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.
Just barely 50%-49%. Iowa generally is fairly liberal. Unless you consider Tom Harkin conservative.
What Fred Thompson said was ...
" Asked directly if he would like the job of president, Mr. Thompson said, “I’ve never craved the job of president, but I want to do some things that only a president can do, so the answer is yes.” "
It was said on the Jay Leno Show around June 11th of this year.
No thank you. Fred shouldn't have said it. It was stupid unless he really means it.
But I must not be the only one who questions his desire... he didn't do well in Iowa. Let's see how he does in NH...
Out of context media spin and you have been spun. Nothing sadens me more than witnessing the effectiveness of the charlatan dupe relationship.
Since the premise of your statement is wholly incorrect (he wants to serve the nation, doesn't want the presidency for powers sake).
You are either here to sell the lie or have been sold the lie.
Either way, your poisening the selection of the next president of the United States. Thought you should know that.
If you choose to argue the point then I know you are selling the lie. What say you.
Eddie01
LOL! You don’t want to read the truth? Interesting.
Not one word about Fred’s vision for America. Beltway journalism is nothing more than a bunch of drunks whining to each other about what they makeup in their blogs.
You are probably right about that but it was a disaster for Fred's campaign when he made that statement. Let's see if he can do better in NH...
Hello Fred
The process has mercy on those that are limping along, and losing steam, but eventually it becomes clear to the candidate some little time before someone has to kick him toward the grave, let alone shovel dirt on him. Thompson is very close to that point-—if there’s going to be a surge of support for him, HE is going to have to personally be the engineer of it-—I don’t think he’s up to the job, and by obvious extension, the job of President—(that would be the perception in general among the voting public)The reason Obama has become so compelling is precisely because his candidacy, whatever else you think of him, has made itself, with Oprah on the bandwagon, a theatrical EVENT——don’t discount that-—that will carry him a long way because he has MET and RECIPROCATED the enthusiasm of his followers with a synergistic enthusiasm of his own-—his campaign will NOT peter out-—and if the MSM thinks for whatever reason, he should be squelched, and participates in that process, that will only gain him more support, and damage Hillary’s bid, because the MSM will then be seen as her lackeys once again, trying to complete the job she started that has alredy pretty seriously damaged her. I have to admit, I can see the MSM getting behind Obama somewhere down the line-—if he starts to show signs of becoming an irresistible force , the MSM will jump aboard-—there is NO advantage for them to “ back a losers”-—which would be the new perception of the once-inevitable Hillary.
Nope. I'm liking Duncan or Rudy so far...
Duncan and Rudy. You couldn’t pick two more ideologically opposites.
Pissant, have you been or ever had any association with the Politico?
They are the official media hatchet men against the Thompson candidacy.
Not saying you are but could you be that bald guy from the Politco saying Thompson was doomed after his third place finish in Iowa? :)
Of course I’m joshing. But I’m more amused by you pissant. You are entertaining.
I’m with Fred!
The question is: are you in denial or trying to rewrite history?
And how does that quote support your original claim that he's not interested in being president? (Hint: it doesn't.)
You're cherry-picking as much as the MSM is.
Um, no...
If it does indeed go to convention, Thompson will not be among the "lesser" candidates, but part of the brokering.
The hacks for the various factions of the GOP are very busy right now.
Watch Wyoming today.
If Fred pulls it out there, think about conceptually adding the following Feb 5th states to Fred's potential win list:
Alaska
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
Also, you forgot West Virginia, I think Fred has pull there too if the Huckaboom fades.
~being straighforward and honest~
thank you!
"...I don’t know that they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I don’t know that they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. But nowadays, it’s all about fire in the belly. I’m not sure in the world we live in today it’s a good thing if a president has too much fire in the belly. I approach life differently than a lot of people. People, I guess, wonder how I’ve been as successful as I’ve been in everything that I’ve done. I won two races in TN by 20 point margins in a state that bill Clinton carried twice. I’ve never had an acting lesson. I guess that’s obvious by people who’ve watched me…When I did it, I did it. Wasn’t just a lark. Anything that’s worth doing is worth doing well. But I’ve always been a little more laid back than most. I’m only consumed by very, very few things. Politics is not one of them. The welfare of our country and our kids and grandkids is one of them.
If people really want in their president super type-a personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about for years how they win the presidency of the united states, someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning, I ain’t that guy. So I hope I’ve discussed that and didn’t talk you out of anything. I honestly want – I can’t imagine a worse set of circumstances [than] achieving the Presidency of the United States under false pretenses. I go out of my way to be myself..."
Should have said “can FRED take Arkansas from him”
Sometimes the media bias is so blatant you can actually taste it......
regards
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.