Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Posted on 01/06/2008 5:18:29 PM PST by jdm
From the article: “but conceded the plan hinged on a fundraising boost to his cash-poor campaign.”
Fred never said his campaign was cash poor. What he did say is that he expected to receive a fundraising boost after the debates which would help a great deal in South Carolina
to get his message out.
What’s your goal here? Do you have one?
I’m waiting for you to go away and never return.
GO FRED!
Of course Thompson should have responded to it, and he did. I did not suggest otherwise. I was pointing out the article writer’s furtherance of the damage and inaccuracy by her choice of words. If the writer wished to convey the facts without inserting a personal dig, she could have done so. The English language is rich with options, and presumably a CNN reporter has command of them. Even the word “reports” was charged with innuendo. A more accurate reporter without an agenda would have referred specified “an unsourced rumor on a blog.”
I was quoting from the article.
It’s always about Mitt Romney.
It is theoretically possible the reporter deliberately misconstrued a discussion with Thompson. If so, I would expect that by now one of you would have a quote from the campaign saying the statement in the article was incorrect.
However, barring that, you should know that a reporter will interview a candidate, and then write a summary of what they discussed, with one or two quotes that he finds interesting. The editor will review the story with the transcript of the conversation to verify that the reporter is accurately portraying what was said in the conversation.
So except when a reporter and editor have deliberately decided to lie, a statement that “he conceded the plan inghed on a fundraising boost to his cash-poor campaign” indicates that he said something about being short on money (but didn’t use the term “cash-poor”, because the reporter would quote that).
The story also provides a factual hook to bolster their reporting — namely that the campaign “went dark”. Now, is that true or not? It’s not easy for us to check, but pretty easy for a reporter. I don’t know it’s true, but this isn’t a “politico” article.
I don’t think everything CNN writes is true, but at this point nobody has provided evidence that the reporter lied about what was said.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
My goal was to point out that over the past week, several freepers whose only sin was to point out what seemed to be a pretty well-reported claim that the Thompson campaign was short of cash were not simply told they were wrong, but were personally insulted, called liars and shills, and subjected to namecalling and other assaults on their character.
And here a few days later the candidate says the same thing they were saying. But there will not be a single apology given to any of those who made the statements previously, even though they are our fellow freepers and companions for the conservative cause.
For the record, I’ve never made a claim about the current state of the Thompson campaign, other than to joke with the fred supporters as to what reason Fred would tell people he needed money to put up an ad in south carolina if he already had six million in the bank for south carolina — why not just run the ad and tell people he needed money to continue past that point?
Thompson was real tonight.
Romney was too slick. He did not win in my opinion. I just don’t trust him. Can’t really tell you why.
Just don’t trust Romney!
It worked perfectly for Clinton. But Clinton had a lot more cash.
Sigh.
It did not have to be this way. If he had done the hard work a year ago that others have been doing, he would have a fund raising network and some capacity to generate poll numbers that come from media buys.
The really crushing part of this is South Carolina has extremely low media buy pricing. And Florida’s enormously expensive Miami, Tampa and Jacksonville markets are just 10 days after South Carolina.
SC is not winner take all. The delegates will be split there. He will not emerge from it the delegate leader even if he wins. He will have spent everything and there will be 10 days not just to solicit money with some extra coverage, but also collect, get ads made and ad slots bought and paid for.
It can’t happen. He’ll have to concede Florida too. Rest assured the winner in Florida will erase any coverage juice a South Carolina winner might get. I just don’t see how he gets from point A to point B no matter how vibrant his message. No one will hear it.
He’d have more money to use where he needs it if he hadn’t wasted so much in Iowa.
A year ago he wasn't even planning on running for President. The "Draft Fred Thompson" campaign hadn't even started yet. This is the very beginning of the Fred Thompson list on FR. It wasn't until about March 10, 2007 that he first let it be known he was considering running. So, you think he should have been raising money before he even put out feelers to see if there was enough interest?
Very nice!
>>
So, you think he should have been raising money before he even put out feelers to see if there was enough interest?
>>
The professionals still without jobs when he got around to hiring them could simply not have been the cream of the crop. And that cream had all the other candidates staring at the calendar and the reality that these caucuses and primaries have moved forward several weeks from where they were in 2000. Additionally, the nature of Super Tuesday, its content, and the reality of Guilliani winning Winner Take All NY, was focused on by that same cream of the crop — and they said START NOW.
What Thompson should have done? If the thought of maybe running didn’t occur to him until March? He should have said no talked to people who were not looking for a job, got the correct advice, and said no. It was too late to have the money to be competitive.
It would take a miracle now for him to accumulate a majority of delegates. He can’t fund LA. He can’t fund Chicago. He can’t fund NYC. It would take a miracle of a magnitude of assassinations of his competitors.
I will say this. If simply Texas voted earlier than March, there might be some vague rationale he could imagine for a path to some modest number of delegates to take to the convention. But . . . it doesn’t.
He had an interview today (can’t remember with whom) in which he said his campaign has raised “hundreds of thousands” of dollars since the Iowa caucuses. That’s good news, but we can’t quit now.
Your unbroken streak of ignorant statements continues!
Congratulations!
None of the candidates have, or will have, the funds to advertise heavily enough in those markets to make a difference. Not Rudy, not Mitt, and not Fred. It's a moot point. Free media is king.
Even if a candidate did have the money, they'd spend it in markets where they could get much more bang for their buck.
You, sir, are one more tiny bit of evidence that a million monkeys typing on a millions keyboards (aka "the internet") doesn't even result in a half-witted political analysis.
From the reports I have seen, no one on the R side has money (save Romney, who has had to loan his campaign serious money at least twice.) Fred’s fundraising seems to be at about $1M/week at the moment. I am pretty sure that Huckabee, McCain, and Hunter are on fumes. Much of the Republican money seems to be waiting for things to thin out. All that seems to be coming in now is the individual small donations. I think he’ll get his money by Friday for that ad buy. We’ll see.
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.