Fred Thompson wants members of Congress to testify under oath on what they approved

What did members of Congress know and when did they know it?

Should Congress be tried for approving torture?

Rush Limbaugh supports Fred Thompson

Rush has not been willing to give an endorsement, but it does not take much reading between the lines, or as Rush likes to say “read the stitches on a fastball” to know who Rush would like to see in the White House.

First, let’s talk the obvious: Rush does not like Mike Huckabee. He has spent the last week lambasting him.

Second, Rush does not like McCain. He did not like him 8 years ago when he was competing for the nomination against George Bush and he does not like him now.

Rush has said little about Giuliani. There has been little to say. Rudy is saving his big push for Florida and the big state primaries. That being said, it is unlikely that a someone as Liberal as Rudy on social issues like guns, immigration and gay marriage would be Rush’s top choice.

That leaves George Romney and Fred Thompson. Rush gave s spirited defense of Romney’s “religion” speech on December 6th. And Romney’s speech was a great defense of conservative values on religion. On the other hand, he has allowed people to get on the show who have called Romney a flip-flopper. Knowing that Rush’s show is probably the most tightly screened show on radio, I believe that this is his deliberate way of letting people know that he does not approve of Romney’s previous postions on some issues.

But other than a process of elimination, here is the main reason that Rush supports Fred Thompson. From the November 29th transcript of Rush’s show:

It was fascinating to me, as I said, to watch this because it hit me upside the head -- even though, as I say, I instinctively knew this -- that all of the top-tier candidates, because of these questions... See, there's always a silver lining in everything. There's always an upside. Some of you might not think of this as an upside or a silver lining, but the genuine moderate as opposed to conservative aspects of three of the top-tier, four of the top-tier candidates were on full-fledged display last night. There was one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism or have any of his past forays into those areas displayed, and that candidate was Fred Thompson. Now, this is not an endorsement. You know, I don't endorse during primaries. I just point out: These are things I noticed, and I've told you during the course of this one campaign year that one of the things that's bothering me, is I'm a Reagan conservative, and I believe in conservatism. It's in my soul and it's in my heart, and I know it is the best way for us to manage our affairs to ensure the most prosperity for the most, to continue our freedom, to protect our country.

Fred Thompson vs. Michael Moore

Freepers for Thompson

Jim Robinson, founder of the FreeRepublic website has come out for Fred Thompson. Since FR is blocked by some of the Internet filters used by corporate America, I am reprinting his endorsement in full.

Why Fred Thompson is the best candidate (IMHO)
January 3, 2008 Jim Robinson


Posted on 01/03/2008 9:53:38 AM EST by Jim Robinson


He's pro life, liberty, gun, constitution, originalist judges, federalism, small government, low taxes, economic freedom, secure borders, strong defense, national security, national sovereignty, etc.

He's the most reliable conservative in the field and comes without the social liberalism, abortionism, nanny statism, open borders, gun grabbing, big government, big spending, big tax leanings and unstable knife in the back RINO baggage of Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee and McCain.

He doesn't cater to the global warming, socialized health care, or open borders/amnesty crowds. Just say no to all this liberal garbage.

With Fred, we know we're getting a solid, no-nonsense, commonsense pro life and liberty conservative who will defend the nation, secure the borders, defend the constitution, appoint originalist judges, defend the Bush tax cuts, work to simplify and flatten the tax code, keep social security solvent while providing alternative private accounts, reduce government and spending, and work to return states issues to the states. Imagine that.

In fact, he comes closest to being the conservative leader I've been praying for all these years. I don't know about you, but I think it would be great to be able to enthusiastically support and work for a true conservative candidate whose principles and convictions match so many of my own.

Also, he'll beat the socks off any liberal Democrat in the debates and during the campaign. The Democrat will be pushing to end the war and bring the troops home on some arbitrary date (ie, total defeat for us), pushing for universal health care, pushing to roll back the tax cuts and increase taxes on the "rich," pushing global warming, pushing comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty), pushing for gay rights, and for any and all manner of big government nanny state/socialist federal programs.

Fred will advance the commonsense conservative constitutional/federalist answer for all these issues, ie, "no." All of the other leading Republican candidates will try to outdo the liberal in pushing one or more of the "conservative" universal health insurance plan, the "conservative" solution to global warming, the "conservative" solution to immigration reform (amnesty), the "conservative" federal solution for education, the "conservative" solution to balance the budget (ie, this means tax increases rather than cutting government), etc., etc. Now, in all of the above sentences where I enclosed the word "conservative" in quotes, re-read them as "RINO.") In other words, the RINOs will compromise and give up the fight and give in to the liberals. They win, we lose.

