The reason that the Republicans are in such trouble is, pretty obviously, because everybody really hates Bush. Thompson is such a horrible, horrible candidate because he has no defense against an "8 more years of Bush" attack. He's not liberal on social issues like Romney, he's not trying to be an economic populist like Huckabee could be, he hasn't staked out and antiwar position like Hagel, he doesn't have a bio like Giuliani that will allow people to overlook everything else... He's DOA.

The Republican's primary (pun intended) problem is that the candidates in their stable that could potentially challenge the Dem nominee (Romney, Giuliani) in the general election are too distasteful to the Republican base, while the base's candidates (Huckabee, Brownback) would get steamrolled in the general election. They can thank Karl Rove for this predicament.

He's really big on law & order issues. GOP loves that.

Thompson seems less like Ronald Reagan and more like the Republican mirror-image of Edwards: easy-going if sharp of mind and tongue, smooth talking, charming, and 'sexy' (for DC). Also, one-term senators.

If either man had been a governor for a while, they might be perceived as more serious candidates. But when you get right down to it, they're pretty forgetable.

Reagan was one-of-a-kind, and everyone knew it.

This is a perfectly good question, though one to which I have only conventional wisdom to offer. Basically it's this: Thompson is a guy whose political record in the Senate was a big zero; whose only real claim to fame is being a character actor on TV and in films; who has done nothing to distinguish himself this year except deliver a few vaguely Reaganesque pastiches in a nice baritone; who is apparently not Christian enough for James Dobson's taste; who has no known issues that he really cares deeply about; and whose most famous quality is his laziness.

That resume sounds damn near identical to 2 out of the last 3 GOP Presidents.

In the last 50 years California has elected two actors as Governor (and one of them then became President of the US), and one song-and-dance man as US Senator.

Thompson is a credible candidate in this sense--he can play a President. That is all some people seem to require--that and a bunch of conservative-to-Neanderthal views on more peripheral social issues. And he has as much experience as Obama.

George Allen was to be the heir apparent. But he stumbled into macaca and is out. They don't really have anyone credible at this point. Thompson is more plausible than Giuliani, really, and will play the role much better. My money is on him to be the nominee.

They are a bankrupt party because they don't really believe in government, except as a means to transfer wealth from us to them.

Thompson seems soft as a marshmallow. The cuddly grandpa image is far different from Reagan.
Also, there's the image of his wife, decades younger than him. That may be sexy to some people, but it won't play well with the base.
In fact, I wish some bloggers would take to "mistakenly" describing sightings of Thompson out with his young daughter in public, when he goes out with his wife

What's the difference between Thompson and Edwards? I prefer Edwards to any current GOP candidate, but frankly, he didn't do anything in the Senate. His "work" on poverty since his one term has been lame, at best. (That pisses me off, because I care about poverty and haven't seen him deliver anything!)

Everything Edwards says now is tailored to appeal to a faction of the Democratic base and isn't really representative of his tenure in the Senate (e.g. AUMF, and trade). Despite all that, he's considered "genuine". I cannot see how he has escaped the "calculating" tag. Of all the candidates, he strikes me as most politically motivated of all the Dem candidates--and Kucinich who only somewhat recently became a champion of liberal policies (esp. choice).

He talks Southern! Therefore, he is the perfect candidate. Besides, he hasn't been indicted for anything and he hasn't really been involved with the Iraq debacle. Never been photographed in a dress, either. A dream candidate.

Ditto, what gq said.

Fred Thompson is ideal from the standpoint of the Republican base's lowest common denominator. He can present himself as a strong leader who will stand up to liberals and the media.

This description fits successive Republican Presidents -- Nixon, Reagan, the elder Bush during the Gulf War, the younger Bush after 9/11 -- who otherwise have little in common. Republicans who appeared to fall short either in appearing as a strong leader (Ford, the elder Bush in 1992) or in terms of appearing too cordial to liberals and the media (Dole, McCain) struggled to maintain their appeal with the most loyal Republican voters.

