Fred is Finished

The writing has been on the wall for a while, but Fred Thompson made it official on Tuesday. He ended his campaign to be the Republican nominee for president.

Thompson's statement:

Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.

I think that conservatives did benefit from Thompson's candidacy.

His presence in the race helped initiate some needed reflection by conservatives. What is the status of the conservative movement in 2008? What are the shared principles that unite conservatives? What really matters?

I don't think Thompson's unsuccessful bid is indicative of the end of Reagan conservatism by any means.

Writers and pundits promoting liberalism desperately want to proclaim the Reagan era of conservatism dead and buried. Even some self-proclaimed conservatives are content with that assessment.

They're wrong. What Thompson stood for wasn't rejected. There was nothing wrong with his principles. His problem was his campaign. He was playing catch-up from the beginning. There's no question that his late start put him at a tremendous disadvantage.

I also think the mainstream media played a significant role in Thompson's failed run.

For example, from the New York Times:

Mr. Thompson, 65, entered the campaign powered by the high hopes of conservative Republicans who were disappointed with the field of candidates and hoped that Mr. Thompson — a television actor and former counsel to the Watergate committee — could rally conservatives behind him. But Mr. Thompson instead brought a phlegmatic style to the campaign trail, and his candidacy never took off.

Mr. Thompson ruminated for many weeks about whether to run. By the time he entered the race, much of the excitement had dissipated. His speaking style swung between folksy and laconic to the point of sleepy.

He played to loud applause at the National Rifle Association and picked up the endorsement of anti-abortion groups. But rival candidates like Mr. Romney and Rudolph W. Giuliani rushed to refashion themselves as conservatives, changing some long-held positions that were more socially moderate.

That caused Mr. Thompson no end of frustration, but he never found a way to convince Republicans that his bona fides entitled him to their vote. And he drew considerable criticism for his flagging, flickering energy — some of his walking tours lasted just 10 or 15 minutes, and he often took few questions.

This overview of Thompson's effort is filled with the stuff that the lib media have been putting out from the onset of his campaign.

Thompson barely got any positive, substantive media coverage. When he did get attention, it was negative. I think the negative press stuck because it was simple and repeated so often, a relentless drumming.

Thompson's not trying.

He doesn't care.

He doesn't have the necessary fire in the belly.

He's sleepy.

He's asleep.

Thompson's critics and opponents on both the Left and the Right succeeded in creating this caricature. It was more than Thompson could overcome.

According to Thompson's advisers, he won't be making an endorsement.

_________________

Patrick Cox offers an insightful analysis of the Thompson campaign, how it played out, and what Thompson accomplished in his run for the presidency.

McCain Wins South Carolina

Eight years after his first try, John McCain has won the Republican primary in South Carolina.

From the Associated Press:

Sen. John McCain won a hard-fought South Carolina primary Saturday night, avenging a bitter personal defeat in a bastion of conservatism and gaining ground in an unpredictable race for the Republican presidential nomination.

...McCain defeated former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in a close race in the state that snuffed out his presidential hopes eight years ago. The Arizonan was gaining 33 percent of the vote to just under 30 percent for his closest rival.

"It just took us a while. That's all. Eight years is not a long time," McCain told the AP.

Appearing before supporters, Huckabee was a gracious loser, congratulating McCain for "running a civil and a good and a decent campaign."

Far from conceding defeat in the race, he added, "The process is far, far from over."

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson was in a struggle for third place with about 16 percent, after saying he needed a strong showing to sustain his candidacy. Another Republican, California Rep. Duncan Hunter, dropped out even before the votes were tallied.

A few thoughts on the Republicans and the South Carolina primary--

Although the primary is over, the most newsworthy thing about it may not be the results, that McCain won.


The questions that South Carolina's results raise are of more interest to me.

Is Huckabee now beginning to position himself for the VP position on a ticket with McCain?

I think after his Iowa win, he still dreams of himself at the top of the ticket, but it seems that he'd be willing to fill the VP spot.

The fact that South Carolina voters didn't enthusiastically embrace the Southern, squirrel-eating, Bible-thumping Huckabee and give him an overwhelming victory has to make him wonder about his chances to win the nomination.

But as Huckabee says, the process is far from over.

I, for one, don't accept the inevitability of McCain. Not yet.

It's Super Tuesday, stupid.

The big question is Fred Thompson's future.

Will Thompson push forward or will he follow Duncan Hunter's lead and drop out?

At this point, Thompson is still in the race.

Former Tennessee senator Fred Dalton Thompson, who was locked in a battle for a disappointing third place in South Carolina's primary, gave an impassioned and reflective speech to supporters in Columbia, even before the votes were tallied, but did not quite say that he was ready to drop out of the race.

Thompson had said repeatedly to supporters and reporters that he needed a strong finish in South Carolina to stay in the White House race -- a finish that he appeared to be denied Saturday, ending up far behind Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

In a speech that seemed to be leading up to an announcement that he would quit, a normally laid-back Thompson thundered for 10 minutes about the less obvious accomplishments of his run for the presidency.

"It's never been about me. It's never even been about you. It's been about our country," Thompson said after thanking his supporters.

He said that because of his campaign, the national Republican party "is being required to look at itself in the mirror."

That kind of language normally leads to an announcement that a candidate is giving up the chase. Aides said they did not know for sure what the former star of NBC's "Law & Order" and several Hollywood blockbusters was going to say when he went out onto the stage in Columbia.

But Thompson ended the speech with "God bless you!" and walked off the stage, leaving the crowd in the hall and the national television audience wondering about his plans.

Thompson sounded like both a candidate determined to stay on the trail and one ready to throw in the towel. It was a mixed message, confusing.

But if he does choose to get out of the race, I hope his exit isn't as drawn out as his entry into the presidential race was.

Fred Thompson: The Complete Conservative

Melanie Morgan, chairman of Move Ameria Forward and KSFO 560 AM talk show host, explains why South Carolina Republicans should vote for Fred Thompson, the "complete conservative."

She writes:

For the sake of this nation, I'm hoping that on Saturday the people of the Palmetto State punch the ballot for Thompson (no hanging chads, please).

Folks, it comes down to this basic premise:

The former Tennessee senator represents the best hope not just for Republicans and conservatives, but, most importantly, the best hope for America.

As a conservative Republican, I've endured more than my fair share of elections where I was told to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of evils.

That rankles me.

But in this presidential election we have the chance to vote for a man who represents an ideal package: a fiscal conservative, a social conservative and a conservative on national security issues. None of the other presidential candidates are as consistently conservative on the array of issues facing this nation as Fred Thompson is.

...Unlike a Republican candidate from the northeast who has asked voters to look past his liberal record on social issues, Fred Thompson doesn't have to rewrite history to appeal to social conservatives.

Fred Thompson doesn't speak about America as a broken nation or having an arrogant foreign policy, as another southern Republican in the race does.

Instead, Thompson has devoted his campaign to speaking of the greatness of this nation, and the opportunity it affords to those willing to reach inside themselves and achieve their greatest hopes and dreams.

