Archive for the ‘Beltway Media’ Category
Hillary and Jeb Bush need each other politically. Hillary can’t win the 2016 presidential campaign if Jeb isn’t the GOP nominee. She could defeat Mitt Romney or Chris Christie, too, but the only people taking them seriously work at East Coast newspapers.
Wes Pruden’s column hits on a point that the DC media hasn’t written about:
Hillary can’t win, and that’s why she won’t run. She may not know that yet herself, but a lot of Democrats want her because she’s all they’ve got. The Republicans are counting on her to run because they think she’s the candidate they can beat in what looks from here like it could be a Republican year.
I don’t agree with Mr. Pruden’s opinion that she won’t run. Hillary’s ego is too big to admit that she isn’t presidential material. She’s lived her life with the belief that she’s entitled to the job. She’s put up with Bill’s affairs, which she thinks, again, entitles her to her own presidential administration.
The point that I agree with Mr. Pruden on is that she’s the best the Democrats have to offer at this point. She’s mediocre but she’s at the top of the Democrats’ list. There aren’t any talented Democratic governors out there. On the Republican side, there’s an embarrassment of riches in terms of talented Republican governors. The top tier of Republican governors is filled with Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich and Mike Pence.
The next tier is still pretty talented. Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Brian Sandoval and Rick Perry inhabit that tier. Each these governors have a substantial list of accomplishments.
By comparison, Hillary’s top accomplishments are that she a) was a US senator from a state so blue that toxic waste would get elected if they had a D behind their name and b) did more travelling as the US Secretary of State than any other US Secretary of State. People can’t look at her and say what her defining policy accomplishment was. They certainly can’t identify something she did as Secretary of State that protected the US from terrorists or that helped defeat the terrorists.
In short, Hillary checked off the appropriate boxes, which qualifies her to get thumped in a presidential election.
Successful men and women are born with an instinct for politics, or they never have it. Bubba was born with it, along with the ability to change convictions like changing his pants. The politicians who have it have no shame exploiting it. If they have the ability to wink, smile and say the right thing they can get by with anything short of murder, and maybe that, too. What can you do with a good ol’ boy like Bubba? He only rarely hit a false note. Hillary never hits anything but.
She’s stiff and wooden as a public speaker, as if trying to prove Dr. Johnson’s famous aphorism that a woman preaching is like a dog trying to walk on its hind legs. Hillary is tone-deaf besides. She’s always starting on her “back foot,” as the English say, and she’s a mediocre campaigner, too.
Hillary’s book tour was a disaster. When Hillary’s history is written, most historians will say that Hillary’s book tour is when her presidential ambitions essentially died.
This evening, I was stunned by the headline to John Hinderaker’s post in which he endorsed Mitt Romney. Here’s John’s opening argument:
It is time for Republicans to get serious. After flirting with just about every candidate in a large presidential field, is is time to come home to the one candidate who has the demonstrated ability to run the largest organization in the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government; who has never been touched by the slightest taint of scandal; whose success in the private sector makes him the outsider that Republicans say they are looking for; and who has by far the best chance of beating President Obama: Mitt Romney.
The “anybody but Romney” mentality that grips many Republicans is, in my view, illogical. It led them to embrace Rick Perry, who turned out to be unable to articulate a conservative thought; Newt Gingrich, whose record is far more checkered than Romney’s; Ron Paul, whose foreign policy views–indistinguishable from those of the far left–and forays into racial intolerance make him unfit to be president; and Michele Bachmann, whom I like very much, but who is more qualified to be a rabble-rouser than a chief executive.
I won’t get into a name-calling fight with John because he’s a deliberate, thorough, thoughtful man. John isn’t the sellout or troublemaker type. In this instance, I just vehemently disagree with John.
First, it isn’t irrational to reject Mitt. He isn’t a conservative and he isn’t the man we need for this transformational point in our nation’s history.
Second, he’s proven time and again that he isn’t trustworthy. He’s shape-shifted to more audiences than chameleons change colors against a plaid background.
The reality is that Mitt and Newt have caused conservatives to question their conservative credentials. The distinction is that Mitt’s actually done liberal things whereas Newt has said some things that make people wonder whether he’s totally committed to conservatism.
