Introducing Fred Thompson

Finally...not much of a surprise.

Now that guy just looks like a President, doesn't he?  :-)

He sure looks a lot better on Law & Order.  Maybe they should just air segments of that as his commercials.  

“The herky-jerky thing he's doing with his head is distracting”. What do you mean this wasn’t a direct attack on him, who else is in the video?

Sheesh what? The only movement in the video is his head and it looks jerky because of the video player.

Why don't you wait until after he is on Leno or announces and actually says something about and issue to talk about? Maybe that Fred’s for the 2nd amendment like most of the party and a good size chunk of the democrats?

I ask again whose ad is it. Give me a break. You’re trying to define Fred and his campaign negatively by one Ad. Maybe Rudy can get on the View in the morning; he might have half a chance to knock Fred off the news, after his visit to Leno tonight.

Now it's to complicated for me to understand, I don't think so but I will try really hard. I know you won't give up but if you don't think the website or the video reflects on the candidate then maybe it's you that is finding it too complicated. I really don't think you find it too complicated nor did I find it hard to read the title of the thread, but hey I wasn't the one who started this thread attacking another republican the day they are suppose to announce their getting in the race.  

I know the difference between a comment on an Ad and one on a Candidate, The Ad isn’t called a “he’s” or “his”.  You wrote---"The herky-jerky thing he's doing with his head is distracting" That’s an attack on the candidate. The thread in my opinion is trying to "introduce" Fred Thompson and his campaign in a negative way to define him and his campaign in a negative way for voters. Hey that’s politics but don't complain when the tables are turned and someone else is attacking Rudy.

Why don’t you just let Fred’s campaign “introduce” Fred?
 

On September 5th, 2007 at 08:37 PM, Dan Fielding said:  "This thread has convinced me Thompson is the only candidate worthy of support.  Not the video so much as the argument."
 
I'm somewhat confused; who's argument are you referring to?  Thompson's, or someone else's in this thread?
 

On September 5th, 2007 at 10:06 PM, Run4cvrlib said:  "I know the difference between a comment on an Ad and one on a Candidate..."
 
Obviously, you don't...
 
This is what IP said:  "At the risk of the FredHeads accusing me of playing favorites, the video on this seems a little odd.  The herky-jerky thing he's doing with his head is distracting, given the complete absence of motion in the rest of the video - he almost looks like he's poking his head through one of those wooden things at the Fair, like this one:  [inserted picture]  And I don't dislike Fred Thompson.  But given that his campaign has argued that his polling has suffered due to low familiarity, this ad isn't exactly how I'd be introducing my candidate to voters in NH."  September 5th, 2007 at 01:17 PM
 
I personally didn't find the head-jerking annoying or distracting, but can see where someone might.  IP is directly referencing the quality of the video, of the ad, something that has so little to do with the actual person in question, that i honestly believe you're being willingly obtuse.  It's almost as bad as the hysteria generated by some apparent Ron Paul supporters.  and by the way, the head-jerking IP is referring to is caused by Thompson, not by any problems with the player or the video.
 
"Hey that’s politics but don't complain when the tables are turned and someone else is attacking Rudy."
 
You mean like you tried (and failed miserably at) doing here?  where you made idiotic, baseless statements about Guiliani somehow conniving to stop all Law & Order shows from airing, that Thompson starred in?  Where IP (with an assist by Mark Sheldon) called you out on your idiotic, baseless accusations?  and you couldn't back them up, beyond stating "Rudy supporters" had made those comments to you?
 
Like IP said in another thread, it's pretty clear you don't like Guiliani, and that you prefer Thompson.  But your knee-jerk, overreaction to someone critiquing this video is mind-boggling...
 
 
 
 
 
 
HG

"Ron Paul, the 'Kucinich' of the Republicans."

Ron Paul is the equivalent of Mike Gravel, not of Dennis Kucinich.

