A Second Hand Conjecture

By Fred Thompson. With only the most minor quibbles I not only laughed, but cried. Pretty much dead on:

The sad thing is that it isn’t only “liberal” economists, it is the meat of the profession and plenty of so called “conservative” politicians.

Hat Tip: McQ

No Comments »

Ron Hilton caught some great shots at the McCain/Palin rally in Fairfax, Virginia. He was gracious enough to let us post them here for you:

(more…)

No Comments »

Looks like the big Fred Thompson news is the formation of FredPac. I thought he already had a pac though, so I guess it’s more of a change in mission statement moving forward.

Dear Friend,

The challenges America faces may appear overwhelming. But you and I both know that if we adhere to the founding principles of individual liberty, federalism, and truly limited government, there is no obstacle the American people cannot overcome.

But the forces driving our country away from those First Principles are strong. They demand an ever-increasing growth in government, higher and higher taxes, and a judiciary that makes law and social policy instead of sticking to the wisdom of the Constitution.

It’s clear that we need men and women in Washington and in the statehouses across America who believe, as we do, in the fundamental principles of limited government restricted by enumerated powers.

That is why I an announcing the formation of Fred PAC, a political action committee dedicated to helping elect candidates who stand for the principles you and I hold dear – principles that are the only sure salvation for America.

Please visit our website at www.FredPAC.com. Learn how you can help.

Your support and assistance has meant a great deal to me and my family as we defended America’s First Principles. I know that in the days ahead we will continue in the fight for a strong, free, secure America … together.

Thank you for all you do.

So it looks like Fred is looking for potential mini-Fred’s out there that he can support. I’ll be interested to see what candidates and activities this leads to, but it doesn’t seem like that “major” of an announcement. He was still the star of the convention Tues night I say.

No Comments »

I tuned in for a little bit and here are some thoughts.

• ABC, NBC and CBS showed it in SD, while CNN had it in HD. Dunno why.
• ABC was behind. They had Thompson speaking while the other networks had Lieberman.
• Thompson had a great speech. Had some great sarcastic rebuttles to Obama’s tax policy. Still wish he was the Republican candidate.
• I think his loudest applause came from his remarks that protecting our unborn and newborn children isn’t above McCain’s payroll though.
• Lieberman is kind of boring, I’m switching back to baseball.

2 Comments »

Just got this email from the Fred Thompson PAC.

Friends,

At this crucial moment in our nation’s history, it is vital that we adhere to the fundamental conservative principles that have unified us for over two centuries. On Monday, September 1, Senator Fred Thompson will announce a major new effort to ensure that these conservative principles are supported and defended across our country and at every level of government.

Please stay tuned and join Senator Thompson as he unveils this exciting endeavor.

Not sure what this is about. Perhaps some sort of conservative organization he’s starting/joining?

No Comments »

Well, Fred wasn’t in the game. It seems to me, that both he and Rudy damaged their campaigns by not entering and participating early enough. We don’t get to vote in a primary here in Indiana for a couple of weeks, and I have a feeling the Republican nominee will be locked in by then.

Glenn has a few interesting links…

http://instapundit.com/archives2/014970.php

After seven years of watching and fighting against Americans who wish to see the country suffer so that they can get at George Bush, the last thing I wanted or expected to see was conservatives saying they would rather see the country suffer than support John McCain over Clinton or Obama, so that they can “get the blame.”

A retreat before victory is assured in Iraq cannot be undone in 2012. And mandatory, single-payer, universal health care, once established, will not EVER go away either.

Good point to remember come November, the choice isn’t between two evils, it’s between the less then perfect Republican, and the far less perfect Democrat. Who matches more closely to your view on issues? That’s who you should think about voting for.

Glenn also says “To me this seems like much ado about nothing. McCain and Romney are both moderate Republicans; the differences between them have been exaggerated by those who don’t like McCain, and don’t have much bearing on what’s good for the country.”

