The Dream Shall Never Die

David Weigel | January 28, 2008

Like Tinkerbell, like Lazarus, like E.T., the Fred Thompson campaign is being wrenched back from the darkness by the prayers and applause of the devout. David Jeffers, author of Understanding Evangelicals: A Guide to Jesusland, thinks Fred can win a brokered convention if we just... believe.

"Many evangelicals have contacted me and have either or are planning to vote for Fred Thompson. I have cast my ballot for Fred Thompson... I've been told by many that I'm dreaming if I believe the GOP convention will be brokered, but do they know that for sure? Can we evangelicals say that God cannot work in that way? Please understand that I am not speculating nor predicting; I would not presume to speak for God. I'm merely reminding the flock that we still serve a mighty God…So I'm going to walk in the light I have now and know that God will provide more light later. That light is showing me to go with what I had planned all along."

Bill Quick, who took me to the woodshed for doubting the Big Voice, is leaving the responsibility with us mortals: we must stage a write-in campaign.

I’m pretty sure that if this notion starts to get traction, Fred Thompson will publicly oppose it. Don’t worry, and don’t listen to him.

(Didn't Republicans already agree to do that?)

This isn’t really about Fred Thompson. It’s about the future of the Republican party. Fred ran because he hoped to influence that, but he failed. Now it’s time for the rest of us to take a crack at it. So remember: Just write in Fred Thompson’s name when it comes time to cast your vote. (There’s nothing stopping you from writing it in for other offices, either).

The sad fact of the Fred campaign is that he influenced the rest of the field... not at all. He hardly creased a corner of the GOP platform. Perpetual third man John Edwards, via his early health care plan and his bullying the rest of the field to boycott Fox News and support the FISA filibuster, has had infinitely more impact on the presidential race.

The best argument I've read for Fred came, too late, in Andrew Ferguson's brilliant wrap-up of the campaign. Ferguson argues, correctly, that people didn't use to demand their presidential candidates jump through flaming hoops and give pony rides to Iowans to demonstrate their bona fides. Two centuries ago candidates were seen as craven and unseemly if they campaigned at all. It's a good case, but Thompson and his allies (like Zach Wamp) didn't make it. They argued that he was tall and had a deep voice and reminded everybody of Reagan, and they died on that hill.

Comments

|1.28.08 @ 11:21AM|#

If its a brokered convention, its Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich vs. Clinton--back to the future!

|1.28.08 @ 11:26AM|#

And people say the Ron Paul supporters have unrealistic hopes :)

Episiarch|1.28.08 @ 11:26AM|#

I'm so tired of this political bullshit and it hasn't even really started yet. And the writers are still on strike. Ugh.

|1.28.08 @ 11:26AM|#

I could have more respect for this argument if there wasn't already a devout, religious-right evangelical in the race, Mike Huckabee.

But he is unacceptable to the business wing of the party, and SOMEHOW, a number of religious-right leaders have decided that what such voters should do is throw their support behind a guy who's not running.

That looks mighty peculiar to me.

Abdul|1.28.08 @ 11:27AM|#

So remember: Just write in Fred Thompson's name when it comes time to cast your vote. (There's nothing stopping you from writing it in for other offices, either).

Fred Thompson for Fairfax County Coroner!

Fred for Orphan's Court Prothonatory!

|1.28.08 @ 11:35AM|#

"Ferguson argues, correctly, that people didn't use to demand their presidential candidates jump through flaming hoops and give pony rides to Iowans to demonstrate their bona fides."

Sorry, but I don't buy the "too cool for the room" line about ole' Fred, or any other. FT was a lazy can of mush from the get-go. Let him smoke Cubans and drink $200 a bottle Scotch till the cows come home.

|1.28.08 @ 11:39AM|#

that people didn't use to demand their presidential candidates jump through flaming hoops

OTOH, jumping through flaming hoops would demonstrate at least some degree of athleticism. It would probably be as meaningful as any other measure currently being used.

How about using a cage match to decide who should be president?

Episiarch|1.28.08 @ 11:42AM|#

How about using a cage match to decide who should be president?

Not a good idea--Huckabee has Ric Flair as an advisor. What hath the Nature Boy wrought?

Now, if Ron Paul could line up Vince McMahon, HHH, and Lawler (for retro!), maybe it would start to look like a good idea.

Taktix®|1.28.08 @ 11:43AM|#

Well, since religion is an exercise in denying reality, it doesn't surprise me that this asshole thinks Fred Thompson can still win.