He also recognizes that we are in a war between civilizations and that our very survival as a free and secure nation among free and secure nations hinges on defeating Islamic extremism and ending the scourge of International terrorism. The war must be fought to the finish, and fought to the total annihilation of organized terrorism. And, no, it is NOT the same as fighting crime. War is hell!

If I were a resident of Iowa today, I know I would caucus for Fred!

This endorsement is no small thing.

Fred Thompson: too sane to be President?

Paul Marks at Samizdata.net:

This morning Fox and Friends concentrated on three candidates in relation the Iowa caucuses on Thursday night: the two lead candidates in the polls, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney - and John McCain... this was in spite of the fact that Senator McCain is not in Iowa (he is in New Hampshire) and that Fred Thompson is ahead of John McCain is most of Iowa polls.

This is a part of pattern: last night Fred Thompson was on Fox News Sunday, but in the panel discussion, later in the show, the panellists ignored Fred Thompson. He is attacked by people, including me, for not going on enough television shows - but when he does go on what he says is ignored, so perhaps I see why he does not clamour to go on. Yesterday morning Fox and Friends, like the rest of the media, was busy laughing at Fred Thompson's comments about not being obsessed with politics: "If one is not passionate about campaigning one should not run for office," was the message of the media.

But what sort of person is passionate about the political process? Not getting things done - but the process of gaining votes. Of going around pretending to be close personal friends with lots and lots of people one has never met before?

Fred Thompson is in the middle of a 40 town Iowa tour - so he is hardly lazy. And he does go on television shows - thus dealing with critics, such as myself, who attacked him for not going on enough shows. But what sort of person would enjoy all this?

A lunatic. Someone who was interested in office for its own sake - not as a means to reduce the size and scope of government.

What the media, including Fox News (the only non-leftist news station and, therefore, of vital importance in the Republican nomination process), are saying is that Fred Thompson is too sane to be President. It is not enough to produce detailed policies for dealing with the entitlement program Welfare State (a cancer that is destroying the United States and the rest of the Western World), or producing a new optional flat tax (individuals could continue to use the existing system if they wished to) to deal with the nightmare of complexity that the income tax has become.

It is not even enough to have a long record of service, going back to Watergate and taking down a corrupt Governor of Tennessee in the 1970's. And having one of the most Conservative voting records in the United States Senate - before leaving it in disgust at how the system did not allow real reform.

No - someone has to enjoy the prospect for office for its own sake, not to reduce the size and scope of government and restore a Federal Republic. One must enjoy the whole process of politics - i.e. be crazy. Or one must pretend to enjoy it - i.e. be a liar.

And then people complain that politicians are either crazy or corrupt. When they shoo away anyone who comes along who is neither crazy or corrupt.

Fred's Message to Iowa Voters

Fred, in his own words to Iowa voters, makes the case for why he's the best man to America's next Commander in Chief.

Jill Lawrence and Why Reporters are both Despicable and Stupid

Jill Lawrence, a "reporterette" for USA Today tells us that Fred Thompson:

... doesn't like modern campaigning, isn't that interested in running for president and "will not be devastated" if he doesn't win.

Well, then what is he doing on the campaign trail? Perhaps the answer can be found in what Fred actually said:

Question: (Courtesy ABC News) My only problem with you and why I haven’t thrown all my support behind you is that I don’t know if you have the desire to be President. If I caucus for you next week, are you still going to be there two months from now?

Fred Thompson answer: That is a very good question, not because it’s difficult to answer, but I’m gonna answer it in a little different way than what you might expect.

In the first place, I got into the race about the time people normally get into get into it. The fact of the matter is people get into it a lot earlier than they used to. For some of them, they were juniors in high school.

The first place, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. I wouldn’t be doing this. I grew up in very modest circumstances. I left government and I and my family have made sacrifices to be sitting here today. I haven’t had any income for a long time because I figured to be clean, you’ve got to cut everything off. I was doing speaking engagements and I had a contract to do a tv show. I had a contract with abc radio…and so forth. A man would have to be a total fool to do all those things and to be leaving his family which is not a joyful thing if he didn’’t want to do it.

I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don’t do it. I want the people to have the best president they can have.

When this talk first originated from people around the country both directly and through polls, liked the idea of me stepping up and of course, you always look better form a distance.

