Thompson's Candidacy In Retrospect

He was NOT lazy; his command of policy equaled or exceeded that of his rivals, and he was, as he said, pretty clearly a consistent conservative for his public life. But his staff was poorly managed; it started much too late; his campaign was riven by internal fueds and suspicions: one faction accused the other of leaking to reporters.

He had a nomination strategy that was plausible enough: do well in Iowa, build a bridge to South Carolina, earn delegates everywhere, defeat a single rival handily on Feb. 5 in the Southern states, and earn the establishment's backing.

Demographically, he alienated Republican women. Mike Huckabee effectively shut off his support in Iowa and South Carolina. In truth, he could have campaign a little more and emphasized retail, rather than stump speeches. He did not raise as much money as he could have, in part because so many donors wondered whether his heart was in the race.

And in many ways, he tried to occupy a space that John McCain more credibly occupied; national security strength, straight talk on the economic challenges facing the country and resiliency.

Comments

Sorry but he was lazy. He had fewer campaign events than the other candidates, and showed no real zest out on the campaign trail. Furthermore, it was generally talked about how lazy he was during his senate career. Maybe compared to the normal person out there he was not lazy, but for a person running for prez he certainly was.

Posted by michael | January 22, 2008 2:33 PM

I keep waiting for the punchline... Maybe you've gotten FRED mixed up with TOMMY...

Posted by marcus | January 22, 2008 2:48 PM

Thompson was the first considered-major candidate to come out for attrition, a plan that MSM hacks and the Dem candidates continue to ignore. While Mitt has hinted at that, and Huck recently signed on to something similar, this will make it even easier for those MSM hacks to ignore such a plan.

Posted by TLB | January 22, 2008 3:01 PM

Even his dropout speech was lazy! Ha!

Consistently Lazy Conservative. Hands-down!

The dude would have won in 1808, no question.

Posted by Betty in Baltimore | January 22, 2008 3:12 PM

Wasn't lazy? He'd often campaign only for a few hours a day. He even talked before the campaign about the fact that he was lazy.

As Wolcott once noted, when he refused to raise his hand at the debate, I wasn't sure whether that was a principled stand or because his arm was tired.

Posted by JoshA | January 22, 2008 3:22 PM

And also of equal importance, he had a strange belief that internet hype would translate into votes without having to put as much work into the local politics.

From the very beginning it was clear their strategy was mass media, and not hundreds of local events.

A candidate can effectively use both, but you can't ignore the local joe who is not living on the blogs or watching 24 hour news shows on politics.

Posted by sam | January 22, 2008 3:41 PM

Hello, Marc, commenters -

My two cents on how Fred wound up in this situation:

They were trying to run a 21st-century "front porch" campaign. Which I thought was an exciting and innovative idea - the technology finally exists where Fred could have his virtual "front porch", and communicate via new media and paid media.

I don't think that the end of Fred's campaign means that concept was a bad one. In fact, I think it was the best strategy for him to use, particularly given how late he entered the nomination process.

It's hard for me to say why the Fred campaign never got off the ground. Fred had a lot of assets as a candidate, but he never filled that vacuum for a Southern, traditional conservative candidate that Huck eventually occupied.

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com (McCain site) Publisher | January 22, 2008 3:42 PM

the next time somebody runs a "front porch" campaign they had better make sure the lights are on in the house.

Posted by marcus | January 22, 2008 3:50 PM

It says nothing good about the readership of your blog, Marc, that they cite a bottom-feeding lightweight like Wolcott to tear down Thompson.

Posted by BC | January 22, 2008 4:02 PM

"He was NOT lazy; his command of policy equaled or exceeded that of his rivals, and he was, as he said, pretty clearly a consistent conservative for his public life."

Sorry, but I vote with those who think he was lazy, an aw shucks that dog won't hunt old country boy who knew a lot more about clarets and Cuban cigars than hound dogs. And as for being born again, I think ole Fred's greatest religious experience was the first time he checked into the Four Seasons penthouse suite. Maybe it ain't heaven, but it's close enough.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | January 22, 2008 4:25 PM

Its kind of a joke when you use John McAmnesty McCain with national security in the same sentence.
Sure is was in Vietnam, a POW. But people change, their priorities change. You don't try to push an amnesty open border bill three times against the will of the American people. Three times that bill was shot down. That is not something a so-called American hero would do to his countrymen. Of course this never comes up during his campaign speeches.

Posted by Campbell | January 22, 2008 6:18 PM

Hey Campbell, stay on topic. McCain's a hero; you're not.

Posted by Highlander | January 22, 2008 10:13 PM

Hey Highlander, McCain is not a hero, and he was a part of the topic. Learn to read.

Posted by Campbell | January 23, 2008 8:12 PM