It should be obvious that the political reality here is quite different from the actual reality (and for someone from Wisconsin there is an irony also, in that the Thompson who is actually running now -- Tommy Thompson -- really was a strong leader who didn't so much stand up to as run right over liberals and the media when he was governor here). But this is the core of Fred Thompson's appeal; he may be an actor, but he is a very good actor who projects the appearance valued by the Republicans who always vote in their party's primaries.

You forgot to add that Fred's second wife is younger than his kids from his first marriage.

This guy has a huge *yuk* factor.

The American Family Association (rabidly anti-homosexual 'family values' types) has a poll on its main web page (www.afa.net) that shows support among viewers/readers for Republican candidates:

Fred Thompson 38.8%
Newt Gingrich 15.2%
Mitt Romney 12.2%
Rudy Giuliani 9.0%
John McCain 7.5%
Sam Brownback 4.6%
Mike Huckabee 4.6%
Ron Paul 3.3%
Tom Tancredo 3.0%
Duncan Hunter 0.9%
Tommy Thompson 0.7%
Jim Gilmore 0.2%
Chuck Hagel 0.1%

Total votes to date: 112,055

I dunno. Sounds like his resume is at least as impressive as Barrack Obama's.

And, let me add, that Fred was single for 17 years between his first and second marriages. Given his preference for young blonds, I'm sure that that is an unmined vein of scandal waiting to be dug up.

In his show "Dress to Kill", Eddie Izard referred to a psych study that showed that most people respond 70% to how someone looks, 20% to how they sound, and only 10% to what they actually say.

To me, this is the best explanation for why people support candidates like Fred Thompson, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.

Don`t forget that this coming election is seen by most observers that are paying attention as a guaranteed loser for the GOP. Why not put up someone like Thompson so he can get creamed and the GOP can move on to the next fascist in line.

Of course I posted something similar yesterday that suggested that Rudy might be the sacraficial candidate so what do I know ?

"People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.� - Otto von Bismarck

This site has a lot of fun facts about Fred Thompson that his detractors as well as his supporters will love.

Examples:

*There are only 2 things in life that are certain - Death and Fred Thompson.

* If you play Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" backwards, you will hear Fred Thompson loading his shotgun.

Fred Thompson looks like he can perform well as a candidate, and doesn't creep out the base, like Rudy McRomney.

That's all they care about. They see him as a possible winner. I think they may be right. He might beat Hillary, maybe. But he couldn't beat Obama or Edwards, because he looks 80 years old next to them. Future vs. past, old vs. new, etc.

If this were April 1st I would swear that you were pulling our legs with this post. I don't recognize the Red-Staters you refer to, and I live amongst them. In fact, the majority of Democrats fail the logical voter test.

Don't underestimate the power of a character actor. Think about those vaguely familiar, but somehow reassuring, faces you see on TV.

He's got more "base" than you would probably think. Don't write him off, he's a dark horse and those desperate Republicans will flock to him.

Men who excede their wives in age by some considerable amount strike most Americans as abnormal - not fairly, perhaps, but based on the image of radical liberals, like Woody Allen, or radical conservatives, like, well, like every old-world conservative society that has child brides.

I wish him the best in his marriage; but 100+ million Americans are going to be thinking, 'That's kinda f***ed up'.

Rudy looks like he robbed the cradle too, a little bit.

Don't forget, if he runs, there will be a small but measurable percentage of his supporters who think they're voting for the former DA.

There are people out there who write letters to soap-opera characters as if they were real people.

There are people out there (I met two of them) who are convinced that Clinton left the federal budget in deficit and Bush has turned it into a surplus.

If you have to pass a test to be able to drive, there should be a test before you can vote.[Yeah, I know.... who would draw up the test? Who would monitor those who draw up the test? I know. It's all so depressing.]

DNS: You're right.

Remember how bravely Reagan fought in WWII?

There are people who think GW Bush landed the jet himself on the carrier.

It is depressing.

"I chased girls and girls chased me." -Fred Thompson

This guy is a joke.

Memo to Republicans: Please please nominate this man. Being forced to seriously consider a skirt chasing 300 pounder who's fighting cancer is a testament to your desperation.

