Thompson conundrum
CHARLESTON: The answer to the conundrum is simple, it seems to me. The conundrum is this: why did he not catch on in spite of the fact that he had a genuine, if somewhat offbeat, appeal? The answer: the Republican Party is serious, or getting serious, about winning in 2008; it is not that Fred was deficient policy-wise but that his general demeanour, lacklustre to the point of other-worldliness, was never going to triumph against tough-savvy Hillary or New Deal Barack.
It seems to me that the Republican Party is now searching for winners: is plainly there, or thereabouts, but so is Romney, now that the economy has (semi-officially) , and Huckabee and Giuliani are not out of it yet. Assessments on the history of the Thompson non-surge. He will be missed.
showed Fred at his best. His fans will be watching it and crying into their whiskey...
UPDATE: I should add, though, that my personal favourite advert of the campaign so far was , created for the slow-to-catch-fire southerner by Slate Magazine (I know it's a spoof but it's great).
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Fred Thomspon's greatest asset also appears to have led to his downfall: his wit.
According to Frank Luntz, after polling a focus group of Republican voters after a debate on Fox News, most Republicans liked Frank but thought he was witty to the point of appearing too facetious and, ergo, too risky a candidate to field for the presidency.
There was nothing genuine about his appeal, that's why Thompson didn't catch on. Combined with his lazy campaign style and lack of substance, it's not a surprise to see voters didn't go for him. Guiliani could drop out after coming in third in Florida. Huckabee doesn't have the funds to finish. McCain, despite a voting record similar to Clinton, will most likely lead the delegate count with Romney trailing close behind. What will be the interesting story is Ron Paul staying in the race (he leads in fundraising, despite media omission), bringing a significant enough number of delegates to the convention to possibly decide who becomes nominee. The Republican party isn't getting serious about winning, it's in disarray. After canvassing in New Hampshire and South Carolina, I'll tell you that people are undecided and will vote for whoever the tv tells them to.
Justin,
They are not the only ones still in this race..Dr Ron Paul has beaten Thompson twice so far in the primaries, came 2nd in Nevada and may even WIN Louisiana tonight. He is in this race for the long haul, has more money than Huckabee and McCain and has had more than twice as many votes in total than Rudy Giuliani. He is is a better position for growth and momentum than many of the other candidates, so please can you stop excluding him from your comments.
The World at large will be delighted that we are not going to be lumbered with another low-brow, Bible-Bashing ex-actor as President of the most powerful Nation on the Planet.
Obama could do worse than have Thompson on the ticket or at least offer him a cabinet post if he wins. I don't think Tommo is finished yet.
To borrow and paraphrase from the West Wing, the only real qualification the VP needs is to have a pulse.
That just about makes Thompson eligible but please please no.
Have a nap Freddy and then maybe do another Die Hard.
Still no Ron Paul
He is still in the race
and coming second in Primaries
How funny are you lot pretending he doesn't exist
ha ha
I think you're right Justin - the Republicans are getting serious about winning.
They know, and everybody knows, that to have any chance, they need to get the candidate just right.
Thompson represented a lot of the Republican Party's core values...but these are not things that are going to get a Republican into the White House, as they only appeal to people who would have typically voted for the GOP anyway.
Fred Thompson was the consummate political insider. Those my age remember a much younger, though certainly a no more clever Thompson, during the Watergate Hearings when he defended at every turn Dick Nixon's right to burgularize the DNC headquarters, and to lie about it after the fact too.
The fact Thompson spent time in the Senate is also a detraction, like many of these other wretched candidates.
The Senate is rife with an elitist's ethic of haughty above-the-law corruption wholly deserving of its own special gallows, a final rendezvous before departing to the netherworld and their new offices in Hades.
America will not vote its way out of the mess it has made of the world.
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
Owain,
The same argument could be used to make the case for Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards for that matter.
Th fact is, Thompson is only getting a write up now because he is out of the contest having never really been a significant challenger.
