Well, that was a kick in the teeth
By Neil Stevens Posted in Activism | Fred Thompson | Republicans — Comments (169) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Boy, it was a rough night for us fans of Fred Thompson. So many of us had so many hopes wrapped up in him. He seemed a rare and special candidate; he was a conservative's conservative. Mix equal parts Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge, and you get Fred Thompson, ready to swoop in and carry us all to victory in November.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the inauguration: the party was not there for us. We thought that everything would pull together since Thompson represented the ideals of two of the most admired Republicans of the 20th century, but he was not even close. Where we thought the party should be is decidedly not where it is.
And worse than that is that a dream many of us have had even before Fred Thompson was drafted for President, has failed. Republican Conservative mythology centers on the great conservative captivating the party with his ideas, taking the nomination, and leading the country with him. We talk about Goldwater, we talk about Reagan, and we sigh wistfully. But we now see that in at least three tries, we have only actually taken the Presidency once. Our plan just will not work.
So what do we do about it? We could quit. We could decide that caring about politics just is not worth this. But, I have to assume anyone who quit will not be reading this, so that option will not be discussed further. So we have to act, but what can we do?
Read on...
So what do we do? How do we nudge our national coalition party back in our direction? I propose that we try a new form of Republican activism, and that Red State 3 will be the tool to help us get it done.
Well, there is always the Markos Moulitsas/Vis Numar approach. We can try to 'crash the gates,' and try to force a top-down change in the Republican Party structure. But does that work? Well, post after post by Moe on Red State's front page would suggest that no, it does not.
Besides, we already have an expert on the national party telling us just the opposite. Haley Barbour believes the whole party needs to go toward a bottom-up approach, and I think most conservatives were content with the party back when he held the levers of power. His Governorship seems to be a positive force for his state as well.
So what I hope, and what I have been so excited for since first discussing Red State 3 with Erick, is that we at Red State will gather together and engage our community in our party at the state and local level, using the coming new State sections of the site to get informed and focused. Only by engaging and taking roles in the party locally can people like us take hold of this large party, and throw our weight in it to guide it closer to the direction we want.
Why is it that conservatives have complained about "the establishment" continuously since Goldwater and Reagan were so despised by that establishment? I say enough is enough. We have failed to beat the establishment, so now it is time to join it, and in doing so alter it.
I of course have no illusions that a sudden influx of a few conservatives on the Internet will change this whole national coalition party into The Conservative Party. That can never happen, because there are not enough conservatives to win a national election. Conservatives need to cooperate with classical liberals, neocons, budget hawks, pro-growth activists, anti-abortion activists, defense hawks, and all the other factions who make up our party. That means having humility and a good spirit. No chest-pounding about who's the True Republican and who's the RiNO. It means hard work and persistent commitment to building the Republican party.
We can also help candidates for office at the state and local level. The more conservatives we elect at the bottom, the more will move up to higher office, and the bigger the conservative bench will be when the time comes to pick candidates for Governor, Senator, and even President.
We can do this, and the time to start is now. I am just pleased I can help Red State help our community get involved. The fun begins very soon, as Red State 3 is coming thanks in part to all our wonderful donors. Thank you to all who have given to that effort.
the ship of federalism has sailed
we might be able to stop centralization from continuing, but we're unlikely to restore the federalist system.
trying to be realistic, not pessimistic.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
or possibly 1949 with the national security act.
But essentially correct.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
the beginnings of a restoration of federalism. after all, if we get an originalist majority on the court (esp. if it's a 6-justice majority), then a lot could happen to allow federalism to return.
of course, the states would have to fight off the gross impositions of congress, too
but i still feel as if there's a slight chance
or am i just fooling myself to make myself feel better?
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
global commerce and that most people are engaged in same, federalism is and of necessity must be, dead. But as to social issues like education, social morays, etc, happiness pursuit maximization depends on federalism. And with Alito we have made a great start. One more originailist and we are there. And this is an issue that we could get libs to agree on, as they would be able to set the policies in their neighborhoods as well.
Moreover, as we saw with Miers, the conservatives in the beltway have the Bork bench they they will insist a GOP President choose from, and we can make McCain pick from this bench just like we did Bush.
We must insist that the President not compromise on this. We must take this issue to the people to take on the DEM majority, if it still rules the senate.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
thanks for the thoughts
glad i'm not just deluding myself...