Is it too obvious to observe that the Karl Roves of the world can work wonders with a guy who can hit his mark and say his lines?

thompson's big strength as a candidate is the fact that he ain't one yet. sort of like a third string quarterback always being more popular than the starter because unlike the starter has yet to throw an interception or lose a game. of course, it's also the biggest indicator of how desperate the gop is at this point. i'm not yet totally sold on the top three democrats but at least i could vote for any of them in a primary or general without holding my nose.

I saw my first Fred bumper sticker today in William$on County, Tennessee.
As alluded to above many people will think Fred was a great Military commander and Big City DA. They just need a story they can embrace and this one is in the visual memory bank.
I would not short sell the possibility that he gets the r nomination.

I concur with much of what was said above. Twice in a row now, the electorate has rejected the demonstrably more competent candidate in favor of the candidate who best projected a "regular guy" image who they thought would be the most fun guy to have a beer with. (Oops - forgot that Gore actually received more votes in 2000...)

I'll add that the main reason the GOP hated Clinton didn't have as much to do with Whitewater or blue dresses as it did with Clinton being someone who was actually interested in policy, and taking an active role in shaping it as well. The Republicans prefer a "CEO presidency", someone who represents the public face of government and spins positive messages for the people while the real decision-making is done by subordinates who are shielded from accountability by the PR division. That's how the corporations the Republicans came up in and admire do business. One can argue that the goal of the GOP when in power is to make government conform more to the corporate model. Hardly an election passes where some Republican candidate doesn't pledge to make government run "more like a business".

Fred Thompson might not be much of a policy-maker, but he'd be one helluva figurehead, and that's all the Republicans are looking for in a chief executive.

I am surprised you haven't done a post on the president's double negative
"Success is not no violence."
I saw that on the scrawl below the tv screen when I walked in the door.
Taken piecemeal , it is so sad. John Edwards is on CNN saying that President Bush must "be stopped."

Well, Thompson reminds some republicans of Reagan--tall, imposing, former movie star.

I think it is becoming irrelevant because the American people want the democrats
to take over this sinking ship. Baring election fraud, they will take charge.
Guiliani is ridiculously playing the fear card

Thanks for clarifying that blip on "Stairway to Heaven" that always bugged me. Do not underestimate the looniness of the modern GOP. Is nominating Thompson any less insane than nominating Giuliani? (Maybe at the convention wife #2 can reprise her role in . . . well, you know.) Maybe our foresight is especially bad, we can't rule out Thompson - or any of the front four, and this is not normal for Republicans.

Just as long as the Democrats hang Bush, Cheney, Gonzo, Rumsfeld and the rest of these liars, thugs and war criminals around the nominee's neck. Well, if we DON'T do that (like the last time), shame on us, and we court defeat.

Hey, it worked for Reagan and it worked for Bush the Younger. It's a tried and true formula.

Hey, Fred Thompson cut and ran from military service in Vietnam by hiding out in grad school, a la Gingrich and Dick "Other Priorities" Cheney. That alone makes him a viable Republican presidential candidate.

The American Family Association (rabidly anti-homosexual 'family values' types) has a poll on its main web page (www.afa.net) that shows support among viewers/readers for Republican candidates:

Good god -- the top five candidates on that list have a grand total of ten marriages among them, four out of the top five are divorced, at least three are confirmed multiple adulterers, and Thompson, McCain and Gingrich are married to women young enough to be their daughters.

Meanwhile the top three Democratic candidates have a grand total of zero divorces among them.

Those are some family values, I tell you what.

Hardly an election passes where some Republican candidate doesn't pledge to make government run "more like a business".

And Bush kept that promise!

Unfortunately that business was Enron.

bill maher got off a very funny line about the big lug on hardball last nite. tweety was laughing uncontrollably -- it was pretty funny.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/01/bill-maher-cracks-up-chris-matthews/

Doesn't anyone remember Paul Tsongas? The Democratic presidential candidate with lymphoma in remission who ran for President? He didn't live much more than a year after that campaign. Lymphoma always gets you eventually -- and stress isn't a great thing. Electing Thompson even if he were not lazy, a big zero in terms of policy or past political efforts, is a very risky business.

jw

Hardly an election passes where some Republican candidate doesn't pledge to make government run "more like a business".

