Fred Thompson throws in the towel
Fred Thompson withdrew today from the presidential race.
An honorable, thoughtful man with a bothersome streak of apparent disorganization and laziness, it wasn't simply his failure to develop adequate "fire in the belly" in the last two weeks that doomed his chances. A series of gaffes in discussing matters relating to abortion, euthanasia and other life issues seemed to show that he was either not conversant with the state of the debate, or hadn't thought matters through well enough to display philosophical consistency in his positions on closely related life issues.
I've admired Fred Thompson ever since the aftermath of the 2000 election debacle, when he was a frequent guest on news programs, putting whining Democrats in their place after their party's attempt to steal Florida and the presidency was foiled by the U.S. Supreme Court. That debating style would have served him well if he'd been truly engaged in the campaign he ended today from the outset. Alas, it was not to be.
I supported Thompson from the first rumors of his candidacy until several days after a conversation I had with him in which he expressed apparent support for nutritional euthanasia in cases where sick- but not dying- patients were claimed to have expressed a desire for it. The illegality of assisted suicide in other circumstances appeared not to raise questions in his mind about the relevance of the non-dying patient's wishes in the matter. Nor was he able to see the uneven playing field which enables the well-funded Right-to-Kill lobby to dispatch trained specialists to fight the all-important first round against inexperienced family lawyers representing loved ones who challenge the credibility of claims by those with a vested interest in their deaths that such patients actually wanted to be killed.
Doubtless affected by the tragedy of is own daughter's death a few years ago- a tragedy which originally caused him not to seek re-election to the U.S. Senate in 2002- Sen. Thompson favored allowing end-of-life decisions to be left with the families of patients even in taking active measures to end a life that was not in the process of ending naturally. At that time, I decided that the issue was too important to me morally for me to support Sen. Thompson any longer despite his generally pro-life stance on related issues like abortion and stem cell research.
Ironically, with the exception of life issues, Sen. Thompson had one of the most carefully crafted sets of positions of any candidate from either party. He conducted his campaign with humor and with honor. And even though I found that I could not continue to support him, I'm saddened by his withdrawal.
There's a little less class in the campaign tonight.
An honorable, thoughtful man with a bothersome streak of apparent disorganization and laziness, it wasn't simply his failure to develop adequate "fire in the belly" in the last two weeks that doomed his chances. A series of gaffes in discussing matters relating to abortion, euthanasia and other life issues seemed to show that he was either not conversant with the state of the debate, or hadn't thought matters through well enough to display philosophical consistency in his positions on closely related life issues.
I've admired Fred Thompson ever since the aftermath of the 2000 election debacle, when he was a frequent guest on news programs, putting whining Democrats in their place after their party's attempt to steal Florida and the presidency was foiled by the U.S. Supreme Court. That debating style would have served him well if he'd been truly engaged in the campaign he ended today from the outset. Alas, it was not to be.
I supported Thompson from the first rumors of his candidacy until several days after a conversation I had with him in which he expressed apparent support for nutritional euthanasia in cases where sick- but not dying- patients were claimed to have expressed a desire for it. The illegality of assisted suicide in other circumstances appeared not to raise questions in his mind about the relevance of the non-dying patient's wishes in the matter. Nor was he able to see the uneven playing field which enables the well-funded Right-to-Kill lobby to dispatch trained specialists to fight the all-important first round against inexperienced family lawyers representing loved ones who challenge the credibility of claims by those with a vested interest in their deaths that such patients actually wanted to be killed.
Doubtless affected by the tragedy of is own daughter's death a few years ago- a tragedy which originally caused him not to seek re-election to the U.S. Senate in 2002- Sen. Thompson favored allowing end-of-life decisions to be left with the families of patients even in taking active measures to end a life that was not in the process of ending naturally. At that time, I decided that the issue was too important to me morally for me to support Sen. Thompson any longer despite his generally pro-life stance on related issues like abortion and stem cell research.
Ironically, with the exception of life issues, Sen. Thompson had one of the most carefully crafted sets of positions of any candidate from either party. He conducted his campaign with humor and with honor. And even though I found that I could not continue to support him, I'm saddened by his withdrawal.
There's a little less class in the campaign tonight.
Comments
We have no more conservatives.
A stringent dogma that is only the playfield of the leftists.
Hardly a relevant factor in a conservative debate or a debate for the soul of conservatism.
But yes, I could and often do label plenty of Republicans as "Conservatives" because they fit my four or five minimum qualifications. All but Rudy fits that remaining.
On the other hand, there is nobody remaining who I could idealistically put forward as a Conservative and defend the position without using the words "if not for" and "except that" and "but".
Which is why I will not endorse or support anybody without getting paid.