Fred Flops
Someone write this guy a stump speech
By Bluey Posted in 2008 — Comments (88) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
My high expectations for Fred Thompson were met with bitter disappointment tonight after listening to a boring and uninspiring speech that was more appropriate for someone running for president of the Rotary Club rather than president of the United States.
Thompson's address to the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference had the potential to top Rudy Giuliani's moving speech last night. Instead, things went bad right from the start. Moments before Thompson took the stage, Rep. Tim Walberg gave a quick speech blaming last year's GOP losses on Republicans who had fallen asleep. It gave Thompson a punch line; he told the audience that he hoped that he wouldn't put them to sleep. Then he did just that. It was like watching Bob Dole -- without the Viagra.
The speech seemed very disorganized and lacked focus. Thompson clearly wasn't following a script -- or if he was, it was a poorly written one. He spent more time talking about his life story and résumé (already covered in this wonderful commercial) than about policy issues. When he finally got into them -- he prefers to discuss principles, not issues, by the way -- attendees were ready for their dinner.
Continued on the jump ...
If I had to pick one highlight from the speech, it was Thompson's focus on his family. He repeatedly cited his children as the inspiration for his candidacy. That's where Mitt Romney succeeded this afternoon. Even though David Freddoso and Emily Zanotti gave Romney bad marks, I appreciated the fact that he made family values an important part of his speech. It was disappointing not to hear a peep from Giuliani, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter or John McCain.
Speaking of McCain, who followed Thompson tonight, he was his usual self, focusing his entire speech on the Iraq War and broader war against Islamic extremists. He effectively used humor to talk about himself and then shifted to tough talk toward terrorists. He managed to get a standing ovation about halfway through when he called on Columbia University to rescind its invitation to Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In my humble opinion, McCain finished a close second to Giuliani this weekend.
If Thompson is fortunate, his speech won't hurt his standing in the much-anticipated Hotline straw poll. Because of all the pre-speech buzz that captivated Mackinac Island, I doubt he'll suffer too much short-term fallout. After all, just a few hours ago I referred to him as a "rock star" because he could hardly take a step without admirers and the press chasing him wherever he went.
There's still hope for Thompson, but he'll have to improve his stump speech. One observer told me afterward that Thompson might be afraid to rely too much on his acting skills, which is why he comes across as laid back and dull. I'm not sure why we're not seeing more passion, but I worry that it's a problem that should have been corrected more than four months after those concerns were first raised.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Fred Thompson: The Other Rock Star in Michigan — Comments (14) »
Fred Flops 88 Comments (0 topical, 88 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"same conservative credentials"... except Fred believes in federalism and small government. Huck sure didn't when he was Governor.
If you mean they are both pro-life, okay. But that's not the only conservative credential.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
I am giving Huckabee a second look. He smoke Fred on charisma and stole the show at the NRA (how is that for individual freedom?) I checked his site last night and saw little in the way of big government. I know that is his flaw, I would appreciate info on that. I am a libertarin con so I do not take big government lightly. having said that, Huckabee would be loved by the social cons we are always fretting about, and he can run circles around Fred on the stump.
Molon Labe!
That's why he's embraced the FairTax. His support of it appears to me to be totally defensive in nature... to make up for his actual record as governor. CFG has an entire section dedicated to Huckabee's flaws, going back over a year. Nobody is better than Huckabee on 2A, but he sure comes up short in other areas. I wish he'd just run for the Senate.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
on legislation that will never be passed in real life is a candidate who has serious problems with his campaign. It's OK to mention it, even to approve of it, but it can't be a cornerstone of the campaign. It is realistically impossible to pass the Fair Tax in a manner that would satisfy this Conservative, primarily because it would have to be passed simultaneously with the repeal of the 16th amendment, and I don't think that's physically or even psychically possible.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
CfG has been all over Huckabee's tax raising, nanny-state "conservatism." Here is CfG's white paper on Huckabee, which sums up its funding thus:
Governor Huckabee's record on pro-growth, free-market policies is a mixed bag, with pro-growth positions on trade and tort reform, mixed positions on school choice, political speech, and entitlement reform, and profoundly anti-growth positions on taxes, spending, and government regulation.
