NYT knocking Fred again for being lazy
posted at 3:00 pm on December 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Grossly unfair. It’s not that he’s lazy; it’s that he just doesn’t like people. Or so it seems:
The traditional town-hall-like meetings — where candidates are peppered by dozens of questions from voters, often for more than an hour — are not for Mr. Thompson. Nor is other aggressive retail campaigning.
Instead, he holds sessions billed by the campaign as chances to “meet Fred,” often little more than photo opportunities, with the staging not especially well choreographed. And even those are relatively few, with a typical week instead dominated by fund-raisers that are closed to the press and the general public alike…
Mr. Thompson’s performance at the debate capped a weeklong period in which he held only one retail campaign event: a “meet Fred” rally last Saturday in a small room at the back of Sticky Fingers, a barbecue restaurant in Summerville, S.C. There was no music or food. There were not even chairs, and so some 100 voters there to see him had to stand for three hours before he arrived.
After brief remarks in which he cited the broad conservative principles that he said guided him, he took just a half-dozen questions. The appearance lasted less than 30 minutes, and he left without mingling with customers elsewhere in the restaurant…
When the Republican candidates gathered in Orlando, Fla., for the state party’s convention, Mr. Thompson’s rivals all gave impassioned and detailed speeches that lasted nearly a half-hour each. He spoke for four minutes.
Among those in the crowd was Linda Hoffman, 47, who wore stickers for all the candidates on her blazer, a reflection of her indecision. “I was really kind of shocked,” Ms. Hoffman said right after hearing Mr. Thompson. “We were all hoping he would say something we could get behind, but there was nothing.”
What’s his problem? I can understand not enjoying the glad-handing or eschewing a long speech in favor of a pithy one, but if simple courtesy doesn’t compel you to grit your teeth and go through the motions for your supporters than the prospect of pieces like this noting your unorthodoxy should. The meme about him not wanting to win has always struck me as stupid but it might be less stupid to say “he wants to win but not so much that he’s going to go around shaking hands to do it.” In which case…?
Update: One other thing. The Fredheads never cease to remind us that Fred’s the only candidate consistently rolling out detailed policy proposals on hot-button issues. In which case, why isn’t he taking full advantage of his time at these events? He could have used the Florida event to go down the laundry list and let the audience draw their own contrast between him and, say, Mitt talking about family for 15 minutes. Instead, nothing.
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:
New York Times…
Need I say more.
It’s funny. Every time I hear Fred speak, I hear something I can get behind.
edgehead on December 1, 2007 at 3:06 PM
He’s lazy. But he has Rush behind him so anything can happen.
Valiant on December 1, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Ummm….
Let me remind you that Fred’s the only candidate consistently rolling out detailed policy proposals on hot-button issues.
see-dubya on December 1, 2007 at 3:07 PM
True. I was struck after his first debate that it was 3 days before he returned to the primary states to campaign; all the others were there after 24 hrs I think it was. Maybe that was staff-problems related though.
Finally, yeah he is giving some substance. Who is writing it for him? That’s not meant as a broadside, it’s a serious question.
Spirit of 1776 on December 1, 2007 at 3:09 PM
And personally I’ve heard about them once, maybe twice. He needs to remind people of that. He’s not.
amerpundit on December 1, 2007 at 3:11 PM
And wouldn’t it be nice if we had a debate that consisted solely of laying out policies and positions? What ever happened to Newt’s debate thing?
freakagriep on December 1, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Allahpundit is from New York city…Need I really say more… ;)
doriangrey on December 1, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Heh heh heh well considering that the Hollywierd writers are all on strike, you know it damned well its them…Personally I think it’s Newt…
doriangrey on December 1, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Ooooh, that had not occurred to me, but they did meet. If that were the case, I’d be glad to know it.
Fred isn’t going to win me over personally unless he at least makes some gesture of apology about censoring speech and some acknowledgment that his foresight was poor. That’s not going to happen because I don’t think he thinks he was wrong and it simply isn’t a big enough issue to voters (as indicated even in previous Fred threads where Fred-heads dismiss it completely). So the question for me now is less of the man personally, but what his administration would do. If he has Newt in his corner, that would be welcomed.
