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.
That’s the because the others who believe the same as you would rather believe the MSM than Fred’s exact words. Its so much easier that way.
I understand the miracle preferences, but all those states are not WTA. They are partial delegate awards. It is not those that will win the nomination. it is the BIG states.
NY is WTA. That is a really ominous thing and it occurs Super Tuesday, which is only 1 month from today. Thompson would have to elevate to first tier BEFORE then to win that state from Guilliani, and it’s just not going to happen.
CA and IL are also Feb 5. They are proportional and enormous and they are not an obvious place for Thompson to be strong, regardless of mojo — but the overall point here is there is no time for a change of mojo and no money to pay for it. Super Tuesday is only 4 weeks from now. Michigan is next week and is really the first of the major contests, and Thompson won’t even compete there. South Carolina will be diluted on its own day by Nevada — and SC is NOT WTA. Only a handful of delegates can be won there.
This is a delegates numbers game. If you don’t compete in California, Illinois and NY, there is no way to get big numbers. Worse still, perhaps worst of all, Texas doesn’t vote until March, and it is NOT WTA. The power of Texas will be spread out among multiple players.
You can’t walk into a convention in 3rd or 4th or 5th place in delegate count and expect to be annointed. There is just no mechanism for persuading the top 2 to backstab their own people so a 2nd tier candidate can have the nomination. It is conceivable this might have happened in the distant past, but there is far too much money involved in the process now for that scenario to make any sense at all. People will not tolerate having their money stolen like that.
I already have. So have many others. And there have been entire threads on the subject, also linked here.
and on to Wyoming!
This would all be the biggest laugh if the stakes were not so high. What is disturbing is how many conservatives are willing to give up because of hit "articles" like this. She is just one of a long line who have been pronouncing Fred dead since he started. Despite that, he took 3rd in Iowa.
McCain is not dead and Rudy is not dead and neither is Fred Thompson. And he is our last best hope for a conservative win in this race, so now is the time to join him and support him against those who are determined to remove conservative influence from our government in this election.
No, Fred said that he didn't want the job. Then all of you Fredheads jumped in and accused me of cherry picking his statement.
I didn't lie. I have just been slandered by you. So what does that say about you?
If I remember correctly... I could almost feel the "cold shoulder," the 'other' group(s) gave us for supporting Duncan Hunter. And that is when they were not hinting we were some sort of 'moonbats,' and in several cases we were given the proper amount of ridiculing for wanting a man of quality. Such arrogance! :)
So, it is hard not to glee a little for being 'vindicated,' if that is the right word, that Fred Thomson was not the "mesiah" many thought he was... and I will stop here.
I assure everyone I am not a saint :) and dont' mind being mean with those I consider social-conservative enemies, but not with the people in FR.
I like Fred (he is the only frontrunner I heartily support) but his campaign is being run awfully. I guess it’s too late to bring new people on board but something needs to be done, IMO.
Context?
How about pure distortion.
Begone you base fellow!
So I think this has been and early search and destroy mission to avoid a Democrat loss down the line.
Just my opinion...
He did not and you've just lied again.
Politico has been caught blatantly lying once. The piece about Fred dropping out the day before the caucus has not been found true, so I doubt their honesty again. I wonder why otherwise reputable columnists pass rumors from known liars.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, huh?
And I thank you for that.
It is my right to believe what I want to believe and it is your right to believe in Fred.
At the end, I sincerely hope we don't have Obama or Hillary for President.
“When was Fred in fourth?”
Try reading the live thread - it’s still in breaking news, so you don’t even have to search.
—McCain just passed Fred for third. Still votes left to be counted.
—We got trouble in Rivercity, trouble with a capital “T”. Fred now in 4th place.
—With 78% reported, McCain 12,520(13.46%) to Fred 12,484(13.42%) at Link
Still very close but trending the wrong way.
—Unfortunately, Fred is only beating McCain by a little bit.
—78% Counted: Huckabee - 34% Romney - 25% McCain - 14% Thompson - 13% Paul - 10% Giuliani - 4% Hunter - 0%
Let's wait and see how he does...
Heck, pissant still has not answered my post 109 posted on 01/05/2008 11:36:29 AM CST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA), and all I ask was why would Fred (third) drop out and endorse Duncan (seventh) as pissanty suggested...
Agreed. But it was still a misallocation of assets by the campaign. And they didn't do a good job of managing expectations.
Not yet can we say “Goodbye Fred.”
We WILL be saying “Goodbye, Mitt”, however!
difference between real-time and virtual reality?
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.