I.e. devoted to making money at the expense of all else, focused on short-term profit at the expense of long-range planning, unwilling to take issues of morality into account, and often resorting to gimmickry and accounting tricks to fool the market into believing things are better than they really are?

Yep, that sounds like the way Republicans run government, all right.

Thompson was known in Hollywood and Washington as "The Tennessee Stud". There's a big demographic that will love that.

But hey — maybe I'm wrong. For a nostalgic look back at the first round of "Thompson for President" mania, check out Michelle Cottle's Washington Monthly profile written shortly after his landslide reelection victory in 1996.

Wasn't Thompson first elected to the Senate with the GOP wave of 1994? I didn't think he ran for a second term, and even if he did, his big "landslide" re-election wouldn't have been until 2000, right?

Or did he first complete the term of a Senator who retired before six years?

Also, I thought he was recently diagnosed with a rather serious form of cancer(although all forms are pretty bad). Wouldn't that put a major damper on a possible presidential run?

Agree he's a Zero but that's pretty impressive-- given the competition.

Sounds like his resume is at least as impressive as Barrack Obama's.

If Thompson is a big zero, that makes Obama, what, negative ten?

And if Obama is negative ten, Edwards, is, what, negative five?

Who had the most distinguished career so far: Thompson, Obama or Edwards? Yep, that would be Thompson.

In 94 Fred won the seat that Gore vacated to be VP in 92. There were only 2 yrs left in the term.

yes al, fred certainly has more acting credits to his name.

oh and al, obama has more political experience than the last guy from illinois elected president.

Obama has more political experience than Reagan did?

;)

If Thompson is a big zero, that makes Obama, what, negative ten?

It makes Obama a much better and more inspiring speaker than professional actor Thompson.

And what is it with the GOP and actors?--they hate Hollywood, but their big heroes are actors like Reagan and Ahnuld.

In 94 Fred won the seat that Gore vacated to be VP in 92. There were only 2 yrs left in the term.

Thanks, forgot Gore was still in the Senate at that time.

After reading Cottle's 1996 piece, we should all refer to Thompson as "former lobbyist Fred Thompson." It looks as though he spent more time doing lobbying work than as a senator, as an attorney, and (more constantly)as an actor.

Kevin is wrong on Thompson. If you listen to him talk, he is pretty good and pretty likeable. Much of the criticism is the same struff that failed against Reagan. The illness may make him unelectable, but otherwise he would be a formidable candidate.

Good, let's hope he runs then. I'm all for it. A sick Bob Dole with a hot young wife. Bring it on. Giuliani-Thompson anyone?

People seem to forget that Ronald Reagan didn't coyly come out of nowhere in 1980, ala Thompson. Reagan gave it a go at the 1968 GOP convention, even before running for real in 1976 only to lose out to Jerry Ford. Thompson is nothing more than a Reagan icon who's being dusted off for examination, and while nostalgia is pleasant at times it doesn't win Presidential elections.

Every time a Southerner takes the reins of the federal government, some sort of bad luck ensues. Carter was a disaster, Clinton saved his skin but ruined the Democratic party, and now Bush II has shamed and bankrupted the United States. The whole conservative movement, with its infamous Southern Strategy, has been nothing but a fulfillment of revenge-fantasies directed at the Federal government, based on the outcome of the Civil War and the Civil Rights Crusade. Without the South, the US would have no native culture worth mentioning; but the success of Southerners in national politics has always brought disaster to somebody. Fred Thompson would be no exception.

Of course there are a lot of people who think they'd be electing the roles Thompson played as an actor - hell, during the 2000 race, a lot of people supported Bush the Lesser because they thought he was his father. About 30% of the electorate are dumber than doornails. Most of that 30% are the Bushist dead-enders who'll vote for whoever has the magical "R" after his name.

