Fred on Fox: 'Please, Let's Talk About Something Important'
Fox News anchor fails to ask a single substantive question
By Bluey Posted in 2008 | 2008 | Fox News | Fred Thompson | Media — Comments (109) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I've just about had it with the nonstop campaign coverage of Iowa. The media's obsession with horse-race politics -- who's up, who's down -- is absolutely nauseating. My local newspaper, the Washington Post, has all but abandoned substantive stories about public policy in favor of lengthy articles examining poll numbers and negative ads.
Worse still is the coverage on cable TV. All of the 24-hour news networks are to blame, but today Fox News Channel took the cake. Anchor Jane Skinner was responsible for quite possibly the worst interview of the entire presidential race. Her chat with Fred Thompson began with a question about when he was going to drop out and then continued with another about why he was lazy. Thompson pleaded with Skinner to ask a tough question, and she instead came back to defend her line of questioning.
If there's one thing I like about Fred Thompson, it's his willingness to talk about the serious policy debates taking place in America. How sad is it that someone of Jane Skinner's importance couldn't come up with one question of substance? Shame on her.
Hat tip: Blogs for Fred Thompson
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | My Manufactured Mitt — Comments (63) »
Fred on Fox: 'Please, Let's Talk About Something Important' 109 Comments (0 topical, 109 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I normally like Jane Skinner, but she disappointed today. Her questions were incredible shallow.
And while I get a kick out of Fred's combative responses, I'm not sure they will help him with the electorate as a whole.
with America. It is time we stood up and said enough is enough. Fred is doing it, and we should follow...
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
That had to be in the back of his mind. Great self-control to keep from saying it.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Robert -
I understand your frustration with the current coverage, but to suggest that Senator Thompson's perceived laziness is not a relevant issue is absurd.
Senator Thompson's refusal to campaign as hard as EVERY other candidate is one of the main reasons his brightest moment was the night before he entered the race.
His policy papers are thoughtful, but let's be honest - he isn't writing them (and I'm not making the claim that the others do). But at least the other candidates spend hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month selling their policy positions and educating people to them. Senator Thompson has made no such effort.
Being the President is a 24 hour per day, 365 days per year job. Senator Thompson has certainly not given anyone the impression that he is capable of handling that responsibility.
You might shrug it off and blame the media for this stereotype. But the funny thing about stereotypes are that they are often generated out of truth.
Dirk-a-Dirk
I think my reply was pretty clear. In a 3 minute TV hit, you aren't going to get much "quality." My simply point was that Senator Thompson's failure to campaign as hard as EVERY other candidate is an issue, and deserves to be discussed.
Dirk-a-Dirk
you comment in a positive way about his policy papers, but don't get into them in any way...instead....
You would rather discuss how YOU think he is lazy, and doesn't campaign as hard as the others...according to you that is.
Please Dirkie, don't waste our time.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
It's January. Time for the flies to stop buzzing around the war horse.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
This post was not about his "policy papers." I would be happy to discuss them if you like and I would support most of them.
The fact that he doesn't campaign as hard as the others is not my opinion, it is a fact. Since September, he has made far fewer campaign appearances that any other candidate on the Republican side. That is not my "thought," that is the truth.
The reason why people are not always talking about Senator Thompson's policies is in part due to the fact that he has spent little time making the effort to communicate them to the American people (or worse, the people of Iowa and New Hampshire).
If you honestly don't believe that failing to spend the day campaigning two days prior to an election is a relevant issue, I'm not sure what more can be said.
Dirk-a-Dirk
Dirk, show me, tell me, link to, morse code me, something that points to, quantifies, how much time should be spent campaigning. Show me something that says X candidate should do XYZ to be effective, to this group of people, to win the office. Any time, I can wait.
Oh, you have nothing?...How about this...SHUT UP, and let's talk issues. Hmmm...I believe that's what FDT was getting to in the clip above.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
I don't need to send you code. Want to see how much time should be spent campaigning? It's pretty simple...
I would direct you to the numbers in Iowa:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/iowa-primary.html
And the numbers in New Hampshire:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/new_hampshire-pri...
Notice how the numbers seem to correlate to the amount of time and effort each candidate has spent campaigning within a state. Shocking, isn't it?
And once again, I'll skip the code, but I will try English. See if you can comprehend it. No one is complaining about Senator Thompson's policies. The complaint is his willingness to go out and communicate them.
Senator Thompson's policies are great. Too bad he didn't make the effort to sell them to the extent the other candidates did. Every serious candidate has spent the last year discussing their policies and vision.
Dirk-a-Dirk
you must live in Iowa...oh, by the way, Fred must be lazy, I just saw he has his wife out doing interviews.....lazy and a Neanderthal.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
No, I don't live in Iowa. Or any of the other states where Thompson's numbers are a small fraction of what they were the night before he entered the race.
Dirk-a-Dirk
You seem to think (from the posts above) that the ideal candidate for President would be any one of the 32 NFL head coaches. After all, they seem to like to work 20-hour days throughout the football season.
That guy Reagan, he'd never be a good President or campaigner. He spent time with his family, ran his campaigns his way, and usually was in bed by what, eight o'clock?
What is it about scheduling that you believe it, above all other strategic and tactical aspects of campaigning, can be planned better by you than by the candidate? Hasn't he made bigger mistakes?
I mean, maybe he should go the amnesty route like McCain and Rudy and Huck, or for the nanny state, like Huck and Mitt, or the higher tax route, like Huck and McCain, or the ignore-the-Social-Security-problem like everybody else road, or get on the the let's-talk-to-the-bad-guys-and-maybe-they'll-understand-us trail with Huck.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
It's the amount of time it takes to convince the voters that they should vote for you. Fred hasn't done that. Personally, I don't think Fred would have been any more convincing had he campaigned round the clock for the last eight months. That said, Fred gives the impression that he's still on TV playing a role that only requires him to show up and pontificate for a couple of minutes a week.
When given the chance to make his case, Fred didn't dazzle with dynamic energy and deep insights. Nope, he delivered platitudes and boilerplate.
The process is what it is at this point. Those not willing to play by the "rules" need to 1) accept the likelihood of defeat; 2) work (tirelessly) to change the system; and/or 3) realize there's not much point in even entering the race. Fred may or may not have accepted 1), but he doesn't seem to have worked (even sporadically) over the years to make the process more substantive, and he failed to avail himself of 3). In my opinion, most (if not all) of the people who would make great presidents have considered the alternatives and opted for 3).
I realize a lot of people at Redstate had high hopes for Fred. But complaining about shallow interviews (Hello? Where have you been your entire adult lives?) and trying to argue that because Ronald Reagan did x, y, or z Fred ought to be able to do the same and be successful is a waste of time. Without making a value judgment about either Reagan or Thompson, it should be obvious that Fred is no Reagan.
Fred could be the most dynamic, energetic guy on the planet and if, for whatever reason, voters perceive him to be "lazy" or to lack sufficient desire, then that is a real problem he has to deal with -- and he hasn't. I can understand not wanting to play the game, but you've got to be a lot more talented than Thompson is to rewrite the rules for yourself and have that be successful. Fred wouldn't be even marginally in the race this year if there were any Republican candidate that didn't have so many serious negatives. ("Negatives" in the sense that they have records, attributes, or positions that are unpalatable to some significant number of Republican voters.)
Expecting the media to help or even do a barely adequate job is ridiculous. One disagreement I've always had with a lot of Redstaters is their avowed belief that the media are liberal. At this point, being liberal or conservative is hardly the problem. They're corporate and grotesquely superficial. Redstaters cheer when the media hound Edwards about his hair; and join the "game," but Edwards is rich; most rich people spend a lot more money on things than average citizens do and they don't think twice about it; pretending that is somehow a salient campaign issue is ridiculous. However, then there is lots of complaining when someone smothers Fred in fluff and nonsense. Until people reject the product the media are delivering (by turning it off if it's on TV), they, the media, will continue to be part of the problem, instead of what they should be -- a vibrant, informative contributor to a healthy system. Top to bottom, from candidates to voters, this is not a healthy system.
1. The Iowa caucus is not a primary election (like NH). It's barely a delegate election (it's county convention elections, which go on to district/state conventions, who then elect national delegates). It's just a media show.
2. The Iowa caucus is now more than two weeks earlier than it was in 2004. We're still a long way out. If we keep listening to people like Dirk, people are going to be campaigning next January for the 2012 primaries.
3. Serious voters should be doing their own homework on candidates, rather than waiting for the newspapers to drop everybody's platforms on their doorsteps. Campaigning in general is a popularity contest. IMO.
Like or hate the Caucus, it is part of the process and is relevant.
I don't think I've ever advocated early primaries or extended campaigns.
I advocate launching a campaign at such a time where the candidate has the resources and ability to take his message to the people and rally them to his/her cause. And I do advocate that any candidate seeking the nomination should give a 100% effort once their campaign is launched. And I don't think any supporter of Senator Thompson - if they are being honest with themselves - can honestly claim that he has done so.
Dirk-a-Dirk
Quite frankly I'm sick of all the presidential crud on the 'news' as it is...
I have a life outside of politics and for the most part, I don't watch a lot of television, but when I do, politics isn't in my top 250 things I'd like to see.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
Huh. Wonder why the heck you are spending your time posting on a political blog if there are 250 other things you'd rather be doing/seeing.
They way he has campaigned doesn't result in winning an election. And the numbers prove that.
Dirk-a-Dirk
Yes, maybe Senator Thompson will be the first candidate in modern history to show that polling was off by 20 points in IA and 32 points in New Hampshire. You could be right about that.
Dennis Kucinich could have seen a UFO over Shirley MacLaine's home as well.
Dirk-a-Dirk
Dean was ahead in polls early in the race but not this close - in fact the last Des Moines Register poll had the order of the top four exactly right.
So, polls can be and will be wrong but not that wrong. Thompson is toast.
Kerry was leading in most polls (barely, it was neck and neck, in the MOE)in Iowa during the last days of the 2004 Caucus. It was basically a four man race, with Kerry and Dean vying for the top spot (Edwards and Gephardt vying for the other two).
Kerry was far behind in the fall, but closed the gap over the last few months - and rode that momentum to a large win as questions about Howard Dean's capacity to be President took over the campaign.
Dirk-a-Dirk
You two are arguing rings around eachother but neither hits the point or set of points necessary to understand the Thompson campaign or this year's general campaign dynamics. First of all it is good to remember that Fred was basically drafted into running by a groundswell of Conservatives unhappy with the existing crop. He started very late relative to the others. Naturally his campaign would have fits and starts just like everybody else.
The whole 'lazy' issue with Thompson has come about due to a strategic decision by Thompson about how he was going to campaign differently than the others and contrast himself as a serious person on the issues while everyone else looks like used car salesmen. And for the most part that's how things have worked out. Except Huckabee took away the contrast in Iowa by appearing to be an affable Conservative and looked for awhile like a good contrast to Giuliani and McCain.
Some people think Fred is a dud because of his steady demeanor. He's campaigned as much as Huckabee in Iowa but the media doesn't parse positions and issues anymore, they run to the soundbite or the quick one-liner and so Thompson has had to re-stage his campaign style to look more energetic. He's getting some traction now and more than a few second looks. In hindsight it seems like he made the wrong decision early on but maybe he'l find a pathway through as Huckabee slips (and he will pretty much everywhere but Iowa).
I really don't give a damn about Iowa in the primaries....I'm sure he feels that way, but has too much class to say it.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
DHe could say that, he basically did to the people of New Hampshire.
And just like you, FDT has a 0% chance of being elected the next President because of such beliefs.
Dirk-a-Dirk
A president Thompson could put in 3 six-hour days and be much more effective than EVERY one of the rest of the sheep, er candidates, from both parties that are campaigning the way the media tells 'em to. You may "perceive" laziness, however, a review of his policies does not require any perception, assumption, or guesswork as to what kind of a president he will be.
------------
"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." - A. Lincoln
I suggest that you do.
A review of Fred's policies makes clear that he has taken the ideas of good conservative organizations, and he should be commended for that. Likewise, he deserves some criticism for his utter failure to hit the campaign trail consistently over the last 6 months to sell and promote these policies with the same fervor as every other candidate has.
Dirk-a-Dirk
A good number of the positions Thompson takes are long-held. You seem to think he just co-opted a bunch of well-written position papers and left the stage. Of course that's not true. Anyone who has followed Fred's columns in the national Review over the past two years or heard his addresses on Paul Harvey know he's the real deal Conservative in this race.
When Thompson first jumped in the race people were looking for the second coming of Reagan...not the actual Reagan who was said to sleep through meetings and such but the nostalgic Reagan...the one we now see without any warts whatsoever. Fred was bound to be a disappointment with that expectation.
The thing is, he's had some Reaganesque moments...the video clip blasting Michael Moore, telling Nurse Ratched he wasn't gonna have any hand raising questions and the 17-minute video very reminiscent of Reagan's vaunted 'Goldwater' speech. Who else in this race could talk about serious issues for 17 minutes and hold anyone's attention? Huckabee's single lengthy statement to the Council on Foreign Affairs revealed he's Jimmy Carter in a Republican skirt. Giuliani would talk about 9/11 for most of the clip. McCain would make me throw up, pass out, die of boredom and beg for the flames of Hell.
Dirk, maybe you should actually read Thompson's issue statements and see how they wildly contrast with those of the other Republicans. I could care less if he makes ten fewer campaign stops than McCain.
Senator Thompson wasn't posting on National Review two years ago. Those op/eds started this spring, and Mark Corallo wrote every one of them.
And no, Senator Thompson was hardly a policy warrior in the Senate. In fact, he accomplished very little in the Senate, and did not propose any major conservative reform legislation.
To compare Senator Thompson's video to the '64 Reagan convention speech is a disservice to RWR.
I am well familiar with Thompson's positions. As I've now written at least four times, I agree with them. It's too bad he's made such a small effort expressing those opinions out on the campaign trail.
Dirk-a-Dirk
media frenzy pretty much begging FDT to get in. Why can't you just acknowledge that FDT , for whatever reasons, entered the race later than most. Why do you attach anything else to that fact? It looks like his plan is like Rudys, hit the larger electoral areas the hardest. If he never showed up in Iowa, and was in another state campaigning (like Rudy), would you still feel the way you do?
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
I have acknowledged that. His plan is not like Rudy's (which is also extremely flawed). Mayor Giuliani is spending time and money an Florida, raising money in CA and TX (or at least was in the fall). Senator Thompson has not done any of that. Most people whom have worked on Presidential campaigns are simply shaking their heads at the Thompson effort. And you say it yourself: "If he never showed up in Iowa, and was in another state campaigning (like Rudy), would you still feel the way you do?" - That's the point, he hasn't done that. Can you tell me where Senator Thompson expects things to turn around? Right now, he has to hope every other candidate implodes (Romney in IA and NH, McCain finishes 4th in IA, drops in NH, Huckabee continuing to make mistakes, faltering) and putting him opposite Giuliani, which is hardly a strategy. It isn't even a hail mary.
It is not a good sign when a the pinnacle of a candidate's race is the night before he actually entered the election.
Senator Thompson could have overcome a "late entry" (I tend to agree with him on this, he didn't have to start last year)by campaigning very aggressively, or even entering the Iowa Straw poll. He did not choose to do so.
Dirk-a-Dirk
involved in his campaign...however, I trust he and his people know what they are doing. Would I and others like to see him polling higher, eh, yes, I guess. But again, I'll let the man run his campaign.
Personally, I think he is in an ok place, considering voting just started. I just don't see how bloggers, writers, pundits attack someone as lazy, not interested, not working hard enough, when they have no freaking clue what it takes, what it does to family life, all that stuff.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
I believe I saw not only Newt, but also Karl Rove on Hannity...not one of them was critical of the way FDT was going about it...they understood that FDT was going to run it his way....at his peril.
I'll side with those two when it comes to commmenting about anothers decisions....lazy...right.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
"A president Thompson could put in 3 six-hour days and be much more effective than EVERY one of the rest of the sheep, er candidates"
Do you really believe that? I have a very hard time buying into the idea you do. One of President Bush's great failings is that he was a very poor salesman. He never gave the great sale on social security reform we needed--never laid it out there, never rose above the media. Never put in the footwork he needed to.
I'm sorry, I don't agree. A President has to fight constantly, has to jump through the hoops, has to be articulate, and has to be a figher if things are going to be accomplished. It's the way things work in DC.
I keep hearing that a perfect President would do nothing and never want the job. I find that absurd. You've got to want something badly enough to put in the work needed to be effective in that position. It ain't an easy one.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
not harder...After being a manager of a retail store and now owning my own business, let me assure you, just because the body might be warm, doesn't mean it's working...
I've had several people that were given to me by my 'District Manager' that just showed up and did nothing....having a job and working are two totally diffrent things...Much like hearing and listening.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
I'm not sure that working in Retail and the Oval Office are comparable.
That being said, you write: "I've had several people that were given to me by my 'District Manager' that just showed up and did nothing....having a job and working are two totally diffrent things..."
This is a perfect metaphor for the campaign that Senator Thompson has run. He just showed up, and then did nothing. As you say, having a job and working are two different things.
Dirk-a-Dirk
that every president has. I think he'd be very effective. The biggest issue is his lack of exposure.
He was elected twice....I would hardly consider that a failing at all.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
I think Fred is getting a bad rap from all who accuse him of not having "fire in the belly" and not really wanting to be president.
Of course he wants to be elected to the highest office in the land, and he wants it for all of the right reasons. He feels he can serve his country. Far as I can tell, the others want to be elected because they want the country to serve them. Why else would they resort to the tactics they're employing? They want it far too badly.
Fred is conducting a dignified campaign and not being dragged down to the level of a Huckabee or Romney. Fred is not willing to say or do anything in order to be the nominee.
In earlier times, that was a hallmark of character. But maybe our society has drifted too far off course, and character no longer matters or is even recognized for what it is. (Need I mention the Clintons?)
I marvel at how nice Fred was to Jane. Had I been him, I would have disconnected the microphone and told her she needs to talk to some other candidate. Goodbye, Jane.
Fox really is not much better than the other MSM outlets. Pay close attention and you'll see what I mean. Fox often is shallow in its news coverage.
If it weren't for the election polls,for example, the Fox news people would have little to talk about. Issues? Issues? What issues? The Fox news people don't have a clue, and their coverage is not helping people decide who would be the best person to be president.
A pox on all their houses.
And keep up the great work, Fred. A lot of us are behind you, and you'll be getting another check from me. Hang in there. The nation really needs you.
there might be a dignity and character problem in America...I'm not buying it...
And you're right, Fred is running a very dignified campaign, and that's just not normal, hence the media not loving him.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
The media has not been overly critical of Thompson... Since his numbers went south, they have basically ignored him. Maybe if he spent September and October campaigning like the others, he wouldn't have had that problem.
Dirk-a-Dirk
Or, heck, why not start campaigning last year? If it's getting out of the gate early that counts, I guess you could say that all the candidates are late-comers.
Here it is the 2nd of January and we already have a contender for worst post of the year. What are you, a parrot? Fred is lazy, awk, Fred is lazy.
Sheesh!
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
The 24/7 365 day a year job of the President does not require meeting the voters each day and telling them what your plans for that day are going to be. Neither Bushes, nor Clinton, nor Reagan pressed the flesh with the voters on a daily basis after they were elected. Okay, Clinton pressed flesh but that was an entirely different type of flesh pressing.
The process of campaigning has a very limited amount to do with the day to day job of the President. Actually, very little as access to the President is pretty limited and usually by invitation.
Your premise is entirely bogus.
Presidential campaigning as it now exists has nothing to do with the day to day responsibilities of a Presidency.
Actually the more introverted and reflective personality would probably be much better at the job than the glad handing back slapping extrovert -- who is too busy chatting up the public to focus on the policy side of the job.
Um, 0k. Clearly you have little idea of what a President actually does.
Agree to disagree.
Dirk-a-Dirk
there is a big difference between meeting with members of Congress, industry, governmental leaders of both states and other countries -- and venturing out into a crowd of the general population with no particular issues for discussion -- some just want to say hello and tell you how their cousin Sally knew the brother in law of your second cousin once removed Ken.
Democrat (gasp) so I take everything FOX says with a grain of salt, followed by a shot of Tequila, but the way they have treated Fred Thompson is ridiculous. RP I can understand, but Fred is an American Elder Statesmen, the shame.
This man knows the Constitution front and back ( to quote Mark Levin who sat with him for 3 hours going through it one day) and he has put out the most serious, thoughtful, and logical policies to solve many of our problems.
He may not glad hand or smile like you and the so-called mainstream media wants him to, but he is 100% genuine, and you simply cannot say that about any other candidate in the race.
He also has the least skeletons by far, and would simply be the best person to keep the Reagan coalition together, and also the toughest for the democraps to beat.
We are not electing head cheerleader chief, we are electing the next POTUS in some of the most important times in our country's history.
I have no idea what you "c's" comment means.
My post didn't question Senator Thompson's intelligence, or his knowledge of the Constitution. I would hope he knows it well, considering his background.
You write: "He may not glad hand or smile like you and the so-called mainstream media wants him to, but he is 100% genuine, and you simply cannot say that about any other candidate in the race."
How do you know that I can't say that? Do you know Senator Thompson personally? Do you know whether he is 100% genuine? Do you know the other candidates in the race personally? Such a claim is at best superficial, at worst utter nonsense.
I would think that the willingness to commit 100 percent oneself to the office is an important trait for the next President. Senator Thompson has run a lackluster campaign (I am not decrying his policies mind you). What makes you think he is going to spend day-after-day traveling around the country after he is elected President in order to sell the policies that you (and the others here) point to so often in order to get them enacted.
Dirk-a-Dirk
I agree with you but at this point I think it's up to the voters in Iowa to decide who folks like myself out here on the left coast get the chance to vote for. The up side is that California is no longer a winner take all state so if Fred is still in it by then, we might get our licks in at that time....
or for that matter any of the media....the memo is out...Fred is lazy....everyone says so....goodness these people are idiots.
He may not be the energizer bunny (and doesn't have to be) but he sure is the best candidate in the field. I loved when he said there are many more differences between him and Edwards than a schedule....very timely.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
today with Laura Ingraham. She was laughing about Michael Moore being a good running mate. Fred then told her his definition of obscenity. The interview is on Blogsforfredthompson.com
I won't tell you, it could be hazardous to your digestion.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
I'll have visions of caucus ballots dancing through my head.
FDT is what they say. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
The interview was terrible. Can someone hire a makeup person for Fred though? He looks terrible in this clip.
I can tell you that his intelligence makes him sexy....I would hope that this real man need not make you or anyone happy by wearing make-up.....he is not acting anymore he is running for the President of the United State.
I mean really Reagan was no beauty and Clinton...that man's liquored nose was disgusting to look at....but guess what they were both President. Not a prerequisite to be "beautiful" when you are looking at death and starvation and God only knows what other horrors on a daily basis from your security agencies...you think?
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Reagan wore makeup. And Senator Thompson should consider it.
Dirk-a-Dirk
1. Being a cross-dresser.
2. Doing an unflattering impersonation of Hillary Clinton.
3. Pandering to get more senior citizens to vote for the new 'hottie'.
4. Trying to find a younger trophy wife.
5. Being a vain elitest.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
no really, I am. I just write like this to be understood, but really I'm darn near a genius.
Sexy, you say....
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
Fred's got "it"
He don't need no stinking makeup.
Maybe we need to display the John Wayne Stud link. That'll really get the flies buzzing.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
First off, the c's part meant to replace your r's with c's and it would be more fitting. Before you get your panties in a wad, I put a smiley face as I was just kidding- sort of. :)
Do I know him personally? No I do not, though I have met him. I have read his writings, listened to his speeches, talked to lots of people who do know him, and I feel I know the core of the man. Could I be wrong? Perhaps I could, but I highly doubt it.
Have you ever voted before for anyone for any office? I presume yes. Did you know them personally? Why heck no you didn't. Come on be serious.
You have the right to your opinion, but the fact is that this "fire in the belly" and "lazy" crap was put out there starting on March 12th, the day after he had his first big interview with Chris Wallace on FNS.
This great man has accomplished way more in his life than you or I (I included you based on your logic in your post, though you may actually be a super-hero or rocket scientist)
The bottom line is that he has chosen to go straight to the people and largely around and over the head of the so-called mainstream media, and they despise him for it. The other thing you are missing is that the media wants a liberal like Hickabee because they think the democraps can beat him. They are scared to death that an actual real "Conservative" like Fred Thompson might not only get the GOP nomination, but it scares them to death that he might actually win POTUS. He also has so much less baggage than any other candidate, and if they do not have the lazy card, or the slow talkin Southern card, or even stoop to use the cancer card, they got nothin on him and they damn well know it. It scares them to death. Heck, the fact that he scares the media to death ought to be enough for you to vote for him all by itself.
I hope and pray he does better than the polls would suggest tomorrow night, and that he can get the kind of momentum he needs to keep moving on. If he does not, you can come back and blast me and all Fred supporters and say I told you so, but in the end it will be a big blow to the Conservative movement, and that is not good for any of us.
God bless you and you too say a prayer for Fred tomorrow night my friend!
Peni$ humor always adds so much to the debate.
You write: "Have you ever voted before for anyone for any office? I presume yes. Did you know them personally? Why heck no you didn't. Come on be serious." Of course, but I generally don't go around making superficial claims like "but he is 100% genuine, and you simply cannot say that about any other candidate in the race."
The fire in the belly charge has been around Senator Thompson for well over a decade now. I was working in the Senate at that time, and right or wrong, he was labeled a lazy Senator.
You write: "This great man has accomplished way more in his life than you or I (I included you based on your logic in your post, though you may actually be a super-hero or rocket scientist)." I have no idea what the sentence in the parenthesis means, but I would hope that a man seeking the Presidency has accomplished more than I have. That isn't saying much.
I am not "blasting" Senator Thompson. In fact, I wish he would have chosen to work harder to seek the nomination. Its sad that he didn't.
Dirk-a-Dirk
Oh, and don't mention the humor. In fact, I will just call you Richard-a-Richard! Again, just kidding dude.
I have often heard about his dislike for the long late night hours of the Senate, and quite frankly I can see a little of that. My perception of him is a man of little BS and straight talk and if I were him, I too would get sick and tired of sitting there listening to a bunch of blowhards pining for the cameras and getting little accomplished.
Were I a Senator, I would be reprimanded for standing up about 3 times per day and saying to the Pelosi or Durbin types
"Do you have a friggin point?"
Glad you agree with me, and if his lazy campaigning is the only thing keeping you from supporting him, then hopefully he can earn your trust and your vote.
Later
Senator Thompson rarely (if ever - I do not recall a single one) engaged in conservative battles during his time in the Senate.
I don't think I've posted whom I am or am not supporting. I've expressed disappointment in his failure to run an aggressive campaign. He's not going to get the opportunity to earn my vote , I doubt he will be in the race long enough to get it.
Dirk-a-Dirk
Funny that you'd think that. I haven't said anything that would bolster that assumption.
No, I am not a "Mitt-Guy."
Dirk-a-Dirk
tbaugh
Remember that Reagan was criticized similarly (about work habits)--the line was that he took too many naps. But he worked out OK.
Many have drawn this parallel. Reagan's famous quote was "working hard has never killed anybody, but why take the chance?"
It is well known that he was not a 4am to 11pm campaigner but was a work horse in the White House.
Also, Fred had 5 appearances today. Almost every time a news outlet has reported a weak day for Fred, it has been debunked by his "unofficial" schedule. It is rare that a campaign will announce all stop and press conferences.
If the best Fred supporters can do is echo the MSM, then I'm afraid for Fred, but even more afraid for our country. Bah! (Sheep immitation.)
Jason in NorCal- If you want to volunteer for Fred08 email me.
It's nice that Senator Thompson had 5 campaign appearances today. That is pretty standard for the day prior to an election (caucus in this case).
President Bush had 5 campaign stops across the country in 2000, 4 in 2002, 5 in 2004. (Notice, that is COUNTRY, not if one state).
Question - how many campaign stops did Senator Thompson have yesterday?
Dirk-a-Dirk
an intelligent, diligent individual. How about you go ahead and declare your candidacy for the republican nomination. I bet you could garner a few votes. Then you can show us how it's supposed to be done.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
It's amazing how personally you take a legitimate and factual criticism of the candidate that you prefer.
I would have loved it if Thompson would have aggressively campaigned and hit every county in Iowa espousing his conservative ideas and principles. Unfortunately for us, he did not.
Don't take it personally. Deal with it.
Dirk-a-Dirk
mentality of it has to be done such and such way isn't very appealing to someone like me...
I wear shorts no matter what the temperature outside.
I don't use credit cards.
I own 2 homes outright, both over 2000 sq feet.
I'm 32
I took the ACT test in seventh grade and beat 98% of the high school seniors who took it during that same session.
I have 3 cars and a ski boat, all paid off...
I don't watch a lot of television.
I do think a candidates ideas, positions and history are enough reason to support him/her.
My parents weren't brick layers and I'm not a chimney, so I don't really enjoy people trying to blow smoke up my backside just so I'll vote for them.
And I don't bury people before the doctor has pronounced them dead and the mortician has had a chance to embalm them.
I'm not your typical person, and I can't stand typical candidates. I like Fred Thompson because he doesn't pander, because he is his own man and he doesn't paint a rosey picture just to get his way.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
for someone 'other that Thompson'...geez. Well, I have to agree with another Texas Proud and Texas Loud fellow... Fred is the real conservative here. You just simply missed the boat. (Mercy, you do tend to comment an awfully lot here also...). Just who is paying you?
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
A real weak performance on her part.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The candidates official schedule including radio shows, press conferences with newspapers etc... This is all factual and information not given to you by the MSM.
He had one event yesterday, it was a stop at a Vets Hospital. Feel free to devalue that if you will. Nobody has had more events/stops in Iowa the last 2+ weeks on the Republican side.
But his naysayers can feel free to take their talking points from the MSM. Once lines like "fire in the belly" and "doesn't want to be President" become popular catch phrases everyone uses them, especially the uninformed.
Its easy to pick on superficial issues when it comes to Fred, because there are few meaningful issues, as he points out in this video that he can be challenged on. Fred tops the list of voters #2 in Iowa and has the highest favoribility rate of the candidates. The #2 factoid points out that even supporters of other candidates, can get on board with him, going back to the issue not just of electability, but unite-ability.
But you have your ideas clearly engraved in your mind, and frankly, I do to.
Good luck.
One campaign stop two days prior to the election? Come on. No one is devaluing veterans, so please, spare me. I am devaluing one campaign stop.
Governor Romney has had more events in Iowa over the last two weeks. (That is not a pro-Romney endorsement in anyway). Senator McCain is spending his energy in NH campaigning like mad. If you add up the total campaign events since August, Senator Thompson is at the very bottom (Behind Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Biden).
Again, facts are tricky things.
Are you actually making the case that Senator Thompson is going to do well in Iowa? The truth is that he will be lucky to break 12%.
Dirk-a-Dirk
Most of this discussion and nearly all of what you've written is completely irrelevant.
Which candidate would be best as president of the United States? Whose policies would serve the nation best?
Those are the questions everybody should be asking, and my value system leads me to only one person ... Fred Thompson.
Would you disagree, and if so, on what basis? And don't give me the "fire in the belly" crap. If that's the criteria, then you're going to wind up voting for Hillary, and if that's the case, come out and say it.
"Worked" in the Senate did you? Must of been for McCain. I would gladly vote for old John if he has a conservative VP to finish out his term.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
No, I didn't work for McCain. McCain and Thompson were close allies and the Senate and remain close friends.
I worked for a conservative.
Dirk-a-Dirk
I find I must doubt your veracity. Although, I will give you points for using the Goebbels motif in hopes it will work and thinking that none of us would pick up on it.
I don't know how Fred will fare in IA. I do know, just from looking, that the idea has been to accelerate in the weeks up to IA & on through to Super Tuesday.
Fred has not campaigned in the style the media dictates, so they don't like him. Back to the OP, the lack of substantive questions is glaring. Those of us who have defended Fox News in the past, when they have been fair & balanced, are getting the shaft when Fox treats the presidential campaign in the same way the other "news" organizations do. I can think of several substantive questions that could have been asked in 3 minutes... & I bet you can also.
and keeps her job.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
very nice family...good people.
And has worked pretty hard to get where she is. She screwed up, kind of in a large way, we all have.
It actually worked well for FDT.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
and then compounded it by sticking to her script when she had already been made a fool. She is good looking though and I, like the producers at Fox, would certainly try to find the right position for her in my company.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
and the family is from our community. Great family, good people. Just think it should stay in the professional arena.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
looking at the New York Times map of candidate appearances shows that Thompson is campaigning at least three times the number of appearance of that you know who throughout the entire campaign season -- and not just the last three weeks when Thompson has been doing 5 a day stops and countless interviews.
and so-called Republicans who accuse Fred of being lazy are intellectually lazy (not to mention dishonest) themselves. They are like libs who think saying something 100 times makes it so. Welcome to the silly world we now live in where up is down and black is white. From our side, this is repugnant. Either we are infested with double-agents here or conservatives truly have lost their way.
And this household is now going out of its way to avoid Fox News as well. They have become truly intolerable.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
I don't understand why voters in Iowa and NH haven't embraced this guy.