Posted on 12/30/2007 9:31:17 PM PST by Victor
Follow this link to Fred as himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VblJq4j0_SE
Thanks, didn’t know if this had already been posted....I was very excited by this message.
It was but I don’t care. The more the merrier.
This made big waves today and they are still getting bigger. Fred hit it out of the park.
Excellent. Wish I lived in Iowa so I could vote for Fred.
I predict the other candidates are scrambling to follow the leader [Fred Thompson] with messages of their own.
They really shouldn’t waste the effort. Once again, Fred leads and Fred wins... “Hands down”.
That was a good speech!!
Most excellent!
Well finally 8 minutes into his closing argument, and 3 days before the Iowa caucus, Fred finally talked about national security as the most important issue facing America and his credentials and experience in that area. I’ve said for a long time that if he made national security his central theme and made his credentials his main argument for why he’s the best man, then he would be the nominee. I do think it’s too late for him. He waited too long and hasn’t been forceful or specific enough. He’s allowed himself to be tagged with being lazy and uninterested in the job, and he’s reinforced that notion by letting it go unanswered. The biggest fear Republicans can face is having another Bob Dole — a candidate who lets himself get steamrolled by a Clinton. Fred really hasn’t been interested in running a campaign, and the nominal effort he’s made at one over the last several months has been lackluster at best. We can’t afford a candidate who will continue this campaign regimen into the general election. The worst thing the GOP could have is an invisible candidate who doesn’t bother to answer the charges that will be coming fast and furious as the entire Clinton machine goes into overdrive, or campaign on the issues much at all. Such a candidate would allow Hillary Clinton to walk into the White House uncontested. And so far, that’s the kind of candidate that Fred Thompson has been.
Perhaps there is hop for him after he goes down in flames in Iowa, but it’s unlikely. He will need to show Republicans that he is serious about winning, and that means serious about campaigning. He will need to give voters a compelling reason to vote for him, not just because he’s conservative, but also because he is knowledgeable and experienced in the policy issues we care about. He will need to talk specifics about what he has done regarding matters of terrorism and nuclear proliferation as Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and as Chairman of the International Security Advisory Board at the State Department’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation.
He will have to talk in detail about his experience as a member of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, and the economic and security issues posed by China.
He should talk about his work on the Judiciary Committee when discussing his philosophy on judges. He needs to make experience his central theme, not Conservatism. He needs to let voters know he is a serious candidate, not just some folksy down-home actor. I think he forgets that most people don’t know that.
And most of all, he needs to tell Republican primary voters that he is committed to winning in November, that he will campaign aggressively, and he will work to get his message out and will be quick to respond, not letting any charge go unanswered. If he is able to do that, make that case to the voters and get the word out, and prove it through action in the remainder of the primary race, then maybe, just maybe voters might be convinced and give him the chance. Otherwise, he has none.
Fred is a statesman.
Are the voters listening?
Are the voters as impressed as I am?
We’ll find out on Thursday night.
The voters have been listening, but Fred forgot to tell them about himself.
Wow. After all your phony “I support Fred, but he did blah blah blah wrong” crap, you’ve typed a longer version for all to see. How nice.
Fred’s campaign has been a huge disappointment, primarily in its non-existence and non-substance. He has a lot of stuff he could have talked about, but he talked about almost none of it. Do you know anything about what he did on any of the committee’s he’s been a member of? Do you even know which ones they are? He has a great story of experience that he could have told, particularly on security and foreign policy. But he didn’t. Instead all he did was said “look at me, I’m conservative” in a field full of guys saying the same thing. He never bothered to inform the voters that he is a serious candidate with serious experience outside of Hollywood. I’m not going to pretend that the Emperor is wearing a magnificent robe the way you are.
I want to see more from Fred. I need him to convince me that he’ll actually run for president if he’s nominated. And honestly I think I would be far more receptive to it than most primary voters at this point. I think his campaign has disappointed too many people for too long to be able to come back at this point.
Brilliant! I LOVE how he reaches out to sensible, once-mainstream Democrats.
Does anyone have a transcript of this?
This is all hashed over, boring, and totally discredited crap. Why are you wasting our time with this crud? Looks like nothing more than anti-Fred FUD.
What is discredited? That Fred Thompson is the only prominent consistent conservative in the race?
Or do you mean all those polls that show Thompson’s steady decline to the bottom of the pack have been discredited?
Rasmussen is crap? Or are you talking about my characterizations of the other candidates? Yeah, you’re right, perhaps those were a bit hyperbolic.
Please tell me what I said that was incorrect.
counterpunch asked “Please tell me what I said that was incorrect.”
At the risk of repeating myself, how about these horse nuggets?
“Fred just doesn’t want it.” or “He doesn’t want to work for it.” or “His sense of entitlement to the nomination is what killed his chances of getting it.”
Utter nonsense.
As for the two choices you gave me, I’m not saying either of these things. I’m just saying that you are wasting everyones time, to say nothing of your own, with your anti-Fred FUD dispersal.
He was just quoted today saying that he wasn’t interested in running for president. That’s certainly playing into the stereotype, at the very least. If all the Republican primary voters believe it to be true, then it is as good as true. Fred should have put more effort into proving he isn’t lazy. The effort alone would have proved he wasn’t.
(I can copy and paste from the other thread too.)
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.