(PV) A Rocky Rollout For Thompson

[AZXD]

Ah, the savior cometh.
NOT!
It sounds like he should have stayed under his rock.
I find it hard to take anything serious when someone like Hannity stumps him by asking about the other candidates. Obviously he has done no research
Then follows it up the following day by getting stumped on his own talking points

He might be portrayed as the great hope for the Republican party, but ............... He's worse than more of the same. At least the other candidates understand that they are candidates for the Presidential office.

Freddy New Coke!
That's his name!
Will they like him?
Who's to blame?

I though it was bad when politicians fumbled over words.
But it appears Freddy New Coke doesn't even know what to say

A Rocky Rollout For Thompson
By George F. Will
Thursday, September 13, 2007; Page A19

Fred Thompson's plunge into the presidential pool -- more belly-flop than swan dive -- was the strangest product launch since that of New Coke in 1985. Then, the question was: Is this product necessary? A similar question stumped Thompson the day he plunged.

Sean Hannity, who is no Torquemada conducting inquisitions of conservatives, asked Thompson: "When you look at the other current crop of candidates -- Republicans -- where is the distinction between your positions and what you view as theirs?" Thompson replied: "Well, to tell you the truth, I haven't spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions."

He also is unfamiliar with the details of his own positions. Consider his confusion the next day when talk radio host Laura Ingraham asked him about something he ardently supported -- the McCain-Feingold expansion of government regulation of political speech. His rambling, incoherent explanation was just clear enough to be alarming about what he believes, misremembers and does not know.

Thompson said he had advocated McCain-Feingold to prevent, among other things, corporations and labor unions from "giving large sums of money to individual politicians." But corporate and union contributions to individual candidates were outlawed in 1907 and 1947, respectively.

Ingraham asked about McCain-Feingold's ban on issue ads that mention a candidate close to an election. He blamed an unidentified "they" who "added on" that provision, which he implied was a hitherto undiscussed surprise. But surely he knows that bills containing the ban had been introduced in previous sessions of Congress before passage in 2002.

In 1997, Thompson chaired a Senate committee investigating 1996 election spending. In its final report, issued in 1998, Thompson's committee recommended a statutory "restriction on issue advocacy" during "a set period prior to an election" when the speech includes "any use of a candidate's name or image." And in 1999, Thompson co-sponsored legislation containing what became, in 2002, the McCain-Feingold blackout periods imposed on any television or radio ad that "refers to" a candidate for federal office -- a portion of which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in June.

Thompson, contrary to his current memories, was deeply involved in expanding government restrictions on political speech generally and the ban on issue ads specifically. Yet he told Ingraham, "I voted for all of it," meaning McCain-Feingold, but said "I don't support that" provision of it.

Oh? Why, then, did he file his own brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold McCain-Feingold, stressing Congress's especially "compelling interest" in squelching issue ads that "influence" elections?

Most lamely, Thompson takes credit for McCain-Feingold doubling the amount of "hard money" an individual can give to a candidate, which he says reduces the advantages of incumbency. But that is absurd: Most hard money flows to incumbents.

Ingraham asked why government should be telling individuals how much they can give to fund political speech by candidates they support. Thompson replied: "Why should the government . . . tell a loan officer that he cannot accept money from someone trying to get a loan from him . . . and then go ahead and give that person a loan? . . . I mean, it's bribery in the real world."

So he believes, as zealous regulators of political speech do, that political contributions are incipient bribes -- but that bribery begins with contributions larger than $2,300. Which brings us to the financial implausibility of his late-starting campaign.

Suppose he does something unprecedented -- gets 100 people a day, from now until Jan. 1, to contribute the permitted maximum of $2,300. After subtracting normal fundraising costs and campaign overhead, he would still enter 2008 vulnerable to being outspent at least 3 to 1 by his major rivals.

Is there, however, a huge cash value in the role for which he is auditioning -- darling of religious conservatives? Perhaps. But their aspiring darling recently said in South Carolina, "I attend church when I'm in Tennessee. I'm in McLean right now. I don't attend regularly when I'm up there."

"Right now"? He has been living "up there" in that upscale inside-the-Beltway Washington suburb, honing his "Aw, shucks, I'm just an ol' Washington outsider" act, for years. Long enough to have noticed that McLean is planted thick with churches. Going to church is, of course, optional -- unless you are aiming to fill some supposed piety void in the Republican field.

New Coke was announced on April 23, 1985, with the company's president piling on adjectives usually reserved for Lafite Rothschild -- "smoother, rounder yet bolder." Almost 80 days later, the public having sampled it, the company pulled the product from stores. Perhaps Thompson's candidacy will last longer than New Coke did.

[AZXD]

Aw heck, and I thought it might just be the WP giving him a hard time. Chicago says he crashed, burned and is suffering a premature burial!