I think Giuliani would be a stronger candidate, only because most people still think well of him for his conduct on 9/11. Even then, I doubt one day's worth of heroism is enough to win the White House - not 7 years after the terrorist attacks when everything else has gone to shit and Rudy's offering nothing better than fear and authoritarianism.

Frankly, the GOP is going to need all the vote fraud and corrupt USA mechanizations it can manage, to win in 2008. Its loyal base is the dead-enders and the robber barons - maybe 35% total.

True, Casey. But this time voters will be looking for, indeed expecting those abuses. They will be pissed and spoiling for trouble. And many other Repubs will stay in their hidey-holes.

It never ceases to amaze me the incredible amount but, low quality of drool I see here.

Regurgitating The Apple: How Modern Liberals Think

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev030507a.cfm

So, "Prez" Thompson will appoint Dick Wolf or Nancy Grace as his AG?

And, to that knocking of Citizen Soldier Ron in WWII up thread, just consider the millions of GIs he saved from VD while fighting at "Fort Roach".

Well, at least Central Casting didn't send Ron Silver for the audition.

I'm not too concerned what anyone who can't master posting a clickable link thinks about me and my thought processes, quite frankly. If it's from Heritage it's foam-flecked, frothing-at-the-mouth useless anyway.

I think Fred Thompson is just dreamy. He gets my all sweaty under my Hanes. Oohhh....

The idea that Thompson is "lazy" has some appeal in contrast to persons so motivated by ambition that they dedicate their lives or substantial portions of it to running for president for the sake of being president. Edwards is an example of the gross ambition that creates doubts for me.

"Well, gosh, that there Fred Thompson feller seems like someone I could mebbe sit n' have a beer with. He's got my vote."

"Good god -- the top five candidates on that list have a grand total of ten marriages among them"

Eleven marriages, isn't it? One for Romney, two each for McCain and Thompson, and three each for Gingrich and Giuliani.

When I indulge my conspiracy theory self, I ponder the possibility that the shadow Republicans in the smoke-filled rooms chose Reagan and the junior Bush to play president while they the pulled strings. I suspect the senior Bush was one of them. Junior surprised them with his ability to shut them out in favor of Cheney’s neocon crowd. The two groups share an appreciation that the guy in front just needs to be popular. Hence, Fred Thompson is an ideal candidate and they will try to sell him. So my only question is who is wagging the dog?

I think everyone understands by now that the GOP President is supposed to be a front man.
In fact, they're quite up front about it, blathering about how other countries divide up the formal and the law-making duties.
Anyway, I agree that Bush was a surprise. My term for his term in office, which I'm sure will be universally used in future decades, is "The Pinocchio Presidency".
It fits in so many ways.

Marky, I ahve dusted that off recently myself. (I first used it for Reagan, because he kept having pieces of his nose removed.)

Blue girl, that's interesting! I never saw the phrase used before, but I'm not surprised I'm not the first.
It fits better for Bush, because he really is the puppet who tried to be his own man.

I didn't coin it actually - back in the 80's a Democratic Club in KC put Reagan on a billboard on I-70. He had a tree-branch sticking out of his face. I remember it so well because we got off the interstate, looped back and took a picture of it.

Brian: "Edwards is an example of the gross ambition that creates doubts for me."

But a mush-mouthed alcholic slacker who starts wars for personal profit and self-agrandizement is a-okay. Do you ever listen to yourself?

But, appearances are soooo very important.

Thompson, is out of Central Casting for his presidential look of gravitas. As was and is, Saxby Chambliss, the Senator from Georgia - Now, ole Sax, does look the role of a solon. The well coifed graying hair show wisdom - And, his suits fit him soooooo very well. Not like that crumpled look of his opponent, Max something or other - And, in a wheel chair? Talk about miscast.

Fred Thompson is the most serious threat to face the Dems in '08 so far. He's got a lot of the "qualities" that Ronald Reagan had. In addition, we live in a country that voted for Disaster W Monkey...twice.

Don't under-estimate the American Public's appetite for a good-looking, "straight-talking", actor. The Dems pay every time.