Don't worry, I'm sure Justin will write Dr. Ron Paul's political obituary once he has been eliminated from the race as well.
Fred Thompson had no chance because he didn't play by the rules the media has laid down for the nominating process. He may have waited too late to enter a process that takes way too long. He tried to do it his way and was ignored by the liberal press, which would rather waste time reporting on Brittany Spears and O. J. Simpson. The "low-brow...ex-actor" president defeated the Soviet Union with out firing a shot and set-up the greatest economic boom in history. Amazing what one can accomplish without being born to wealth or priviledge.
All this fondness for Ron Paul? Isn't he the guy who had his name associated with a series of racist rants?
Its clear Fred Thomson didn't care enough to even give himself a chance. Now he needs to answer to a lot of his backers that probably expected a more serious effort, at least on their dime.
Thompson would have been an easy mark for the Democrats. The GOP should be relieved that he dropped.
Fred Thompson lost because the US Media still has not got that Ronald Reagan beat them
IF Giuliani is not out of it, then why are you ignoring Ron Paul, you know the candidate who has beaten Giuliani in every real election bar 1 so far and he has far more money on hand than Giuliania and Huckabee combined? You know, the candidate that has so much appeal that ALL the other candidates in Louisiana had to gang up and enter as a combined non-disclosed 'pro-family/pro-life slate in order to defeat Ron Paul, because they could not beat him individually. Ron Paul got more support in Louisiana than any other candidate and there for won the poll, but lost the delegates because of the other candidates shameful dirty tricks.
Is it not newsworthy that Ron Paul's support is so strong that ALL the other candidates had to combine to defeat this so called "fringe candidate"????
So I ask you again Justin, When will you live up to your words:
"I have written before about the need for those of us with claims to impartiality to treat those the parties regard as fringe candidates seriously; it is not for us to attack or defend, but to report and analyse."
and report on Ron Paul? WHEN? he IS a front runner, he came second in Nevada and got the most delegates, he won the most votes of any candidates in Louisiana. He has consistently beaten the media darling Giuliani, so WHEN WILL YOU TAKE NOTICE????
Justin, I am just wondering whether you would be willing to express a view on John McCain's age / experience in light of the fact that British voters appeared not to take to Menzies Campbell as the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and that they have now dropped him in favour of a younger man.
Or are American voters less superficial?
Or how will Hillary [if she wins] try to convince the electorate that whereas the problem with Barack Obama was that he was too young/inexperienced, that John McCain is too old/experienced ?
But we are getting ahead of ourselves, methinks...
Mr. Webb:
As a New Yorker and centrist independent could you please explain how you square your editorial balance?
Why so much on Thompson?
Why do you, like CNN, insist on air-brushing Ron Paul?
You may think him odd perhaps, but in a climate where all parties want fiscal stimulus (tax cuts) and reform of the Hill, wouldn't it be appropriate if you at least ackowledged the Fair Tax policy? It has the merit of being radical policy which mis heading into the GOP mainstream and is an interesting counterpoint to the Dems "tears n fears" campaigning.
Ron Paul has done far better than Thompson in EVERY RACE - got 10% in Iowa and NH (Thompson 3%), did well in NV.
How can you include Thompson in a round up with 3% and not mention Paul with 10%?
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ does not even have a "drop down" candidate description of Ron Paul. His chances may well be "long" but he is a thoughtful and distinct character.
Or must everything have a European perspective so your readers are comfortable? i.e "Exclude the American libertarian, cos if he is pro-States and anti-Washington, that might make Europeans anti-Brussels"?
Lord forbid that any revolutionary ideas should come from America!
Interested in your comments - know you claim to be fair minded.
Although I am a Ron Paul supporter, I truly am shocked that Thompson did not do better.