Oh well .................... It's a good thing there are more to choose from

Thompson shuns talented help
September 13, 2007
ROBERT NOVAKnovakevans@aol.com

Almost immediately after the launch of Fred Thompson's long anticipated presidential candidacy, important neutral Republicans decreed privately that it had crashed and burned on takeoff. Many of these critics had wanted to board the Thompson campaign but were repelled by his ''gatekeepers.'' That helps explain their attitude now, and not merely because of bruised feelings caused by their exclusion.


Thompson's late start in itself is not a fatal flaw. Still, it had been conceded in party circles that when he finally became a candidate, his beginning better be memorable. It was not. While Thompson voiced obligatory conservative slogans in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina, he was not the white knight that worried Republican loyalists desperately desire. His debut might have been more blood-stirring had his gatekeepers not turned away talented helpers.

Thompson's burial, nevertheless, is premature. The conditions persist that caused him, an actor supposedly finished with politics, to emerge suddenly in March as his party's potential savior. The leading Republican contestants -- Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain -- all have a glass jaw in the view of neutral Republican Mike Murphy -- though Murphy says Thompson does as well. The Republican electorate is still looking for a forceful, dynamic conservative that many have thought Thompson might be.

Failure to use the last six months to craft an inspirational, exciting Thompson campaign can be partly explained by the exclusionist attitude by old friends and political professionals in possession of his candidacy. An example of who was excluded is Scott Reed, who ran Bob Dole's 1996 campaign and is regarded as one of Washington's keener political minds. He had contributed to McCain but had not committed to him and was ready to join Thompson's team.

Reed participated in one private meeting with Thompson, but got no further. Three sources told me that the gatekeeper who excluded Reed was Mary Matalin, a longtime Republican operative dating back to George H.W. Bush's campaigns. Matalin did not return my telephone call.

Jeff Bell, an innovative conservative theoretician whose experience goes back to Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign, also wanted to help Thompson. His expertise could be invaluable for a candidate trying to fill the Reagan niche. Bell did not even get as far as a meeting with Thompson, though one was scheduled, abruptly canceled and then not rescheduled. Which gatekeeper kept out Bell is unknown.

Thompson's constricted circle may explain early shortcomings. Failing to perform opposition research on himself, Thompson has been taken by surprise by the dissection of his career. No new initiatives accompanied the unveiling of his candidacy. To skip the Sept. 5 debate in Durham, N.H., while announcing his candidacy on Jay Leno's television program was a startling affront to New Hampshire.

Thompson's great asset remains the collective glass jaw of his opponents. Giuliani is not only a social liberal in a socially conservative party but is burdened with a life story that makes Democrats tremble with anticipation. Romney, who has transformed himself from liberal to conservative on social issues, to many Republicans seems a multi-millionaire investment banker willing to make any deal (though his biggest problem with evangelicals and strict Catholics is his Mormon religion). McCain seemed his old feisty self in the Sept. 5 debate, but on ABC's ''This Week'' last Sunday, he came over as melancholy. So, there is still a void. But can Thompson fill it?

[Frenchy]

ooooh boy!!

NEXT!!

[retired]

No one listened to me earlier this year when I said NBC should hold him to his contract on L&O. and make him return for the next season. I stated then he made a fine D.A.

No, some just jumped on the bandwagon, stating he was the one. Well, now what are we going to do; L&O still needs a D.A. Jack McCoy said he didn't want it. Is it too late for Fred to return. I mean, they haven't killed him off yet have they.

[PackerfanXD]

He still has my vote so far.

[justgotback]

Can you guys post ANYTHING positive about ANYONE other than Paul?

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by justgotback

Can you guys post ANYTHING positive about ANYONE other than Paul?

I'm positive that the Republican front-runners are not much to choose from.
It's gonna be Rudy folks...Read it and weep.

[LUVMYSIGP225]

I would take a quick look and see how Paul is doing in the polls, but almost all networks don't report anything about him, since he has about as many followers as David Duke.

All the networks are covering Thompson because he is going to pass the RINO Giuliani real soon.

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by LUVMYSIGP225

I would take a quick look and see how Paul is doing in the polls, but almost all networks don't report anything about him, since he has about as many followers as David Duke.

All the networks are covering Thompson because he is going to pass the RINO Giuliani real soon.

I believe that's wishful thinking, but good luck.
Bad polls or not...I'll stick with the only true Constitutionalist.

[LUVMYSIGP225]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

I believe that's wishful thinking, but good luck.
Bad polls or not...I'll stick with the only true Constitutionalist.

I honestly have no problem with Ron Paul's views. He looks real good on paper. It would be interesting to see how he performs in office.

I just keep noticing that they are giving Paul ZERO coverage.

I think Giuliani will get beat down. They were interviewing New Yorkers on TV the other day, and they were all hating him. Making fun of him about 9/11 and acting like a hero. I know for a fact that the main core of rural conservative voters aren't buying his city slicker bull$hit.

I'd just as soon see Giuliani go down in a plane crash as anything else. Maybe a doomed flight with Bloomberg. I can't stand the mouse-faced little puke. He was in my town the other day, and it made me physically ill knowing that he was here.