Goodbye Fred

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.

“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.

Who is angry, nancy? Like I said, the only folks that should be angry are folks like you that thought Thompson was some conservative savior, and drafted him thinking he was a rock ribbed conservative, only to find out the truth.

I’ve supported Hunter, without reservation, from the time he announced. I still have no reservations, no anger, no 2nd thoughts about supporting the “ultimate loser”.

Now to the sentence at hand: “Whatever Mr. Thompson does is irrelevant to your stupid assertion that he should drop out and endorse the ultimate loser, Mr. Hunter.”

If Fred does not drop out, it is relevant to Hunter’s campaign. It will be another ostensibly conservative candidate taking up oxygen in a crowded field.

If Fred does drop out, it is relevant to Hunter as well. The fewer candidates the better for those remaining, typically.

If Fred drops out and follows my “stupid assertion” and endorses Hunter, it will give Hunter a lift. Even you would admit that. So that is relevant.

If Fred drops out and endorses McCain, it will give McCain a lift, so that is relevant as well. It will also porove him to be the moderate handmaiden I’ve been telling you he is all along.

The only thing that IS irrelevant are your opinions, which you may share with others til the cows come home, but from now on will be ignored by me. Cheers.

Dear pissant,

“Who is angry, nancy?”

Your vitriol is showing again, pissant.

“Like I said, the only folks that should be angry are folks like you that thought Thompson was some conservative savior, and drafted him thinking he was a rock ribbed conservative, only to find out the truth.”

Well, that would explain why you falsely think I'm angry, in that you’ve smuggled a false premise into your argument. I never thought that Mr. Thompson was other than a moderate conservative. Which is what he is. Go back, if you wish, and check what I’ve posted before.

I sure would have loved it if he’d have been more conservative, but I found his level of conservatism to be acceptable. I still do.

I’ve never thought of Mr. Thompson as some sort of conservative savior, merely a candidate who a) was sufficiently conservative to most Republican factions and who b) could conceivably be elected. Others in the media and politics have commented that no matter how well or poorly Mr. Thompson has done, he IS a candidate who is broadly acceptable to all parts of the party.

And in that he beat Mr. Hunter’s totals in Iowa by about 25 or 30 to 1, he is certainly far more readily electable than the ultimate loser that you back.

“I’ve supported Hunter, without reservation, from the time he announced. I still have no reservations, no anger, no 2nd thoughts about supporting the ‘ultimate loser’.”

Your postings, becoming increasingly erratic, fanatical, fantastical, and insulting toward others, belie your assertion. You really need to be honest with yourself.

“If Fred does not drop out, it is relevant to Hunter’s campaign. It will be another ostensibly conservative candidate taking up oxygen in a crowded field.

“If Fred does drop out, it is relevant to Hunter as well. The fewer candidates the better for those remaining, typically.

“If Fred drops out and follows my 'stupid assertion' and endorses Hunter, it will give Hunter a lift. Even you would admit that. So that is relevant.”

Face it, pissant, Mr. Hunter isn’t going anywhere, with or without Mr. Thompson in the race. It's apparent that that makes you very angry, and you direct your anger toward Mr. Thompson and his supporter, because you think that it's his (and their) fault that your candidate is doing so miserably. But the bottom line is that for all Mr. Thompson's flaws as a candidate (and he has a few), Mr. Hunter is the ultimate loser candidate in the GOP this year. Nice guy, good conservative, really lousy presidential candidate. Stop blaming Mr. Thompson and his supporters for the abject weakness of your own candidate.

At this point, even though I started out as a Hunter supporter, even I wouldn’t vote for him in my state's primary election. Besides being the worst campaigner of the lot, he attracts too many self-righteous kooks, nuts, and pricks. There is some serious flaw in his character that nearly all his supporters are stupid, insane, or evil.

“If Fred drops out and endorses McCain, it will give McCain a lift, so that is relevant as well. It will also porove him to be the moderate handmaiden I’ve been telling you he is all along.”

Myself, although I prefer Mr. Hunter’s POLICIES to Mr. McCain’s, I prefer Mr. McCain’s CHANCES to Mr. Hunter’s.

All along, I’ve said I’d vote for any Republican nominee but Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney.

Mr. McCain received 13% of the vote in Iowa without campaigning. Mr. Hunter received approximately 0.4% of the vote after giving it what he could (an admittedly limited effort, as it's hard to run a campaign on hundreds and hundreds of dollars).

Mr. Hunter is not going to hold public office after the first few days of January, 2009.

“The only thing that IS irrelevant are your opinions, which you may share with others til the cows come home, but from now on will be ignored by me. Cheers.”

I’m not the one posting crackpot ideas out of growing anger and possible mental instability.

Good luck to you.

sitetest

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.