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.

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.

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?

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?

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).

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.

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.

[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.”

No sane person would want to be President.

Would you?

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

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

*voice of Lurch* Uhhhhhhh.

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 8:21 PM

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

Good post.

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.

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.

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.