Posted on 11/25/2007 10:09:56 AM PST by dano1
Actor and former Senator Fred Thompson’s candidacy has always been one of the most interesting in the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination sweepstakes. You can’t quite say he was drafted but there was a virtual clamor by some to get him in the race.
After all, he was the perfect anti-Giuliani, the anti-Romney, the anti-McCain and reminded many in his plainspoken manner, with his ability to communicate and his acting background of a former actor and California Governor who made a mockery of the conventional wisdom (even on the fate of the Cold War) all through his career. He was to have been the real conservative amid a field of perceived conservative pretenders.
So Thompson had his moment in history where he was literally called into the political realm.
Now the question is: did he wait too long? And did he miss his moment in history? Time Magazine says the answer is most likely YES.
Fred Thompson is finally getting the hang of running for president. In the last few weeks, the former actor and senator from Tennessee has sharpened his message, picked up the pace of his campaign, leveled some clean shots at his opponents, cut two effective television ads, received one very big endorsement and issued some of the most substantial policy proposals of any of the Republican contenders.
But it may be too late.
The rationale behind Thompson’s candidacy was simple, and sound: in a G.O.P. primary that glaringly lacked a conservative who was both true and viable, Thompson would enter late and immediately be embraced by all those Republicans who had been unhappy with their options. Then he would roll to the nomination.
Yet, as Time notes, it hasn’t quite worked out that way and it’s due to timing — someone missing, perhaps by just a beat, their elusive moment in history:
It hasn’t turned out as planned, primarily, say Republicans both inside and outside the Thompson operation, because he waited too long to get in the race — and then, once he did get in, ambled through his first month as an official candidate as if his heart wasn’t in it. The result: in national polls that once had Thompson running even or better with front-runner Rudy Giuliani, Thompson now trails by double-digits. More troubling for Thompson is the emergence of Mike Huckabee, the former Baptist minister and Arkansas governor who is now statistically tied for first with Mitt Romney in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll of likely Iowa GOP caucus voters. Huckabee’s sudden surge of support among conservatives threatens to shred the rationale behind Thompson’s candidacy.
For that reason, the Thompson campaign has been on the attack lately on just about every topic that might resonate with conservatives, going after, among other things, “Huckabee’s liberal immigration record,” as one Thompson spokesman put it, and the fact that Huckabee raised taxes and increased spending as governor. Thompson has even raised questions about Huckabee’s multiple run-ins with the Arkansas Ethics Commission during his 10-year stint as governor over issues ranging from how he paid himself with campaign cash in the early 1990s to his claim in 1998 that some $70,000 in furniture donated to the governor’s mansion actually belonged to him and his wife. (Most of the 14 ethics complaints against Huckabee were small bore, but he did receive five admonitions from the Commission and $1,000 in fines).
Time notes that Thompson’s campaign now seems to be revved up and he seems to have a rhythm. And, the magazine goes on to say, it’s truly a pity for Thompson’s many supporters — many of them traditional conservatives who felt he could be the logical and widely supported heir to former President Ronald Reagan (and by implication the late Senator Barry Goldwater) — is that the former “Law and Order” actor has actually lived up to many of his expectations on the stump…recently.
Time doesn’t go into, however, Thompson’s early performances which were quite dreary and earned pans, even from some political folks who were rooting for him. By many reports, some early speeches fell flat and if his intent was to win over the GOP’s conservative base he seemed to be Gaffe City.
The fact is, in this modern age of You Tubes and weblogs that instantly cover, comment and/or run videos of public appearances, a candidate needs a bit of rehearsal time — just as top comedians needed to work their way up to headliners. But they are given little.
So the time they get to stub their toes is in the earliest moments.
Thompson entered a bit late so his toe-stubs got wider coverage and were glommed onto by the mainstream media and his political foes who pointed to his early efforts as a sign that the Thompson candidacy was more hype than conservative help.
In this media age, Thompson could have shot to the top but he would have to have had to immediately siezed his historical moment. He didn’t. And now his product may be better, but consumers have tried others and found them adequate — and they don’t show strong signs they’ll switch.
There are others in American history who lost their moments.
In 1992 Ross Perot entered the fray in the race between the first George Bush and Bill Clinton and was riding high in the polls. Some analysts believe he could have actually won the race. He left the race and when he re-entered, his moment was gone.
Former New York Mayor Mario Cuomo came close to announcing a run for President and balked at the last minute so much pundits likened him to Hamlet.
Running for and capturing the Presidency in the late 20th and early 21st century requires that a candidate not dilly dally or play hard to get — or it will be hard to get when he/she finally decides to get it.
FOONOTE: Several reports note that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is busy with some speeches and activities that aren’t usually endeavors of mayors.
For instance, he is now reportedly cramming on foreign policy.
Is it because he’s suddenly interested in foreign affairs?
Or does he hear — and is he about to answer — what he perceives to be a call from history? And will he do it quickly — or too late?
