Check out Fred Thompson

Carol over at Missoulopolis posts a link to Fred Thompson's address to Iowans.

His address reminds us of why so many of us were intrigued and indeed excited about his candidacy. He has really been going at it on the campaign trail recently, and he has been quietly assembling and impressive collection of policy statements and white papers on his website that is perhaps the most substantive of any Republican candidate.

It sure would be nice to see him turn in a surprisingly strong showing in Iowa. He is shooting for no less than second place -- quite ambitious in a state where supposedly only Huckabee and Romney have a chance to win.

We've said it before, but the race just keeps getting more interesting -- may the surprises to come be ones that are pleasant ones for conservatives of every stripe.

Giuliani criticized by New Yorkers for not being a hater

Yes, it's really true:

Just read the venerable New York Post editorial entitled "Rudy the Yankee Flipper," subtitled "Mass.-kisser roots for Red Sox," and with the first sentence reading: "Call him Judas Giuliani."

You see, Giuliani "revealed yesterday that he is backing the hated Boston Red Sox in the World Series." Harsh? Not really. Part of the job description of being a Yankees fan is hating the Boston Red Sox.

His reasoning was pretty weak:

"I'm an American League fan, and I go with the American League team - maybe with exception of the Mets," he said. "Maybe that would be the one time I wouldn't, because I'm loyal to New York."

Given that Montana Headlines is a Yankees-free zone and that we are Red Sox fans (same difference,) we aren't inclined to take it easy on Giuliani. The biggest reason why a Giuliani vs. Clinton matchup would be such a disaster for the country has nothing to do with the authoritarian streak that both share, and even less to do with their similar stances on abortion.

It is that no matter what, we would have a Yankees fan in the White House. And opportunistic fans of the Yankees are the worst -- Giuliani has proven that while he is still ahead of Clinton on that score, we're beginning to wonder.

So is all of New York:

Richard Gerber, 69, a retired garment salesman, said Giuliani was trying to peel away votes from GOP rival Mitt Romney, the ex-Massachusetts governor.

"It's hypocritical. He's a New Yorker," said Gerber.

Giuliani's siding with the Sox surprised even his New York campaign team.

"I question his Yankee credentials. If you're a big Yankee fan, you have to hate the Red Sox," said Guy Molinari, New York co-chair of the Giuliani campaign.

They've even figured this game out down in Tennessee, where they may talk slower than they do in New York, but apparently think faster:

"We thought Mayor Giuliani's endorsement of Democrat Mario Cuomo [in 1994] was rooting for the other team," Republican rival Fred Thompson's campaign said in a statement. "But for Yankee fans, this might be a new low."

Could it be that Giuliani may have to drop out for having failed to hate sufficiently? Stay tuned.

Romney: The first thing we do, let's call all the lawyers

You didn't need to be a pundit extraordinaire to know what the sound bite was going to be from tonight's GOP debate.

The collective "Whaaaat?" of millions of Republicans could be heard when Mitt Romney, not just once but twice, said that he would have to ask "the lawyers" whether it was within his power as President to do a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities without Congressional authorization.

There were two answers possible. One was Ron Paul's correct response -- namely that only Congress has the power to declare war, and that we've never had a situation in our nation's history where we knew about an impending attack and didn't have time to consult Congress. He was ridiculed for this by Rudy 9/11 Giuliani -- on whom the Paul's argument was lost, and who tried to turn Paul's statement into one where he said that America had never been attacked.

The other possible answer was some variation on the theme that other candidates used: yes, you get Congressional authorization if there's time, but not if there isn't.

Fred Thompson had a solid response, saying that there would always be time at least to consult with Congressional leadership, pointing out that no matter how urgent something might be -- eventually you need the support of the American people in any armed conflict, and without the help of Congress, you aren't likely to get that support.

While Romney otherwise turned in a solid performance in the debate, somehow he managed with this particular (and predictable) question to come up with an inexplicable third way -- it was one of those moments when his corporate experience was a real liability, since his answer conjured up teams of corporate handler/lawyers instructing the President on what to do in a potential national security emergency.

