Fred Thompson May Drop Out If Does Poorly In Iowa

This could be HUGE.

Several Republican officials close to Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign said they expect the candidate will drop out of the race within days if he finishes poorly in Thursday’s Iowa caucus.

Thompson’s campaign, which last spring and summer was generating fevered anticipation in the media and with some Republican activists, has never ignited nationally, and there are no signs of a late spark happening here in Iowa, where even a third-place finish is far from assured.

This reality—combined with a fundraising drought—left well-connected friends and advisers of Thompson Wednesday evening predicting that he will pull the plug on hype and hope before the Jan. 8 New Hampshire primary.

1. I hope that Fred does better than expected tomorrow.

   That said, if he does bow out, I hope he doesn’t endorse anytime soon.

   Posted by Josh Schroeder on January 02, 2008 at 2335 hrs




2. Yeah, called that.  Bank on him endorsing McCain, which the article mentions but has long been speculated.  I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens before NH, in an attempt to sink Romney.  Remember, Thompson was McCain’s national co-chairman back in 2000.  If he can’t be the king, he’ll probably try to make the king.

   And also, if Iowa has its televisions on right now, Mike Huckabee is getting grade-A earned media like nobody’s business on Leno.  Let’s see how negative Romney can be about this appearance tomorrow.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 03, 2008 at 0013 hrs




3. TOTAL FABRICATION

   Fred was asked about this during a live interview tonight on KCCI at 10 in Des Moines.  His response “Total fabrication, he never said it either privately or publicly, and it was planted by some other campaign”

   And apparently bought by Politico hook, line and sinker.

   Posted by Brad V. on January 03, 2008 at 0102 hrs




4. Put the Kool-Aid down and take two steps back.

   First, no candidate openly admits beforehand that they’re going to hang it up after a primary.  What, you actually think Fred would say the night before a primary that if he couldn’t break 15 that he was calling the press conference on Saturday to hang it up?  Yeah, that’d help him tomorrow how?  He’s having his people leak word through back channels to break the ice.

   Secondly, Fred has no money.  The guy is flat broke.  He had to grovel… er, plead by email just to get anything on the air in Iowa the last few days.  Think he’s got the money to roll with Romney and Huckabee in South Carolina?  Nope.  Think Fred doesn’t need money?  Crazy.

   Hmmm… which should I believe - a media account that sources multiple individuals connected to Thompson’s campaign, or what a candidate says the night before a primary in regard to what he might do after the primary if he bombs as badly as the polls are predicting?

   I’ll take what’s behind door #1, thanks.  Let me know where I should FedEx your crying towel.  And hey, if I’m wrong, you and your buddies better send Fred a couple hundred bucks stat so he can get his friggin’ bus to South Carolina.  Gas ain’t cheap these days, and we all know that lazy bastard isn’t walking anywhere.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 03, 2008 at 0251 hrs




5. Owen, your lead says that this could be HUGE but then goes on to be a story about a minor Republican candidate.  Was your link busted?

   Thompson dropping out in the next 8 days is what is known as a foregone conclusion.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2008 at 0654 hrs




6. Wow….the media DOES fear Fred Thompson…..they must have saw the latest surge numbers…..

   Posted by Pete Fanning on January 03, 2008 at 0724 hrs




7. Grumps: Thumbs up for your comment.

   Speaking of good earned media- Thompson got a ton of it on the sidelines of the Outback Bow.  That was him coaching the Vols right?  Right?  Oh wait, I get my do-nothing Tennesseans mixed up, that was Phil Fulmer- sorry.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2008 at 0835 hrs




8. Hmm,

   Believe the media who has been playing the “lazy” card for weeks because they have nothing else credible?  The same media that refuses to report on “substance” & actual “issues”?  I think not.  And by the way the “lazy” comment is getting old find some different material.

   The fact is Thompson continues to play this game his way and the media hates it.  Funny how Giuliani gives up on Iowa & focuses elsewhere but that’s not played negative.  Yet Thompson decides to pass on NH and it’s put in a negative light.

   Funny how the fact that if Romney finishes more than 5 pts behind Huck and loses NH that he could be done doesn’t get any big MSM play.  Or that if Huck doesn’t win Iowa he’s done due to no money.  Yet Fred makes some off-the-cuff comments over the last few days about where’d he’d like to finish & it becomes gloom & doom.  Simply amazing.  Especially considering a certain candidate faced similar reports of doom during the 1980 primary season.  And oh yeah he went on to win the general election in a landslide.

   Posted by Brad V. on January 03, 2008 at 1031 hrs




9. Caucuses are for defining what the party wants.  It should be about issues, not the rest of this baloney about who has what money, or can beat whomever of the other party.

   I highly doubt someone in the Thompson camp said something that pessimistic considering his recent surge, unless it was an off-the-cuff remark, which realistically could be said of most any canidate of any party (only Clinton I think has the money to take a beating and continue after Iowa).

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2008 at 1320 hrs




10. Further proof of the total fabrication:

    No one IN the campaign was a source -

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTcxZmFmMWM 1MmUzODc5MGMzNjUzNGZhNDQ2NWU3YWI=

    And about that supposed fund-raising drought ... since the Dec 12 debate almost $1.9 million raised.

    http://blogsforfredthompson.com/fred-raises-1-9-mill ion-dec-12th

    So let’s get back to the issues in this campaign.

    Posted by Brad V. on January 03, 2008 at 1424 hrs




11. I’ll take what’s behind door #1, thanks.  Let me know where I should FedEx your crying towel.  And hey, if I’m wrong, you and your buddies better send Fred a couple hundred bucks stat so he can get his friggin’ bus to South Carolina.  Gas ain’t cheap these days, and we all know that lazy bastard isn’t walking anywhere.

    This “lazy” tag appears close to becoming your mantra for Thompson. For a guy who doesnt stand much of a chance you certainly seem to want to pile on him.

    Interestingly this is really par for the Democrat course when elections come up.  Start the narrative early with a groundless epithet about a man who is accomplished and successful then you can be self referring later on if he succeeds and talk about how everyone knows he’s lazy.  Its part of the leftist mindset that a conservative who doesnt appear to be a complete ogre must need to have some other fatal character defect. Ah yes, he’s lazy!  Somehow actual character defects never seem to bother them in their own candidates.

    Lazy must refer to the fact that he is not the soulless untiring juggernaut like Hillary bent on ruling the nation since her husband oozed out of office.

    So lazy must be a good thing.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2008 at 1449 hrs




12. Then again, Tim Russert asked Fred flat-out, so no matter what happens here, it’s on to New Hampshire?  Thompson ducked the question.
    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/03/russert-to-fred-s o-no-matter-what-happens-in-iowa-its-on-to-new-hampshire/

    Mary Matalin, who’s working for him, was asked the same question on Fox too.  She wouldn’t answer either.

    Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 03, 2008 at 1945 hrs




13. Fred would seem to benefit most from the Huckabee-McCain split that appears to be developing, especially among southern hicks.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2008 at 2120 hrs




14. Calvin,

    It’s not ducking the question.  Thompson’s campaign made clear weeks ago that after Iowa the focus would be on SC.

    Posted by Brad V. on January 03, 2008 at 2211 hrs




15. Brad,

    OK, so weeks ago Team Fred was up front about the question.  Doesn’t change that today they ducked.

    Besides, if they’ve already answered the question, then what would’ve so hard about giving the same answer today?

    Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 03, 2008 at 2321 hrs




16. Calvin,

    Quit digging on something that’s old news.  Perhaps it had to do with Thompson’s desire to focus on the issues.  If you did any research on it you would know that NRO reported there was a schedule for NH (the debate) and then onto South Carolina.

    Posted by Brad V on January 04, 2008 at 1043 hrs




17. So a desire to “focus on the issues” exempts a candidate from answering basic questions?  Fred brags about being the most straight-talking guy in the race.  If his self-proclaimed selling points don’t square with the reality, I think it’s worth noting.  And as far as “research” goes, I don’t think it was unreasonable of me to assume that Fred himself, and his own people, would be up to date on what the “research” was.

    Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 04, 2008 at 1103 hrs




18. So a desire to “focus on the issues” exempts a candidate from answering basic questions?  Fred brags about being the most straight-talking guy in the race.  If his self-proclaimed selling points don’t square with the reality, I think it’s worth noting.  And as far as “research” goes, I don’t think it was unreasonable of me to assume that Fred himself, and his own people, would be up to date on what the “research” was.

    I think its quite a stretch to try to and pin perceived murkiness about whether he will remain in the race or not as some sort of a character flaw.  Its not a question or morality or public policy, its about his plans for the race.

    I presume Thompsons campaign already knew they would do no better than 3rd in Iowa, so as far as it goes its not a disappointment.  The hard truth is that once youve passed the first 3-5 states primaries then your character and message are meaningless if you havent been able to win some of these states.

    I favor Thompson because he is the closest thing to a true conservative on the GOP side. And drawing lame inferences about his character because his campaign is still assessing his future prospects seems a pretty silly way of reinforcing your own decision to not support him.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2008 at 1147 hrs




19. “Perceived” murkiness?  Come on; he wouldn’t commit to staying in.  It was perfectly legitimate that he wanted to keep his options open.  But in not committing either way, he admitted that’s what he was doing.

    I don’t think that in & of itself is a character flaw; but it definitely speaks to the fact that Fred isn’t quite what he packages himself as.

    If you want his character flaws…

    Off the top of my head, I can name 4 issues Fred has flip-flopped on: abortion, immigration, No Child Left Behind, and McCain-Feingold.  Now, I believe his changes are sincere, and I welcome his right turns.  However, since he has changed, it’s dishonest of him to bill himself as the “consistent conservative,” and its hypocritical of him to bash other candidates (like Romney) for the very thing he is guilty of.

    On Fox News Sunday, he claimed Fox was part of an anti-Fred agenda when Chris Wallace asked him some pressing questions.  Never mind all the free-ride interviews he’s enjoyed courtesy of Sean Hannity.  That he takes criticism so poorly suggests Fred’s rather thin-skinned.

    Oh, and let’s not forget the lobbying-for-Planned-Parenthood fiasco.  When asked about it during one of the debates, he didn’t explain or apologize; instead, he said the only reason people brought it up was because PP knows he’s their worst nightmare.  This man seems to think his record ought to be immune from such scrutiny (true to form, he got hostile & defensive when Laura Ingraham challenged bits of his record as well).  I don’t want that kind of arrogance in a president.

    Character flaws?  Hm, now that you mention it, I count four right there.

    Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 04, 2008 at 1235 hrs




20. Character flaws?  Hm, now that you mention it, I count four right there

    I voted for the Socialist Workers Party candidate in my first election, Peter Camejo.  (Proves all the commies are now Greens)  People change.

    Even so if he still was pro abortion I’d say that is a character flaw.  The other three postions are philosophical differences of opinion. Strange you would characterize them this way because its usually Leftists who define conflicting views as immoral. 

    There is no right answer in a nation of immigrants to immigration.  NCLB?  What was the problem with that? (Apart from being written completely by Sen Kennedys staff that is)  McCain Feingold I see as well meaning but ultimately unworkable. As we have seen, the money simply went elsewhere and the discourse was further abased by groups with no control.

    Earnest people can differ without calling each other views a character flaw.  Which is not to say that they don’t exist or cant make a candidate unsuitable.  I just dont see the point of slash and burn within your own party at this early point in the campaign.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2008 at 1356 hrs




21. Dan, read a little closer.  I didn’t call his old positions character flaws.  His dishonesty & hypocrisy ABOUT them are Flaws #1 & #2.  Then thin skin is #3, and arrogance is #4.

    Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 04, 2008 at 1405 hrs




22. wtstupyw http://zqvjjvgh.com ufdefmoy ckokwtoq utfvyrjn  iawlwigg

    Posted by gdzhxrrm on April 25, 2008 at 1325 hrs