Unlike some candidates who have advocated for amnesty for those who come to this country unlawfully, Thompson has been direct and plainspoken about his opposition to illegal immigration. He articulated his position quite bluntly, noting, "A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders, and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so. ..."

...Some people want to write off Thompson because, even though he's the best candidate on the issues, they fear that polls show others have a better shot of winning the nomination.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial this Wednesday smartly knocked down that contention, noting that Romney's win in Michigan means a primary battle that is now open to anyone to win, including Sen. Thompson:

Another winner [Tuesday] was Fred Thompson, who is competitive in South Carolina and is running as the conservative who can unite the GOP's fractious wings. The former Tennessee senator has laid out an impressive policy map, but he's suffered in early contests because his heart and energy didn't seem to be in the race. That has changed in recent weeks, especially with his pungent, quick-witted debate performances. If he can do better than Messrs. Romney and Huckabee among conservatives, he could surprise in the Palmetto State and give himself a genuine chance at the nomination.

The voters of South Carolina have the opportunity to do America a favor and turn out en masse to vote for Fred Thompson for president.

South Carolina Republicans can send a message to the party and to the political pundits and to the media.

They can vote for Fred Thompson and show that they are unwilling to compromise on their conservative principles.

They can vote for Thompson and show that they will not allow the lib media to determine the Republican nominee for president.

Why settle for a lightweight conservative when there's a heavyweight on the ballot?

Trouble for Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson's campaign is in trouble, BIG trouble.

When write-ins have a better showing, there's a serious problem.

If Thompson manages to get his campaign on track and really be a contender, it will be one of the most miraculous comebacks in American presidential political history.

I don't see that happening.

I hate to see it play out this way, but it is what it is.

Listen to Fred Thompson

At the top of Mark Levin's show today, he interviews Fred Thompson.

You can stream it on demand here. The link should be up in a few hours.

It's a brief interview, but the bottom line is clear: Thompson is a conservative.

If I were taking part in the Iowa caucus, there's no question that I would support Thompson.

Is It Too Late for Fred Thompson?

Byron York wonders if Fred Thompson could still be the best man to be the Republican nominee.

York writes:

Something has happened to Thompson in recent weeks. Yes, his schedule is still astonishingly light for a presidential candidate. And yes, he sometimes still underwhelms audiences. But in the last month or so Thompson has acted like a man who has been liberated from something. And that is what voters saw on stage Wednesday: a presidential candidate who has declared himself fully free of the stupid stuff one has to do to become president of the United States.

If you’re going to ask Fred Thompson to participate in a grade-school show of hands, or demand that he sign a pledge, or insist that he speak emotionally and at length about how much his religious faith means to him, well, you can just forget it. He’s not gonna do it.

The moment of final liberation came when Des Moines Register editor Carolyn Washburn, the schoolmarmish moderator whom commentator Fred Barnes would later refer to as “Nurse Ratched,” asked the candidates to raise their hands if they believed that “global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity.” Before anyone could say anything, Thompson interrupted.

“I’m not doing hand shows today,” he said. “No hand shows.”

“Is that yes or no for you?” Washburn asked. “Do you believe that global climate change is — “

“Well, do you want to give me a minute?” Thompson responded.

“No.”

“Then I’m not going to answer it.”

“How about thirty seconds?”

“No. You know — you want a show of hands. I’m not giving it to you.”

The audience loved it. Thompson, and Thompson alone, had stood up to the silliness that can characterize even self-styled serious-minded debates like the one conducted by the Register. Thompson scored again when he made effective points about entitlement reform, about the role of the National Education Association in blocking education reform, and about presidential leadership. His performance was so good that it underscored what has been, until recently, one particularly strange irony of this campaign. The showbiz guy is one of the best candidates when it comes to substance. He just had trouble selling the product.

Is it too late for Thompson?

It ain't over, till it's over.
________________

Carolyn Washburn's performance: Priceless.

NRLC Endorses Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson got a big boost yesterday.

The National Right to Life Committee chose to endorse him.

WASHINGTON – Marking the first major endorsement by a national grassroots organization in the Republican presidential contest, National Right to Life, the nation’s largest pro-life organization representing pro-lifers in fifty state affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, today announced its endorsement of former Senator Fred Thompson for President of the United States.

“As the first major grassroots organization to enter the Republican presidential race, National Right to Life is proud to endorse Fred Thompson,” stated Wanda Franz, Ph.D., president of National Right to Life. “Our endorsement is a testament to Senator Thompson’s long-standing pro-life record, his commitment to unborn children, and our belief in his ability to win.”

...Fred Thompson has had a strong, consistent pro-life record throughout his political career. Thompson opposes abortion and believes the 1973 abortion on demand Supreme Court decision was wrongly decided and must be reversed. During his eight years in the United States Senate, he always opposed using tax dollars to promote or pay for abortion and supported the many pro-life measures such as parental notice and consent.

Thompson has also stated his opposition to the kind of stem cell research that requires killing human embryos, while supporting the kind of stem cell research that harms no one and is the only kind producing cures.

Here's Thompson's statement on the Right to Life endorsement:

I’m deeply appreciative for the past support by the National Right to Life Committee-PAC in my Senate campaigns, and today I am blessed and grateful to have received their endorsement for President of the United States.

In supporting me, those who have worked tirelessly to defend life are supporting a consistent conservative who has stood with them yesterday, who stands with them today, and will stand with them tomorrow.

This endorsement comes at a critical time for Thompson.

With some polls showing him lagging behind, this could give his campaign a greatly needed shot of adrenaline.

Is Fred the Man?

I know this was just a little joke, an off-the-cuff remark.

I'm not reading much into it.

From the Telegraph:

Even Fred Thompson doesn't think he will become president. Chatting off-air to a television reporter, a stunningly candid off-the-cuff quip from the Hollywood actor cemented the impression that his heart is not in the 2008 race.

Trying to encourage his studio to hurry up so an interview could start, Carl Cameron of Fox News said into his microphone: "The next president of the United States has a schedule to keep." Standing beside him, a deadpan Mr Thompson interjected: "And so do I."

As some Thompson aides looked bemused and others cringed, a taken-aback Mr Cameron, Fox's chief political correspondent, exclaimed: "You can't do that kind of stuff!"

The self-deprecating quip said much about the former Tennessee senator's candidacy.

I disagree. I don't think the quip says much about Thompson's candidacy.

However, as time goes on, I'm getting more concerned about Thompson's viability. I keep waiting for his campaign to catch fire. I'm waiting for Thompson to exhibit some fire.

It's not happening.

Mike Huckabee took direct aim at Thompson in this e-mail yesterday:

This weekend Senator Thompson on Meet the Press said he did not support constitutional amendments to protect life and marriage. Senator Thompson's comments were disappointing and disheartening for those who were expecting him to be a solid voice for conservatives. The marriage and life amendments are critical issues for those of us who have been on the front lines of these cultural battles. Sen. Thompson's philosophy seems to be more 'cut and run' when it comes to these issues, rather than stand and lead.

