In answer to Mark Finkelstein's question here on Newsbusters, "How Will MSM Take on Thompson?", we may be seeing some possible angles of attack warming up. I won't claim to know the definitive answer, but Mark's question got me to taking an occasional look to see how the MSM is approaching Senator Fred Thompson and I think that we might be seeing a few trial balloons on that subject.
Balloon #1 - Thompson is a traitor
As I chronicled in my last Newsbusters piece about New York Times TV writer, Alessandra Stanley, who poked at the good Senator over his leaving the TV show upon which he played a part, one line of attack says that Fred Thompson is not to be trusted because he is letting down the producers of the TV show. Since the show is in ratings trouble, his leaving looks like some sort of traitorous move as far as Stanley is concerned... not that anyone ELSE sees it, of course.
Balloon #2 - Thompson is a Bad Friend
This one is another stab at Thompson's supposed disloyalty. The UK's Timesonline is centering their attack on the fact that Thompson was once a very vocal supporter of John McCain's bid for the Oval Office, yet now he is "stabbing him in the back" by turning around and running for that same office himself.
As far as I am concerned, anything that dims McCain's chances is good for the country.
Balloon #3 - Thompson is Lazy
With this one, I think we have the winner as I have seen this line thrown off a few times, though this is the first time I've seen a full story on the charge. Newsweek has come out full bore on Thompson's supposed "laziness".
Does Fred Thompson have what it takes to be president? The former senator turned "Law & Order" actor, who launched an exploratory committee last week, has been dogged by rumors that he doesn't have the work ethic for a long campaign. "The book on him is he's lazy," David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union, said last week.
This goes back to the "fire in his belly" business that came up a month or so ago where some detractors were saying he didn't have the drive for the campaign. The Newsweek article does give voice to Fred's supporters, at least.
"Anyone who says he's not a hard campaigner doesn't know what they are talking about," Tennessee GOP chair Bob Davis...
Still, here are the three attacks I am seeing so far, with the last one being the most prevalent.
So, I don't know if this is an answer or not, but it is a heads up on what to look for in the future.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What the heck qualifies him to be president?
June 3, 2007 - 23:49 ET by takingmyconstitutionalHow about there isn't much there there? So the guy spent a term in the Senate and 20 years as a lobbyist. What has he done, exactly, that makes outstanding enough to serve as president of the United States? After six years of a president who is all hat and no cattle, I would hope the media will not let a candidate with a red pickup truck image and little substance get a free pass.
Hey, if serving in the Sena
June 3, 2007 - 23:53 ET by Free StinkerHey, if serving in the Senate was good enough for JFK . . .
And one term in the Senate
June 4, 2007 - 05:08 ET by motherbeltAnd one term in the Senate is apparently enough for Clinton, and Edwards. And only two years in the Senate is supposedly enough for the Obama...
It's ideology that will make
June 4, 2007 - 00:01 ET by liberal_bug_zapperIt's ideology that will make or break a presidential candidate for me. If he is a true conservative, and holds fast to his conservative values... then he has my vote. Because none of the others are conservative enough for me. For some reason, they think they need to compromise... compromise is for the weak. I say, smash them all!!! Never compromise, never make a deal, and never settle for anything less than 100% of what you want. And always make sure the other guy also gets nothing. Any true conservative will agree with me... anyone else is a liar.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
compromise is for the weak.
June 4, 2007 - 05:26 ET by motherbeltcompromise is for the weak. I say, smash them all!!!- LBZ
Damn Skippy!! Republicans talk cooperation and cave in. Democrats talk cooperation and go for the jugular.
You have to deck your opponents.....Hillary Clinton
So the guy spent a term in th
June 4, 2007 - 00:49 ET by carolina conservativeSo the guy spent a term in the Senate...
Actually, he's got a term plus two years as he finished out Al Bore's term when he became VP. That's 8 years in the Senate. Should be plenty of time for the media to dig for dirt.
Well, there's alot of people
June 4, 2007 - 01:11 ET by DBWWell, there's alot of people punching Obama's ticket, and he has no experience whatsoever. Is that what you are trying to compare him to?
On FNS 6/3 Fred said he calle
June 4, 2007 - 02:05 ET by rustybxOn FNS 6/3 Fred said he called McCain to ask his opinion. McCain said "come on in, the water's fine". Sounds like their friendship is OK.