Spirit of 1776 on December 1, 2007 at 3:25 PM
It reminds me of my favorite quote from Repoman:
“Ordinary Effin’ people. I hate ‘em”
That’s Fred. He hated the victims of the Lockerbie terrorists. He hated the victims of big business asbestos manufacturers that he lobbied against. He hated the victims of dictators. The hated the fetuses that were aborted due to his lobbying for that abortion group. He is all about hate. He hates all of us and can’t stand to put up with us.
No wonder he was the first candidate to roll out a negative ad.
tommylotto on December 1, 2007 at 3:25 PM
It seems to me that we ALL need to look at what we want in a POTUS- not just in a candidate. You want more of Bush’s illegal immigration policy-GOOD- because that’s what you’re gonna get with Rudy, Mitt, Huck, McCain, Hillary, or Obama. Not a mile of fence will git built with any of these folks as POTUS.
You want someone who’ll smile a SHAKE HANDS all day- well- there ya go. You got 6 of’em right there.
Except for folks in IOWA and NEW HAMPSHIRE no one else gives a sh*t if their hand gets shook. I DON’T CARE IF MY PRESIDENT EVER DOES RETAIL POLITICING- AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU.
THE ONLY REASON it’s a big deal is because pollsters and pundits tell you it is. If, instead of saying “He’s lazy”, they instead said “He’s the only consistent CONSERVATIVE” I imagine folks would poll a different way.
I am so sick of this RINO backin’ it’s makin’ my head hurt. My momma used to say- when somebody SHOWS ya who they are – BELIEVE’EM!
Frankly- I’m surprised at Michelle and Allah- last summer you two were right in the thick of the immigration battle and ya were’nt shy about callin’ out the pro-illegal RINOs. But now, when the rubber hits the road, and we are about to elect the ONLY GUY WHO CAN STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION where are ya??? Why are ya not standin’ for Fred or Hunter or Tancredo- at least they mean what they say.
SHOOT- You need someone to come SHAKE yer hand an give ya a donut then call me- I’ll do it.
Ex-tex on December 1, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Saw Fred on Larry King last night and he was saying that the last month of the campaign was when people would be paying the most attention. Maybe true, but I wonder if he is saving his “push” for the last month, and if so if it would be enough time for him to turn things around.
P. James Moriarty on December 1, 2007 at 3:26 PM
The NYT can’t let Limbaugh get away his non-endorsement endorsement. I’ll be tuning in on Monday, hopefully Rush responds.
Theworldisnotenough on December 1, 2007 at 3:29 PM
tommylotto on December 1, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Do you hate all those on the other side of those you represent?
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 3:30 PM
See here
But I’m sure Rudy is lying cause he’s from New Yawk, and Fred’s shootin’ straight cause he’s from Tennessee. But try splanin’ Fred’s love affair with Spencer Abraham’s open border policies.
tommylotto on December 1, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Tip O’Neill may have been a raging liberal but he was a consummate politician. In his book he told a story about getting beat in his first election. When he asked one woman who had known him his whole life about why she didn’t vote for him she said, ‘people liked to be asked for their vote. You didn’t ask’.
Fred, the Fredheads and Mrs. Fred may think it’s self evident that he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread but the rest of us want to see some effort and commitment before handing over our precious vote.
Drew on December 1, 2007 at 3:35 PM
No, but I act as if I do, and Fred’s a method actor. He must need real hate to act the way he does.
tommylotto on December 1, 2007 at 3:36 PM
OK, we get it. Enough.
Fred doesn’t play the “Dance, monkey. Dance!” game. Is that a winning strategy? Probably not, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
I’m guessing that sound bites beat sound policies every time.
bofh on December 1, 2007 at 3:37 PM
He is a bore. Now if Arthur Branch were running I could get behind him.
Hilts on December 1, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Tommylotto- Ain’t that just like a New Yorker, ya didn’t bother to read ALL the way thru my rant.
I said- WHEN SOMEONE SHOWS me who they are- I believe’em. RUDY SHOWED US WHO HE WAS ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WHEN HE WAS IN OFFICE!
The key word there is SHOWED, son. NOT SAID- ANYBODY CAN SAY ANYTHING to git what they want. DON’T MEAN THEY’RE GONNA DO IT.