Rimfax|1.28.08 @ 11:44AM|#

So, David, you're a member of the Orange Line Mafia and the Monkey Feces Flingers. Are there any other super-secret political memberships we should be aware of?

MB|1.28.08 @ 11:44AM|#

"How about using a cage match to decide who should be president?"

TWO CANDIDATES ENTER! ONE CANDIDATE LEAVES! TWO CANDIDATES ENTER! ONE CANDIDATE LEAVES!

BakedPenguin|1.28.08 @ 11:45AM|#

How about using a cage match to decide who should be president?

How about an American Gladiators type show instead? I'd love to see someone smack Hillary or Huckabee, even with a padded club.

|1.28.08 @ 11:58AM|#

Fred Thompson supporters are just hystercial...they are living in an alternate universe where somebody at sometime thought Fred was interesting for a split second...and they are still living in that second...grow up!

Joel|1.28.08 @ 12:18PM|#

James, "Grow up" to what? Grow up to believe that their values and beliefs do not matter? Grow up to believe that the party is running straight into the abyss since they cannot seem to learn the lessons of 2006?

It seems what being "mature" is, is living in a "pragmatic" party that refuses to remember WHY it became a strong party in the first place.

The supporters are not "hystercial" (sic)--they cannot find ONE Republican candidate that comes anywhere close to being trustworthy of the conservative mantle. When they look at the list of candidates, they say--let's vote for Fred.

|1.28.08 @ 12:20PM|#

"party is running straight into the abyss"



And I'm lovin' every second of it...

x,y|1.28.08 @ 12:22PM|#

Sorry, but I don't buy the "too cool for the room" line about ole' Fred, or any other. FT was a lazy can of mush from the get-go. Let him smoke Cubans and drink $200 a bottle Scotch till the cows come home.

That sounds like an endorsement in these parts. A president who won't do anything? Sign me up.

|1.28.08 @ 12:23PM|#

the party is running straight into the abyss

And what makes it comical is that they are looking behind them sticking their tongue out while they're running into the abyss

|1.28.08 @ 12:26PM|#

And if you run for long into an abyss, the abyss runs also into you.

|1.28.08 @ 12:49PM|#

Remember what the tagline was for Pet Sematary? "Sometimes dead is better."

|1.28.08 @ 12:55PM|#

It seems what being "mature" is, is living in a "pragmatic" party that refuses to remember WHY it became a strong party in the first place.

Cultivating big money donors on K Street while projecting an image as a country-fried populist?

Um, yes, actually.

|1.28.08 @ 1:06PM|#

Now, if Ron Paul could line up Vince McMahon, HHH, and Lawler (for retro!), maybe it would start to look like a good idea.

Dude, Lawler ain't retro. Here is a retro wrestler.

|1.28.08 @ 1:11PM|#

Can we have a little growing up here? So you don't like FT. FINE Welcome to America. But you can't honestly believe that his supporters are that out of whack. I've been looking at the field since he dropped out and I see NOTHING that inspires me. Instead of slamming him for not putting a good enough show on for you why don't you tell me what it was about his beliefs on the issues that you didn't like. I never heard any attacks with any substance.

|1.28.08 @ 1:17PM|#

That sounds like an endorsement in these parts. A president who won't do anything? Sign me up.


Damn it X, Y!!! I was gonna say that!

|1.28.08 @ 1:21PM|#

Ya, that's what I thought

|1.28.08 @ 1:23PM|#

Did Fred Thompson stand for anything?

|1.28.08 @ 1:33PM|#

Colbert is a prophet. He commented that Fred Thompson's peak was before he entered the race and the best thing he could do for his political standing and popularity would be to drop out.

|1.28.08 @ 1:37PM|#

Every major position Thompson adopted had arisen from basic, overarching, consistent principles: Small government. Federalism. State rights. Individual rights derived from God, and not from government. The idea is, if you independently attempted to reach a position on any major issue based on these principles, you would likely end up where Fred Thompson was.

And that's what Thompson's appeal was all about. His positions did not depend on the time of the year or on the state he was in. It was never about putting Fred Thompson, the former Senator, the actor, the lawyer, the man, in the Oval Office. It was about putting basic conservative principles in the Oval Office, with Thompson as a mere agent. And the best part is that he wholeheartedly accepted that objective.

That is why he didn't decide to run until he saw the gaping hole in the field that needed to be filled. That is why he wasn't willing to pander in order to score votes. That is why, instead of relying on sound bites and jokes to win the nomination, he settled instead for unentertaining, serious responses to what were supposed to be serious questions. That is why he put out detailed policy proposals when the others were speaking in tired general terms. And that is why he announced his candidacy in a 14-minute video, and made a plea to Iowa voters in a 17-minute video, both of which outlined highly intellectual rationales for his consistency and his positions.

Thompson was either going to get elected with his conservative principles intact, or he wasn't going to get elected at all.

Now we are back to square one. Populism, artificiality, money, one-liners and common-denominator intellectualism have won the day. So have early state voters who believe that no person can make a good president unless he acknowledges their inalienable right to be exhaustively campaigned at for months and years.

But conservatism lost along with Fred Thompson, and America along with conservatism. Of course, Republicans had the right to choose whomever they wanted. But one thing they can no longer do is ask for a president who will be reliably conservative, and who will be so not because he promised it, but because he is genuinely guided by his principles. They had their chance, and they squandered it.

VM|1.28.08 @ 1:42PM|#

compugor wins the "firmly planted in romanticized abstraction" award.

For that, he gets the 10 x 12 poster of Dennis Franz's NYPD blue shot for the ceiling in his bedroom.

|1.28.08 @ 1:46PM|#

Well said Compugor....wasted but well said.
You are talking to bloggers that think Colbert is real. Save that wonderful insite for someone who has a life

|1.28.08 @ 1:51PM|#

Fred Thompson was too beautiful for this world.

I realize it's not on the par with "cosmotarian" or "libertaryan", but I'm claiming credit for "Fredtard."

Winghunter|1.28.08 @ 1:52PM|#

Believing Ferguson's article was "brilliant" is relative only to how much information you have to weigh it against.

Just as several drool in mindless opinion which follows here in honor of the same witless parroted spin taken directly from the MSM...trash in, garbage out.

What does this say about citizens loyalty and duty to their own governance if they can not tear themselves away from an infamously slanted media? Obviously, not too damn much.

Given four RINO's that should have been barred from even running on a republican national ticket, they all attempt to pander by nerve alone to demand they are conservatives and actually expect to be believed through sheer ignorance of the voter.

Apparently these same voters who choose to be feebleminded question why the conservative block of voters now refuse to again pick from the lesser of liberal evils.

To leave you in the same position I found some of you in, I offer you this lint to contemplate in your navels;

Thompson's "too cool" reservation he paid for in the blood, sweat and tears of his education and experience which he drew upon to produce the only significant and clear direction, plans and solutions no one else duplicitously offered until some time after Thompson. In direct comparison, the "lazy" monicker is then rightly earned by those not willing to move out of their own way to find out what he offered and became hysterical from their own ignorance when others who know better refuse to play the same tired game.

Rebellion in today's world must then be responsibility as no one could think this stuff up.

|1.28.08 @ 1:57PM|#

Every major position Thompson adopted had arisen from basic, overarching, consistent principles: Small government. Federalism. State rights. Individual rights derived from God, and not from government.

I can't recall anything Thompson actually suggested. I remember him his critique of a few opponents. So let me ask this question: What policy proposals did this neglected national treasure offer us?

Taktix®|1.28.08 @ 2:02PM|#

Instead of slamming him for not putting a good enough show on for you why don't you tell me what it was about his beliefs on the issues that you didn't like. I never heard any attacks with any substance.

That's because I never heard about his beliefs on the issues.

|1.28.08 @ 2:06PM|#

John Q,
If you are serious then take a quick look at "FRED08.COM" Click on the issues button and look at the white papers he published. If you really don't agree with any of it I can respect that. All I'm saying is that I'm sick of people knocking him when they never really looked at what he belived. He wouldn't put on a show is the only thing I ever hear. Look at it and tell me what you REALLY think.

|1.28.08 @ 2:12PM|#

TAKTIX,
Now there is a response I can follow. Ya you're right. You never heard it. I think we have come to a point were only the insanely rich can run because you have to have the money to spoon feed the public your message (right or wrong). And we all know he didn't. But is rich all we are looking for? If you are backing someone else you really belive in I can understand that. I did it too. But I actually "went" to the web sites and read what they proposed. I did'nt sit around and waiting for a sound bite or some bullshit from FOX or CNN to tell me what to think.

|1.28.08 @ 2:15PM|#

John Q,
Sorry I forgot, when you click on "issues" then go to "white paper".
There is the meat of what he wanted to do

|1.28.08 @ 2:32PM|#

"Small government. Federalism. State rights. Individual rights derived from God, and not from government."

That sounds an awful lot like another candidate who is still in the race! PT, you throwing your support behind Ron Paul now that Fred has come and gone?

|1.28.08 @ 2:38PM|#

"party is running straight into the abyss"
"And I'm lovin' every second of it..."

If Obama wins, not if Hillary does.

Joel|1.28.08 @ 2:41PM|#

TAKTIX, Why is it that I am familiar with most of Thompson's proposals but you are not? I think that means that I looked for it. I read horrible Associated Press articles. Watched Fox News and CNN interviews (CNN actually had the better interviews). He appeared on all of the major Sunday morning shows. He was on PBS.

He had substantive plans for keeping Social Security solvent. He had plans for reforming taxes in a meaningful and practical way (optional Flat Tax). He had policies for dealing with illegal immigration. He had policies for reducing federal spending. He had published policy positions in every area that any of the other candidates have published positions. When he wasn't having to defend himself against election strategy rumors, he was talking about these issues in the media.

If you did not hear his positions it is because you were not listening.

|1.28.08 @ 2:44PM|#

de stijl,

I realize it's not on the par with "cosmotarian" or "libertaryan", but I'm claiming credit for "Fredtard."

Judging from the good ol' boy image Thompson tried to project, I'd have thought you'd be going for something more like "Fredneck."

Joel|1.28.08 @ 2:45PM|#

Those of you of Democratic party leanings: when I argue that the Republicans are running into the abyss, do not take any joy from that. At this point of time, they are just running a bit faster than the Dems. The Democrats are running so hard and so fast to be Marxian Socialists that they would have been a destroyed party had the Republicans remembered their conservatism.

The difference between the two parties is that there is a movement in the Republican party to bring it back from the abyss. I see no similar movement in the Democratic party.

Taktix®|1.28.08 @ 2:46PM|#

Now there is a response I can follow. Ya you're right. You never heard it. I think we have come to a point were only the insanely rich can run because you have to have the money to spoon feed the public your message (right or wrong).

PTs,

I think you missed my point. With all the hype, Thompson had plenty of exposure with which to get his views out.

But rather than utilize that time, Fred just hemmed and hawed about vague platitudes and somehow managed not to fall asleep. I don't think he ever wanted to run, but got pushed into it because, well, look at the rest of the field...

Taktix®|1.28.08 @ 2:48PM|#

I did'nt[sic] sit around and waiting for a sound bite or some bullshit from FOX or CNN to tell me what to think.

Pts,

Media, or at least conservative media FWIW, was pretty well behind Fred. That is, until he started to open his mouth...

|1.28.08 @ 2:51PM|#

" He had policies for reducing federal spending."

Yet, Fred Thompson was not willing to stop the war on some drugs or pull out of Iraq. His federal spending policy proposals were more about giving tax cuts for the rich and no more welfare for the poor, with absolutely no mention of increasing individual liberties. Fred Thompson = Fail.

Taktix®|1.28.08 @ 2:51PM|#

TAKTIX, Why is it that I am familiar with most of Thompson's proposals but you are not?

I don't know, maybe I have better things to do with my time than research some washed-up actor who couldn't raise the money or support to hold a garage sale.

But that's just me...

|1.28.08 @ 3:09PM|#

TAXTIX,

Actually I think he should have made more noise myself but I really do believe he was being himself. As far as not having time to do research, well you get what you get. I can respect a person who belives in something that kind of thinking is what got us here to begin with.

ZIG ZAG, I'm not following. Are you saying that the only way to be fiscally responsible is to sacrifice National Security? and tax cuts for the rich and no more welfare for the poor" I'm not sure I buy that either. I've heard that so much from the DEM's. But more importantly, I have worked my ass off for what I've got (I'm not rich mind you) but I'm getting a bit tired of paying someone elses way. I don't mind helping folks to get a leg up but this shit has become a damn life style.

|1.28.08 @ 3:09PM|#

You people just need a little Freducation.

|1.28.08 @ 3:14PM|#

I don't mind helping folks to get a leg up but this shit has become a damn life style.

PTs,

He's officially out the race. You can quit anytime you want to.

|1.28.08 @ 3:15PM|#

There have been more pro Fred Thompson posts on this thread than in the prior 6 months of H&R. Fred should have dropped out months ago. It seems to have energized his troops.

|1.28.08 @ 3:16PM|#

de stijl,

Thanks for the input. very nice.

Taktix®|1.28.08 @ 3:19PM|#

J sub D,

Yeah, seriously. I love it when people who've likely never met a politician begin opining on what that politician believes.

Frednecks,

Are you guys serious? I thought it was just other posters with fake names...

.|1.28.08 @ 3:23PM|#

Huckafred or Fredabee?

|1.28.08 @ 3:24PM|#

Like Tinkerbell, like Lazarus, like E.T.

