Sadly – but arriving with an increasing sense of inevitability – Fred Thompson has dropped out of the race to be our next President. A classy departure worthy of an honorable man who ran an honorable, if less than inspirational, campaign. Most telling is his lack of endorsement: a non-endorsement that has to hurt John McCain.
Yes, my predictions for South Carolina clearly were wrong, altogether too much made from the heart rather than the head. I’m not ashamed of holding out hope for Fred while hope was still there. Nor should my blogger friend Steven be ashamed of holding out hope for his man Huck (though we disagree on his candidacy).
I share the sentiments of Dr. Rusty Shackelford at The Jawa Report (H/T Hugh Hewitt):
Dear fellow Fredheads,
It’s time to support Mitt Romney. Can Mitt win in a general election? I don’t know. Certainly he has always had a better chance than Fred. And if the opposition is Hillary Clinton, then maybe.
McCain can beat Hillary. But McCain is, well, McCain.
Yep. That pretty well sums up my feelings at this point.
I also think Shackelford’s assessment of the Inside-the-Beltway perceptions of FredHeads is spot on (though maybe it’s just a projection of my own viewpoint):
I’m hearing some oddball theory that a lot of Fredheads are natural Huckabee supporters. That’s insane. Like, certifiably insane.
It’s built on the presumption that the evangelical supporters of Thompson are in the same boat as the evangelical supporters of Huckabee. I got news for Tom Edsell: they aint the same animal. Sure, they may have the same funny accent, and so I’m guessing that to an outsider like Edsell the presumption is that they must be the same species. But they’re not.
One is a Christian and a conservative, the other is just a Christian. One liked Thompson’s policy positions in spite of his rather flawed character. The other likes Huckabee because he’s a Christian. A good guy. God’s man in the White House. Yup, that’s about as deep as it gets.
Having to agree with this point hurts a lot:
I think the hardest part, really, is admitting that Hugh Hewitt has been right all along.
Ouch. Well, we press forward, following the wisdom of the great Satchel Paige: “Don’t look back.” Unless Rudy can pull it out in the Sunshine State, this is boiling down to a two-man race for the Republican nomination, to which I can only say: Go Mitt!
Wow… Mitt Romney? Not sure if I want someone who has fought for a woman’s right to choose, and “looks forward to a day when homosexuals will be able to serve with honor in our military”
Based on the article being quoted here it seems to me you are very uninformed about Mike Huckabee.
I am sure me stating that you are uninformed about Huckabee will get about as much traction as Shackelford saying “Yup, that’s about as deep as it gets.” when mis-characterizing Huckabee supporters.
Thanks for leaving your comment, Terry. I understand some people don’t like Mitt – hopefully if he becomes the nominee you will be willing to support him. If Huckabee is the nominee, I plan to do so.
Did you not support Ronald Reagan because his views weren’t always pro-life?
“Based on the article being quoted here it seems to me you are very uninformed about Mike Huckabee.”
Do a search on Huckabee’s name on my site – please feel free to respond to any of the things I have observed. Trust me, I have done my homework. My conclusion based on my research & observation is that he is not the best qualified to be President among the Republican field.
Ben – I don’t think Romney is either… Even if Romney gets the nomination, the General election is going to kill him! If you need a refresher, look at what we did to Kerry in 2004. So we have given all the ammunition necessary to take down a flip-flopping candidate.
Mitt continually says that people are allowed to change their minds in life… but the problem, and I will give the benefit of the doubt and say that they have ALL been merely coincidental, is that Mitt’s mind has changed multiple times based on the campaign in which he finds himself.
PLUS, Fiscal Conservative Mitt Romney, when in Michigan, promised a $20 Billion bail-out for the Michigan industry… and apparently has proposed a $233 Billion economic spending plan by his federal government… Either this is pandering, or he doesnt understand free market and the need for government to not tax to cover this kind of a bail-out!
A switch from Fred to Mitt can’t be based on social issues, and after Michigan, I doubt it is based on Fiscal issues…
So I just don’t see it! Help out here, Ben! Help me see what I am missing!
🙂
Cheers!
Yeahbut, a president named “Mitt”?
Almos’ as bad as a screecher like Ron Paul. 😉
Didn’t say I was enthusiastic about it – pragmatic may be a better word. All the remaining Republican candidates are vulnerable to the charge of “flip-flopping,” though I think you exaggerate the case for Mitt somewhat. Mitt has the money, the machine, and the message – besides, he is the only viable candidate left who appears capable of holding together a conservative coalition.
On fiscal issues, Mitt is most competent and more conservative (except maybe Rudy) than the field – pandering to the auto industry aside, his resume & his plans seem most likely to achieve some semblance of a fiscally conservative agenda in Washington. And don’t discount his successful experience in the private sector. McCain and Huck easily have shown less fiscal competency and conservatism.
On social issues, only Huck has him beat, but they’re not that far off from each other. And both would seem likely to appoint the same sort of judges, which is 90% of what a President can do in this area. Rudy doesn’t inspire here, and McCain can’t be trusted.
On national security, he is essentially tied with McCain and Rudy. Huck lags well behind.
As a whole package, Mitt is the best remaining viable option.