On September 5th, 2007 at 11:41 PM, Run4cvrlib said:  "Baseless statements about Guiliani somehow conniving to stop all Law & Order shows from airing, that Thompson starred in?  Where IP (with an assist by Mark Sheldon) called you out on your idiotic, baseless accusations?"--- That’s what IP posted (maybe you should read the linked post again), I just questioned why they would quite airing the sequels, and what baseless statement did I make about Guilliani? I commented on IP's post and his attempt to spin that story as others did when it came out."
 
I actually did read the thread, a number of times, both when it original was being commented on, and last night, when I quoted you.
 
"I just questioned why they would quite airing the sequels..."  you didn't just question why TV channels would stop airing Law & Order reruns starring Thompson; you went on to state that "This is just more negative spin by Rudy's campaign operatives like all the personal attacks." (from your posting at  July 27th, 2007 at 12:14 PM).  How is that thread a negative spin piece by anyone remotely connected with Guiliani's campaign?  A local elected official, very concerned with election particulars, wondering if airing episodes of Law & Order (with Thompson in them) would trigger an FEC investigation/complaint, thus requiring some "equal time" access to all other candidates.  That's "negative spin by Rudy's campaign operatives" ??
 
just after the sentence I quoted above, you went on to say this:  "Like the attacks on Fred Thompson’s wife (I have been in very few campaigns that the spouse wasn’t concerned and helpful in the campaign) that she is over bearing and running the campaign, running off campaign staff. Rudy’s people and the News Media must really be worried if they are taking such cheap shots. Fred's campaign is taking on campaign staff and growing their organization which always changes as things the campaign move along. I guess they can't find anything big to attack Fred with, it well be really interesting when he really gets in, which I hear won't be long."
 
again, you provide no stories, links, credible basis for belief, etc, for some apparent conspiracy between Guiliani's campaign and "the News Media...taking cheap shots"; to be fair, you don't distinguish between cheap shots against Thompson's wife (again, links or evidence please), or the idea that some TV channels might not want to air Law & Order reruns with Thompson in them (once again, some evidence would help).
 
from later on during that same thread, on July 27th, 2007 at 08:27 PM, Run4cvrlib said:  "That's not a personal attack on Rudy and it's not baseless, it's "foolish" to respond to another campaigns comments and spin, seems like strange way to win an election. As I said a personal attack on Rudy would be like talking about his many marriages, I didn't do that."  Except in being the only one, in that thread, to ever bring up Guiliani's marriages, you are making a comment on it.  You may think you were being restrained, but you were making a backhanded comment on his marriages. 
 
And once again, when pressed for evidence or support on your (baseless) claims, you can't provide any.  Oops, sorry, you did, right here:  "I have not made any personal attacks on Rudy; I have talked about his record. Rudy supporters have made these comments to me."  (July 27th, 2007 at 02:27 PM) and right here, in this thread: "As far as the negative comments that Rudy supporters are making to me. I have many friends in politics and I don't wish to call them out in public. I know people though out the state as I have worked on many state wide campaigns in the last 15 years those people that support Rudy are the ones that have made the negative comments about Romney and others"  So other people told you (which you apparently cannot quote them directly on or reference in any news story, interview, or campaign literature) that Guiliani's campaign was behind all this...that's the best evidence you can muster?
 
That's the functional equivalent of me saying "someone i have known and worked with for the last 7/10/15 years says that the Denver Broncos are going to win the Super Bowl, and i believe him.  I can't directly quote this person, or show you any other evidence, but trust me." 
 
 
once again, if you can't provide evidence or support, just stop making baseless claims.
 
 
 
 
 
 
HG

Why are some GOP voters getting excited about Fred?  Because he seems willing to advance a conservative platform, and has a chance to win.  Nothing really more complicated than that.  If Rudy was pro-life, Fred wouldn't even be getting into the race.  Or if Romney had spent the last 10 years acting like a conservative.  Or maybe even if McCain wasn't so fired up about opening up the border and controlling political speech.

Good point.  It is hard to imagine anyone winning the GOP Primary without support from Pro-Life folks and the NRA. 

On September 6th, 2007 at 10:00 AM, IlliniPundit said:  "...I'm not married to my first choice."
 