I've always supported the passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. As President, I will fight for passage of a human life amendment. My position on the sanctity of life has always been clear and consistent. No candidate has a stronger record on the sanctity of life than I do. As Governor of Arkansas, I successfully led efforts to promote a human life amendment and marriage amendment in my state. For me, it isn't just talk; it's a conservative record of leadership and conviction.

And unlike Senator Thompson, I never took money to lobby from an abortion rights group, and then tried to say I'd forgotten about it and it was just a lawyer representing a client. Lawyers have a right to say no to representing a client when the client is in the abortion business.

Senator Thompson's comments also come at a time when many Republican voters are beginning to consider the race for President for the first time. Voters are looking for a President that will stand and lead. They want consistency on important issues such as the sanctity of life. I have always been consistent on this issue and always will because my faith shapes me and my view of the world.

Lower tier candidate Huckabee is showing more fight than Thompson.

I know that Thompson has a laid back style. He's low key. That can be a plus. That sort of demeanor can be reassuring. It can be a sign of confidence.

The problem is I don't think it's coming off that way.

I think Thompson needs to make some bold moves now.

Medved and Fred

Michael Medved shares some thoughts about Fred Thompson the candidate.

In "Fred Thompson's Energy Crisis," Medved offers some constructive criticism along with his observations.

While candidates can soar to victory without smarts or character, the one essential ingredient for any serious contender is, finally, energy: a level of intensity, drive, enthusiasm, vigor, force, that demands that voters pay attention. Every consistently successful politician in recent American history has possessed this indispensable quality --- and that’s a major problem for Fred Thompson’s current Presidential campaign.

I like and respect Senator Thompson, a good man with an impressive record of serving his country. I’ve said on many occasions that I’d be proud to support him if he wins the Republican nomination – just as I’d be proud to back Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, or Mitt Romney. But Thompson stands little chance of grabbing that nomination, or even winning major primaries, because of his shockingly listless personality on the campaign trail.

On Wednesday, Senator Thompson spent a half hour answering friendly questions on my radio show. If you read a transcript of his remarks, they’ll look perfectly credible, articulate and astute. But if you listen to the tape of the actual interview, it’s startling to note how disengaged, bored, flaccid and tired the Senator sounds. Instead of relishing the opportunity to connect with several million listeners, Thompson came across like a guy forced to complete a necessary but onerous chore. No presidential candidate in recent history has ever succeeded with this low an energy level.

I wish I could say that my show on Wednesday represented an exception in an otherwise exciting campaign. Unfortunately, the tapes of other media appearances, rallies in Iowa or South Carolina, and the last GOP debate in Dearborn, Michigan, further highlight Thompson’s energy crisis. If he hopes to re-energize his struggling campaign, the tall Tennessean must first re-energize himself.

Thompson's style is laid back.

That can relay confidence, but it can also be interpreted as being disengaged. Thompson can't afford to appear like a reluctant candidate.

While discussing Thompson's energy crisis, Medved also analyzes the Democrat field of candidates.

He writes:

On the Democratic side, there’s obviously no energy shortage: both Obama and Edwards deploy charm, charisma, and kinetic presence to infect adoring crowds with their own excitement. Hillary Clinton certainly can’t match the sizzling, tireless, seductive energy of her husband, but she’s recently proven herself vastly more adept at conveying joy, bemusement, and even friendliness through the process of campaigning, and her relentless, bulldog determination always suggested a formidable focus.

This line kills me:

"Hillary Clinton certainly can’t match the sizzling, tireless, seductive energy of her husband...."

While he's right that Hillary pales in comparison to her husband in terms of politcal skill, I honestly never saw any of that sizzle in Bill.

Obviously, he has the ability to mesmerize and dazzle some people, but not me. Not at all.

Medved concludes:

The old saying suggests “you only get one chance to make a first impression,” but in Thompson’s case he needs to seize additional chances. Most Americans retain only a vague sense of the shape of the campaign to date, but in the next few weeks they’ll pay far more attention. When they do, Fred ought to try a few triple espressos, or shots of Jack Daniels, or campaigning alongside his beautiful wife, or whatever makes him seem more eager, youthful and energetic. It’s time, in short, for a wake up call: be yourself by all means but find the passion to recharge the batteries.

I think Thompson's energy is an issue.

That was evident at his presidential debate debut.

He does need to take it up a notch, and as soon as possible.

Fred Thompson's Debate Debut

The Republican presidential debate yesterday was a coming out event for Fred Thompson.

The candidate participated in his first debate of the '08 presidential race.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 -- Based on the previews of Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate, it seemed much of the wise-guy set was expecting the newcomer, former Senator Fred D. Thompson, to star in the political equivalent of a Nascar wreck.

Such were the expectations created by Mr. Thompson’s early reviews on the stump. He has been panned as ill prepared, uninterested and lazy.

“All he has to do is not fall asleep,” the columnist Roger Simon wrote of Mr. Thompson in Tuesday’s edition of the Politico, a political Web site. “All he has to do is not throw up.”

And upset of upsets — Mr. Thompson did not throw up, fall asleep or, for that matter, drool (another stated benchmark).

Plus, he even knew who the leader of Canada was. “Harper,” Mr. Thompson answered confidently in response to a potential gotcha from Chris Matthews of MSNBC.

“Prime Minister Harper,” Mr. Thompson added for good measure, as if hoping for extra credit for “prime minister.”

It was a nothing exchange, except that Mr. Thompson’s campaign might never have recovered had he answered it wrong.

That's absolutely right.

Had Thompson fumbled that question, it could have damaged him significantly.

And that's exactly why Democrat partisan hack Chris Matthews asked it.

He didn't test any of the other candidates in the same manner.

“I see no reason to think we’re headed for an economic downturn,” Mr. Thompson said in his first answer of the afternoon, in response to a question about the health of the economy. It was clear enough, except that Mr. Thompson paused for an uncomfortable three seconds between the “for” and the “economic downturn,” as if he was tripping over a line and was expecting a director to jump in for a re-take.

That's a cheap shot. How many lame references to Thompson's acting career will the media toss out at the public?

I suspect the lib media will never let it go as long as Thompson is a candidate. He's the professional actor, but let's be honest. Aren't all the candidates actors?

Moreover, there's nothing wrong with a candidate choosing his words carefully.

I would be much more comfortable spending a few "uncomfortable" seconds with Thompson than I would be spending the next four years with ANY of the foreign policy-challenged, higher tax crusading Democrat candidates or the agitated, bizarre Ron Paul as president.

In time, Mr. Thompson sounded increasingly practiced and prepared, as if he had pulled a series of all-nighters in preparation for his coming-out role. He exuded a certain joylessness for much of the proceeding, speaking in a solemn monotone and almost never smiling. It was as if he were taking an oral examination, and in a sense he was.

These debates are oral examinations for all the candidates, Republican and Democrat.

Isn't that the point?

Ideally, they shouldn't be beauty pageants for the presidential wannabes. (John Edwards apparently didn't get the memo on that one.) But appearance can't be entirely dismissed.