How exactly would Romney think that he would have time to call in his attorneys but not leaders of Congress? Good question. We imagine that Romney and his handlers will be up late tonight formulating answers to that and other questions.

Thompson gets it right on federalism -- but will the GOP get it?

Fred Thompson has already taken hits from some conservatives in his own party because of his votes against federal tort reform measures when he was a Senator. While there are those who like to imply that Thompson's votes were more reflective of his having spent most of his working life as an attorney, there is no evidence that Thompson hasn't generally been an across-the-board federalist.

The Club for Growth's recent White Paper on Thompson notes that he did vote for pork in Tennessee, but that it wasn't ridiculous (cf. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska,) and that it would be hard to find someone who didn't vote for federal spending in his own district or state.

Thompson has decided to step firmly into another particular sticky (for Republicans) federalist argument -- the Terry Schiavo case. When asked about it, he understandably wasn't excited about dredging it up, but when he spoke, it was clear:

"Local matters, generally speaking, should be left to the locals," Thompson said Thursday in what seemed to be a gentle way of suggesting that Congress had overstepped its bounds. "I think Congress has got an awful lot to keep up with."

Thompson also made sure not to impugn the motives of any of the religious conservatives whose support he now needs for his presidential campaign. "I know that good people were doing what they thought was best," he said.

Just so -- on both counts. There were disturbing things about the Schiavo case -- most disturbing of which was that decisions about her care weren't being made by the family members who seem to have cared the most about her. So it was understandable that the case was an emotional one for some conservatives concerned about the erosion of respect for human life. But this was essentially a family dispute that normally would be resolved amicably with the help of responsible physicians -- and that would normally not get past local, let alone state, courts and government. The involvement of the U.S. Congress in the case was a unwarranted direct interjection of the federal government into what was already a difficult situation for all concerned.

If we really want state and local governments to handle their own affairs without interference from the feds, we conservatives need to be consistent -- even when we find that the right thing isn't being done at the state and local level. To do otherwise makes a mockery of our federalist principles, and goes a long ways towards proving that modern Republicans are just as interested in the exercise of naked power by the federal government as Democrats have been for many decades. And not just through drunken sailor spending.

Thompson is to be commended for his stance -- it will incidentally make the GOP a more attractive place for basically conservative but recently alienated suburban voters. One hopes that those social conservatives whose initial response is an angry "what?!" will thoughtfully reflect on what Thompson has said, and learn something about Constitutional separation of powers.

Rudy Giuliani is attractive to many of those suburban voters, but he would lead the GOP and the country in a less than ideal direction, both from a social perspective and an authoritarian perspective.

If Thompson can walk that line that shows that he is a strong conservative -- but that he will not jettison traditional conservative restraint to pursue pet agendas on the right through means usually associated with liberals -- he may be just what the doctor ordered for an ailing GOP.

Recent word is that Thompson is proving to be very good connecting one-on-one in talking with voters, but there are still questions about his effectiveness in speeches and interviews -- a must for a successful GOP campaign in 2008. Conservatives continue anxiously to watch the entire GOP field to see if the leader we need will emerge.

Giuliani is big, Romney is rich, Fred Thompson has Big and Rich -- but Mike Huckabee is bad and righteous

Not only did John Rich of "Big and Rich" play at a Nashville fundraiser for Fred Thompson, but "Redneck Woman" Gretchen Wilson and Cowboy Troy (the world's premier country rap-star) were both there to boost Fred too.

John played acoustic guitar and sang “The Battle of New Orleans,” Johnny Horton's hit about previous Tennessee president Andrew Jackson's days as a general in the War of 1812. He also performed the Big & Rich hit “Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy.”

No word on where Big Kenny stands politically, but regardless, it would seem to be hard for the other candidates to beat this kind of firepower.

Except... that Mike Huckabee can actually play this stuff himself, whether with a pickup band or with his own band of "Capitol Offense." And we now know who Elvis is endorsing. And, if Huckabee and his band can inspire stolid New England Republicans to get down and boogie, just where will it all end?

Look out, Fred Thompson -- you're playing a most dangerous game...

Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich -- together?