Just ask any teenage boy who’s alone with a pretty girl.
Ex-tex on December 1, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Oh Yeah- like the POTUS is gonna be comin’ to yer next party!
I’ve never in my life been asked to vote fer a candidate for POTUS by the candidate himself- but I always vote. And so do MILLIONS of other Americans!
Ex-tex on December 1, 2007 at 3:45 PM
What ELSE has the media said about Fred, say right after the debate?
“[T]his one was easily his best.”
- David Yepsen, Des Moines Register
“Thompson reminded people that he is a steady, consistent, and thoughtful conservative.”
- Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard
“And he stayed above the fray when the fights around him got downright nasty.”
- New York Post
“The “Law and Order” star’s positions were more polished than ever. He attacked Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney sharply and effectively.”
- New York Post
“It was a very good performance…”
- Marc Ambinder, The Atlantic
“He was cool, good-humored and tried to offer some specific answers….”
- David Yepsen, Des Moines Register
“Where Giuliani stumbled, Thompson soared.”
- New York Post
“His answer on guns was very clear and strong.”
- Marc Ambinder, The Atlantic
“Fred Thompson took the opportunity to distinguish himself from both Romney and Giuliani”
- Associated Press
“Thompson got one of his strongest audience responses…when he said he would not grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.”
- Fox News
“He also stirred the crowd after attacking Giuliani for his support of gun control laws”
- Fox News
“Thompson gets applause when he says the focus ought to be on overturning Roe v. Wade.”
- Jim Geraghty, National Review
“While other Republican candidates say they want to save money by doing away with things such as the Department of Education, Thompson correctly goes after the big bucks in the debate over the national debt when he says the United States must reform Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.”
- David Yepsen, Des Moines Register
“Tonight, he repeatedly matched parts of his resume to the issues at hand…”
- Marc Ambinder, The Atlantic
“Thompson seemed more comfortable in this debate….”
- NBC’s First Read
“He gets more comfortable with every debate.”
- Marc Ambinder, The Atlantic
“Best sense of humor: Fred Thompson”
- Power Line
“Thompson’s more comfortable appearance seemed to make a good impression with the chattering class.”
- NBC’s First Read
Gatordoug on December 1, 2007 at 3:51 PM
No tommy just hates being honest or ethical, but then again he is a lawyer so its to be expected…
doriangrey on December 1, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Ex-tex on December 1, 2007 at 3:55 PM
You didn’t read my post either Tex. You assume Rudy was lying, but assumed Fred tellin’ the truth. Rudy has never been in a position to do anything about illegal immigration. He was a mayor of a city with 8 million souls — 400,000 were illegal and the feds would do nothing to deport them. Rudy was a victim of the fed’s failure to control the border. You may not like the way he dealt with a very difficult situation created by the feds, but that is because you are not looking at all the different problems faced by a chief executive of a major city trying to reduce crime.
What has Rudy shown you on illegal immigration — absolutely nothing, because he has never been in a position to do anything about it — only to suffer its consequences.
Fred on the other had — he was the fed. He was a Senator during the time of mass illegal immigration. He was in a position where he could have introduced legislation to close the border and deport illegals. HE DID NOTHING. In fact, look at his actual voting record and how many times he voted for an Abraham amendment to allow more American jobs to go to non-citizens. Fred has a track record on immigration. It sux.
So if you gonna look at what someone has done, that disqualifies Fred’s credibility on immigration. Rudy, on the other hand can still be believed.
tommylotto on December 1, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Gatordoug- I do really really like you- (don’t know why the strike out)
Ex-tex on December 1, 2007 at 3:56 PM
OK, I was at that Summerville event – there were 300 people there, ina room that was packed to the gills. He mingled outside the restaurant for 20 minutes…
Why are we taking the NYT’s word for ANYTHING?
JDinSC on December 1, 2007 at 3:58 PM
I see a lot of complaining that Fred isn’t shoving himself down our throats. Well boo-hoo. If you cannot take the time to become an informed voter by spending, ohh, fifteen minuets online at his website or bothering to find out when and where his appearances will be, too freaking bad. Fred is the only viable conservative running who will:
1) Support legal immigration while shutting down illegal immigration
2) Be trusted to appoint the correct type of judge to reflect the principles of most conservatives i.e. overturning Roe v. Wade and stopping judicial activism.