For instance, Mitt took John Holdren’s advice on CO2 emissions. Then Mitt imposed CO2 emission limits on Massachusetts power plants:
Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants. The limits, which target the six largest and oldest power plants in the state, are the toughest in the nation.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, it gets worse. Alot worse, in fact:
In addition to reaffirming existing stringent CO2 limits, the draft regulations announced today, which will be filed next week, contain protections against excessive price increases for businesses and consumers.
Here’s the hard, cold truth. Mitt went further on limiting greenhouse gases than the Obama administration’s EPA went. Then Mitt slapped price controls on the power plants so they’d have to eat the cost of Mitt’s CO2 regulations.
My questions for John are simple:
- What type of a capitalist imposes huge regulatory burdens on power plants?
- What type of capitalist imposes price controls on businesses immediately after dumping costly regulations on that business?
- What type of capitalist would consider adding a VAT to our tax system without first eliminating the Sixteenth Amendment?
The answer is simple to each of those questions is simple: true capitalists wouldn’t do any of those things. It’s time for Mitt’s supporters to admit that Mitt isn’t a conservative. I’m not certain I’d call him a moderate. I’d readily agree that he talks like a conservative at times. Altogether too often, Mitt has played the class warfare card this campaign. That’s what he’s done in defending his capital gains tax cuts for people making less than $200,000 annually.
When Speaker Gingrich asked Mitt why he didn’t cut the capital gains rates for people with higher incomes, Mitt’s reply was that the rich have done fine, that it’s the middle class that’ve gotten hit the hardest. That’s the defense that Democrats use and John knows it. Here’s something else that Mitt’s supporters haven’t answered. Why hasn’t Mitt dropped his defense of Romneycare? Mitt’s said repeatedly that he’d eliminate Obamacare. Why should we trust him on that considering the fact that he’s obviously defending O’Care?
Mitt’s fond of saying that the Tenth Amendment puts more restrictions on the federal government than on state governments. That’s true but it’s missing the point. In fact, it’s ignoring the final part of the Tenth Amendment. Here’s the text of the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I asked in this post why Mitt thinks that a bureaucrat in a state HHS department knows what’s best for a family rather than the family itself. In the fight over whether Romneycare is solid conservative policy, shouldn’t we have a fight over whether it’d be better for families to make decisions on what’s best for their families or whether it’s better for a state-level bureaucrat to determine what’s best for individual families.
In 1980, we were faced with an historic choice. Should we pick Jimmy Carter or the bombthrowing cowboy Ronald Reagan? Carter was the safe, albeit terribly flawed, candidate; Reagan was the crazy man who would start WWIII. The people picked Reagan because they related to him and because Carter was a terrible president. The establishment went into shock when President Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”
The same establishment went positively apoplectic when President Reagan announced that he’d put Pershing II missiles into western Europe. Tens of thousands of words were written predicting the end of western civilization as a result. When the careerists in Foggy Bottom were presented with President Reagan’s Tear Down This Wall speech, they repeatedly tried nixing that section of the speech. Can anyone picture Mitt not following the inside-the-Beltway intelligentsia’s advice?
Thanks to President Reagan’s bold leadership, he ignored the inside-the-Beltway intelligentsia’s advice. Thanks to President Reagan’s ignoring the inside-the-Beltway intelligentsia’s advice, the Soviet Union collapsed. We’re at another turning point in our nation’s history. We can’t afford another cautious manager of the status quo. That’s who Mitt is.
This juncture in history requires a bold leader who’s willing to call evil evil, to call corruption corruption, to call overbloated government overbloated government. Most importantly, this juncture in America’s history requires a leader with time-tested conservative solutions. There’s only one person that fits that description. His name is Newt Gingrich.
In a very short period of time, FNC pundits Bill O’Reilly, Brit Hume, Bernie Goldberg and Charles Krauthammer have made fools of themselves by telling the world that Republicans are getting whipped on the debt ceiling debate.
What’s particularly embarassing is that they’re all basing their opinion on a CBS poll that isn’t worth the bandwidth it’s printed on. Ed Morrissey mockingly dismantled the poll in this post:
Have Democrats leaped to an eleven-point registration advantage in the last five weeks? In early June, a CBS News poll showed a D/R/I sample of 30/30/40, which undersampled both parties slightly in favor of independents, even weighting it to slightly favor Republicans. In their latest poll today on the debt ceiling debate, CBS offers one of its most egregious poll samples in recent memory to pursue the “public blames the GOP” meme:
Americans are unimpressed with their political leaders’ handling of the debt ceiling crisis, with a new CBS News poll showing a majority disapprove of all the involved parties’ conduct, but Republicans in Congress fare the worst, with just 21 percent backing their resistance to raising taxes.