As far as Thompson's "joylessness" goes, I agree that he didn't exactly look like a kid on Christmas morning. Still, had he been jumping for joy, it would have been weird; like Hillary Clinton cackling her way through her Sunday morning talk show marathon a few weeks ago.

Personally, I wasn't put off by Thompson's demeanor.

Upon completing his first answer, the camera caught Mr. Thompson taking a deep breath, in a discernable look of relief.

I don't know. It seems like there's a lot of projection there. The experienced politician and actor with opening night jitters -- I don't really buy that.

At debate’s end, Maria Bartiromo of CNBC asked Mr. Thompson whether he regretted waiting so long to get in. No, he said, with a rare grin.

“I’ve enjoyed watching these fellows,” he said. “I’ve got to admit, it was getting a little boring without me. But I’m glad to be here now.”

The hall filled with laughter and applause.

I think it was a bit of a mistake for Thompson to have held off from joining the fray as long as he did. His delayed entry and the ensuing heightened expectations almost guaranteed a certain letdown.

The other candidates did seem more at ease, but they had the luxury of knowing that they weren't being scrutinized to the same degree that Thompson was.

Thompson's every facial expression and every sigh was being analyzed. He didn't smile. He was almost Al Gore-ish wooden. Whatever.

For the others, it was just another debate. For Thompson, it was billed as a make or break event. I'm convinced that Chris Matthews was hoping to break him with that Canada question.

Anyway, it's hard to think of Thompson as being a "newcomer." He's been on the national scene and part of the '08 presidential dialogue even though he hasn't occupied one of the podiums on the debate circuit.

This was more of his introduction to the process rather than the American people. It was an exercise in media hype.

That's behind Thompson now. The important reviews of Thompson's performance as a candidate are yet to come -- when primary votes are cast.

Now that Thompson has his first appearance with the gang under his belt, I look forward to spending more time listening to what he has to say rather than examining how he says it and how often he smiles.

Chris Matthews Tests Fred Thompson

Toward the end of the debate, Chris Matthews tried to embarrass Fred Thompson by asking him the name of Canada's prime minister. He was hoping to stump him. He was hoping for that "gotcha" moment.

Didn't happen.

Matthews is such a hack.

More on the debate later. Maybe.

Catty Maureen Dowd Attacks the Republicans' Wives

Now that miserable failure TimesSelect is no more, it's easier to access New York Times columnists.

Thrilling. The unwashed masses can once again read their "wisdom." What a privilege!

Maureen Dowd mainly takes on Rudy Giuliani in her Sunday column. But "Uxorious or Spurious?" isn't just about Giuliani and his relationship with the NRA.

As usual, Dowd veers off into odd name-calling and very personal attacks.

Rather than sticking to commentary about the GOP candidates and the issues, she shamelessly slams their wives.

I don't know if it's laziness on her part, but it seems that she lifts lines from her diary and slaps them in her columns. Some things are better left unsaid in a public forum. Dowd hasn't learned that.

If she wants to claw at Giuliani, he's fair game. Fine.

However, I don't see why she has to draw blood from his wife and the wives of the other GOP candidates.

First, Dowd accuses Fred Thompson of exploiting his beautiful wife to win approval with the NRA audience.

Fred Thompson had already spoken to the group, recalling palling around with Charlton Heston, shooting skeet with some good ol’ boys from the N.R.A., and hanging out at gun stores and gun shows.

After guns, sports, Moses and a reference to his young ’uns, there was only one other ingredient needed for Flintstone Fred’s testosterone cocktail: a sexy blonde. Introducing his wife, Jeri, he drawled, “I think she’d make a much better first lady than Bill Clinton.”

Because Jeri is an attractive woman, does that mean that she shouldn't campaign for her husband or join him at appearances?

I find the lib media to be particularly vile in the way that they belittle her and treat her like an object.

When Dowd gets into the cell phone call that Giuliani took from his wife Judi during his speech to the NRA, she goes way beyond analyzing that incident and brutalizes Giuliani's wife. (By the way, I think that call has received a ridiculous amount of attention and analysis.)

Dowd writes:

First The Times’s Marc Santora noted that it wasn’t the first time Rudy had interrupted an appearance to take a call from his Princess Bride, as Vanity Fair dubbed her. He did the same thing in June in Hialeah, Fla., with more mushy talk during a rally.

This suggests either that Friday’s call was staged to humanize the dictatorial former mayor, or that Rudy is afraid of Judi’s digital wrath, or that the candidate is still struggling with how to integrate his third wife into his campaign, after her puppy-killing, husband-hiding, cabinet-sitting rough start.

Dowd seems to be taking a cue from Hillary Clinton's pal Tom Vilsack by joining him in going after Giuliani's personal life. It's not smart for liberals to make the private lives of the candidates an issue, considering Hillary is likely to be the Democrat nominee.

Dowd attributes the NRA phone call moment to either Giuliani's castration by Judi or his efforts to work this supposedly evil woman into his campaign.

Simply put, Dowd's analysis is really ugly and uncivil, really unnecessary.

Dowd doesn't stop there. She describes Mitt Romney's wife and children this way:

The episode also provided ammunition to Mitt Romney’s camp, which sensed an opportunity to highlight their candidate’s scary-perfect wife and scary-perfect kids.

I am really sick of liberals referring to good people, politically conservative people, as "scary-perfect," "Stepford Wives," etc.

If they can't find something to criticize, then the liberals criticize the fact that there's nothing to criticize. Have you noticed that?

I don't think conservatives would get away with being so cruel to the wives of the Democrat candidates. And if they did, I would lose respect for them if they engaged in such attacks.

It's a double standard. Same old, same old.

For all their self-proclaimed enlightenment, overflowing with respect and compassion, liberals don't hesitate to mercilessly slam women.

Target Fred Thompson

The lib media remain in attack mode when reporting on Fred Thompson.

DURHAM, N.H. -- Eight Republicans argued over the Iraq war and immigration before a crowd of 3,600 New Hampshire voters. Missing in action: actor-politician Fred Thompson, who skipped the debate in favor of announcing his candidacy in the more comfortable setting of late-night TV.

With delight, they zinged him for ducking the debate, their fifth.

"Maybe Senator Thompson will be known as the no-show for the presidential debates," former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said.

"Maybe we're up past his bedtime," joked Arizona Sen. John McCain. (At 65, Thompson is actually six years younger).

Thompson's scripted announcement — an appearance on NBC's "The Tonight Show," a commercial and a Web video — allowed him to avoid the unscripted debate, which raised troublesome issues important to conservative primary voters.

How to handle illegal immigrants. Whether to pass a constitutional amendment saying life begins at conception. Whether to sign a no-new-taxes pledge.

These questions, addressed Wednesday by his rivals, await Thompson on the campaign trail.

He begins a tour of early primary states Thursday in Iowa with just two events — remarks at an afternoon gathering and a meet Fred session in the early evening.

Staff upheaval continued at the Thompson campaign with the departure of Mark Corallo, the fourth aide to leave the communications team in the last month. The moves reflect efforts by Bill Lacy, who ran Thompson's 1994 Senate bid, to put his stamp on the presidential campaign.

This is all so lame.

---Thompson "ducked" the debate.

Why has SO much weight been put on this one debate? There will be others.

---Thompson's announcement was "scripted."

Does anyone announce a candidacy without some prepared statement?

---Thompson avoided "the unscripted debate, which raised troublesome issues important to conservative primary voters."

What a joke! "Troublesome issues." I have no doubt that Thompson could handle himself extremely well in a debate forum.

---Thompson's campaign staff is in a state of upheaval.

There have been some changes. So what? Speaking of staff changes, remember Al Gore's revolving door during his presidential bid?

...Thompson already has raised eyebrows on taxes; traveling last month in Iowa, he refused to rule out raising taxes.

"You can't win a Republican primary for the presidency without clearly stating you're not going to raise taxes," said Pat Toomey, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania who heads the anti-tax group Club for Growth. "He's been able to avoid taking a lot of shots."

Thompson's campaign also has stumbled, raising less money than expected and weathering a stream of staff departures amid grumbling about the active role Thompson's wife, Jeri, has played in the formerly unofficial campaign.

"Let's say we chalk it up to working the kinks out," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said. "But they have to run a near-perfect campaign from here on out, because they've got a lot of catching up to do."

Now the bar is set high for Thompson, who will be judged on how much money he raises, how his announcement goes and the kind of campaign team he assembles, Fabrizio said.

Reading this article, you'd think Thompson was a complete oaf.

That's wishful thinking on the part of the libs.

...But there's more to Thompson than his conservative voting record as a senator from Tennessee. As an actor — he plays gruff district attorney Arthur Branch on television's "Law & Order" — Thompson has a certain magnetism.

Another magnetic personality, former President Clinton, acknowledged as much Wednesday on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"Because of his movie roles and his television roles, he has got a certain swagger," Clinton said. "He is smart. And he knows what to say, and how to say it, to appeal to a certain big swath of the American electorate."

Is that supposed to turn off conservative voters?

Bill Clinton believes Thompson has the swagger it takes to be president. He admires Thompson's acting ability.

Anyone Bill likes has to be bad, right?

The suggestion is that Thompson isn't the real deal. He's stepped into the role of a presidential candidate.

I expect the Dems and his Republican opponents to use his work as an actor against Thompson.

Of course, that's not going to work.

Two words: Ronald Reagan.

It is rather amusing to watch the lib media and politicians and activists target Thompson. I doubt that any of their breathless criticism will stick.

It's all surface stuff.

In the end, voters will judge Thompson on substance, not debate attendance.

Fred Thompson: "I'm Running for President of the United States"

Former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson, left, tells host Jay Leno that he is formally joining the 2008 White House race, during the taping of 'The Tonight Show with Jay Leno' at the NBC Studios in Burbank, Calif., Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2007. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

When a candidate announces his run for the presidency on a taped TV show, has he officially announced his candidacy before the show airs?

Yes!

Fred Thompson made it official. He's running for president.

Following in Arnold Schwarzenegger's footsteps, Thompson used Jay Leno's Tonight Show as his forum to address the public.

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Fred Thompson — veteran actor, former Republican senator — launched his bid for the presidency Hollywood style. "I'm running for president of the United States," Thompson told Jay Leno in a taped appearance on NBC's "Tonight Show" airing Wednesday night.

Thompson called top opponents Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney formidable but added: "I think I will be, too" as he rejected the notion that he was getting into the race too late, only four months before voting begins.

"I don't think people are going to say, 'You know, that guy would make a very good president but he just didn't get in soon enough,'" Thompson said as the studio audience laughed. Poking at his rivals who have been running since the year began, he added: "If you can't get your message out in a few months, you're probably not ever going to get it out."

In a multi-phased campaign rollout, Thompson also called attention to his candidacy with a 30-second ad broadcast during a Republican debate in New Hampshire that he skipped. He will explain the rationale for his candidacy during a 15-minute Webcast on his campaign Internet site just after midnight.

FINALLY!

Fred is in!

From Politico:

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.

Thompson rejected the notion that he has waited too long to get into the race for the White House.

"People treat politicians sort of like the dentist -- they don't have anything to do with them till they have to," he said.

"I wasn't in the room when they made the rules, so I had to kind of follow my own lead," Thompson said, adding that he doubts voters will say: "That guy would make a very good president, but he didn't get in soon enough."

Leno joked with Thompson about how long he has been "testing the waters," asking: "Are you starting to get a little wrinkly?"

"These wrinkles don't come from the water," Thompson, 65, replied, to laughter. Referring to a guest announcement Leno made just before the segment, he joked: "I've been mistaken for Dr. Phil."

Just after midnight, Thompson will post an announcement video on his website.

Former senator John Edwards started the trend. Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Sam Brownback, among others, followed suit. And now, late into the primary season, Fred Thompson too is announcing his candidacy via an online video, to be posted on his Web site at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

The difference is, Thompson's video announcement clocks in at 15 minutes -- longer than Edwards's, Clinton's Obama's and Brownback's combined. In the YouTubesphere, the length of a video, especially a politically-oriented video, is often as important as its content. And 15 minutes, some online strategists said, "would feel like an eternity." Even for the telegenic Thompson, who played New York City Disrict Attorney Arthur Branch in the popular TV show "Law & Order."

"Maybe the video is aimed at the 'Law & Order' audience that's used to Branch's long speeches in the court room before commercial breaks," quipped Colin Delany at epolitics.com. "Or maybe his campaign haven't been paying attention on what works on sites like YouTube." Added Dan Manatt of PoliticsTV.com: "It's a big red flag that his announcement video is that long. It seems that Fred Thompson is not only late to the party when it comes to election, he's late to the party when it comes to figuring out how to do an announcement video."

Officials at the Thompson campaign were eager to explain the video's length. As the latest candidate to announce a White House bid, the former two-term senator is unknown to most Americans, and the video, aides said, is his "official statement to the electorate." It's part bio-pic, part motivational pitch that distinguishes Thompson from the crowded Republican field, said Eric Livingston, who heads the campaign's online team. "The senator didn't jump into the race a year ago," Livingston added. "People haven't heard as much from him."

Scanning the lib media, I see a bunch of people analyzing Thompson's many errors.

Why is Thompson doomed?

Let me count the ways!

We get spin about Thompson's Leno appearance, spin about his announcement video, and spin about his failure to show up at the New Hampshire debate.


A demonstrator dressed as a duck carries a sign noting the absence of former U.S. Senator and likely Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson (R-TN), before a debate among the other Republican presidential candidates, at the University of New Hampshire in Durham, New Hampshire September 5, 2007. REUTERS/Brian Snyder (UNITED STATES)

That has to be a Ron Paul supporter in that duck suit.

Judging by the duck's buddies, I think it definitely is one of Paul's quacks.

Notice all the Ron Paul signs?


REUTERS/Lisa Hornak (UNITED STATES)

I think it's ridiculous for Republicans, and probably some incognito Democrats posing as Republicans, to be criticizing Thompson for not participating in the New Hampshire debate.

It's just one debate.

I can't count how many times I've heard talking heads warn about how dangerous it is to tick off New Hampshire voters. Supposedly, they're offended that Thompson was a no-show on Wednesday night.

Give me a break!

New Hampshire has 4 electoral votes.

Yeah, it's a make or break state.

Oh, no! What would Thompson do without New Hampshire?

Right.

Time to get a grip.

Here's the reality, the big picture:

Thompson's appearance on Leno's show will not determine the outcome of the '08 election.

The length of Thompson's announcement video will not determine the outcome of the '08 election.

Thompson's absence at the September 5 New Hampshire debate will not determine the outcome of the '08 election.

Fred Thompson and the Leno Factor

The long-awaited announcement from Fred Thompson is almost here.

In a couple of days, he'll officially join the Republican field of candidates for the presidency.

Some think he waited too long. Others think he should wait a bit longer, to avoid appearing that he's trying to get out of participating in the New Hampshire debate. Still others think Thompson's timing is just right.

That sort of analysis is for the pundits and insiders. It's irrelevant. What matters is how Thompson relates to Americans and how receptive they are to his vision for the country. What counts is votes.

I don't think the majority of voters care about campaign strategy. If they like what Thompson has to offer, they'll support him. They aren't thinking about the timing of his announcement.

Anyway, it can hardly be seen as being too late when the bulk of American voters aren't engaged in Election 2008 politics at all yet.

I know the primaries are a different ball game than the general election, but it's not as if primary voters constitute an exclusive club of party activists. Any and all voters are eligible to participate.

A candidate's challenge is to reach beyond the traditional targets of primary territory and spark the interest of the larger population, building support and raising funds.

Too late, too early, or just right aren't the only things with which Thompson's critics are finding fault.

There's the matter of Thompson choosing to appear on the Tonight Show rather than join the other Republican candidates at the debate in New Hampshire. For some reason, that's supposed to be dirty politics or viewed as cowardly.

Tim Russert brought up the Leno factor on Sunday's Meet the Press.

MR. RUSSERT: Mary Matalin, on Wednesday night, all the other Republicans will be on a stage debating in New Hampshire. Fred Thompson will be on Jay Leno. Is that appropriate?

MS. MATALIN: And guess what? Who do you think has the largest audience at that time? Jay Leno has 31 percent of the audience at the time immediately preceding the video. This is a message-driven campaign, and we want to drive people, and the biggest place to do that was Jay Leno. We want to drive him right at 12:01 to hear Fred Thompson’s principles, which is the definition of performance. I don’t know what they mean by performance. I know what he means by performance. It is getting your principles out there, and we want to drive him right to the video so they don’t have to go through the prism of us. You can read it, and you can see it, and you can hear it and deliver his principles. Thank you, Jay Leno.

MR. SHRUM: Performance, Mary, means, can he answer basic questions, I think, about, that people now have about Republicans. For example, should you vote Republican for—to end the war in Iraq? Should you vote Republican for a better health care plan? Should you vote Republican for a better economy.

MR. MURPHY: No, Bob, you’re...

MS. MATALIN: Oh.

MR. MURPHY: You’re going into the general election wedge issues. Nice try, but this is the primary we’re talking about.

MS. MATALIN: I hope Hillary hires you. That’s great, frame it up there quick.

MR. SHRUM: I’m not for anybody.

MR. MURPHY: The question, can he...

MS. MATALIN: There’s not a question he cannot answer.

MR. MURPHY: Can he up his message game, and can he working a media environment more hostile than Fox? Those are the two questions I think he’s set up to answer, but he’s got to go do it.

MR. CARVILLE: Yeah, he does.

Russert's question about the appropriateness of Thompson's appearance on Leno is just goofy.

Soliciting sex in a public restroom is inappropriate. Paying Leno a visit is not. Furthermore, no candidate is bound to participate in debates. They do so by choice.

I'm so glad that all this yapping about Thompson's campaign strategy will soon be over.

The focus will be off Thompson's "when" and turn to his "what."

Can Thompson work in a media environment more hostile than FOX?

What a stupid question!

He already has.

These pundits are wasting their breath.

I really look forward to later this week, when Thompson finally gets off the sidelines and takes his place on the field.

I think in terms of exposure, it's a smart move for Thompson to use Leno's large audience and September 5 program as a launch for his candidacy launch on September 6.

It'll be much more effective than showing up at a debate with just a fraction of the viewers that Leno draws.

Fred Thompson's Announcement Tour

The speculation about when Fred Thompson will officially announce his candidacy for President is over.

From I'm with Fred:

Fred is going to be traveling around the country in the days after he announces his candidacy for President on September 6th. Below is the schedule of events. Please review the event schedule and check back the afternoon of Friday, August 31st to RSVP for bus tour events.

Thursday, September 6
Morning - Des Moines, IA
Evening - Council Bluffs, IA

Friday, September 7
Morning - Sioux City, IA
Evening - Mason City, IA

Saturday, September 8
Morning - Cedar Rapids, IA
Afternoon - Davenport, IA
Evening - Portsmouth, NH

Sunday, September 9
Afternoon - Manchester, NH
Evening - Nashua, NH

Monday, September 10
Morning - Charleston, SC
Afternoon - Columbia, SC

This seems to douse speculation that Thompson will announce during a Wednesday night appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

Really Lame AP Article on Fred Thompson

The Associated Press continues on its crusade to squash the Republican field of presidential candidates.

This article is laughable. It's entitled, "Thompson is sparse on policy positions."

Funny. I don't recall seeing an article like "(Insert Democrat's name here) is sparse on policy positions."

That's particularly telling given the fact that Democrats are so pathetically vague on policy, and when they do attempt to say something of substance, it often has disastrous consequences.

Barack Obama's incredible run of inane foreign policy statements would be an example.

And Hillary Clinton's game plan is more pander, cleavage, and fake accents than policy.

John Edwards, of course, will say anything, as he's led around by the nose by his wife, beholden to the radicals of the Left-wing blogosphere.

Yet Thompson is the one labeled "sparse" on policy.

WASHINGTON -- Republicans rushing to embrace Fred Thompson's would-be presidential candidacy might have trouble figuring out what he would do if he actually won the White House.

On most public policy issues, the former Tennessee senator and "Law & Order" actor has offered few, if any, specifics. Even on the dominant issue of the 2008 campaign — the war in Iraq — Thompson has carefully stopped short of wading into what he would do about the conflict should he inherit it, although he has generally backed President Bush.

And while not yet offering a broad foreign policy vision, some of Thompson's statements on the subject border on the impolitic, including comments maligning the Mexican, French and Russian governments.

What few clues there are about the direction a Thompson administration might take come from his growing body of online writings, a smattering of recent speeches and statements, and a somewhat sparse eight-year Senate record.

This clearly was written in direct response to the beating that Obama and Hillary Clinton have taken in recent weeks on foreign policy matters. It's like a debate rebuttal, an effort to pick up the slack and cover their tracks for them.

Thompson has made "comments maligning the Mexican, French and Russian governments"?

Give me a break about Thompson's allegedly mean remarks.

Has Thompson called for the invasion of Pakistan like Obama did?

More importantly, if you want to hone in on comments maligning governments, let's talk about how the Democrat candidates have ripped the Bush administration to shreds.

They have more criticism for the U.S. government than any foreign government. That's somewhat amusing considering that they are active players in the government and bear responsibility.

Even worse than how the Democrats have maligned the government is how they've maligned our military men and women.

I wonder what new statements Obama has in store regarding our troops engaging in the slaughter of civilians.

After setting up the premise that Thompson is sparse on positions, the article goes into specifics on where Thompson stands on the issues.

If this piece by AP writer Liz Sidoti were a high school essay, she'd be docked for lacking a coherent thesis statement.

Broadly, he favors a strong federalist approach that emphasizes personal liberties and fiscal conservatism.

"Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and, with too much power, such centralization has a way of compounding our problems," Thompson wrote in a recent column on his Web site. "This was among the great insights of 1787," when the Constitution was adopted, "and it is just as vital in 2007."

He adds: "How we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom, are questions we must answer."

Thompson also:

_Splits with Bush on immigration, opposing the president's comprehensive immigration law overhaul bill and, instead, argues for increased border security as well as full enforcement of current federal immigration laws. The issue has divided the GOP, and Thompson is seeking the support of Republicans who object to illegal immigrants getting a path to U.S. citizenship.

In one online column, he says: "Federal law must be enforced, or our neighborhoods will continue to be the scene of chilling and lurid crimes committed by those who broke the law in the first place to come to America."

_Appears to take a hard-line approach to foreign policy. He criticizes the United Nations, saying the world body "seems to oppose human freedom rather than promote it." And, in one particularly incendiary commentary for ABC radio in April, he carried on about the perception of the U.S. around the world and its relationships with certain countries.

He assails Mexico on immigration, arguing that leaders there "apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens while complaining about U.S. immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own." He adds: "The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo."

Thompson saves his most aggressive comments for Russia, contending that ex-KGB agents "apparently" run the country, use their oil wealth to engage in blackmail, and dispose of people who cross them. "Oppose the Russian leadership, and you could trip and fall off a tall building or stumble into the path of a bullet."

_Emphasizes individuals' right to keep and bear arms, as well as the right to own and keep property. He suggests in one online piece that the Virginia Tech massacre could have been deterred had those who were at least age 21 and met certain criteria been allowed to carry concealed weapons on school grounds. In the Senate, Thompson voted against requiring criminal background checks for purchases at gun shows.

In a recent commentary, he assailed a 2005 Supreme Court decision giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

_Calls Bush's tax cuts a "success story" that helped grow the economy and says: "Letting them expire would amount to a tax hike of historic proportions." He also says the president should hold the line on spending.

Thompson already ranks in the top-tier of the GOP field in national polls and is in strong contention as well in early voting states. But he significantly lags his top long-running rivals in organization and money.

_On Iraq, Thompson said recently in London: "We need to do everything possible to avoid the appearance of utter weakness."

Based on what Sidoti lays out here, is it really that hard for voters to figure out what Thompson would do if he actually won the White House?

It seems much clearer to me than what Hillary would do, and she's been running for the presidency as far back as when Bill was rushing through all those last minute pardons before President Bush took the reins of the country in January 2001. Actually, it goes back farther than that. Hillary began running for president when she became a New Yorker.

This article spells out more about Thompson's philosophy than months of Obama's substance-free speeches, laden with platitudes. Of course, he does much better when he says nothing. When Obama gets down to details, he goes down the tubes.

Bottom line:

I think these unfounded attacks by libs on Fred Thompson's record and political philosophy, as well as the despicable slams on his wife, reveal how threatened the Left is by a strong candidate that many Republicans are poised to support.

Fred Thompson the Lawyer

Fred Thompson hasn't announced that he's running for president yet and The Washington Post has already started the process of picking Thompson apart.

Just as The Post and other media outlets picked and picked at George Allen until so much damage had been done to his character that Virginia voters actually elected the bizarro Jim Webb, the media are exposing the "real" Thompson.

Today, The Post offers what's probably just a beginning installment of a campaign to derail Thompson's political future.

John Solomon writes that a review of Thompson's past as a lawyer reveals behavior that runs counter to conservative principles.

In a lengthy piece, "No Easy Verdict on Thompson the Lawyer," the conservative credentials of Thompson are called into question.

Before he was elected as a tough-on-crime U.S. senator from Tennessee or played a New York prosecutor on TV's "Law and Order," Fred Dalton Thompson worked as a lawyer who argued against the government's authority to regulate drug paraphernalia or to search a boat packed with 14 tons of marijuana.

Once, two decades ago, he urged that more witnesses refuse to testify before grand juries by invoking their constitutional right against self-incrimination, boasting that "I start on the assumption that my client will not testify." And over the years, lawsuits he filed helped a state worker win reinstatement to her job while exposing a parole bribery scheme and won money for the family of a Marine pilot killed by a helicopter blade when the family could not sue the Defense Department.

Thompson's work as a lawyer from the late 1970s to the early 1990s is one of the least explored aspects of a career that has taken the Tennessean with the imposing frame and deep voice from early fame as a Watergate lawyer to a Senate career, Hollywood stardom and now the brink of a campaign for president.

His work representing white-collar criminals, drug defendants and lawsuit victims has given Thompson an affinity with one of the Republican Party's perennial targets, trial lawyers, and he carries that connection with him even today as he prepares to seek the GOP presidential nomination. It also helped shape a view on lawsuit reform that has frequently put him at odds with his own party.

Although Thompson's work as a lawyer is one of the least explored aspects of his life's work, I'm sure every detail that could turn conservatives against him will surface.

I think it's insulting to conservatives that they tend to be considered incapable of making value judgments and grasping nuance. The condescending lib media assume that conservatives view people and the world in black and white, with no subtle shades.

As a lawyer Thompson argued against the government's authority to regulate drug paraphernalia and to search a boat packed with 14 tons of marijuana.

And when the unsophisticated, religious, rednecks hear that, libs expect them to be so horrified that they'll bail on Thompson.

I doubt that what Thompson did as a lawyer 15-30 years ago will erode his support.

Just because Thompson argued a case about privacy that happened to involve pot doesn't mean that supporters will consider him to be a liberal masquerading as a conservative. It doesn't mean that Thompson is a friend of criminals.

...Officially, Thompson and his aides declined to answer questions about his legal work on the grounds that he is not a declared candidate. Privately, his advisers said they are acutely aware that GOP opponents could try to paint Thompson as too liberal, based on his legal work, his support from the trial lawyers' lobby and his votes on liability legislation that conflicted with those of most Republicans.

"There will always be a concern that he wants to be the leader of the cobra party, and he was, for a while, a mongoose," said Grover Norquist, head of the Americans for Tax Reform, which supported tort reform and is influential in GOP circles. "He needs to articulate not where he was while practicing law under the tort laws at the time but where he think those laws should go now."

I don't think it's only GOP opponents that will try to paint Thompson as a lib. I'm sure the campaign workers of Dem candidates are busy looking for anything that will diminish Thompson in the eyes of conservative voters.

To counter that, Thompson has to be clear about where he stands now and what his views are on the issues. A presidential candidate is an entirely different role than a lawyer.

Moreover, if Thompson has to answer for what he did as a lawyer, then so should every other candidate with a legal background, including Hillary Clinton.

It's taken for granted that after all these years, we know all there is to know about Hillary.

I think relatively few Americans are familiar with specifics of her legal career and her radical activism when she was a student.

If Thompson is liberal, then Hillary must be labeled a Leninist.

As a conservative, there's no question that I'd rather support a liberal like Thompson than a liberal like Hillary.
_________________________

This protester challenging Thompson's conservatism doesn't seem like a conservative to me.

She's out of control. She's acting like a lib.

A woman screaming “you’re not a real conservative, sir” was removed by police from a welcoming reception for likely GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson Wednesday morning. A second protester was also taken from the room.

Houston police officers escorted the woman — as well as a man — from the hangar at Hobby Airport, where Thompson was shaking hands with a crowd of supporters. They were not arrested.

...After the woman interrupted Thompson by questioning his conservative credentials, the likely candidate said, “Don’t fuss at me. You asked me a question. Let me answer it.” He told the woman, “I try to learn as much as I can from all viewpoints.”

Later, she shouted at Thompson as the news conference ended. Police officers took her outside a fenced area near the hangar, and stood with her until the former Tennessee senator departed.

I think this woman is a lib who wanted to get on camera and sway conservatives with her message that Thompson isn't a real conservative.

I think she's probably a lib pretending to be a conservative upset with Thompson.

Watch the video. There's something insincere about the woman.

Fred Thompson's 4th of July Announcement

Fred Thompson was supposed to finally make it official on the 4th of July and announce his candidacy for president.

Not going to happen.

WASHINGTON -- Fred Thompson, who was once expected to announce his presidential candidacy on the Fourth of July, has decided not to rush into the contest, since he is already passing rivals as a noncandidate.

The former Tennessee senator is outpolling Republican rival John McCain, whose cash-strapped presidential campaign fired some staffers Monday and asked others to work for free. As a noncandidate, Thompson doesn't have to worry about the mechanics of running a campaign.

But Thompson's success has not gone unnoticed by rival campaigns or the media, both of which have turned up the heat on the TV and film actor in recent weeks.

During the weekend, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Thompson "doesn't have a lot of experience." And The New York Times ran a front-page story scrutinizing Thompson's grown sons, who are lobbyists.

"I think a lot of it is just fear," Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo said. "Our Republican rivals don't know what to make of this movement.

"It is very hard for somebody who has been running for, in some cases, well over two years to turn around and look in their rearview mirror and see a guy blowing by you who wasn't even thinking about it six months ago, who hadn't raised a nickel up until June 4th, and yet who's having all of this unbelievable success without too much effort."

...As for the earlier reports of a Fourth of July announcement, campaign aides said that was an unfounded rumor that didn't come from them.

Sure, Thompson personally benefits by not formally getting into the race and joining the field of Republican candidates.

But what about the GOP v. the Democrat Party?

In terms of fund-raising, the Republicans are way behind the Dems.

Two more Republican presidential candidates disclosed new fund-raising totals today that underscored the tough political environment for their party and the big money advantage that the Democrats have built so far.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who led the Republican field in money raised in the first three months of the year, said donations to his primary campaign had dropped by a third in the second quarter, to $14 million from $20.5 million.

...Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, raised slightly more in the second quarter than he did in the first: $17 million including $2 million that he can use only if he wins the Republican nomination, versus $16 million. But unlike the first quarter, when his fund-raising operation was just getting up and running, his campaign was fully operational in the second quarter.

...Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani released the figures a day after Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, reported that he raised less money in the second quarter than in the first, would slash the size of his staff and would focus his campaign on just a few early voting states.

...Charles Black, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain, suggested that part of what was happening was that some donors were holding back to see if another Republican — in particular, former Senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee — enters the race, as he is expected to do formally in the next few weeks.

“The general mood is bad throughout the party,” Mr. Black said. “There are some donors that are used to giving money all the time, and there are a whole bunch of people who are more casual donors who need to be fired up. The Democrats on the other hand are totally fired up, intensely fired up against the president.”

I consider this to be a serious problem.

The Republicans are idling while the Dems are putting the pedal to the metal.

I was hoping that by the 4th an announcement from Fred Thompson would jump-start the Republicans.

I was hoping that momentum and attention would shift away from the Dems.

According to strategists from both parties, the "gap in enthusiasm and confidence between the [Republicans and the Dems is being] driven in part by President Bush’s low approval ratings, the war in Iraq and the failure of any of the Republican candidates to emerge as a clear front-runner."

It seems to me that the Republicans are missing an opportunity. The Dem Congress has the lowest approval ratings EVER.

The war in Iraq would remain an issue, but if Thompson would make a definitive move now, the Republicans could make hay from the lowest ever approval ratings of the Dem Congress and a Republican front-runner might emerge.

That would bolster confidence and build enthusiasm among Republicans.

Thompson could bring some excitement and interest to the race. He could fire things up.

Instead, his failure to announce his candidacy is acting as a drag on the party's hopes for 2008.

At present, Thompson's approach has to be seen as a detriment.

That's not the role he was supposed to play.

Fred Thompson Ready to Announce

After months of teasing, Fred Thompson plans to announce on Tuesday.

Yes, he will.

No, he won't.

I thought Chuck Hagel's goofy, hyped announcement that he was putting off making an announcement about announcing a run for the presidency was about as lame an announcement could get.

It's possible that Thompson may be topping Hagel.

EXCLUSIVE from WSMV-TV:

Fred Thompson is set to announce that Nashville will be the home of his national campaign headquarters, WSMV is reporting.

A source close to the campaign planning tells WSMV that that Thompson planned to announce his candidacy on the steps of the historic Fall School Building Tuesday, but Thompson campaign officials deny that Tuesday's announcement is an official run for the White House.

..."Everything's in place for tuesday," the source told WSMV. "There are three major events built around his announcement." But Bob Davis, the Tennessee Republican Party Chairman, and Thompson's former Chief of Staff says "There will not be an announcement Tuesday."

I guess Thompson has decided he needs to test the waters about having his national campaign headquarters in Nashville before he commits.

I wonder if Thompson is utilizing a Hollywood publicist to plant these leaks.

It's hype on a blockbuster scale.

Has Thompson cut a deal with McDonald's for a Happy Meal promotion for his campaign?

Will Thompson surpass Shrek in the history of hype?

Bottom line: Thompson can't announce the location of his national campaign headquarters until he officially gets in the race.

I will be so glad when this is over. It shouldn't be long now.

Soon Thompson will toss his hat in the ring and these stunts will be history.

Then the focus can be on matters that actually matter.