He also linked to the Corner, where Stephen Spruiell remarks about McCain’s speech last night. I wasn’t watching any coverage last night. We watched NCIS and House, then watched the local weather radar when the Super Duper thunderstorms that moved through our area. So, I looked up McCain’s speech on his website, and it reads pretty good. It will also be interesting to see his reception at CPAC. Given all this I would probably support McCain in the general election. I don’t know what choices I’ll have for the primary in Indiana, so we’ll see the day of what I do.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/Read.aspx?guid=dd8d63d6-c35b-4af7-9684-cf8e9bcb118f

if I am so fortunate to win your nomination, I will work hard to ensure that the conservative philosophy and principles of our great party — principles that have done so well by the country we love — will again win the votes of a majority of the American people, and defeat any candidate our friends in the other party nominate. I am as confident tonight as I have ever been that we can succeed in November by uniting our party in our determination to keep our country safe, proud, prosperous and free, and by again making a persuasive case to independents and to those enlightened members of the other party that the great Ronald Reagan claimed for our party.

We will do it by standing up forcefully for those principles that have made our party and our country so successful, and by rejecting appeals for retreat and timidity in the face of the challenges of our time, challenges which are our duty and privilege to overcome. If I am the nominee of our party, I will not let anyone take this country backward to the days when government felt empowered to take from us some of our freedom to decide for ourselves the course and quality of our lives, or when we turned away from threats to our security that were so plainly gathering strength abroad. I have lived my adult life with one purpose greater than all others: to keep America safe from all enemies foreign and domestic. And I will never tire of the honor.

I am a Republican because, like you, I want to relieve the American people of the heavy hand of a government that spends too much of your money on things you neither want nor need, while failing to do as well as we should the things none of us can do individually. I am a Republican because, like you, I believe government must defend our nation’s security wisely and effectively, because the cost of our defense is measured in losses so hard to bear and in the heartbreak of so many families. I am a Republican because, like you, I believe government must respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; and enforce the rule of law, which is the first defense of freedom. I am a Republican because I believe the judges we appoint to the federal bench must understand that enforcing our laws, not making them, is their only responsibility. I am a Republican because I believe, like you, that government should tax us no more than necessary, spend no more than necessary, and keep out of the way of the most industrious, ingenious, and optimistic people in the history of the world . I am a Republican because I believe, like you, that it is the strength, courage, wisdom and patriotism of free people — not the government — who have made this country the extraordinarily successful place it is. My friends, my purpose is to preserve and strengthen our freedom, the freedom I have defended all my adult life, and I will not let anyone or anything deter me.

Nothing in America is inevitable. We are the captains of our fate. We can overcome any challenge as long as we keep our courage and stand by our principles. I intend to make my stand on those principles, and trust in the judgment of the American people I serve. So stand up with me, my friends, stand up, and together let us put America — her strength, her ideals, her future — before all else. It is an honor greater than all others to serve this country, the love of my life, and I thank you from the bottom of heart for helping me serve her a little while longer.

Thanks to Glenn Reynolds and Gateway Pundit for taking note! Check out Lee’s take on the ecumenical reform coalition. While you are here ponder Europe and the non-economic man, take a quick presidential quiz and see who you really agree with. Do some candidates supporters pose a public safety threat? Explore the African Oil Boom and ask yourself why this isn’t on more people’s radar?

UPDATE:

Another good point linked from Glenn, Ilya Simon @ The Volokh Conspiracy

Many conservatives either supported or at least refused to aggressively oppose the Bush Administration’s massive expansion of domestic spending, most notably his prescription drug and education plans. They did so in part because conservatives for a long time felt a sense of affinity with Bush and trusted him. There is very little such trust between conservatives and McCain. It will therefore be much more difficult for him to win conservative support for comparable boondoggles.

That, combined with the restraining influence of divided government, will make it much harder for McCain to enact major new statist policies than it was for Bush during the years when he had a Republican majority in Congress. McCain might even end up emphasizing his anti-spending instincts in order to shore up conservative support.

18 Comments »

This was a post better suited for yesterday and Fred’s withdrawal, but I suppose I let myself get distracted without posting it. It should go without saying that while I was unsurprised by the event, it was nevertheless disappointing. But not so much because we are now bereft of any reasonable alternative in the Republican field, but because it seems to confirm that registered Republicans by a large margin, are using unwelcome criteria to evaluate candidates. In fairness, that impression has been with me throughout Fred’s campaign, since I’d found myself to be fond of Thompson because of the reasons he failed to appeal to almost everyone else.

