Fred Thompson @ MindSay

Former Senator Fred Thompson has dropped his bid for the White House. I'm sure that hundreds of people are upset though I don't personally know anyone who feels this way. 

 

My Man Fred came in a disappointing third place in South Carolina. Apparently Huck believes Fred was a spoiler for his campaign in South Carolina and would have won over McCain if Fred was not there.

 

For me it boggles my mind that my fellow Christian Right voters are falling for Huckabee instead of Thompson. Thompson has the proven record of the most consistent Conservative fiscally and socially of the Candidates that have a real shot in the competition for the nomination.

 

Apparently Huckabee’s ministerial ordination credentials and home spun ability to connect with voters is of more value than a consistent Conservative track record.

 

Officially Fred has not thrown in the towel after counting so much on South Carolina; however a rather dour speech that sounded like “Thanks for the Memories” provides the appearance Fred is thinking of withdrawing.

 

I doubt Fred will gain any traction in the touted Florida Primary coming up; however I pray Fred stays in through Super Tuesday. If Fred can lose the dourness and show the fire he had in the last few debates, Super Tuesday may prove good for Fred even if he is not the majority winner. If the Republican Convention has no clear winner of delegates, then the bargaining begins in extra ballots at the Convention. Something I have never seen in my life time, but it has happened.

 

So my man Fred, stiffen that back and get tough and stick it out. A Convention that decides on multiple ballots does not mean the candidate with the most delegates after the first ballot is the automatic winner. A Candidate must win a minimum of 1191 delegates to be declared the winner of the Presidential nomination. If that doesn’t happen on the first ballot, the back room deals and political wrangling to come up with magic number occurs.

 

Thus even a third or fourth place finish for Fred may be seen as the logical compromise choice with his consistent Conservativism.

 

JRH

Michigan held their primaries last night as you should already know. I can now officially add Michigan to the list of states that I do not want to visit.

 

The list:

Iowa

Wyoming

New Hampshire

Michigan

 

Ron Paul was only able to get 6% of the vote. However, there was some good news. Ron pulled in more votes than Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani or Duncan Hunter. 

 

Now we know why Michigan's economy is all screwed up.

Fred and Ron   [John Derbyshire]

A reader urges me to support Fred Thompson:

Mr. Derbyshire — Ron Paul and Thompson are the only two conservative candidates. Thompson beats Paul in two critical ways:

1. At first blush Paul seems like the only honest candidate. But on closer inspection, he is unserious — his candidacy is a feel-good game. Not only is it not about winning the Presidency, at its heart it is not even about promoting the cause of small government. Paul loves playing the daring hero, and loves the feeling of an excitingly radical idea. For him, an idea like abolishing the IRS is measured less by its real current potential as a cause, and more by how over-the-top daring it is. If he wasn't an economic libertarian, he might be promoting some radically unorthodox pseudo-scientific theory, such as the earth being hollow. I didn’t connect all the dots until I saw a video of him with Leno the other day, and saw his facial expressions. Yes it is nice to dream about living in a small-government never-never land, and I would gladly give a limb or two to live in one. But Paul is not a real candidate, and his isn't even a real political movement. Paul may have stolen your heart (he had a good piece of mine for a while also), but I think your head was right at the beginning.
2. In the last NC poll, Thompson is only two or three points behind both Romney and Huckabee. If you’ve been following TV coverage, you know that only the top two or three candidates have much visibility at all now, aside from debates. If Thompson can rise a couple of more points, then there will still be a conservative candidate in the running after SC. I live in Ohio. I want at least a chance to vote for a conservative candidate when my turn comes.

I don't know, I take the naïve point of view that you support the candidate whose principles are closest to your own, and whose record suggests sufficiently strong will to stick to those principles, and sufficient ability to act on them. Since Paul is promoting a passive style of federal government — i.e. masterly inaction, leaving the country to run itself so far as possible — the last doesn't really apply. On the second, Paul's record is hard to beat for consistency (though the standard here is a political one, i.e. low). And on the candidate debates I've watched, or read transcripts of, Paul is the one I most agree with. I can't see that I need justify myself any further than that.

My reader's aspersions on Paul sound a lot like the ones I recall hearing about Ronald Reagan during the first presidential election I witnessed from American soil, in 1976. An office colleague — he was a recent refugee from Eastern Europe — was hot for Reagan. Everyone else, Democrat and Republican alike, laughed at this guy. "Not a real candidate …" etc., etc. Uh-huh.

My problem with Thompson is on the issues. His positions, when they are not ones I frankly disagree with ("I am committed to … A larger, more capable, and more modern military …" — Eleven carrier strike groups not enough, Fred? How many, then?) are woolly, seeded with trouble-generating cant ("The United States is a nation of immigrants …" — No, we are a settler nation, which at various times has opened itself to immigration, and at other times, not) and vague, improbable, let's-not-be-too-hasty concessions to really bad aspects of the status quo ("I am committed to … Giving parents more choices in education and schools less bureaucracy." So why not disestablish the Department of Education?)

Fred's a good man, and yes, has a clearly conservative broad outlook. If I can't get a Paul-Thompson ticket, I'll settle for Thompson-Paul, or even Thompson-Giuliani. When a dysfunctional federal government generates systemic problems, though — and there are some doozies just over the horizon — you need systemic solutions. I believe that in current circumstances, that means a withdrawal of federal power from areas where it never had any proper business being, and a return to a strict reading of the federal Constitution. I see the same belief in Paul. I don't see it Fred.

01/15 10:43 AM

 

 

Thompson has the best Conservative plan to lead America's future as opposed to the Democrats of tax and spend and moral socialism. Or Ron Paul who will cause America to go down in flames as he disable the military.