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.
Cool. Good article, Salena. Today is the Wyoming primary, and I’m hoping Hunter does well.
I’m not calling you a liar. Just a friendly warning that other’s that do not agree with you will.
PS I’m on your side even though I’m sitting out the primaries.
400.00 a vote is a little to expensive for GOP tastes...
The article is excessive, but the facts in it are facts. They are spun somewhat viciously, but they are facts.
The more compelling reality is the Thompson team said they were making a major effort in Iowa. He spent two weeks in that leased bus doing his tour of the state and was “statistically tied for third” which means “almost as low as fourth”. We all want to spin things favorably, but the truth is “campaigning the way he chose” means “no money”. Those two weeks in a bus did not get him even 20% of the GOP vote in a red state (yes, Iowa voted Bush in 2004 by 10,000 votes).
The delegate count is what gets the nomination. I have a serious curiosity about just what scenario is envisioned that generates a Thompson nomination from a brokered convention. Make no mistake about it, placing 2nd consistently — in places like California and Illinois will generate a lot of delegates. NY is WTA and who thinks Guilliani can’t win there? Is it seriously presumed that Thompson can place 2nd consistently in Illinois or all of New England or Oregon or Washington?
But regardless, what is the thinking? Let’s say Thompson refuses to bow out, despite no money for media buys, and arrives in Minneapolis with maybe 1/2 the delegate count Guilliani or Romney has. Is it thought that what is going to happen is the RNC will go to Guilliani and tell him to backstab all his donors by giving his delegates to a man with 1/2 his primary performance? Or is it thought that the RNC will go to Romney and say backstab yours, and also your own family’s inheritance from the loans you made the campaign, and give your delegates to a man with 1/2 your primary performance.
I know there is passion and enthusiasm, but what I truly don’t see is how the avalanche of delegates starts. Come Super Tuesday here are the southern states voting:
AL
MO
GA
TN
ARK
MO
That’s it. And I’m stretching things by claiming MO is a southern state — and MO is the only one of that batch that is WTA.
California and New York and Illinois are all on Super Tuesday. Who do you think is going to dominate the headlines Wednesday morning as the winner of the major delegate total? With those three states voting, how can it be Thompson with no money for LA, Chicago or NYC media buys?
So that’s my problem with the whole thing. I don’t see a strategy beyond hold on and hope for a miracle. What generally happens at a convention with no one having the necessary majority is the lesser candidates are offered a prime time speech and a plank in the platform and that’s that. Is this really what he and the people sending him money have in mind?
Lies.
Thompson says he’s interested in serving, not running for president
The Altoona Herald ^ | December 29, 2007 | William Theobald
Burlington, Ia. — Fred Thompson said today he does not much like the modern form of presidential campaigning and that he “will not be devastated” if he doesn’t win the election. “I’m not particularly interested in running for president,” Thompson said, but rather he feels called to serve his country. “I don’t know if you have a desire to be president,” Burlington attorney Todd Chelf told Thompson during a question-and-answer session raising an issue that has dogged his campaign. “I am not consumed by personal ambition,” Thompson responded. “I’m offering myself up.” Given the volatile state of the world, the...
*****
Statement from the man who asked the question:
“I wanted to know does this man want to be my President? I got the last question in.
The answer was exactly what I hope it would. It was a great answer. At points during the answer I was ashamed I had asked the question. I knew the answer. Do I really want to support a candidate who lives to be President? Is that type of candidate really interested in serving the nation or serving his own self-interest?
Sen. Thompson positioned himself as willing to serve, not for an enlarged ego, but out of a deep desire to serve his nation. He has desire to make our nation better for his children and grandchildren. Far from a slick Branson like presentation, he presented himself as a dedicated patriot willing to serve if we, the American people, were willing to have him do so. He refuses to be a President under false pretenses. He is not leading us into a shotgun relationship. He understands that under the founder’s concept of the social contract, both parties must be fully aware of the terms of the contract when entering into the agreement. If the American people do not want him to be President, he is not going to trick us into agreeing to him. As I said, the answer was refreshing. It was a great answer.
See post #80, McCain did indeed take 3rd briefly. The point is Fred was not suppose to even show according to the pundits. The fact that he finished third is quite remarkable. Iowa never has been a good indicator in presidential politics and The Huckster is low in NH as is Fred, but Fred has not competed in NH. This thing is absolutely up in the air at this point despite the spin on TV.
Fred said "I'm not particularly interested in running for president."
Everybody needs to stop trying to convince me what Fred "really" said. Either he made a BIG mistake which showed in the Iowa caucus or he was babbling. I'm not the only one who took his words literally...
I read the entire transcript and he said a heck of a lot more that that 10 second sound byte.
For Your Reading Pleasure:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945742/posts
Did you see the thread with the response from the person who asked the question? I'll try to find a link to it.
A few words of Fred's answer, deliberately (IMHO) quoted out of context by the MSM and various anti-Fred FReepers, don't reflect what he was really saying.
Thought I’d stop by to show my support for Fred Thompson for his substance and conviction.
The only candidate that has the potential to not only equal Reagan, but Exceed him more importantly!
Free Republic doesn’t take kindly to mindless attacks on good conservatives. So, I’m not about to be nice to someone who trashes a good conservative like Fred Thompson. And don’t think I’ve forgotten about your dumping on Fred either.
Btw, my conscience is clear.
GO FRED GO!!!
LOL! Well said!
I’m with Fred!
You support Mitt, don't you?
Excellent.
I disagree, I think Fred was right to spend some time in Iowa, I think he has begin to hit his stride there in campaign mode. As long as he can keep the pace going, the Iowa prototype should work well (actually, better) in SC. The NH debate should also be helpful (even if NH primary is a foregone conclusion) for him to be able to draw contrasts with Huckabee (in a non-nasty way, typical of Fred).
No, he’s just someone who would rather believe what the MSM says about Fred, rather than read and listen to Fred’s exact (and entire) quote.
Well after the lofty position Rudy held, front runner and all, you would think with a 3.6% showing in Iowa he would have withdrawn the night of the caucuses. I wonder why the drive by writer didn’t write that story instead?
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.