Fred Disappoints
Apparently, Fred Thompson has gone from: speculating about continuing to think about considering the possibility of maybe trying to ponder chewing over the prospect of flirting with running for president. Maybe next weekish, if, you know, you’re not busy.
To: announcing that he’s announcing some time soon but after the YouTube debate. Fred, get in before the debate.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:44 am
Well according to imwithfred.com “On September 6, 2007, Fred Thompson will be announcing his intention to run for President of the United States with a webcast available to millions at http://www.imwithfred.com. ”
Plenty of time to get in on the debate
August 31st, 2007 at 9:45 am
Half of me still doesn’t care. Fred is doing nothing wrong – everyone else has jumped in the ring too early. These “debates” are worthless at this point because the majority of Americans simply don’t care right now. It’s red meat for the partisans, that’s all.
The other half of me is getting that sinking feeling that Fred! is a flash in the pan, that he’s not going to be able to deliver what we expect out of him.
You want my honest opinion? No? Too bad, you’re getting it.
Hillary Clinton will be the next POTUS. Fred will fizzle, Ron Paul will still run and suck away enough votes to get Hillary into the office with only 30% of the vote.
August 31st, 2007 at 10:07 am
Ron Paul would suck a lot of Democrat votes too. I know more than a few loony lefties who are enamored with him. Hillary, for the most part, is sensible on foreign policy, which means her party’s base is going to hate her. I would argue Paul could hurt her more.
It’s entirely possible Fred could fizzle, which worries me. Because if it comes down to Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton, it’ll be a tough choice as to which one I hate more. I could vote for Guiliani. I wouldn’t like it, but I could do it.
August 31st, 2007 at 10:42 am
I agree with Robb right up to the point of Hillary winning the election.
I don’t mind that Fred’s non-announcement or delay in announcing. I think that he’s running an unconventional campaign, to position himself as the one truly unique candidate in the race.
Plus, since when do you openly start campaigning for an election four years away? We’ve got tons of resources and media to choose from in evaluating candidates. It usually doesn’t take me that long to make up my mind.
August 31st, 2007 at 10:42 am
I hate to be quite this crude, but shit or get off the pot.
I can perfectly understand gauging interest before you toss your name in the hat – seems perfectly reasonable, and that kind of planning ahead and analysis is always a good thing. However, this whole, “I’m going to announce… I promise… just wait a little while longer… wait… oooh, maybe now… oh, no, not quite yet… hm…,” is getting more than a little old.
August 31st, 2007 at 11:44 am
Judging from the extreme hate from the Left I would say Fred has a good shot. I doubt it matters he has waited so long. I think he is trying to wait out Al Gore. Probably a good strategy. Gore would give Thompson much more trouble than Mrs. Clinton.
No candidate has ever won the Presidency with the very high negatives Hillary Clinton has.
August 31st, 2007 at 12:00 pm
An analysis from a lawyer at Daily Kos
Does any other reason for delaying make sense?
August 31st, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Does any other reason for delaying make sense?
Plenty of other reasons. The main reason is everyone else jumped the gun. Having watched both R and D debates there is little substance yet. It is boring. Look at the ratings for the debates. They are world record horrible.
You cannot make people care. It is the same feeling people have at Thanksgiving when the next day the Christmas decorations go up. People are tired of it.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Linoge Says:
August 31st, 2007 at 10:42 am
I hate to be quite this crude, but shit or get off the pot.
I can perfectly understand gauging interest before you toss your name in the hat – seems perfectly reasonable, and that kind of planning ahead and analysis is always a good thing. However, this whole, “I’m going to announce… I promise… just wait a little while longer… wait… oooh, maybe now… oh, no, not quite yet… hm…,” is getting more than a little old.
Not only is it getting old but it Fred look like he’s indecisive.
On Hillary the dyke. If she wins with a Dem majority in congress I’m certain that we’ll see a major assault on our freedoms. Certainly on the 2nd ammendment.
August 31st, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Just out of curiousity:
“suck away enough votes to get Hillary into the office with only 30% of the vote.”
1. Who’s the 4th major candidate you expect to see? (Gotta have at least 4 major shares of the vote for 30% to be winner)
2. Even winning with _40%_ of the vote would likely be a new record for 3rd party votes (21% minimum?), and frankly, I don’t see Ron Paul pulling anything near that. Low-Ross Perot numbers, at best.
September 1st, 2007 at 12:37 am
Why aren’t you guys voting for him? Scared of voting for freedom? It’s the conservatives who always feed me the bullshit about how great democracy is and how we should spread it at gun point around the world.
September 1st, 2007 at 7:28 pm
“Why aren’t you guys voting for him?”
I cant speak for anyone else but I never said I would’nt vote for him, in fact I will. Hell, Fred’s the only decient choice. The rest are the worst pack of losers I’ve ever seen, in BOTH parties. I’ve seen better people in a line up! I was just pointing out that Fred’s hemming and hawing makes him LOOK indecisive.
September 1st, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Shit I meant to say voting for freedom would be voting for Ron Paul. He is the only defender of the constitution and will liberate this country from the grip of socialism.
September 2nd, 2007 at 3:42 am
Hardcorps: Conservatives aren’t super keen on democracy. This nation’s founders certainly weren’t keen on democracy, which is why they set it up so one man could veto the wishes of nearly 2/3 of Congress, to state just one of many examples.
We’re keen on freedom. You see, there is a big difference, George W. notwithstanding. As for spreading things at gun point: What would you spread, and under which partucular threats if not by gunpoint? Is your life worth maintaining at gunpoint? Your freedom? Is the freedom of millions worth “spreading” at gunpoint, or would you turn your head and see them enslaved and/or murdered?
Should law enforcement be “spread at the point of a gun” or by just saying “pretty please”?
Ron Paul will liberate this country? When, exactly? How, exactly? And with who’s army?
September 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
We are born naturally into a state of freedom. By removing those who infringe upon our freedoms, we will return to a general state of freedom. In regards to what I believe my sphere of “spreading” should be, it concerns only those who share my culture – sort of a libertarian social contract. I am an American and my efforts will only be spent on the betterment of Americans. I also believe in something higher than law enforcement – natural rights. I think government and police should be instituted solely for the protection of these rights and nothing more. Laws were meant to further that endeavor, but many have been enacted for corrupt purposes and so the morality of law enforcement has become corrupt when innocent citizens are imprisoned for doing no harm to anyone.
Ron Paul is already working to liberate Americans from the death grip of socialism by never voting for increases in the size of government, educating our people about the blessings of liberty, and now running for President to further cut back the government from our lives. He will be much more effective by winning Nov. 2008.
The only way he can continue his fight for our freedom is with our support. We are the army of free men in this country. We have the resources, the education, and the ability to return our society to freedom. We currently only lack the courage to do so. But from these blogs and other networking, we are better seeing that free men concerned about preserving our precious liberty are not as rare as we though. There are hundreds of thousands of us who believe in the Constitution and there are millions more who sympathize and support us. For every one free man there are at least 5 in his family who will stand by his side. This is the army of freedom that you and I are part of, and we can achieve our goals if we can only muster the courage and conviction to do so.