Weekly Standard on Fred: He just wasn’t made for these times

posted at 5:42 pm on January 31, 2008 by Allahpundit

Not the first time we’ve heard this spin from the ‘Heads and it won’t be the last, since it pulls off the neat trick of not only presenting Fred as a dignified descendant of the Founding Fathers but placing the blame for his failure squarely on an electorate that caters to tireless pandering cretins like Hillary Clinton. It’s not his fault he failed, it’s yours — although where that leaves, say, Mitt Romney, I’m not quite sure.

The traditional restraint of old-time presidential candidates wasn’t arrogance or sanctimoniousness, the twin accusations that wised-up politicos made against Thompson during the campaign. There was a philosophical component to it too: By not seeming overeager–no matter how eager they were–candidates paid tribute to the democratic idea that political power is best sought, taken on, and used reluctantly. It was also a matter of seemliness, and Thompson, alone among recent candidates, felt its pull. In his stump speech he often mentioned George Washington, once a staple of political rhetoric for his willingness to walk away from the power that was thrust upon him. Today Washington’s restraint seems nothing more than an archaism. And by extolling it Thompson sounded merely odd…

[T]he opposite case is easier to make–that the modern campaign excludes anyone who lacks the narcissism, cold-bloodedness, and unreflective nature that the process requires and rewards. In his memoir -Greenspan remarks that of the seven presidents he has known well, the only one who was “close to normal” was Jerry Ford. And, as Greenspan points out, Ford was never elected.

Exit question: Mitt Romney, abnormality?

Update: The Wizard, himself no stranger to the workings of early 20th-century campaigns, weighs in: “Fred Thompson thought he could announce nearly half a year after his Republican competitors and succeed with a 21st-century version of William McKinley’s front-porch campaign — based on personality and lack of enthusiasm for all the other candidates. But you can’t waltz in late, work less than anyone and expect to light a prairie fire. People want to see you sweat and bleed for the most important job in the world. Getting in late means too few workers, talkers, phoners, askers, walkers and raisers to turn your personality and agenda, no matter how attractive, into victory.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Fred caused Fred’s problems. Just as Mitt caused Mitt’s problems.

Has been some really sucky campaigning this year.

William Amos on January 31, 2008 at 5:46 PM

Makes one wonder if his slack campaigning was intentional. Same with Giuliani.

The powers that be have selected Juan McCainez to continue the drive to neuter this country.

darwin on January 31, 2008 at 5:48 PM

Here is what Karl Rove said this morning:

Joining the race a lot later than everyone else doesn’t work. Fred Thompson thought he could announce nearly half a year after his Republican competitors and succeed with a 21st-century version of William McKinley’s front-porch campaign — based on personality and lack of enthusiasm for all the other candidates. But you can’t waltz in late, work less than anyone and expect to light a prairie fire. People want to see you sweat and bleed for the most important job in the world. Getting in late means too few workers, talkers, phoners, askers, walkers and raisers to turn your personality and agenda, no matter how attractive, into victory.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120173791597330347.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

bnelson44 on January 31, 2008 at 5:50 PM

Another Fred thread.
go figure.

Was there anything in that article that actually surprised anyone?

CABE on January 31, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Fred just looked so uninterested during the debates, almost like it was an inconvenience to be there. If he really wanted it he would have fought harder. I think he realizes that and that’s why he dropped out.

cannonball on January 31, 2008 at 5:54 PM

Dear God. Self-Immolating Republicans everywhere!

Vizzini on January 31, 2008 at 5:54 PM

I’m not sure how you equate the piece from the American Spectator, which ends with this:

Thompson’s laconic style was charming and entertaining. But Republican primary voters were right to judge it unsuitable for a modern president.

with what was written in the Weekly Standard. Seems like the former blames Fred, the latter blames the voters.

As for this former Fredhead, I think there is some merit in both pieces. A candidate that is unwilling to do certain things is not going to win, and in some cases, shouldn’t win – and Fred’s campaign was certainly evidence of that.

At the same time, to deny that the results of who and who isn’t selected is a reflection of the voters themselves would be wrong. Successful political candidates do what they do because that’s what voters respond to, and to say otherwise it to absolve the electorate of responsibility for the government it ultimately gets.

thirteen28 on January 31, 2008 at 5:55 PM

*rolls eyes*

Classic Allahpundit.