3) Be serious about the threat facing us.
4) Understand the motivation behind Bush’s tax cuts, make them permanant, and not try to steal any more money from hard-working americans.
5) Defeat Hillary Clinton.
Now, the rest of the board is strong in some of these areas, but Fred is the only full package. If you don’t want to take the time to figure that out for yourself, and instead need Fred plastered across the MSM screens, well, you are the type of voter that most depresses me in America today. You will vote, but it will be sadly uninformed, and I’d rather that you didn’t.
VolMagic on December 1, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Gatordoug on December 1, 2007 at 4:00 PM
AMEN!
Gatordoug on December 1, 2007 at 4:01 PM
tommylotto on December 1, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Yeesh. You sure that your view of Fred is not just some projection for all the hate you seem to be living with?
VolMagic on December 1, 2007 at 4:02 PM
This column was extremely biased, it is meant to eliminate Fred as a serious candidate. The media has been punding this moronic “Fred is lazy” angle for months now.
That the media is doing this is not a shock. That some Conservative posters here are more interested in sound bites and style instead of substance and ideals and plans is depressing fankly.
Conserevatives whined that we wanted a Consevative, and now, some are nitpicking his every move. Again, depressing.
Gatordoug on December 1, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Numbers USA supports Fred and Fred’s plan.
Ex-tex on December 1, 2007 at 4:13 PM
This is what I am taking from the current political discussion all over. I can understand the criticism of Fred Thompson, but when it comes down to it, I am voting for substance, not style.
And really, are we voting for the candidate who runs the best campaign or are we voting for the candidate with the best substance?
Granted, one can argue that if a candidate cannot run a good campaign then he will not do a good job of getting his substance accomplished in office. If the candidate cannot do a good job in selling his campaign, how can we expect that candidate to do in selling his policies to the Congress, the media and, most importantly, the American people?
So I can sympathize with the criticism of Fred Thompson, however I also believe that there is a deliberate movement in this country by the mass media AND the new media to focus on style and tabloid stuff over substance. I bet if you ask the average person about he lastest they know about the candidates, they could probably tell you about the latest scandals or the latest soundbites or the latest celebrity endorsement (Chuck Norris), but they probably could NOT tell you about the candidates’ policies.
Most people it seems are supporting their candidate based on some superficial thing or another, or just based on one issue (abortion, religion, 9/11 leadership, etc), but don’t really know the full positions their candidate has on all policies.
While this is nice for making news and blogging, this is not good for the future of the country.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 4:25 PM
I agree. I have gotten more and more depressed about our country the more I have been keeping up with the commentary here and on other political blogs throughout this campaign. I have come to the same conclusion as you that it seems people are more concerned with style over substance and more concerned with defeating Hillary at all costs (”Anybody But Hillary”) than with sticking to conservative principles.
Personally, I subscribe to the view that I would be more comfortable with a openly liberal/socialist Hillary Clinton Presidency, because then I could support my Republican Congressmen in combating her at every turn. I would NOT be comfortable with a liberal Republican Presidency, because then the Republicans in Congress would be more inclined to support a Republican President.
We survived Jimmy Carter, we survived Bill Clinton, we can survive Hillary Clinton. However, I don’t believe the Republican Party will survive if they abandon all their principles and simply go for winning at all costs.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Bah humbug…Numbers USA are just a bunch of pantie waste communist terrorist supporting racists nativist…/tommylotto
doriangrey on December 1, 2007 at 4:32 PM
LOL.
Theworldisnotenough on December 1, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Thank you, my sentiments exactly.
I believe we need to apply to the political process the same mentality we apply to public education. We should not be teaching down to the slowest students at the expense of the brighter students and we should not have our politicians pandering to the ignorant voters at the expense of insulting the rest of us who are politically knowledgable. Just as we should be teaching to a higher level to challenge our children to achieve that level, we should have our politicians campaigning at a higher level to bring the knowledge of our population of politics to a higher level.
But, the only way our politicians are going to campaign at a higher level is if WE, the people, expect that of them. Allowing politicians to succeed based on their empty campaigns and lack of depth on issues does nothing to hurt them, but hurts the country as a whole. It just continues to dumb down the voting population. We don’t accept that in our schools, we should not accept that in our political process.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 4:38 PM
With all respects, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Hilts on December 1, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Was in Senate for 8 years and did nothing but support Spencer Abraham.