President Obama earned the most generous approval ratings for his handling of the weeks-old negotiations, but still more people said they disapproved (48 percent) than approved (43 percent) of what he has done and said. …
Approval drops to 31 percent for the Democrats in Congress, and only 21 percent of the people surveyed said they approved of Republicans’ handling of the negotiations, while 71 percent disapprove.
Gee, a 10-point difference, huh? What a coincidence!
What’s most embarassing is the fact that this poll polled 810 adults. For a national poll, that’s a tiny sample. Second, polling adults is the least predictive type of polling. Scott Rasmussen’s polling always polls likely voters. Ditto with KSTP-SUSA polling.
It’s easy to believe a blowhard like O’Reilly got this wrong. O’Reilly getting things wrong isn’t news. It isn’t easy to believe that Goldberg, Hume and Krauthammer getting the PR war angle this badly wrong. What they’re telling me to believe is that America has reverted back to gullible Obama-trusting idiots from the 2008 cycle.
Poll after poll shows people don’t trust President Obama’s handling of the economy by 15-20 point margins. Despite this fact, I’m supposed to believe that the American people suddenly trust the man they rejected in the 2010 midterms.
If their theory was right, Minnesota Republicans would’ve been forced to cave in their budget talks with Gov. Dayton. That didn’t happen. Instead, Gov. Dayton caved. Minnesota Republicans held the line on taxes, Dayton’s signature issue, while getting most of the reforms they passed during the regular session.
The Minnesota experience tells me that John Q. Public still trusts and prefers the Republicans’ policies.
There’s another factor that Mssrs. Goldberg, Hume and Krauthammer aren’t factoring in: people don’t think that President Obama has gotten over his big spending ways. People know that he’s the same guy who went on the biggest, longest-lasting spending spree in this nation’s history.
Suddenly, I’m supposed to believe that he’s changed totally? I don’t think so. President Obama is who he is: the most liberal president in American history.
Krauthammer, Hume and Goldberg are telling me that I should forget about an historic midterm election that was the deepest changing of the nation’s mood. In addition to the 63 seats Republicans gained in the U.S. House, they added 680 legislative seats, 19 legislative majorities and 5 governorships in 2010.
People at every level and in every section of the country rejected Obamanomics and the Democrats’ policies but they suddenly trust President Obama on the debt ceiling debate?
That’s insulting. Mssrs. Goldberg, Hume and Krauthammer should be ashamed of themselves for thinking such things.
Ms. Howell, Something that you wrote today caught my attention. Here’s what I’m referring to:
Conservatives decided that The Post was cheerleading, especially since they felt the paper hadn’t sufficiently scrutinized Obama.
It isn’t that we thought that. It’s that nobody vetted Obama, at least not until Stanley Kurtz vetted him for NRO. Reporters should report things. That means finding out what skeletons they have in their closets. If not for David Freddoso & Stanley Kurtz digging into the CAC’s activities, we never would’ve known about Obama’s radical past.
That wouldn’t have gotten McCain elected but at least it would’ve been informative. It comes down to the people having a right to know about a person’s professional relationships & decisions.
It’s time that the Times & the other major news outlets had differing perspectives in the newsroom. Right now, there’s an echochamber within the newsroom & editoial rooms. It’s time that people had to defend their ideas & opinions. They might find that conservatives have the better argument.
Without the discussions, the thought process dies. That’s what’s happened with so-called dea tree media. It’s time to reverse that trend.
Let me close by saying that I appreciate you digging into the subject. That’s the thoughtful thing to do. You’re to be applauded for that. I’ll be watching to see if this is just a onetime guilt-clensing column or if it’s something that’s implemented.
Let Freedom Ring Blog
This David Brooks column proves just how clueless Mr. Brooks is with regards to conservatism. Here’s what I’m referring to:
In one camp, there are the Traditionalists, the people who believe that conservatives have lost elections because they have strayed from the true creed. George W. Bush was a big-government type who betrayed conservatism. John McCain was a Republican moderate, and his defeat discredits the moderate wing.
