There are currently 9 users and 219 guests online.
One good thing Fred Thompson did
Submitted by Elrod on Sat, 2008/01/19 - 11:04pm.
I salute Fred Thompson for one thing and one thing only. He managed to waste millions of dollars from Tennessee Republican donors on an idiotic campaign. I don't know how many millions the TNGOP bigwigs wasted on Old Freddie but it sure wasn't money well spent. It isn't just that Fred Thompson lost. It's how he lost, putting virtually no effort into the contest.
So do the arch-conservative Fredheads get behind John McCain now? We all know Fred himself has a close relationship with McCain, but the same cannot be said for Fred's supporters. Do they gravitate to Romney as the establishment conservative and business choice? Do they go with the Huckster from across the river? Or do they suddenly forget all the mean and nasty things they said about John McCain over the years?
Submitted by Andy Axel on Sun, 2008/01/20 - 3:02am.
Finally, he manages to crack the top 3...
I'll admit it, I thought he'd have made a better showing - not just in SC, but generally. I'm thankful he didn't, but I'm a little surprised.
____________________________
With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.
Submitted by nemov (not verified) on Sun, 2008/01/20 - 1:07pm.
From what I've read about the Thompson campaign in Iowa and SC is that they worked really hard. His crowds in SC were the most enthusiastic (according to the National Review). However (fairly or unfairly) the media has their horse race with Romney, McCain, Rudy, and Huck.
The media labeled Fred from the beginning for starting too late. In politics perception is reality. Unfortunately for most Americans they can't be bothered to parse perception from reality. Despite the fact that Fred's SC debate performance was the strongest showing by any republican.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Sun, 2008/01/20 - 3:02pm.
From what I've read about the Thompson campaign in Iowa and SC is that they worked really hard. His crowds in SC were the most enthusiastic (according to the National Review). However (fairly or unfairly) the media has their horse race with Romney, McCain, Rudy, and Huck.
The media labeled Fred from the beginning for starting too late. In politics perception is reality. Unfortunately for most Americans they can't be bothered to parse perception from reality. Despite the fact that Fred's SC debate performance was the strongest showing by any republican.
Welp, I guess that's one way to look at it.
But the way I see it is that Fred was counting on perception over reality: the campaign bus proclaiming him the "Law and Order" candidate, his wife's phony law degree, the references to his "John Wayne persona."
In the end, what people saw was a geezer.
Reality is that Fred DID start too late. He was coy and cutsie-pie with that "will-he, won't he" deal that ground on all summer, and people I know who were Fredheads got truly tired of it. He's too old, ugly and tired to play the "Beg me" game.
His excuse in Iowa was that he was concentrating on South Carolina, "my home territory," and now he's out of excuses.
Submitted by Andy Axel on Sun, 2008/01/20 - 2:48pm.
In politics perception is reality. Unfortunately for most Americans they can't be bothered to parse perception from reality.
That explains the fact that Bush wasn't thrown out on his ear in 2004 and why there hasn't been an impeachment proceeding.
And now, a word from our sponsors...
____________________________
With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.
Submitted by Brian A. on Sun, 2008/01/20 - 4:26pm.
What was that speech about yesterday? I was mainly watching sports last night, but I did flip to election coverage every now and then.
I saw Thompson going up to give a speech very shortly after the polls closed. "That's not a good sign when you are giving a speech with only 3% of the precincts reporting," I thought.
I watched it for a couple of minutes, but it didn't seem to be going anywhere, so I moved on.
I flipped back to MSNBC a bit later. Someone said that they talked with a senior Thompson campaign person right before the aforementioned speech, and allegedly that person had no idea what Thompson was about to say.
Fred Thompson had three things working against him:
1) Expectations were too high, that he was the second coming of Ronald Reagan for Republicans.
2) His heart wasn't really in it. Sure, he gave some great debate performances but he had no taste for retail campaigning.
3) He got in too late and never set up the ground game necessary to build up support over the long haul.
Remember, the media initially loved him (remember the Aqua Velvet sexy comments). It was Bob Novak of all people who first clued the country to his underwhelming reception among conservatives. If you read the National Review on why they didn't endorse Thompson, it's quite embarrassing really. They said Fred didn't seem to care about anything - showed up late, had no specifics at the time, etc. It was the conservative media that turned on Fred first - Fox News ($1000 loafers), Novak and NR. Only later, when Fred failed to build on any real momentum that the mainstream media piled on.
Finally, he manages to crack the top 3...
I'll admit it, I thought he'd have made a better showing - not just in SC, but generally. I'm thankful he didn't, but I'm a little surprised.
____________________________
With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.
From what I've read about the Thompson campaign in Iowa and SC is that they worked really hard. His crowds in SC were the most enthusiastic (according to the National Review). However (fairly or unfairly) the media has their horse race with Romney, McCain, Rudy, and Huck.
The media labeled Fred from the beginning for starting too late. In politics perception is reality. Unfortunately for most Americans they can't be bothered to parse perception from reality. Despite the fact that Fred's SC debate performance was the strongest showing by any republican.
Welp, I guess that's one way to look at it.
But the way I see it is that Fred was counting on perception over reality: the campaign bus proclaiming him the "Law and Order" candidate, his wife's phony law degree, the references to his "John Wayne persona."
In the end, what people saw was a geezer.
Reality is that Fred DID start too late. He was coy and cutsie-pie with that "will-he, won't he" deal that ground on all summer, and people I know who were Fredheads got truly tired of it. He's too old, ugly and tired to play the "Beg me" game.
His excuse in Iowa was that he was concentrating on South Carolina, "my home territory," and now he's out of excuses.
That explains the fact that Bush wasn't thrown out on his ear in 2004 and why there hasn't been an impeachment proceeding.
And now, a word from our sponsors...
____________________________
With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.
What was that speech about yesterday? I was mainly watching sports last night, but I did flip to election coverage every now and then.
I saw Thompson going up to give a speech very shortly after the polls closed. "That's not a good sign when you are giving a speech with only 3% of the precincts reporting," I thought.
I watched it for a couple of minutes, but it didn't seem to be going anywhere, so I moved on.
I flipped back to MSNBC a bit later. Someone said that they talked with a senior Thompson campaign person right before the aforementioned speech, and allegedly that person had no idea what Thompson was about to say.
Bizarre.
Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.
Fred Thompson had three things working against him:
1) Expectations were too high, that he was the second coming of Ronald Reagan for Republicans.
2) His heart wasn't really in it. Sure, he gave some great debate performances but he had no taste for retail campaigning.
3) He got in too late and never set up the ground game necessary to build up support over the long haul.
Remember, the media initially loved him (remember the Aqua Velvet sexy comments). It was Bob Novak of all people who first clued the country to his underwhelming reception among conservatives. If you read the National Review on why they didn't endorse Thompson, it's quite embarrassing really. They said Fred didn't seem to care about anything - showed up late, had no specifics at the time, etc. It was the conservative media that turned on Fred first - Fox News ($1000 loafers), Novak and NR. Only later, when Fred failed to build on any real momentum that the mainstream media piled on.
here's a hilarious link about Fred:
Link...
Post new comment