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
will balk at taxes and light bulbs based on Gorescience. We can jam the phones. In fact, we need to do this now on the energy bill that Bush caved on.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
I'm ready. Just let us know how we can help.
I just hope tonight's front page isn't an indicator of what I'll see there.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
but I had no illusions. You have a sitting Senator, an international celebrity, and a multimillionaire in the race. The sitting Senator can call on almost all of the Party organization and officeholders just because he is a sitting Senator. The multi-millionaire can call on whatever he wants. The celebrity just IS. Huckabee is just doing a Zell Miller imitation; he's really a Southern Democrat, but since The South has gone R, for the moment anyway, he dresses it all up in R clothing. It will be the political equivalent of the Miracle on Ice if he gets out of The South. We'll see about Giuliani; maybe he's right with his big and pivotal states strategy. There's a lot of sense in not subjecting yourself to the wierdness inherent in kowtowing to the early, small, and in some instances wierd states.
I hope FDT stays in a while longer, but even if he doesn't, he has performed a valuable service; he has forced the others to guard their right. Do you think for a minute that McCain, Guiliani, Romney, or Huckabee would have moved away from some of their more leftward positions if there were not a threat on their right.
Sometimes when you're a good Party Man and Patriot, you run for an office that you don't really want and don't really think you can win. You do it because you know that your presence in the race shapes the ground on which the others must run as well. Whether he drops out tomorrow or stays in through a brokered convention, FDT shaped the ground, and for that we all owe him.
In Vino Veritas
in:
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjYxY2IxZTRjNDg0YTU2YzZhO...
excerpt:
Even If He's Blah Tonight, Why Should Fred Drop Out?
The gang on CNN, including Bill Bennett, is talking about Thompson as if his campaign is over.
I realize I've been Mr. Don't-Get-Your-Hopes-Up-Fredheads lately, but even with a mediocre performance tonight, there's no reason for Fred Thompson to leave the race. He's apparently put more effort into Louisiana than the other candidates (they vote Tuesday), and there's a bunch of deep red states he can fight in on Super Duper Tuesday, including his home state of Tennessee.
If there were a clear frontrunner, and this thing was all over, I could see it. But if he really finds some of his other rivals as not-conservatives who are unacceptable to carry the Republican mantle, why not stay in this thing until the end, collect as many delegates as he can, and at the very least, throw them to the one he finds most acceptable at the GOP convention?
01/19 07:40 PM
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Stay in the race, influence it and if he can throw his delegates to the most conservative of the bunch and help him win - that's the ticket.
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning
according to SC polls and hurts Romney and Huck.
Fine with me.
They were all moving to the right to start off with. Its not Thompson who makes it advantageous for candidates to move to the right, its the voters.
The new Republican Party seems to be a copy of the Democratic Party with some pro-life aspects and a head-out-of-sand foreign policy (except for Saudi Arabia). Kind of like Joe Lieberman before he gave up his pro-life stance to run for Vice President. Of course, if Romney or Huckabee win, it looks like we'll have to settle for the pro-life part.
My suggextion is to vote for the democrat. I don't want my party taken down by McCain, or Huck's fake conservativism. Let the real fakes take the hit with their policies and wait for our conservative to surface in (I hope) '12.
Rudy is not included in this list because he gets a pass on terrorism, my #1 issue.
I still feel we have a prayer with Fred. Small, but a slight chance something happens. Just call me a dreamer, and a potential dem voter for the first time EVER,
I've never voted Democrat in my life*, and I'm sure not starting now. I can't even imagine that.
* I do understand why some here have, because a Democrat in, say, Georgia is not the same as a Democrat in California.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
I used to hang around polipundit...then one of their front pagers started trashing the war that I was currently in. So I slid over here to Redstate. Been here about a year.
The biggest let down of the night, was the glee of a good number of people here over the poor performance of Fred Thompson. Particularly since these people are cheering the loss of conservativism. Based on the stuff I've been seeing here tonight, I don't feel all that welcome anymore. I suppose that is appropriate.
For now...
Roger. Out.
I hope you'll stay. A few have been sharpening their knives, eagerly waiting for FDT to drop out. But I think the vast majority here at least had mildly warm feelings for the man and his policies, if not for the way his campaign was run.
Neil, I'm afraid your post is about the only one on the front page that sounded like anything other than "it's about time Fred dropped out." Frankly, most of the others sounded like they were annoyed he'd even gotten into the race.
As a strong Fred supporter, by the way, I'd like to thank you for your comments. I'm not ready to say we're done, yet, but I do appreciate what you've said.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
whose original mission statement called for the advancement of conservative principles through the election of Conservative Republicans to public office.
Maybe we'll have better luck with Redstate 3.0, because it appears that Redstate 2.0 has succumbed to diversity and lost its way.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Because I'm going to start playing one for every poor FredHead who manages to have the... ahem... intestinal fortitude... to claim that RedState is or has been some sort of anti-Fred site. I'd think it was sarcasm except that I think it's impossible for so many people to be making the same bad joke at the same time.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
and I don't believe that is the case now.
The influx of new users grew at such a brisk pace that assimilation was virtually impossible.
In fact, many of the new users reject conservatism, and have no intention of working to advance conservative principles.
They simply wanted to soil our carpet.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
An objective review of RS would show that the front pager posters have drifted to the middle while RS 1.0 'mutated' to RS 2.0. I'm not looking forward to RS 3.0.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
picked up by NRO, Crosswalk, and Cybercast News this week, the powers that be, knowing that my legal work is basically automated, will soon be making me CEO and paying me a huge salary, so, hang on.
Be back in a minute, Free Republic is calling me again with another offer...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
...even if you write features for them. Sad fact I've experienced personally.
Stick to the lawyering day job to pay the bills, and keep up the excellent punditry in between depositions. That's how crank and the rest of our lawyers do it, and I suspect they're better off for it :-)
smile
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Most are just caught in the emotion of people and positions they support. If you've been around government for a while, you learn not to get to attached to a position because you're not going to be in it long. You also learn that the one thing you can count on about politicians is that you can't count on them.
These are the tears of the cheerleaders, not the players; they live in a different world. Don't take the harsh words and ill-considered thoughts too seriously, and come back in a day or two.
In Vino Veritas
or the silly classless things people say when pimping their guy and anti-pimping the others.
While Fred is not my guy, I always take what YOU say seriously. Stay.
The Gipper is rolling over in his grave. Can you say President Clinton? Get use to it!
McCain thinks he’s called the sheriff. Wonder what Teddy calls him? I call him co-conspirator.
I'm so down right now that depressed doesn't even start to cover it. This is the first time in my adult life there's been a candidate who put forth a message I fully believed in and that message has been shot down by...I just don't have the energy to gripe.
My soul hurts. That's the only way I know how to put it.
I was looking forward to being able to proudly vote for Fred but I suppose it's comforting to know that by the time the primaries get around to Texas it won't matter one way or the other. There's something to be said for familiarity I guess.
I like what you wrote here. I hope I don't sound otherwise.
I don't think conservativism, republicans, or the electorate failed here.
Fred Thompson failed. He failed me. He was not the perfect conservative candidate. He was merely the perfect conservative.
Politics is. In four years Fred, who is plenty young for his age, can be the perfect conservative candidate. This is what I was talking about in my McCain blog comments section.
We need a cleaner Washington, an electorate with more confidence, and some of the big issues that languish unresolved to finally get resolved, like border security. We can get those things done with a candidate who has a winning campaign.
You can't have the dream team every election. I knew last week that this wasn't the year for implementing the dream. You know what they say: It's a rebuilding year.
People want conservativism, but the conservative candidate needs the right environment to get elected. This wasn't it.
Yes, I agree activism is necessary. Yes I think working to put new people in office will be a good thing. But the national election is so much bigger than that.
It isn't a lack of conservatives that turned this election. It was the lack of a conservative campaign. I've seen people here for months snipe about "oh so you want style over substance?" Well no, people, I want both.
But style plus some substance will beat all substance and no style every time. It's time to end the denial about what was wrong with Fred. His campaign was lackluster. The facts are in, there's just no question anymore.
If the best conservative is lackluster next time around, all the new faces and fresh hope and idealism sprinkled through the party won't make a hill of beans.
Fred could have done this. He didn't.
So while we are all getting ready to change the party, I think there are some of us that need to look at ourselves. If we aren't willing to play ball, then we aren't getting on the field. You have to have a good campaign to get elected. We can curse it, but it's true anyway.
Hope it doesn't sound like I'm shooting at your blog, I think it's great. I just think its not enough to look at the party and point a finger. There are some perceptions right here at Redstate that need adjusting as well, especially if we still want to win this election.
absentee
I'm not blaming anything. I'm just observing the fact that the party isn't where we want it to be, and addressing how we can change that.
thank you,
You do seem to think that changing the party not leaning conservative enough is the problem. It is a problem that's true. But I don't think it is the problem.
absentee
That should say, the party not leaning. Changing was going to be a different sentence.
I think people want conservative ideas. In a vacuum, one idea at a time, they sell. Not just broadly, but specifically to Republican voters. If the ideas are widely held, then the conservative wing should have the advantage. People will buy the Reagan conservative candidate. But that is a winning package. Bring them a losing package and they don't vote. I guess that's what I mean.
People out there, they yearn for a Fred Thompson platform. I really believe rounded-out conservatives are the majority.
absentee
Ask not what you can do for your candidate, but what your candidate can do for you
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Running a good campaign doesn't mean pandering or handouts.
absentee
Look at how candidates are changing their positions on everything. And I mean all of them (save Fred). McCain wants to build the g-d fence now. Romney wants to give money to auto workers. Huckabee wants to give money to everyone. They're all willing to say whatever they think the current audience wants to hear even if they have 100 years of history doing exactly the opposite. You call that good campaigning?
Apparently people are buying it. I just don't want to hear a bunch of, "Wow, I didn't see this coming" once they're in office.
Voters today are lazy and gullible.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Changing their plan on immigration, that's not pandering. It's just smart. We told them what we want, that's what they'll do.
But even if it was pandering this time, that doesn't mean that pandering is the only kind of good campaign that sells. History shows otherwise.
absentee
It also means that their core instincts are not conservative. And once they are in office, they will govern with their core instincts, NOT with sugar-daddy campaign promises.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Whether the immigration issue should be resolved with a border security first plan is not a core conservative issue in the first place (ask Reagan), and in the second place, observing the need to build a fence first isn't a sugar-daddy campaign promise.
I award you no points, but I do have this lovely poinsettia consolation gift.
I also never congratulated you on having three words in your username. I'm not doing it now, I'm just observing that I haven't.
absentee
that McCain isn't saying some things now to get votes that he has no intention of fulfilling once he's in office?
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Of everything he ever said so I can see if he's saying something new. But are you seriously saying that you would single out McCain among all politicians of all time if one of his campaign promises didn't come through?
We were talking about something specific. It isn't pandering, or chameleon or whatever, by any of the three candidates I mentioned to now support border security first.
We all try to convince politicians what we want them to do. When we finally convince them, we're going to turn around and point at them and call it pandering.
Seems like a bad plan if you ask me.
absentee
I don't trust McCain on border security. Yes, I believe he's pandering on this issue. I believe that because of recent statements by him (g-d fence, for one). That doesn't sound like a change of heart, that sounds like hating us for making him say he's changed.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
If the border is secured, I don't really care how happy people are about it. Personally, I think it's silly to think any of our candidates don't want a secure border.
absentee
of consistent votes on this issue doesn't convince you?
I honestly don't know what else to say.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Twenty years of voting not to secure the border? What do you mean?
absentee
He's voted both for and against border security bills.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Umm, do you think if Reagan had done border security instead of amnesty version 1.0, we'd have 20 million illegals today?
BTW, I never congratulated you for having an uncapitalized username. I'm not doing it now, just observing that I haven't.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
That's not the point at all. You said it was a core conservative issue. It isn't. It's merely a policy with a number of logical solutions, with all of our top five candidates supporting the extremely logical idea of security first.
I just don't see how it's pandering.
And also, I never thanked you for not congratulating me on my username, and I never said you're welcome for you not thanking me for not congratulating you about your username. However, I will thank you for not thanking me for not saying you're welcome to your non-thanks for my failure to congratulate you about the excellent quantity of words in your username. You should consider that henceforth corrected.
absentee
I believe Rudy's change over the other three.
That makes me sad.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
I've especially noticed this chameleon act by Huckabee and McCain. When TV reporters play a tape of something that contradicts what they just said and ask them if they want to retract they don't retract. They can write one thing on their website and say the contradiction on the air and get away with it. I guess they figure people are lazy with short memories.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
if he said flat out "i was wrong"?
serious question - not rhetorical.
pres. bush never says flat out "i was wrong", either. he just improves his position and runs with it.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
He's the last one I'd ever expect that from. I'd faint if he ever did it.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Rudy says look some things you disagree with me, but you agree with me on a lot more. I believe that a lot more than i believe McCain and Huckabee have completely changed their positions.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
i've gone back and forth on the question myself
i can't decide whether mccain's saying "i was mistaken" would make him more trustworthy or make him look weak
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
McCain-Feingold. Heck, maybe that was part of his poor campaigning.
I, for one, appreciated the honesty.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
as late as the middle of last year, he was still defending the bill (i'm thinking of his human events article on the subject).
when (approximately, if you don't know exactly) did he say that?
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
He said that about two parts of the bill.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
parts haven't worked out
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
He still thought parts were good, but admitted some was a mistake (my word).
BTW, I don't. I think they whole thing was a screwup.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
made up my mind about it
i know it's important, but there's a lot to keep up on, and i've never gotten around to examining that one closely...
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
He came off looking good, thoughtful. It was a good move on his part. He was able to repudiate what happened without contradicting his original intent. They wanted to clean up corruption, they did it wrong. I thought it worked for him.
absentee
He will not say he was wrong because he doesn't believe himself to be wrong.
You can see it, sense it, and just know it from what he says. He'll throw out the "we have to secure the border first" and then immediately jumps away stating his position wasn't wrong in the first place.
Pilgrim, links? I've never seen either of them lie like that.
absentee
Huckabee did it on CNN yesterday saying that the US Constitution is a living breathing document, and his website states that he is opposed to the idea of a living constitution.
McCain said that he never proposed amnesty, and then they played a tape where he was speaking about amnesty.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
I guess I can look them up, but since I wasn't the one making the accusation, I guess I just presumed you might have them handy.
absentee
see the discussion in RedHot by our valorous editors
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
make law like the libs do.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
The Great Communicator 2.0™ says something that is misinterpreted and we're just supposed to give him a rider on it.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
but in this case, it really was trumped up
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
-- 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 --
I honestly think his best chance is being VP for John McCain. It's not totally wishful thinking on my part. They are good friends, and they've avoiding burning one another down.
absentee
Part of the reason Fred is where he is today is the fact that he was unwilling to take on McCain for his liberalism. If he in fact does drop out and endorse McCain it will make him a fraud in my eyes. I don't care if he's friends with McCain, if FDT is really the solid conservative he cannot support a lib like McCain.
He would make a logical VP choice for Romney or Rudy, and I'd hope for that.
So my bet is that he does not endorse anyone. That would make it about him. If he had supported another candidate, he would not have gotten into the race to begin with. He has his principles, and they are mine too.
-- 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 in Florida--
I think there's a far more important fact that gets ignored: imagine if Huckabee had not entered the race. Fred (with the National Right to Life endorsement) gets lots more evangelicals in Iowa and his policies plus Southern charm easily carries SC. See my blog entry for the full argument.
hard to call that an achievement... especially since he made SC his big stand and went after Huck relentlessly.
Huck is a no name governor from a no name state who rose up to the top tier.
Fred had celebrity, momentum, and the MSM aching for him to enter, and he fizzled.
What if history could work anywhere. For example, what if Thompson decided to stay on Law and Order? Huck's wins in Iowa and SC would have been much bigger.
Which he hasn't done yet, although he probably will. However, be that as it may, why should he try again? He gave the people what they said they wanted but the reality of what they wanted didn't match what they said. It's not about when he got in. It's about the glitz and the glamour. The people told Fred they didn't want what they said they wanted, after all. What would be the point of subjecting oneself to this again? He said it in his speech last night: It was never about him but about the country. He was rejected for the very principles that everyone said they wanted. Given the speeded up nature of this world, what makes you think there will be a chance for anything for '12 if we continue working from the top down?
He wasn't prepared to be President when first asked whereas the others had taken years to prepare for campaigning for President. He didn't ask for the job and he was in the middle of obligations he needed to fulfill. He gave up a lot to do what people asked and then because he didn't do it to their timetable they faulted him for the very reason they wanted him to run... he would fulfill his obligations, first and foremost.
We are just as guilty because, like petulant children, we want everything on demand when sometimes that's just not possible. That's what killed Fred's campaign as much as any missteps with the campaign itself.
Right or wrong, that's the way the world is. Neil's right. If we truly want change back to first principles, the only place to start is at the bottom and work our way up. I don't know if even that will work but it's certainly worth a try.
I know there is a lot of disapointment right now in the failed campaign of FDT. Thompson is a good man, a thoughtful man, and would make a great president. But the problem is he is a terrible campaigner, and even worse political strategist. And part of the American process requires you to do both well.