To regain power, the Traditionalists argue, the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin.
The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.
Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. Does Mr. Brooks think that The Traditionalists are rallying around Sarah Palin just to regain power? Does Mr. Brooks think that Gov. Palin isn’t a reformer? Does Mr. Brooks intend on identifying the people making up The Reformers wing of the GOP?
Let’s further state that this is a strawman argument. The Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin wing of the party believes in true reforms, not just Reform In Name Only (RINO). It’s insane to think that Rush Limbaugh and Gov. Palin represent the status quo wing of the GOP.
Let’s also stipulate that Ronald Reagan was more than just policies. To really know Reagan is to understand his underlying philosophies. Reagan’s policies came from the belief that his policies should either make people more prosperous, more free or more safe. Reagan saw regulations as limiting people’s freedom. Reagan saw taxes as preventing people from being free and from being prosperous. Reagan saw defeating the USSR as imperative to making America safe.
People that say that Reagan isn’t relevant are essentially saying that there’s no need for America to be free, prosperous or secure in our sovereignty. I stubbornly reject such foolishness just like I reject Mr. Brooks’ strawman arguments.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Looking for any excuse not to cover the Republicans, TV news anchors left St. Paul to cover Gustav. It’s expected and it’s appalling. Here’s what the LA Times is reporting:
The television networks and national cable news outlets Sunday shifted their top talent and reporters from the Republican National Convention here to the Gulf Coast to prepare for Hurricane Gustav’s landfall. That means John McCain and his campaign will not receive the uninterrupted attention that Barack Obama did during last week’s Democratic National Convention.
But news executives, much like the presumed Republican presidential nominee himself, said they had no choice but to follow the potentially damaging events in the South, three years after Hurricane Katrina caught some news organizations flat-footed. “I don’t even look at it as a matter of fairness,” said Jay Wallace, vice president of news at Fox News. “The prevailing story right now is this storm.”
This is a bunch of crap. The storm shouldn’t be “the prevailing story right now.” It was a Cat-2 when it made landfall, which isn’t a devastating storm. Katrina, by comparison, was a Cat-5 that left a massive trail of destruction.
This is a story that can be covered with a team of correspondents. Sending the anchors is overkill, especially after waiting a day after it made landfall. If this was such a pressing story, why haven’t we seen wall-to-wall coverage of Gustav thus far? It seems that coverage hasn’t been that big a focus.
You’ll remember that coverage of Katrina was practically nonstop, with the networks suspending their regular schedules to provide coverage. Gustav coverage? Not so much, which says that this isn’t the big deal that the networks and cable are making it out to be.
The good news is that we won’t be subjected to hearing the anchors’ biased opinions during Convention coverage. The bad news is that we’ll be subjected to lesser known people spouting essentially the same nonsense. The better news is that Sen. McCain’s picking Gov. Palin ensures that millions of people will be tuning in Wednesday night to hear her speech. The American people will be able to size her up for themselves. (BTW, expect Wednesday night’s audience to be large.)
The best news is that I suspect that they’ll be greatly impressed, which should get Democrats everywhere depressed.
Happy days are here again.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
This morning, Kimberly Strassel’s column is the most laughable. The topic of Ms. Strassel’s column: Democrats dreaming of a 60-seat majority in the Senate. Serious people who’ve done their due diligence know that that isn’t going to happen. At best, they’ll wind up 3-5 seats short.
A quick recap of the numbers: Republicans must defend 23 seats, compared to 12 for the Democrats. Of those GOP slots, 10 are at potential risk: Virginia, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Oregon, Colorado, Alaska, Mississippi, Maine and North Carolina. The Democrats claim only one vulnerable senator this year, Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu. Depending on how big a day the party has in November, it is at least conceivable Democrats could get the nine seats they need to hit the magic 60.
Let’s start by taking Minnesota’s seat off the table. Al Franken could lose by 20 points this year because his party’s rank-and-file find him detestable. Testimony of that came at a recent event here in St. Cloud. One person showed up for the event even though the event was properly publicized. Next, take North Carolina and Maine off the map. Sen. Dole and Sen. Collins will be re-elected.