In one of the most interesting bits of political gossip swirling recently, there is evidence that Newt Gingrich may be positioning himself to back Fred Thompson.

Polarizing as Gingrich is, he is one of the smartest guys out there, with a command of policy and of how government works. For some of the Clinton years, he was essentially Prime Minister of the U.S., reminding some of the historically minded followers of politics of the days when Congressional leaders were far more powerful than Presidents.

Gingrich would make a tremendous addition to the Thompson team. He has to know that he himself has little chance of being elected President, even if he were to win the nomination -- so the next best thing is to be on the team of the one Republican who might be able to win.

Early polls are showing Guiliani running stronger against the leading Dems, but this is probably ephemeral, since the more the GOP gets to know Guiliani, the more his support slips. Without an enthusiastic base, no Republican can win in 2008.

Fred Thompson leads in two more national polls

Until now, only the Rasmussen national polls have had Thompson in the lead over Rudy Guiliani.

Now, both the most recent Zogby poll and the most recent Harris poll have Thompson with a narrow lead. As noted before, he is doing remarkably well as a non-candidate.

The downer is that he will be expected to do even better when he is a formal, working candidate -- a point that has yet to be proven. The fact that the Dems are attacking him on all fronts, though, is an encouraging sign.

Random Fred Thompson notes

There is a piece at New West by someone who declares that in Thompson, there is finally "a real candidate." That, of course, gives short shrift to the other fine candidates in the Republican party, who are definitely real, regardless of their polling numbers.

Yet, he has a point -- in fact, he has a number of good ones, and his gut level feeling is shared by nearly all conservatives we talk to. While our Thompsonesque leanings are clear here at MH, we still remain skittish and skeptical. We still need to see how he performs under fire.

Regarding money, Thompson has been caught in a bit of a bind. It is clearly to his advantage not to declare as a formal candidate yet. But in delaying a formal declaration, he doesn't yet have to do the formal paperwork regarding finances.

Democrats have been all over this, planning to file charges against Thompson. For a party that is sure to capture the White House and to expand their majorities in Congress, they are acting awfully concerned about Thompson.

The charge is a bogus one, since once Thompson formally declares, he will retroactively have to report all of the donations that he received during the "exploratory" phase. That is why Thompson is only accepting donations that meet FEC guidelines.

So, in a deliciously good move, Thompson has made his Friends of Fred Thompson a 527 organization -- he will now be able to report all money just as his opponents are demanding, yet keep formally out of the race with the psychological advantages he has in that position. And he is on the right side of McCain-Feingold, just like Michael Moore, George Soros, and all the other big-money types dedicated to defeating Republicans.

And those narrow-minded religious conservatives appear to be prepared to back Thompson -- a not terribly religious guy, and just as MH would have predicted, Rudy Guiliani is actually their back-up candidate. Guiliani may be a social liberal, but he pushes all of the right strict-constructionist buttons, and by not backing off from his personal views, doesn't seem phony like Romney.

Sunday roundup and branding -- the Gazette, and beyond...

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

Carbon County Moos on the brucellosis affair: Over the last couple of days, Montana Headlines has been expressing opinions on the recent brucellosis happenings. We've referred readers to blogging rancher Sarpy Sam, and now want to do the same for Karbon Kounty Moos, whose story is a more up-front and personal one -- and should be read.

The Democrats are coming, the Democrats are coming!: To take over the intermountain West politically, that is. As Montana Headlines has pointed out before, the Democratic resurgence in this region is real, and has many causes.

One, of course, is that the West has never been as solidly Republican as is commonly assumed. Another is big-spending Republicans on the national stage and an ill-conceived (and then botched) war.

Yet another is the combination of Republicans getting lazy and flat-out beat on the ground in this region -- not having the imagination and creativity to deal with shifting demographics and issues of concern while still holding onto core principles.

And there is, of course, the fact that the Democratic party has finally figured out that in order to win in the West, they have to abandon -- or at least soft-pedal -- some of their liberal shibboleths (think Senator Tester on gun rights or illegal immigration.)

Having the opposition co-opt one's positions, of course, means that Republicans have won certain battles. It also means that Republicans have to be bright enough to realize that if they try to keep using the same old play-book, they're going to keep getting beat.

