Curtain Closing (closed) on Fred Thompson?
Posted on January 22nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm by Stephen Fountain, EditorUPDATE: Fare thee well, old man. Fare thee well. Fred’s out.
###
Fox News is reporting that Fred Thompson has opted out of Fox News’ GOP debate on Thursday. From Carl Cameron, reported on 1/21/08:
Fred Thompson sources say the actor and former Tenn senator may withdraw from the race. There are no plans to attend Thursday’s Florida debate. Staffers have been on partial pay since the NH primary. The Senators plans are very fluid. As of 8:45 this evening, there are no plans for any announcement about whether he will stay in the race or not. The team is wrestling with very few options. The Senator is in Nashville visiting his mother (in her 90’s) who has been ill. From THE FIRST DAY Fox News broke the story last March of his candidacy, Thompson has always had a vice presidential bid in mind.
The Washington Post continued the last call drum beat this morning.
Thompson had said repeatedly that he needed a strong finish in South Carolina to stay in the race. He failed, ending up with 16 percent of the vote, behind Sen. John McCain and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and just a point ahead of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. In an election-night speech to supporters in Columbia, the normally laid-back Thompson thundered for 10 minutes about the less obvious accomplishments of his run for the presidency in what sounded much like a valedictory.
Good Bye Fred. We hardly knew you. Will Fred jump on the McCain band wagon now? Or will he stay neutral, hoping for a VP spot on whatever ticket finally emerges?
26 Comments
Leave a comment
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I don’t think Fred can support any of the top three besides McCain. I do think he should support Paul since that is the only other true Conservative candidate in the race.
Also, did you hear Duncan Hunter on Fox yesterday? When asked who he would support the only candidate he refused to do so was Mitt. Then he went into the reason. Mitt’s company is working with an illegal Chinese outfit to buy military equipment. How’s that for a zinger?
It seems impossible Hunter could support McCain or Rudy. We’ll see.
As for Fred, I think he’s debating when to make his endorsement. If he endorses McCain asap and McCain loses, so much for the VP spot. And I’m not as convinced as everyone else that he wants it anyway. Being #2 on the ticket is a heck of a lot of work between the day they’re named and election day. It’s non-stop. What makes us think he’d want that for the #2 job when he didn’t for the #1?
Troy…
You and Duncan Hunter may want to do some quick background checking into Mitt’s involvement with Bain Capital, and then Bain’s involvement with this particular Chinese firm - lot’s of spin from you and Mr. Hunter over a case that has been spun to death that actually shows no hurt nor harm towards Romney!
Much ado about nothing in the end.
Troy-
On the issue of Ron Paul, I simply must respond. Although he certainly has some good points and seems to have conservative themes about his message, he is not a true conservative. . . Paul is decidedly a libertarian. While many of his fiscal policies seem to make sense from a conservative standpoint, he would also support destroying the CIA, the FBI, and the Dept of Homeland Security. Not to mention his intent to legalize marijuana. . . Wow!If you ask me this guy is more Wacky then conservative.
Ron Paul also seems to have think that if we leave the terrorists alone, they’ll leave us alone. . . this simply isn’t true.
A Paul presidency would be interesting, I must admit. . . but what would it matter, we wouldn’t be able to enjoy it because we’d all be dead. . . Geez, without the CIA, and the FBI, we’re sitting ducks. . . But hey, President Paul will be just fine. . . I’m sure he wouldn’t abolish his security detail.
So to make a long story short, Thompson will not endorse Paul, because Paul is not a conservative. . . he’s a libertarian. . .
I do agree with Paul that we should stop supporting both sides of the Middle-East.
The money from that along could balance the budget.
As for Foreign Policy? Ron is espousing the same ideals that Bush did in 2000.
Domestically? Same policies that got Reagan elected in 80 and 84.
Ron Paul is right about our funding both sides of the war. . . but he isn’t the only candidate who is saying that.
Also, I never said anything about Bush or Reagan, but I must object. Certainly, you are right that there are certain aspects of Paul’s policies that seem to line up with conservatism. . . but look at the candidate as a whole. . . he seems a bit off of his rocker. And Reagan never proposed that we abolish our intelligence agencies and legalize drugs. . . so it is a bit off to say that his policies are similar to Reagan.
-As far as Bush’s policies go, when he ran for President, America was not aware of the threat of terrorism. Everything changed after 9/11. So yes, Bush did change some of his policies, but they have kept us safe for six years.
Who doesn’t believe Fred T will be doin’ some shoppin’ for suppin’ nice tomorrow for wife Jeri. It goes something like this:
“Sorry baby, I know you wanted to be First Lady and all. I’m just not the right horse to get you there.” But here’s a little sumpin’ from Tiffany. They call it a white diamond. One of the producers of Law & Order bought one just like it for his wife. You can wear it on our flight to Paris. And the Ritz hotel where we are staying in paris has a safe to keep it in.”