I never miss a chance to post Nick Cave. Dig, Lazarus, Dig!

|1.28.08 @ 3:25PM|#

It's a good case, but Thompson and his allies (like Zach Wamp) didn't make it.

Actually, I saw plenty of people making that case for him beforehand. It didn't matter at all as far as support, but I certainly saw the case made. People nowadays do want candidates to do the dog and pony show, and to show that they care.

Kind of odd to read some of the comments in the thread because it's hard to characterize him as religious-right. At the very least, he broke with lots of Republicans to vote against the whole Federal Marriage Amendment, and was against federal restrictions on abortion while in the Senate, because he felt that it ought to be up to the state. He also defended that view. His abortion position is pretty much the same as Dr. Ron Paul's, in other words. (They do appear to have both voted for one version the partial birth abortion ban.)

|1.28.08 @ 3:30PM|#

Dear PTS,

Well I have reviewed the bullet points of his ideas for the government. I'm writing not to change your mind but to let you know that your appeals to me were not in vain:

The use of a word like federalism is a very liberal application in this instance:
-Instead of giving people a chance to opt out Social Security he wants to create an Additional Suppliment which will cost the Individual and Companies more.

-Instead of giving individuals the chance to opt out of medicare and medicaid he wants to make them more 'modern' by focusing on preventative care and more "competitive".

- He supports the Medicare Prescription Drug Program.

-Oddly the site mentions creating tax credits to be a major cost reducing aspect of medicaid(apparently the thompson camp is unaware that of 300 billion +7 annual growth, a majority of it is acute longterm care for seniors).

- Wants to keep the tax cuts, get rid of a few taxes, drop corp. tax down to 27%. Wants to give us an option between the "complicated" or flat tax. hmmm how about none of thee above.

- Massive increases in defense spending... apparently 1 trillion hasn't been enough.

- Education is based on parent's choice(good so far) but with vouchers and tax cuts(assuming this federal spending?).

- He supports a constitutional amendment for marriage(there goes state's right).

- Wants to bring about regime change in Iran.

You know after reading this, It's more like a Contract w/ America 2.0. Anyways, it's not much on federalism, state's rights or Constitutional governing. Sounds like a lot like a very Hamiltonian view of where our rights come from. Including the right to be left alone.

|1.28.08 @ 3:33PM|#

Point taken and thank you.

|1.28.08 @ 3:37PM|#

I love it when people who've likely never met a politician begin opining on what that politician believes.

Happens all the time, including with Dr. Paul. They do have voting records, you know, in addition to what they say themselves. In Thompson's case, he certainly provided more than vague platitudes, he just took the ill-considered step of providing white papers instead of soundbites. Sure, he ran a terrible campaign. Why am I supposed to care about campaigning quality instead of positions? I'd prefer a do-nothing president anyway.

Sheesh, one would not think that a bunch of libertarians would be so obsessed with whether or not a politician was a political winner or loser, nor be so insisting on others "giving it up" when that person's not going to win. It's not as though Dr. Paul is going to win either, sadly, nor would he win if he got the nomination. I very much wish that Paul had more support than Huckabee, but he doesn't. I think that anyone who likes Paul should definitely wish that Thompson had had more support than Huckabee, and should appreciate that Thompson trained all his fire in South Carolina on Huckabee and weakened him.

Taktix®|1.28.08 @ 3:50PM|#

This seems to be popping up a lot today, so let me make a bold statement:

You do not get to cry about being ignored by the media if you support one of the following:

D:
Obama
Clinton
Edwards

R:
Guiliani
Thompson
Romney
McCain
Huckabee*

Sorry, but unless you've been on an acid trip for the past year, these guys have been getting plenty of media attention.

Tell your woes to Paul or Kucinich or Gravel supporters. Their candidates get little airtime, and when they do, it's answering questions like, "no really, how kooky are you?"

*post-Iowa

Tacos mmm...|1.28.08 @ 5:51PM|#

I'm not following. Are you saying that the only way to be fiscally responsible is to sacrifice National Security?

Most defense spending has little to do with national security. The defense budget is heavily padded with pork - bases that are kept open against the desire of the Pentagon in order to subsidize local economies, expensive weapons systems with little practical application are heavily funded to the benefit of politically connected contractors. It's ridiculous how some people seem to see the defense budget as sacrosant when it's so bloated and wasteful.

Larry Anderson|1.28.08 @ 8:02PM|#

Fred Thompson supporters are just hystercial..

This is HILARIOUS coming from Ron Paul supporters. Thanks for the giggles.