People have almost written John Sununu off, which is a big mistake. He’s a strong closer and the GOP’s momentum, which the gas price crisis is fueling, make it very possible for him to overcome Jean Shaheen.
A month ago, people had written Bob Schaffer off, too. Then the gas price crisis issue gained momentum. We know it’s gained momentum because suddenly Mark Udall is doing photo ops on oil rigs. I’ve mockingly nicknamed him Oil Rig Mark. I’d be surprised if this race isn’t a photo finish. I wouldn’t be surprised if Schaffer won.
Something strange is happening on the Left Coast. There’s suddenly a pro-drilling majority in pro-environment California. How many Oregonians agree on that? I don’t have the answer but wouldn’t that change the dynamics of that race?
What’s at work here is that the GOP’s Beltway strategists have bought into the “it’s a difficult environment for Republicans” meme. As with most things that are common knowledge within the Beltway, that meme is a pile of BS. Here in the heartland, the energy issue is playing a huge role in the elections.
It’s time that the GOP knotheads living on the Beltway meme to get out into the heartland and find out what real people are thinking. They’d quickly find that the House’s oil uprising is having a huge effect on all the races.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
During his interview with NBC’s Tom Brokaw, Sen. Obama showed himself to be as clueless as a deer caught in a car’s headlights. Here’s the first proof of that:
MR. BROKAW: That prompted this radio ad from your opponent John McCain, which is running today. So let’s listen to that and then respond.
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: (From political ad) Now that it’s clear that the surge has succeeded and brought victory in Iraq within sight, Senator Obama can’t quite bring himself to admit his own failure in judgment. Instead, he commits the even greater error of insisting that, even in hindsight, he would still oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory. That’s not exactly my idea of the judgment we seek in a commander-in-chief.
MR. BROKAW: That’s a radio speech from Senator John McCain that is running on this Sunday in America. He’s referring to what you had to say on January 10th, 2007…
SEN. OBAMA: Right.
MR. BROKAW: …and repeated several times. Let’s listen to you now and your immediate reaction to the idea of the surge back in the beginning of 2007.
SEN. OBAMA: I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there; in fact, I think it’ll do the reverse.
MR. BROKAW: We’re not talking about angels on the head of a pin here, but let me ask you a direct question.
SEN. OBAMA: All right.
MR. BROKAW: Do you believe that President Maliki would be in a position to more or less endorse your timetable of getting troops out within 16 months if it had not been for the surge?
SEN. OBAMA: You know, we don’t know, because in my earlier statements, I mean, I know that there’s that little snippet that you ran, but there were also statements made during the course of this debate in which I said there’s no doubt that additional U.S. troops could temporarily quell the violence. But unless we saw an underlying change in the politics of the country, unless Sunni, Shia, Kurd made different decisions, then we were going to have a civil war and we could not stop a civil war simply with more troops. Now, I, I…
MR. BROKAW: But couldn’t they make that political decision because troops were there to help them make it.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, the…well, the…look, there’s no doubt, and I’ve said this repeatedly, that our troops make a difference. If…you know, they do extraordinary work. The troops that I met, they were proud of their work, they had made enormous sacrifices, they had fought, they had helped to construct schools and, and rebuilt the countryside. But, for example, in Anbar Province, where we went to visit, the Sunni awakening took place before the surge started, and tribal leaders made a decision that, instead of fighting the Americans, we’re going to work with the Americans against al-Qaeda. That was a political decision that was made that has made a huge difference in this entire process.
We don’t know??? Who’s he kidding??? To not send in more troops is to have continued fighting the war with the President Bush/Donald Rumsfeld strategy. Wasn’t he critical of the Rumsfeld strategy and of President Bush in general?
At that point in history, there were only three options: try Petraeus’ counterinsurgency plan, stay with the Bush/Rumsfeld strategy or the Murtha plan. Sen. Citizen of the World voted for the Murtha plan. He voted to cut off funding for the troops because he was the purist on the war, the presidential candidate that always opposed the war.
Not only did he try triangulation in this interview, he admits that he talked in circles in the debate that his clip came from. Check this out:
First, they play the clip where he says that he isn’t “persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there; in fact, I think it’ll do the reverse.” Then he admits that “there were also statements made during the course of this debate in which I said there’s no doubt that additional U.S. troops could temporarily quell the violence.”
