Has Time Expired For Fred Thompson’s 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination Candidacy?

The Moderate Voice ^ | 11/25/2007 | Joe Gandelman

[GnL]

Who do you agree with from a policy standpoint, putting aside the “performance” aspect? That should be the question that determines who you vote for, not who puts on the best stage act. The honor of being President of the United States of America should not be given to the person who puts on the best dog and pony show. Why were you originally on the Fred “bandwagon?” Did you agree with his policies and philosophy?

[Gabz]

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 they all have positives as well as negatives and I guess each one of us is just going to have to make our decisions as to what weighs more to us.

To me, at least right now, the biggest negative is that it has all been going on too danged long.........and that negative is against every last one of them.

[Route66]

Time Magazine says Fred’s time is up? Oh, please. They wish.

Tied for first in SC, Third in Iowa, Polling second in national polls... They are certainly in a rush to show him the door.

[Yaelle]

Pro-lifers do know that all abortion will not be stopped immediately in anything but Utopia. Someone who can openly state that he’s against Roe v. Wade as poor law is a great first start. Someone who will elect Supremes who feel that way (and will stay strong against federal funding for embryonic research) is all anyone against abortion can hope for in a President.

So Fred’s good!

[Yaelle]

Great post!

I’d add also that one thing Fred’s got in his favor is an absolute willingness to use correct terminology for things (ILLEGAL ALIENS!), and this will keep him heads above the other candidates with all voters, including crossovers and independents, on the subject of PC and pandering spin.

Keep that honesty in speech going, Senator!

[SoConPubbie]

Having MILLIONS to spend on the race - GREAT NEWS. Being third or fourth in most of the polls AFTER spending so many of those millions - Losing.

Josh, great post, I would add one more thing...

Having MILLIONS to spend on the race - GREAT NEWS. Being third or fourth in most of the polls AFTER spending so much time and spending so many of those millions - Losing.

If Romney is running such a great campaign, why after being in the race so many more months than Fred, why is he polling lower in the national polls?

[upsdriver]

“Keep that honesty in speech going, Senator!”

Did he use that same “honesty in speech” when he was a senator? Or is it just an election thing?

[CometBaby]

I have said from the beginning that this race was Thompson's to lose .. and his lackluster campaign has managed to do just that.

There is still a lot of denial from his very loyal followers.

[dusttoyou]

“Huckabee is causing Fred alot of trouble.
While I tend to agree with your assessment, I’m at a total loss to figure out why.”

Thinking there are lots of covert dim support for Huckleberry.

Still too far out from Primaries to have any good feel for who, what, where.

[yield 2 the right]

See Ya, Fred!!!
Finally he is out of here, and so are his supporters here on FR.
Duncan Hunter 2008...

[Rb ver. 2.0]

All this fixation on entering the race “late” is hogwash. The real issue is that Fred has a trophy wife. Obviously he is slighting women his age, showing them to be less desirable and unattractive. How will this factor into his having to work with these people? Will he staff the White House with young, inexperienced babes instead of qualified, experienced, mature women?

I’m just incensed over his male chauvinism.

[Rb ver. 2.0]

My retired ex inlaws are hot for Huckabee since he’s picked up some evangelical endorsements.

[sweet_diane]

rofl...this is really hysterical!

[sweet_diane]

"If Time Magazine thinks Fred is doing something wrong, it’s obvious...Fred is on the right track. Woo hoo!"

Isn't that the truth!

And if Fred weren't right on track, there wouldn't be so many 'panties in a wad' here on FR either!

IMHO, of course :)

[Sudetenland]

Yep and I still do, but it takes more than good ideas to be a good president. If good ideas were enough, then there are a lot of conservative pundits that would make good presidents, and I don't know of any pundit that I would have as president. Problem is, you have to be able to think on your feet. You have to be able to make good use of the "Bully Pulpit." We have just endured 6 1/2 years of a man who seems to be incapable of utilizing the prestige of the office to defend himself and his policies.

I want someone with fire in his gut. I want a commander in chief in whom I can have some degree of confidence that, when the occassion arises, can be an advocate of freedom and Liberty. So far Fred is a long way from impressing me along those lines. The only person I've seen so far with that kind of drive and aura of authority is unfortunately Rudy. Duncan might have it, but he lacks the dynamism needed to attract voters.