He lobbied for an abortion group. Is against life amendment. Is against criminalizing women who have them and doctors that perform them. Is pro-choice in first trimester.
Rudy had a building fall on top of him. No one is more serious than him.
Rudy cut taxes in NYC 23 times while Fred was trading pork projects in the Senate. Rudy is the fiscal conservative in the group, not Fred.
Down by more than eight points.
Do you have another compelling list of reasons to vote for Fred other than he is lazy and hates us?
tommylotto on December 1, 2007 at 4:41 PM
No, you apparently don’t. But then again it’s all about you…You you you…Which probably explains why you don’t understand.
doriangrey on December 1, 2007 at 4:41 PM
We better dtand for something more than “electability”
Gatordoug on December 1, 2007 at 4:44 PM
That is Stand sorry
Gatordoug on December 1, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Hilts on December 1, 2007 at 4:39 PM
I think he quoted the wrong person. Was probably meant to reply to this post:
Gianni on December 1, 2007 at 4:46 PM
The statements couldn’t have been clearer where Mayor Giuliani said “If you are an undocumented worker, if you are an illegal immigrant, we want you here.”
Even Rudy Capo’s own words just bounce off the Rudy Koolaid drinkers. It is like arguing with the truthers, absolutely nothing gets through.
One of the Republicans running for President filed a lawsuit against the Clinton administration because he felt that Bubba was too damn tough on illegals.
Would anyone like to guess who I’m talking about?
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 4:54 PM
The same one that troubled to file a lawsuit against Bill Clinton protecting the Constitutional balance of powers by overthrowing the line item veto.
Spirit of 1776 on December 1, 2007 at 4:59 PM
I agree.
You know, I’d be interested in Rush Limbaugh ‘monologue-ing’ on this subject of principle vs “electability”.
I remember during the 2004 campaign that people on the right were ridiculing those on the Left who supported John Kerry solely because of “electability” (”Anybody But Bush!”). And now, it seems to me, from what I am reading at various right-of-center blogs, that this is what many Republican-voters are talking about doing.
Now, if that is how politics works, that’s fine. But then I am going to start holding the right to account for their hypocrisy when they start practicing the same things that I thought only those on the Left practiced.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Gatordoug and Michael in MI are making me more hopeful. Keep up the good comments :-)
jeremyp on December 1, 2007 at 5:03 PM
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 5:09 PM
If you disregard Constitutional concerns just to spin that to meet your anti-Rudy theme, that’s your prerogative. I’ll leave you to it.
Spirit of 1776 on December 1, 2007 at 5:15 PM
New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani filed suit Friday to overturn new laws he said would force the city to surrender the names of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to the federal government.
“The Immigration and Naturalization Service will do nothing with those names but terrorize people,” Giuliani said.
Talk about your “bleeding heart” liberals.
Rudy Capo is like Jorge Arbusto, Juan McAmnesty, Lindsey the Prissy, Vinny the Zorro and Teddy the Swimmer all rolled into one.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 5:15 PM
No spin on my part. Rudy Capo loves pork. That’s about it.
He is not exactly a constitutional lawyer now. He after all is the one who said that “anchor babies” were citizens per the U.S. Constitution, when it is in fact by statute. Even I, very much the non lawyer, know that.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Had Hillary Clinton (or any Democrat) made this statement, the right-of-center blogs would have come out with the headline that she called the INS terrorists and made the moral equivalence of our enemies with those enforcing our laws here in America.
However, in the illogic that is the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Rudy Giuliani is the Republican frontrunner.
It just leaves me… confused, disheartened and depressed… to say the least.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 5:22 PM
When is the last time Fred Ran? Geez, the guy has to get his feet wet.
tomas on December 1, 2007 at 5:22 PM
tommylotto on December 1, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Ok. Your response to point 1 is simply worng. He did not “do nothing but support Spencer Abraham.”
