A Little Part of Me Just Died

Sounds like Fred! is out for VP. The tiny, burning ember has lost its spark.

This Is Heartening

My man Fred! is back on the campaign trail for John McCain. At the risk of committing a bit of sacrilegious paraphrasticism, if Fred be for him, who can be against him?

In other news, it took me about 10 tries to spell "sacrilegious" correctly. Also, from now on, I will only pronounce this in the correct manner as "sac-ril-LEE-jus". Maybe, just to be pedantic, I'll even throw in that last "i" as its own syllable and say "sac-ril-LEE-gee-us".

I'm Depressed

Here's a decent take on Fred Thompson, post-departure, over at the Weekly Standard. It made me more depressed than I already was, considering what we've lost with Fred's decision to pull out of the race. It's a bit digressive at points (several paragraphs on the non-campaigning campaigns of 1800's-era candidates? Really?), but worth a read. Take-home snippet, for me anyways:

Thompson didn't give off the usual political vibe: the gnawing need to please, the craving for the public's love. A few voters and journalists found this refreshing, many more found it insulting. Some just found it fascinating, in a clinical sort of way: What kind of politician isn't consumed by politics--and what kind of campaign would such a politician run? Well, now we know. If Thompson could plausibly avoid an overnight campaign trip, he did, preferring to return home to his wife and children in suburban Virginia. He spent an inordinate amount of time with his briefing books. And his response to the chore of raising money--the chief occupation of every office-seeker in this era of campaign finance reform, which was intended to reduce the role of money in politics--seemed nearly pathological. Fundraising events scheduled to last two or three hours often guttered out when the candidate departed after twenty minutes. High-end donors complained of being uncourted, unpampered, unloved--even unphoned. At one party in a private home last year, Thompson made the rounds of money-shakers, delivered brief remarks, and then slipped into a bedroom to watch a basketball game on TV by himself.

Now I'm all sad again. If my gentle readers will indulge me in a moment of almost ronpaulian political delusion, perhaps I can express the faint hope that a brokered convention will re-draft Fred Dalton Thompson as the Republican nominee for President?

Ron Paul Gets Huckslapped

I originally mentioned some time ago that Mike Huckabee, former Governor of the state I'll always call "home", "had my vote". Along, then, came Fred Thompson, and I admit I got swept up in the hype, sorta left my buddy Huck by the wayside, and spent a lot of my energy rooting for Fred. Now that my enthusiasm for Fred Thompson has... let's just say "mellowed", I find myself more and more attracted to Mike Huckabee. From straw polls (a surprise, strong second in Iowa!) to political magazines (on the cover of last week's National Review!) to debates (see above, and this post), Huckabee continues to make waves.

Now I know he's almost-but-not-quite the anti-Fred: he's somewhat of a big spender, and somewhat of a nanny-stater, and definitely not the hard-core states'-rights advocate like Fred. The "somewhats", there, are HUGE qualifiers -- name one democrat to whom he can hold a candle. And can any Republican actually be worse than Bush in that regard? He's strong on national defense (witness above), and among all the remaining, snowball's-chance-in-hell candidates (sorry, Brownback, Hunter, and Tancredo), he's the only true-blue, always-has-been social conservative.

Now watch the video above. The man is a remarkable speaker, with all the charm one could ask for. Having grown up around Baptist preachers (the pastor of the church of my youth, Dr. Rex Horne, is now the President of Huck's Alma Mater, Ouchita Baptist University, for example), let me tell you, this man has not lost an ounce of that in his political speaking. Heck, he almost made me want to vote for McCain before he made me want to vote for him! And them comes the coup-de-grace for poor Ron Paul -- or as I believe I have coined it, "The Huckslap".

So now, I have to confess, I am torn: big-government strong social conservative of impeccable moral fiber, or small-government, crypto-libertarian awesome-guy whose positions may have wavered and whose social life may be closer to Clinton's than my own. If Huckabee surges before the PA primary, he might just get my vote now.

The Fever Is Rising

So I gathered these Rasmussen data (see, I can properly use a plural word!), plotted them (above), and noted the general trends. The suprising thing I noticed, particularly after spending so much time over here, is that Romney has only outpaced McCain for the last four weeks or so, and even then, it has been a pretty much equal combo of McCain's campaign tanking and Romney's campaign taking off, rather than it being the result of either one's skill (or lack thereof). Moreover, it looks as though Fred! is having a fairly equal effect across the board in terms of lowering everyone else's numbers -- there's no obvious downward trend for one candidate over any of the others since he entered the race (unless you count McCain, but I think his failing campaign owes nothing to Thompson's success).

But it's good to see FDT doing so well.

If I get more time, I'll run some statistical correlation analysis on the data, and maybe get a feel for whose campaigns seem most inversely (or directly!) related to one another.

My Only Real Concern With FDT

I've been pretty enthusiastic about Mr. Fred Dalton Thompson and his chances for the Republican Presidential nomination. But there is one thing that had been bothering me, although I couldn't quite put my hand on it until now. And that one thing is that Fred Dalton Thompson is actually the immortal soul of a Carpathian tyrant trapped for all eternity in a cursed painting:




I dunno though... I think I'm willing to overlook it, as long as Peter, Ray, Egon, and Stan are okay with it.

