Tommy Thompson Drops Presidential Bid

breitbart.com ^ | Aug 12, 2007 10:01 PM US/Eastern | staff

[kellynla]

MILWAUKEE (AP) - Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson is dropping out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination, a campaign official said Sunday. His campaign has released a statement saying the Republican is leaving the campaign trail several hours after WITI-TV in Milwaukee reported that Thompson told one of its reporters he was withdrawing from the field.

The campaign statement said Thompson intends to take sometime off before returning to the private sector and his nonprofit work.

The 65-year-old says he's comforted by the fact that he thinks he made a difference for people during his campaign.

He finished sixth among eleven candidates in this weekend's GOP straw poll in Iowa. He had said before the Iowa event that he would drop out of the race unless he finished first or second.

The statement didn't say whether he would endorse another candidate.

[fieldmarshaldj]

He’s out.

[JRios1968]

A politician that keeps his promises...wow.

[samtheman]

Shows good sense on his part.

[Old Seadog]

Thanks Tommy. I wish you well.

[TheLion]

Great guy....just not his venue!

[Vigilanteman]

Tommy's a good guy and would've made a decent president. I'm a lot more impressed with him than the guy who shares the same last name.

He did a credible job running a liberal state for a decade as well as serving in the cabinet. I would take any endorsement he makes seriously.

[bilhosty]

A good man who should of done better. One of the few persons in the GOP who had a broad picture and the ability to innovate and be creative. He reminded me of Rudy and Newt.

[LowOiL]

Hope some of his supporters come on over to Duncan side now.

[ASA Vet]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1880286/posts

[BillyBoy]

>> Hope some of his supporters come on over to Duncan side now. <<

I'm a Tommy supporter. You want me to go from a guy who came in 6th place to a guy who came in 9th place? Tommy was invisible here on FR, and sometimes mocked or ignored -- whereas Hunter had endless hype and is 2nd only to the FredHeads in conservative activists. But when the votes were actually counted, Tommy got 1,039 voters to come to Ames and support him, whereas Hunter got 174 voters to show up. Hunter lost to people who didn't even lift a finger to campaign in Iowa.

I met Duncan Hunter at the Ames fair grounds. He's great on the issues, his service to this country is truly ainspiring, and he is a proud patriot, but so far his campaign is going no where. All the "base" he was counting on went to Tancredo.

I have absolutely no reservations about supporting Hunter's platform, but he has to prove to me that he can actually carry SOMETHING other than his home district in California.

His 9th place showing in Ames was truly a shocker and he needs to retool his campaign now if he has a prayer of staying viable. Hunter deserved better. If he's still ranked at #9 when the real Iowa election rolls around in January, he should bow out gracefully.

[ASA Vet]

FACT: Governors WIN. Senators DON'T

Does that mean Comrade Clinton has no chance, or does that silly rule apply only to Republicans?

[BillyBoy]

It's certainly true with Democrats. Just ask former Senators Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Mondale, McGovern...

Obviously, the Hilderbeast would have a chance if the GOP was dumb enough to nominate another Senator, since voting Democrat or Republican would result in a Senator getting elected. The American people probably wouldn't be happy and vote for the candidate they disliked the least.

If it's Hilderbeast vs. a Governor she'd more than likely lose. There are exceptions in history, most notably 1920 where SENATOR Harding beat GOVERNOR Cox, but 90% of the time, people like Governors more. The GOP would have to nominate a really awful Governor (i.e. Bob Taft in Ohio) for the American public to "trust" Hilderbeast more. I'm pretty sure Romney or Huckabee could beat the Hilderbeast, depending on what kind of running mates everyone ends up with.

The rule is generally true with all parties. Hillary has extremely high negatives and her nomination makes it much more likely that a Republican will win in 2008. The Dems would have a much better shot if they nominated Bill Richardson, or at least put Richardson on the ticket with Hillary to pick up New Mexico. If they run two Senators again, like they did in 2004 (Kerry/Edwards), the Dems better hope and prey the GOP is also stupid enough to run a couple of drab Senators.

The U.S. Senate is hardly a well-respected, beloved institution with the American public right now.

[2ndDivisionVet]

When do Brownback, Hunter, Huckabee, Tancredo, McCain, Cox and Paul drop out?

[Loyal Buckeye]

He’s out.

Gotta wonder why he was in, in the first place.

[Loyal Buckeye]

Huckabee made a big move in Iowa that will help him.

[snoringbear]

“He’s out.
Gotta wonder why he was in, in the first place.”

Agree. The egos of some of these guys boggles the mind - their minds. While probably a great guy, he’s ugly as mud, dull as a butter knife, and bland as vanilla ice cream. Absolutely zero charisma. Otherwise, a great candidate...

[gimme1ibertee]

I actually had someone email me that “Thompson” was dropping out of the GOP race. I was momentarily concerned,until I read the first few lines of the article she had sent me. I proptly emailed her back and explained,well,no big deal,since I was supporting FRED Thompson,and I went on to let her know why she should too.
Funny,how people neglect to really read something or do a little checking before they jump to concussions,know what I mean?

[sittnick]

It's certainly true with Democrats. Just ask former Senators Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Mondale, McGovern...

You left out JFK....

Seriously, while being a governor is an advantage all things being equal, I believe it doesn't make that big a difference with the right kind of candidate.

Looking back (omitting elections and re-elections of sitting presidents):

Bush the Younger(2000)
Clinton (1992)
Bush the Elder (1988)
Ronaldus Maximus (1980)
Carter (1976)
Nixon (1968)
Kennedy (1960)
Eisenhower (1952)
FDR (1932)




I will assume that VP is better than Senator or governor for being elected, so Nixon and Bush the Elder would not count in this equation. That narrows the number of elections to examine:

Bush the Younger(2000)
Clinton (1992)
Ronaldus Maximus (1980)
Carter (1976)
Kennedy (1960)
Eisenhower (1952)
FDR (1932)




Eisenhower was a general, so we won't count him defeating governor Stevenson, since generals are not part of the equation.

Now we are down to:

Bush the Younger(2000)
Clinton (1992)
Ronaldus Maximus (1980)
Carter (1976)
Kennedy (1960)
FDR (1932)




Now we are down to six elections, of them, five out of the six had been governors, and all from largish states except for Clinton. So it looks like being a governor is really important, even with a relatively small sample.

BUT WAIT!

In FOUR of the six elections, the defeated candidate was a VERY unpopular president. (Hoover, Ford, Carter, Bush the Elder). In the other two the defeated were sitting VPs (Nixon, Gore). Sitting presidents and VPs typically can get the nomination pretty much for the asking, even if they are rather umpopular (Truman '52 and Johnson '68 did not run to avoid getting skunked, but both achieved the office through death of a president). Of the two sitting VPs defeated, one was defeated by a SENATOR (Kennedy over Nixon).

2008 will be a different kind of race, because it will be the first one in over 50 years with no sitting or former president or VP running in the general election. The last time this happened was 1952!

This changes the dynamic dramatically, as there is nothing resembling an "incumbent," unless you want to count Mrs. Clinton as a "co-president."

In short, while being governor is very good, not being governor is hardly a disqualifier, especially in this unusual election.