(more…)

No Comments »

Really Louisiana, really?!

A veteran of Louisiana state campaigns offers this ironic suggestion about last night’s Louisiana GOP primary — Fred Thompson won, or would have done well, had he not dropped out hours earlier.

The veteran says that Fred would have picked up all 47 of the states delegates. Putting him ahead of McCain and barely trailing Romney.

As Ace notes however,

Well, with all due respect: Running an organization which was apparently clueless to this fact and thus dropping out hours before one’s first actual win seems to indicate the opposite– he made the right choice. I hate to be a dick about this, but a politician should have a basic competence at politics, for crying out loud

That all being said, this is setting off my too good to be true alarm, so maybe Lance can shed some more light on this.

UPDATE: McCain won the Louisiana caucus according to AFP. Here’s an update to the original story. Here’s a previous post somewhat explaining the process. Like everything in Louisiana, it’s overly complicated. From what I can gather, Louisiana gets around any penalties for having their primary/caucus early because they only voted on who would vote for the delegates who would vote for the presidential candidate at the Republican National Convention. Make sense now? Yeah, me neither. Anyway, they seem to vote on slates or some such, so pro-life uncommitted came in first, McCain second, Paul third, and Romney 4th. I have little idea what that means.

5 Comments »

Pejman gives his thoughts, including some lessons.

UPDATE (Keith): Patrick Cox also has some lessons learned in his entry over at PajamasMedia.

No Comments »

Huckabee was interviewed on MSNBC on the day Fred Thompson withdrew. The liberation theologist took the opportunity to further ridicule and attack Fred and his supporters for supposedly injuring his campaign in South Carolina. Smart move Huck, really should endear you even further to Fred Thompson people who are now looking for a new candidate. Personally, I’m eagerly awaiting the bankrupt and collapsing Huckabee campaign’s political annihilation on Super Tuesday.

No Comments »

Earlier in the day, you might have been wondering how much of your assets might melt away, as markets around the world gyrated with perceived increasingly negative news. Later, on political blogs everywhere, reports that Fred Thompson was ending a run for his party’s nomination.

Then, news that a young and successful actor had died, most likely from a drug overdose.

Usually my evenings are a strange brew of real estate work, reading blogs, playing or watching bridge online, editing photographs, and so forth. In the background, talking heads on the various political shows fill me in on what has happened during the day – occasionally inducing some mental error while I compete!

Tonight, I thought that a majority of these shows would be devoted to discussing the future for Republicans now that Fred was dropping out.

Wrong!

Oh, yes; Thompson got some time. But – just as on the Internet (Fred; 174 hits; Heath Ledger, over 1,800) – almost all the focus was the death of Ledger.

Please do not misunderstand me. The death of a vibrant young person is a terrible tragedy. I myself have faced the illness of addiction in my own family, and words can barely express the pain and the awful outcomes that it can produce.

Still. On political cable channels, would one expect hour upon hour of focus about a movie star, rather than on the people who will soon lead our country? I would not – but – once again, I prove myself to be a poor prognosticator of what might occur.

Back to the politics. Fred wasn’t “my guy” (Rudy was and is). Yet, Thompson would have been “my guy” had he gotten the nomination. Smart, humble, straightforward, intelligent … I particularly loved when he stood up to that ridiculous interviewer in Iowa, who wanted him to state in one or two words what he thought about some of the most important issues facing us. He wouldn’t do it. If Fred couldn’t have the opportunity to really explain his viewpoint – at least 30 or 45 seconds! – well then, he would not play along.

I wish we had more like him.

And, as long as I am wishing, I wish that whoever does get the nod to be our next president might have some insight about addiction. The War on Drugs and “Just Say No” have been sad failures. I don’t know the answers. I only hope that others may have a glimmer of a solution.

1 Comment »

Alas, poor Frederick, we hardly knew ye:

Fred Thompson dropped his presidential bid Tuesday, after the former Tennessee senator and actor finished third in the South Carolina primary and was unable to score a victory in any of the early primaries or caucuses.

“Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people,” Thompson said in a statement….

Thompson left Nashville Tuesday afternoon for McLean, Va., where he is expected to make the announcement about his campaign as early as Tuesday night.

