Goodbye Fred

Townhall.com ^ | 1/5/07 | Selena Zito

[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.

[Petronski]

Potluck.

[G.Mason]

"Thompson does not want the presidency in the Hillary power mad sense. Instead, he IS running (and making the necessary sacrifices) for the presidency precisely because he believes that in the capacity of POTUS, he can "do things only a pesident can do" and ensure this Nations course more closely resembles the course set forward and bound by the pricipals of our founding fathers. (e.g. constructionist Judges)"

100%correct.

I have become used to these lies & distortions from the MSM, other pols, even my neighborhood dolts. It's rather unseemly to take it from Freepers.

One can support their candidate as they desire, but to out and out lie about what one said by inserting an imaginary meaning ... well they need to be called out.

I support Fred and will continue to do so, and I will do it while not lying about another.

[KC_Conspirator]

I think I liked you better when you were a dirty old man...

[Petronski]

Thanks for assembling that. John123 lied, and that indictment has laid it all out.

[DesScorp]

What a stupid tw@t.

[ontap]

He ain’t old!

[trisham]

Either you're misrepresenting them deliberately and disingenously or your reading comprehension is quite poor.

********************

I'm going with option #1. No one could be that stupid.

[Petronski]

Bob: LOL! Your own posted quote doesn't support your claim and you think Fred's supporters have a reading comprehension problem?

John123: Huh? I'm sorry, I don't do riddles...

Sometimes irony can be so damn ironic.

[TLI]

Because Hunter is a better choice for CIC than anyone running. Your logic is, ummm, flawed?

Ok, I want to be clear on this. You are actually suggesting a solid conservative that consistently polls 20 or more points higher than Duncan right here on FR, drop out of the presidential race so a tail dragger in SEVENTH place that has absolutely ZERO chance of winning the Presidency just to get an endorsement from a candidate that actually does has a good shot at winning, thus insuring a Democrat in the White House is the way to go?

That is what you are telling me and everyone else here in this forum? Insuring a Hillary or WORSE in the White House is the thing to do because Duncan whom has run 0%-1% even after holding offices for HOW long, over twenty years is it?

And your reasoning on this is "Because Hunter is a better choice for CIC than anyone running?" Even though his nomination would be an utter disaster? A guaranteed LOSS?

That is the "pearl of wisdom" you are sharing with us?

“Honorable” Suicide?

I think it is time for you to "go recess" and play with your box of rocks...

[pissant]

I can’t control how you think or where you wastte your vote. I’m just telling you that Hunter is the best man to be CIC. Who knows what the electorate will do. They may nominate a socially conservative buffoon like Huck, or an unstable charaltan like mcCain or a lib like Rudy or a moderate like Fred.

[Petronski]

Ok, I want to be clear on this. You are actually suggesting a solid conservative that consistently polls 20 or more points higher than Duncan right here on FR, drop out of the presidential race so a tail dragger in SEVENTH place that has absolutely ZERO chance of winning the Presidency just to get an endorsement from a candidate that actually does has a good shot at winning, thus insuring a Democrat in the White House is the way to go?

Such bizarre suggestions are predictable when you understand that his credibility and pride are out there on that dead limb with the Hunter Duncan campaign.

It's sad to watch, really.

[pissant]

Actually, I have no such expectations for Fred. He will almost assuredly endorse McCain when he drops out.

[TLI]

Personally, I think Fred Thompson should have most of the same problems that John McCain has because they were so close in the Senate, but those issues haven't stuck to Mr. Thompson as badly.

Well, that is probably because Fred does not do things like this...

Or this...

[Prokopton]

Why I don’t like Fred? I don’t dislike him, he’s just a moderate

At least he's not a big government, big pork, moderate like the candidate you're backing. And I don't believe he has ever fought the pentagon to keep pork programs that needlessly cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars like your candidate has. And Thompson has ran a campaign effective enough to keep him above the MOE unlike your candidate.

Hunter is a good Rep., but his total lack of charisma and campaigning abilities along with his big spending ways has left him in the dust. Prolonging his campaign is only embarrassing himself. He took a shot and got stomped. Deal with it and move on.

[x]

Fred's had more to do with television than a lot of other politicians.

He came to prominince with the televised Watergate hearings, and he's acted in films and a television show.

But he comes across as a very old-fashioned campaigner from before the era of modern media -- a politician not so different from those of two generations ago.

That may be where the disappointment comes from.

[pissant]

You are embarrassing yourself if you think Fred’s record on pork is better than Hunters. Got news for ya, darling. It ain’t.

[Names Ash Housewares]

Pure hit piece.

Reaganw as 2nd in Iowa. Bubba got single digits in Iowa.
Bush 41 was third.

Iowa is about as meaningful as a Ouija board.

Why aren't they slamming Rudy for his dismal numbers?

I hate the MSM.

Fred did way better then they thought and he will continue to do so.

[Petronski]

Actually, I have no such expectations for Fred.

Yet yous keep begging for his supporters to support your guy after you trash the only conservative in the race.

[Eddie01]

Take heart my FRiend. Freepers can not be spun.

Regardless of whether the spin is coming from a campaign staffer or a blind supporter, people looking in on the debate here will always get the unvarnished truth.

I would feel much better about the contest knowing every voter was a participating member of FreeRepublic. I could accept the outcome regardless of who won the nomination.

I want to put a www.FreeRepublic.com yard sign out next to my Fred sign.

I want to see www.FreeRepublic.com on the airport billboard above the down escalator in every airport in America.

Best.E01

[pissant]

I’m not begging you. Do what you want. I just give you the facts ma’am.