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.
Well, now that Hunter has at least one delegate, maybe you’ll get your wish, a dropout contract. If you’re so convinced Fred’s is overpriced, just short it and you’ll make money that way. Especially February, you’d make a lot more on that one, since it’s at 85%.
There's no reason it would. It doesn't work that way.
The contract value is worth $1 if he wins, not one penny for each percent he's polling.
You should stop posting about these things if you are so badly informed.
Do you think Hucklebee will fizzle? If so, where do you think his support would go? He’s a Pro-Life Evangelical, and so is Hunter. Thompson is a Pro-life, uh I dunno what he considers himself to be, he seems to have a Laodicean “I’m OK/You’re OK” spiritual outlook.
Thompson: ‘I’m OK with the Lord, and the Lord is OK with me’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1934692/posts
In terms of the evie scale but he does not appear to be an evangelical. And his followers don’t seem to want to make evengelicals welcome, whereas evies would feel very welcome in the Hunter camp.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1948397/posts
-----
Well, one reason might be because you bothered to find out what he really said, rather than accepting an 8-word snippet taken utterly out of context by a hostile journalist.
But that's just me. You decide your own way.
Hank
I do think he will fizzle. Since he is not a conservative I would not venture a guess at who he would endorse. I don’t believe Fred or Duncan would necessarily seek it although either would accept it. Trying to paint Fred as not being pro life is an exercise in futility. Finding a quote that can be construed a certain way means nothing. When he was in office his voting record was 100% pro-life.
From the Intrade website. Each point is worth 10cents. 100 points X 10cents = $10. Not $1.
Since you are so badly informed, I look forward to not seeing any posts from you on this subject... yeah, right, like you’re going to follow your own moral standard.
From Intrade:
Think in terms of points, when a contract trades from 63 to 73 - that’s 10 points. Each point is worth 10¢.
If you bought one George Bush re-election contract at 63 and he does win the election, that contract will close, or settle, at 100. Your profit will be 37 points x 10¢ per each point or $3.70.
Settlement price – purchase price = your profit
OR
100 – 63 = 37 points X 10¢ per point = $3.70 a profit
On the other hand, if he does not win re-election that contract will settle at 0 and your loss would be 63 points.
0 – 63 = – 63 X 10¢ per point = – $6.30 a loss
Remember, you do NOT have to hold onto any contracts you buy or sell until the election, you can trade out of them any time!
Let’s take another example, you buy 6 contracts at 50 in the morning and sell them out at 73 later that day. You collect 23 points (73 – 50) times 6 contracts times $.10 for each point or $13.80 in profit.
23 points X 6 contracts X $.10 = $13.80
A penny of contract price is worth one tenth of that in real money.
I was referring to contract price.
Yet another of your precious Perry Mason gotcha moments has failed. It’s getting really embarrassing for you.
Who’s painting Fred as not Pro-Life? Typical Fred Follower straw argument.
When Tancredo quit, he endorsed Romney, to many Freepers’ surprise. But most of his followers appear to have wandered into Team Hunter or even Team Fred. It doesn’t matter that much who the candidate endorses, unless a VP slot is being promised.
Would you ever vote for a non-evangelical? Is it possible?
And his followers don’t seem to want to make evengelicals welcome...
Bearing false witness again?
I challenge you to a debate, over on the Intrade forum.
We cut & paste this argument over there, let them weigh in, and whoever wins will post “My candidate wins this round” and the loser will respond with: Congratulations.
Over on the Intrade forum, I post as ko.
I don't care. You're not equipped to discuss this.
If the local HS Model U.N. challenges Condy Rice to a debate, she should say no.
No straw argument! That's how I read your post. I think the evangelicals would support Fred or Duncan. They supported the first Bush knowing Barbra Bush was wishy washy on abortion. Abortion is the only major thing Huckabee is conservative on. His supporters could go anywhere truth be known.
No, they did that with their complete disregard for Hunter.
Would you ever vote for a non-evangelical? Is it possible?
***Yes, I would and I have. And I will vote for Fred if he is nominated, but he is a lesser man than Hunter.
Bearing false witness again?
***NO. As a matter of fact, you are one of the worst Fred Followers when it comes to the evangelical thing. You say yourself you are NOT an evangelical, and that Dobson is a jackass. As far as I can see you have a real burr in your saddle when it comes to evangelicals. If this is how you treat evangelical conservatives on an conservative forum supporting a conservative candidate, I can imagine you wouldn’t treat evangelical moderates who supported Huckabee very well. I leave it to the readers to decide. Maybe you just have a lot of burrs in your saddle.
Nope. You keep repeating it even though I told you it is not true.
My issue is with Big Jim Dobson, who feels empowered to judge a man's faith from a distance, without so much as meeting him or (as I think he admitted), even researching the matter.
That's within my personal definition of a jackass.
I thought you would decline.
Let the readers decide for themselves. In particular, the Huckabee evangelical Pro-life supporters, look how you’d be welcome in camp Hunter versus being kicked around in camp Thompson.
You're bearing false witness again.
Thanks for your personal definition. I’m sure when your private emails become public information, everyone will be just as charitable as you.
Heh.
If I ever leak a private email that states you are not a Christian, especially since I have never met you, please feel free to call me a jackass.
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.