Aides said Thompson sent an e-mail Monday saying he was still undecided about whether to stay in the race — but with no plans to campaign in Florida, which holds its primary Jan. 29, or to participate in a Republican debate Thursday, his staffers expected him to withdraw.

Thompson seemed on the verge of bowing out Saturday during his post-election address in Columbia, S.C., after it became evident he would not finish better than third in South Carolina.

Telling his supporters to “stand strong,” he said, “We will always be bound by a close bond, because we have traveled a very special road together for a very special purpose. You know, it’s never been about me. It’s never even been about you. It’s been about our country and the future of our country … And because of your efforts and because of our working together, our party is being required to look itself in the mirror, decide where it’s going, decide who it is.”

I have absolutely no idea how I will vote now. I had planned on registering as a Republican to vote for Fred in the Virginia primary, but now there’s no point. I guess it will come down to who I can stomach best.

Ugh.

UPDATE (Chris): Fred was really the only candidate I trusted on every issue. I can trust McCain on defense, but not free speech and immigration, I can trust Giuliani on defense and fiscally, but not on the 2nd amendment, I can trust Huckabee to scare me, and I can trust Romney… to have great hair. Fred was the only one who I thought would give more than lip service to federalism and stay true to limited govt. Personally I’ll probably light a candle for St. Jude, and move to the next long shot candidate.

Update (Keith): Personally very disappointing. Now I don’t know who I would vote for, not that my primary vote will probably mean anything by the time Indiana gets to vote. He’s the only candidate who inspired the least bit of passion in me this political season. He certainly had a style all his own, and that style was what attracted me most.

No Comments »

The Maricopa County Republicans (McCain’s home county) held a meeting and had a straw poll on the primaries. McCain was voted “Most Unacceptable,” ahead of even Ron Paul. Fred Thompson won the “Most Acceptable” vote, but then lost to Romney on the nomination vote. Fred continues to be the candidate everyone agrees with, but no one will vote for. So strange.

No Comments »

The “Mittosphere”? Ugh.

No Comments »

Byron York has a fairly instructive anecdote from South Carolina on Fred Thompson:

Last night I talked with Cyndi Mosteller, a strong social conservative who headed the Charleston County Republican Party from 2003 to 2007 and who supports McCain. When I asked about Thompson, she said. “He was the most anticipated candidate that I have ever seen. So many people on the ground were ready to run the ball for him, and they showed up in strength, but he didn’t really show up in strength. I think that probably Thompson is more of a private person. I don’t really think he’s cut out for the public run required of public office. I think it’s almost a personality thing; it’s certainly not an ideological thing. It’s like the public energy and the will to run are a little bit lacking there.” Talk to other South Carolina conservatives, no matter who they supported, and you’ll hear similar opinions. Thompson had a huge opportunity here.
(National Review)

The candidate everyone wanted to support, but no one did.

The most troubling thing about the Thompson personality problem is that it would arguably make for a splendid chief executive. We haven’t seen a presidential candidate who is this constitutionally predisposed against the sordid business of retail politics since Dwight Eisenhower. Of course we also haven’t seen someone with as substantial a resume as Ike’s since either. Perhaps our political culture has changed. Or more likely, to have a Thompson or Eisenhower personality on the trail, it helps to have toppled the Nazi Empire.

2 Comments »

Romney is walking away with Nevada and has declared victory. American Research Group’s last-minute poll in South Carolina picked up an enormous Thompson surge (to 21%). However the exit polls are saying it’s the McCain and Huckabee show. Byron York writes a fine but sad obituary on the late developing FDT campaign that could have been. The Ron Paul campaign is upset about something in Nevada and demanded a delay in voting, which was refused. Surprisingly, Hillary is winning Nevada (and yet Bill Clinton still needs a sedative). Plus Russ Feingold called, he wants his record back from Edwards.

No Comments »

John Tabin at Reason takes a look at how libertarian hopes in various candidates have collapsed in the course of the primaries. The rise of the statist McCain and the theocratic statist Huckabee, looking like some kind of libertarian nightmare. Tabin concludes that the staunch federalist Fred Thompson is the last plausible libertarian option, and is now standing before his last opportunity in South Carolina….with the polls badly against him.