The 2 old friends need to h
June 4, 2007 - 03:53 ET by sarcasmoThe 2 old friends need to have a long talk about politics and free speech, IMO. Preferably on FNS or similar, so worried people like me can closely monitor both of 'em...
JMR
Personally, the less I hear f
June 4, 2007 - 04:01 ET by Warner Todd HustonPersonally, the less I hear from John McLame, the better! He needs to just fade away before he does anymore damage!
I'm referring to one of Tho
June 4, 2007 - 04:10 ET by sarcasmoI'm referring to one of Thompson's few soft spots, which is support for McCain Feingold. Thompson has some explaining to do with First Amendment absolutists like me, and Freddy-boy might even need to modify stuff like his VP selection credentials in order to live articles like this down. Free speech is, for some of us, a VERY deadly serious issue, and getting on the wrong side of us on that issue can be politically painful like being locked in a car trunk with an entire family of raccoons might be physically painful, if you know what I mean...Also, let me be the first to say that I'm shocked...SHOCKED, to hear of anyone who is in both the politics business & the acting business accused of being "lazy." ;) Besides, if spending's any measure of results, America's lobbyist-corps is working harder for us and our grandkids than ever!
JMR
But Fred came out and publica
June 4, 2007 - 04:39 ET by SouthJersey1953But Fred came out and publically said it was a mitake to vote for McLame-Fiengold. A man that is able to admit his mistakes instead of dancing around them sounds good to me.
No RINOs in '08 - Thompson/Hunter would be a good ticket; Thompson/Steele would be a great ticket
I've heard he's said that, bu
June 4, 2007 - 05:26 ET by sarcasmoI've heard he's said that, but....
1. It needs to become part of his stump speech, which
2. Also needs to include plans -- explicit, tail between the legs retreat type of plans Fred ain't gonna like talkin' about so I'm pressing now -- on how to repair the damage he did with that First Amendment impaired vote.
Admitting mistakes is a start, but real men who would be qualified for the Presidency can make plans to actually fix their mistakes. McCain/Feingold is a censorious abomination which should not be left there to fester simply because it was mistakenly allowed to exist, and Fred needs to make that clear, over and over, if he actually believes it. If he doesn't really believe it, he's going to try to change the subject from "how I'll fix my mistake." I'm open-minded, but I remain to be convinced by his words so-far.
JMR
I understand why McCain/Fieng
June 4, 2007 - 08:29 ET by BruzillaI understand why McCain/Fiengold was enacted. There were too many instances of Big Money groups coming into a campaign right before an election and dropping huge sums of money on one side that precluded debate from the other side. It was in effect enabling the outright buying of an election, and that's a bad thing regardless of which party is doing it. And with George Soros and other billionaires wandering about dropping millions here and there, I'm not so sure M/F is a bad thing.
Was M/F executed the right way? No, as it bans all last-minute spending, and that's not a good thing either. If Thompson comes out and speaks plainly on the issue, as he usually does, I'm confident this will be a non issue.
How is M/F not a bad thing?
June 4, 2007 - 09:05 ET by sarcasmoHow is M/F not a bad thing?? I don't get it. Just because congresscritters don't like election outcomes or don't like bigtime lobbyist-induced political speech spending is no reason to ignore the 1st amendment. Want less of it? Make government spend less, instead of making more idiotic laws! As long as there's disclosure I'm fine with the Micheal Huffingtons of this world wasting millions on political speech, win or lose the elections. I'm not fine with M/F at all, for a variety of reasons. It needs to go away, and unless Fred admits that, and does all he can to reverse the damage he and others caused, he's gonna have issues...
JMR
How is M/F not a bad thing?
June 4, 2007 - 10:15 ET by BruzillaHow is M/F not a bad thing? Good question. Let's say you and I are running against one another for Governor. You're running ads against me saying I'm a dork, and I'm running ads against you saying you're a butthead. Typical political stuff. Then a few days before the election I have a buddy, we'll call him George S., and he buys up $10,000,000 worth of air time to air "allegations" that you embezelled money from work, slept with your sister/brother, put kittens in microwaves, or some other sort of nonsense. The claims are not true, but you don't have the time to respond to those inquries even if you did have the money to. Also, George S.'s ads are clogging up all the airtime and print space.
