Gawd. Not just lazy... she's fugly, too. Inside and out.
Posted on 12/30/2007 10:31:17 AM PST by Sir Gawain
Every once in a while I am more thankful than ever for today’s technology which allows me to talk to you directly instead of having to go through the filter of the main stream media.
Some of them are intent on making the outcome of the campaign dependent upon their pre-conceived notions. Every once in a while their incomplete and slanted coverage makes this clear.
Today I had this story written about me regarding what I said at a Town Hall event in Burlington, Iowa by a reporter who wasn’t even at the event. Incidentally, I declined to be interviewed by this particular reporter yesterday for reasons which will soon be apparent.
In referring to me, she reported “he doesn’t like modern campaigning, isn’t interested in running for President, and will not be devastated” if he doesn’t win.
Below is a transcript of what I actually said in response to a question by a local Burlington resident which was the basis of the reporter’s story.
It is clear that there are those in the media who will exact a high price for candor and from those whom they consider to be insufficiently ambitious. But it is with increasing amazement that we see that those who are willing to slant or leave out important parts of a story to make their point.
If a candidate succumbs to this he will be reduced to nothing more than a sound bite machine.
As for me I am going to continue to say exactly what is in my heart and is on my mind and give straight and honest answers to those who ask straight and honest questions.
Incidentally, the audience in Burlington broke into applause in the middle of my answer. The reporter wouldn’t know that because she wasn’t even there.
The transcript is below the fold . . .
Q: (Courtesy ABC News) My only problem with you and why I haven’t thrown all my support behind you is that I don’t know if you have the desire to be President. If I caucus for you next week, are you still going to be there two months from now?
That is a very good question, not because it’s difficult to answer, but I’m gonna answer it in a little different way than what you might expect.
In the first place, I got into the race about the time people normally get into get into it. The fact of the matter is people get into it a lot earlier than they used to. For some of them, they were juniors in high school.
The first place, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. I wouldn’t be doing this. I grew up in very modest circumstances. I left government and I and my family have made sacrifices to be sitting here today. I haven’t had any income for a long time because I figured to be clean, you’ve got to cut everything off. I was doing speaking engagements and I had a contract to do a tv show. I had a contract with abc radio…and so forth. A man would have to be a total fool to do all those things and to be leaving his family which is not a joyful thing if he didn’’t want to do it.
I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don’t do it. I want the people to have the best president they can have.
When this talk first originated from people around the country both directly and through polls, liked the idea of me stepping up and of course, you always look better form a distance.
But most of those people are still there. I approached it from the standpoint of a deal. A kind of a marriage. If one side of a marriage really has to be talked into the marriage, it probably ain’t going to be a good deal. But if you mutually decide it’s going to be a good thing. In this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, then we have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together.
I’m offering myself up. I’m saying that I have the background, the capability and concern to do this and do it for the right reasons. I’m not particularly interested in running for president, but I think I’d make a good president.
Nowadays, the process has become much more important than it used to be.
I don’t know that they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I don’t know that they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. But nowadays, it’s all about fire in the belly. I’m not sure in the world we live in today it’s a good thing if a president has too much fire in the belly. I approach life differently than a lot of people. People, I guess, wonder how I’ve been as successful as I’ve been in everything that I’ve done. I won two races in TN by 20 point margins in a state that bill Clinton carried twice. I’ve never had an acting lesson. I guess that’s obvious by people who’ve watched me…
When I did it, I did it. Wasn’t just a lark. Anything that’s worth doing is worth doing well. But I’ve always been a little more laid back than most. I’m only consumed by very, very few things. Politics is not one of them. The welfare of our country and our kids and grandkids is one of them.
If people really want in their president super type-a personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about for years how they win the presidency of the united states, someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning, I ain’t that guy. So I hope I’ve discussed that and didn’t talk you out of anything. I honestly want – I can’t imagine a worse set of circumstances [than] achieving the Presidency of the United States under false pretenses. I go out of my way to be myself.
Who was the reporter? Name her!
Well said, Fred.
That “fire in the belly” thing scares the crap out of me.
Bill Clinton got it when he shook hands with Pres. Kennedy at the age of 16. **shiver**
Fred’s gonna make a Great President. He’s not a vain stomper. He’s got the right stuff.
I love articles like this. Fred took the high road, quoted what he actually said and didn’t name the ‘journalist’ in question. Hope she chokes on it.
We need a President whom will confront the MSM!
FRED!
The lazy hack in question is Jill Lawrence of USA Today.
The Electoral College elected Washington unanimously in 1789... Washington took the oath of office as the first President under the Constitution for the United States of America on April 30, 1789 at Federal Hall in New York City although, at first, he had not wanted the position.Sound like anybody we know?... Washington, already wealthy, declined the salary, since he valued his image as a selfless public servant. At the urging of Congress, however, he ultimately accepted the payment. A dangerous precedent could have been set otherwise, as the founding fathers wanted future presidents to come from a large pool of potential candidates - not just those citizens that could afford to do the work for free.
Washington attended carefully to the pomp and ceremony of office, making sure that the titles and trappings were suitably republican and never emulated European royal courts. To that end, he preferred the title "Mr. President" to the more majestic names suggested.
... Washington reluctantly served a second term as president. He refused to run for a third, establishing the customary policy of a maximum of two terms for a president which later became law by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.
I'm not saying that Fred is George Washington any more than that he is Ronald Reagan. I'm just saying, modesty is an appropriate value in a President -- over-ambition sucks.
I love straight talkers! The one thing that shows that he’s a fiscally conservative is when he started his campaign. Why waste all that money? The other players seem to want the power, I want someone that will lead and lead with principle. I don’t care how nice their hair looks, how many children they have, or their religion.
I hope he gets this one out to the people in Iowa.
Needless to say, not just that woman reporter but the whole MSM pulled this lie out of their rear ends right before the vote takes place.
The truth was there to see it the instant this lie was published. You just had to look at the transcript of Fred’s reply. But the MSM presumed that the truth wouldn’t get out until too late, and at the rate they are going now, they could care less if they were caught in another lie as long as it did the job.
Fake but effective might be their new motto.
More on Jill Lawrence, a poor excuse for a reporter:
Bill Clinton’s “fire in the belly” ended up on Monica’s dress.
Beautiful post. I hope everyone reads it.
Yes, modesty and humility are underrated in the days of celebrities flashing their privates to the cameras. Let's return to what makes great men into leaders.
That is just plain wrong... :)
A little lower than "the belly", but we get the idea...
But funny, nonetheless...LOL
With apologies to fire everywhere....
Whatever it was that warmed the belly of the "Former Occupant of the Oval Office, 1993-2001", it was definitely something far more unholy than mere fire.
“Bill Clinton’s “fire in the belly” ended up on Monica’s dress.”
OR..
Bill Clinton’s “fire in the belly” ended up in Monica’s belly.
Gawd. Not just lazy... she's fugly, too. Inside and out.
Supporters of other candidates wasted no time trying to post the misinformation on this site.
Sound bites are almost always wrong. When the sound bite is read in full context; the meaning is almost always different.
The next 4 days, all kinds of garbage will be flying around.
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.