As if Ferguson’s points are absolute BS. We live in deep thinking, reflective, and thoughtful times. Not to excuse Fred’s poor campaigning, but completely dismissing the author is so very Allahpundit…

Theworldisnotenough on January 31, 2008 at 5:57 PM

Not to excuse Fred’s poor campaigning, but completely dismissing the author is so very Allahpundit…

How did I completely dismiss the author by calling Hillary a tireless pandering cretin?

Allahpundit on January 31, 2008 at 5:59 PM

So many things in that piece were quoteworthy, this one my favorite:

Views like these might have earned another candidate a reputation for “straight talk”–maybe even the title of “maverick.” But Thompson was more subversive than that; he was an existential maverick, and his campaign was an implicit rebuke to the system in its entirety. He was a man out of his time. With its reduced metabolism and procedural modesty, his campaign still might have served as an illustration of what politics once was like and–if we have the audacity to hope–might be again.

Fred!Heads should all read it.

{Andrew Ferguson}

RushBaby on January 31, 2008 at 6:04 PM

But you can’t waltz in late, work less than anyone and expect to light a prairie fire. People want to see you sweat and bleed for the most important job in the world. Getting in late means too few workers, talkers, phoners, askers, walkers and raisers to turn your personality and agenda, no matter how attractive, into victory.”

Getting in late? We’ve had to endure campaigning for over a year already. If people want a politician to dazzle them with wit, charm and entertainment, that’s fine with me. Personally, I’m looking for substance. I guess that I’m old school. I’m looking for a President that will defend this country, put forth a balanced budget and abide by the constitution. Is that too much to ask? I guess so.

Look at what the “people” have left us with. The only three conservatives are out of the race. Enjoy the entertainment. That’s all we have left.

orlandocajun on January 31, 2008 at 6:07 PM

So where is Ferd these days? Did he go back and finish those biscuits at the Cracker Barrel?

see-dubya on January 31, 2008 at 6:07 PM

As long as you make posts about this irrelevant old geezer, I’m gonna remind everyone that he gave legal advice to the Libyan terrorist responsible for killing 270 innocent civilians over Lockerbie Scotland. He was a career lobbyist working for ruthless dictators, insurance companies trying to screw workers poisoned by asbestos, and abortionists. He was and still is pro-choice — opposing the Life Amendment and opposing criminal sanctions on women who have abortions and doctors that perform them. He also was not free from scandal as he took hundreds of thousands of dollars of money contributed to his Senate reelection campaign (after he was too lazy to continue serving the public) and funneled the money into a PAC that did nothing but pay his son for “consulting” that never took place.

So, he is a pro-choice, career lobbyist, terrorist lawyer, campaign fund thief. And I didn’t even mention his Senate record were he gave us CFR, an endless list of votes for his crony Spencer Abraham’s open border agenda, a botched investigation of the Clinton campaign finance scandal, and voted to keep a perjurer in the oval office.

But the only reason he didn’t win was because we were not good enough for him….

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 6:14 PM

Broker Fred!

infidel on January 31, 2008 at 6:14 PM

Just to throw in another thought: when you look at the contrast between Fred’s old-style campaign and the rest of the campaigns (particularly those of the frontrunner), you can really see the wisdom of Marshal MacLuhan’s declaration that “the medium is the message.”

thirteen28 on January 31, 2008 at 6:16 PM

see-dubya on January 31, 2008 at 6:07 PM

If you mean get freaky with his hot wife; then wouldn’t you?

lorien1973 on January 31, 2008 at 6:18 PM

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 6:14 PM

Calling a troll isn’t good enough.

Pro-choice, career lobbyist, terrorist lawyer, campaign fund THIEF? Jeebus, man. Deal in hyperbole much? You’re frickin’ nuts.

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Wouldn’t I? Well, not with his wife, no, but I see your point.

see-dubya on January 31, 2008 at 6:25 PM

Just in case we wax more poetic on history than it was, recall this great throw-back to better days refused to debate Huckabee one-on-one after saying that was his real desire.

I don’t want to tread on his political grave, but my point is that we see him as we want him to be – representative of a better kind of politics, not as he repeated presented himself, merely disinterested in politics period.

Spirit of 1776 on January 31, 2008 at 6:25 PM

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 6:14 PM

Wait a second… Now I agree with some of your accusations about Fred: CFR in particular.

But Fred being pro-choice is wrong. I also oppose an Amendment to the Constitution about abortion because it goes against Federalism. I believe that’s why Fred’s against it too. Am I pro-choice? No way!

CABE on January 31, 2008 at 6:27 PM

But I could have told you
Freddie
….
The world was never meant for one as
beautiful
as you.

=sob=

meep on January 31, 2008 at 6:29 PM

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 6:14 PM

You need some FDS for your FDS.

Kowboy on January 31, 2008 at 6:32 PM

He was a man out of his time.
{Andrew Ferguson}

RushBaby on January 31, 2008 at 6:04 PM

When and if the younger generation ever grows up, they will come to realize that is an indictment of them, not of Fred.

Connie on January 31, 2008 at 6:34 PM

The majority of the right has become like the left. They vote not for policies, but either single issue, or personality. All Fred had to do, was act. Apperently, his integrity kept him from engaging his profession.

Haldol on January 31, 2008 at 6:41 PM

But you can’t waltz in late, work less than anyone and expect to light a prairie fire. People want to see you sweat and bleed for the most important job in the world.
orlandocajun on January 31, 2008 at 6:07 PM

Well, that’s the point. Candidates are rewarded for doing and saying (or spending) anything to get elected, then we’re disappointed that when in office they do or say anything (along with spending our money) to get re-elected rather than focusing on what’s right for the country.

Hollowpoint on January 31, 2008 at 6:47 PM

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 6:14 PM

Hey, how’d your candidate, Lucky Lisp, do?

Oh yeah, he got third in the only primary he concentrated on.

That’s leadership, my friends.

omnipotent on January 31, 2008 at 6:53 PM

“Your fault”

?

Maybe a little of hot air’s fault, too?

Kokonut on January 31, 2008 at 6:57 PM

[Y]ou can’t waltz in late, work less than anyone and expect to light a prairie fire. People want to see you sweat and bleed for the most important job in the world. Getting in late means too few workers, talkers, phoners, askers, walkers and raisers to turn your personality and agenda, no matter how attractive, into victory.

I’m afraid this is the best assessment to date of what went wrong with the Thompson campaign. Granted, the whole shootin’ match starts way too early, but it did, and that’s the hand that was dealt. He didn’t want to play that hand, and got burned.

No, Fred, it’s not my fault, it’s yours, for thinking the world would turn on its axis to suit you.

The sad thing is, as one of only two solidly conservative candidates (the only other one being Ron Paul) in the GOP, Fred should have kicked ass against wannabes like McCain and Mitt. But winning a match involves showing up for it, eh?

manwithblackhat on January 31, 2008 at 7:08 PM

Broker Fred!

infidel on January 31, 2008 at 6:14 PM

Exactly what I have been preaching.
It ain’t over ’til its over !

OBX Pete on January 31, 2008 at 7:09 PM

Wizard:”People want to see you sweat and bleed for the most important job in the world. Getting in late means too few workers, talkers, phoners, askers, walkers and raisers to turn your personality and agenda, no matter how attractive, into victory.”
—————————————————-
If you changed the word “people” to the word “MEDIA” I might agree….

Nelsa on January 31, 2008 at 7:12 PM

The majority of the right has become like the left. They vote not for policies, but either single issue, or personality. All Fred had to do, was act. Apperently, his integrity kept him from engaging his profession.

Haldol on January 31, 2008 at 6:41 PM

Alas in this MTV nation, someone of substance didn’t stand a chance.

ihasurnominashun on January 31, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Aah.. just came in here to see the familiar names of old times…

O.K.

Bye.

Mcguyver on January 31, 2008 at 7:16 PM

Mcguyver on January 31, 2008 at 7:16 PM

Not gonna vomit all over the threads accusing AP of insulting you on your obscure blog? Awesome.

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 7:19 PM

There’s saying voters should be smart enough to research the candidates and easily conclude Fred was the best, and then there’s reality.

frankj on January 31, 2008 at 7:20 PM

With McCain being ordained by the GOP establishment. Just how good does Fred! look now.

*sigh*

Sammy316 on January 31, 2008 at 7:20 PM

Fred can still make a difference in this race. He can endorse Romney before Super Tuesday. Why not? Everyone else is choosing sides. What could it hurt at this point.

If he is not in the race he can still bet on a horse he believes in over the others.

Levin and Hannity have joined the fight despite the possible backlash they could get, but they believe it is the RIGHT thing to do….

Nelsa on January 31, 2008 at 7:21 PM

If you changed the word “people” to the word “MEDIA” I might agree….

Nelsa on January 31, 2008 at 7:12 PM

No, he had it right with ‘people’. They’re the ones that case the votes, and they’re the ones upon whom TV ratings are based, etc. We get the type of candidates we have because collectively, we the people provide them the market in which they thrive.

Can’t just blame it all on the media, can’t just blame it all on the politicians. The first place to look is in the mirror.

thirteen28 on January 31, 2008 at 7:23 PM

thirteen28 on January 31, 2008 at 7:23 PM

Most people do one of two things. They watch the news or they dont.

Those who watch the news are mis-informed. Those who don’t are uninformed. Both are ignorant if they don’t spend the time to find the facts and make an informed decision. :)

Nelsa on January 31, 2008 at 7:42 PM

But Fred being pro-choice is wrong. I also oppose an Amendment to the Constitution about abortion because it goes against Federalism. I believe that’s why Fred’s against it too. Am I pro-choice? No way!

CABE on January 31, 2008 at 6:27 PM

Built into the Constitution is the right to amend it. We can put anything we want into the constitution if we can muster enough votes across the country. Federalism has nothing to do with it. Plus, how the hell would a constitutional amendment defining when life begins offend federalist principles? Finally, Fred has stated that he is pro-choice in the first trimester and is against criminal sanctions against either the woman or the doctor. He may be a pro-choice federalist, but so was Rudy.

P.S. What kind of a federalist would spend all his time and resources as a US attorney chasing toothless banjo playing moonshiners just trying to enjoy their home-brewed hooch? Fred, that who.

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 7:50 PM

Plus, how the hell would a constitutional amendment defining when life begins offend federalist principles?

Maybe because the Federal Gov’t has no charter to interfere in the personal lives of American citizens…? Maybe because this is an issue that should be decided on a State-by-State basis? I mean, it’s not like abortion is a hotly contested subject or anything.

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 7:58 PM

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 6:14 PM

Pro-choice, career lobbyist, terrorist lawyer, campaign fund THIEF? Jeebus, man. Deal in hyperbole much? You’re frickin’ nuts.
HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 6:18 PM

You’re dismissing this way too lightly. Unless this guy was mainlining Nodoz, there had to be more than one of them.

And just saying “you’re nuts” doesn’t explain anything. This wasn’t random; He wasn’t posting about how Venusians were hypnotising his belt buckle.

These guys, apparently more than one person, went completely starkers, frothing-at-the-mouth, chewing-his-keyboard and banging-his-head-against-his-monitor amok.

…Over – of all people in the world – Fred Thompson.

This says something. It says a lot. Is the fact that someone doesn’t seem sufficiently zealous a reason for such rabid, mindless, all-consuming hatred? In a word: yes. In two words: Hell yes.

Fred Thompson didn’t just SAY he doesn’t care deeply about tommylotto; he had the incredible gall to actually ACT that way too. Sure to people like you and me that seems benign, even comforting, in a politician.

But in a twisted sort of way, tommylotto’s right. You and I are the weirdos. In America today, many people – apparently most people – are terrified of the concept of a laissez faire government. And Fred Thompson didn’t just espouse that; Fred Thompson personified it.

In other words: You and I saw Fred Thompson as one halfway normal looking person amid a crowd of megalomaniacal, well, freaks. Tommy lotto saw the Devil incarnate.

If you want to call his vision a mental defect, go ahead. He’ll say the same about you and me. But none of us were hallucinating. We all saw the exact same thing, just from two different points of view.

logis on January 31, 2008 at 8:21 PM

logis on January 31, 2008 at 8:21 PM

Probably the most insightful thing I’ve read all day.

Good post.

