The Occasional Observer

I have to admit being truly baffled about the Fred Thompson buzz. Novak's out with a column today stating that he's a serious threat to win the nomination. Novak knows the lay of the land, so I'm in no position to argue with him. But that doesn't answer the bigger question: why?

Why would a one-and-a-half term former Senator, with no executive experience whatosever, and a fairly low-key tenure on Capitol Hill, be rating so highly among the politically active GOP class?

I mean, surveying the ruins of the once mighty GOP majority, itself shipwrecked on the rocks of fiscal irresponsibility and executive incomeptency (whether W failed in substance or merely lost the PR war over Iraq and Katrina, he failed either way), one would think that GOP voters wouldn't want to take any chances in '08. They would want to vote for a conservative candidate who has the proven ability to run large, complex organizations; to balance budgets and cut spending; and to make the right calls under pressure.

Clearly a lot of Republicans are looking at Thompson and making the judgment that he seems like that kind of man. But why are they overlooking the current field, with two candidates that have proven the ability to do these things?

The answer I keep hearing: because Romney and Giuliani are not real social conservatives. In my personal opinion, I think that can accurately be said about Rudy and not Mitt. But even if these Fred Thompson supporters are not inclined to believe Mitt's conversion on life issues, I would ask this follow up: fine, Rudy and Mitt are out for you, but why Fred?

If the goal is to get a "real" social conservative, there are plenty of other options that are already in the field. And if you are as concerned with executive competency as I am, you could still get a more "pure" SoCon with some actual experience as an executive (Huckabee, T. Thompson, Gilmore). In addition to proving themselves as capable governors, Huckabee and Tommy were also able to maintain political support over time, something that would be a welcome change for our next standard-bearer.

Now, I'm not a Huckabee or T. Thompson supporter. I think Mitt is the right man at the right time. But almost any option makes more sense to me than Fred Thompson, who has been out of politics, lacked the fire to keep up the fight in DC, has never run anything, and wasn't a prominent leader in the organization he was a part of, the Senate caucus.

Do I think Fred's right on most of the issues? Sure I do. But I'm not willing to support a candidate just because he checks off the same issue boxes that I do. Not anymore. The past 8 years have shown me that political movements rise and fall not just on ideology, but on job performance. I need both from my next candidate.