1 Comment »

Mitt Romney appears to be calling for a government directed solution to the American automotive indutry’s woes. Marc Ambinder uses the occasion to point out that save Thompson, interventionist government seems to be a consistent theme for all the GOP candidates. How did this come to pass anyway?

No Comments »

Mike Huckabee outlined his vision for a social conservative / “populist” takeover of the GOP to an Evangelical audience in Michigan. Mark Levin calls it deplorable, DiscerningTexan calls it destructive, and Riehl calls it theocratic. Well, well. It’s beginning to look like Fred Thompson’s of Huckabee’s views may have inaugurated the removal of many gloves.

4 Comments »

The NYT thinks Fred Thompson may be making a comeback. Some Republicans seem to be warming to his message that Huckabee’s statist policies are unwelcome in the GOP. Imagine that.

4 Comments »

I’ve received a few emails alerting me to the fact that the blogburst for Fred Thompson was a success (congratulations to Rick Moran for spearheading that), and as a result, the following commercial “Substance” will be airing in Iowa:

If your so inclined, go here to donate to Fred’s campaign. If you are unsure whether you support Fred or not, check out his “Issues” page.

No Comments »

Freddy-come-lately is gaining some steam in Iowa, picking up an endorsement from the Ottumwa Courier this week:

Thompson is unapologetic on his views and is a straight-shooter.

“These are clearly challenging times. I don’t think we’ve fully come to terms with the kind of world we live in,” he told members of the Courier editorial board recently.

Indeed, Thompson believes work must continue in Iraq despite growing concerns American troops should return home.

We have to “finish what we’re doing,” he said, adding the United States must continue the fight there and in Afghanistan.

Thompson said the United States can no longer ignore the instability in Afghanistan and in nearby Pakistan because of issues ranging from the Taliban to the country’s economic dependence on the opium trade.

When it comes to domestic issues, Thompson again admits there are no simple answers.

On energy concerns, he believes in “a balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources.”

He also seeks “an energy policy that invests in the advanced technologies of tomorrow and places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency.”

But the answers are not readily available.

“Oil independence, in the near future, is not to be had,” Thompson concedes, adding he thinks Americans are “willing to trade some discomfort to get some honesty.”

On economic issues, Thompson is blunt. The time is now to reform the American economy.

He says the country needs “market-based approaches to reform that guarantee benefits for those who need them and embrace personal responsibility and cost-effectiveness without raising taxes.”

Thompson said “it is a moral imperative that requires action now” and he wants a full account of the government’s fiscal books for “all to see and understand.”

The man from Tennessee is no-nonsense, speaks plainly and believes action is needed now, not later.

“There’s very little credibility coming out of D.C. to deal with these problems, so I think there’s an opportunity for someone who is willing to speak the truth,” he said.

Fred Thompson will do just that.

I’ve been told, but I don’t know this for a fact, that the Ottumwa Courier endorsement is a bid deal in southeastern Iowa. Regardless, it’s an encouraging sign to see Fred getting some positive attention that’s focused on his actual platform instead of his choice of headwear. Indeed, if candidate platforms were the genesis of most Election 2008 news, instead of silly speculation about crosses in campaign ads for example, I expect that Fred would be getting a whole lot more attention.

Here’s to hoping.

Also, Rick Moran is spearheading a blogburst campaign to raise funds for Fred, and draw some much needed attention to his candidacy as the Iowa caucuses draw near (more on the blogburst here).

Dear Friends,

I am writing to ask for your help.

All of us know the long odds faced by Fred Thompson in his efforts to win the GOP nomination for president. I’m sure you are all aware that Fred has undertaken pretty much of a do or die bus tour of Iowa in order to finish strongly in the Caucuses on January 3.

Many of you have already taken steps to support the Thompson campaign in a tangible way by placing fundraising widgets on your sidebar and writing about the campaign. In this way, each of us alone has done whatever we can to support Fred in his efforts.

But at this, the 11th hour of the campaign in Iowa, I think it would be a very effective fundraising tool if as many of us as possible were to participate in an old-fashioned Blogburst, writing a post asking readers to donate to the campaign while embedding a fundraising widget in the post for convenience.

I propose Thursday, December 27 for the Blogburst. If you have an email list, I would urge you to ask your subscribers to donate. If you know of other bloggers who support Fred, please forward this email and ask them to participate as well.