Sorry baby…but maybe you can be my sidekick if that Paul Harvey gig is still open.” First lady of radio isn’t so bad, is it…?
Like Reagan, Paul says we need to trim the size and scope of the Federal Government. Who still doesn’t believe the Department of Education needs to be cut?
The whole “Everything changed after 9/11.” line is old and simply wrong where it applies to the Constitution.
In the hindsight of history I think, in a sense, the terrorists won. The President addressed the nation and told us to continue to live our lives as we had before September 11th. That to change would be to play into the hands of the terrorists. Then we enacted The Patriot Act and did exactly that. While I agree we needed to beef up our security along the border and ports, I in no way believe we should have given up a single civil liberty. Doing that is exactly what the terrorists wanted.. and got. In that sense they have already won. This country has irrevocably changed and not for the better.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserver neither and lose both.
Perhaps nothing changed for you after 9/11, but you should probably talk with our soldiers who have been defending our liberty for the past 6 years. . . for them, a lot has changed. They’re the ones who are paying the highest price. Instead of gratitude, they have to listen to politicians like Ron Paul trash-talking the work they’re doing.
Another thing. I have a brother in the military. How do you think he feels when he hears people like you saying that the terrorists have won? Do you think that is helping morale in our military. If we as Americans would give our soldiers the same kind of support that our enemies are getting, then we would win this war.
And on your quote by Ben Franklin. . . unless we are willing to sacrifice, then we have no right to whine about our liberty. So no, we shouldn’t trade our security for liberty, but we should ask ourselves if we are willing to sacrifice for the liberties of fellow Americans. . .
“Perhaps nothing changed for you after 9/11, but you should probably talk with our soldiers who have been defending our liberty for the past 6 years. . . for them, a lot has changed. They’re the ones who are paying the highest price. Instead of gratitude, they have to listen to politicians like Ron Paul trash-talking the work they’re doing.”
I am sure you are well intentioned and certainly don’t wish the troops any harm, but you (and all the prez candidates) don’t speak for the troops…Ron Paul does.
Face the facts…
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/states/iowa/the-military-supports-ron/
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/engelhardt
http://ronpauldelaware.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/military-favors-ron-paul-over-mccain/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/191107_military_families.htm
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/10/ron_paul_leads_military_donations_race/
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/17/ron-paul-leads-all-08-candidates-with-one-third-of-military-contributions-for-q2/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/marina/marina17.html
…and I can go on and on.
Anyway…farewell Fred.
Listen to what you are all saying. . .
Making comments like, “The terrorists have won.” If you are all such true-blue conservatives, then why do you sound so much like Harry Reid?
I say enough with all the talk about Ron Paul supporting the troops. You can show me all the links you want, but it won’t make me believe it. If Paul supports the troops so much, then why is he consistently undermining their efforts?
If you really want to speak out for the troops, then stop discouraging their efforts. . .
“God spoke liberty only to those who love it, and are ever ready to protect and defend it.”
-Daniel Webster
Both you, and Ron Paul seem more concerned with the “love” part of liberty then the “protection part. . . unless you are personally willing to sacrifice for liberty, then you have no excuse criticizing the ones who are giving their lives to keeps you safe.
I wasn’t saying Ron Paul supports the troops (although he does immensely, especially vets as evidenced by them honoring Ron Paul with their ‘best friend’ award), I was providing evidence that the troops support Ron Paul.
You can certainly choose to continue to not believe that stat…or even continue to choose to hell with what the troops say (via Kerry’s logic).
“Both you, and Ron Paul seem more concerned with the “love” part of liberty then the “protection part…”
So says the neo-cons who purposely leave our borders wide open…so they can protect oil interests.
But really? Why is Ron Paul still the center of every discussion? I’ve stopped bringing him up weeks ago.
The MSM has certainly tried to omit him from discussion lately; yet HE KEEPS COMING BACK UP!
Further, the other candidates have stolen all of Ron Paul’s slogans…so why is Ron Paul the only one that sounds credible when he says it?
Thou protest too much, me thinks.
You, of course, are taking me out of context. I was speaking specifically about The Patriot Act.
I have served my country in the military and fully support the troops and aims in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe we should have declared war to make it constitutional.
More military support Ron Paul then any other candidate. I think THEY feel he supports them.
Again, I am not discouraging the troops efforts. Not even 1%. I am discouraged at how fast we threw away some of our civil liberties. The War on Terror will one day be over but we will never have those liberties returned to us.
Troy-
When you say that “the war on terror will one day be over,” you may be right. . . But Ron Paul’s mentality is basically “If we leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone.”