Sen. Citizen of the World can’t have it both ways. He can’t say in one sentence that the Surge will make things worse, then say that it would also “temporarily quell the violence.” Perhaps Sen. Obama can explain how a miltary strategy could make things worse while temporarily quelling violence.
Later in the interview, Mr. Brokaw talked about how Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks were critical of the Obamessiah’s Berlin speech. Here’s Sen. Obama’s reply:
SEN. OBAMA: Let me say first of all, there were a bunch of really good reviews that you didn’t, you didn’t put up on the screen. I’d, I’d say there were about nine good reviews for every, every bad one.
My first response to Sen. Obama would be harsh: Who cares if the Adoring Media gives you gaga reviews? They could’ve written those reviews without going on the trip. It’s as if Sen. Obama doesn’t realize that the Adoring Media hurt him with the people he needs to attract, namely blue collar workers in Bethlehem, PA and Youngstown, OH.
Sen. Obama is living in an adoration bubble. When he holds a rally, thousands of people come to see him. When he talks with the press, they toss him softball questions. It’s likely that he thinks that he’s universally adored.
History says that there aren’t many presidents that are adored. The ones that are are the presidents that made gritty, difficult decisions. There are fewer presidential candidates that’ve been adored. In fact, I don’t recall any since starting voting in 1974.
It’s time that Sen. Obama realized that many voters, myself included, picture him as a silver-tongued empty suit. I know that he isn’t stupid. It’s just that his record is paper-thin and unimpressive.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
I enjoy most anything that Human Events puts out. That said, this article is off the charts great. Here’s the lead-in to the article:
Wendell Goler: Gentlemen, if we can, let’s move on.
In his second inaugural, President Bush made clear that this country would no longer trade civility for democracy, yet relations with Pakistan seem to test that.
Senator Thompson, would your administration continue to back Pakistani President Musharraf despite polls that show two-thirds of the Pakistani people want him to resign immediately?
Sen. Fred Thompson: Oh, my goodness, go against the poll?
–Fox News Republican Presidential Debate, January 11, 2008
Fredheads like me have always loved how Fred zings media people, especially after they ask horserace-oriented questions. This wasn’t any different. As bitingly sarcastic as Fred’s reply was, these paragraphs were even more biting:
Thompson was fighting the polls even before he got in the race for president. First, he was the unannounced winner that we breathlessly waited to get into the race. He is a real conservative on every front and a commanding presence. After much too much waiting, Fred Thompson got into the race. He immediately began falling short of media-created expectations, and the sharks began to circle.
Since the talking heads have been right about everything else in the election, Thompson ought to just close up shop and go home to Tennessee, right? Since Iowa, if you only listened to the reporting on the Thompson campaign, you would think this guy is a few cards short of a deck for even going on another day. But what if the pundits and pollsters are wrong?
Ouch. That’s gotta sting. It certainly is something that the mystified media deserve. In fact, I’d consider that a tiny down-payment for what they deserve. The mystified media deserve far mmore hostile treatment than that for ignoring Fred.
They’re utterly determined to write Fred off. We The People are in the process of telling them to take a long walk off a short plank. Here’s a great observation:
More than once, pundits or pollsters have said, â€œFred just doesnâ€™t have the fire in his belly,â€ or â€œhave you noticed in debates Fred runs out of things to say before his time has run out?â€ Perish the thought; a candidate should actually answer a question without qualifiers and get to the point. I am tired of hearing candidates go on for three minutes when theyâ€™ve been asked a simple question requiring a â€œyes or noâ€ answer.
The mystified media are clueless about Fred Thompson. He’s got a great personality and a dry sense of humor. More importantly, he actually answer people’s questions directly. While other candidates’ handlers brag about their candidate staying on message, Fred revels in answering people directly. Most voters find that trait refreshing.
Here’s how clueless the mystified media is:
The mainstream media and some cable outlets donâ€™t like Fred. Dick Morris said before Thompson announced that he wouldnâ€™t pass muster because when people realize that heâ€™s not that guy on â€œLaw and Order,â€ they wonâ€™t like him.
Dick Morris appeared on Hannity & Colmes Monday tonight. His faulty analysis was that the GOP “establishment seems to be coalescing around McCain” as their consensus candidate. That’s too bad because We The People will determine who wins the nomination.