I don't see any grassroots enthusiasm for Fred. Fred does have the rank-and-file Republican support and the usual pro-Republican & conservative organizations that'll endorse him if they haven't already.
It'll be interesting to see if this support will carry over to the grassroots. But FReeper's codercpc's analysis is dead accurate. It's looking more and more like Fred! is becoming the Wesley Clark of the election.
Regarding the polls, although Fred is still narrowly in second place on the RCP rolling average of national GOP polls, he is only a few points ahead of Romney and McCain there, so it may really be a statistical three-way tie for second place nationally. It also looks like Fred has lost nearly half his national support in the last few months.
I don't know what the scenario would be for a Fred victory at this point, but finishing third in Iowa really does seem important for Fred now. I suppose that is why Fred went after Giuliani this weekend, since Giuliani is now in third and slightly ahead of Fred in Iowa on the RCP poll average for Iowa.
Previously I think the conventional wisdom was that Fred could afford to write off Iowa. Now Fred seems to really need third-place (the coach fare ticket) out of Iowa.
No.
While I tend to agree with your assessment, I'm at a total loss to figure out why.
As Extremely pointed out, I don't see the grass roots support for him that I did in the early going. I was very impressed with his support, but the candidate himself has not lived up to the hype. We will see if he can turn it around. But in the early States it is looking dim.
If the top five leading Pubbie candidates are relative close in the polls going into the primaries I fear that the conservative vote will be split leading to the emergence of a RINO candidate to carry the party banner. Who will emerge as the leading “conservative” alternative is an unanswered question.
For Huckabee the social conservatives have found their man, and they are willing to overlook his more liberal leanings.
For Rudy supporters, the WOT and electability are #1 priorities, and they are willing to overlook his social issues.
For Romney, his "flip flopping" is overshadowed by his executive experience, and his outstanding organizational skills.
For Fred his federalism stance attracts those willing to overlook his lackadaisical campaign style.
And for John McCain it is true loyalty to the man, his patriotism, and his electability. People are willing to overlook his "backstabbing" of the past 8 years.
That is the only way I can explain anyone supporting any of the candidates, that all -IMO- have huge liabilities along with their positives.
I agree. And I think at the time this appeared to be a reasonable expectation.
Fred may have been lulled into overconfidence by his early success in the polls.
FRed will take 2nd in Iowa. I’m absolutely convinced of it.
FRed will take South Carolina by TEN POINTS, at least. I am absolutely convinced of it.
I’m at a loss too!
I agree. All the candidates have positives and negatives and it just comes down to how one ranks the issues.
However I think that anyone for whom pro-life is the main issue should be sending the Huckabee campaign money, because for them it just doesn't get much better.
“For Huckabee the social conservatives have found their man, and they are willing to overlook his more liberal leanings”
Don’t bet the farm on it.
Hey there! How the heck are ya??
Glad to see we agree about Thompson/Hunter.
You're dreaming. I’m absolutely convinced of it.
Thompson is positioned perfectly to sweep up after the two top rinos spittle each other into oblivion. The media pissants want the Republican Party to self-destruct with a rino named Rudomney. Fred and Duncan willbecome the leadership for this nation ... and the fear in media is beautiful to witness!
I don’t think FDT is out of it because Time says he is. I do think he’s running out of time to get out in front. I thought after he entered the race he would make it a 2 man primary between himself and Rudy. I was really expecting him to suck the air out every one else, leaving it a 2 man race, but so far that’s not how it’s worked. Fred hasn’t caught on as of yet, and in fact has recently been trending down, while Mitt, Huckabee, and even McCain have been trending up. I think it likely FDT carries a few southern states and a couple of mountain states, but I don’t think he can pull off the nomination without a serious comeback, and I just don’t see that happening.
Why is it, according to media articles of late, that everyone else has "plenty of time left to rev up their campaigns and spring ahead of the pack", except for Fred?
I guess media can't attack Fred on issues, so they are resorting to attacking how he is percieved by planting the suggestion he is somehow slower than the rest, doddling behind.
I am not betting on anything this election, I was just trying to explain the lure of certain candidates to certain demographics.
Let's face it, if abortion, gay marriage, and life issues are your number one concern, Mike Huckabee is the best choice. Rudy fails on them all, Romney is a johnny come lately, and in my opinion (and obviously many other pro lifers opinion) Freds federalism answer is just not good enough.
I am not supporting Mike Huckabee, and for me I decided that this elections social issues would be taking a back seat. But having said that I agree with Fred on almost all of his federalism ideas, but when it comes to abortion, regardless of his record, when he says "States have the right to make decisions that even I, Fred Thompson disagrees with" that to me is no different than a pro choice candidate saying that the mother has the right to make a decision that they disagree with.
To me saying the State has a right to decide if a baby should live or die, is no different than a mother having that same right. In the end the outcome is the same, we have a dead baby, it is just who consents to it.
It may be the politically expedient thing to say, and I know intellectually that an amendment at this time would be futile, but I just don't like his answer, and I am sure many other pro lifers don't either.
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.