I said as much yesterday morning in my debate analysis, but Rush backs me up (note: the link will more than likely move behind the members-only wall later today):
It was fascinating to me, as I said, to watch this because it hit me upside the head — even though, as I say, I instinctively knew this — that all of the top-tier candidates, because of these questions… See, there’s always a silver lining in everything. There’s always an upside. Some of you might not think of this as an upside or a silver lining, but the genuine moderate as opposed to conservative aspects of three of the top-tier, four of the top-tier candidates were on full-fledged display last night. There was one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism or have any of his past forays into those areas displayed, and that candidate was Fred Thompson.
He goes on to say that this isn’t an endorsement of Fred at all, that he doesn’t do that during the primaries…but it sure as heck sounds like one to me. =)
My only real problem right now with Fred (and I’ve mentioned this before, a couple of times) is that he hasn’t displayed a real desire to win this thing. You just get the impression that it’s “something to do”, that his heart really isn’t all that into it. If that’s the case, then I can’t support him (which I’ve also said before).
Rush makes the point that you don’t get into a Presidential race unless you’re serious about it, that Fred just has a different personality than the others, etc. On that point, I’m not so sure. We’ll see, I suppose.
Popularity: 7% [?]



RSS Feed
























































“My only real problem right now with Fred (and I’ve mentioned this before, a couple of times) is that he hasn’t displayed a real desire to win this thing. You just get the impression that it’s “something to do”, that his heart really isn’t all that into it.”
I have two questions for you, based on your comment.
What do you base this perception on, and what could Fred do to redress this concern you have?
Mind you I am not necessarily in agreement with your statement, I only am interested in your line of thought.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:40 pmI’ve watched him in the debates or in interviews and whatnot, and I just don’t get the impression that he’s really all that into it. It’s just a personal observation (and others have seen it, too). I just don’t get the feeling that he’s really serious about this. I can’t really explain it because, as I said, it’s just a gut feeling I get when I watch him. He just doesn’t give the impression that he’s passionate about it like, say, Huckabee, Romney, or Giuliani.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:04 amBrian-
Allow me a chance to address your concerns. Firstly, with regards to the “passion” issue, or lack thereof- passion is a desire contained with a person, but not necessarily outwardly exhibited. Throughout his career, Fred has been passionate about rolling back big government, defending the Constitution, and promoting individual freedom. While he may not give jump up and down and give animated speeches, he is at least as “passionate” as any other candidate in terms of his defense of liberty and our Constitution. Think for a second of college football coaches- some are rah-rah Pete Carroll types who run up and down the sidelines, and some are stern, serious, tough guys who mean business- Fred is of the latter variety- but that by no means makes him less “passionate” than the other candidates. He is not subjecting himself to the rigors of the campaign trail for his health, you know.
He is entirely serious about this race and winning it, do not believe otherwise. How do I know? I have seen him 3 times in person on the stump here in South Florida. He gave a great stump speech each time and was well received by the audiences at each venue. The MSM have talked down his appearances in their reporting or have intentionally underestimated the people at his public events- for example, Fred held an event in Penscola- the media reported the attendance at less than 100, but in actuality the crowd was greater than 300. And this is just one of many stories were the media have downplayed or panned his appearances. Unless you are privy to attending one of his events or get a first-hand account from an unbiased source, everything you read or see about Fred is being filtered through the biases of the mainstream media, who are collectively trying to tear him down.
What I would remind you and your other readers is that all this talk about Fred being “lazy” or “uninspiring” or “lackluster” or “lacking energy” on the stump or in the debates is nothing more than a persistent mainstream media meme with which they are trying to forever bury Fred Thompson with- this “lazy” meme which was never associated with Fred Thompson before June of this year.
Gannett News Service confirmed that the number of Fred’s campaign appearances rival those of his opponents. A search of the Lexis-Nexis database shows 1 record of the word “lazy” mentioned in a document with Fred Thompson- and it was in a completely unrelated context.
IMO, many people’s perception about Fred’s “lack of energy” or other flaw stems from the fact that Fred does not talk very fast- he ambles, and he is deliberate with his speech. Why so many people view that characteristic so negatively is indicative of the fact that too many people within our frenetic culture do not value people who actually think before they talk- and they deem people who do not talk quickly as either slow, boring, or dumb.
Brian, he is not just mailing this campaign in, laying back, and expecting to win, as much as the MSM would love for you to believe it. He knows it will be have to be earned in the face of a hostile media environment. But when it comes down to it, Fred is the only candidate who has the principles, the record, and the elecability to be a victorious candidate in November; the only candidate who can keep all the disparate coalitions which compromise the Republican Party in place.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:46 pm