Not expecting a “money bomb” but even a few tens of thousands of dollars would help, I’m sure. Given the number of readers represented in the blogs listed here (where I got all of your email addresses) and your cooperation, I feel confident we can give a real shot in the arm to the campaign.

I don’t think any of us believe that our endorsement of Thompson alone means that much in the long run. But working together, uniting for one day and speaking with one voice, I think we could make a significant impact on Fred’s chances in Iowa. After all, when the candidate you support rolls the dice as Fred has, the least we can do is back his play to the best of our ability.

No need to respond to this email. Just do it.

Merry Christmas,

Rick Moran
Right Wing Nuthouse

If you’re so inclined, you can contribute to Fred’s campaign at Right Wing Nuthouse, or over at Fred’s site.

UPDATE (Keith):

I gave at the office – and if you agree with Fred, so should you…

No Comments »

Although the Silly Hat story seems to have died on the vine (thanks to bloggers jumping on it quickly, I might add), the reporting of Roger Simon (sans-L) is still under scrutiny. Bob Owens examined some of the discrepancies between what Simon reported and what the video revealed with respect to the Silly Hat incident, and finds Simon’s journalistic integrity lacking.

We don’t know if the entire Politico article is grossly unfair in the way it characterized Senator Thompson’s swing through Waverly, Iowa, but we do know, thanks to the CBS News video, that not only was Simon’s editorializing of what occurred in the Waverly Fire Department mischaracterized, but that he doctored a quote to make his article appear all the more damning.

Simon is the Chief Political Columnist for The Politico—one that they tout as one of “Washington’s most visible and experienced journalists.”— and should know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that doctoring quotes is highly unethical by any journalistic standard.

Bob was kind enough to link to an ASHC post about an earlier political gaffe (that really wasn’t) also fomented by Simon. That left him wondering:

If this is indeed the case, it seems a resignation, and not a retraction, is in order from Mr. Simon.

As Bob mentions, “[w]e don’t know if the entire Politico article is grossly unfair in the way it characterized Senator Thompson’s swing through Waverly, Iowa,” since the only other account we have so far is from the CBS video. However, Jimmie at The Sundries Shack decided to dig a little more into the interview that Fred did with the Waverly Democrat, and found Simon’s story lacking there as well.

I’d like to follow up on Roger “Event? What Event?” Simon’s Politico story with some details about Fred Thompson’s visit to the Waverly, Iowa newspaper. You know, the newspaper where Thompson’s staff made Simon and Mark Halperin wait outside. It seems that Simon appeared a bit miffed by the exclusion and that, in my opinion, colored his entire story.

First, here’s how Simon reported the interview:

Anelia Dimitrova, the executive regional editor, greeted us in warmly and invited us to have a seat, chat and use the bathroom. …

She said Thompson was the first candidate to come into the paper. The paper does not endorse candidates, and maybe that is why the others have skipped it. “He’s got a lot of catching up to do,” Dimitrova said. “I think it’s a sign he is behind. I don’t think he necessarily wants to run. Bluntly, I don’t know why he is running.”

This is the question that has dogged the Thompson campaign from the beginning. While sometimes he displays bursts of energy at a speech here or there, he is often described as “laconic” on the road.

Just a quick note here to point out that Simon apparently has no idea what “laconic” means. It has nothing to do with energy, or being lackluster in one’s efforts. Instead, it means short, terse, to the point and easy to understand. Someone who can make a strong point with Spartan brevity is considered laconic. Lazy people are not.

Dimitrova invited Mark and me into the interview with Thompson but the Thompson press aide refused. Dimitrova said she had no problem with us being there, but the press aide refused again.

It was no big deal. We waited for Thompson outside the conference room and after a few minutes he emerged, left the newspaper office and headed straight onto his large, brown bus.

[...]

Later in the day, I sent an e-mail to Anelia Dimitrova, asking her about the private meeting she had with Thompson at the newspaper office.

She e-mailed me back that Thompson “was so vague that I would be hard-pressed to write a story. Simply put, there is no news peg other than he came to the newsroom with his model wife and a beehive of staffers. When I asked him specifically what he would do as prez for farmers in Bremer County, he resorted to glittering generalities.”

