Patterico's Pontifications

1/22/2008

Fred Thompson Exits Stage Right

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 1:27 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Fred Thompson has dropped out of the Presidential race:

“Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States.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. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.”

Fred & Family

— DRJ

42 Responses to “Fred Thompson Exits Stage Right”

  1. *sobs*

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

  2. Quite possibly the most over-hyped flop in recent memory.

    steve (9bc21e)

  3. #2
    Yep I agree.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  4. In a world with a kinder God, Fred would be running against Dennis Kucinich. That way we could have focused on the hot potential first ladies.

    I’m sorry to see Fred out of the race.

    Steverino (e00589)

  5. #4
    Or in a parallel universe all the candidates would be women and their spouses former chippendales….

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  6. *Hijacks thread; risks banning*

    Heath Ledger, the 28-year-old Oscar-nominated star of “Brokeback Mountain” was found dead in a New York apartment today, surrounded by what police believe were sleeping pills.

    steve (9bc21e)

  7. Well, I’m hoping for a brokered convention as I want another choice.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  8. Steve, you have to be shitting me.

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  9. And I’m hoping for the same thing Kevin. Maybe then we can slide a Hunter or Fred in under the RINOs

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  10. Hunter would make a good strategic pick for a VP. He’s conservative enough to keep from alienating that base, and he’s from California. Probably wouldn’t flip the state, but it might put CA into play enough to force the Dems to burn some resources there.

    Imagine what a ticket with Romney or McCain or even Giuliani matched with Hunter. Lots of draw in the northeast and CA, where Republicans have been very weak for the last 4 elections.

    It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s not as bad as it could be.

    Steverino (e00589)

  11. Nuts. There goes my last chance to have presidential candidate that I could get excited about. As of now, I probably won’t be voting in the presidential elections. Maybe for Romney if he gets nominated but none of the other front runners is worth going to the polls for.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  12. In a primary season where there was already a dearth of good choices, now, it is really going to be a hold your nose and vote for the lesser of the bad choices kind of year. Great.

    JD (fc7319)

  13. I’m sure all those die hard Fred Heads will be switching their support directly to Luop Nor. Then again, I am sure I am hallucinating.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  14. That’s a definite hallucination, daleyrocks, I’ve not met a Fred supporter that nutty.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  15. I was slated as Fred’s delegate from California’s 15th congressional district so, yes, I’m a Fred-Head.

    However, as soon as I heard the news I signed up as a volunteer for Mitt Romney.

    It was a difficult initial choice and I came down on Fred’s side. Moving over to Mitt is not a difficult decision as he is at base more than conservative enough for me plus has very strong executive experience that will serve us well in the White House.

    And yes, Duncan Hunter would make an excellent VP choice.

    Joseph Somsel (704385)

  16. At base, and judged by actions while governing, Joseph, Mitt is not very conservative. His rhetoric is more conservative now that he is running for President, but actions, to my mind, are more telling.

    JD (fc7319)

  17. Steverino, keep in mind that there are 53 congressional districts in California, and that Hunter represents one of the most conservative ones (61% for Bush in 2004). Most Californians have no idea who he is, and those who do – his constituents – are already likely to vote Republican.

    Nels Nelson (da2c83)

  18. This hurts McCain and favors Romney, or so the polls say (Fred’s supporters break heavily to Romney over McCain).

    Thompson had to know this and therefore was making a conscious choice in his timing. Had he waited even a short while, McCain looked to be on glide.

    But now?

    ras (fc54bb)

  19. This hurts McCain and favors Romney, or so the polls say

    Wait a minute, I thought I read that Thompson and McCain are friends and have a mutual respect for each other from their Senate days. I believe that some of the speculation is that Fred is going to endorse McCain now that he is out of the race. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

    JVW (378b48)

  20. Doc–

    With the exception of Huckabee, who would be actively worse than Clinton, staying home is a vote for leftists on the Court. At the very best we might keep them to some more Souters.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  21. There are lots of folks here who despise one candidate or another. Is there any Republican here who would oppose Fred on ideological grounds? It seems that he’d make a fine compromise on the nth ballot.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  22. JVW–

    That’s what McCain wants people to think, and his folks have floated that rumor several times. Fred, however, says “no endorsement.”

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  23. Presumably, if Thompson favored McCain, then he (Thompson) wouldda just stayed in the race to help McCain.

    According to Patrick Ruffini, here is where Thompson’s supporters would go today:

    Romney 74%
    Giuliani 15%
    McCain 7%
    Huckabee 5%

    (N=4,986)

    If Thompson wouldda had, for sake of arg, 10% of the overall vote, then the net to Romney using the above numbers is about a 6% or 7% gain on McCain overall. Not sure how representative Ruffini’s poll was, tho.

    ras (fc54bb)

  24. Mitt had to govern as a Republican in a predominately liberal state. Politics is the art of the possible so his performance in MA was as conservative as I think he or any Republican could have pulled off given the circumstances. He certainly did better than Schwartzenegger has done in California.

    I see little overlap between Fred and McCain except in the prosecution of the war on Islamofascism, mutual respect or not.

    I think the core problem for the Republicans is NOT a dearth of good candidates but too many decent choices! I’d be more than happy with Mitt, Fred, Rudy, or Duncan. The MSM is trying to push two marginal candidates on the GOP – McCain and Huckabee.

    All three Democratic candidates are utterly unacceptable to a free people. Their primary debates will give the GOP plenty of arguments for voting Republican.

    Joseph Somsel (eb4526)

  25. Kevin, I have no confidence in the judicial choices that either McCain or Guilliani would make. Huckabee might be worth voting for on that score but the danger with Huckabee is that he can actually pass huge social programs whereas a Democrat would have a hard time doing it. No Democrat could have passed Bush’s prescription drug boondogle because the Republicans would have stopped it (and no Republican could have passed Clinton’s welfare reform because the Democrats would have stopped it). The most dangerous president is not a liberal Democrat but a liberal Republican because he can overcome Republican resistance to expanded government.

    Doc Rampage (01f543)

  26. Doc, I think you just described George W. Bush’s domestic agenda.

    DRJ (517d26)

  27. “…I have no confidence in the judicial choices that either McCain or Guilliani would make…”

    Maybe so, Doc, but is that a reason to make certain that President Clinton II or President Obama will appoint their choices—people who will absolutely be in opposition to your philosophy? And in lifetime appointments?

    You think McCain or Hizzoner will betray you with judicial appointments. You know Obama, Edwards, and Clinton II will.

    I’m worried about this “sitting things out” attitude. You can all do whatever you like, but I remember Ross Perot. That was supposed to send a message to Republicans. The message turned out to be eight years of Bill Clinton, and the possibility of eight more of his wife.

    Ideological purity is very expensive, and the folks in the DNC are counting on that attitude next November. When Republicans do what the DNC wants them to do in the voting booth, then it is time to think very carefully. To misquote Rumsfeld, we go to the political wars with the politicians we have.

    I have been holding my nose in every election since I started voting.

    Your mileage may vary. I’m not trying to argue or be disrespectful.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  28. I think what gets lost in this is that a Fred supporter does not have to switch to another candidate. Just because that voter wanted Fred to win does not mean that McCain, for example, is entitled to that vote, even if Fred endorses. McCain, and all the rest, have to go out there and EARN that vote. Period. So far, they haven’t earned mine, but I am willing to listen. First, he could start off by apologizing for his 1st Amendment trampling of McCain Feingold. Second, he could demonstrate how he was wrong on immigration, taxes, Gang of 14, and torture. He can even lie to me, repeatedly. Just make the effort.

    JD (fc7319)

  29. Eric – I see that the alternative is most certainly worse, but maybe we as a collective society, need to be reminded, in no uncertain terms, how disasterous the progressive mindset can be in the seat of power.

    JD (fc7319)

  30. JD, I agree completely. But some of the things I read from “reliable” conservative sources have the distinct odor of “I’ll take my ball and go home if I don’t get precisely what I want.”

    As you say—ABSOLUTELY—it will be up to McCain or Romney or Hizzoner to earn our votes. But many people I have been reading on the blogosphere seem to have made up their minds that Republican Candidate “A” is “unreliable” when even that person knows full well that Candidate “A” is nowhere near as dangerous to our ideas as Hillary/Barack/John.

    So, sadly, we’ll see. I’m sorry to see Fred go, but I honestly felt that he didn’t have the drive necessary to fight his way uphill to the nomination. On the other hand, if the convention is deadlocked and must be brokered…

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  31. Thompson candidacy — what candidacy?

    atmom (6d6d11)

  32. Doc, if Romney is the only candidate you think you can vote for in November, then by all means, that’s who you should vote for in the primary. Sitting out the general, however, would be a huge mistake. While it is fair to question whether Guiliani or McCain will make good judicial appointments, can anyone seriously doubt that it’s at least possible that they will? Even Bush I, hardly anyone’s favorite conservatives nowadays, split the difference by appointing Clarence Thomas as well as David Souter. Democrats, by contrast, haven’t appointed a single good or remotely conservative Justice to the Supreme Court since 1962. [Yes, I know Obama likes to be compared to JFK. No, that doesn’t mean he wants to appoint the next Byron White to the bench. Trust me on that.]