While Governor Huckabee's record displays some flashes of economic conservatism, especially during his early years, the overwhelming evidence of his record and rhetoric over the past ten years leaves the Club for Growth and economic conservatives around the country to wonder if a President Huckabee would espouse the relatively pro-growth policies of Governor Huckabee circa 1997 or the anti-growth policies of Governor Huckabee circa 2004. While the Governor has made a concerted effort to defend his record, calling oneself an economic conservative does not make one so. His recent refusals to rule out raising taxes if elected President-the cornerstone of a pro-growth platform-perhaps indicate which path he would choose.
I get the feeling that Huckabee would be less fiscally conservative than Bush, who at least believed in low taxes. More worrying is the fact that DC convinces people that we need more government. If someone doesn't go into DC with a firm resolve that government is not the answer to every problem, it is easy to fall into the trap. I think it would not take much for Huckabee to be convinced that a multi-billion dollar anti-obesity campaign is totally something government should do. I don't think Fred would fall for that.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
His recent refusals to rule out raising taxes if elected President-the cornerstone of a pro-growth platform-perhaps indicate which path he would choose
Huckabee did sign the ATR pledge.
The next successful president will need to battle the biased media on a daily basis. Also be tough on national security and foreign affairs as well as fight for conservative judges. I just don't see Huckster accomplishing these key items.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
Aren't these guys pretty much opposites on every issue that distinguishes one Republican candidate from another? As well as in political policymaking experience (Huckabee in one state, Thompson nationally)?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
It doesn't necessarily mean anything though. Heck, it shows Democrats fight just wars as often as Republicans do for crying out loud.
But I didn't say one was better than the other. I was just saying they're at opposite extremes.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I will buy it to move on amicably. The Thompson campaign is not about experience. He was not exactly LBJ in the Senate.
Molon Labe!
He can't run on it alone, but personally if he didn't have a solid Senate voting record, I'd be backing Mitt firstly right now.
thanks,
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I found an opposite view here. I'd like to see the speech myself but haven't found it online (yet).
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
Super bummed that Huckabee couldn't make it and steal the show!
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
He looked at his budget, his schedule, and his campaign priorities, and decided not to spend the money.
Just like any candidate when dealing with any event.
It says next to nothing about what he thinks policy-wise.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
The more I see of Fred the more I feel that he got into the race because of urging from his friends and trusted confidants and not because he had a life-long dream to be POTUS. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
This appearance may not have had particular relevance, but it was a great chance to score some headlines and get noticed. Rudy did it and so did McCain. "Maybe next time" just isn't going to cut it.
He's here because we all wanted him here, and it says a lot about him that he's gotten in shape and is looking to give it his best shot.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Are you willing to go on record as describing the events of past few weeks since he has entered the race officially as his "best shot"?
Especially in consideration of the time taken in the lead up to his official entrance?
He is no draftee, "doors opened" and all that so don't go there.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
And I know people have criticized him, but let me put it this way: Some people like Trix, some people like Grape Nuts. I think Fred is a refreshingly old fashioned, Grape Nuts type of candidate. The kind I never thought I'd see in my lifetime actually.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I also think Republicans are mature enough to like it, too.
I also think that of our leading candidates, he's the most likely to unify the party.
If Romney hadn't run for Senate like he did, hey, I could support our slick candidate equally, but I can't.
Funny how that works though. The guy who's 'perfect'ly groomed for his run is dinged for it, and the guy who clearly doesn't care about being 'perfect' is dinged for it, too.
So basically to win you have to try and fail to be 'perfect'.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
What some see as senility others might see as "maturity" perhaps but that is certainly not going to unify the party.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I haven't heard that accusation thrown out against a Republican since Ronald Reagan ran for President. Have you been watching too much 60 minutes or what?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
As you know I have been a wait and see kind of guy in regard to his candidacy, so far the substance is absent as far as I can tell.
Mind you his ability to do some vids answering questions bloggers posed means nothing, see Ned Lamont for clarification on that point if you need it.
From drilling in the Everglades to his answers about Osama bin Hihen and the never ending clarifications needed after nearly every Q & A with the press, of which he has done few, he has shown he he not ready for prime time.
I think the country deserves better, I think the country deserves a president that is willing to step up to the plate and be engaged with the topics that are impacting America and as a candidate Thompson is not up to speed. To not have any idea who the Jena 6 are after weeks of protests is s sign of something, what that something "is" is open to debate I imagine but right now he's not looking like the brightest bulb in pack right now.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Seems to me that an awful lot of Republicans are trying really hard to find something wrong with the candidate with the best Conservative credentials in the race.
