[r9etb]

What I'm suggesting is not that Fred Thompson was the perfect candidate. Rather, I'm suggesting that the complaints about why he failed to catch on, explain why you (among many others) are complaining about the candidates who are left.

If Republicans can't find themselves a good candidate, blame the Republicans, not the candidates.

[Jack Black]

You say the conventional wisdom is Fred Lost because:"he refused to shove roses and chocolates up the arses of the Republican voters.... Republicans need to be wooed like fickle cheerleaders ...Republican voters are the problem. They need to grow up and get serious".

I say: Fred ran a crappy campaign. He had good positions but articulated them poorly. He didn't do well in the debates. He entered the campaign too late, and didn't start raising money early enough. He didn't contest early states, the critcal way you overcome a lack of money and name recognition.

My claim is that if Fred had only campaigned as diligently as Romney or Huckabee or even McCain he'd still be in the race. Instead he ran a terrible campaign. Guilianni is the other big underperformer in the race, for some of the same reasons. He ignored the conventional wisdom. (Not a good conservative thing to do, usually). He was wrong. He could easily have finished high in New Hampshire. The "all in" in Florida strategy never made sense. But, that at least was only one big error.

Fred made many errors and in the end it was reasonable for voters to decide that he didn't look organized enough to be POTUS.

In my opinion it had nothing to do with his positions on the issues. I don't think most GOP primary voters are looking for give-aways. I don't think most of the other GOP candidates have promised give-aways. (Though Romney did go there in Michigan about reviving the auto industry. And was savaged for it by many.)

We voters probably deserve blame for some stuff, but Fred's exit is not one of those things.