So, according to Simon’s recounting, Fred breezed into the newspaper’s offices, surrounded by an entourage, and basically said nothing of substance. Jimmie tracked down Anelia Dimitrova’s report of the interview and finds it at odds with Simon. He points specifically to this portion of the interview where Fred talked about what he’d do for farmers in Iowa:

AKD: What will you do for the farmers of Bremer County?

FT: (laughs)

AKD: You knew this was coming, right?

FT: I would continue to enjoy the fruits of their labor. I’ve been looking all over Iowa for a bad steak and I can’t find it. Been trying my best. It’s not a matter of what I would do for the farmers. Farmers are not looking for a president to hand them something. Farmers want fair treatment and a chance to prosper in a free economy and that’s what I would help ensure. There’s a lot of programs we’ve got out there, some of which are good programs, some of which are not. And I think that we need to work our way through that and make sure we’re doing what’s good for the country, not just the farmers, not just the people of Iowa, not just the people of Tennessee. But good for the country. A sound policy that makes sense. I think there’s a lot more that we could do for the working farmer in terms of ecological programs and environmental programs – land conservation, soil conservation – that would be fair and it would be beneficial to the nation and to Iowa and to our country. We’re going to have to phase out the corporate welfare system we’ve got, however. There are extremely rich people living in skyscrapers in Manhattan that are receiving subsidy payments. I think that’s wrong. I’d put a stop to that if it was within my power. That still continues in this latest Farm Bill and it’s not right. There ought to be a cutoff at some level and it’s not right to have millionaires receiving farm subsidies.

According to Simon, Dimitrova declared this answer to be nothing but “glittering generalities.” Fred didn’t get terribly specific mind you, but it’s short interview so I’m not sure why he would. Jimmie managed to find some specifics, however:

I’m not seeing any “…glittering generalities…” here. In fact, it looks to me like Thompson said something that I’ll bet not many candidates are saying this month. In fact, it looks like he got into a few specifics. Here are the ones I picked out.

1) He wouldn’t do anything to help the farmers in Iowa as such but would do everything he could to make sure they had a fair chance to compete.
2) He would examine the farm programs and cull the ones that aren’t working.
3) He’d end the farm subsidies that went to corporations if he has the authority to do so.
4) He’d work for common-sense, fair conservation rules.

Admittedly, he didn’t do bullet points and he didn’t lay out a white paper for the news staff, but he gave a good number of specifics, enough to give the editor a very good idea where he stands on the issue.

I’d agree that’s a pretty fair assessment. To be sure, perhaps when Dimitrova sent her email to Simon she hadn’t yet seen the transcript, and couldn’t recall anything very specific about Fred’s answer. Phrases like “fair treatment”, “a chance to prosper”, “we need to work our way through that”, and “sound policy that makes sense” are pretty general standing by themselves. But in the context of Fred challenging the premise that farmers want anything from government (”It’s not a matter of what I would do for the farmers. Farmers are not looking for a president to hand them something.”) and identifying specific goals (”We’re going to have to phase out the corporate welfare system …”), those general phrases take on more meaning. In other words, I think Fred’s answer can more accurately be described as “laconic” than being nothing but “glittering generalities.”

A couple of final points about the interview. Take a look at the transcript and note the number of times “(laughter)” appears. That suggests to me that the interview was not exactly boring. Also peruse Fred’s answers to the other questions. My favorite was here:

AKD: Janelle, you have questions. I will let my reporters talk. Come on.

JANELLE PENNY: What’s something people would be surprised to learn about you?

AKD: Nice question. Nice job?

FT: Me? That I am a fantastic breakdancer.

(laughter)

AKD: Really? Are you going to show us?

FT: What are you laughing about?

(laughter)

FT: That’s very impolite. Are you questioning my credibility on something – I’m pulling your leg. I wouldn’t know if it was a breakdance or another kind of dance if I saw it. I don’t even know what it is. But somebody told me that would be a good answer. I didn’t mean to be flippant with you, young lady, but something you don’t know at this stage of the game is probably going to remain something you don’t know.

(laughter)

Laconic indeed.

UPDATE: Fred responds (from the bus) to the Simon-sans-L created controversy.

No Comments »