I haven't heard or read the speech in the topic article, but I have heard previous Thompson speeches that were said to be dull and uninispiring, and I found them to be anything but that. I read the "review" linked from the NRO, and I must say that I could criticize the writer just as he criticized Fred. He seems to have expected the hear Soupy Sales.
To say a line received an "incongruous amount of applause" may simply mean the writer had no idea what had been said. Maybe Fred is just too inspired himself, and his ideas are out of reach for some. Maybe he really is saying the things that need to be said, and it's hard for some folks to hear it. Those things are indeed somber, and even dull. Others recognize the importance and applaud "incongruously." I can only guess.
As for Principles vs. specific plans and Issues, I'l go with the Principles every time. Issues change with the winds, but Principles are the compasses that guide how we deal with those issues. If they're real, they don't change, at least not frequently. The question we all have to face is whether the principles each candidates espouses are truly his Principles or not. Isn't that what all the hoopla over Romney's pro-life conversion, and Rudy's sanctuary city history, and McCain's shamnesty bill support is all about? Is Mitt really pro-life? Are Rudy and McCain really anti-ilegal-immigration? It's their PRINCIPLES that are being called into question, not their plans to deal with the problems.
At one time I worried about whether to support the candidate I most agreed with, or the candidate I thought could beat Hillary. I finally realized that I don't know who can beat Hillary anyway, so it only makes sense to go with the candidate that best agrees with my own principles. If he doesn't win, then that's a loss for America, but it's not my fault.
And I'd rather not elect another President that has been dreaming of it since kindergarten. I'd rather have one who is doing it to serve the country because he sees that it needs him.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
I think you have the names mixed up. I see the exact opposite, and this is what truly baffles me about Fred's support. Lucky Charms might be more appropriate for Inkblot Fred than Trix though.
so did John Kerry (who incidently, served in Vietnam -- briefly on the US side) They BOTH had fire in the belly to be POTUS! Ditto both Clintons!
I'll take a great President who is pushed into the office out of a sense of duty and honor over someone who has planned and schemed their entire adult life. The President should be there because he feels his country needs him, rather someone who NEEDS to be President!
If all those guy had "fire in the belly" and they still lost, how much more so for a guy who is running yawn classes?
Needs? Wants? How about electabliltiy? Thompson's motives and his ideas are fine, but what good are they if he can't get people to vote for him? They will make great material for his memoirs, but they won't include "My presidential years."
It looks more and more like I'll be voting for Rudy...
but can only be taken so far. He can not win if he does not give his all TO win. If we put a cold fish up there and lose, wont we look stupid when we salute President Hillary
Molon Labe!
- The more I see of Fred the more I feel that he got into the race because of urging from his friends and trusted confidants
You misspelled "wife."
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
"....he got into the race because of urging from his friends and trusted confidants and not because he had a life-long dream to be POTUS...."
If that is the case, then what a refreshing change!
Cincinnatus?
Cincinnatus was a Roman farmer, dictator, and consul. He gained fame as a model of Roman virtue. He was a farmer above all, but when called to serve his country he did so well, efficiently, and without question, even though a prolonged stay away from his farm could mean starvation for his family. When he served his country, he made his stint as dictator as brief as possible. He was also admirable for his lack of ambition.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/rulersleaderskings/p/Cincinnatus.htm
Sounds strikingly similar to the story I've heard about a certain George Washington.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
I've studied American History and Thompson is no George Washington. Not even close. He's not even a Ronald Reagan. Reagan was, after all, the "great communicator." He managed to connect with conservatives, moderates and even some hard core Dems.
Every election is unique inspite of similarities to other elections. In another time and place Thompson might have been the obvious choice, but not this time. The Clinton Jugurnaut is about star power. Hillary has no credentials to be president. In order to get people's attention we need someone with equal ability to draw attention, look large enough to handle a big job like POTUS. This is a unique election. We are in a unique war. Rudy has his issues, but he's the right guy at the right time.
those eagles, but I didn't say Thompson was like either Washington or Reagan. In fact I didn't mention Thompson. I said the story about Cincinnatus reminded me of the story of George Washington. Both were farmers. Each served his country when called. Each self-limited his time in office.
If you noticed a similarity in behavior between the story and Thompson, then I submit that you protest too much. Perhaps you should recognize the virtues of the similarity.
My position is that we don't know who will be the "most able to win," but we do know who best exemplifies our positions and beliefs. You like Rudy. I like Fred. I'll vote for the candidate who ends up winning the nomination.
Cut out the "Lord" Bentsen imitation. It didn't work for him, and it doesn't work on paper at all.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
Perhaps Fred doesn't want to be president, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Considering the others started campaigning over a year ago, they want it very badly, but one must ask why when you see how the Bush presidency has been fileted in the media.
Fred took up the responsibility for running and, if he wins, he'll be a responsible president, meaning he'll do the job to the best of his ability and I have more confidence in his ability than any of the others running, including Guiliani.
He's getting a bad rap on the Federalism issue. In its simplest terms that means states' rights as well as small federal government. Many of the issues that people keep questioning really should be states' right because they truly don't have a federal solution. Our country is too diverse, not only politically but in simple regional terms. Life in the South isn't the same as life in the West or North or East... and vice versa... we don't hold the same values or priorities. To mandate federal solutions for some issues is to say that some states have the right to control other states (bigger and somewhat more powerful states) ...the framers of the Constitution labored to deny any one state sovereignty over any other. Why would we want such to happen now?
I don't see how anyone can be against federalism and call themselves conservative. I am tired of "hyphenated conservatives" just like John Wayne was tired of "hyphenated Americans". You are either conservative or you are not. The Federal government is the last place I would go to solve a problem!
Molon Labe!
the videos such as the one when asked about Clinton's health plan while he was riding to an event was great. When he gives a speech he flubs. What gives? It may be time to get a real speech writer.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
Particularly the last paragraph:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/09/22/thompson-draws-fans-with-speech...
I really appreciated the comment by the moonbat maroon after the WSJ article.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
Even in his recent YouTube appearance here, he looked awfully slow and laid-back. When that's combined with an appearance older than his age, he's vulnerable to claims that's he's past his prime.
I like the idea of an elder who doesn't have to pound the podium to make his points. Especially today, I think that's an excellent strategy. But our culture is still far too youth-centered to accept a President who appears to lack energy.
I like many of Fred's positions, especially in comparison to the big three. But what makes Fred appealing compared to other conservative candidates is clear thinking and communication skills. If he's going to have problems with the latter, I'm inclined to go for someone else, like Hunter.
After serving as POTUS for the first 8 years of this new republic, George Washington mounted his horse, rode out of the US Capital in the sunset, and never returned. Fred seems to show those same kind of traits.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
I new George Washington, George Washington was a friend of mine......
Molon Labe!
We've got a lot of first-rate candidates, but I don't think people will be comparing him, or them, to the original George W.
Vos can't ledo astrum si vos intentio pro clouds
Formerly known as ShowMeConservatism. For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
That was a perfectly apt comparison. There was no comparison made to Washington the President, just to one aspect of Washington the man.
Are you trying to be as nasty as "Lord" Bentsen? His was a cheap shot, too. And he lost, as well.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
You say that Fred wants to ride his horse out of town: my question is when - before the primaries or after his term?
George Washington had no fire in his belly burning desire to make a career out of politics. On just this 1 character trait do you see absolutely no comparison? I never intended a comparison of anything else but that.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
It wasn't as bad as all that unless the hype leading up to his entry into the race made you think (and hope?) that he was going to be the second coming of Cicero.
As for a "fire in the belly" to be POTUS, may God save us from anybody that insane.
Fred is the 'New Coke' candidate. A year from now, no one will know why anyone ever got worked up about him.
I give you folks credit for blind devotion but you are scaring the heck out of me.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I hope you're not referring to me, since I haven't said one word to contradict or argue with Bluey's observations about the speech.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
But didn't we come up with a word for this phenomena some time ago?
frapoligist?
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
And personally I use the term FredHead to go with Ronulan, Rombot, and the rest.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I guess you must have agreed with the article that was linked. Does that make you a "blind devotee" of the NRO?
Are the Huckababies "apologists" as well?
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
Huckababies!!! Now that's a GREAT one.
