Posted on 12/30/2007 10:10:33 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
If Fred Thompson is nothing else he’s honest, or at least as honest as politics will allow one man to be. Presidential candidates through necessity are forced to make promises they know they can’t keep. Occasionally a candidate will say something in an unguarded moment being totally frank with his or her audience they wish later they hadn’t. At a town hall meeting in Burlington Iowa Fred Thompson was explaining becoming president wasn’t an obsession of his. He had a life before he decided to run and he’ll have a life if he isn’t the voter’s choice. The media’s reporting it as though he doesn’t care one way or the other, which is not what he meant to say.
WE MUST SELECT OUR BEST CHOICE AND STICK WITH THEM, I MUST ADMIT I WAVERED ONCE, NOT AGAIN.
Sometimes a little ass chewing can be a good thing. After I SUPPORTING Fred Thompson I wrote a critical article pertaining to Fred Thompson’s lack of enthusiasm, I received two e-mails from two of Fred Thompson’s State Campaign Managers taking me to task for my disloyalty. I must admit I was guilty of following the media hype. I was allowing Cable TV pundits to lead me on a false path away from what Fred Thompson is all about. I became lazy and wasn’t doing the research and follow-up as a writer I’m compelled to do to be creditable. Political punditry should never be a part time sport.
Like all Monday morning quarterbacks I stood on the sidelines telling the players what they should and shouldn’t do. Some input from the outside can’t hurt but it isn’t going to win in the long run. After receiving some video clips from one of the Thompson campaign managers and seeing Fred Thompson on Fox News Sunday it became obvious Fred Thompson is doing exactly what he has to do to win the nomination. Fred Thompson doesn’t have to win the Iowa primary all he has to do is make a credible showing. Iowa is only one of 50 states, flyover America has yet to speak.
It may seem I’ve flip flopped in my support for Fred Thompson, actually what it shows is when the facts aren’t available even the most devout can falter. I’m a Red States Voter in a Blue State, which means most of the media coverage in my state goes to the Democratic Party. What little MSM coverage Republicans get is devoted to Mitt Romney’s Mormonism and Rudy Giuliani’s sex life, neither of these are of any concern to voters. Mike Huckabee seems to be getting a lot of media attention, this to will pass. Mike Huckabee has a lot to learn before he’s ready for prime time. It seems when Huckabee doesn’t have an answer he always manages a joke. I doubt the country is ready for a wise-ass president yet. Humor is no way to cover up past positions on issues that don’t fit into a political party’s platform.
There’s no question most of the Republican candidates would like to be known as the air-apparent to the Reagan legacy. Any Republican who assumes they can come anywhere near the accomplishment of Ronald Reagan should be arrested for impersonating a Great Statesman. Times change, a cloned Ronald Reagan would fail as a president today. Each of these candidates must come up with their own programs. They should not let the Media and the Democrats set the agenda for them. Reagan picked a few issues [less than a dozen] and concentrated on those, he never allowed Democrats or the media to sidetrack him into fighting their battles.
He was also emphatic about not speaking ill of fellow Republicans.
Things important to Democrats aren’t necessarily important to the majority of the voters. The 1948 election of Harry Truman was an example of a man the media and his own political party wrote off as a loser then he came back to win the election. If conventional wisdom ruled I’d win the lotto every week and Al Gore would be sitting in the Whitehouse.
Like many voters I’ve been letting media hype lead me down a path of discontent. The media’s hammering away as though it will all be over after the Iowa caucus has a mind altering effect on voters. The premise is as Iowa goes so goes the nation, this of course is not true Iowa is only the beginning. One thing we know about the media, what is fact today are never the same facts tomorrow. The media follows the clouds flowing on a path the political hot air directing them to who knows where.
I must apologize to Fred Thompson for doubting his campaign strategy. It would seem he’s on track and doesn’t seem to be all that concerned about winning Iowa. Fred Thompson realizes Iowa is only one state out of 50. Fred Thompson may have more insight to our political system than the rest of us. This nation is 230 years in the making, Those 230 years have produced 43 presidents and 110 sessions of congress. One president resigned and two were impeached, all for political purposes generated by their opponents. No president has ever committed a felony this has to give us comfort in the process of selecting leaders. I’m sure Fred Thompson has already figured this out and is willing to do it the smart way and take his chances. I would like to warn Mr. Thompson to watch his six he’s in a pond of political alligators up to his shorts. May I suggest we all control our hysteria and let the system work its magic? It’s worked for 230 years I’m sure it will work for at least one more election. With Iowa down and 49 states left to go the system will prevail as always. Win lose or draw America will survive to vote again
MAKE YOUR CHOICE AND STICK WITH HIM OR HER TO THE END, YOUR CANDIDATE DESERVES NO LESS THE ONLY WASTED VOTE IS NO VOTE AT ALL
please, for God's sake, tell me what the strategy is?
You're measuring in increments of "several days"?
And a good campaigner never lets a false accusation stand. Fred has not only let them stand, he’s helped prop them up.
The problem with democracy is you have to get ELECTED before you get to be the leader. Fred doesn’t seem to think he has to make a compelling case to get elected, but sadly, he’s wrong.
What kind of ridiculous response is that? Seriously, if you cannot look at where Thompson is spending his time; if you can't read the speeches he makes at his appearances and see his positions and how he's selling them, then you must be one of these so-glib, so-cool types who think that if a candidate isn't taking you by the hand and personally speaking to you.
By the God you find holy, Freepers, grow a pair and quit the childish whining, will you, please?
No, that was a metaphor. In truth I think it’s several weeks if not months too late. He never did present his resume to the American people when they were listening. Now he’s already defined. And he’s been defined as slow, lazy, uninspiring, lackluster, arrogant, absent, and uninterested — but conservative(!) — instead of as a foreign policy expert, legal scholar, and steady hand in uncertain times.
Done!
Why should the voters have to look under rocks for Fred Thompson? Shouldn’t he be bringing his campaign to us like everyone else who wants to win? Isn’t that exactly the problem with his “strategy” in question?
Getting daily coverage of his positionsis now defined as hiding under a rock, I guess.
Fred, please apologize to all these people for not coming to their homes and explaining each position personally. It's too damned hard for them to go to your website, watch the daily TV coverage, read FR...
I think we need to stop comparing everything and everyone to Reagan.The "Reagan moment" I referenced is not a direct comparison to Reagan in either style or substance. It is simply an historical reference people here are familiar with and can relate to, when Reagan showed passion and aggression over the microphone incident, which broke through the same kind of labeling the media had put on Reagan as they have on Fred. Simply put, Fred needs a moment that illustrates he is passionate and committed, and not committing to a show of hands doesn't cut it.
The media’s definition of Fred is largely irrelevant. What someone thinks of you is out of your control, especially if you’re a conservative. He’s already been thrown under the bus by the media, but it’s through no fault of his own. He’s not trying to please the media, he’s trying to please the voters.
Fred has avoided media coverage like the plague. As it turns out, he campaign staff (his wife and Spencer Abraham) were turning down interview requests (including friendly media) without his knowledge.
Other candidates have been on top of the media, such as Romney and Giuliani, Fred has hidden from it. That’s why they’ve been on top, and he’s only gone down since he entered the race. An single appearance on Leno does not make an entire campaign.
I think that's just another example of our fixation on media moments. That moment has to happen for tens of millions of people, and it isn't just one moment. People fawn over and swoon over these "defining" moments, but they are no such thing. Take Reagan's "I'm paying for this microphone" moment--it was cool, and in the retelling it seems significant. But at the time, it really wasn't. I don't think a single person casts a vote based on these moments, they just make it easier to explain why they like someone. In reality, that's all media yammer refuse.
As far as we know, Fred's already had that moment. If he wins in Iowa, the media will scurry to find some "moment" to explain why, and we'll suddenly latch onto it and say that was his "moment" because we seem to have this need to turn everything into a screenplay, with a "turning point" and a "defining moment" when in fact each voter is going to have his or her own epiphany.
We must observe two different media.
It is his own fault. He let it happen. He made it easy for them. He didn’t define himself. He let their stereotypes stand uncontested, and then he played into them. He had no media management. He fostered no relationship with them media, which is a bad one in their eyes. He let his image and his campaign fall into a tailspin and did nothing about it, which not coincidentally in indicative of his image and his campaign.
Tell that to Howard Dean...
You mean the Howard Dean who had TONS of "moments," and who everyone KNEW was going to win before the votes were cast--you mean THAT Howard Dean?
Howard Dean had just one defining media moment, but the bad kind, and that’s why he didn’t end up as the Democrat nominee.
No offense, but you're proving my point for me. Dean had defining moments aplenty--from Gore's endorsement (how quickly we forget what a HUGE thing that was then), his leading in "superdelegates," his getting online funds to match those given to VP Cheney at a big dinner, the AFSCME endorsement, forgoing matching funds (very noteworthy), etc. The scream is NOW his defining moment, but up till then he was doing everything right, everything those who are advising Fred here on FR wish Fred would do. And look at what happened.
You keep saying the same thing over and over and over. Saying it does not make it true.
The voters of Iowa are not having to look under a rock for Fred Thompson. He HAS taken his campaign directly to them. Strategy entails going to those who vote first...FIRST. Much of it is posted here in detail on the very threads you post to.
Those of us who are paying even a modicum of attention are watching Fred work his campaign every day. You claim to be a Thompson supporter but somehow never see or hear any of it. Even after having the daily Fred news and events all laid out for you here at FR, you still claim he’s done nothing. As a matter of fact, you never post a positive comment about him at all.
Even a “sort of” supporter would find reason to praise him today on his truly excellent Message to Iowa. It’s gained attention all over the Internet and from major news outlets.
So you should either open your eyes or drop the ruse. Fred deserves better than this repetitious, sorry old rhetoric.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.