Posted on 01/05/2008 9:05:25 AM PST by pissant
Manchester (NH): Fred Thompson spent most of caucus night in Iowa hovering between third and fourth place -- a far cry from the lofty first-place position he held in Rasmussen's poll of likely Republican caucus-goers last June. It has been a long time since Thompson has made a compelling reason to be in this race. And it should be a very short time before he confesses a compelling reason to exit stage right. A bystander in his own race, Thompson's political what-could-have-been slipped through his fingers long before he announced his candidacy. “The process for running for president has begun so early,” says GOP political strategist Charlie Gerow, “that if you are not in the game, you are not in the game … and Fred Thompson was never in the game.” Larry Sabato, who directs the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, says “the biggest loser of 2008 is already known: Fred Thompson. The biggest pre-candidacy buildup since Ted Kennedy in the 1980 cycle has led to the same result -- a failure to come close to fulfilling his high expectations.” The short story of Fred Thompson started just about a year ago at the conservative love-fest known as the Conservative Political Action Convention, or CPAC. There, hints of a Thompson hat-toss began. By late spring, he was all the rage. He hit his high note with a clever video smacking down docudrama king Michael Moore. Suddenly, the political and media worlds could not get enough of Fred. It was his shining moment -- except that Fred forgot to shine. Summer came and went. So did a whole lot of staff and a whole lot of opportunities.
His eventual announcement in September came with a hefty price tag -- the Republican Primary voters in New Hampshire. He chose to announce on Jay Leno’s show, bypassing the first New Hampshire debate the same evening.
“He was an attractive idea, an image, and the reality couldn’t match it,” Sabato says. “This may be the fate of anyone touted as the next Reagan. Reagan is no longer a man. He’s a myth. No living human being can fulfill those expectations.”
“My opinion of what happened to Fred Thompson is that he turned out to be ... Fred Thompson,” adds Matt Lebo, political science professor at New York’s Stony Brook University.
“I don't think it’s just his late entry -- that is just a symptom of the problem,” Lebo says. “The problem is that he has never shown a willingness to fight for conservative causes. Believing in those causes isn't enough. There should be some evidence that you are willing to do something about it.”
While comparisons have been made to the failed 2004 campaign of Wesley Clark, those may not be fair. Clark was a political novice; Thompson is not.
So why did Thompson go wrong?
“I think he was expecting to ride in, pick up the bouquet, and that would be that,” says Bert A. Rockman, head of the political science department at Purdue University. “It doesn’t work that way.
“People confuse appearance with reality. Thompson played hard-as-nails authority figures on TV and in the movies. But his campaign had no distinctiveness, no comparative advantage.”
Somehow, someone must have convinced Thompson that times had changed and he could run a different kind of campaign, one that suited his low-key approach to politics. A campaign sans rubber-chicken dinners, moldy bus tours and all the other degrading aspects of running for president.
Tack on the misconceptions that tens of millions of dollars were waiting for him, that he could easily round up organizational support -- and that pretty much sums up why the promise of Fred never happened.
As the country shifts its gaze toward New Hampshire, Thompson stands to fare even worse here than he did in Iowa. As of Friday morning, he was polling sixth among likely Republican voters.
So, the near-term question for Fred Thompson isn't if he drops out of the race but when.
When was Fred in fourth?
You can throw some dirt on Mitt also after the 8th.
No way is he dead. However, McCain/Huckabee are drawing votes from him.
If this were true, then all the other candidates would be behind Fred, after all when did Mitt, Rudy, McCain or Huckabee ever demonstrate a “willingness to fight for conservative causes.”
Are we to believe that in the absence of someone who comes across as a “fighter for conservative causes” or back up plan is to chose someone who has been a “fighter for liberal causes”
The truth of the matter, is that media shapes initial expectations, and they build up candidates that for one reason or the other they find desirable. How else to you explain an ultra lib like “Rudy” or “Romney” leading a field that has candidates like Thompson and Hunter.
And irrelevant. The biggest winner in Iowa was, of course, Huckabee but McCain's surprisingly good finish was good news for him. Fred did well enough to continue on but I'm sure that he is disappointed. Romney was the big loser on the Republican side. His huge investments of time, money, and staff got few results.
Hopefully Romney and the Huckster will destroy each other, and once they get their liberal rear-ends out of the way Republicans can get serious.
Liar.
Just wait until Super Tuesday.
Ok, WHY?
Why does Fred, who is in the top three, need to "endorse Hunter" who finished, what, 6th, 7th? Other than pipe dreams and delusion, just what is Duncan going to win? Even in WYOMING Fred is predicted ahead of Duncan.
So again, WHY? I want to hear this one.
Larry Sabato, quoted in this hit piece, is certainly one of these, who recently was one of the saboteurs of George Allen, a now Thompson supporter.
It’s possible that Conservatives may now be a minority in the Republican party...I hope not.
ANd you need to do some serious READING. That quote was taken entirely out of context. Try reading Fred’s words before believing what that MSM is telling you.
You can do it in a nicer way!
Well, nothing would surprise me at this point. I mean, Tancredo endorsed Mitt.
Southern Money men like Fred...
I’m sure Jim will be interested in seeing this vicious hitpiece.
I envy you! I will have to settle for great-grandchildren now!
Dude! Don't get mad at me! The man actually said "I'm not particularly interested in running for president.
The question is: are you in denial or trying to rewrite history?
***************************
~Pissant Outed on Free Republic!~
Extra, extra, read all about it!
Your quote does not match your original claim. You are the one lying about history.
... and you're gay too.
You guys are too funny. Thanks for the giggles this morning.
And GO FRED!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.