A Republican resurgence in the West will come -- the fundamentals are still stacked in our favor -- but we will need some good leaders.

Deployment limits: This past week, attempts were made in the Senate to place limits on the length of deployments to Iraq and to mandate periods of time at home between tours in Iraq. Both attempts failed to get the required 60 votes to move forward. Both Montana Senators voted for the limitations, and both Wyoming Senators voted against the limitations.

Here in the Montana blogosphere, reaction from the left included an R-r@ted one from Left in the West, and from somewhere in the general vicinity of the right, The Western Word likewise expressed disappointment that the bill didn't pass.

Having limitations on the length and number of overseas combat tours and on length of time between tours is nothing new. Many of the old-timers from WWII recall that the mindset at that time was that no-one came home until the war was won. That wasn't exactly true, since very late in the war, a Advanced Service Rating Score was initiated to help decide who got to go home first.

But this system was developed by the military itself -- they had a mission to accomplish, and after winning in Europe, they had an excess of troops overseas. They wanted an equitable way of determining who came home when.

In Vietnam, the idea of a one year tour of duty was developed -- again by the military itself. Its wisdom has been debated, but it is how things were done at that time. (In most wars, flight crews have often had their tours determined by the number of missions or sorties they are required to fly, rather than measuring the tour according to a certain length of time.)

Anyone who has served in the military knows exactly how long they could potentially be sent on an overseas TDY, and whether and for how long that tour could be extended -- again, all under military regulations for the particular branch of service at that time. There is nothing quite like getting on a military aircraft in time of conflict, not being exactly sure where you are going or when (or whether) you will be coming back. That is, however, an intrinsic part of military service.

The military itself has two competing interests that have to be taken into consideration in deciding how long tours are, who does them, and who has to return for further tours: First -- accomplishment of their assigned mission, and second, recruitment and retention. From the military's perspective, this is a balancing act, and it varies from service to service and from job to job within each branch of service.

Even when a draft is on, the balancing act continues with regard to "recruitment" and retention, since drafts are politically unpopular, and also because some draftees elected to extend their time in service voluntarily.

Ultimately, these decisions need to be made within the military itself. Congress has no role in making such decisions, and Sens. Tester and Baucus were wrong to vote for the Webb amendment.

Some felt that since Webb was a combat veteran, that he should have been heeded. In fact, as a combat veteran and former Secretary of the Navy, Webb knew better than to introduce this amendment. It was a politicized act meant to tie the President's hands in Iraq. In some cases it may have helped troops and the mission, and in other cases it would have hurt both. Regardless, it is not the job of Congress to decide.

As Montana Headlines has repeatedly stated, what Congress can do is to deauthorize a military action. To "undeclare war," so to speak. The proposed Byrd amendment sounds like an approach that is constitutional. Sen Tester has, incidentally, expressed his support for this amendment.

Granted, the Byrd amendment hasn't materialized yet, so we don't know exactly how it will be worded.

In general, Sen. Byrd has been a strong proponent of holding firmly to separation of powers -- which in recent years has meant holding firm against executive over-reach. He has also in the past spoken about "the pitfalls of usurping the Executive Branch’s role in an ongoing war," so one supposes the legislation will be carefully written to reflect that as well.

Lonely older women will hate Fred Thompson: According to Susan Estrich, that is. Keep in mind that Estrich is famous for her brilliant management of the Dukakis presidential campaign. But she is an entertaining political commentator.

The upshot of her recent commentary is that older single women are tired of seeing single guys their age date and marry younger women (a shocking recent trend,) and they will take it out on Fred Thompson by voting for the other guy (or gal,) since Thompson married a "trophy wife."

Sounds like Estrich is miffed that Thompson didn't chase her during nearly his two decades of being single.

Another liberated modern woman had the same first impression, but on looking at the situation again, realized that she was following the kinds of prejudices that she would condemn in others.

How will it all end up? Who knows? But early indications are interesting -- liberals have sniped at Thompson for being married to a 40 year old blonde who has the audacity to be sexy, smart, successful, and Republican (those danged liberated women -- gotta do something about 'em,) and they've even floated the rumor that Thompson is gay (and you can just hear them add, "not that there's anything wrong with that...")

