The most anticipated candidate since Reagan is done. He's not planning to attend the Florida debate.
His campaign never got started, and now it's petering out. Disgraceful. And this is a case whee it really is all the candidate's fault. in the end, this long time actor couldn't even act like a candidate.
Clearly, he expected to waltz into the nomination by near unanimous acclaim. Didn't he know he's the flabbiest lookin' White Knight ever?!?
And now what's left of the campaign is making noises that he'd make a great vice president – that he'd "fill in some of the gaps" (as one commentator put it) of whoever did get the nomination.
Uh, Freddie, that's what every VP choice is about, so the question is, will you be the best one to fill in those gaps? I don't know, will you show as much enthusiasm for that job as you did when running for president? Probably.
Will you bring the same level of knowledge and ideas? Probably.
And if, say, Romney gets the nod, exactly what would you be complementing?
And if McCain or Huckabee were the nominee, you could complement till the cows come home and the Republicans will still lose. Huckabee outright, and in the case of McCain, even if the Republicans win, they lose, even bigger and better than they did with Bush.
Best plan on complimenting Rudy. Giuliani-Thompson, start printing up those bumper stickers now to avoid the rush.
So I think, at least I hope, that Fred's finished – because I'm a little down on him at present, I just conceal it well. Acting!
The Naked Conservative 
Crap. He's really not going to Florida?
Hey, you heard it here first!?! The weird part is, so did I !!!
It's exactly like Gene Simmons getting fired from The Apprentice – he just wanted to go home is all.
Uncle Fred needed to chug down a few cans of Red Bull. He was the most tired looking of all the candidates, which was a great disappointment. Plus I never got any inkling of what his message was. What are the issues Fred?
Zak, he was the most tired looking of all the candidates – EVER!.
What are the issues Fred? Fred Thompson was consistently recognized as the candidate with some of the most thoughtful conservative policy ideas regarding social security and immigration. His problem was a perception in the media that he was "lazy" or disinterested in seeking the nomination, as well as getting in too late to grab Huckabee's evangelicals.
Zak, he was the most tired looking of all the candidates – EVER!. When 900 years you reach, look as good you will not. Hmph.
Its possible he'll make an official announcement today. Its not looking good, he's already cut his staffers down to half pay and money is running out. There is no schedule posted for anything in Florida at all which is another not so good sign and according to the rumor mill via FOX news some of the people on his staff are already talking about a VP position. Although i also read that he may stay in the race to take votes away from Huckabee which helps McCain. Supposedly if he does drop-out, they are saying he is going to endorse McCain. So yeah, CRAP!
I believe your desire may be inhibiting your perception. Thompson's image wasn't created by the media, it was a product of his own actions, inactions… and words. He hesitated to get in, thus at least straining a golden opportunity, and once he did get it, it was not with a splash, it was with a screeching halt.
Recently he actually said he had no desire to be President, and then he attempted to portray that as a good thing, because, I suppose, he'd be detached, coolly rational, and not beholden. Except that such detachment could, and likely would, mean that he wasn't motivated to fight too hard for anything.
So it doesn't matter what ideas he may have. Bush had a good idea for reforming Social Security, and what became of it? And is Thompson more motivated than Bush? OK, that's arguable since they both do nothing. But the point is, good ideas go nowhere is one isn't prepared to expend energy to see them through, and when did Thompson indicate he was not just willing, but anxious to do that?
So to my mind, this guy's not fit for anything now, and I don't believe he'd be an asset as a VP pick. Even if he were more enthusiastic in that role, wouldn't you want to know why he didn't have that enthusiasm when he was running for President?
You know, I read that during Watergate, he was regarded as a dope, but I didn't understand why that might be. Now I do, and he's probably not a dope, he's just disinterested. That could change, of course, but I think it's too late for this election. he's let a lot of people down.