I don't think what has happened to him is really a reflection on the movement or the party. It's really a reflection of his faliure as a candidate. If had taken the game more seriously and campaigned harder, and smarter, he could have won this race. By running such a dysmal effort in Iowa he allowed the Huckster phemon to take hold. (some really poor debate efforts hurt this too) Once Huck usurped him as the southern conservative candidate it was game over. Now of course FDT is more conservative than Huck but perception matters and Huck ran a better campaign.
Besides I think people need to realize that if he preformed this poorly before a primary audience of sympathic conservatives he'd really strugle to gain independents in a general.
This may seem counter-conservative, but I think one thing that would definitely increase the conservative roles is ensuring every American pays some taxes. I think a 2 to 3 percent federal sales tax coupled to a mandatory reciprocal reduction of 2 to 3 percent income tax for those who actually pay taxes would go a long way to making fiscal responsibility prima facie to even the most governmentally dependent dead beat. When we get the welfare mothers to question the necessity of lib project X, and "can't we do without this", we'll start winning converts. Until all people are made to feel ownership in paying for our government spending, nothing will change. I'm tired of seeing conservatives and conservatives dragged through the mud.
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
call that conservatives of all stripes should continue to influence the party and the process. I for one don't think the party has changed all that much; the number of candidates this primary season has caused the results to look different is all. If it were a two man race McCain would have gotten smashed in SC. The demise of Fred is not the problem, however it is indicative of a long seated problem in the party that I find it hard to believe so many are just now noticing.
Generalizing the failure of one man in one election cycle to the failure of a movement is sheer nonsense. Fred Thompson has not accomplished one tenth of what Ronald Reagan built over decades of work to establish a credible national presence from clear and consistent positions that were ridiculed by the mainstream media all through Reagan's eventual victory and beyond.
Fred needed to better than this in South Carolina. I've been a FredHead for a long time, but this is enough for me. John McCain is tough on the war and tough on spending. That's good enough for me.
Visit The Scratching Post!
he decides. I am a loyal guy and I see Fred's cause as the same cause I chose when I converted to the GOP after 18 yrs an activist Dem in 2000-1 due to the success and truth of conservative principles and the need to preserve the judeo-christian principles that built this country.
I suspect Fred will drop out. But he hasn't. I am a patient man. And I think that when we back a man in a cause such as this, one must affirm those principles by backing them with good character which includes respect for the leader.
Fred can win TN on 2/5, and lots can happen between now and then. Fred went from 0 to 3rd in Iowa and went to a higher % of the vote in SC.
I'm still for Fred. I am not his leader. He is mine.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Who knows, I could get to the convention. Since CO delegates aren't committed, I could do what I want once I'm there.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
I support Fred Thompson because of his principles & stances on the issues that result from those principles. I STILL believe he is the better candidate among the republicans & the primaries are for supporting whom one feels is the best candidate.
His performance last Sun night was what the GOP needed all along in these debates. Still begs the question... does he actually want the job? Unfortnuately, I think not... he was on point all night.
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
I'm happy to see you're staying the course. But I'll let you know that there's a warm spot on the Straight Talk when you're ready :)
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
of the so-called "nuclear" and "constitutional" options over judicial nominee filibusters now (read your column too on that, and it was well argued as well) and spent much of last evening accentuating the positives of McCain (I asked Gid to send you my love!) and trying to learn from what occurred in SC. SC is still as conservative a state and especially as republican a state as it was in 2000, and there are good repub-con reasons that McCain and Huckabee came in one, two. I'm going to write more today, but suffice to say that McCain and Huckabee are both pro-life, McCain exudes patriotism and strength on THE #1 issue a President is responsible for, ie national defense, and McCain did make a concerted effort to reconcile with Christians last year and made a lot of progress that enable him to win SC in a crowded field.
more later my friend
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
From going to his events, I will only add that he talked a lot about small government, cutting spending and regulations, etc. He did it with the passion that comes from holding Goldwater's Senate seat.
Coburn, the SC house majority leader, Phil Gramm, and Sanford (although he didn't officially endorse) are all big on those issues and they were all brought into SC for the campaign trail.
So Win the War, Cut the Pork, Stop the Spending, Appoint the Judges, Vote McCain!
______________________________________
Depends on its growth. I worry that we may have passed the tipping point a while back.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777