Posted on 12/29/2007 1:04:24 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Fred is campaigning hard, even though it’s not something he enjoys. Frankly, I’m tired of “campaigners” who kiss rear ends and want theirs kissed in kind.
The right to vote comes with the responsibility to choose the best candidate for the office. Fred has presented more clear positions on policy than all the other Republican candidates.
That’s real work.
And so?
What’s your point?
This statement by itself, could be excused as a minor campaign gaff. Taken in context of a lackluster, underfunded, mistake prone campaign, I told you so. This is why I take the trouble to check these guys out in person, and make candid reports about what I see. Fred is not serious enough about his own campaign.
How much does Mitt Romney pay a low-level opposition research person like yourself? Are there benefits?
"That is a very good question... Not because it's difficult to answer, but because I'm gonna answer a little bit of a different way than what you might expect. In the first is wanting the opporunity. I wouldn't be here if I didn't. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't. I grew up in very modest circumstances. And I left government and I and my family have made sacrifices for me to be sitting here today. I haven't had any income for a long time because I'm doing this. I figure if you're gonna be clean, you have to cut the [unintelligible] off. And I was doing speaking engagements, and I had a contract to do a TV show, I had a contract with ABC radio like I was talking about earlier and so forth... I guess one would have to be a total fool to do all of those things and to be leaving his family, which is not a joyful thing at all... if you didn't want to do it.
But I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don't do it. I want the people to have the best president they can have. (applause) When his talk first started it didn't originate with me. There are a lot of people around the country and both directly and through polls... liked the idea of me stepping up. And of course, you always look better at a distance, I guess. (laughter) But most of those people are still there and think it's a good idea.
I approach it from the standpoint of a deal... Of kind of a marriage. You know, if one side of the marriage has to be really talked into the marriage, you know, it's probably not going to be a very good deal for either one of them. But if you mutually think that this is a good thing — in this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, the you have the opportunity to do some wonderful things together. I'm offering myself up. I'm saying that if I have the background, the capability and the concern to do this and I'm doing this for the right reasons... but I'm not particularly interested in running for president, but I think I'd make a good president. Nowadays, the process has become much more important than I think it used to be.
I don't know if they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I don't know if they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. Nowadays it's all about fire in the belly. I'm not sure that in the world we live in today, it's a terribly good thing for a president to have too much fire in his belly.
I approach life differently than a lot of people. People, I guess, are wondering how I've been as successful as I've been in everything I've done. I've won two races in Tennessee by twenty points in a state Bill Clinton carried twice. I had never run for office before. I've never had an acting lesson, and I guess that's obvious. (laughter). When I did it, I did it. It wasn't just a lark. Anything worth doing is worth doing well. I've always been a little more laid back than most. I like to say I'm only consumed by very few things, and politics is not one of them. The welfare of my country, and my kids and grandkids, growing up, is one of them. (applause)
If what people really want in their president is a super type A personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about, for years how they can be president of the United States... someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they've enjoyed every minute of campaigning... (laughter) I ain't that guy. (more laughter) [To questioner] So I hope I've discussed that, or I haven't talked you out of anything. I honestly want... I can't imagine a worse set of circumstances than achieving the presidency under a false pretenses, especially if you feel the way I do. I've gone out of my way to be myself, because I don't want anybody to think they're getting something they're not getting. I'm not consumed by this process, I'm not consumed with the notion of being president. I'm simply saying I'm willing to do what's necessary to achieve it if I'm in sync with the people. And if the people want me, or somebody like me, I will do what I've always done with everything else in my life. I will take it on and do a good job. You'll have the disadvantage of having someone who probably cna't jump up and click their heels three times, but will tell you the truth. And you'll know where the president stands at all times."
Interviewees A, B, and C get to the interview on time (maybe even 5-10 minutes early), they have all spent the last couple of years preparing for this day. They have their letters of recommendations together, they have saved the money to make glossy resumes, they have made contacts within the company that are ready to vouch for them, and they all showed up to the company to actually ask for the job.