But most of those people are still there. I approached it from the standpoint of a deal. A kind of a marriage. If one side of a marriage really has to be talked into the marriage, it probably ain’t going to be a good deal. But if you mutually decide it’s going to be a good thing. In this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, then we have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together.

I’m offering myself up. I’m saying that I have the background, the capability and concern to do this and do it for the right reasons. I’m not particularly interested in running for president, but I think I’d make a good president.

Nowadays, the process has become much more important than it used to be.

I don’t know that they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I don’t know that they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. But nowadays, it’s all about fire in the belly. I’m not sure in the world we live in today it’s a good thing if a president has too much fire in the belly. I approach life differently than a lot of people. People, I guess, wonder how I’ve been as successful as I’ve been in everything that I’ve done. I won two races in TN by 20 point margins in a state that bill Clinton carried twice. I’ve never had an acting lesson. I guess that’s obvious by people who’ve watched me…

When I did it, I did it. Wasn’t just a lark. Anything that’s worth doing is worth doing well. But I’ve always been a little more laid back than most. I’m only consumed by very, very few things. Politics is not one of them. The welfare of our country and our kids and grandkids is one of them.

If people really want in their president super type-a personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about for years how they win the presidency of the united states, someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning, I ain’t that guy. So I hope I’ve discussed that and didn’t talk you out of anything. I honestly want – I can’t imagine a worse set of circumstances [than] achieving the Presidency of the United States under false pretenses. I go out of my way to be myself.

So,, Jill, does a man who does not want to be president give up a good job and subject himself to the anal exams that cretins like you perform ... why?

Follow up question: do you always write a story after you decide what the spin is going to be and without doing some fact checking?

More commentary from Railtank, Flopping Aces, Bob Krumm, and Red State.

See, this is what I don't understand. The flow of information is no longer uni-directional. There are more fact checkers out there than ever before. The quality control of the drive-by-media practitioners has never been high. Now the quality checkers are swarming around the Jills of this world, and the putrid product they produce looks less and less appetizing the longer it's examined. They claim to have "fact checkers" and, in fact, disdain the blogosphere for not having them. So why do the "fact checkers" (the MSM QC people) let this sort of junk get published? The answer is simple, really, the fact checkers are as clueless as the Jills of the world. The sort of idiocy that Jill wrote would strike a reasonable person as highly suspect and worth checking out. But to the sort of people who "fact check" this trash, given their ideological homogeneity, this sort of thing is, to their mind, "natural," coming from a Conservative. To them, conservatism is uncharted territory and they have no feel for what real conservatives say or do.

It does not have to be this way. But like the US auto industry, it's going to take the bankruptcy of some of the news "manufacturers" before the rest of them understand, really understand, that the old business model no longer works. Fox has found a niche and is willing to try a newer model. Rush Limbaugh has created a who new genre of broadcasting filling this untapped market. But the old MSM is convinced that its customers have no where else to go. They could not be more wrong. Detroit auto makers found the Japanese eating their lunch, but they were a long time adapting. Same for the MSM.

Limbaugh on Fred Thompson

From RedState Rush discussing Thomson's appearance on the Charlie Rose Show.

Rush:

Let's go to the audio sound-bites. Last night on Charlie Rose's show on PBS. Former Senator Fred Thompson is the guest. Charlie Rose says "You constantly say in this campaign that you are a conservative. What does that mean today?

plays clip from Charlie Rose interview:

Fred Thompson:

It means things that are consistent with God's design for man, is consistent with human nature, it's consistent with the lessons of history, the lessons of ages. They found form in the Constitution I think and what our founding fathers believed. They understand that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to error and sometimes do terrible things. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing. That power is a corrupting thing.

Charlie Rose:

In all of that you didn't mention abortion, gay rights, all things that have been part of recent presidential elections.

Fred:

Those... Well you are talking about different things there. Those are issues that are before us, which derive FROM principles.

end clip

Rush:

Now this is just fabulous to me. This is just great. Here Charlie Rose asks Fred Thompson 'Well what is a conservative today anyway?'. And so Fred gives his definition of a conservative and Charlie says 'Well wait a minute I didn't hear anything about abortion or gay rights, all the things that have been a part of recent presidential elections.' Here's how Fred answered that, because Charlie Rose came back and said 'Principles? What do you mean principles?'.

start next clip

Fred Thompson:

Principles are what guide you in coming to positions with regard to issues. You know the Declaration of Independence said that our basic rights come from God and not from man. The founders talked about you know life, liberty and the importance of that. And that everything is based on those basic principles. And I take those principles and you know for example I come to a pro-life conclusion there. And when we had issues you know for 8 years when I was in the United States Senate about whether or not the federal government should be funding, for example, abortion related activities and things of that nature you know, the application of those principles in that instance told me the answer was no properly.

end clip

Rush:

I guarantee you Charlie Rose is clueless here. None of this...this is...he's a listening to uh you know mongolese as Fred Thompson's going through all this. [laughing] Sometimes you just have to laugh at these poor clichéd liberals who just live in the most closeted cocooned world, while thinking they are the most worldly and uh erudite among us.

I agree with Rush. Thompson's answers were not just smart, they were wise. He has thought about the difference between principals and positions. Who else among the candidates would know the difference and be able to tell people plainly what the difference is?

I support Fred Thompson

There, I've said it. and for anyone who reads this blog, here's an idea from Right Wing Nuthouse...

Dear Friends,

I am writing to ask for your help.

All of us know the long odds faced by Fred Thompson in his efforts to win the GOP nomination for president. I’m sure you are all aware that Fred has undertaken pretty much of a do or die bus tour of Iowa in order to finish strongly in the Caucuses on January 3.

Many of you have already taken steps to support the Thompson campaign in a tangible way by placing fundraising widgets on your sidebar and writing about the campaign. In this way, each of us alone has done whatever we can to support Fred in his efforts.

But at this, the 11th hour of the campaign in Iowa, I think it would be a very effective fundraising tool if as many of us as possible were to participate in an old-fashioned Blogburst, writing a post asking readers to donate to the campaign while embedding a fundraising widget in the post for convenience.

I propose Thursday, December 27 for the Blogburst. If you have an email list, I would urge you to ask your subscribers to donate. If you know of other bloggers who support Fred, please forward this email and ask them to participate as well.

Not expecting a “money bomb” but even a few tens of thousands of dollars would help, I’m sure. Given the number of readers represented in the blogs listed here (where I got all of your email addresses) and your cooperation, I feel confident we can give a real shot in the arm to the campaign.

I don’t think any of us believe that our endorsement of Thompson alone means that much in the long run. But working together, uniting for one day and speaking with one voice, I think we could make a significant impact on Fred’s chances in Iowa. After all, when the candidate you support rolls the dice as Fred has, the least we can do is back his play to the best of our ability.

No need to respond to this email. Just do it.

Merry Christmas,

From Glenn Reynolds:

A FRED THOMPSON blogburst.
UPDATE: More here.

Here's Fred's contribution site.

Fred Thompson's Christmas Message

Is Fred Surging?

Mike Huckabee's surge may not be the final chapter in Iowa, the Des Moines Register's David Yepsen warns, and Barack Obama may still get an unpleasant surprise. The longtime political analyst has detected signs of life from Fred Thompson and John Edwards in the Hawkeye State, and believes that the unsettled nature of both races may provide yet another surprise or two

...

There's a lot of buzz about the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for Democratic caucus votes in Iowa. And there's also a lot of talk about the fight between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee on the Republican side.

Can Clinton recover and overtake Obama's narrow lead? Can Romney stop Huckabee to reclaim the top spot in the GOP race? Buzzzzzz.

All that tends to overlook two other candidates: Democrat John Edwards and Republican Fred Thompson. They're both showing real potential to come up fast here at the end.

Fred Thomson: I'm Not Doing Hand Shows Today!

Running for President is serious business. We're facing pressing issues like national security, bankrupt entitlements, a broken tax code, and out-of-control judges. So what did the liberal moderator want at Wednesday's debate? A show of hands. We deserve serious discussion not kindergarten antics.

Don't you want a conservative leader who won't grovel to the liberal media?

If 2,400 people donate in the next 24 hours it will tell the liberal media that the American people are tired of their games.

Stand with Fred and reject the liberal media's "monkey business" and gotcha games. Donate today.

Then send an e-card to your friends letting them know you're standing up with Fred.

And the

Des Moines Register Editor Carolyn Washburn takes a shot at Republicans with an obviously false statement in her piece summarizing the recent Iowa debates which she moderated:

By and large, the Republicans say they can get us to smaller government and lower taxes with economic growth and government efficiency. They don't ask Americans to make terrible sacrifices. About half wanted to tackle global warming and about half chose not to talk about it. They want local control and choice in education.

Chose not to talk about it!?! Not only did one Republican ask to talk about it, as opposed to raising his hand, Washburn wouldn't let them talk about anything other than what she had pre-scripted in her mind.

Carolyn Washburn asks the question: who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

Fred Thompson Campaign Ad

Spitzer: Making Voter Fraud Easier

Elliott Spitzer’s attempt to provide drivers licenses to illegal aliens is not illogical if you understand that he is attempting to create about 500,000 additional votes for Democrats in New York.

If receiving thousand dollar donations from dishwashers and busboys in New York’s Chinatown does not create a scandal for Hillary Clinton. If we can simply consign Norman Hsu’s multimillion dollar gifts to Democrats nation-wide to the “memory hole.” Why should it surprise us that Spitzer can create a half-million strong voter block of illegal aliens by giving them voter registration cards along with their driver’s licenses?

That is, after all, what “motor voter” is supposed to accomplish.

And we’re not supposed to question his motives?

John Fund:

The potential for fraud is not trivial, as federal privacy laws prevent cross-checking voter registration rolls with immigration records. Nevertheless, a 1997 Congressional investigation found that "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in [a] disputed House election" in California. After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote.
Under pressure from liberal groups, some states have even abandoned the requirement that people check a citizenship box to be put on the voter rolls. Iowa has told local registrars they should register people even if they leave the citizenship box blank. Maryland officials wave illegal immigrants through the registration process, prompting a Justice Department letter warning they may be helping people violate federal law.
...
But he has not retreated from another new bizarre policy. It used to be that county clerks who process driver's licenses were banned from giving out voter registration forms to anyone without a Social Security number. No longer. Lou Dobbs of CNN reported that an Oct. 19 memo from the state DMV informed the clerks they don't "have any statutory discretion to withhold a motor voter form." What's more, the computer block preventing a DMV clerk from transmitting a motor voter registration without a Social Security number was removed.

Let me repeat for those who did not catch this the first time:

eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote.

But Spitzer says his plan is about increasing security. How does handing an illegal alien a driver’s license increase security?

Does handing his a license make him a better driver? No. If he’s already driving, he drives well enough to pass the driving test.

Does handing him a license help us track him? No. Not unless we create drivers licenses with A GPS tracking chip.

Does handing him a license force him to give us his address? No. No one checks to see if you are giving your correct address.

Does handing him a license force him to get insurance? No. You can simply lie about having insurance, no one checks.

Does handing him a license force him to get a social security card? No. There are no requirements to present a social security card to receive a driver’s license. Is there were, most illegals get a “twofer” a fake social security card and a fake green card for a little over $100.

So I’m not puzzled by Spitzer’s lie that giving illegal aliens is about security because I never believed that in the first place. And I’m not puzzled by the drive-by-media’s failure to quiz him on that; they support his program.

What I’m curious about is the fact that the blogosphere is not more outraged.

Fred Thompson weighs in:

“While Hillary Clinton was speaking out both sides of her mouth at last night’s debate over the issue of drivers licenses for illegal aliens, what went unsaid is that this is a recipe for increased voter fraud. Under the federal “Motor Voter” law (the National Voter Registration Act of 1993), states must provide applicants for drivers licenses with the opportunity to register to vote. “Giving legal drivers licenses to illegal immigrants is wrong and would provide them the opportunity to register to vote in our country. People who are not citizens of the United States should not be encouraged by pandering politicians to further break our laws and risk the health of our political system.”

Fred Thompson and the value of 'easy does it'

Is Fred Thompson too lazy to be president? Many in the press seem to think so.

Pundits and Democrats are making the same mistake with Fred Thompson that they did with Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower: underestimating him because he's not a workaholic. Mr. Reagan liked to joke that "They say hard work never killed anyone, but I figure, why take the chance?" Reagan also once observed of himself, "I've really been burning the midday oil." The same could be said of Mr. Thompson. To detractors, this is clear evidence of his limitations. It isn't.
...
Democrats routinely confuse hyperactivity with achievement. This began when John Kennedy made such a fetish of contrasting his "vigor" with Ike's apparent indolence.

Since then, so many Democrats have tried to model themselves on JFK that perpetual motion has become a party trait. Bill Clinton – who hero-worshiped JFK – was an effective president in many ways, but would have been more effective if he'd learned some fundamentals of time management: don't procrastinate, stay up late obsessing, or worry problems to death with endless discussion. The latter more than anything is what scuttled the health plan he and Hillary noodled to oblivion.

Perhaps because so many of them come from the ranks of management, more Republican politicians seem to have learned that the essence of leadership involves delegation of authority, a schedule that isn't jampacked, and one that includes regular time off. Does Thompson take breaks and knock off at 5 p.m.? If so, he's got plenty of company among the electorate.

Amid the spate of bad reviews for Thompson's laid-back campaign performance, a few reporters have noticed how much more his laconic manner appeals to heartland voters than it does to coastal reporters. According to Michael Scherer of Salon.com, Thompson's obvious appeal to Iowans confuses members of the national press, "an ambitious crowd that distrusts those who brag of meandering through life."

Fred Thompson finally announces run

At 7:57 p.m. Eastern time Wednesday, while taping "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" for broadcast later in the evening, Fred Thompson finally said: "I'm running for president of the United States." The studio audience responded with thunderous applause.

I like Fred. He and Giuliani would make a great team.

Fred Thompson Talks to The Young Republicans

Click on the link for the speech.

Republican Senator Fred Thompson spoke to the Young Republicans Saturday and hinted a run for the presidency, but did not make an announcement.

He said he is “raising seed money” and “getting people together.”

“We’ll be making a decision in the not too distant future,” he said.

Speaking of the 2008 elections, he said “we’ll win this next election, like so many we have before.”

Thompson thanked the Young Republicans for their support, noting that he started a chapter of the group as a young man after reading “Conscience of a Conservative,” by Barry Goldwater.

Fred Thompson Raises Funds

$352,323 in 48 Hours. Not bad.

Jonah Goldberg on Fred Thompson

Johan begins by quoting IMAO: Fred Thompson Facts. A must read!

...there’s no denying that Fred Thompson has one of the most profound personality cults we’ve seen in politics for a long time. While traveling around the country in recent months, I’ve been amazed at how many rank-and-file Republicans see Thompson as a secular savior, as if Thompson were designed by GOP-friendly alien scientists as some sort of Super Candidate.

For some skeptical observers, this has resulted in comparisons to retired General Wes Clark, the Democrats’ onetime man on a white horse. “Fred Thompson is to the Republicans in ’08 as Wes Clark was to the Democrats in ’04,” writes Jason Zengerle of The New Republic. “In other words, the highpoint of his campaign will be the day he gets in the race, because once he’s a serious candidate — and not just the fevered daydream of a dissatisfied base — voters will realize he’s not all that.”

On the surface, there’s merit to the comparison. Wes Clark, as I wrote in ’04, was the “Johnny Bravo” candidate. That’s a reference to the Brady Bunch episode where Greg Brady is picked to be a rock star, not because of his musical talent but because he fit into the glitzy costume that rock promoters had already created. Clark, with his admirable military record and perceived “toughness” in foreign policy, seemed like the ideal candidate to beat Bush in ’04.

Similarly, Thompson seems to be what Republicans are yearning for. But there’s a key distinction. Wes Clark was a candidate for Democrats who wanted to beat Bush. Thompson’s appeal is based partly on a desire for victory, but there’s also a desire to get beyond Bush.

First and foremost, Thompson’s articulateness shouldn't be underestimated. He shares with Ronald Reagan — another actor-politician — an ability to communicate ideas in folksy, almost conversational ways without losing important nuance or meaning.

Most Republicans won’t admit it, but Bush’s trouble articulating his views — compounded by a terrible communications operation (save for standout Press Secretary Tony Snow) — is a major irritation on the Right. There’s a reason that IMAO’s No. 1 “Fred Thompson Fact” is “Fred Thompson has on multiple occasions pronounced ‘nuclear’ correctly.”

[...]

There are other important differences between Clark and Thompson. As a candidate, Clark was a dud. He couldn’t explain the necessary flip-flops and contortions required to fit his record with the demands of the Democratic party’s base, and the more he talked, the less likable and presidential he seemed. Thompson’s record isn’t a perfect fit for the GOP base either, but Thompson, unlike Clark, is a very capable politician who won his senate seat by the largest margin in Tennessee history. And the more he talks, the more likable and presidential he appears.

Thompson’s approval ratings may never be higher than on the day before he announces. We don’t know the man very well, but we know the character. And as long as he stays in character, it’s unlikely his ratings will drop anytime soon.

Fred Thompson’s Watershed?

On the day of the first Southern-state Republican debate on the Fox News Channel, one undeclared GOP candidate performed a media leapfrog.

With the help of one 38-second video clip and a great sense of humor, Fred Thompson, the former U.S. senator from Tennessee who is one sock away from dipping his toe into the race for the White House, remained just as relevant as the other GOP candidates.And thanks to Michael Moore, the Hollywood documentarian who just can’t help himself, Thompson delivered what, in time, could become his watershed moment.