For point 2, I don’t want a federal ban on abortion either. I don’t believe the Fed has the right to regulate such questions. Federalism makes sense it you will follow it all the way through to it’s conclusion, more questions to be decided by state and local government i.e. more power for the individual citizen in effecting the political process where he/she lives. The main objection to Roe, from a legal standpoint, is that it put such a controversial question into the hands of nine elites, instead of in the will of the people.
Point 3, Yeas, Rudy is almost impeccable in this catagory, but again, I was just saying Fred hits all the major points and Rudy fails miserably in the judge/immigration sections.
Point 4, You will never convince me someone from New York doesn’t think they can spend my money better than I can.
Point 5, Hitting the polls? If you think Rudy can play in the south, be my guest to that delusion. Without holding all of the 2004 red states, our guy won’t have a chance this cycle.
Again, I like most of the condidates on most of the issues, but Fred is the only one to be trusted on all of them. Full stop.
VolMagic on December 1, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Thank goodness that in 45 days it will all be over. Will he? Won’t he? Should he? Can he? All done. Then we can get on with eating the rest of our own.
Limerick on December 1, 2007 at 5:25 PM
…It would appear the author does not belong to the striking guild.
NYT–”the deciders”–poo.
Think twice about the innane expectations for a flash gordon to buy your vote and save your day because he role acts according to poll expectations.
Fred is being Candidate Thompson, not some actor, and the public might well appreciate seeing his own demeanor given time.
Political rallies are tradition, but some traditions have become out of whack. Christmas presents are tradition, but the expectations of how much glitz and the huge fortune spent on fulfilling others’ expectations has thrown that tradition out of whack. Gifts as per words should be clearly to the point. Some appreciate simplicity. THERE IS A YEAR YET to decide. What’s the huge rush–to please the MSM, to please those who won’t be pleased unless they are spoiled? Fred has time to round out his approach. If we’re not buying our donation ticket to hear him speak, then be patient while he first makes his case with those who do support him. Meanwhile, bone up for the exam, as there is plenty of time yet to verify his well defined platform while he shakes hands.
maverick muse on December 1, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Personally I’m liking Fred’s run just fine but then again I usually go for substance instead of flash. I also vote based on records and not promises to be different than their record would indicate.
Buzzy on December 1, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Mav, I don’t really get what you mean by this: Think twice about the innane expectations for a flash gordon to buy your vote and save your day because he role acts according to poll expectations.
As for the traditions of politics, I am not one to be counted among those who complain about his style. I have remarked on it from time to time, but I have always been interested in the substance, not the style, and I think a look at my record on this subject would reflect that point.
I don’t have any real qualms about Fred’s style. Heck, even if the assertions of his laziness are true, a credible argument can be made that a lazy president would be a good thing.
Spirit of 1776 on December 1, 2007 at 5:40 PM
You can pretty much bank on the GOP candidate that gets the most flak from the left.
Bet on Fred!
I am pretty certain that Fred connects with America in more ways and on more issues than any candidate left or right.
TheSitRep on December 1, 2007 at 5:53 PM
The “Fred is lazy” template will be used throughout his 8 years in office. Remember “Reagan is senile?” The press held onto that until his death. Facts don’t matter to the drive-by media, only agendas.
Fred SHOULD have used the time much better. The campaign process is a learning process. If he can’t learn from his mistakes he shouldn’t be in the White House.
Go Fred!
Mojave Mark on December 1, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Fred is not a young man. In fact, he’s my generation but has young children, something to give an older man pause. Maybe, just maybe? he gets plain tired doing all of this? I sure would!!! Up front, I’m saying that I like some of his ideas, not all of them, but enough to regard him as well meaning man so I am not anti-Fred. Pehaps it’s not the best thing for Fred(himself) to become President because it’s the world’s hardest job and trying to do it well could take some years off his life? If he’s given this any thought and I’m sure he has—it could explain a lot. I’m probably dead wrong, but it has occurred to me often when I watch him on TV.
jeanie on December 1, 2007 at 6:03 PM
jeanie on December 1, 2007 at 6:03 PM
All the more reason he should probably pick a good VP running mate. Maybe Duncan Hunter or Mitt Romney. I would be okay with either of them… as VP. Then they could both improve their resume for President in 2012 or 2016.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 6:22 PM
I plan to
Gatordoug on December 1, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Fred Thompson/Duncan Hunter- it doesn’t git any better!
