Posted on 09/04/2007 2:35:09 PM PDT by gpapa
Fred Thompson will announce his candidacy this week - but many pundits think that it is over before it started. Thompson missed his "moment" by holding out through the summer.
I could not disagree with this more. Without commenting on the likelihood of Thompson being the GOP nominee, I think it is wrong to argue that his chances to acquire the nomination have decreased because he has waited.
Thompson's problem is not the late announcement. It is, rather, the fact that his campaign has been poorly run. But this poor management may not be what you think. Changing staffers early, giving speeches that fall flat, fundraising that is a little weak - all of these are normal for a candidate who is just starting out, who up until recently never contemplated being president. Holding this against Thompson fails to take into account the learning curve that comes with these sorts of affairs. Instead, Thompson's problem has been that he has allowed the media to interpret all of these events as problems of his campaign, rather than as its natural and expected birth pangs. Thompson has failed to manage the expectations of the media. This is something that a candidate at any stage needs to do - and Thompson has not done it as well as he could have.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Run Fred, Run!
The pundits are wrong. I think the delay cost Thompson, but it didn’t change the weakness at the top. All Thompson did was give opportunity to the lower tier. Thompson can do what he wants because of the strategists who have bombed with Rudy McRomney.
What a steaming pantload. The only candidates who have such a luxury are those the media chooses to annoit - such as Shillary. Otherwise, you can present the most clear and lucid case to the media but they will still nit-pick you to death - and if that doesn't work, just resort to plain lies and distortions.
No.
Next.
So who is his campaign manager.
Pundits complain about him joining too late because the Pundits want the election to last as long as possible to maintain their “relevance” as long as possible.
Snort. Which media? The ones that fewer and fewer people are buying/watching/reading?
In the internet age, who needs the MSM? Not even a certain presidential candidate...
As soon as he announces I’ll pull out my checkbook and write him a good recommendation.
The earlier a candidate can get duped into starting out, the more costly the campaign becomes due to monies spent earlier than effective, and the longer opponents have to tear them apart on little inconsequentials, real or imagined.
Mr. Thompson isn’t starting late, the others started way, way way to early. And, already, they’ve each suffered damage for it.
Either provide positive input, or, kiss my Butt!
Pres is an exec job. A Gov, a Mayor, even a CEO would have some experience. Somebody lacking that at a high level needs some other attributes such as overwhelming debating skills and a solid, not dilettantish understanding of many, many factors of gov’t. Knowing something about tape recorders wouldn’t hurt.
I believe Bill Lacy is his exploratory committee manager. He can’t have a campaign manager until he declares.
What in the he!! is a pundit? Is that such as a “they” who is quoted? Or an unnamed source? Or someone no one knows but still gives an opinion that is meanless or worthless?
Let’s see what comes about one week from Thursday.
Reading is fundamental:
First read this:
Then read this:
Thompson Opposes amnesty in any form
“Thompson has made it clear that he opposes amnesty, in any form, and that securing our borders from a further flood of those who do not enter legally is essential to the security of the US: “As usual, we avoided the illegal-immigration problem for as long as we could. I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?”
Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.160-162 Jun 3, 2007
Nation loses sovereignty if it cannot secure its own borders
“Somewhere between 12 and 20 million people had somehow come into this country unnoticed. It’s like we went overnight from “no problem” to a problem so big that it now defies a good solution.
We know that the overwhelming majority of illegals come across the Mexican border. Fortunately, we’ve got someone who is all too willing to tell us what we should do about it — president Calderon of Mexico.
Pres. Calderon criticizes our efforts to secure the border with things such as border fencing. He apparently thinks we should do nothing except make American citizens out of his constituents.
I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like: Hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so.”
Source: Thompson’s blog on ABCradio.com, “Southern Exposure” Apr 13, 2007
There’s much, much more on immigration.
(ok, you see, you don’t know me too well, but check the tag line...)
There are those pesky facts again. Damn...
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.