Posted on 12/30/2007 10:10:33 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The things you listed were not defining moments. They were just things that happened. A defining moment can be quoted or viewed on film. Reagan’s “there you go again” is another one. George H.W. Bush looking at his watch was another. Al Gore stalking George W. Bush was yet another, as was Michael Dukakis’s tank ride. Nixon sweating, Ford saying eastern Europe wasn’t under soviet influence.
You're either not understanding my point or you're just too interested in arguing to get it. Your position is a result of EXACTLY what I'm talking about, because those indeed WERE defining moments...UNTIL THEY WEREN'T. That's exactly what all this "defining moment" silliness is. "Defining moments" as you again repeat them are mythology we decide MEAN something, when no one cared about Bush looking at his watch until the media needed something to point to, and Reagan's "there you go again" defined nothing except something established decades before, that he can handle himself on camera, and so on. You're falling into that same TV-mentality by trying to pick a "moment" when such moments are of no value except to media talking heads who need an angle on a story that doesn't have one angle.
Either way, thanks and good night.
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.But success begets success, and failure begets failure. Fred went for a period of weeks, if not months with very little major national media exposure. The little he got was nothing like the daily barrage of Romney and Giuliani. He just didn't go after it, and it didn't come looking for him. That is why he began fading in the national polls and never came back. People in Iowa and elsewhere read the same newspapers and see the same polls. If they see Fred dropping like a rock, then their not going to be inclined to support him either. People just don't like getting behind sure losers.
It's not about me. It's about what your average voter sees. I've seen all of the major events where Fred had his few opportunities to define himself before a large audience, and he missed them. He didn't talk about his credentials during the CNN debate, or any others. That was his best chance. People walked away having heard some statistics on social security that they didn't retain, and still not knowing about Fred's experience with terrorism and nuclear proliferation matters. Fred needed to use the opportunity of the debates to challenge Giuliani directly and hold Rudy's well known background up to his own. He didn't, and that was his chance then to define himself before America, not now, 3 days before Iowa.
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.
I agree, it is good he has gotten some media attention for it, but lets keep it in perspective. He's running for president. Getting media attention should not be this unusual. This is the first in a very long time for him in a race where 3 or 4 of the other candidates get this kind of exposure on a daily basis. And on top of that, his message is 17 minutes long, is slow and meandering through much of it, is fairly unexciting and doesn't even touch on the sort of issues and experience that he should be leading with until 8 minutes into it, long after the vast majority of his audience has stopped watching out of boredom. I really would like to be more upbeat on Fred, but he really hasn't given us much of a reason to be for months now.
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.
For those who took the time to read his policies and views on things who decided to support him are inspired.Oi! That's just the problem. Personally, I've read it and I like it. But 98% of the voters aren't like me. If the voter has to do all the work for the candidate then that candidate ain't gonna win. Fred should have been bringing his positions and above all his credentials to the voters, not making them play hide and go seek to find it. The voters are even lazier than Fred! They'll know whatever they're told about a candidate, with no effort of their own, and nothing more. So the candidate better make sure they tell the voter everything they need to know. I'm reminded now of the debates where Fred just gave his Fred08.com URL and told the viewers to look up his positions on the internet instead of just laying them out while he had a captive audience. It's these kind of stupid moves that has sunk him from the start.
I don’t have faith in the public knowing why Fred is the best choice. He never made the case. At least not the right one.
I don’t know if I’m going to support Fred at this point. I’m in California, so things will change before I have my say. If Fred is viable still, then yes, but if it goes the way it looks like it will be going, then I will probably put my vote to better use and support McCain. Only Fred, Romney, and McCain are at all acceptable, and Romney is just too flawed to win the general election. So because of Fred’s incompetent campaign that crashed and burned, that leaves only McCain as the not-so-great last hope.
Do you think Fred’s smackdown of Micheal Moore was one of Fred’s defining moments ?No. You're missing the point about the defining moments.
No it wasn’t. You totally don’t get it. It was a manufactured event. It was not spontaneous. The candidate does not pick his defining moment, the times do. Most candidates don’t ever even have one. Just because someone does or says something that might make you go “hoorah” that doesn’t mean it reveals and forever defines who they are from that moment on.
“What IS the strategy?”
Do you think there might be something about the way Thompson has run his campaign that could net him most of the 50% undecided voters between now and Thursday?
“Now he’s already defined. And he’s been defined as...”
You’re saying that you let prevaricating pundits define a candidate for you, instead of the actions of the candidate himself.
Fred Thompson’s actions, dating back to his youth, define him as “a foreign policy expert, legal scholar, and steady hand in uncertain times.”
You claim he has a brilliant strategy that somehow doesn't involve winning Iowa. I see him doing a 50 stop tour in Iowa and raising $250k for last minute ads in Iowa. Now if he has a super secret Iowa doesn't matter plan, state it or admit you were talking out your rear.
I did? Where did I claim that?
Now if he has a super secret Iowa doesn't matter plan, state it or admit you were talking out your rear.
First you have to admit you're a complete and total liar, because I never said any such thing.
Prove I did, or admit you're a liar.
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.