Ex-tex on December 1, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Not another Huckup!
Huckabee raised taxes more than Clinton
Ouch!
http://www.arkansasleader.com/blogstories.html
You can check this persons assertion with this source here
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/data/2006taxhandbook/2006TaxHandbookFinal.pdf
EricPWJohnson on December 1, 2007 at 8:22 PM
My biggest concern with Fred being “lazy” is that it appears to show that he does not seem to care much about keeping the public informed about what it is he’s doing. Yeah, yeah, we need to inform ourselves about the candidates, but unfortunately, the majority of the voting public votes based on what they hear from the candidates at debates, or from the (gasp) MSM. Also, let’s remember that our current Pres, the Bushitler, has done a p!$$ poor job of responding to his critics, and of keeping the public informed on how his administration is handling key issues (especially when there is success). That “laziness” on the part of Bush led to the Dem strategy for the last two elections – Run against Bush, and nothing else. I get the feeling that Fred getting elected will result in a lot more of that, which in turn could result in more lost seats in Congress for the GOP (along with lost State and local elections).
Personally, I don’t care about the handshaking, baby kissing, long speeches, etc. I like to focus on the actual issues, and I agree that Fred does have more detailed explanations of his plans for same. However, I don’t want to be frustrated again by a Pres that refuses to educate and inform the people about what’s going on, and give the Dems and MSM ammo that they shouldn’t have in the first place (like Katrina, Iraq…).
Rick on December 1, 2007 at 8:26 PM
I think you missed my point. I was coming from the point of view that maybe he’d want to be around for his kids as long as he can. Also, being President would mean much time away from his family and, if he doesn’t need the money or crave the power, why would he want that when his time is probably more limited than, say, a man in his fifties or forties. But, since he’s decided to run, this conjecture is probably way off anyway.
jeanie on December 1, 2007 at 8:29 PM
People need to start waking up to reality. Fred is done. Pick either Mitt or Rudy and drive on.
davenp35 on December 1, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Go jump in lake RINO all you want, just leave me the hell out of it… I’ll pick whoever I want to pick.
Watcher on December 1, 2007 at 8:57 PM
So, in other words you really do want Hillary to be our next President.
davenp35 on December 1, 2007 at 9:04 PM
No, in other words I want someone that I can vote for, not someone to vote against… and we haven’t even gotten to the primaries yet, so please spare me the defeatist claptrap.
Watcher on December 1, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Whatever you say, Hugh………….overlord and master.
omnipotent on December 1, 2007 at 9:18 PM
If there is anyone left on this thread, there is this from Flopping Aces.
Weight of Glory on December 1, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Don’t you know Allah, this is just the MSM attacking Fred!
It has absolutely nothing to do with his utter ineptitude as a campaigner, it’s simply media bias.
Fred is inevitable.
GO FRED ‘08!
/Fredhead.
BKennedy on December 1, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Heh. I read the first line in your comment, then I looked down at who wrote it and saw “BKennedy”, and I thought, “No way! Has he changed sides?!” I was about to have a heart attack until I got to the end.
Weight of Glory on December 1, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Ya got me!
Weight of Glory on December 1, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Well, I do try :D
Seriously, this article speaks for itself, I really have nothing to add.
BKennedy on December 1, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Bkennedy
Tell us again – how much money did Romney spend in Iowa to get third/fourth place soon?
EricPWJohnson on December 1, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Was it 60 million a 18 months with 60 to 100 paid staffers?
EricPWJohnson on December 1, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Enough to do better than the four minute man Fred Thompson.
But of course Eric, spending money on a campaign is BAAAAAD.
Romney’s paying ain’t he, so why does that get your class envy chip in a bind? Aren’t you happy Romney is “bankrupting himself.” That might knock him down a quintile, leading you to some level of joy.
EricPWJohnson’s Motto:
“Success: Other people shouldn’t have it.”
BKennedy on December 1, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Yep, best possible ticket…
doriangrey on December 1, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Tat is my pick
Gatordoug on December 1, 2007 at 11:36 PM
So we combine the four minute man with the traction-free man from California?
Really, I’d prefer Duncan got the top spot, but he just doesn’t have any traction.