Now where have we seen the homosexual-friendly Democratic Party indulge in gay-baiting before? Oh, yeah. Right here in Montana.

Anyway, it is interesting that Democrats seem to have directed more fire at the undeclared Thompson than they have on all of the other GOP candidates combined.

The Loonies are coming, the Loonies are coming!: The strong Canadian dollar has cash registers ka-chinging in northern Montana.

The taxability of the $400 election-year "check in every pot": We have already discussed the needlessly complicated means of getting that golden $400 check from the Montana government.

Now, we learn from the Missoula Independent that those who itemized deductions on their income-tax return in 2006 will have to declare the $400, while those who took the standard deduction in 2006 won't have to declare it as income.

According to H & R Block District Tax Specialist Nancy Eik, that’s because itemized returns allow for larger deductions, so “you already got a deduction for the $400 last year.”

Huh?

Let's try that another way: the purpose of a standard deduction is to eliminate the hassle and paperwork of itemized deductions, both for the majority of taxpayers and for the government.

The number is set at a level determined by the government to exceed the amount of deductions that most taxpayers would be able to take. Therefore, by definition, those who don't itemize are almost always getting a bigger deduction than they would otherwise be entitled to.

So this "tax specialist" has it exactly backwards, it would seem.

This little part of the bill would seem to be yet another bit of election-year pandering (should we be surprised, given that the entire schemata is designed around election-year pandering?)

Most Montanans presumably take a standard deduction rather than itemizing, so most Montanans won't have to declare the $400 check as income. And most of those who do have to declare it as income probably weren't going to vote Democrat in the first place.

You've gotta hand it to the Democratic strategists in Montana -- they're no amateurs.

Attorney-client privilege

It seems that the relationship between attorney and client has been taking a bit of a beating lately. Yes, this includes Harriet Miers, who apparently really wasn't the President's personal in-house counsel -- at least according to the Democratic Congress that plans to do nothing but fishing expeditions for the next two years.

But Montana Headlines was thinking more of the start of what promises to be a long list of clients that Fred Thompson had over his career as an attorney.

Maybe we're looking at this too simplistically, but it seems that when we go in to talk to an attorney about any legal matter, we have the expectation that said attorney will not disclose what we said, what was advised, and what was done. The story is ours to tell, if we want to tell it.

And even if we choose to disclose something ourselves, one would think that any ethical attorney would refrain from making any further comments about matters discussed. After all, who is in a better position to know the damage that revealed private information can have than the attorney?

So, Fred Thompson was very wise when he made the following statement, blogging on the prestigious conservative site Powerline:

I’m certainly not surprised that such a diverse career is being mined by others. As we get further into this political season we will undoubtedly see the further intersection of law, politics and the mainstream media.

However I intend to keep in mind the appropriate distinction and separation between law and politics, and I do not intend to get sucked in to doing a disservice to either of them or to myself.

In other words, he's not going to tell legal tales out of school, and will protect the privacy of his clients. In this day and age when every American has reason to be concerned about the access that others can have to our personal data, financial records, phone calls, e-mail, and medical records -- one suspects that Thompson's stance will resonate.

Thompson leading Rasmussen for 3rd straight week

Most polls are still showing Fred Thompson in a solid 2nd place in the national polls. The Rasmussen weekly polls, however, have shown a stronger trend toward Thompson. For the third week in a row, Thompson has been out front, most recently 27% - 24% over Rudy Guiliani. This is just inside the margin of error.

There have been concerning signs that Thompson isn't as sharp on the campaign trail as we would hope. He will have to be a fast learner, or he will fall as sharply as he has risen.

NBC/WSJ poll -- Thompson solidly in second place

The latest major poll was the NBC/WSJ one released late last week.

It confirms that Fred Thompson is solidly in second place behind Rudy Guiliani -- 29% to 20 %. Guiliani lost 4 points from the last poll -- Thompson went up 3 points.

Mitt Romney slightly gained ground compared to the last NBC/WSJ poll, from 12% to 14%.