I thought that sorta thing was frowned on by many hardcore Republicans anyways....?   :-) ;-)
 
btw, you're welcome; i don't comment regularly (i just like to watch the arguments and counter-arguments), but occasionally, i just can't not call someone on their inconsistency/hypocracy.
 
 
 
Thanks to Dan Fielding for clearing up my confusion...
 
 
 
 
Question to IP and others...IP mentioned that he was hoping for a flip-flop from Guiliani on gun-control issues.  If Guiliani's stance on gun-control (i'm not 100% positive of what it is) was philosophically gounded in much the same way as his abortion position (to wit, that the state's should be deciding it, not the federal government), would you be more accepting of it?  Basically, would Guiliani being consistently "state's rights", as abused and negatively-connotated as that phrase is, be enough to outweigh your distaste for his position on one specific issue?
 
(if that doesn't make sense to anyone but me, i'll try and rephrase it...it's been a long morning...)
 
 
 
 
 
HG

Did anyone catch the New Hampshire GOP primary debates last night on Fox News? I am impressed that Mike Huckabee came in second! I am glad that Fred Thompson is in now! He will be missed on Law and Order though. Maybe they can change the rules and he can still be on Law and Order and be President of the United States. What are the legal rules about that?
My top three picks would be

1. Fred Thompson

2. Mike Huckabee

3. Duncan Hunter

It is time that the GOP clean up its own mess and start standing on principle again. With Guiliani,  you risk having the Republican base stay at home. This led to our defeat in 92, 96, we almost lost 2000, and what led to our defeat in 06.

Fred Thompson stands as a true conservative Republican. So, I am making it official! Fred Thompson in 2008, finally! 

----

Robert Dunn

Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American

"So every time I comment on the campaign of Fred Thompson - whom I like as a candidate, just not as much as you - in a manner that is anything other than overwhelmingly worshipful, that's only because I'm spinning?"

Finally, the clouds of confusion clear for the formerly-befuddled Pundit.

All kidding aside, each of the candidates on the GOP side have deficiencies as candidates and in the running of their campaigns.  These are somewhat exacerbated with the new media.  Many more microscopes focused on more details than ever before in a GOP primary.  The Dems saw this last time and it created some interesting dynamics.  I agree that Thompson's margin for error right now is less than it was for other candidates when they entered, and it should be.  I also believe that the Romney decision to ratchet up his campaign so early, forcing others to do so as well, was not particularly beneficial to the party.  So be it.  I think this will be the most interesting primary that I can recall.

On September 6th, 2007 at 11:18 AM, Run4cvrlib said:  "...IP Spin is spin but you seem to be questioning my creditability..."
 
That was actually me, i believe, in this thread at least.  I'm sure IP, if he actually cares to, can point you to where he questionned your creditability.  Again, I'm questioning your creditability because you have (over a number of threads and multiple times) stated that "This is just more negative spin by Rudy's campaign operatives like all the personal attacks." (from your posting at July 27th, 2007 at 12:14 PM).  Which is what I posted today, at 6:59 AM.  That you were making baseless, evidence-less accusations about Guiliani.  That your support for these baseless, evidence-less accusations was, essentially, that unnameable people somehow associated with Guiliani's campaign have told you these things.  You have no evidence, no memos, no articles, no videos, no press releases, nothing at all, to positively back up your (baseless, evidence-less) claims. 
 
To risk seeming pretentious as all hell, i'll quote myself:  That's the functional equivalent of me saying "someone i have known and worked with for the last 7/10/15 years says that the Denver Broncos are going to win the Super Bowl, and i believe him.  I can't directly quote this person, or show you any other evidence, but trust me."  I hope folks will excuse me for not believing baseless, evidence-less claims.
 
Oh, wait, look!  I found the precise equivalent to my above fictious example:  "so if you want me to start naming a few of the county chairman that have asked me to help Rudy and made the "well you know Romney is a Mormon comment" I will but I don't want to."  leaving aside the confusing grammar (do you mean the current county chair, Weibel; or some former county chair; or maybe a combination of both?  or maybe the county-level campaign manager for Guiliani's Presidential campaign?), once again, you offer no basis, no evidence, no facts, other than "trust me".  And then you bring in another candidate, Romney, to further confuse the issue.  Are you being willfully obtuse?
 