The board gets together and asks them to describe the greatest threats to the company. They each, in their own ways, describe how the international company Al Queda International plans to come in and change all of this Christian companies rules, and fire anyone that doesn't agree with their philosophies. They also go on to tell the board that they also know of an attempt by an insider, Clinton INC, plans to participate with them by just going along with it (they don't want the conflict entailed in overthrowing Al Queda International). A, B, and C describe exactly how they would prevent Clinton Inc from making their attempt at a hostile take over a reality.
Candidate D comes in, also on time, but states straight out that he is the best man for the job, not because of what he knows (which is nothing) but because the company is a Christian company, and the Lord is guiding him to apply.
Finally along comes candidate F. He is running late (although he does try his best to convince the secretary that he is actually on time, that the others were just early). He comes to the interview, after his wife had called and set it up, laid out his clothes to wear, and driven him into town in their old red pickup truck. The secretary finally leads him into the conference room where the board of directors are waiting.
The first question from the board is "why do you want this job?" He states, that he ain't playing those games, and that he really didn't want to be there (at the interview), but a bunch of people on the internet told him that he would do a great job, so he decided to check it out. When asked about how he would do at the job, he says, "I really don't feel like interviewing, so here is a website for you to go look at with all my "policy papers". You can read them (like all those people on the internet did) and see that he is probably the best for the job, and then make their decision. When asked how he would keep Clinton Inc from succeeding in their hostile take over, he says, well uhh...uhm...it's in the papers, read it there.
Candidate D then stands up and says, I am done with this interview, I know you people want me, so wake me up when you make your decision.
In all reality, who would you give the job too?
Right now, for me, it is going to be either candidate B or C. Candidate A, Rudy, is a no. Period. Romney is a hold your nose and vote for him. McCain is okay in many ways. But, I’m not pleased with really any of those applying for the job.
I have never seen an election where there is so much apathy for the candidates on BOTH sides of the aisle. There are those to rally against, but not those to rally for.
Fred is disappointing. The job ahead of this nation will take steely determination and passion. He isn’t showing either.
Alan Keyes is the best candidate out there philosophically, but comes off as an angry black man and arrogant at times. I do not factor his race into my decision at all. I would vote for him if he had a chance. I’m just saying how he is coming off.
Huckabee isn’t trustworthy. Duncan is good, but not too viable.
So, it is candidates b and c with a prayer that we have more folks passionate AGAINST Hillary or Obama in office than they have for them.
Oftentimes, a passionate person may be easily baited and manipulated. In foreign relations, I would suggest that it is far better to have someone who is concerned about all the appropriate things, but not so passionate about any of them that he could be manipulated to give it undue emphasis.
If there's a mole in your yard, which is better: a dog who will passionately burrow after the mole (causing both the mole and the dog to totally demolish the yard) or a cat who will find the mole hole, sit there, wait for the mole to appear, and then WHAP! The dog may be far more passionate about its job, but the cat would be more effective.
Fred better make a more energetic effort to win the nomination.
You have NO idea what you are talking about. You area simply parroting the lamestream media’s big lie about Fred Thompson.
I am not in Iowa and I have no direct connection to Thompson campaign. MSM is all I got.
Fred Thompson is busting his butt in iowa, and he’s not doing it for the glory. He’s doing it for his country.
That is good to know, thank you.
Now here is the revelation for you, take a deep breath, and try to absorb this: This election is not about Fred Thompson. This campaign is about the future. The future is about who the American people are, and they want an engaged, charismatic leader. I cannot change this rule, no matter how hard I try. Fred’s attempt to make a virtue of his lack of style misses the point of building the team he needs to win. Fred sat on his hands for eight months and did not build a team when others did. If he were so honest with himself, he would have spent more time earlier preparing the groundwork.
Mitt has built a better team.
He didn’t sit on his hands for eight months. That is a common myth the media puts out. He was under contractoral obligation with NBC until September and couldn’t run lest NBC have campaign violations for not giving equal time to the other candidates.
As for the ‘aw shucks’, I take it you didn’t read the full transcript because that wasn’t an ‘aw shucks’ statement, that is only what the media said it was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.