Posted on 01/29/2008 9:14:31 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
The Writing on the Wall in South Carolina - Thompson didn’t fail the Republican Party. The Party that failed to present a conservative themselves, or support one even when conservatives drafted one, failed Thompson.
Shade tree political pundits, who worked around the clock to douse ice water on Fred Thompson’s conservative campaign for President, are busy with their “I told you so” follow-ups. For them, Thompson’s departure from the race is interpreted as hard proof that the candidate was indeed “too old,” “too unhealthy,” “too lazy” and “too disinterested” in winning or leading. But for those who know Fred best, those who drafted him and worked to support him, his departure confirms something quite different…something much worse.
Thompson is simply too Conservative
At a time in history when conservatives are referred to as only a “fringe” of the Republican Party, and when fundamental American values and principles are called “extreme right-wing ideas,” a truly conservative candidate can’t win.
Conservative candidates never do well in liberal strongholds like New Hampshire, where nearly 50 percent of all voters are registered Independent and even Republicans vote liberal, or Michigan, the labor union capitol of the United States. Losing in liberal stronghold states is no surprise; in fact, it’s more a confirmation of one’s conservative credentials.
But not so long ago, there was no such thing as “too conservative” for South Carolina and that’s why Thompson bet his farm on South Carolina. Due to how early primaries are scheduled in liberal leaning states, a conservative candidate must begin his quest for national office in South Carolina, the first traditionally conservative state to hold a primary.
The History Thompson knows too well
For any conservative (or Republican) to win a national election, he must unite at least two of the three primary branches of the Republican Party. History provides a vital lesson in this regard.
In 1980, even on the heels of a disastrous Carter administration, Ronald Reagan united the conservative base of the party, the evangelical wing of the party, fiscal, social and national security conservatives and still won the White House with only 50.7% of the popular vote.
In 1984, Reagan won a second term with 58.8% of the popular vote and a party more united than any time in the 20th Century.
In 1988, George HW Bush won on Reagan’s legacy and a promise to continue Reagan policies into the future. Less popular than Reagan, Bush still garnered 53.4% of the popular vote, with all branches of the Republican Party still intact.
In 1991, Bush approval ratings were at an all time high after successfully ejecting Iraq’s Hussein from Kuwait and pushing him from the Saudi border all the way back to Baghdad.
But by 1992, Bush had parted company with the conservative base of his party by compromising with Democrats in congress, breaking his “no new taxes” pledge and setting the federal government back on the path of growth and liberal fiscal irresponsibility.
Evangelicals were divided now, but the conservative base of the party walked away from Bush en masse and sided with fiscal conservative pie-chart candidate Ross Perot. Bush lost what otherwise would have been an easy re-election, dropping to only 37.4% of the popular vote, handing Bill Clinton the White House with only 43% of the popular vote, opposed by 57% of the nation.
In 1994, after Hillary Clinton’s failed attempts to socialize America’s medical industry, American conservatives seized control of both houses of congress in a landslide movement to block Democrats from socializing anything under Clinton. Led by Newt Gingrich’s platform of the boldest conservative policy initiatives in decades, the Contract with America, Republicans controlled congress for the first time in 40 years.
But again in 1996, the RNC powers put forth a less than fully conservative candidate, Bob Dole, who failed to reunite or inspire the primary branches of the party. Once again, with the party divided, Bill Clinton won re-election, this time with 49.2% of the popular vote.
In 2000, a born again evangelical from Texas with a prominent last name, promising to return the Republican Party to it’s conservative roots and reunite the conservative base with the evangelical wing, fiscal, social and national security conservatives, won the White House. But this time, voters in the conservative base were not fully sold, having been burnt by his father only a few years earlier, concerned over what he meant by “compassionate conservative.”
As a result, Bush 43 actually lost the popular national vote by over a half million voters. He got lucky, winning the Electoral College vote, namely in Florida, by less than 600 votes in the end.
Seven months following his inauguration, 9/11 happened. The conservative base, evangelicals and national security hawks were once again fully united and in 2004, Bush won his bid for re-election by more than 3 million voters.
Unfortunately, by 2006 however, Bush 43 with the help of a do-nothing Republican Congress once again turned on both the conservative base and evangelicals, and the nation came to understand that “compassionate conservative” meant “amnesty for illegals”, open borders at a time of war against terrorism, apologetic national security and war planning, record social spending, record deficits and a declining dollar.
Base conservatives and evangelicals were furious and they demonstrated their frustration with liberal Republican leadership by removing incumbent Republicans from power and returning control of both houses of congress over to Democrats.
In 2008, History is poised to Repeat
Fred Thompson was the only complete traditional conservative in the race for the White House in 2008. Giuliani is a national security hawk, but otherwise, as liberal as the average Democrat voter. Romney and Huckabee talk tough on security, but oppose many of the measures needed to provide for national security and both have a less than conservative fiscal and social resume.
McCain can actually be accused of almost single handedly causing the Republican bloodbath of 2006. McCain opposes Gitmo, interrogation of known terrorists, many Patriot Act policies that have already resulted in a safer America. He opposed Bush’s tax cuts and led the charge for Campaign Finance Reform, some of which has already been ruled “unconstitutional” by the Supreme Court and his failed agenda of Amnesty for illegal aliens.
Divided Still
In order for any conservative (or Republican) to win a national election, they must have the ability to reunite the same branches of the party that Reagan united in 1980 and 1984, that Bush 41 kept intact for 1988, but fractured in 1992. The base branches of the party that Gingrich united in victory in 1994 and Bush 43 reunited in 2004 was fractured again in 2006 and remains fractured as we head into the 2008 election cycle.
The Writing on the Wall in South Carolina
Thompson had to win South Carolina. To do so, he had to have the support of base conservative, which he certainly had. But he also needed support from the evangelical wing, which is lined up behind Huckabee, and national security conservatives, which are divided between Giuliani and Romney. In the end, Thompson only had the support of the traditional conservative base that drafted him into the race. Thompson was unable to unite the other branched he needed to go forward and if they would not unite in South Carolina, they would not unite at all.
So, John McCain, the man who was almost single handedly responsible for the 2006 blood bath, emerged from South Carolina the victor.
Like his win in New Hampshire, his win in South Carolina was not the result of core conservatives, evangelicals, national security, fiscal or social conservative, all of whom remain divided between the other candidates. McCain won in New Hampshire and South Carolina with Independent voters.
South Carolina Democrats have even endorsed a man named Barack “Hussein” Obama, who is left of Hillary Clinton, in case you thought that wasn’t possible, who has no résumé of real accomplishment, political or otherwise, and who unlike Hillary, really will cut-n-run from the very real war against international Islamic terror.
No Conservatives Please
We know that the liberal northeast will only support the most liberal Republicans in any race. But South Carolina has in the past stuck to their conservative roots and advanced the most conservative candidates. Not this time…
This time, like the rest of the country, South Carolina failed to unite behind a conservative and instead, divided, they advanced the most liberal Republican in the race, John “amnesty” McCain.
Set in Stone
Thompson knows history and politics well enough to know that a conservative loss in South Carolina means a conservative loss across the divided plains. Thompson’s decision to depart the race was made not by Thompson, but by South Carolina voters.
History is set to repeat and Thompson saw it big time in South Carolina.
Thompson had core conservatives. But evangelicals are locked over behind Pastor Huckabee. Rudy has social liberals who are tough on crime and terrorism. Romney has the fiscally conservative Mormon vote and true moderates and Independents are with McCain.
That spells - no conservative for 2008 and most likely, no Republican as well.
Thompson has listened to the voice of the people who do not want conservative leadership in 2008. That’s why he’s out of the race.
Conservative voters are now stuck with a decision they have had to make for several years now. A choice between supporting a slow march to the left under a Republican, or supporting the “shock treatment” of allowing voters to realize the consequences of supporting only left-leaning candidates.
Many Thompson supporters vow to vote for Thompson in their primary anyway. I will likely join them in that statement!
But with no conservative in the race, electing a conservative in November is a literal impossibility. Conservatives can only vote against a candidate. There is no candidate to vote for… The sole conservative in the race did not fail Republicans. Republicans failed him.
And history repeats again. This time, for all the marbles!
History is about to repeat again...
South Carolina Republicans let down the country BIG TIME ... shame on them
AMEN!
And the price of doing so will be GREAT!
Republicans fail themselves.
Don't forget that in 1989, in the immediate aftermath of the Stockton shooting by Patrick Purdy, Bush 41 stabbed law-abiding gun owners in the back with his EO banning the importation of "assault rifles." Gun owners didn't forget, and this was a large part of the reason why Bush 41 - that elitist, anti-gun, anti-Israel, one-worlder snob - lost my vote. Were his similar-minded son running for a 3rd term, I can't say for certain that I'd vote for him (oh, I probably would, just to stop Shrillary, but I'd have to wear a gas mask to the polls).
And we’re left with some really, really crappy choices. Sigh.
With the last Conservative gone, “None of the above” for President.
Perhaps closed primaries would help Republicans actually elect people who have Republican ideals.
Bottom line: The voters were not blatantly informed about McCain’s treachery and did little to learn about the candidate on their own. The media will feed the sheep the lies and people will believe them unless confronted with a a powerful truthful source.
One in the same reality...
Oh yes, indeed!
If Thompson is on my ballot, he still gets my vote.
He’s the only one in the race I could vote FOR...
Sadly, I’m afraid we will find this to be true across the country, not just in South Carolina.
As much as a dislike Romney, I hope he knocks McStain off in Florida today...
JB Williams is just plain wrong. Thompson was NOT the most conservative Republican running—Hunter and Tancredo were.
YEARS of Pigeon-holing by a largely liberal media, and the left has been succsessful...
“CVONSERVATIVES” are now seen as Evil, hate-filled people who drive pickups with Nascar Flags and shot-guns in the window, who just live for the day when they can run over a black man or a Gay on the way home from hunting...
I could go into greater detail, but you get the point...
Why on earth are these early primaries “open”, allowing anybody to pick our candidate? It’s like letting the Raiders coming in to the Broncos locker room and picking who the Broncos will start at quarterback. Insane.
At a time in history when conservatives are referred to as only a “fringe” of the Republican Party, and when fundamental American values and principles are called “extreme right-wing ideas,” a truly conservative candidate can’t win.
Just dang! It makes me want to transform myself into pure energy and visit our parallel FR universe.
But it’s been a while . . . little finger in USB port and Control, P, Insert, right?
In S.C., the Palmetto State where I grew up, conservatism was once interchangeable and synonymous with segregation; thankfully, much of that philosophy has changed for the better. (However there are relics of that highly charged racially polarized period who call themselves conservatives: David Duke is one.) I feel, however, that true conservatives are lenient to some change (i.e. giving a hand to those less fortunate instead of a handout) while maintaining those philosophies that have defined them: Strong on national defense, fiscal responsibility, and certain issues such as abhorring late-term infanticide...
Change for me would be to accept certain other issues as inevitable--stemcell research among them and a responsible immigration policy that would seal border areas and deport criminal elements while allowing guest workers instead of something that borders on ethnic cleansing.
I'm afraid so.
Correction to grammar:
“It’s like letting the Raiders come in to the Broncos locker room and pick who the Broncos will start at quarterback. Insane.”
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.