| Big Govt | Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| Ras. Reports | 0 | |
| Patterico | L.A. Times Columnist Uncritically Quoted Star of Latest ACORN Video |
0 |
| ABC News | Major Hasan’s E-Mail: ‘I Can’t Wait to Join You’ in Afterlife |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Fred Thompson drops out of the presidential race
After his poor showing in South Carolina, it was widely speculated that he would pull himself out of the race. Today he made it official:
NAPLES, Fla. (AP) – Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson quit the Republican presidential race on Tuesday, after a string of poor finishes in early primary and caucus states.
“Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort,” Thompson said in a statement.Thompson’s fate was sealed last Saturday in the South Carolina primary, when he finished third in a state that he had said he needed to win.
In the statement, Thompson did not say whether he would endorse any of his former rivals. He was one of a handful of members of Congress who supported Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2000 in his unsuccessful race against George W. Bush for the party nomination.
According to Jim Geraghty, a source close to the Thompson campaign told him that he would not be endorsing a candidate, nor was he interested in a veep nod or cabinet position.
Stephen Spruiell takes a look back at the Fred campaign and speculates as to the reasons his campaign never took off:
The winners in the Republican party that day had been John McCain in South Carolina and Mitt Romney in Nevada, both of whom have embraced the theme of change. Everywhere he goes, McCain portrays himself as the man who changed the course of the Iraq war through his early advocacy of the successful troop surge. Meanwhile, Romney tells voters that Washington is “fundamentally broken” and that he can bring the change to make it work again. And Mike Huckabee, who finished second in South Carolina, did so espousing a political philosophy that many Republicans don’t recognize as being conservative at all.
Fred’s campaign had a different tone. He was not a candidate of change. On almost every important issue, he offered the same policy prescriptions conservatives have championed for years. On Social Security, he offered a plan that included private accounts and a modest slowdown in the growth of benefits. On immigration, he rejected the false dichotomy in which our only options are to deport millions of people or grant them citizenship; instead, Fred proposed new border-security measures and a strategy of reducing the illegal population through attrition. He promised to appoint strict-constructionist judges, and he proposed conservative solutions to the problem of rising health-care costs. On Iraq, he favored giving Gen. David Petraeus time to do his job.
[...]
Unfortunately, Fred lacked the salesmanship to make these old ideas seem new at a time when new seems to be what the voters want. It also didn’t help that, as Byron York put it in a dispatch last week, “Thompson showed great impatience with some of the ridiculous demands presidential campaigns place on candidates.”
[...]
Thompson surely deserves much of the blame he’s going to get for running a lackluster campaign, and people — most of all his supporters — will wonder if his heart was ever really in it. But his campaign always had a bigger obstacle, a “change deficit” that he could not have overcome without changing who he was. That would have negated his reason for running, but more importantly, it would have cost conservatism a valuable defender.
Spruiell added in a follow-up:
I think this campaign — and Fred’s refusal to bend his positions in response to the change-mania that swept the race — will make Fred a stronger champion of conservative ideas. A guy from a rival campaign told me later that night, “Fred would make a good president of the Heritage Foundation. He belongs someplace like that.”
Indeed. Just because his campaign never caught fire doesn’t mean he should consider his political career over. With Republicans growing increasingly frustrated that the party has moved way too far away from its conservative ideals, especially as it relates to fiscal conservatism and illegal immigration, Fred still has an important role to play in the political arena, should he decide to stay in it. If he doesn’t, I wish him well and will continue to wonder – along with other conservatives – at what might have been.
Prior/Related:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
19 Responses to “Fred Thompson drops out of the presidential race”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
As I told Brian over at Libertypundit, I now have no horse in the race. Not so sure I will vote GOP now. If the country is going to Hell in a hand-basket, then I would rather see a Dem holding its handle.
Maybe the republicans will have time to get their act together and return to conservatism. Just hope the country is not too hurt.
Well thank God this is over and done with. Now we can get back to the “pandering to the drive by media” platforms that we are use to. I thought for once in the last 10 years the Rep party might start growing a back bone, wrong again Lorica. – Lorica
Fred did not give it his all and that’s why it hurts so much to see him bow out. He had so much to offer if he only tried.
For now it’s Mitt first and Rudy second to me. If the economy becomes the major issue (and the MSM wants it to be a self-fulfilling prophesy) it plays well for Mitt and will backfire on the MSM democRAT PR machine. We’ll see.
I am not leaving the party. Yet. But if they don’t get it together soon they will leave me.
Sound familiar?
You know, I understand peoples frustration and I agree with some of the points made about the GOP and I certainly don’t want to ruffle any feathers. That being said, as far as this “I’m not going to vote now!” attitude, you certainly have that right. At the same time, you will also have no right to complain if the Clintonistas or Barack “Empty suit” Obama take over the White House.