The Only Fred Shirt in the Landing Party

I'm thinking of changing my blog name to the above title. Read this comment by Peter Suderman at The Corner, followed by this comment, a response by a reader. Then do a little happy dance, like I did in my own mind.

My only gripe is that Suderman immediately gives the speechwriter all the credit in his first post.

Fred vs. Ramesh, or, Why Conservatives Are So Awesome

First Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review says this, to give us a base of where he's coming from. Then, seemingly contradictorily, he posts this, complaining of Fred Thompson's seeming aversion to tort reform. Then Fred Thompson responds in the same pages with this. Then Ramesh re-responds, again at NRO, here. This time, Fred takes his argument over to townhall.com in a general statement about federalism, here. Finally (or at least currently), Ramesh has the good grace to point out to his Corner readers Fred's latest salvo here, with a short response, and reassures the readers that, despite this back-and-forth, he is still "favorably disposed to a Thompson candidacy".

Whew. Apart from setting a personal record for "number of articles linked in a single blog post", I do have a broader point, as indicated by my alternate title above. Granted, I do not spend much time on lefty blogs. But can you imagine a serious candidate, or even potential candidate on the left, such as Mr. Thompson on the right, engaging in this sort of back-and-forth, civilized, non-ad-hominem, intellectual, coherent, thought-provoking, or, dare I say it, articulate dialogue? I cannot. Frankly, I can't really imagine any of the announced candidates, even on the Right, spending their time so clearly outlining their principles in the face of honest but highly critical questions from "one of their own". What's more, at the end of the debate, the "loyal opposition" remains "loyal" -- a lesson the Left could truly take to heart. This truly makes me proud to be part of the Conservative movement, when we have healthy debate like this, instead of the step-in-line-or-we'll-excommunicate-you mentality that seems to pervade the lefty blogosphere.

Mitt Romney's defenders spend a lot of energy pointing out how readily he has embraced the blogosphere and the "wired" generation. Okay, so where are his policy-level interactions with the bloggers themselves? Fred Thompson doesn't talk about it, he does it.

Disclaimer: I agree with Ramesh that tort reform is critically important for the welfare of this country. Too many chefs around the country put way too much chocolate or rasberry sauce on top of the thing, and it becomes so cloyingly sweet that it nears inedibility. Mr. Thompson is equally right, however, in that the Feds have no right to tell the baker how to make his tasty confection.

All You Need To Know

This is the most comprehensive, descriptive, illuminating article/review/interview/what have you regarding Fred Thompson that I have read to date. Key snippets:

Thompson seems to recognize that he wins the guy-I'd-want-to-get-a-beer-with primary the moment he announces. He comes across as a regular guy--"folksy" will be the political cliché that attaches to his candidacy--and punctuates explanations of his positions with the kind of off-the-cuff homespun witticisms that Dan Rather spent a career trying to come up with.

And this one, which pacifies me greatly:

* In the days since Thompson allowed that he was thinking about running for president, his views on abortion have come under scrutiny. Thompson finds the news reports from his first run for Senate perplexing.

"I have read these accounts and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them. Although I don't remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story. Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and then another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice."

But, he adds: "I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100 percent voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate."

Darla St. Martin, associate executive director of National Right to Life, supports Thompson on those claims. She traveled to Tennessee in 1994 to meet with him. "I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion," she told the American Spectator's Philip Klein.

Thompson says he thinks Roe v. Wade is bad law and should be overturned, but he says he does not support a Human Life Amendment.

Do yourself a huge favor and go read the whole thing right now. Just don't fall in love with Mr. Thompson, because I already did, and you can't have him! I mean that in a manly, viking sort of way, though.

UPDATE: I now have a "Fred Dalton Thompson" label! It only seemed the most reasonable thing to do, considering...

Sad AND Reassuring...

So Fred Thompson has cancer, but that cancer has been in remission for some time. The first makes me sad, but the second gives me hope. Jim Geraghty has this to say:

If a lymphoma diagnosis and treatment didn't interrupt Fred Thompson's "Law & Order" work, it shouldn't interrupt his presidential ambitions, if he has them.

UPDATE: Spoke to Smart Washington Guy, one of my regular folks I talk to. His reaction: "This means he's running. He's being proactive and getting it out there."

That makes me feel better. The last quote, WAY better.

Some Thoughts on 2008

I've been giving the field of candidates for 2008 a lot of thought. A lot, really. For me, at least. And I've finally, barring unforeseen circumstances, decided a course of action. First, some analysis, starting with the official contenders:

Rudy Giuliani: The guy's as socially liberal as they come. Tough on national security and crime, sure but what else about this guy is conservative? I also proudly admit my first-line litmus test for candidates: they must, must be unapolagetically pro-life. I'm only willing to accept the tiniest nuance in this area (e.g., life-of-the-mother considerations, but only in extreme cases). Even if he suddenly switched to a pro-life stance, my second-line litmus test is the gay marriage issue (where I am slightly more flexible -- I'm willing to accept a "leave it up to the state to decide" compromise), and he fails there too! Therefore, I cannot vote for Rudy Giuliani.