The second Bush presidency is the result of a marketing process similar to what has occurred over the decades with American beer.

So the question is, how little actual President can we give the rubes, and still have a President they will buy?

With Junta Boy, the result was a little too light.

An actual statesman, or even a real politician, like, say Chuck Hagel, would be way, way, too heavy.

Thompson (F.) seems just right.

I still think the problem, though, is that the Thomson they really want -- Mad Meldrim Thomson, former NH Gov., known in these parts as "The Idi Amin of the North" -- is still dead.

He has also pledged to raise some five-million dollars for a 'Scooter Libby defense fund,' clearly indicating a lack of any integrity...

The fact that the conservative noise machine was able to turn a nobody like George W. Bush into a great leader (or someone who was perceived as one by millions of people) shows that they could do it with anyone, including no doubt Fred Thompson. The only thing that might save us is that maybe the experience with Bush has caused the public to wise up a bit, at least temporarily.

Thompson's more of Beltway phenomena than someone who the grassroots are clamoring for. If you look at state--by--state polling, he doesn'r run any better than Romney and worse than Guliani and McCain and that's before he's entered the race. What happens he does enter and shrinks in stature accordingly?

I'll just point out that at this juncture there are seventy-six comments about a potential (and probable) Fred Thompson run for the presidency that has not even emerged yet. If the initial article was about Tommy Thompson or Chuck Hagel, I bet there would be fewer than fifteen.

Think about it, why would Fred Thompson draw so much interest from a primarily liberal audience if he is, as some point out, "a joke?"

I am from Tennessee (William$on County) and there he is considered the likely presidential candidate in 2008. Not because he has a commanding presence or because he is a Tennessean (both positives, I suspect, in a general election) but because he is smart, hard working, and has none of the baggage that those who are involved with the present potentate have. I say this as someone who disagrees strongly with his political positions (which are readily available and typically right wing) but knows Fred Thompson as a polititian and from my family's business with him as a lawyer. He should not be dismissed out of hand.

Kevin, in other words, just described another George Bush, who himself had no real achievements as governor to tout (which doesn't mean he didn't try to claim any). The only difference is that the religious right embraced W.

But the reality of a candidate's record has nothing to do with the perception of one.

Eleven marriages, isn't it? One for Romney, two each for McCain and Thompson, and three each for Gingrich and Giuliani.

Yes, I forgot Giuliani's first marriage to his first cousin.

Remember that Fred Thompson has a loooong history.

He was the Republican Counsel defending Richard Nixon during the impeachment process.

He was a lawyer for the Hoffa Jr. faction of the Teamsters.

Fred thomson might win, becouse he was professionaly trained to overcome the fear of public embarracement. Not all politisians are good at taking humiliating adds. American election process is a kind of ancient initiation ritual, that involves testing contender's humbleness. Kerry is one example. Bush was elected and re-elected becouse he took easy jokes about his idiotism. But that's happened only becouse he grew used to them at school.

Kevin, in other words, just described another Ronald Ragan. I remember when they threw that laughable name (Ragan) out there. I thought what a dufus he will never get elected.

I find the fact that Dobson does not find him "Christan" enough a plus.

I've seen a couple of references to Bush being "elected." He was installed, 5-4, against the will of the American people, in a ruling so embarrassing, the five Justices wouldn't even sign their own names to it - and then had the nerve to state that this ruling should not be considered a precedent. America did not elect Bush in 2000.

Giuliani's first marriage to his first cousin.

Second cousin.

sounds like a one in a million guy.

part ronald reagan

part george bush

should be a superb gop candidate.

Fred Thompson looks like he can perform well as a candidate, and doesn't creep out the base, like Rudy McRomney.

That's all they care about. They see him as a possible winner. I think they may be right. He might beat Hillary, maybe. But he couldn't beat Obama or Edwards, because he looks 80 years old next to them. Future vs. past, old vs. new, etc.
Posted by: Buford P. Stinkleberry on May 2, 2007 at 6:23 PM

Absolutely correct! Go over to CNN and click the gallery link and look at the whole lot of them. The Republican lineup.. well they all look like heavy-smoking, heavy-drinking Stalinist retreads from Russia, UGH. It reminds me of all of the Brezhnev successors that perished rapidly one after one shortly after assuming power.

I think everyone here is underestimating Thompson. He is one of the most famous prosecutors of the twentieth century. As co-chief council for the Watergate Hearings it was Thompson who asked the two questions that are considered to be the ones that led to Nixon’s downfall —"What did the President know, and when did he know it?" and "Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?" He was also the prosecutor who brought down corrupt Governor Blanton in the Tennessee pardon selling scandal, both instances are significant enough to have dozens of books cover them, have been made into movies and are studied by every law student in the country.

He worked as a lobbyist for twenty years on Capital Hill. He was a Senator for eight years, to say he did nothing shows some posters have short memories or were never knowledgeable on the subject. Thompson was a very visible part of the “Contract with America” and it was he who made the famous “dueling tax-cuts” speech in rebuttal to President Clinton’s tax plan, the speech is considered one of the best of the era. He was also the chairman of the Committee on Government Affairs and led the fight with McCain for campaign finance reform.

Since he has retired from the Senate he was selected to led Chief Justice Roberts through the confirmation hearings and is the chairman of the State Department’s bipartisan International Security Advisory Board. To say he is under-qualified is silly; Bush was only governor as long as he was a Senator. Carter was a one-term governor and a 4-year State Congressman. The elder Bush had four years as a Congressman, and held only appointed offices before he was Vice-President. Reagan was only a two-time governor. Ike had no political experience. Hoover held two appointed positions. Coolidge held local and state offices and was a 2-year governor. Wilson too served only two years as governor with no previous experience. Teddy Roosevelt’s resume reads very similar to Coolidge. And the farther I go back; the Presidents will have less and less experience. Thompson has more experience than Guiliani, Romney, Obama or Clinton.

As for not having a stand on issues… he has a stand that is well documented from his time in the Senate. He is both a social and economic conservative in the vein of Reagan, and more right of center than both George and George W.

Republicans have something to be excited about in Thompson. He has a great record, and is their most charismatic candidate since Reagan. He is no nonsense, and has an “everyman” quality. He also has the benefit of being out of politics throughout most of the Bush Presidency. He also has instant celebrity recognition, although most do not know his name they definitely know him when they see him and could recognize him from his voice. America likes celebrities.

The simple fact that he is polling in double digits and has won several straw polls should make you realize he is a top tier candidate. In last week’s Zogby poll it said “if the election were today who would you vote for: Clinton 46, Thompson 40.” Take that in, Hillary has been campaigning and raising money for two years, and Thompson isn’t even a candidate, has no money and no staff and he is running neck and neck with the Dem’s big gun. I think after tonight’s speech on C-Span his stock will shoot through the roof. Since the news broke that he may run, GOP donations have plummeted. Why? Because the big money wants to back him, and is waiting for him to declare.

As for age, having a hot wife and having a benign form of cancer, they are all non-factors. Reagan was older, Cleveland married a little hottie that was only twenty-one, and FDR had polio and all were elected President.

Can you smell that? It smells like fear coming from the liberal camp.

Thompson is purely a media creation -- not a Republican grass-roots creation. He gets talked up by media types.

Sorry rgtiplec, but liberals would be happy to have a zero like Thompson run. The only reason any Republican runs to him is that they look at the current choices and already smell the fear of a sure loss in 2008 -- they are willing to try anything to assuage that feeling.

Hmmmmmm....Let's compare Fred Thompson's resume to:

Barrack Obama - Nuff said.

John Edwards - The best example of what's wrong with tort law. Add his glorious senate tenure and the fact that he couldn't even carry his home state when running for VP.

AND

Hillary Clinton - What has this woman ever done except ride the coat tail of her husband?

He take the thunder from the mountain
He take the lightning from the sky
He bring the strong man to his bended knee
He make the young girls mama cry

You got to hidey-hide
You got to jump and run
You got to hidey hidey-hide
'Cause old Fred's down the road