A few of us were talking up the blind devotion bit here before I saw it anywhere else, the whole Fredstate thing got old fast as far as I'm concerned.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
there was a whole lot more reason to vote for Allen (for Senate; I was always as skeptical about him as a POTUS candidate as I am about Thompson, however) than there is for Fred (for POTUS, but with the preceding caveat, I must in fairness note there was as much reason to vote for one as the other for senate - for the short time he was there which supposedly qualifies him for the presidency, anyway)
and I find it atrocious how so many on the so called "right" have taken the lefty meme on him hook, line, and sinker.
Molon Labe!
special, but I could be thinking of Rick Santorum.
I saw one of them right at the beginning stages of their career and was blown away thinking that this could be the "messiah" kind of pol for the party
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
what language that word that I can't remember was supposed to be an epithet in?
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
It's apparently a really bad pronunciation of Macaque, a kind of monkey or ape or something.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Of course, that wasn't the point. He could have said "ptando" and they would have found some language that it was an epithet in. (Did George's Mommy perhaps call him 'macaca' as a term of endearment when he was little?)
It actually just proves that free speech is reserved for Liberals, who are free to call people they don't even know liars, war criminals, murderers, baby killers, you get the point. But they don't call them that in a foreign language. They use 100% American English.
Is this a great country, or what?
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
The story I heard is that he picked it up from his mother, who used it to mean a person acting stupidly.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I'm guessing that I may have been right.
Yeah, I think it was pronounced "macaca." And I personally never thought it was said maliciously.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
Bummer...The more I listen to Fred the less inspired I become... I was much more excited wanting him to run then w/ him actually running...I can't vote for Huckster because of his shady Mexico deals. I think he is a sell out... Oh well. Whose next?
He did perfect stump speeches.
He did not learn about his opponent's positions.
He did not craft answers to questions he HAD to know were coming.
He did not study up on events of high importance to Conservatives.
He didn't raise the $5 million he said he would.
Seriously, what was this guy DOING?
All Thompson did was raise his own expectations yet did nothing to prepare himself to meet them.
Uh, I doubt he said he'd raise 5 million, since that would have been a violation of federal regulations to do that.
As for what he was doing, I'm guessing he actually spent time getting in physical shape, while honoring his commitments to his employers.
It amazes me how many Republicans, this primary season, seem to think the private sector is such a dirty thing these days.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Fred's campaign let the $5 million number out there and did nothing to tamp it down. Either way it was a failure.
Fred could not spend a little time learning about issues and opponents while he was honoring commitments and getting in physical condition? And I would argue he is not in very good condition given the numerous pictures showing his need for a bra as well as profuse sweating.
None of this has anything to do with the private sector. In fact, there are plenty of fine folks in the private sector better qualified and better PREPARED to be POTUS than Fred Thompson.
He seems to know what's important and is taking the right stands on things. A guy out of touch wouldn't be talking about birthright citizenship, for example.
But whatever. Your mind is made up, and pressing this won't be fruitful.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I mean taking stands on the right things, sorry. I happen to disagree with his reading of the 14th on citizenship.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
and you MADE ME blow it all over my laptop
but I thank you for the laugh
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
FDT has generated a lot of excitement as well as a lot of unbelief. He is doing it a new way, exploiting technology by most measures (except the Technogeeks), but there is growing uncertainty about his being able to sustain the momentum thus far generated. For example, I have been totally unable to get a channel of communications opened up to either him or any of his staff members, but I haven't yet given up. There appears to be a large number of people wanting to get information/questions/comments to Fred but as far as I know now, what you are looking at and reading is currently the primary way of getting it done. True, he has enlisted Blogville to screen and forward what they believe to be important communications, but there doesn't appear to be any type of centralized control point to make sure the entire communications effort is coordinated. There are Fredheads, Friends of Fred etc. etc., but no "Fred Central" that anyone can go to, or call, write a letter, or send an email, and be at least somewhat assured of success in getting info to Fred. Is that a major flaw in his campaign plan or am I missing something, or am I over reacting.
joelligon
Actually he had I'm With Fred for a long time, but since he announced that now redirects to Fred '08.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
people had their expectations too high. Fred was a short term "star" back in the mid 1990s. They put him in to deliver the Republican response to a Clinton SOTU to much fanfair. He fell flat as a pancake. I was there, it was not good.
Fred is a good man, he is conservative, he could even be a good president. The thing is, does he actually want to be president? I think people know the question but do not want to face the answer. Compare him to a Mike Huckabee, same conservative credentials but that is where the comparison ends.
Molon Labe!