Yes, it is free speech, yes it is protected speech, and but it's also 100% fabricated BS that at sometime, well after the election, will be shown to be false. And then my camp will point to George S. as being irresponsible for airing allegations without investigating them first, and I'll personally apologize to the Sarcasmo campaign as I'm getting sworn into office.
I like the concept of M/F because it forces people to show their hands while there's still enough time and resources for a candidate to effectively respond. If someone wants to accuse you of nuking kittens, let them make that charge with four or five months to go, not at the eleventh hour. Does that restrict free speech for a very few people and for a very short time? Yes... but like most other freedoms there are some that can get twisted into processes that are bad for our country, and I think the use of big bucks to stage last minute attacks based on BS are bad for our country.
He needs to just fade away
June 4, 2007 - 05:17 ET by motherbeltHe needs to just fade away before he does anymore damage!--WTH
Amen to that, Warner!! I can't take any more of his "reaching across the aisle", his idea of which is to do what the Democrats want, and do it first!
What the heck qualifies him
June 4, 2007 - 04:53 ET by Jack BauerWhat the heck qualifies him to be president?
That's all you need accvording to the Constitution.The rest is up to the American electorate.
Okay -- but as you seem to be talking about what you personally think shouild be a candidate's "qualifications," why not list what you think "qualifies" anyone to run for President..
Help us out here?
How about #1. Service in the armed forces? Should that be a "qualification?"
I think, based on experience,
June 4, 2007 - 05:34 ET by sarcasmoI think, based on experience, that any military service by a particular candidate will be denigrated by opponents regardless of the facts, and therefore I'd oppose changing the Constitution's qualifications in any way.
JMR
hey sarc-- I just threw tha
June 4, 2007 - 05:40 ET by Jack Bauerhey sarc-- I just threw that out there as a possible "qualification" in the minds of some voters. Just to establish a benchmark of what our newbie poster was thinking
I think it's best to leave individual citizens to decide who they think is best qualified by their criteria.
That's the idea of primaries to select the best qualified party candidates and general election for the voters' choice, isn't it?
As an aside, don't you think it's interesting that the constitution specifically establshes that it is okay to discriminate against a citizen based on their age?
Well, I've been a 25 year o
June 4, 2007 - 05:58 ET by sarcasmoWell, I've been a 25 year old, and I've been a 35 year old, and for a job as important as the Presidency I much prefer the older version of sarcasmo -- not that I'd ever want the job, since I'm personally more inclined to be a monarch/dictator. My main point was about the sometimes bogus/ironic denigration I've seen right here on NB of some military service. Whether it's George Bush serving in the Air National Guard or Ron Paul's service as a USAF Flight Surgeon it's equally bogus, and sometimes my resentment from past threads pops up randomly on present ones when I'm in a pre-caffienated mood, but it's certainly nothing you've ever done. Ahhh...Coffee taking effect....
JMR
I usually find your posts i
June 4, 2007 - 06:22 ET by Jack BauerI usually find your posts interesting, and generally well reasoned from your prespective. Don't always agree with your conclusions -- but so what!!
I think western democracies made a major error in having such a low voting age. 35 minimum would be my choice. 18 is absurd.
Well, rationally that may b
June 4, 2007 - 06:46 ET by sarcasmoWell, rationally that may be the case, but politically it's not palatable because the 18-34 year olds tend to be the only ones well-suited for the important component of military service which includes "getting shot-at"! :)
JMR
I am wholly against making mi
June 4, 2007 - 06:53 ET by Warner Todd HustonI am wholly against making military service a requirement for anything. The Founders were just as adamant against such a thing and for good reason. Making military service some sort of requirement will more likely bring a single mindedness to all offices than it would diversity of opinion. And military men do not always make the kind of big picture thinker we need in office... especially that of president.
Now, I am not against such service, of course. But I am against making it a requirement in any way.
W.T.H. = What the hell? or Warner Todd Hudson?
June 4, 2007 - 08:09 ET by The Wicked ConservativeAnd military men do not always make the kind of big picture thinker we need in office... especially that of president.
Yeah you're probably right, just a bunch of robots right. Probably all patriotic and junk like that. Hillbillies and such.
But hippies, hippies make some good "out of box thinkers!"
Don't single the military out there Warner. If you want to find people of resolve and charachter that'd be the first place I look.
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
[quote]Yeah you're probably r
June 4, 2007 - 09:18 ET by Warner Todd HustonYou truly are a moron.
