Fred Thompson Was My Man, This Is Why
December 2, 2008 / 10:45 am • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierWith resignation I watch Barack Obama assemble his leadership team. He won. He gets to do the fun stuff.
What is more irksome this time around is that Republicans passed on a winner to pick a guy who had so many clear deficits. I wanted Fred Thompson. This is why:
9 Responses to “Fred Thompson Was My Man, This Is Why”
December 2 2008 / 11:49 am
Reply
Not to be a spoil sport here, but Thompson lost before he started(which was way too late), which by definition makes him the “loser”. Hunter had the highest conservative score of the primary field, and he was never even a contender, which brings us back to the all-important question of “Why?”
The top five “contenders” were quite flawed, and my rock-bottom, last-ditch pick of those five losers(*losers* in the eyes of true *conservatives*)was still seriously flawed. Thompson was a McVain buddy, and backed him to the hilt in crushing the very first Amendment to the Constitution, and was originally squishy on Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
Unless all points of actual conservative principles are supported by future candidates, social and fiscal, and strong national sovereignty and defense, the next election will end in the same heartbreak that this one did (it would have been heartbreak to me if the faux *Republican* backstabber had won).
December 2 2008 / 12:10 pm
Reply
I know. I know. He was late to the party, ran a bad campaign and was a loser. Still, I liked him.
Hunter wasn’t a contender because of name recognition and the press didn’t like him. They starve conservative candidates of air unless they turn out to be telegenic superstars like Sarah Palin and then they skewer them with lies and innuendo.
December 2 2008 / 5:20 pm
Reply
The press did to Fred Thompson what they did to Sarah Palin, but on a smaller scale. When Fred started his campaign, I remember Politico publishing a bunch of lies about him, like the incident with the firemen in Iowa. The media also set up the narrative about how Fred “lacked fire in the belly.” This was before people even got to really know him as a candidate.
I was pretty disappointed with him, though, when he backed out early. I remember it was the day after they had a web campaign to raise $1 million for him. They exceeded the original targets (I think it was $250,000), and they kept upping the limit because a lot of people were donating (including yours truly). Then he quit! Grr.
Still, I think he would have made the best president of the bunch.
December 2 2008 / 10:00 pm
Reply
Thompson ran a crap campaign and toyed around with the electorate. He lost all kinds of momentum when he screwed around for several months by not getting into the primary. He totally misjudged the situation and jumped in after he hit his peak. The subsequent campaign showed that. It’s too bad, because he was probably the closest conservative candidate on the ticket (I was rooting for him). Duncan Hunter, who was more conservative, never got any traction for reasons that Melissa already explained…
Anna,
Thompson withdrew “early’ because he was losing ground. In primaries, you usually see one or two jump ahead of the pack and they are the ones to beat. Going into South Carolina, Thompson was in a must-win situation and came in third. There was no way he was going to catch up to McCain or Romney after that primary.
Even Huckabee was a long shot and he stayed on
long after it was fashionable to do so.
However, it could be argued that he at least had
some electoral votes to play around with to give
him some legitimacy.
December 2 2008 / 10:53 pm
Reply
Fred WON. The only area where he lost was the same area consistently won by all your least-favorite bosses. And John McCain. The happy-happy joy-joy, gift-of-gab, middle-of-the-road, stand-for-nothing stuff.
Fred did it exactly right. It’s the people who screwed up. This was the year to vote in foolishness delivered in the right lilt of the voicebox, versus wisdom and common sense delivered in a monotone. We voted that our problems should get a whole lot worse, lest we get b-o-r-e-d, and that’s what we’re gonna get. Don’t blame Fred just because it’s going to happen. We demanded nothing less.
Sure, I’m sitting here thinking “Why couldn’t you be this expressive back in January”…but hey. This is exactly how I see it. In fact, I challenge Obamatons everywhere: If Mr. Thompson somehow got something wrong in the way he summed up the situation and the remedies we are considering for confronting it…point it out. Cite your sources.
December 3 2008 / 10:47 am
Reply
Passionate love and loyalty for one’s candidate is an admirable thing, but it is the opposite of objectivity, which is what is lacking in the macro approach to renewed conservatism. Candidates that “finesse” ideological conservatism are ultimately going to be seen as the slick-talking shysters they have been turning out to be when they get to power.
When given the choice of true, obvious conservatism, or clear socialistic pandering, people will still choose conservatism. They are not being given that choice, by RINO design, and so they make the second obvious choice of the real socialists over the semi-socialists. Being pretty and photogenic helps, but Rush is right when he says that “politics is show business for the ugly”.
Hunter has no problem speaking, cogently and without stuttering, unlike the president, but he was censored out by the machine, and the punditry took their cues from the machine instead of propping the MOST ideologically CONSERVATIVE. The McVain loss proved that true conservatives won’t be forced to vote for proven liberals at ANY cost, period. The Reagan Democrats did not just die off and those who voted in the ‘94 Congress haven’t died off, or been converted. The necessary votes to bring conservatism back to power exist, but those voters want the genuine article, otherwise they are going to vote self-interest. A slightly slower pace to the same destination isn’t a position to believe in or convert others to vote for supporting.
December 12 2008 / 5:04 pm
Reply
I didn’t support Fred Thompson, although I recognized him as an intelligent, well-spoken man. However, this video is wonderful. He hits on all the frighttening inanities that prevail as “common wisdom” these days. It is time to stop stealing taxpayer dollars to pay to poorly managed enterprises that, not surprisingly, turn first to Uncle Sam for a big, fat handout rather than taking the same steps other smaller businesses have to take to correct their blunders — and I mean in first place, bankruptcy. The Democrats say, “why not nationalize our auto industry, like they have in Europe?” The answer so far is that we are not a socialist country, although that may change very quickly.