The 'harpy' in question.
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.
Yes.... preaching to the converted so far.
I started out supporting Duncan Hunter and still think he would make a good president, but realistically I don't think he has a chance. Fred has.
Thompson/Hunter 2008.
The problem is the MSM didn’t account people would be smart enough to find the truth on their own. Sadly there are those that ARE “lazy” in that they don’t seek out the truth, but rather injest all the crap the MSM wants them to believe. In that regard the MSM is counting on people to be lazy, so they still influence the uninformed.
He is running because he has pretty dyed hair!
LOL
On any given day, the names change. But their objectives remain the same. That is to manipulate people conditioned to 15 second sound bites with a 15 second commentary about how bad or how good the candidate looks.
The MSM reporters want to select our choices, rather than let us make the choice based on intelligent analysis.
That is what he said. The reporter was correct.
If this was a one-time slip, it could be overlooked, but he has been a long pattern of expressing this over and over again in his actions and words.
I listened to the press conference on the radio. He was speaking at around 50 words a second ('uhhh's don't count) and giving bad answers all around.
He compounded it today with what he said on Fox News in what sounded like a concession speech (he wants to spend more time with his grand kids).
Snotty lookin ain’t she.
And .. I do hope most people realize who Fred was talking about: HILLARY!
It’s well known that she’s been calculating and planning how to get to the presidency for quite a few years. When a person like Hillary wants to have something .. THEY ARE WILLING TO DO ANYTHING OR SAY ANYTHING JUST TO GET ELECTED.
Fred is telling us .. that’s not him and it never will be who he is or what he stands for.
Evidently, the journalist was trying to blunt Fred’s message by trying to turn his statements against him. She did not succeed.
My guess .. the journalist is a Hillary supporter.
Just simple common sense. These days running for President is running a gauntlet of character assassination, Drive-By Media misinformation, unpleasant debate moderators, and general moonbats, along with the basic travel and logistic hassles.
Only a confirmed masochist would enjoy running for President.
Way back at the beginning, before anyone said anything about him, I was wishing Fred Thompson would get in the race. He doesn't seem to me to be someone who has been lusting for power since his earliest years. That's a principal fault of Clinton, Kerry, and Gore. The Presidency defines their being. It was all about them.
I want someone who takes on the mantle reluctantly but who also will be able to make clear for people what the United States was supposed to be about: a land of liberty where the federal government protects the people from foreign enemies and the Constitution protects the people from the federal government, leaving everything else up to the ingenuity, hard work, and voluntary associations of the citizenry.
We have now reached a place where a major party claims there really is no foreign enemy that is not of our own making and that the federal government has to protect the individual from himself. They appear to believe that people will truly be free when the federal government has defined in law the specifics of how every aspect of everyone's life should be and has constructed an enforcement apparatus to make it happen.
The thought that there could be hundreds of millions living whose future rests completely upon their own shoulders and how they choose to provide for themselves and their families either scares or outrages them, depending on whether they believe those people to be either misguided or arrogant. Therefore, they believe that the federal government, with themselves in the driver's seat, should help plan for the fools who can't do it themselves or put in their places the reckless ones who think they can.
They also appear to believe that anyone who opposes them, therefore, are the enemies of the people, and, because they have cast themselves as the voice of the people, enemies of themselves. You're either with them or you're an evil to be extirpated.
How in the world is this any different from the totalist politics of the Nazis or communists?
When I was in high school I read Jefferson's suggestion that a bloody rebellion every so often would be a good thing for the nation. My idea then was that he was saying, "Hey, if this whole Constitutional government idea we came up with doesn't work out, just toss it aside and try something else." I realize now, and I wish that more people did, that he meant, "If a system of government grows up that violates this Constitution and Declaration of Independence and starts to eat up the people's substance and to oppress the people, get rid of it, even if you have to use bloody force the same way we did against King George. You'll be doing it for the same reason. The federal government is not the United States. It's a means to an end and that end is liberty in peace. If the existing one can no longer serve as that means, scrap it and reconstitutionalize."
I'm hoping that Fred will be able to restore a little clarity to the historical perspective. For all those people in the past who yearned to be free, there are even more now, especially since the degree of oppression in the modern world far exceeds anything during the centuries that led to the American Revolution.
http://www.usatoday.com/community/profile.htm?UID=295801923a01d0e4
Looks like she's getting a pasting under 'My Messages'
Glad to see Fred fighting back. Fire, indeed!
I don’t see her profile at this link.
The voters of IA and NH have figured this out. 1-2% in IA, 3% in NH, and out.
Good response, Mr. Thompson.
If she were a plumber, there would be raw sewage on the bath room floor
We know you are not a Fred head, but if you are going to pretend to quote Fred, don't lie like a demonRAT.
I watched the entire Fred on FOX and "nothing about spending time with his grand kids" could be further from any thing Fred said or implied.
If you want another candidate, that's one thing, but the msm doesn't need your help in lying and distorting things that Fred says {or doesn't say}.
Since you can't deal in truth, STFU.
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.