on November 29, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Gone with the wind.
MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 9:43 PM
I’m very disappointed in Fox News editorializing. It’s clear they are in the bag for Rudy. When challenged by Fred they go on to show just how bias they can be.
Nothing fair and balanced about their bias towards a subway series between Billary and Rudy.
Captain America on November 29, 2007 at 9:46 PM
I find it distressing that so many people are wondering where the adults are when the only candidate they could possibly accept as an adult is Zombie Reagan.
We have easily the most talented and diverse field of Republicans imaginable, and all some people can do is whine that Reagan hasn’t come to run from beyond the grave.
BKennedy on November 29, 2007 at 9:51 PM
I’ve always liked Fred. He is my choice right now — he has the right demeanor and the right priniciples; he’s just been a disappointment as a campaigner from what I can see, but then again, I don’t think any of them will be focusing a great deal of their time or coverage to those of us here in Massachusetts — even Mitt.
I also like Mitt — he’s smart and decent, but he’s clearly an opportunist… as time goes on, it becomes abundantly clear, especially in light of this ad.
Rudy is a mess. Good guy, but too much sleaze to scrub off. Hucakabee is a good speaker and that’s about it — he’s on the wrong side of taxes and immigration… NEXT?!
I don’t care if he’s a minister — the fact that some evangelicals are turning on to him doesn’t say much for their collective brainpower as far as I am concerned. Tancredo? Love him on immigration, but he’s a one trick pony. McCain? He’s a hero and a patrtiot — no denying that, but he’s on the wrong side of immigration and he’s just looking old… sounds superficial, but I sometimes wonder if he feels OK when I look at him.
D2Boston on November 29, 2007 at 9:54 PM
I look at it this way, if we don’t get a real conservative nominated this time around we might as well ditch the GOP as Democrat Lite and I’m not willing to settle for someone who just decided to play conservative the day they decided to run for President either.
Buzzy on November 29, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Ah Yes. BKennedy is back with no evidence to back up his opinion.
Guiliani, Romney, and Huckabee are not true conservatives.
Fred Thompson is the only on that stage the whole night that answered every question as a CONSERVATIVE.
Fred Thompson has my vote and everyone of you should be jumping on the bandwagon.
msipes on November 29, 2007 at 9:57 PM
That certanly means a lot coming from Mr. “lets link to 10 year old videos to prove someone is a flip flopper.”
Your genius postings merely served to prove the point of our debacle: Romney used to be liberal but has become conservative over time and stuck with it as Governor, and continues with it today.
And again, Fredheads, Fred’s RECORD. Are you going to talk about it or just attack me, cause I gotta tell you, your stuff is weak. I think csdeven hasn’t been around because you all put him in the hospital from lauging at you folks too hard.
BKennedy on November 29, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Are you cereal?
You’ve clearly gone off the deep end, BK. This is the worst crop of candidates I can remember in my entire lifetime! Every one of them is seriously flawed. The field’s wide open for the first time in decades and we have crap to choose from. Total crap! Haven’t you noticed all the frustration and angst among Republican voters? There’s a reason for that!
aero on November 29, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Is this for real? What’s the bigger driver here, arrogance or cowardice? Fred, why should the other candidates care what you think? Why should they, who are leading you in polls, want to debate on YOUR terms? You can’t hack it at the real debates, so you need to set up little one on ones? Please.
Fred definitely NOT ready for primetime. Unlike Huck.
e-pirate on November 29, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Yeah, Ronald Reagan V2 isn’t running and everyone wants Ronald Reagan 2.0.
Since no one matches Reagan’s standard and no one ever will, I predict Republicans will be frustrated for a long time. What the hell do you want?
Let me guess:
A great communicator with a solid conservative record who was previously a liberal, but not that short ago, who can sweep nearly every state with his charm.
Too bad we don’t have the equivalent of Jimmy Carter that will get the last result.
Fact is, Reagan had every circumstance going his way and it is idiotic to expect any candidate to have his assured level of victory, no matter how much the fit the Reagan conservative mold.
BKennedy on November 29, 2007 at 10:22 PM
C’mon, BK. You really, truly don’t think we could have done any better than our current candidates? Honestly? You don’t think that, out of more than 300 million American citizens, there is and never will be anyone as good as or better than Reagan? He was great, but I actually think it’s possible to do even better. I’m not looking for Reagan 2.0. I’m looking for the next great conservative leader. He or she is out there, I assure you. And he or she is NOT among the current crop of candidates for the Republican nomination. I just pray that we don’t slide into a near-permanent minority status before our next great conservative leader rises to the top.
aero on November 29, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Good one Fred, long bout time.
Speakup on November 29, 2007 at 10:29 PM
So what are you saying:
Newt Gingrich should run?
Rush Limbaugh should run?
Michelle Malkin should run?
Laura Ingraham should run?
Thomas Sowell should run?
Ann Coulter should run?
David Horowitz should run?
Mike Adams should run?
Sean Hannity should run?
Michael Savage should run?
Where, oh where, is this famed conservative political leader who will take us out of the darkness? I just listed several of the most prominent leaders the conservative moment has. None of them are running for office. None of them want to run for office. And my bet is if any one of them ran for office, some among us would find reasons to attack them. A conservative leader isn’t just going to drop out of the sky.
BKennedy on November 29, 2007 at 10:36 PM
I’d go further. None of those, save maybe Rush would be a good politician. Tony Snow would be fine, but that ain’t happening.
Guys like JC Watts or guys like him that people love simply don’t have the name recognition.
Spirit of 1776 on November 29, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Well, I guess you indirectly answered my question. You really do think this is the best we can do and will ever do. We peaked with Reagan and it’s all downhill from here for conservatism.
Well, there’s certainly one Reaganesque quality that was apparently lost on you: His unflinching optimism and faith in the power of conservatism to make the world a better place.
No, we don’t currently have a conservative “messiah” who is interested in running for president. But that doesn’t mean we never will again. Have faith, BK. Your pessimism and willingness to settle for mediocrity forever more is, well, depressing. We’re going to get a mediocre candidate this time, that much is clear. But maybe in 2012 or 2016, someone will “drop out of the sky” who will knock our socks off, like Reagan did, but in his or her own unique way.
Just admit to yourself that these candidates are simply NOT the very best we can do, as you claimed. They’re just not! We will have to settle for one of them, but it’s definitely settling–NOT choosing from among the most talented Republican candidates imaginable, as you put it. Blech.
aero on November 29, 2007 at 10:54 PM
The perfect are sometimes the enemy of the good.
I’m not a pessimist, but I’m not going to wait around for the second coming of the conservative messiah to show himself to fend off the socialists. Hero worship is for fools, you go to war with the army you have, as Rumsfeld once said.
These are the weapons we have, like it or not, and I’ll be damned if I let the surrendercrats win.
BKennedy on November 29, 2007 at 11:00 PM
I never said that I’m not going to vote for one of these mediocre choices–I will. I never said I’m going to just sit by and “let the surrendercrats win” while I pine away for a perfect conservative hero. I will campaign hard for whomever gets the Republican nomination, even if I despise him. I can assure you, I despise the Democrats far more.
What I said is that I realize these guys are mediocre choices at best. What I’ve been disputing is your characterization of this crop of candidates as the best, most talented Republicans imaginable. They’re. Just. Not. They’re who our flawed system barfed up this time around, that’s all. We can do better, and we will. Just not this year, unfortunately.
aero on November 29, 2007 at 11:17 PM
FYI…
I’ve been surprised by the commentary on the conservative websites. Mitt did great! Rudy was okay. Huckabee really became a contenda! Everyone who follows this so closely needs to get out of the house and take a deep breath. We all know Rudy’s negatives, but I’ve found that Mitt just rubs people the wrong way and he’s clueless about it. He’s like the Bill Clinton of the Republican party. I didn’t really trust him before he said he’d never had an argument with his wife. Now? This guy’s either a full of bull or just too damn out of touch to deal with, electability wise.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but he’s spending a huge amount of money to get very mixed results. I just don’t see, and haven’t seen, the majority biting on Mitt.
The Huckster…The last time a whole bunch of evangelicals found themselves a righteous, born again candidate, they elected Jimmy Carter. Hopefully they’ve learned that lesson.
I didn’t watch the debate. My 22 year-old son did. Granted, he’s been raised in a conservative, politically aware household, but he’s 22 and he’s busy. He came stomping in my back door at 10:15 last night because his wife didn’t want to listen to him rant and said, “They’re all a bunch of liberals. The only conservative on the stage was Fred Thompson.”
No. Fred didn’t blow his skirt up as the reincarnation of Reagan. Yes, he still noticed Fred was the most conservative guy on the stage. Again, for what it’s worth…
Lana on November 29, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Do you remember Reagan’s debates against Carter and Mondale. Reagan did not blow them out of the water with his extemporaneous speaking. In fact, in the second debate against Mondale I really thought Reagan’s mind had failed him. Reagan was best when he was speaking from behind his desk in the oval office. You felt like your grandfather was telling you something important.
Bill C on November 30, 2007 at 12:45 AM
We don’t need to go back ten years to find Mitt “plastic man” Romney espousing liberal positions.
That’s from 2005. 2005! Two years ago Mitt supported state funding of abortions.
But it’s not just abortion or gun control or tax cuts, Mitt was for McCain-Kennedy before he was against it.
As people learn about the Real Mitt Romney(TM) they will discover someone who is completely different than the persona that the Rombots like BKennedy have sought to create.
Bill C on November 30, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Are you paid per post or by the word?
Connie on November 30, 2007 at 1:29 AM
Niiiiice. And I like the cool Coplandesque music.
Mojave Mark on November 30, 2007 at 1:52 AM
I’m on salary for the Fall River Diocesan Newspaper. They don’t do commissions in the newspaper business. And besides, doing anything “per word” usually turns out a crappy paper.
BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 2:08 AM
So what you’re saying is: Brownback’s blog, Fred’s Blog, and Planned Parenthood rhetoric are all better indicators of Romney’s record than either A: reality or B: Mitt himself. Nice.
BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 2:13 AM
It’s so festive! Let’s see…Fred! or Rudiani-Kerik? Mmmm. That’s a tough one.
saved on November 30, 2007 at 5:06 AM
So, stating the truth about his opponents’ records is “going negative?” Wait ’til the nominee faces the klinton machine. Whoever it turns out to be, better get ready for some real negative ads.
Texas Nick 77 on November 30, 2007 at 6:05 AM
Check out his positions on this website.
http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues
Texas Nick 77 on November 30, 2007 at 6:16 AM
I had such high hopes! He needs some energy!
JellyToast on November 30, 2007 at 7:15 AM
Checking the record is a positive thing, not negative.
Do not count Thompson out because he is different.
Fred’s difference is positive. He is not a fanatic. He is not a wild card. He is impressively thoughtful before engagement in action. He is a straight shooter.
I am looking to see that Fred is smart enough to manage the executive branch a la Reagan–who he surrounds himself with; Gingrich supporting Fred counts very well in that regard.
A year is a lifetime during a campaign.
Today in time is nothing compared to the final week.
Polls mean squat, publishing whatever the pollster wants to project. Look at the “infallible” Hillary behind the other non-experienced demo Obama. Remember the exit polls in error of the election results?
With candidates still wiggling around the party platform, I agree with Fred; let’s have round table discussions vs. planted questions to hear what candidates amongst themselves have to contribute to the Republican party and to the leadership of our country and citizens. Then compare their discussions with their own written platforms to see where things stand. With a grain of salt, bear in mind how a candidate treats those who left his side or never stood with him, as that dissident could well be you in a pinch.
maverick muse on November 30, 2007 at 8:13 AM
Good ad. I think he can win in 08. While he’s running against the democrat the democrat will still be running against Bush.
boomer on November 30, 2007 at 8:19 AM
Heh. The background music for the last 30 seconds highlighting Fred sounds like the theme from Jurassic Park.
Tell me, the more a man loses weight or his hair, the more conservative he gets?
Brat on November 30, 2007 at 8:19 AM
BK, just in case you really missed Connie’s point and you’re not simply being deliberately obtuse, you were just accused of being a paid Romney operative–a plant at Hot Air (and perhaps other blogs as well) who is paid by the Romney campaign to shill for Mitt. I’ve often wondered about that myself. We know it happens. Are you one of them? If so, you’ve been overplaying your hand big-time, and you’re not helping Mitt at all. I’ll wager that you and others have turned a lot of people off of Mitt with your constant baiting and negativity.
aero on November 30, 2007 at 8:26 AM
I do remember Reagan’s speeches. Thompson’s do not come close. I’ve watched a number of his speeches on C-SPAN and have not been impressed thus far. He needs to tighten up his language and lessen the rambling. Either he needs a better speechwriter, or the discipline to stay ‘on script’ while reading his speeches.
As for extemporaneous speaking, he should just do what Reagan did – notes on cue cards.
Slublog on November 30, 2007 at 8:30 AM
I think Fred’s proposal for the top-tier candidates to have a real debate (what the media is giving us is poop) is a sound idea. Something on the order of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Each candidate has a short (10 minute) speach about his positions and his plans to implement them. Then each candidate has a brief (5 minute) chance to rebut his opponent’s position, or clarify/strengthen his previous statements.
We’d get a better feel for each candidate. But the best thing about it, if it could be done, would be for every candidate to leave the past in the past. No running on records. That is history. Tell us WTF you are going to do on each issue. Tell us what you intend to do, and HOW you will do it, about the real issues of the day.
Texas Nick 77 on November 30, 2007 at 8:44 AM
I liked the ad but why did it have to end with him standing in front of a sign with the word NASCAR in 10 foot letters. That for a lot of people that will just reinforce their southern prejudices. Of course this is probably taken in front the facility in NYC which is hosting the NASCAR banquet this year. Quite a juxtaposition.
LakeRuins on November 30, 2007 at 9:08 AM
Oh please, the Fraud!heads are the most dishonest lot around. msipes just demanded we all “jump on the badwagon.”
I asked them about Fred’s record. They still haven’t delivered anything. They have merely accused my of being a Romney plant. Thus why I was being deliberately obtuse, I don’t have to answer to this evasive miscreants.
Tell me, Fred’s record is so great, so how come in his debate appearances and ads he NEVER talks about it? What he does is give us a bunch of platitudes anyone on Hot Air could give. I’m not looking for President Platitude, I’m looking for President Results.
Fred has done nothing, zilch, nada, bupkass for the conservative movement, yet we’re supposed to herald this sub-Bush league speech writer as a conservative savior. A man who, by all counts, has never had to prove his conservative mettle and has never shown any interest in advancing conservatism. We should just elect him because he’s a good old Southern boy, apparently.
I don’t care about Southern boys. I want substance, not style.
BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 9:40 AM
In other words, you want them to pander shamelessly and have us forget they haven’t ever brought their newfound enlightened ideas to bear when they had the chance.
I suppose this means you support Hillary. She’ll tell you anything you want to hear. Just don’t ask about her record. That’s all history. Or as Fred would say, “it’s my persona; life.”
BKennedy on November 30, 2007 at 9:45 AM
I would have loved to see Fred answer Andrew’s question of whats up with that like this.
There are men standing up here professing to be conservatives and they maybe today, but if we look at their words and actions in the past none of the front runners here other than me can claim to be a conservative. Now some people would say this was an attack ad and I disagree. An attack ad would have had Rudy walking around a dept store getting felt up by Donald trump. Or I could have talked about the Mormon religion and how they have some strange ideas about underwear that protects you from some mumbo jumbo and numerous other things. Or I could have shown where Huck wants to outlaw smoking nationwide. But I didn’t do any of those things because those would be attack ads, and I wouldn’t want to do that to any fellow Republican. I’ll wait till I’m running against the democRATs nominee before I do that.
jdog on November 30, 2007 at 10:03 AM
I think Fred’s proposal for the top-tier candidates to have a real debate (what the media is giving us is poop) is a sound idea. Something on the order of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Each candidate has a short (10 minute) speach about his positions and his plans to implement them. Then each candidate has a brief (5 minute) chance to rebut his opponent’s position, or clarify/strengthen his previous statements.
Texas Nick 77 on November 30, 2007 at 8:44 AM
Our attention span has diminished. I think Lincoln/Douglas debated several times, one candidate starting a debate with a 1 hour statement followed by the other giving a 90 minute statement, followed by a 30 minute “rejoinder”. They alternated the starting position from debate to debate. I believe they talked about whatever they wanted to talk about, not being limited by rules. Those debates were re-enacted on C-span a while ago.
Your idea has merit. All a candidate would need is a willing adversary and a forum.
jaime on November 30, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Sorry BK… I put links as early as 2005 for you since you can’t do your own homework. You are living in your own la la land.
Mitt Romney is a stooge. I guarantee by the time we start swinging around into the big states and not Iowa or secular NH, Mitt will lose consistently.
msipes on November 30, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Fred! has something none of the other candidates have the ability to do…make an ad like this!
ballz2wallz on November 30, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Don’t feed the BK troll folks!
omnipotent on November 30, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »