Thompson: Too Substantive for the Oh-So-Serious Nitwits in Big Media
When Instapundit is right, he’s right:
[Fred] Thompson is running the kind of campaign — substantive, policy-laden, not based on gimmicks or sound-bites — that pundits and journalists say they want, but he’s getting no credit for it from the people who claim that’s what they want.
Bingo.
Thompson is a guy who has laid out detailed positions on all sorts of issues. He never gets dinged for misrepresenting facts in debates. And I like the fact that he’s not consumed by ambition. That’s exactly the sort of person we should want as president.
But our moronic news media, which pretends to disdain overambitious candidates and to care about policies — doesn’t really care about substance. For them, it’s all about the horse race, the gimmicks, and the pizzazz. Big Media editors are every bit as superficial as you voters, if not more so.
Remember when the oh-so-substantive editors of the L.A. Times swooned about how “handsome” John Edwards was, and how “Lincolnesque” Kerry was — compared to the “lumpish” Cheney, and Bush with his “patented smirk”? We were told that none of this should matter . . . “But you know it does.” Remember how the critical issue in the 2005 mayoral race — the one thing that L.A. Times columnists and reporters couldn’t stop talking about — was whether the incumbent was too “dull”?
This is the sort of deep, substantive commitment to the issues that matters to these giants of the political commentariat.
And so, when a guy like Thompson comes along, who is serious and substantive — but maybe a little dull — they focus on the dullness. If he seems not to be driven by a lifelong hunger for power, they’ll distort his honest and engaging quotes on the subject to make him sound like he doesn’t care.
These people are full of it. The next time they tell you they care about the issues and matters of substance, remind them how they treated Fred Thompson. They won’t show any shame. But that doesn’t mean you can’t show them that you know better.
I’m a bit concerned by Thompson’s lack of executive experience and “oomph.” Someone once described him as someone who when a crisis comes would like to take a two hour break and then have lunch before acting.
I have issues with his health and energy level. That’s my main concern with him aside from executive experience.
Someone like Romney or Guiliani is more likely to fit the role, I think, and McCain does have experience as a naval officer in addition to being a senator that I like. I suspect McCain will eventually be the nominee for many reasons, including I think Thompson will support him if and when he drops out.
Thompson is a decent man — I don’t think he’s the best pick for president although I do appreciate his policy proposals and the seriousness he’s brought to the process.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/2/2008 @ 12:21 amThompson only has himself to blame. He decided to get in the race late, skip a debate to go on Leno, and really not run all that vigorously until December. His actions gave the impression that he is just not that serious and that we are to take his word for it that he is the right guy because he does it his way.
The voters aren’t prisoners to the current state of affairs. In conjunction with the media hype three of the smallest states dictate which candidates are the presumptive nominees. Instead of demanding the candidates participate in real debates they allow them to dictate their terms for debates that are little more than opportunities to come up with a catchy sound bite.
IMHO the newspaper coverage is the least of our problems in how we select candidates.
voiceofreason (ac1e97) — 1/2/2008 @ 1:07 amThe “Fire in the Belly” meme is a pet peeve of mine.
See-Dubya (1fc18b) — 1/2/2008 @ 1:21 amI can’t recall where it’s from, but….
“If you really, really want to be the Leader, then you’re not qualified to lead.”
I always found it rather fitting, since most of the folks I know who want to be “in charge” are the worst leaders you can imagine.
Foxfier (c8e3db) — 1/2/2008 @ 1:31 amTell that to Caesar.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/2/2008 @ 1:41 amThompson makes me feel calm, all the others make me nervous.
syn (9c2583) — 1/2/2008 @ 4:42 amUnfortunately, Mr Thompson has run a campaign that’s a joke. Oh, sure, he’s got all of the positive attributes our host mentioned, but it’s almost as though he thought he could put all of his position points on the internet and then everybody would just then flock to the polls to vote for him.
Perhaps this will seem like a little thing to a lot of people, but to me it demonstrates something larger. In the small state of Delaware, it requires only 500 signatures of registered Republicans to get on the Republican primary ballot. His campaign staff, which made plenty of calls asking for money, declined the volunteer help of a GOP worker, a man who has done the grunt work of canvassing neighborhoods for candidates, and then fell short, very short, of the 500 signatures needed.
That campaign worker didn’t sign the petition, because the only place he could have signed it was at Thompson headquarters in Wilmington; he’d have had to have driven to HQ to sign it.
Out of 178,000 registered Republicans in Delaware, the Thompson campaign got less than 300 valid signatures.
Another Thompson campaign story: In Iowa (a rather important state at the moment), a conservative blogger who was important enough to land a one-on-one interview with Mike Huckabee, but had still come out in support of Mr Thompson, was notified by the campaign (via e-mail) of a Thompson appearance in his home town of Ottumwa just six hours before the appearance.
Unlike the governors running, Mr Thompson has very little experience in actually running anything that we can see; about his only managerial experience is in his own campaign. And, quite frankly, in that one job, he has done very poorly.
If the man can’t even run his own campaign well (or find good managers to whom to delegate responsibility), why should we have any confidence that he’ll be able to run the government of the United States?
Dana (3e4784) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:17 amDay by Day hit on this very issue…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:02 amMy first choice is Thompson. My second choice is Romney. Ron Paul is a sick joke.
Maybe I’ll comment on my Caucus experience on Friday.
PCD (5c49b0) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:14 amOh, I note that most Democrats who try to explain the Caucuses never get the process from the GOP side right. They bloviate and project, but never have gone to a GOP caucus, and are too arrogant to get the truth from a GOP caucuser, and I’ve tried correcting them.
My credentials? I’m a former Co-Chair of the Dubuque County Republican party.
PCD (5c49b0) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:21 amFoxfier in post #4 is spot on. I can’t tell you how many ambitious fools I’ve seen hit the top spot in an organization–and not know what the heck to do. Wannabe leaders aren’t–leaders that is.
Mike Myers (31af82) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:36 amRomney was a governor, managed the Olympics, is loaded to the hilt with money, and has been campaining since 2006 so how come the favorite in Iowa is the guy who just had to say “Jesus loves you” to garner so much media attention and Iowian adoration?
Romney seems to be the one with mismanaged campaign problems.
Guiliani’s okay with regard to taxes but he has way too many close liberal friends who will stab him in the back two days before the national election.
McCain?
Thompson makes me feel calm because he is calm, all the others from both parties are spastics running around trying to pander to every populist fad which blows their way.
Thompson is a leader, the others are followers.
syn (9c2583) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:38 amVery, very, very astute, Dana. As a man who, like Thompson, worked as a prosecutor, but not managing an enterprise like a businessman or governor or military officer, I wish Patterico would take a stronger look at this and give more weight to it — rather than assume someone with a background similar to his has prepared himself for the sort of job the Presidency is.
Theoretically good ideas doesn’t always trump management and leadership expertise. Thompson is demonstrating great inexperience in both.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:50 amIt seems that Christoph and Dana would much rather have someone that is good at running a campaign than someone who espouses to believe what they do (assuming they are conservative in belief).
Not one person on the Republican or Democratic sides has any experience in being the President of the United States. Basically you can’t just ‘run’ something and be fit for it either. We don’t know until after the person takes office and is hit by a crisis how they will respond, it is foolish to assume that someone is going to be a good/bad President simply because they ‘ran’ something at one time or another.
Until Fred in this campaign, everyone always talked about what the candidates meant; how they stood on the ‘important’ issues and whatnot; now we have the press and pundits who no longer give a fig about the issues; don’t care if candidate A is close to what they want or candidate B is; they only care about how good a CAMPAIGN someone runs.
That is scary. Coming from someone like Dana (whom I’ve admired on here) and Christoph (who sometimes goes on binge dwarf baiting games, but otherwise is an ok foreigner heh) seems to be the basic problem with the primary stages.
Of course Christoph doesn’t get to vote, but his observations should count a little bit 🙂 “Theoretically good ideas don’t always trump management and leadership expertise.” Wouldn’t that mean you would rather have sh@#$y ideas and a good manager? Exactly what are you trying to say with this? To me, this simply reeks of saying I’d rather vote for a good manager with nothing in common with me (and my issues) than someone who has been equal with me (on the issues) their whole career.
Verlin Martin (8c1616) — 1/2/2008 @ 7:35 amThe only saving grace behind a possible Clinton or Obama presidency is their incompetence as managers. Being a bad manager keeps you from implimenting your vision, it doesn’t create good vison.
Thompson has vision. He is a federalist, and he is not in love with the cesspool that they call Washington D.C. We seem to elect politicians who love to swim with the rest of the turds in that cesspool. I prefer one who wears a wetsuit and holds his nose and tells us “Alright, I’ll do it, since someone has to”
Martin (d3fe32) — 1/2/2008 @ 7:48 amI have been reading the book “Whitewash” which basically details all the things we ARE NOT and HAVE NOT heard from the mainstream media about Herself, the Spawn of Satan” and I’m so enraged all over again that I would vote for ALFRED E. NEUMANN before that harridan!
That being said, I find Thompson both refreshing and genuine.
McCain has been pursuing the presidency forever as though he is somehow entitled but I can’t quite forgive him for McCain-Feingold and the illegal immigrant weakness, I like Romney and Giuliani better than I did but still not enough to vote for them, Ron Paul seems to me to be more than a little insane. Huckabee is a definite “no” because we don’t NEED another former Arkansas governor who has some problems with tolerance and truth!
And granted, the WORST GOP candidate is better than the BEST of the Dems, but still – Thompson seems to me to be the best qualified.
Gayle Miller (187b6e) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:07 amThe picture Grandpa Fred gives off is someone who will not be able to withstand the physical rigors of the Presidency. The days of FDR’s 1944 campaign, when anyone who really looked at him knew he was a goner but the media (in the pre-TV days) didn’t mention it, are over.
Do you really think that Grandpa will send the Democratic Congress some position papers and they’ll sign on to his positions?
The good news is the only way the Republicans will field the winning candidate is if they have a brokered conventkion and draft Al Gore.
Andrew J. Lazarus (bdbb6a) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:15 amUnfortunately not, Andrew J. Lazarus.
Also, McCain — the G.O.P.’s likely nominee — beats Hillary even now in head to head matchups. With the war in Iraq going better and better… I would count your chickens just yet.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:22 amThompson has vision
And yet he can’t sell it to the large majority of Republicans in the primaries.
voice of reason (10af7e) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:23 amWith all the Fred fans who like to compare him to Reagan one would think he might want to emulate Reagan’s enthusiasm to implement his vision….
In other words he will do it because he really wants to.
Agreed. Only convincing 9% of Republicans at this point in the game to support you does not argue for a successful general election.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:27 am“McCain has been pursuing the presidency forever as though he is somehow entitled but I can’t quite forgive him for McCain-Feingold and the illegal immigrant weakness, I like Romney and Giuliani better than I did but still not enough to vote for them, Ron Paul seems to me to be more than a little insane. Huckabee is a definite “no” because we don’t NEED another former Arkansas governor who has some problems with tolerance and truth!”
This pretty much sums it up for me, too. Thompson doesn’t have the bells and whistles that the MSM demands and in their eyes, all-knowingly deem we the voters need. Instead he is solid, steadfast, and unwavering.
Whether these qualities as well as his clearly stated policies will get him the vote is doubtful. Its unfortunate but its speaks to the great influence of that Big Media machine and sadly to the huge number of voters needing to be entertained, stroked, or titillated by a potential nominee before giving over their vote.
Dana (cf2e94) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:37 amHow can Fred! get his message out when the media only tells people one thing: that he’s lazy. I call shenanigans on the silly rants of Christoph and others. Fred is running a traditional campaign; the others are running for American Idol.
It’s not that Fred is unable to convince folks to support him — it’s that he’s unable to wrangle the media into covering this primary as a battle of ideas. Instead they turn it into a popularity contest, one decided by faith, looks and the ability to glad-hand.
If the media had any interest in covering the issues important to Republican voters, Fred! would be leading the polls. But they don’t and he doesn’t.
What a horrid state of affairs…
H2U (81b7bd) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:40 amDana, you were closer the first time before you used the term, “Its unfortunate but…”
People look for leadership qualities in a President. They aren’t just looking for policy proposals. A lot of how people choose a leader is subconscious anyway. Verlin Martin has a lot of good points, and he also largely misses the boat. It’s more than reasonable for people selecting a leader to desire evidence of successfully leading a sizeable or difficult enterprise, and not failing badly at it, as is the Thompson campaign.
Compare this with McCain. His campaign was off the rails, because of unpopular policy positions he had taken. Instead of quitting or being any any way, shape, or form lazy, he stayed in, buckled down, and through initiative and leadership, relentlessly wrestled himself back to first place, when many people including yours truly had written him off. He showed me. How?
Perseverance, decisiveness, action.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:45 amVoiceofreason
I hate to be picky, but if you attend a debate before you declare and file the paperwork the FEC really gets their panties in a bunch.
daytrader (ea6549) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:47 am9% is pretty good number considering his campaign began around mid November 2007 as compared too almost all the others(with the exception of Huckabee) who have been campaigning since the day after 9/11/2001.
I made the mistake of simply accepting the ‘Fred is lazy’ meme until the day before New Years 2007 I took the time to watch an interview done by Pajamas Media conducted mid Nov 2007. That interview showed me a leader who is serious and solid which then inspired me to read his white papers; I moved from supporting Guiliani to supporting Thompson and I live in NYC.
After 9/11/2001 I’m one of those converts to Conservatism especially the Reagan one and I am not sure why so many conservatives are so quick to abandon their ideals for the sake of winning with a candidate who is ‘sort-of’ anything.
A Centrist has been elected for the past four elections, how come so many conservatives are so eager to throw away all the good stuff Reagan’s Revolution has to offer?
Perhaps the Misery Index isn’t high enough for conservatives to return to their core beliefs.
syn (9c2583) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:47 amDude. I like Fred Thompson. I’d love him to be an effective leader, but he isn’t thus far. I probably support more of his policies than I do McCain’s, albeit I give McCain huge kudos for being right on Rumsfeld, Gates, and the surge (Romney was too, but probably a bit less prescient than McCain — and I have no doubt Thompson would have joined these two men, whereas Rudy didn’t until recently).
But if Fred’s gonna take it, he’s gotta get his ass moving. Oh? He is? Yes, but it’s damn late in the game. And that’s not my fault, it’s his, isn’t it?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:49 amPCD can fact check this statistic, but historically it’s like about 85,000 voters on the Rep side with about 45% self identified as Evangelical Christians from some figures I have seen.
daytrader (ea6549) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:51 amDenial, man. Stage one of grief. You’ll get there.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:52 amYou’ve got to be shitting me! HE chose when to start campaigning and if you’re right that it comes down to he hasn’t put enough time in, then it’s his own fault. However, where your example falls down more than it already was is that he entered to reasonably good support and has been dropping since then. It’s not like he clawed himself up, á la Huckabee, from relatively recent obscurity to near the top of the pack. No. He started there and screwed the pooch.
George H.W. Bush won the 1980 Iowa caucus. So I don’t really concern myself too heavily with whether losing it will doom Fred.
otcconan (8548ed) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:58 amWhere is Fred leading right about now? And, octcconan, what’s your theory for Fred losing Iowa and the momentum suddenly breaking his way?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:00 amDaytrader,
He was in control of his destiny so to speak. Leno over debating the issues spoke volumes to his priorities.
And technically since the show was taped in the morning he was officially a candidate when the debate took place that evening. I’m sure he could have gotten a podium if he asked…
When Fred uses the media to try to score a unique entrance he is brilliant. When people don’t jump onto the Fred bandwagon it is because the media is being unfair.
voice of reason (10af7e) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:00 amHear, hear, voice of reason @ 31!
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:02 amYou all might want to consider Beldar’s thinking.
MikeD (0da883) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:04 amhttp://www.beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2007/12/im-with-fred.html
Makes a lot of sense.
It wasn’t that Fred was late, it’s that every one else was early.
Some candidates have been visiting Iowa for nearly two years in the lead up to this vote.
The dems side had burned through combined over 150 million and yet the first vote wont be cast till tomorrow.
Projections which are on track is that this will be the first Billion dollar Presidential election.
daytrader (ea6549) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:04 amI hope Fred still has his SAG card. he’s too lazy and stupid to be president!
rachael edwards (904169) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:08 amI’m curious, Rachael Edwards, how your accomplishments and intelligence stack up against Fred Thompson’s. Why don’t you enlighten us?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:11 amdaytrader,
There are more GOP than that go to the Caucuses. I would say that 45% is a narrow catagorization, that group you focus on is hated by the GOP hierarchy as they aren’t agreeable to the Country Club GOP’s values.
Part of Huckleberry’s appeal is that he’s a Midwesterner and that he’s not seen as a liar like most of the Democrats.
PCD (5c49b0) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:11 amI can’t say whether Thompson is good or bad but one of the comments … “I’m a bit concerned by Thompson’s lack of executive experience and “oomph.” Someone once described him as someone who when a crisis comes would like to take a two hour break and then have lunch before acting.” rang some bells for me. Not good bells, alarm bells. I have seen this comment before, in variations, and it’s obverse for Giuliani.
A crisis? I’ll manage my own crises, thanks, and the last thing I need is the feds sticking their big ungainly beaks into it. Most ‘crises’ should be benevolently ignored by all levels of government. Pearl Harbor or 9/11 attacks happen pretty infrequently. Did FDR and Giuliani blathering away and grandstanding actually do any good?
I have heard Giuliani described as dynamic, courageous etc., for standing in complete safety and ordering people to do what they were already doing. Did he help? Incrementally, maybe.
Why are Americans obsessed with finding King Stork? Why do Americans complain about the size of the Government and then demand dynamic Presidents? What do they think a dynamic president will do?
Calvin Coolidge had it right: “If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.”
Thompson will snooze through the 9 problems and deal with the 10th in good order. One of the reasons many of us fear HRC, the Dems in general and perhaps Giuliani, is that they will wear us all to a frazzle on the 9 ditch bound problems.
BlacquesJacquesShellacques (324683) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:13 amDaytrader,
What can I say to make you feel better? I’m sorry the coronation didn’t go as expected. Fred was toying with the idea of running for more than six months – remember he was going to announce in June, then on the fourth of July, then…
voice of reason (10af7e) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:13 amIowa is generally classed as populist and NH as leaning libertarian.
The dems have a very good point on diversity with over 90% white voter bases.
Also the two states combined don’t have a full spectrum of industry varieties , job diversity and whatever.
I have been advocating for a long time that both need to be thanked for their service and new states chosen based on wide issue existence in the states and a near as possible political balance.
Due to the leanings of the first two states, they tend to have Rep candidates have to adjust their message more to the left center of the positions of the party as a whole. The issue with that is it gives a slightly skewed view of the overall candidate positions.
Both states are more dem style agenda friendly and the rep side runs at a issue trimming handicap for both.
I don’t see the real first test until at least South Carolina, and then the front loaded super Tuesday will be voters deciding after maybe only a handful of visits addressing their concerns.
And for heaven’s sake if you are going to be any where in the up at the head of the line process, convert to a standard primary vote system and just junk that alternative that goes for a process now.
daytrader (ea6549) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:13 am“Fred is running a traditional campaign; the others are running for American Idol.”
Good line.
If Fred appears to be a “grandpa” it is because the MSM plays him that way. He doesn’t have silky pony’s good looks, and he is a threat to the socialist revolution that has been rolling over us since FDR. So they spin him in the way that they see as most damaging.
Martin (d3fe32) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:15 amI honestly don’t understand the glee that oozes from these anti-Thompson posts. I’ve almost stopped going to Hot Air because Allahpundit is basically a bad-natured (as opposed to his being, in the past, a good-natured) jackass anymore these days, particularly regarding Thompson. There’s some kind of weird schaedenfreude going on; look at the old man fail to keep up with his younger opponents! Silly old people, not like us!
And reading this nonsense from Dana and Christoph, one gets the idea that they’d rather see a presidential candidate running as if he were on American Idol than for the highest public office in the land.
Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee offer up platitudes and smiles for the camera and nothing else. Huckabee has no “leadership” experience that should make anyone sane support him over Thompson. Romney is – well who the hell really knows what Romney is, I don’t think even he does. Giuliani runs on 9/11 and jack else. McCain would be fine but I like Thompson better.
Quite frankly after seeing their “reasoning” here I wouldn’t consider supporting a candidate Dana or Christoph would advocate; I like my presidents to be presidential, not paparazzi whores.
chaos (9c54c6) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:16 amCan anyone say for example that in their area of the country they have come into contact with voters that would match the percentage support for each candidate in the poll averages.
I have friends across the country and most are calling BS on the poll numbers for all the candidates but saying they are reasonable for some.
daytrader (ea6549) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:23 amchaos: Christoph for sure would like to see someone RUNNING for President as opposed to someone actually being presidential.
He has good ‘msm’ arguments (people want someone with more experience running large corporations, etc.) except that the only people that want that seem to be the people that report it. If you talk to the people around you (some will, some won’t of course) then most people will say they like someone because he/she is close to the voter on key issues.
I have yet to meet ANYONE that said they are voting for X because they ran something well once, even though the issues aren’t close to what I want.
Christoph is as bad as the media in this regard, he plays at saying that Fred is close to him in issues yet he hasn’t RAN anything. Of course none of the candidates have the necessary experience (yet); they can’t until they run the country. You can say all you want about running said state or corporation, but none of that is anything like running the U.S.
Verlin Martin (770f95) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:26 amVoiceofreason
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Fred isn’t my candidate of choice.
I am just observing the situation and pointing out what I see as shortcomings.
daytrader (ea6549) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:28 amChristoph, it isn’t late in the game. That’s the problem here! These stupid, useless caucuses weren’t even supposed to start this early. Why are we letting a cultural bubble with only 3M residents have any serious impact on our candidate? What claim do they have to such prestige? None!
Voice of Reason, people aren’t jumping onto the Fred! bandwagon because nobody is reporting on his policies! All we hear from the media is a litany of laziness memes. Did you see a single media outlet report on Fred!’s intent to completely rethink farm subsidies? Of course not, because it doesn’t fit into the media’s agenda.
Daytrader is right on the money: Fred! wasn’t late. The other candidates are simply abusing our electoral process. Why are these campaigns starting so darn early??? And why are we rewarding idiots like Romney and Huckabee for doing so??? I just don’t get it.
Rachel Edwards, I hope that was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. It makes you look very crass if otherwise.
H2U (81b7bd) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:40 am“Dana, you were closer the first time before you used the term, “Its unfortunate but…””
I don’t think so.
This long campaign cycle evidences that Big Media is driving the bus and moreso than in years past.
Perhaps because the advent of technology gives the ability of a blow-by-blow detailing of the haps. Thus, its far easier for the public to be entertained and be taken in by the surface rendering of the candidates (how they look, sound, walk, talk, etc) rather than buckle down and do the hard work of reading and learning specifics of the candidates.
That Thompson refuses to succumb to the media or display any fealty there gives him a certain stature that other candidates lack. There has always been a sort of quid pro quo in elections and he apparently refuses to play the game. I like that.
Dana (cf2e94) — 1/2/2008 @ 10:03 amH2U,
voice of reason (10af7e) — 1/2/2008 @ 10:05 amI don’t care for the current way of choosing either. But it has been like that for sometime. And a candidate who refuses to work within the framework shows me a candidate who won’t do a very good job of managing the presidency because they expect the world to adhere to their standard rather than having some flexibility in dealing with others.
I guess after tomorrow night it will be Fred:(
I saw Fred on some news show, and he said he has been written off other campaigns only to win them later, so “I know what I’m doing.”
Let’s wait and see. I would vote for him just to thank him for his 15-minute video speech of substance. It wasn’t Cooper Union, but it was serious.
Patricia (aaa977) — 1/2/2008 @ 10:29 amAll I can say here is that across a vast cross section of right leaning blogs I am seeing a lot of people saying they would prefer Fred because of simply his issue positions.
Most also say that the first tier candidates have issues for at least part of their agenda that is troublesome to them.
If he manages to maintain a candidate status and not withdraw, it might be a case that he doesn’t have to come to the voters, because they will come to him.
The large undecided voters indicate that is a possibility.
daytrader (ea6549) — 1/2/2008 @ 10:40 amThe farther forward the voting is pushed the longer the time frame the papers have to fill column inches of commentary.
That is part of the reason behind some trivial things that have been reported on during this cycle that are like ‘now just how did that somehow gain any importance’.
In short in some cases the press has really been digging just to fill out the obligatory story words today.
Also it has the secondary effect of elimination of other stories that have to compete with the editors eye for importance.
daytrader (ea6549) — 1/2/2008 @ 10:46 amNone seems to be asking the question:
what will happen to
Rudy’s diehard fans who have been gunning for him since the day after 9/11/2001
if he should lose the nomination.
I was heading for Rudy (primarily for his tough on terror stance) since the beginning of this race which began a couple of years ago, however another candidate who is a little more trustworthly came along during this time.
I won’t lose my head if Fred doesn’t get the nomination.
I will say however, that Rudy campaigned for Bloomberg who himself campaigned as a ‘tough on terror Republican’ only to end up getting a Nanny who tells me after he was elected that ‘terror is no big deal and I should get a life’.
So obviously for me, my nervousness about Rudy is legimate, I was told one thing only to get something entirely different.
Further, in the time between the attack in 1993 and the one in 2001 Rudy never said anything or took one iota of action against radical Islamic cells in living in Brooklyn, not once.
Besides which people outside NYC take for granted just how ruthless Liberals can be when they want power, Rudy has too many Liberal(by this I mean those who think that anyone right of Stalin is a Nazi) friends who will stab him in the back with some dirty secret they have on him.
Romney is another Schwarzennegger, way to inside the billionaire’s collectivist club for me to not be nervous about his nomination. And no, just because Lopez over at the National Review thinks he’s dreamy isn’t reason enough to warrant an endorsement.
McCain?
syn (9c2583) — 1/2/2008 @ 10:51 amComment by Christoph….
Compare this with McCain. His campaign was off the rails, because of unpopular policy positions he had taken. Instead of quitting or being any any way, shape, or form lazy, he stayed in, buckled down, and through initiative and leadership, relentlessly wrestled himself back to first place, when many people including yours truly had written him off. He showed me. How?
Perseverance, decisiveness, action.
Christoph, this can also be viewed as pandering. Does McCain really believe his current positons? How can we be sure. Will they change when the wind blows again?
That’s why I like Thompson. He’s the only candidate that has specifically stated his positions and stuck to them.
rudytbone (913207) — 1/2/2008 @ 10:54 amMcCain’s campaign reminds me of a Malcolm X quote:
“If you’re not careful the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
The fact that McCain becomes MSM’s darling anytime Huckabee screws up their other narrative that “Huckabee is the GOP choice” leaves me skeptical as to whether he is loyal to his beliefs or loyal to pander to whatever populist media fad comes his way.
syn (9c2583) — 1/2/2008 @ 11:10 amAcross the blogsphere in both the right and middle I see supportive commentary related to Fred, especially in the comment threads even more than in the postings themselves.
Even more telling is they are generally thoughtful well reasoned commentary and not just vapid cheer leading.
daytrader (ea6549) — 1/2/2008 @ 11:31 amIf John McCain had a driving ambition to be President, perhaps he would have studied harder at Annapolis (IIRC, he graduated in the bottom 5% of the class).
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/2/2008 @ 11:57 amI don’t care what he says, he lost his creds with me when he became the Senator from Lincoln Savings.
His imprisonment, and consequent suffering, is his only claim to current leadership. I do not denigrate what he went through, but I do not put him on a pedestal for it.
“If you really, really want to be the Leader, then you’re not qualified to lead.”
This ranks right along with Groucho Marx’ famous quote of not wanting to belong to any orginization that would have him as a member.
True leaders are appointed by the group, they are not self-proclaimed. We all know this intuitively, and operate to this standard in our personal, social, and business lives. Some of our most effective leaders in all situations, are those who have no intention of being one.
If more of our politicians were of the character of G. Washington, how much better off the country would be. Instead, we have the spectacle of elites demanding “their” turns, and the debacles that their hubris leads us into.
” Someone once described him as someone who when a crisis comes would like to take a two hour break and then have lunch before acting.”
And I bet that someone is either your own invention (but you found a way to make the comment while distancing yourself from it, old media trick)) or a certifiable hack for someone else.
Martin (d3fe32) — 1/2/2008 @ 11:57 amActually, would we prefer someone who contemplates and relects before acting; or, someone who just “rides to the sound of the guns”?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/2/2008 @ 12:09 pmSorry…”reflects”
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/2/2008 @ 12:09 pmThe best predictor of future action is past action. I shudder to think of President McCain with a Democrat Legislature.
Patricia (f56a97) — 1/2/2008 @ 12:18 pmI’m just one of those simple-minded folks Dostoyevsky* wrote about who just follow a banner. Fred’s is the one I like most.
(*that’s how I learnt it and that’s how I’m spellin it)
nk (5221ab) — 1/2/2008 @ 12:24 pmnk, it is a very appealing banner.
H2U (81b7bd) — 1/2/2008 @ 2:27 pmIf Fred manages a 3rd place finish, or even a 4th place finish that’s close (within a point of 3rd), that’s enough to keep the money coming and sustain the campaign. In such a scenario, two or three of the candidates will end up dropping out below him. Who will those voters go to?
In other words, let’s say your choice is Duncan Hunter. Boom! He’s out. Who do you like best then? I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that 97% of Hunter voters would switch to Fred. And a good number of others, too, if Fred shows strong in New Hampshire.
Iowa is important, but it’s not make or break. Reagan lost Iowa in 1980, as I mentioned above.
otcconan (8548ed) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:40 pmvor #31…
Another Drew (25a0ac) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:07 pmBTW, as I recall, Leno tapes at 5:30PacTime, not in the morning (unless, of course, you’re in London). But then, I’ve only lived in SoCal since Magellan, what could I possibly know?
On McCain, when he answered the reporter question “Which is more important to you, clean government or the First Amendment?” with “clean government”, he broke the oath he swore in the Navy, when being sworn in as a Senator, and the oath he would have to take as President, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I will NEVER vote for an oathbreaker. Simple as that.
SDN (a20b62) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:55 pmYou all might like his lack of enthusiasm for campaigning but it sure as heck is not what we need representing the GOP next year.
The Dems are hungry for the WhiteHouse and you can bet they will be campaigning hard day in and day out.
We deserve a candidate who is willing and able to run all day, every day until the last vote is cast on 8 Nov 2008.
That candidate is NOT Fred Thompson.
Carolina (7c779d) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:58 pmAnother Drew,
You are correct. At 7:57 EST he officially announced. Sorry your guy can’t get his priorities and strategy lined up.
voiceofreason (738088) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:13 pmWe deserve a President who will govern the way we want him/her to (since we are the voters), we get the idiots who can run for President for a long time…
Verlin Martin (899dce) — 1/2/2008 @ 10:22 pmNo offense, Carolina, but this is the dumbest thing I’ve read all day.
I neither deserve nor desire a President who is eager to campaign in the modern political environment. As many smarter folks than I have pointed out, a good leader is usually someone who does not zealously seek out office. A good leader lets his words do the talking, not a handshake or baby-kissing.
Run all day, every day? Sounds like you want an energizer battery, not a leader. Count me out of whatever group you claim to be a part of….
h2u (57b696) — 1/2/2008 @ 11:14 pmThat candidate is NOT Fred Thompson.
Yep. That candidate is someone like Mitt Romney, a guy with no fealty to any principle other than self-aggrandizement.
In other words, instead of just facing the potential disappointment of losing the election, we’re also facing the potential disappointment of winning the election with a nominee who sucks, substantively, and will be a disaster for conservatism.
Tell me again what we “deserve”?
BC (b06e0d) — 1/2/2008 @ 11:34 pmSome of the criticims of Thompson are doubtless valid – he’s had some campaign organization troubles.
But there are a lot of things to like about Fred Thompson; he takes thoughtful positions and has a strong commitment to federalism, and he’s committed to it on issues where it helps and hurts his other positions. I’m almost certainly not as vigorous a federalist as the average Patterico poster, but I appreciate thoughtful consistency on the issues.
Thompson’s got the support of a lot of big guns from a lot of circles. While he doesn’t have good cross-over appeal, people like genuineness. The likely Democratic candidate will be a contrast with Thompson in that area.
If he’s still viable when he hits California, I’ll vote for him, despite my disagreements on some social issues.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 1/3/2008 @ 12:43 amThe word on the street is that Mr. Substantive is dropping out after the results come in today from Iowa. Freddie Hollywood will then back McCain.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/3/2008 @ 11:21 amDavid, that story has been Thoroughly debunked
Care to retract your statement?
Steverino (e00589) — 1/3/2008 @ 11:52 amLet me make myself clearer:
David, in posting a rumor that had already been proven false and not even bothering to check its veracity, you have proven reckless disregard for the truth. In short, you are a deliberate LIAR.
Steverino (e00589) — 1/3/2008 @ 11:54 amDavid E. doesn’t let facts stand in the way of his rhetoric.
Didn’t you see his thoughtless commentary on the LA Times quiz?
H2U (81b7bd) — 1/3/2008 @ 12:02 pmThe word on the street is that Mr. Substantive is dropping out after the results come in today from Iowa. Freddie Hollywood will then back McCain.
No never happen. More likely scenario is that in December 08 Fred will officially announce he is leaving the race. Speakers blaring Frank Sinatra’s “I did it my way” will effectively drown out the questions from the two reporters present.
voice of reason (10af7e) — 1/3/2008 @ 12:20 pmvor gets it. Today, tomorrow, next week, whatever, Freddie Hollywood’s history — the campaign that was all tease and no strip.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/3/2008 @ 12:28 pmDavid E
Slow getting started and quick to finish… could it be an indicator of other issues he may have?
voice of reason (10af7e) — 1/3/2008 @ 12:30 pmWhat “other issues”?
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/3/2008 @ 12:43 pmWhat “other issues”?
You’d have to ask Jeri.
voice of reason (10af7e) — 1/3/2008 @ 1:01 pmDavid, you still haven’t answered Steverino’s question?
Do you care to retract your statement?
This had been emphatically denied by the Thompson campaign, including Fred! himself, yet somehow you feel it’s still the word on the street.
Just how misinformed are you? Inquiring minds wish to know.
H2U (81b7bd) — 1/3/2008 @ 1:10 pmSteverino,
David E. is just trying to spread the Pig Manure from his desk to your ears. I don’t pay any attention to the latest drivel he has to pedal.
If you want to see better on the ground coverage of the GOP caucus, go to Liberty Pundit. At least Brian lives in Iowa, and many of his contributors also live in Iowa, not in “airheadland”.
PCD (5c49b0) — 1/3/2008 @ 1:17 pmPCD, I’ve already mentally marked David as Someone To Not Take Seriously. I won’t engage him in a debate, because it’s not worth the strain on my carpal flexors. But I’ll call him a liar when he shows himself to be one.
Steverino (e00589) — 1/3/2008 @ 1:23 pmWell it is. Thompson can say whatever he likes but “the word on the street” says otherwise.
Your point?
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/3/2008 @ 1:23 pmWord on the street says David has defrauded retired people out of millions of dollars. David denies this, but we all know word on the street says otherwise.
Steverino (e00589) — 1/3/2008 @ 1:25 pmThe word on the street is that Mr. Substantive is dropping out after the results come in today from Iowa. Freddie Hollywood will then back McCain.
No never happen. More likely scenario is that in December 08 Fred will officially announce he is leaving the race. Speakers blaring Frank Sinatra’s “I did it my way” will effectively drown out the questions from the two reporters present.
Comment by voice of reason — 1/3/2008 @ 12:20 pm
vor gets it. Today, tomorrow, next week, whatever, Freddie Hollywood’s history — the campaign that was all tease and no strip.
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 1/3/2008 @ 12:28 pm
David E
Slow getting started and quick to finish… could it be an indicator of other issues he may have?
Comment by voice of reason — 1/3/2008 @ 12:30 pm
What “other issues”?
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 1/3/2008 @ 12:43 pm
What “other issues”?
You’d have to ask Jeri.
Comment by voice of reason — 1/3/2008 @ 1:01 pm
Two pigs grunting in concert.
nk (5221ab) — 1/3/2008 @ 1:48 pmTwo pigs grunting in concert.
Comment by nk
Get that foot back in your stall before I stomp on it Nk.
voice of reason (10af7e) — 1/3/2008 @ 1:51 pmGet that foot back in your stall before I stomp on it Nk.
I don’t know that pigs can stomp. They crap on things, mostly, and then spread it around with their snouts.
nk (5221ab) — 1/3/2008 @ 1:57 pmYou’re feeding Loki again! Remember that David E. wants evidence and proof when people disagree with him—but he always wants others to accept his “street” whims as reality. But it’s all about getting attention. Always. Without exception.
Business as usual on Planet Errorstein, I guess.
Lurker (7e375e) — 1/3/2008 @ 2:07 pmMy point, David, is that you’re an idiot for knowingly spreading misinformation when the truth is right in front of you. That makes you a propagandist, and a not-so-clever one at that.
Go find a new hobby, jabroni.
H2U (81b7bd) — 1/3/2008 @ 4:46 pmAnybody see the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 version of Joe Don Baker’s miserable little film Mitchell?
In one scene, a prostitute whom Mitchell arrested earlier in the film shows up outside a house where he’s questioning a bad guy inside, and writes “JERK!” on his car’s windshield in lipstick. The next scene shows the bad guy looking thoughtfully out his window before turning wordlessly back to Mitchell who’s sitting on the couch, and the robots supply the best fake “line” of the film:
“Word on the street is, you’re a jerk.”
Wonder what made me think of that quote. Oh well, I’m sure it’ll come to me. Have a good night all.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/3/2008 @ 4:51 pmWhereas you are the soul of modesty and restraint.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/3/2008 @ 4:53 pmAt least Lurker doesn’t peddle lies, Ehrenstein.
H2U (81b7bd) — 1/3/2008 @ 5:28 pmI’ve never seen you write anything here that didn’t make me think you’re a pompous, arrogant jackass.
chaos (9c54c6) — 1/3/2008 @ 7:12 pmAlways a laff riot to hear David E. use the term “soul,” on all kinds of levels. We already know how he deals with both of the terms “modesty” and “restraint.”
Still, ladies and germs, remember his goal with posting: to irritate and anger others, never to illuminate any topic at all. Best simply to move on.
Lurker (7e375e) — 1/3/2008 @ 8:03 pmI like David. He’s my pet troll…ever since our tiff over the whole Chuck Adkins fiasco. Nothing he says will make me angry. I now know why he says what he says, and it doesn’t bother me the least bit. In fact, call me a fan.
But then, I love Queen, and I think Freddie Mercury was the greatest rock singer of all time…despite the fact that I’m pretty sure I’d never agree with his political worldview.
He’s entertainment, David is. And he does a great job at it. Keep it coming! Feed the troll! I like to watch him eat. Hey, you sure the walls of this enclosure are high enough to keep it from escaping? Oh, whatever…David, come here…here’s a Snickers bar!
otcconan (13ad0e) — 1/4/2008 @ 8:02 amIt’s time to admit thatmy sources were wrong. Fred Thompson isn’t dropping out of the race.
In fact he’s got the Republican nomination sewed up.
The only question that remains is who he should choose as a running mate.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/4/2008 @ 8:21 amDavid, your snark aside, your source was wrong and Fred! isn’t dropping out. He placed a strong third place in a state where the majority of republican voters identify themselves as evangelicals. That is outstanding!
He placed ahead of Ron Paul, and he had a blimp! He placed ahead of McCain, who is truly a politician on the national radar. And all while dealing with a constant barrage of lies coming from The Politico and even Fox News.
Up with Fred! Down with David E.
H2U (81b7bd) — 1/4/2008 @ 8:32 amHey H2U, do you think Ron Paul should be Fred’s pick for veep?
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/4/2008 @ 8:41 amI’m a Jew. Ron Paul takes money from Stormfront. What do you think?
H2U (81b7bd) — 1/4/2008 @ 8:56 amH2U,
Please ignore David E. He writes from under a pile of Pig Manure.
PCD (5c49b0) — 1/4/2008 @ 9:18 amI happen to like the smell of pig poop. 😉
H2U (81b7bd) — 1/4/2008 @ 9:20 am