This is simply not true. The thing we need to realize is that this war isn’t going to end if we simply pull out of Iraq.
All I ask is that you carefully examine the candidate. If you look closely you will find that he has made several ridiculous statements. I am speaking of same Ron Paul who suggested that we have never had a serious national security threat here.
If we just pull out like Ron Paul suggests, then fine. . . just realize that the war won’t be over.
‘But Ron Paul’s mentality is basically “If we leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone.”
This is simply not true.’
No, you believe it is not true. You don’t know for sure. Meanwhile, we know for !@%$# sure that millions of illegal aliens were let in by our government. We know our rights are being taken away by our government. Etc.
So you know for sure that our government is fvcking US citizens up.
The saying “a bird in hand is worth two in the bush” isn’t quite appropriate when the bird in hand is a big juicy bird (correcting our government), making the two in the bush (terrorist boogeymen) little scrawny things.
No one here is lacking in patriotism, love of the troops, etc. We all want what is best for our country. We all are willing to use military force.
The difference is that people see different ‘big pictures’. No Ron Paul supporter dismisses any nuclear threats, but we feel there are even bigger threats to the security of our people. It is others how do not see or will not acknowledge those threats.
If some major correction doesn’t occur in this country, there won’t be a USA as we know it for terrorists to attack. There are worse things than death.
What you say can be applied to every single candidate running.
If the only issue you oppose to a Paul nomination is Iraq then I’d say you don’t have much to talk about. Iraq isn’t in the top three of issues anymore.
From the Ron Paul website:
“Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.”
And from 5/21/07:
“This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq .
Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq and we need to do it sooner rather than later.”
I don’t see him saying we pull out anywhere do you? What it does is ask that we redefine our mission since the original objectives have been met.
I must admit that I like the sound of Paul’s bill.
I only wish that it was consistent with what he says during his campaign. Let me give you a Ron Paul quote from a debate:
“How much do we have to pay to save face? That’s all we’re doing now is saving face. . . it’s time we came home!”
Perhaps he is right. . . perhaps we do need to come home. But when you say that Ron Paul is not supporting a pull-out, you are wrong.
I don’t mean to sound like a classic GOPer spewing GOP talking points. The truth is, I believe that Ron Paul has a lot of good things to say. I don’t mean that all of his foreign policy statements are ridiculous. However, I feel that many of his ideas are misguided. I think Ron Paul is right about his fiscal policy, and I admit that some of his domestic policy is correct as well. But to say that Paul is the only conservative in the race is simply not true.
Seth, just curious, who else to you have in mind as a good conservative?
If you’re asking who my first choice is for President, then I’d have to say Mike Huckabee. But to be honest, I am not entirely satisfied with any of the candidates. My objection was simply against the statement that Ron Paul is the only true conservative.
For my part, I have decided to bring this conversation to a close due to the introduction of vulgar language into our discussion. If we as Republicans can’t have a decent conversation without beeping each other out, then it seems that our time is wasted.
The truth is, we need to rally around our party’s nominee, whoever that may be. For my part, come November I will be voting for the Republican candidate. . . even if it’s Ron Paul.
Ok, fair enough, but I do have to get this off my chest (even though I’ve said it before)- as a Republican, I will not be rallying around John McCain even if he is the nom. I use to like Huck more and could have forgiven a few of his liberal tendacies, but recent comments (living-breathing constitution) have turned me off. I don’t even like Romney that much- but maybe I can be convinced on him.
I think it’s a shame F. Thompson’s campaign did so poorly because when you look at his views, he really could have untied the Republican party, at least somewhat. Although if the Republican party is this far gone, maybe we need a socialist in the White House to wake us up- the only problems is that it may be too late by then.
With Fred out the only canidate I can support is Ron Paul. It’s that simple.
Fair enough. . . I guess we got a little off topic anyway. . . sorry, my fault.
No Seth, I got a “little” passionate.
Still, I at first backed The Patriot Act before I realized what it meant to our civil liberties. Parts are well thought out… others, well others might not have that intent but do erode our rights and should be repealed.
Troy, just so you know I don’t support the Patriot act either. . . I agree with you when you say that we have surrendered a lot of our liberty in exchange for security. Like you I was supported the Patriot act originally, but began to realize that it was unconstitutional the more I thought about it.
Isn’t that amazing? We actually agree.
I could say more about Ron Paul, but then again I’m sure you could too.
However, I do hope that you will join me in voting for the Republican nominee this November. . . whoever that may be. If we don’t come together as Republicans, I fear that we will pay a terrible price, and lose yet more of our liberties.
If that nominee is Ron Paul you can bet on it. If not? Well, Reagan isn’t running so I think for the first time in 30 yrs I won’t be voting Republican.