Just like we frowned when John McCain, Arlen Specter and Ted Kennedy announced the Grand Bargain, likewise we’re frowning now. We The People are getting attracted to the thought of a Thompson administration.
I’ve said repeatedly that a new paradigm was discovered when we melted down the Senate’s switchboard during the immigration debate. We told the wobblies in both parties that We The People wouldn’t tolerate their inside Washington games. We The People told the out-of-touch strategists that we wouldn’t tolerate their timidity.
We The People are craving a revolution but the strategists want us to settle for business as usual. Not this time. In fact, NEVER AGAIN.
While Fox News, MSNBC and CNN ignore Fred, we keep volunteering to push Fred over the top in South Carolina. We’re doing our part to force the mystified media to pay attention to We The People determining who will be our next leader.
One thing that the pundits aren’t paying attention to is how message, credibility and GOTV volunteers are turning the Thompson campaign into a considerable electoral force. When the results start rolling in Saturday, I suspect many will feel pretty sheepish.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Glenn Reynolds thinks that Fred Thompson is too normal for the pundits’ taste. It’s apparent that he doesn’t think that’s a good thing. He cites this post on Samizdata in his post:
Fred Thompson is in the middle of a 40 town Iowa tour so he is hardly lazy. And he does go on television shows – thus dealing with critics, such as myself, who attacked him for not going on enough shows. But what sort of person would enjoy all this?
A lunatic. Someone who was interested in office for its own sake, not as a means to reduce the size and scope of government.
What the media, including Fox News (the only non-leftist news station and, therefore, of vital importance in the Republican nomination process), are saying is that Fred Thompson is too sane to be President. It is not enough to produce detailed policies for dealing with the entitlement program Welfare State (a cancer that is destroying the United States and the rest of the Western World), or producing a new optional flat tax (individuals could continue to use the existing system if they wished to) to deal with the nightmare of complexity that the income tax has become.
It is not even enough to have a long record of service, going back to Watergate and taking down a corrupt Governor of Tennessee in the 1970’s. And having one of the most Conservative voting records in the United States Senate, before leaving it in disgust at how the system did not allow real reform.
No someone has to enjoy the prospect for office for its own sake, not to reduce the size and scope of government and restore a Federal Republic. One must enjoy the whole process of politics – i.e. be crazy. Or one must pretend to enjoy it – i.e. be a liar.
And then people complain that politicians are either crazy or corrupt. When they shoo away anyone who comes along who is neither crazy or corrupt.
Here’s Glenn’s lament:
I think he’s right. Thompson is running the kind of campaign, substantive, policy-laden, not based on gimmicks or sound-bites, that pundits and journalists say they want, but he’s getting no credit for it from the people who claim that’s what they want. It’s like in Tootsie when Dustin Hoffman tries doing the things he’s heard women say they want from men, only to discover that they don’t really want those things at all…
Fred’s intelligent campaign seems to be a foreign concept to pundits. I have a theory on that. Pundits talk about having substantive debates but I’m betting that they aren’t wonkish enough to talk authoritatively about the serious issues of the day.
That’s why they’d rather talk about the horserace side of the campaign. That fits their quote-counterquote writing style. That’s why the American public is tuning out much of the pundit class. That’s why people are tuning into the internet and new media in general.
Let’s learn from this. Fred Thompson is laying out specific, coherent strategies to deal with the biggest issues of the day. The media’s focus hasn’t changed. They’re still all about style and horserace.
Bloggers aren’t immune to this either. Hugh Hewitt is a classic case in point. I don’t remember when he last talked about Mitt’s positions issues for anything more than a line or two. He certainly hasn’t talked about them in depth.
In fact, most of his posts and articles have been about how Mitt is the most electable conservative in the race or how much money Mitt has in his warchest. If you compared Hugh’s statements from 2003-2004, I suspect that those statements would support Fred Thompson, not Mitt Romney.
Isn’t it time that we held the pundits’ feet to the fire and told them that we demand more substantive coverage of the campaigns? Isn’t it time that the nation took a serious look at Fred Thompson?
Shouldn’t we want our next president to be trustworthy in national security, who’s a federalist, who’ll appoint strict constructitonist judges and who’s a fiscal conservative who’ll keep taxes low?
Cross-posted at California Conservative