 
And now we come to the final part of your post:  "I think the History Guy should get out more work in a few campaigns read some papers he's missing allot."  First off, congratulations on being the first to throw out the ad hominem statement for this thread (i'm sure IP will be mailing your prize any day now); it warms my heart to know your most effective response to my repeated questions for evidence and repeatedly pointing out your complete lack of evidence, is an ad hominem statement.  Second, you have no idea what i do (let alone believe) politically; you have no idea what i read (papers, news sites, blogs, or tea leaves) on a daily basis; and so far, the only thing i'm missing "allot [sic]" of is why you're so unable (unwilling?) to see IP's initial point:  that constructive criticism of an ad does not equal criticism of a person. 
 
(as an aside, your attempt to discuss "the issues" is a blatant, and poorly executed, attempt to move the topic away from your baseless, evidence-less claims about Guiliani [and me], and your seemingly willfull obtuseness...it ain't gonna work)
 
 
For those scoring at home, here're your totals:
 
Baseless, Evidence-less Statements Made by Run4cvrlib:  somewhere between 2 and 15 (mainly towards Guiliani, and once towards myself)
Requests for Evidence to Support Statements:  somewhere between 12 and 3,479 (divided between myself and IP)
Ad Hominem Statements Made by Run4cvrlib:  1...and counting
 
 
One final request, which i know will fall on deaf ears:  Please start backing up your claims, with evidence, facts, figures, something concrete.  Thank you.
 
 
 
 
 
HG

1. Yes I am anonymous no one knows who I am?

2. I think you should re-read your post I wrote "campaign operatives" (you might be surprised who the Rudy operatives are) But this applies as the Rudy campaign pushing the Mormon attacks. Which the campaign had to apologize for.

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/06/giuliani-campaign-hits-the-mormon.html

3. I think you two are the ones ignoring the elephant here, the comments Gordy made are about Fred, his head movements, that it looks like he should be in a circus figure and so on. Just because you choose to ignore those facts is your problem. 

4. HG you are commenting on campaign issues and questioning someone who has worked on many campaigns when you have no practical experience in campaigns, Some knowledge of the people I know and campaigns might help you understand? Maybe you would have heard some of the same comments I have heard, if you were actually at some of the events I have been too. The only one making snide ad hominem and apparently inexperienced comments is you.

I have not changed to the issues I have always been on the issues. I don't have to go negative whether it's the candidate or the Ad. Fred Thompson is a candidate that has not wavered as a thoughtful Conservative Republican. Fred has had a long career of public service and has been in the Senate working on issue of National Security, Tax Cuts, and Free Trade. He has helped conservative groups, guided Justice John Roberts though the confirmation process among other things since leaving the Senate. He can tell you better then I can.

http://www.fred08.com/FredCast/FredCastSummary.aspx 
 

Goodness sakes, this is one of the least productive and unpolite blogs I have read to date.

Mr. Thompson just entered the race, given a little time perhaps we will know more about his beliefs and reasons for those beliefs.

Statements like he was a do nothing Senator have little or no impact on his ability. No one would ever accuse Nikita Kruschev of being a nanny or do nothing political figure (remember him beating his shoe on the table?) but I can't say I was enthralled with him.

So he makes a brief and polite introduction to the country with this video. We spend 9 pages attacking everthing from the quality of his video to his personal movement. For crying out loud, I don't like Hillary's mannerisms or Obama's lack of forcefullness, but that does not stop me from considering what they have to say.

The Country has difficult choices to make in 2008 and we better damned well pay attention to what is being said, rather than how it is being said or what they look like saying it.

Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles and Joe Crocker did not look good when they sang and they jerked their heads and had funny expressions, but you know what?.......They could sing.

Maybe there are some politicians that have all those negative insignificant traits.........but can lead.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield