An Answer to the "Red Meat" Question

Rich Galen, a "Senior Advisor" to FDT was at the first New Hampshire appearance was wandering around after Fred's stump speech and overheard the following conversation:

One reporter, rather than asking “what did you think of the speech?” asked: “Don’t you think he is missing his opportunities by not having more red meat in his speech?”

The man the reporter was talking to, an actual voter from New Hampshire, said that he thought the speech was just fine and, further, while he hadn’t made up his mind, he was now leaning toward Fred.

Unable to stop myself, I dove into the conversation.

“First,” I said to the reporter, “you are requiring Thomson to reach a standard which (a) you, not this man, set and (b) doesn’t make any sense in the first place.”

“Look at all the people who waited through the storm to see him,” I said waiting until he actually turned around to look. “And they’re STILL here,” I said noting how many were swarming around Fred.

“You guys complain (I didn’t actually say “complain” but this is a family blog) about candidates who speak in sound bites and bumper strips. Then when a candidate comes and gives you 20 minutes of substance you tell me you’re looking for someone wearing a red nose and clown hair.”

“You can’t have it both ways.”

I agree with his statement that asking for Red Meant "doesn't make any sense in the first place." But I wish he would do a bit of explaining of WHY it doesn't make any sense. I don't think it makes any sense because the pundits are looking for specific proposals today when the entire situation will probably be different in 17 months when the new President takes his oath. It is more important to know on what basis the candidate will make his decisions and proposals.