"And military men do n
June 4, 2007 - 08:21 ET by MightyMouth"And military men do not always make the kind of big picture thinker we need in office... especially that of president."
Warner, Please tell us jon carry was holding a gun to your head while typing that sentence?? What??
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I think he's right. Lincoln
June 4, 2007 - 08:33 ET by sarcasmoI think he's right. Lincoln fired a hell of a lot of generals before he finally found himself a US Grant, and aside from this President's propensity for perhaps-misplaced loyalty, I don't think things have changed that much since the Civil War when it comes to US military leaders. The Peter Principle survives best in large bureaucracies. Of course, were it up to sarcasmo, all Presidential candidates would be subjected to things like mandatory Texas Hold'em poker games & round-robin chess tournaments (on the clock, of course) to determine personalities and real leadership skills, and we can't have that! Scripted "debates" are so much better for the egos of big media!!
JMR
I was more interested to he
June 4, 2007 - 08:43 ET by MightyMouthI was more interested in hearing why being a military man limits ones ability to see the "big picture". That statement to me is unfounded. And, I think I would rather have a commander in Chief who has served in uniform over one who has not. Having said that, military service for me is desirable in a president, but not mandatory.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I'd want someone with exper
June 4, 2007 - 09:10 ET by sarcasmoI'd want someone with experience in the world of small business, rather than just experience in the world of giant groups (whether military or civilian) because the 2 are different. I'm sure some in the military are able to see "the big picture," (assuming we even define "big picture" the same!) but I'd prefer a candidate with a wide variety of experience, military and not.
JMR
I agree with those requirem
June 4, 2007 - 09:25 ET by MightyMouthI agree with those requirements (actually, more like life experiences). And perhaps Warner was referring to career military candidates as opposed to those who have served at some point in their life. I still think a commander in chief benifits from some sort of military experience (especially combat) when sending troops into harms way. Bill Clinton for example, pulled the troops after the famous Blackhawk Down fiasco. Those troops wanted to go back in and do the job right. Clinton also refused to give those troops armor (which would have saved many US lives) because of "political reasons". No CIC should ever consider politics over the welfare of the troops he puts in harms way. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and now the Dems excel at that bit of politicking!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Personally, I'm for mandatory
June 5, 2007 - 09:23 ET by BeowulfPersonally, I'm for mandatory military service prior to ANY elected office. Patriotism should be THE basic requirement for holding public office, and patriotism is the BASIC reason for military service. Yes, there are many and sundry other reasons as well - education, salary, steady job, etc., but patriotism is THE most basic reason.
As for creating single-mindedness, I also disagree. Military service opens minds. It doesn't close them. People are exposed to other races, places, and cultures that most, especially silver-spoon politicians never experience. Add to this someone who will be making decisions on the use and funding of the military, how can someone who's never served understand the needs and proper utilization, not to mention the RESPECT, of our armed forces?
Finally, there's the discipline imbedded by military service, something well known to be lacking in many of those who've never served. Why do you think employers are so anxious to hire prior military over others?
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Perhaps we could add an America--
June 4, 2007 - 08:59 ET by misterbillPerhaps we could add an America--first to that. The current crop of politicians including the President have deemed that their solution to resolving our neighbors to the south's economic problems is to open our borders to them.
Fred may have a different plan on how to handle the situation. He had better have one if he wants my vote. At the present time, I have heard more good thinggs from him than all the other candidates put together. I did not say more things, I said more good things. He fought back against foolish charges by a man who make shis living denigrating many American values. I am tired of someone who won't fight back.
I would say that one of his b
June 4, 2007 - 09:31 ET by Chidi NwachukhuI would say that one of his biggest successes was lobbying for Banking Deregulation back in the day. That worked out awesome!
TMC, please do a little resea
June 4, 2007 - 10:25 ET by BeowulfTMC, please do a little research before making such blanket statements. Fred Thompson didn't "spend a term in the senate and 20 years as a lobbyist". I think his resume has a couple more entries:
Yes, Fred has senate experience - 2 years of an unexpired term in 1994 and a full term in 1996 (also, during his bid for the full term, he received more votes than any previous candidate for any office in Tennessee history.). He was a member of the Senate Committee on Finance, which has jurisdiction over taxes, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare reform, and international trade. He was a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the National Security Working Group. He was Chairman of the Senate Commitee on Governmental Affairs. He has been a lawyer and a US attorney. He has been a campaign manager. He has been chief counsel to a Senate Investigative Commitee (indirectly responsible for taking down a Republican president - Nixon/Watergate). He has taken down a state governor (TN Dem Ray Blanton). He has been a lobbyist (so he'll know their tricks). When it comes to "been there, done that", Fred has it locked. Who else has such diverse knowledge of the ways of federal government? He has wide and varied experience in both domestic and international politics, and doesn't let party interfere with his job.
Obama has two years as a senator, and some state representation.
Hillary has been in the senate since 2000, with no other political experience - other than pulling Willy's strings.
Edwards has one term as senator, and nothing else (except cashing in as an ambulance chaser).
So who has been getting the "free pass"? I believe this is one time where media and pundit misinformation will be clearly and factually refuted.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
A Comparative Analysis
June 4, 2007 - 07:58 ET by whodatA comparative analysis of Fred Thompson's photos at his announcment ceremony on July 4th (ie fox news photos and say msnbc) will at least reveal the bias...I mean look what they do with President Bush's photos..... Hell they cannot bring themselves to call him president.
Your daily Fred Thompson fact
June 4, 2007 - 08:54 ET by Hero SquadYour daily Fred Thompson fact, just for fun:
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
Hey! you stole my signature.
June 4, 2007 - 10:11 ET by Challenger GrimHey! you stole my signature.
lol
"One lazy afternoon, Fred Thompson felt like whittling. The result: Mount Rushmore."
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Top Ten Reasons GOP Voters Prefer Fred Thompson
June 4, 2007 - 09:04 ET by Daniel DiRitoSee a tongue-in-cheek list of the top ten reasons GOP voters prefer Fred Thompson be their nominee...here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com/2007/06/top_ten_reasons_gop_voters_prefer_fred_thompson.php
Not bad, Dan.
June 4, 2007 - 09:17 ET by RJNot bad, Dan. In poking fun at Thompson's acting career, it manages to provide a pretty good snapshot of the shallow liberal thought-process. ;^>
...and a pretty good whiff
June 4, 2007 - 13:28 ET by dabal...and a pretty good whiff of their fear of Thompson.
;-)
Fred Thompson Attacked before he even started
June 4, 2007 - 09:24 ET by jweaverIt will be a long race for Thompson with the media already looking up dirt on the man. With Dobson's earlier hit, it may be comking from all sides and it will be interesting to see just how the media approaches it ion the long run.
J. Weaver
jweaver.wordpress.com
It's a fairly old media strat
June 4, 2007 - 09:32 ET by CapitalismRulesIt's a fairly old media strategy, the sooner you jump on the back of a Republican running for president, the easier you can discredit him and move on to having fun with the libs' sex romps and progressive agenda. That's what the viewers tune in for, that's what gets the ratings, that's what pays the advertisers and that's what lines their pockets.
Balloon #0.1: Fred Thompso
June 4, 2007 - 10:50 ET by lnthompBalloon #0.1: Fred Thompson once played a bigot on TV so that means he must be a bigot.
Balloon #0.2: Fred Thompson's character on Law and Order doesn't treat women right, so he must not treat women right.
Balloon #0.3: Fred Thompson's character on Law and Order makes questionable decisions about cases to influence the public for his re-election as D.A., so he must be a shady person.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
Daily Kos is already covering the laziness angle.
June 4, 2007 - 16:10 ET by Kaos Klerikhttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/4/113135/8681
Yep, I posted here about a we
June 4, 2007 - 16:38 ET by bigtimerYep, I posted here about a week or more ago with the leftist talking line about seven a.m. here about Thompson being lackadaisical from important talking head Chris Jansing on msnbc.....
It is tooo funny...they may have their long knives out but they aren't going to have anything to carve up....
Poor babies...will not draw a drop of blood with Fred!
Thompson/Hunter '08!
Can't wait until the media have to say President Thompson.....
ROFLMAO!
slamming thompson...why?
June 4, 2007 - 21:58 ET by seanrobinsThere is only one rationale for taking such swipes at Fred Thompson well before he's announced his candidacy - and noting that the swipes come from both parties - and that is the fear that he will be something serious of reckon with.
sean robins
www.seanrobins.com
Exactly sean....Long knives a
June 4, 2007 - 22:05 ET by bigtimerExactly sean....
Long knives are definitely out...he is putting a great team together already.
The next President.....
LOL!
Thompson/Hunter