    Even if we completely lucked out and President Clinton II or Obama lasted only one term, with no one resigning from the Supreme Court during that period, a lot of irreversible damage can be done during that period. Carter didn’t get to put anyone on the Supreme Court, either, but four years was all it took him to singlehandedly convert the Ninth Circuit into the loony left circus it remains to this day. No big deal, the 1976 version of you might say, after all Gerald Ford wasn’t exactly a model conservative, either.

    Xrlq (b65a72)

  33. If I needed a reminder of why I regularly visit this site, the last ~dozen comments serve the purpose.

    Old Coot (206b3f)

  34. Thompson’s campaign was the only reason I was hesitant about his prospects. He was the best candidate but with the worst campaign. I had the same reservations with Barry Goldwater. His inability to respond to Johnson’s dishonest attacks made me doubt his ability to govern. I actually voted for Johnson, a mistake I won’t make again.

    Mike K (86bddb)

  35. Nice to see some thought given to the “sitting out” strategy. My fear is that a lot of people will give it a try. Sixteen years of Clinton control, friends. And it would be ironic if it happened each time because of Republicans “sitting things out.”

    Patterico, I’m curious what you think of Professor Bainbridge’s argument, that we should sit out the 2008 election—it’s on his website, virtuous and simon-pure. Me, it just gives me shivers. And if McCain gets the nod, a lot of the talk-radio crowd seem ready to turn things over to the Democrats.

    Santayana was more right than I ever knew.

    Eric Blair (839cfb)

  36. As far as I am concerned, if I dont vote; I forfit the right to complain about the results. Those who can vote and decide not to cannot expect others to credit their opinions.

    Bar Sinister (eb65fa)

  37. Dear Bar Sinister: I agree with you wholeheartedly. There is a person who posts here from time to time who seems very superior about politics, and highly judgmental and opinionated. Yet he brags about not voting, as if it is some kind of badge of honor.

    Every time he does not vote, he actually votes for the winner. And considering his politics, the last eight years have been hellish indeed for him.

    Eric Blair (839cfb)

  38. Eric Blair: The reason the ‘sitting’ out strat seems so popular is the fact that each time the conservatives hold their nose and vote for the lesser of the 2 evils, the Republicans DO.NOT.LEARN. and continue to veer left.

    So when the next election runs up, people say they will sit out, people like you (no offense) scream, don’t do it or THEY will win!!!@one11… and then we don’t and we win, only to get @#%DE@ by someone with a R by their name instead of a D.

    Since the R’s keep winning (not counting ’06) with the ‘you can’t live without us’ strategy, they never change to a more conservative, fiscal party (like they were) and they are not likely to change as long as they keep winning (or even getting close).

    The only way (it seems) that the Republican party is going to win back the conservative vote is with a wholesale a– whipping 🙂

    jvw: “I believe that some of the speculation is that Fred is going to endorse McCain now that he is out of the race. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.”

    Won’t happen. Fred knows what his followers feel about amnesty, even if he likes the man.

    Verlin Martin (899dce)

  39. You are very polite, Mr. Martin. Thank you. But the fact remains: if you don’t vote for the Republican nominee for President in November, you are voting for the Democratic nominee. Who will be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

    My parents felt the way you did in 1992, and voted for Ross Perot. That made Bill Clinton possible, and his wife now.

    All I am saying is that no one is a perfect candidate. Agitate, fight, carry on to make sure the Republican candidates properly represent as much of your agenda as possible.

    But if you sit it out, you are voting for the Democratic ticket. This doesn’t bother many conservatives, including Professor Bainbridge, who is much smarter and more successful than lowly me. But…anything that makes Hillary Clinton and the DNC smile makes me worry.

    In the voting booth, everyone makes their own choices. My parents are very sorry about 1992. I hope that the base will not be sorry in 2008. Especially with the Supreme Court they will get for literally decades.

    Again, thank you for the polite discourse. I know how you feel. But to me, the alternative is far, far worse. The benchmark, again, is simple: will it make Hillary Clinton smirk at what I am planning to do? Does she agree with my plan of action?

    YMMV, as always.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  40. I don’t plan on sitting out. If it’s Huckabee or Ron Paul, I WILL vote on the Democratic ticket. 🙂

    As long as I’m going to get it in the end, at least my enemy should be doing it.

    Verlin Martin (899dce)

  41. What a nightmare scenario, Mr. Martin. Fortunately, I don’t believe we have to worry about that. I guess the thing that bugs me are the people who “sit things out” and then feel that they still can complain. Voters get to complain—some would say it is their only perk.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  42. According to you, the people that sit out, voted for the winner… so that means they can complain too right?

    🙂

    I don’t for a second believe huck or paul will be the democraticrepublican nominee

    Verlin Martin (899dce)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0788 secs.