We have some good men running for the presidency, but no great men. Any one of our candidates would be superior to anyone of theirs, but it would be nice to be enthusiastic about someone for a change.

Fred still has a chance to impress, but he had better come to the game loaded for bear and he better be prepared to run full bore from now until next November without a break. So far he has shown less than stellar enthusiasm.

In this battle for our nation's future, second place is not good enough. It will only lead to Hillary care or worse, unilateral disarmament and, very possible, gun control.

[supercat]

...and in my opinion (and obviously many other pro lifers opinion) Freds federalism answer is just not good enough.

A right-to-life amendment would need to be ratified by 38 states to have any effect whatsoever. Can you name 38 states that would conceivably ratify such a thing in today's political climate?

Overturning Roe v. Wade would have immediate effect in many states. While it would have no effect in some others, it would at least have effect in some. I'd say saving some lives is better than none.

Further, if abortion becomes a state issue, then it will be possible to work on the issue state by state; if 38 states have restricted abortion but feel annoyed that residents leave to other states to get abortions, they could push for a human life amendment and have some chance of ratifying it. Until 38 states restrict abortion themselves, though, I don't see any way 38 states are going to agree to an amendment restricting it nationally.

[supercat]

I want someone with fire in his gut. I want a commander in chief in whom I can have some degree of confidence that, when the occassion arises, can be an advocate of freedom and Liberty.... The only person I've seen so far with that kind of drive and aura of authority is unfortunately Rudy.

Rudy may have drive and and aura of authority, but I've seen no sign that he can effectively advocate freedom and liberty. A jellyfish would be a better advocate for freedom and liberty than Mr. Giuliani; Mr. Thompson, for all his faults, would be a better advocate than either.

[codercpc]

I specifically said that I realize that he is right politically, and that I was not basing my vote on this issue, so you don't have to convince me. I just don't like his answer.

Huckabee and Romney have both also said that the first step is overturning Roe v Wade, but they want to go the extra mile and endorse (the only Presidential power they have) the Amendment, yet Fred specifically says he DOES NOT WANT IT that to me is the difference. Whether Romney and Huckabee are pandering may be a different issue, at least they claim to want to end abortion once and for all.

Politically possible or not, can you tell me the fundamental difference between Fred saying the State should decide, and pro choice politician saying the Mother should decide? Please answer honestly, in the end we still have a dead baby, it is just a matter of who condoned it.

As I said, this to me is only a philisophical discussion because it won't change my vote (I am not voting for either Thompson or Huckabee), so I suppose you can take it with a grain of salt, but I am dying to know other pro life supporters answer. What is the difference when we have a dead baby?

BTW... I happen to agree with Fred on almost all of his other federalism points, just not the one that has life and death at its center.

[RockinRight]

Yet in another post you said you’d back Rudy...that’s about as logical as turning down a burger because you’re vegetarian and eating ham instead.

[supercat]

Huckabee and Romney have both also said that the first step is overturning Roe v Wade, but they want to go the extra mile and endorse (the only Presidential power they have) the Amendment, yet Fred specifically says he DOES NOT WANT IT that to me is the difference.

Two candidates want to offer everyone in the country a pet unicorn; one candidate says he doesn't want to do so. No matter how wonderful it might be if everyone had a pet unicorn, I would hardly fault someone for having zero positive interest the mythical creature.

The Human Life Amendment will be, at best, a pipe dream until 38 states have laws severely restricting abortion. Any energy spent promoting it could almost certainly be better spent elsewhere. To promote the amendment now would take away from other efforts can actually work.

Further, even if a President Thompson could wave his pen and have the Human Life Amendment enacted into the Constitution, that wouldn't do much unless people from enough states were willing to act--militarily if necessary--against states that refused to abide by it. Do you see any good coming of that? I don't.

I do predict that there may be a sea change on abortion; when such a change occurs, the Human Life Amendment would be a good thing not because of its immediate effects, but to prevent a sea change back. Such a situation does not exist today, though. In today's political climate, the actual ratification of such an amendment--if it somehow occurred--would be an absolute disaster.