Mitt Romney: He's a Mormon, and a flip-flopper. A few months ago, I was genuinely struggling with his Mormonism, as he was the only thing close to being a true conservative in the field. That is, I was trying to come to terms with his Mormonism, in preparation for giving him my support. True, having read this and parts of this and the relevant portions of this, it was a doomed and futile effort, but at least I was trying, okay? But once the YouTube Wars started, and it became known that this guy was still staunchly pro-abortion as recently as 2002, I got a free pass to stop in my struggle. An obviously politically-calculated position change does not exactly rally the base.

John McCain: I didn't trust him in 2000. Given the last 8 years of backlashing against conservatives just to grab headlines, why the hell should I trust him any more now? I disagree with some analysis that says McCain-Feingold will be his undoing -- that's inside-the-beltway echo-chamber talk there. I suspect that even the vast majority of those who vote in primaries don't even take that into consideration, and I certainly don't. It sucks, yes, and I certainly don't like it, but that's not why I won't vote for him. I just don't trust him.

All the other announced candidates: Heh. Heheheh. Bwahahahahaha... whee! Ok, seriously, now, really? If I'm going to throw my vote away, I might as well make it mean something, and none of these guys come close. Brownback might have, but even the slightest wavering on Iraq gives you the boot. Doubly so when it's motivated by polls. Actually, I sorta like Tancredo, but I have to admit I'd be embarrassed to tell people in good company that I voted for him. "A little bit nutty" is the first thing that pops into my head when I think of him, despite his almost-perfect rating from the American Conservative Union. And sorry, Huck, but you just didn't try hard enough, Arkie though you may be.

And the unannounced:

Newt Gingrich: I admit, I wasn't paying much attention in the 90's. Too apathetic in highschool and too busy in college. But despite being a stalwart conservative throughout those years, I still got a weird, creepy vibe from this guy, in terms of his political maneuverings. Since I've politically awakened, he's proven himself to be clever and insightful, far and above at least the above candidates. But he's got tons of baggage. And the revelation that he led the charge against the Philanderer-in-Chief with so much weighing on his own soul scares me. Anyone who can compartmentalize that well either has zero shame or a multiple-personality disorder. I think he may be more valuable to us as a policy wonk and commentator anyways.

Chuck Hagel: Oooh, please! Maybe if I vote for him, he'll pick Lincoln Chaffee as his running mate, and then we can all be friends and hang out at a protest rally and smoke pot and dress up like real Republicans! This action could only be followed up, of course, by an announcement declaring that we have nothing to announce.

Of course, this leaves only one big name, and you all know where I'm going with this: Fred Thompson. So, as I have mentioned above, I have decided my course of action: I will vote for Fred Thompson, both in the primary and the general election. Regardless of whether he officially runs or not. If I'm gonna throw away my vote, I'm gonna make it count, dangit.

The More You Know...

Frank J. at IMAO shares with us some 100% true facts about Fred Thompson. I think these, for the most part, make it easier to vote for the guy, since we can trust the folks at IMAO:

* The reason Fred Thompson didn't want to stay in the Senate for long is because all the extra scrutiny kept him from doing his favorite hobby: Prowling the streets at night killing drug dealers.

* Every night before going to sleep, Osama bin Laden checks under his bed for Fred Thompson.

* The budget to Law & Order was dramatically increased when Fred Thompson was added to the cast because he has to be digitally inserted into the scenes since anytime he's near Hollywood liberals, he kills them.

And my personal favorite:

* The Fremen consider "Fred Thompson" a killing word.

Of course, being a honest reporter of honest, 100-percent-true facts, he also points out some potential flaws in Mr. Thompson:

* The actual cause of global warming: Fred Thompson's burning rage.

* Scientists predict that when Fred Thompson dies he'll explode taking out the five nearest planets before collapsing into a black hole.

* Why does Iran want nuclear weapons? Out of fear of Fred Thompson.

Hat tip: Instapundit

See, I Told You So

I've commented on my hopeful enthusiasm for Fred Thompson before. Now the fever is spreading! Because I can't speak for the intricacies of the Mazur Brothers' political thought, apart from being "generally conservative", I can't say that their muted enthusiasm is suspect, but if I had found that info, the question would not be "Can we back this guy?", but "Given the current field of candidates, how can we not back this guy?"

Follow the link for links to a good article about Senator Thompson, as well as a link to his voting record during his time in the Senate. I'm all kinds of giddy! Here's someone who, because of his conservative bona fides, can rally the base, and because of his telegenic personality and TV/movie fame, can attract alot of swing voters!

And he's a Thompson! At last, a President Thompson!

Catch the Fever!

Remember this? It's spreading...

I think "President Thompson" has an especially nice ring to it.

About Huck...

Forget what I said about Mike Huckabee. Draft Fred Thompson in 2008!

(ht Glenn Reynolds -- I'm only repeating it here to spread the meme.)