Couldn't agree with Owain more. Ron Paul, whilst presently only representing the Jefferson Conservative wing of the Republicans, does have a broader appeal to the 'rest' of the public. He won most Independent votes for example in Nevada. Can't see any of the other Republican candidates breaking out much from the party hard-core. Although a long shot Ron Paul's appeal is cross-party. His main hinderence has been lack of media coverage. Why are they so biased against the man?
ever hear of Ron Paul
I’m not surprised that Fred will not be hectored into admitting that global warming is a result of human activity.
Fred Thompson is a visiting fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank funded by Exxon Mobil.
*Experts on global climate change were censored by the Bush administration whose ties with the interests of oil and energy are well documented.
I thing the next comm in chief should be Obama& Edward. becouse bush
bush, clinton, clinton, Bush,bush. No ned this people again that,s why it will be batter for the usa and the world.
also I think Obama can change the us and world politice,s.
Best Rari Akber
Tokyo japan
"The same argument could be used to make the case for Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards for that matter."
Indeed it can and should be made. What we have here at the moment is a situation where The Editor is deciding who the public needs to know about, and whom they don't. The case is stronger for Paul though because he's been doing consistently better in the polls than either Guliani or Thompson have been throughout. Not of course that you'd know looking at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ polls, because the unnamed candidates are excluded from the figures. The if you goto www.pollster.com you'll find the correct details.
Jon Stewart of The, excuse me, A Daily Show nailed it when he said that on the movie screen, with a script to work from, Thompson has charisma.
But the REAL Fred Thompson, working without a script, "lacks a certain...EVERYTHING."
His ideas weren't inspiring, novel, or even that practical. Delving into his background shows he held/holds some very questionable views. Plus he's just plain lazy...as one pundit noted, Thompson seemed to be running his campaign from a Barcolounger.
Ron Paul may hold some Jeffersonian views, but that doesn't make him a 21st century Thomas Jefferson. He's WAY down on the list of viable candidates. And with good reason.
Perhaps the need for an interesting story drives what and who gets covered. Hence lack of Ron Paul coverage.
Ron Paul is a a very sedate, consistent story with no ups and no downs. Fits nicely into background and gets on with getting the job done without any unusual events, shocks surprises. Reminds me of the person who plans and sorts out rail timetables, makes sure trains are scheduled to leave at right time, arrive at right time while still planning for light rain and allow windows for delays etc etc.
Now if Ron Paul started laying into other people or with, cause totally unrelated news activity then might get noticed.
Ron might even go onto be president. But one thing Ron will not have is media coverage until after winning the election.
Bisleri.
To the first voter, Frank Luntz has admitted himself that his polls are manipulated by how he asks the questions. They are not to be trusted.
He will say whatever he's paid to say, and Fox news doesn't often get referred to as Faux news for no reason.
Its true Great Britian's media is just as censored as in the US.
Ron Paul has been and is a victim of an oppressive media blackout, that seems to have reached as far as the ´óÏó´«Ã½, maybe that is not that far after all, and they are all one in the same.
I mean you have Rupert Murdoch owning the "wall street journal". He puts a spin on the financial news as he pleases, and upsets or calms markets as he pleases.
The media blackout on Ron Paul is the most amazing story but unfortunately no one can write
about it, otherwise it wouldn't be true.
Louisiana had its caucuses on the 22nd of Jan 08, and because Ron Paul, probably was gonna take it all, they decided on the last two days before voting at the caucuses to include, all the republicans (who couldn't qualify for lack of interest) on one ticket, called the uncommitted pro-life slate. So that has now changed the out come, because Dr.Paul alredy most of all the delegates pledges, and now they are not releasing the winner, they have not reported on it at all on any of the major networks, oh no they just keep on talking about Obama vs. Hillary, I mean really, we are in an election, there are voting irregularities and nobody reports it, nor do they report that Louisisana Just elected someone, do you think someone might care?
Jimmy Carter said the US does not meet internantional standards for protection against voter fraud.
To the Ron Paul supporters here: Get over it.
When he places any higher than fifth in a contest people actually pay attention to (Nevada ain't it!), then you might have a justified reason to complain.