Agreed. When he made the comment about being disinterested in the campaign, I immediately thought of Dewey. After destroying the Spanish the man was a national hero, and there was a buzz in the papers about getting him to run for president. Well, he gave an interview where he basically said, "You know, I've looked into this president thing and it doesn't seem difficult at all. I could totally do that." Well, that didn't play out too well.I'm officially for Romney, now.
I prefer Romney as well, but I don't want to sound overly enthusiastic, because as it stands, I won't vote for Romney. I see him as a newer model Bush.
But I'm glad you responded here because I'm sure you've noticed that we've got ourselves a discussion over on your blog. Actually, it's more like a chess game, and Billy's humanity may be his downfall.
But seriously, people may not like my methods or style, but I've found it sorts out those people with whom you can have an actual exchange and get somewhere. I doubt Billy will be reading this, but he's certainly a decent if misguided guy, and he's already advanced the dialogue further than it's usually possible to go with liberals.
And I think he's going to be surprised at where this leads because he's quite correct in thinking that I have a plan, and I found it delightful that he was surprised. I mean I'm sure he thought he was dealing with someone who just wanted to insult him and whose position was as little reasoned as people on his side.
if he allows it, were going to get to the point where if he doesn't agree that Iraq was "necessary," it will only be because he can't bring himself to step over that dividing line from which there may be no return.
And I want to add that I'm really enjoying this because I've never before been able to detail all this with a liberal before. They usually go off on a tangent or break off the discussion when the reasoning gets too close to disrupting what they want to believe. And though it's early, Billy seems different. he may still feel Iraq was unnecessary in the end, but I think he might also not see it so cut and dried anymore.
I was late to getting to his column today, and James Taranto does this for all the ex-candidates, but I thought this one was particularly good:
Bye-Ku for Fred Thompson
They called him "tortoise" But now the man with no hair Has got out of ours
I won't vote for Romney. I see him as a newer model Bush. no way! I thought that was Huckabee. But I'm glad you responded here because I'm sure you've noticed that we've got ourselves a discussion over on your blogFeel free to continue as long as you need. I'm actually quite pleased with the level of dialogue over there.
I think this says it all.
I never thought of Huckabee as Bush-like, Huckabee's a full-blown liberal to me.. But a caller asked my favorite Arizona talk show host today, who is adamantly opposed to McCain (who has a huge lead in the Az. primary polls), if he would vote for McCain against Hillary, and the answer was, "Hell YES!"
So that's about the way I feel. There are no good Republican candidates at this point, but they are all immeasurably better than any Democrat. just don't fool yourself, Romney isn't likely to be a true conservative.
I might not even freaking vote.
I'm sure you'll feel differently once the Dems nominate someone.
Romney has purposely swung himself right to appeal more to the conservative base. Most of them see it exactly for what it is though. I second the caller on that show above. Anyone the Republicans field will be light years better than any Dem. The only possible upside to the Dems winning the Presidency is that they should clearly show themselves in those four years. If the GOP is smart they will get back to what got them into power in 1990 and have the nads to stick to it one the money starts flowing their way.
An excellent observation.
We don't know if Romney's change of positions are real or how strongly he holds them if they are real, but we do know that we don't want McCain under any circumstances, and that nothing beats the Clinton's on shape-shifting.
My guess is that Romney probably was more conservative than he needed to be to become governor in Massachusetts, so he swung to the middle to win here then swung back when he knew he'd run for the presidency and not for governor again. I believe Mormon theology states the soul does not enter the fetus until sometime after conception, so they have some flexibility on the abortion issue as well as stem cell research which has served Romney pretty well.
The abortion issue is utterly meaningless to me, since the president has no role in whether it remains legal or not, and even Roe was overturned and a law was passed to legalize it nationwide, I still couldn't care less, since a veto wouldn't outlaw it, and there are other issues of infinitely greater importance.
I'm with you 100%, Ted. I've never understood people who use any one issue as a litmus test for a candidate. You have to look at the whole package and rank your priorities accordingly.