Think about it.
Sad to see him go.
I rank them this way now:
1) Romney
2) Guliani
3) McCain
4) Huckabee
None of them are as good on all the issues as Thompson was.
Wait a minute now… I’m starting to be attracted to Hillary… She’s giving it her all. She wants this job bad! I love that! I want her as Pres…..
joking….
.
Just one more reason why in November I will be voting for Hillary Clinton.
Real fundamental change in this country is never going to happen until her citizens feel the pain in their pocketbooks, and I have no doubt Hillary will bring the pain.
Thompson wsa the best candidate that the GOP had in holding to the ideals we wanted to have in a President.
It is really too bad people couldn’t see that.
It is sad thing to see him drop out, but after reading Baklavas listing of who he would vote for it matches exactly to what I was thinking. At this point, I feel Romney is the best choice with the remaining candidates.
Huckabee is probably going to be the next to go. His campaign has been tapped out on money.
That leaves Guliani and McCain, and with Guliani, he has essentially disappeared from the media, not sure if that will help or hurt him, regardless of which, you can bet if he made it to the nomination, all his baggage would be coming out.
I think it will come down to McCain and Romney – I would rather have Romney, especially with the problems with the fluxuations in the economy, the dollar value, ect. I believe this would be right up Romney’s alley with his experience.
.
How is that?
Romney was a businessman. The goal of a business man is to grow a business and increase it’s profits.
Now take that last sentence and apply it towards governemet. Do we want to grow the governement and increase it’s profits?
No- real conservative value dictate governement should not grow, it should shrink. In government money comes from taxation, so in order to “increase profits” that mean increases taxation.
And we forget Romney’s little socialist foray into healthcare, don’t we? Definately fits this scenerio.
Sorry…I just won’t vote for Romney based on these true conservative principals.
Ted, you could also decrease expenses to increase profits. The best way to decrease spending is to put Congress on a pay for performance salary. Since most of these guys do nothing imagine the cost savings. – Lorica
Lorica, with all due respect do you see this ever happening with any government? Rarely if ever have you seen over all spending decrease in governement. Once Pandora’s box was opened, it can never be closed again.
And no- that isn’t the best way. Congress are mostly (not all, but most) independant of their salaries. Most are rich, like Kennedy, etc. Most live off the perks and kick backs not the relatively measely income Congress offers. The exceptions to those rules are the freshman incoming, especially in the house.
Actually Ted, and I know this is not emperical evidence, but the Government Agency I work for has decreased it’s costs. It has also decrease it’s manpower. When I 1st got here we had 18,000 employees, now we are under 10,000 with a target to go to 6,000 in another 10 years. During this same period of time we have taken on more work from different Defense Commands. This office in particular use to have over 375 people now we are below 225. So Yeah, it can be done, and you as a conservative should expect it to be done.
As far as Congress’ salary: I don’t know about you but I don’t consider 150,000.00 measely. But since it is so measely, then they should all stop taking it, plus give up their measely retirement plan. Talk about cost savings. And while they are at it, since they are all so wealthy, they can start paying for their own health care. I bet we could cut several billion out of the budget right there. – Lorica
I have no reason to disbelieve you Lor, but you are talking about one department in a conglomeration that is the world’s largest employer which grows in numbers every year.
To Joe 6 pack, you and me, it isn’t measley.
To them it is. Has any congressman ever said they went into congress for the pay?
You think of the Presidency as growing the government, what you fail to understand is the Presidency is more than the government, it is America…President of the United States…Not president of the government.
The Presidency is part of ther governement- it is allocated 1/3 power by Constitutional Law. The result is that the President does have some control over the size of the governement.
If this isn’t true, then why would Romney’s business expereience considered a factor at all by many?
Think about it Ted, someone with business experience and knowledge on how the markets work – how the economy works, how business works.
And unlike GW, Romney has been generally successful in his business dealings. – Lorica
I have thought about it, in depth.
A business person is not an economist at all. Their job is mainky to grow the business and make money.
Sounds contradictory to what a conservatrive thinks the governement should should be. Do we want someone who will grow the governement size and make money? Remember, the way the governement makes money is by raising taxes.
If America were a business, at this point in time we would be declaring bankruptcy. However, becasue the way the governement makes money is through taxation that isn’t the case. This is how governement differs from business.
No, being a business means little. GW was a failed business man, yet you guys voted for him. That seems hypocritical to me if you are justifying Romeny becasue of his sucess in business.
Romney is s closet socialist- you can have him. When he went all Hillary Clinton on his state’s healthcare that immediately eliminated him. It is a fatal flaw.