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM

Well ain’t that amusing. Here we are with another Thompson was lazy, Thompson did things wrong (according to I guess expert pundits), and so he deserved to lose story and thread. If only he had gotten in earlier, run a slicker campaign, and kissed all the right bottoms he would still be in the running.
_
The problem I find with all this hoopla is that in only a short time we will be hearing the same old whine restarting that there aren’t any conservative candidates putting forth conservative principles. That we only get slick politicians who won’t tell us what their real positions are or what they plan to do once in office.
_
It seems when there is no election about to occur, the position many on the right take is to demand better candidates, but then when it comes time to select one, many fall right back in line with saying we need a slick politician to beat the Democrats. That a principled candidate who is intellectual is not going to win agains a slick package like say Hillary or Obama.
_
I wasn’t a “FredHead”. I started to support him right before SC. I looked over the candidates and decided he was the only one who I didn’t see a last moment conversion from in regards to one of the many issues important to me. I always love hearing folks declare that because “so and so” now says they believe “x” on a given issue, that the issue is no longer debatable in regards to their candidacy. I heard Medved say something today like that about McCain and his Campaign Finance law. That because he might feel differently now that he is running for President, that the issue is dead. Sorry, it ain’t dead. But that is another story entirely.
_
I look at it this way. If Romney wins, I will go to the polls and vote for him. If McCain wins, what’s the difference between him or Hillary, or Obama, so what’s the point of voting for him.
_
Anyway, one last thought. So where are those expert pundits who were declaring that Thompson would run and endorse McCain when Thompson left the race. So far I haven’t heard of a single endorsement from Thompson, much less in McCain’s direction. And where are some of those very same expert pundits who supported Guliaini now that their guy has endorsed McCain. Funny isn’t it the excuses made and the accusations launched by these experts.

woodythesingingcowboy on January 31, 2008 at 9:08 PM

I do not recall criticizing Fred’s “concept of a laissez faire government.” I kinda like that concept. It was the rest of the freakin’ fraud of a product that drove me nutz.

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 9:09 PM

Ronald Reagan could not get elected today based upon the expectations of the pundits and according to this article, the people.
Good luck with the “modern” flashy McCain/Obama/Hillary Administration.

edgehead on January 31, 2008 at 9:14 PM

Great article. And sadly, absolutely true.

Dudley Smith on January 31, 2008 at 9:21 PM

Actually, the real problem is that we have lost our Republic — it has morphed into a “democracy” — bread, circuses, single issue morons and identity voter idiots…but don’t worry — at some point the USA will just default on all the trillions in debt of which 90+% will be held by foreigners — and then the fun will start.

SunSword on January 31, 2008 at 9:34 PM

Well, AP stayed more than a couple of days without a Fred thread. Good for AP. I wonder if he has a Fred ‘jones’?

countywolf on January 31, 2008 at 9:35 PM

Ronald Reagan could not get elected today based upon the expectations of the pundits and according to this article, the people.
Good luck with the “modern” flashy McCain/Obama/Hillary Administration.
edgehead on January 31, 2008 at 9:14 PM

A contry tends to get the government it deserves.

logis on January 31, 2008 at 9:36 PM

This election cycle is the suckiest sucking cycle of all cycles that suck!

Soooo… We’re all saying “Go Mitt” now right?

*voice of Lurch* Uhhhhhhh.

Mojave Mark on January 31, 2008 at 9:47 PM

Poor Allahpundit. Losing credibility and can’t let go of his hatred for Fred (and for what Fred stands for).

It’s ok Allah. You won’t ever have to leave your North East Coast mansion and dirty your feet on American soil.

Montana on January 31, 2008 at 9:57 PM

Loved the quote about Ford, and I’m sure it’s accurate. Until we change the way we nominate our leaders, we’re doomed to the narcissistic, empty suits that now enliven our debate and spend our tax dollars.

No sane person would want to be President.

Would you?

lodestonejames on January 31, 2008 at 10:13 PM

[T]he opposite case is easier to make–that the modern campaign excludes anyone who lacks the narcissism, cold-bloodedness, and unreflective nature that the process requires and rewards. In his memoir -Greenspan remarks that of the seven presidents he has known well, the only one who was “close to normal” was Jerry Ford. And, as Greenspan points out, Ford was never elected.

Exit question: Mitt Romney, abnormality?

I don’t understand what you’re trying to ask there. But no one on this particular planet – whether they love Mitt Romney or hate him – could possibly consider that man “normal.”

logis on January 31, 2008 at 10:31 PM

Confess Now, Allahputz, for it is you who bears the guilt for Fred!’s withdrawal.

Amassing your huge influence, you poked fun at us Fred Heads, you laughed uncontrollably at our angst. Why, if you were in Iran you’d be dancing from a crane with a Fred mask on your head.

Captain America on February 1, 2008 at 12:16 AM

Hey where’s HaraldHardrada when we need him? I miss his vitriol and enless Huckatrolling.

fourstringfuror on February 1, 2008 at 12:42 AM

Fred Thompson was without a doubt the best candidate for our next President.

He’s just not the best politician. Fred doesn’t pander to the voters, like all the others do. He doesn’t suck up to the media, like McCain is famous for.

Fred stayed true to who he is. He didn’t change his positions for anyone. That includes opposing the Human Life Amendment, because it goes against his Federalist principles and those of our forefathers.

There’s no question Fred made mistakes along the way. He should have been more willing to shake hands, kiss babies, meet with folks, and campaign harder.

However, when it came to someone who was absolutely strong in his morals and principles, someone who knew the issues inside and out, someone who offered substantive policies stances, and someone who was the ONLY TRUE CONSERVATIVE, Fred Thompson was head and shoulders above the crowd.

Those are the things that should determine elections. Unfortunately, they’re not.

bigred on February 1, 2008 at 12:55 AM

The vote is on TUESDAY! He better endorse Romney TOMORROW!

Seems this guy is always too late, too little. I certainly appreciate Fred’s politics and posture.

If he doesn’t STAND UP TOMORROW… Then Fred is dead (to me).

Agrippa2k on February 1, 2008 at 3:01 AM

The vote is on TUESDAY! He better endorse Romney TOMORROW!
Agrippa2k on February 1, 2008 at 3:01 AM

Wasn’t it like a month ago that Fred Thompson was being reviled for not attacking Mitt Romney savagely enough?

logis on February 1, 2008 at 5:01 AM

Looking at the current frontrunner for the Republican party… How can you not indict the voters? McShamnesty and the “s$!t-talk express”… OMG what is wrong with us?

this is like the dems nominating Leiberman. can you feel the Kozkidz collective head exploding? I think I’d register Democrat to see that happen. I mean, are Republican actually voting for this guy… because “conservatives” aren’t?

BadBrad on February 1, 2008 at 6:22 AM

Um, let’s see. The voters rejected Fred Thompson in favour of, at various times, McCain or Huckabee – both the very embodiment of shifty, disgusting, cynical, high tax, big government, weak-on-immigration, ultimately empty (shallow just doesn’t capture it) politicians. And all this, after a huge grass-roots, bipartisan outpowering of fury over McCain’s immigration bill just a few months ago? OK, Fred may not have run the strategically smartest, best-funded, most traditionally “political” campaign, but COME ON! NH republicans supported McCain?? Only an electorate that was so fundamentally uninformed as to be non-sentient could have done that.

If the electorate can take credit for choosing the right candidates, they have to bear responsibility for choosing the wrong candidates. That’s the thing about democracy, the electrorate gets to choose and if they choose badly, then it’s their fault.

If McCain is the candidate, it looks like the electorate will be getting exactly the president they deserve.

pussum207 on February 1, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Fred Thompson rocked all boats, as is evidenced by how dis-comforting he was to all sides. Pretty good sign you are on to something big….when they all come after you for completely different reasons.
Reason is sublime, a steady, careful gate mandatory when crossing the jaws of national insanity.
Ah, but we have been astute! & the ‘Fred Maxim’ was not lost on some of us.
P.S. I thought you might like this article AP.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59928
“The Irrational Atheist”
signed: Christian Fan & Lurker @ HA

lobosan5 on February 1, 2008 at 11:43 AM

I’ve noticed that the Weekly Standard tends toward the single-explanation fallacy. It’s usually a good explanation, but not a complete one.

Ferguson’s article is a good example of this. All of his points are valid, but there is much to be said about Thompson’s failure to master the process as well.

In fact, I would think a conservative, as a student of history, would be in the best possible position to realized that such a tactic cannot succeed on its own. The whole point of the conservative critique is that we have fallen away from our roots, so he should have taken that information to heart and done whatever it took to get elected. Then he would be in a position to start making changes. Leading by example is great, but first you have to get out where people can see you.

JackOfClubs on February 1, 2008 at 2:44 PM

The Fred Abides.

Buttercup on February 1, 2008 at 5:37 PM