John McCain, not unexpectedly, plummeted from 22% to 14 % into a tie for 3rd place with Romney. McCain believes he is right in championing the disastrous immigration reform "compromise," and McCain has always said that he would rather be right than be President. It looks like he will get his druthers.

Things remain fluid, with many polls indicating that fewer than 10% of voters -- even in saturated early primary states -- are firmly settled on a candidate.

Although there is a long ways to go, a few things can probably be said with confidence.

First, Thompson's entry into the race will mean Gingrich is going to stay out -- just as well, since we need a fresh start.

Second, none of the 2nd tier candidates are going to have a chance to move up into the first tier. While there are good ideas and policies to be found amongst the 2nd tier candidates (think Ron Paul and his reminders to Republicans of our anti-interventionist heritage, think Tancredo and Hunter on immigration, think Mike Huckabee backing the Fair Tax) there is no-one there who would be a top-level general election candidate. The debate performances have demonstrated that.

Third, Guiliani continues his slow slide downward in all of the major polls -- but remains unquestionably the man to beat.

It should be remembered, though, that having a socially liberal candidate like Guiliani at the top of the heap is an anomaly caused by one major factor: the antipathy that the "heir-apparent," John McCain, elicits from rank-and-file Republicans. This left an unusual gaping void early-on, and Guiliani was adept enough to step quickly into that void before a conservative Republican stepped forward (OK, Romney tried, by changing all of his positions to match those of the base -- but Republicans aren't biting.)

Unfortunately, he doesn't have the stuff to fill the entire void -- he's great on tough-guy take-charge stuff, but his liberal records on gun-control, immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. make him someone who won't be able to rally the base. Thus Thompson's improbable grassroots surge.

Fred Thompson tied with Guiliani

It stands to reason that just when Montana Headlines resolves not to post anything more about Fred Thompson's campaign for at least a week that a poll result comes out that is even more striking than the LA Times/Bloomberg one that we discussed yesterday. We had assumed that Thompson would for some time stay well ahead of McCain and Romney, but remain a bit behind Guiliani in the polls.

We thought wrong. The most recent Rasmussen poll has Thompson and Guiliani tied for the lead at 24% each. Thompson's 7 point advance over the past week corresponded exactly to Romney's 4 point drop plus McCain's 3 point drop. Each are now sitting at 11%.

This is McCain's poorest showing since the weekly Rasmussen polls began back in January.

Romney is back in the 8-12% range where he has languished for all but his recent pre-Thompson blip in late May, when he crept up to 15-16% for 3 weeks after digging deep into his ample campaign coffers.

Fred Thompson has yet to spend a dime.

Those candidates who have been campaigning for President since high school (at least that's how it feels to this fatigued observer) have to be irritated by Thompson's instant appearance at the top. Rasmussen describes the rise in his polling numbers as "meteoric" compared to the usual blip a candidate gets when first announcing an intention to run.

Guiliani's stategy has been to let the conservatives split their vote while moderates and single-issue 9/11 voters consolidate behind him -- and it may still work.

Romney's strategy has been to raise oodles of money and spend it all in Iowa and New Hampshire -- and it may still work.

McCain's strategy has been to rely on the Republican habit of using the "OK, now it's your turn" approach to choosing nominees -- and it might have worked, had immigration reform not emerged as one of the clear uniting factors in the GOP.

The GOP base hasn't liked McCain for years, and now that McCain is opposite the party majority on this issue (and on the side of über-boogeyman Sen. Kennedy and on the side of a President whose approval ratings are approaching Fred Thompson's shoe size,) it is hard to see McCain recovering.

The Rasmussen polls are done differently from all other polls, using automated polling of quite large samples (which has both advantages and disadvantages) rather than the usual technique of using small samples and live interviewers. So this result may or may not be confirmed in other polls.

But as MH pointed out yesterday, what is going on at this point is that the majority of the GOP has never been satisfied with the slate of candidates on offer thus far. That sentiment is now being expressed as "Fred Thompson" in polls rather than as "none of the above."