So we’ll got a President who doesn’t know how to order chairs with a VP that can’t fill them…
Seriously folks, Romney/Hunter is where its at.
BKennedy on December 1, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Yup…So said the dude named Kennedy, but I suppose a Kennedy would know about traction.
doriangrey on December 2, 2007 at 12:46 AM
How is playing back what someone has said, and not just a sound bite but complete sentences, a negative ad. There was no implying that the other candidates believed in liberal policies. They were on tape saying it themselves.
Bill C on December 2, 2007 at 1:07 AM
I’ve thought about this for a while, and I think I have a rational explanation for why Fred is hanging back.
First, he entered the race late, intentionally so, what was he doing while others were out stumping? He was building a different type of war chest, and we’re seeing it rolled out piece by piece. It’s not a money war chest however, it’s a “policy” warchest. While others are out grandstanding and pressing flesh, Fred is connecting on a deeper level with those who are looking at his campaign.
Let’s also face something. Even if Huck, Rudy or Romney take Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, it doesn’t matter. Because Fred can come out and say “Yeah, alright, they won the popularity contest out of the gate, but what are they really all about, here are my plans, and they’ve been poured over and vetted by many people. Here, take a look and make your decision”, then when the bigger primaries roll around, Fred can post strong numbers and play the “I do politics differently, I’m not kissing babies, I’m doing the hard work of talking about the deeper issues.”
I have no source to back this up, it’s merely my opinion, I think Fred is playing the game rather shrewdly, letting the others run out in front like the rabbit, while Fred plays the tortoise.
I think it can work if Fred plays it right.
Consider this. If Hillary loses Iowa, she’s hurt but not out. If Hillary loses S.C., she’s in BIG trouble, one might even say you could put a fork in her if she loses SC.
Then, Fred can really come out with Clinton out of the picture, run agains a Richardson/Obama ticket and wipe the floor with them.
It’s just theorizing, but I don’t think it’s a wise bet to count Fred out.
–Jason
Jason Coleman on December 2, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Not being flashy or grandstanding is one thing.
Not orderering chairs for your supporters?
That’s just incompetence.
Fred’s problem is that the game of politics isn’t being played the way Fred wants it to be. Policy wonkery is fine, but when you do get the chance to show what you stand for, don’t blow it.
Fred’s gambit is probably going to play out as follows:
Fred will do exactly what you predict him to do, laying out his big policies a month before the primaries.
Unfortunately, what will happen is Fred will have at that point turned off many voters who wished he was more forward earlier. With his craptastic events, mediocre to poor debate performances, and a quick reference by the other campaigns of how Fred simply ignored voters in New Hampshire to do things on “Fred time” as it will be dubbed, and Fred will by SOL.
The tortoise won the race by plodding forward steadily and consistently, not waiting for the rabbit to get halfway to the finish and then start plodding along.
BKennedy on December 2, 2007 at 1:30 AM
You could be completely right. Time will tell. However, I think that Fred has been plodding along, it’s just that we haven’t seen it because he’s not playing the normal game.
I don’t know. We’ll just have to wait and see.
I like Fred, I also like Rudy and Romney and Hunter, I think all have the ability to beat the Dems. Ok, I admit, Hunter can’t beat the Dems, but I still like him and I think he could make an excellent VP. Then again, I’m kinda hoping for Newt to make an appearance as a VP contender.
–Jason
Jason Coleman on December 2, 2007 at 1:41 AM
NYT “just say nyet comrades”
saved on December 2, 2007 at 4:46 AM
I’d like to thank Michael in MI for raising the quality of the debate here. You have a way of putting things I can only envy.
Texas Nick 77 on December 2, 2007 at 7:13 AM
That, and Gatordoug & other non-venomous commenters, make this site a daily must for me. Y’all keep supporting the conservatives in this race. I can count only two.
Go Duncan!
Go Fred!
Texas Nick 77 on December 2, 2007 at 7:15 AM
Jeeze, I HATE it that we’ve all missed the part in the Constitution that says a president must LIKE people!!
GOSH are we stupid.
Warner Todd Huston on December 2, 2007 at 8:20 AM
Anyone know where Reagan was “polling” in Iowa at this time in the campaign? My faint recollection was – it was discouraging.
stenwin77 on December 2, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Comment pages: