And So It Ends
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Fred Thompson | Turn Out The Lights — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sadly, Fred Thompson has pulled the plug on his campaign. One could see it coming but his supporters--and yes, I proudly was one of them--feel a sense of loss. Thompson was the only candidate in the GOP race who consistently advocated a small-government, free market, federalist message and his departure leaves a hole in the race for the GOP nomination. Neither one of his competitors articulated the message of Reaganism as closely and as eloquently as Thompson did.
I suppose that there are things to learn from this episode in American Presidential history. We learn that getting in the race for the Presidency early is now an imperative. We learn that untraditional campaigns fail. And we learn that however much a candidate is ambitious for his ideas, it won't matter to the electorate unless he is also ambitious for himself or herself.
This appears to be the reality of the day and it is to that reality that we supporters of Fred Thompson have to reconcile ourselves. But we don't have to like it. We may tut-tut at Thompson's disregard for Presidential electioneering conventional wisdom. And we may be right to do so as well. But I don't believe that Fred Thompson departed from that conventional wisdom merely because he was "lazy." Lazy people don't get to where he has gotten in life. I think that he saw a better way to elect Presidents and his way was not shared by the electorate.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Tuesday Open Thread. — Comments (36) »
And So It Ends 42 Comments (0 topical, 42 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
but there was a certain devil may care attitide he displayed that robbed him of gravitas. That's no way to run a campaign. He put the wrong foot forward.
I had the opportunity of meeting Thompson in South Carolina where he spoke for the "good ole boy" vote. I spoke with him and he didn't make eye contact with me once, nor the gal I was there with. The footage is up on Newyorktimes.com and I am a citizen journalist for www.purplestates.tv, with an easier link to see the footage. He didn't even take the opportunity to honor a wounded veteran, simply denied him of his question.
modern primary system. It is a system that focuses on sound bites where everything hinges on momentum and money. You have to have one or both to win. Until the system is fundamentally changed it will only be open to candidates with incredible amounts of either charisma or cash.
"We learn that getting in the race for the Presidency early is now an imperative."
Maybe, but I'm not convinced. Once he entered, he didn't hit the ground running.
Though there is one big factor I'll grant: the other candidates had already taken campaign staff and endorsements.
"We learn that untraditional campaigns fail."
He didn't run a serious untraditional campaign, at least in terms of new media. Where were the daily YouTube videos (for example)? The Michael Moore bit was genius, but he didn't keep at it. I don't know whether Fred could be a consistent "great communicator" but I think it would be amazing to have a candidate give daily commentary. That's the type of communication that's needed to sell a small govt message in the face of a hostile media.
been the Huckabee evangelicals. The unfortunate thing for Huckabee's supporters is that now they do not have anyone in the race who they can really turn too. Both they and the Fred supporters are in the same boat now with having to support someone they really don't care for, but hey it's politics.
Thompson was the only candidate in the GOP race who consistently advocated a small-government, free market, federalist message
I'll be flamed for this, but be fair here, Ron Paul also fits this description.
Weave you are right Ron Paul does fit that description but he falls short when you weigh all of his other libertarian beliefs. I am real disappointed in Fred and the way he ran his campaign. Now I find myself in an uncomfortable place where I really don't care for any one running. I of course feel like this everytime there is an election.....I am hoping Fred will be picked up as a running mate......only time will tell.
been consistently advocating a "small-government, free market, federalist message." It's a shame that so many haven't been receptive to that message and that Rudy chose such a poor strategy in avoiding the early states.
I will also put the blame on a lot of people who are crying now about Fred being gone and never putting their money where their mouth was and their vocal support in gear either.
Right now I see a lot of places saying woulda shoulda coulda.
Well folks you waited for your ship and the dock fell in.
Personally I think Fred left the race not for political reasons, but because of his mother which is a sign of class in my book.
Huck being a distraction who will likely stay in the race till the convention just to enable the religious right to try to be power users at a brokered convention is a possibility.
The only thing breaking our way is that even with what we have left for choices they still leave a field much stronger than what is playing political stage show on the left.
The only worry is how many dummies can they slide together with give me benefits to buy my vote , Bush is bad and socialism is good.
Patrick Cox, one of the first staffers Sen. Thompson hired. In it he discusses the problems, as he saw it, with the campaign.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/fred_thompson_quits_from_presi.php
--roxer
That movie studio idea is fabulous. If it worked, it could well be more important to America longterm than Thompson in the Oval Office would have been.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I don't think we've seen the last of Fred in public service.
By the time the nomination process is over, Republicans may be wishing Fred were still a contender.
I highly recommend that you buy stock in the company that makes bumper-stickers saying..."Don't Blame Me, I VOTED FOR FRED"
And this one does ring really true:
The consensus of GOP insiders in Florida seems to be that it may have been impossible for Fred to create that organization so late in the game. Romney, Giuliani and McCain had already cherry-picked the best and the brightest; especially Romney. I’ve heard from people who had committed to other candidates well in advance of the campaigns but deeply regretted not having been able to join the Thompson Team without breaking promises. Ultimately, I think, this disadvantage proved to be insurmountable.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/fred_thompson_quits_from_presi.php
This does really ring true to me. To some extent, a campaign is basically a major project, a sort of a startup company. If Fred's late entry meant that the best people were already committed elsewhere, then the disadvantage there is insurmountable.
The only possible lesson one can draw, however, is that if you have any aspirations to higher office, you need to start locking up the talent NOW.
So I recommend that Erick announce for the Presidency in 2020 today, to make sure he locks up the talent.
More seriously, that structure means we can never have the reluctant leader in America. We can never have someone like Fred who decided to run because he truly felt the country needed him, not because the Presidency was a personal ambition. What the Republican Party needs to find are its own Bill and Hillary Clintons, people for whom the White House was a life goal since the 5th grade, and has been assembling their teams since freshman year in college.
Is that good or bad? Well... it is what it is.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
But let's not let Fred off the hook too easily. Anyone planning to make a serious run for President, owes it to himself and his constituents, to start planning early, assessing all aspects of the campaign - financial, communications strategy, political, and personal, and not allow him or herself to jump in if they're not willing to demonstrate their commitment to the overall effort from the getgo. Fred (and his advisors) did not do this and that's where I fault him and them. I've said this before, between Giuliani and Thompson, you have the potential for two excellent Harvard Business case studies on how not to run a politcal campaign. And both should be lessons learned going forward.
If Rudy can win Florida, then the same people criticizing his campaign now will praise him for having the guts to skip the little states at the beginning of the process.
We shall see.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
we are in trouble. There is unfortunately something lacking with all remaining candidates - some worse than others. I think Gov. Romney is the least damaging, but his recent "come to Jesus" moment as a conservative is not really backed up by his record. RomneyCare, I will sign an assault weapons ban, pandering to certain groups just to name a few. Democrats will have a field day with him. Same with McCain and Giuliani. The only hope they have is if the base holds it's nose and dives in. Now the remaining candidates will have to convince us they are worthy of the office.
We tend to judge the the future on past knowledge because that is sometimes all we have. I know that Romney talks a good game, McCain says he has "heard the people", and Giuliani is a known factor - at least he is honest. One thing I can say about Sen. Thompson being in the race - these guys had to prove their conservatism, not just speak it.
The GOP tends to don their candidate with the conservative moniker like a used car salesman, treating the term as a commodity. Thompson brought that to light and forced us to really look at it, examine it, and shock us back to reality. Is this person a conservative? Does his/her viewpoint support the conservative mantra? Are his/her policies in line with the conservative philosophy? Is the record there to support it? We needed that moment. We needed to move the conservative movement back to being treated as serious and not the vague label it was becoming. Some, including Rush Limbaugh, tried to force the conservative label on George W. Bush. I guess we needed that - we had to believe we had a complete conservative in the White House. We now know that doesn't work.
So to Sen. Thompson, I say thank you, thank you, thank you. This is a bitter moment for all who had high hopes of once again seeing a true conservative in the White House. Someone to return us from the social pit we are sliding into. I have heard many on talk radio who supported the good Senator say they have no where else to go - good. Conservatives should feel that way when there are no others in the race. Does that mean we do not vote for the "cause" to keep the bogyman out? That question has to answered individually - it is your conscience you have to deal with. To those who supported Sen. Thompson on this site - God bless you and thanks. Now it is time to move on. Long live conservatism!
--roxer
Unless the polls are way, way, way, way off, McCain has excellent favorability ratings, even better than Thompson ever had.
He might have a hard time holding some online Republicans, who have kept in tune with each and every grievance, and never forgotten any of them, but there aren't enough of those to matter.
About the only group I see deserting him is the anti-illegal immigration wing (the anti-immigration people, too, are just too few to matter), and even they will be faced with a McCain who wants "build the g-d fence."
He's a great American, and everyone owes him and those who have made the same commitment he made to his country, an untold amount of gratitude. Having said that, let's be clear about his record - he's more Democrat than Republican. He can't undo his record on immigration, McCain Feingold, and his opposition to tax reductions, and that's just the first three. Put the pros/cons of Iraq aside, if Conservatives have been disgruntled by George Bush's attention to Conservative principals (e.g. the Medicare Drug Program for starters, and lack of restrictions to govermental spending), then McCain will make you absolutely insane. Where Bush has gone to the boards with the likes of Pelosi and Reid, McCain will have Boy George (Lindsay Graham) from SC running interference for him to our detriment. About the only thing I can think that's positive about him is that he's not Hillary.
But even if we assume conservatives all hate McCain, he's still going to hold most of the party together, which is great.
If McCain does win the nomination I think your point will have been proven, conservatives will have been shown to be in the minority. However I think striping out the base will not be a sign of holding the party together.
Is the Reagan legacy dead for the Republican party, this primary may tell us.
I doubt conservatives can even turn out the 6 million evangelicals that stayed home in 2000, for example.
this is perhaps the most compelling point I've heard in the post-Fred wake.
This is something I'm going to seriously consider.
McCain may have his flaws, but they might be the lesser of the remaining canidates.
I urge you read this, too, and here ends my threadjack :-)
If you had a Democrat who was pro-life (and said Roe v Wade should be overturned), anti-pork barrel spending (and pro-fiscal conservative) was a staunch WOT supporter, voted with Republicans over 86% of the time, then I think you have a good Democrat.
However, this is actually a Republican profile. If the Senator were a liberal, the dKos crowd would love him. Instead, read how closely he is tied to Bush by the liberals.
The great thing about not letting a wing of politics dictate what you believe, like a lemming or a Romney, is that you get to think for yourself and do what you think is right. Not everyone will agree, but I'd worry if everyone agreed.
Senator McCain is a Republican and is conservative on most issues. Sure, there are issues where he does not follow a bible to the key, but the same can be said for Paul, Romney and Huckabee. Pick your issues, I suppose. But to classify any of these as liberal overlooks the numbers, the majority of the issues and the common sense of intelligent readers.
I may concede that there may be too few people in the Republican party that take the time to reacquaint themselves with McCain’s voting record.
But as far as the anti-illegal wing being small, I'm not so sure, there was more than a few people that overloaded the phones at congress when amnesty came up.
Florida will be interesting as it is a closed primary, this time it will be Republicans only.
Independents were the main part of McCain's plan in the primary and more so in the general, should be interesting to see how he does without them.
As a member of the anti-illegal immigration wing I have no doubt McCain will declare the borders secure by any means (fence or no fence) so he can move on grant “not” amnesty.
I'm more of a voting record checker type then a what he's says to get elected type. I don't think much of the positions he has actually taken against the party then what he is saying he will do in order to get elected by the party.
That aside, what big point did I miss?
The biggest argument against McCain IS what he says though. His voting record is good.
And the point you missed is this: McCain wants a clemency for illegals, but he's realized he won't get it until he and the government become credible on security. So his goal as President will be to build that credibility.
And hey, that's precisely what conservatives wanted to begin with: a security-first plan.
You and I disagree on that point as covered in other treads.
To clarify, I'm one of those security only types when it comes to illegal immigration. I truly believe that actually securing the border and actually enforcing current laws will solve the problem through attrition.
Tell you what, I may reconsider “comprehensive” reform after the border is actually secure for a decade or two.
And I actually think there's an excellent chance McCain will surpass Clinton-era enforcement, in order to get his clemency.
We'll see, heh.
I've had my very bitter moments since Saturday myself.
It is what it is and that's what we have to deal with now. I can't think of endorsing or being active in any other campaign.There are any number of good folks here who have endorsed one or another remaining presidential candidate. I'll do my duty to the best of my ability and whatever happens... happens. We tried, we failed... others may live to regret it but I won't because I tried.
Mr. Stevens had an idea of working from the bottom up to restore conservative principles. I believe it's an idea worth following up on. Tennessee has been infiltrated by liberal government in the bigger population areas. Last week there was a video aired here that pretty much sums up the liberal ideology from the Governor of this state, Bredesen. He may have meant it in jest but truth is often hidden in humor. Our local governments, state governments, and Congress is where we need to work hardest.
In the way that doctors advocate preventive medicine, we need to advocate... and practice... preventive politics.
As a strong conservative and lifelong Republican, I now believe that donating to the Republican party is a waste of time and money. The party has lost its way. If a candidate who embodies the Reagan Coalition can't come close to getting the nomination then the party no longer represents my interests. Why donate when the party's candidate is going to implement the same disastrous policies the Democrats will implement? Is there any real difference between Mitt Romney's health care plan and Clinton's? Is there any real difference between McCain's immigration plan and Obama's? Is there any real difference between Huckabee's social programs and Edward's? Is there any real difference between Guiliani's positions on abortion and any Democrat's?
And the Party is responsible for this for going along with this ridiculous tradition of letting Iowa and New Hampshire pick our candidates! It is the Party's responsibility to find a way for the Party faithful to pick the candidates, not the fringe states. Adjusting delegate counts based on support for the Republican candidate in the last election doesn't go nearly far enough when most states never even get a vote in the nominating process. The Texas primary is a month after Super Tuesday, and I have no illusions that I'll have any real choice by then. First, the best candidates have already left the race! Second, I fully expect the race to be over by then anyway.
At this point the nation is headed for disaster no matter who gets elected. I would much rather see the Democrats get blamed for the disaster than the Republicans.
It's a sad day when it is conservatives who are the seen as the fringe element in the Republican party.
--roxer
I have to seriously reconsider whether or not I can even call myself a Republican anymore. The party is trying to leave all the conservatives behind. We are certainly NOT Democrats, and probably not Independents, because that term suggests something in-between. It is a sad state of affairs when the conservatives are now the "fringe". Our country is in deep trouble, and if the USA is, the world is too.
Fred supporters brighten up and keep in mind FDT would have been an astoundingly bad president for this country, similar to analog static in these changing times.
The man just did not have a single original idea, and he would have been lamb meat for the Dem attack dogs. I respect him, but I thank my lucky stars he's not our nominee. We should all feel lucky that the weakest sane candidate has been culled. Up next: Rudy G.
I smell a McCain-Romney battle royale coming.
________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
He would have been a great president as he had many ORIGINALIST ideas.
Yea, I know old stuff, constitution, liberty, personal responsibility and what not.
That Reagan guy, old unoriginal thinker too, spouting the same old outdated stuff too.
Now, Hillary, brave new world socialist stuff there! Exciting huh?
with the recommendations for lowering corporate tax rates, shortening depreciation periods and allowing expensing in some cases for business purchases, void the 10% tax rate for a year, avoid bailing out those who borrowed too much money, and other ideas for our economy that others in the public eye are now espousing. He certainly didn't want to give folks a blanket tax rebate, especially a rebate to those who don't pay any taxes.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?
-- imwithfred --
Couldn't have said it better myself...
View my blog at http://preacherskid.blogdrive.com/