To further the baseball metaphor begun yesterday, it looks like the catcher has called for a batting-practice fastball across the middle of the plate. We'll see if Thompson can hit it. We think he can, but when the curveballs and sliders start to come, that's when we'll find out if he belongs in The Show.

(Let's see if Kemmick can find a mixed metaphor in that one.)

Fred Thompson closing on Guiliani

The latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows that Rudy Guiliani's lead in the polls has narrowed, with the only thing having changed being the entry of Fred Thompson into the race. Guiliani has 27%, Thompson has leaped to 21%. McCain is eating dust at 12%, with George Will's baby -- Mitt Romney -- eating even McCain's dust at 10%.

Thompson has still to spend a dollar.

George Will, who can be a good columnist when he wants to be, did a recent highly publicized sniffing dismissal of Thompson's candidacy -- a piece that drew some choice comments from Ramesh Ponnuru over at National Review. Ponnuru muses that he doesn't "see anything that justifies Will's hauteur," but anyone who is aware of the fact that Will has a thing for Mitt Romney knows exactly what Will is miffed about. It isn't about who Thompson is -- it's about whom Thompson will most immediately and directly hurt.

Some time back, Montana Headlines made the observation that it was a good sign that Thompson was getting hit from both left and right. Someone over at Enter Stage Right has the same thoughts:

Lefties want to quickly define him for voters as either a Bush lackey or the Genghis Kahn of tyrannical conservative values. They don't care why he loses, so long as he loses. Any losing ID will work. They just need to paint fast before people can judge Thompson for themselves!

Righties are equally quick to cast doubt on his "conservative" credentials, working harder to disqualify Thompson's clear grassroots advantage than to chronicle Obama's missing resumé or Hillary's criminally Marxist resumé.

We might have used some slightly different language (for starters, how does one "disqualify an advantage," -- and if Hillary is "Marxist," what epithets remain to describe John Edwards?) but the observations are spot-on. Thompson has a lot of people worried.

What is particularly interesting is that even those who are backing Thompson strongly aren't making any excuses for him. This is partly a factor of how skittish we all are, partly an honest appraisal of the fact that he is a very unproven commodity on the presidential campaign trail, and partly a reflection on Thompson himself, who is so obviously comfortable in his own skin that no-one is worrying that he's going to throw a temper-tantrum if he doesn't get his ego stroked by everyone.

The folks in the Republican base (you know, the people who give the money, knock on doors, and crawl over broken glass to vote Republican) have been making it very clear just how unhappy they are with the currently available choices. They've decided that Thompson is the first viable candidate that they've come across, and the "Draft Thompson" movement seems to be the real deal.

The fact that Thompson is being drafted should also tell people a few things about the core of the Republican base.

First, being religiously right isn't the main thing -- if so, they would have rallied behind Brownback -- instead, he has had trouble breaking 1% in most polls.

Second, being an extreme hawk on the "war on terror" isn't everything -- Rudy and McCain lead the field there.

Third, immigration reform is a big deal, but not the only deal -- otherwise Tancredo would be tearing up the field.

Fourth, ideological purity isn't necessary -- otherwise Duncan Hunter would be leading the pack.

If appealing to the base were a matter of checking off purity boxes, no-one would be considering a man who voted for McCain-Feingold, who voted against several federal tort reform measures, and whose pro-life stance is firm and heartfelt, but realistic and grounded on principles of federalism and the right of states to make their own laws (Roe v Wade, no -- federal Constitutional amendment, also no.)

But everyone is saying the same thing about Thompson's candidacy -- to use a baseball analogy (for George Will's benefit -- we imagine he's a regular reader of Montana Headlines,) Thompson has been handed a bat and invited to the plate. Now he has to prove that he can smack it over the fence. A whole lot of people are rooting him on. But only he can do it -- and nobody, not even his biggest cheerleaders, knows whether he can do it or not.

In the most recent dead-tree issue of National Review, David Frum put it well in an article entitled "Memo to GOP: Get a Grip." The upshot of his article is what Michael Reagan has been saying for years, and what one hopes more Republicans are going to wake up to -- Ronald Reagan was right for his time, and now what we need is not a Reagan clone, but rather a conservative who is right for our time. The old line-up of principles haven't stopped being true -- but what problems Americans are most concerned about has certainly changed. What a country is concerned about always changes.

Frum aptly observes that Republicans are going to be about as successful keeping the GOP vote coming just because it was Reagan's party as Tip O'Neill et al were in keeping Democrats loyal to their party out of gratitude for the New Deal.

Thompson's punditry over the last year or so shows that he has his finger on the pulse like no other Republican candidate -- whether he has the ability to translate that sense into a message, policy positions, and the nomination is unknown. The fact that the GOP base is latching onto onto Thompson, and not someone else, is probably an indication that maybe the GOP is, indeed, starting to get a grip.

_________________________

Postscript: What is really going to be interesting is if Al Gore gets into the race (he'd be stupid not to, and the Dems would be stupid not to nominate him given this year's choices.) Forget the Electoral College -- the question is, who would win Tennessee in a Gore v. Thompson matchup?

McCain explained; Thompson moves into second place

After struggling on multiple occasions to explain why the GOP base regards John McCain as having the grownup version of kindergarten cooties, we will now simply refer inquiring minds to the Montana Misanthrope, whose penetrating brevity on the subject is unmatched.

______________________

No surprises here: Fred Thompson, after having done nothing more than form an exploratory committee and put up a website for folks to donate and join a mailing list, has moved into second place in the first national poll of likely Republican primary voters performed since he made that announcement. Someone over at Townhall.com, in reporting that news, made the following correct observation:

In April and May, many Republican insiders who consider themselves conservative, but not the wacky right, burned up telephone lines in search of an alternative to what many view as an uninspired group of candidates. When Thompson's name emerged, those close to him seized the moment.

Thompson's conservative purity is already being questioned by some (doubtless supporters of miffed back-of-the-pack candidates,) which is a good sign.

No matter how they slice it, anyone of sense is going to see Thompson as more authentically conservative than the other major candidates.

Unless Thompson messes it up (and he has yet to prove his ability to actually be a candidate) it looks like it may come down to him and Guiliani.

Romney comes to Montana

GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is coming to Montana for the state GOP convention. Regular readers of Montana Headlines will know that we are less than enthused about the possibility of having Romney as the GOP presidential nominee.

The sentiment is shared by many Montana Republicans. At the annual Lincoln-Reagan day dinner in Billings earlier this year, which was very well-attended, a grand total of two people apparently raised their hands for Romney when keynote speaker Stephen Moore did a straw poll of attendees about support for the various leading GOP contenders.

He appears to be a good family man, and has favorably impressed GOP audiences in primary states in that regard, especially when compared to Guiliani, McCain, and Gingrich. It is telling that this year, even someone like Fred Thompson, who was divorced and remained single for 20 years before remarrying a few years ago, is a regular pillar of respectability compared to those three.

He also has a strong managerial background. If the Presidency were determined by a resume review, Romney would be selected by the board of directors as America's CEO. But he doesn't stand a chance against any of the leading Democratic contenders.

As the Gazette article points out, Montana won't have any effect on the nomination this season, but it is of course always good to have a presidential nominee bring some political attention to Montana. For that, Romney is to be commended.

Based on at least one on-line straw poll broken down by state, Fred Thompson has the strongest support in Montana of the leading contenders -- and based on general tendencies of Montana Republican voting, that is probably correct.

Romney has been good-natured about Thompson's entry into the race and has avoided giving any appearance of desperation, but he is the candidate most likely to be immediately put out of business by Thompson's entry into the race. Romney has been courting the GOP base, which hasn't been enthused about any of the candidates -- but the move has already been swift toward Thompson.
After it became clear that Thompson was getting in, there have reportedly been quiet expressions of buyer's regret by some GOP elected officials and party leaders who had already declared support for Romney.

But getting back to the Montana convention, the most important speaker at the conference is not going to be Romney. It is going to be Erik Iverson, the only announced candidate for state chairman. The party needs a fresh tone and a winning direction -- the basically conservative but quiet majority of the party is going to be quite interested in the tone Iverson sets and in the course he charts.