I found this article on Townhall talkiing about the possibility of Fred Thompson running for president, and sent it on to Greg, because he had just been telling me recently what a good candidate Thompson would be. I hadn’t heard of him before, but Greg’s opinion squares with this columnist’s:

It is a major development because Thompson has so many undeniable qualifications for the nomination. First and foremost, he is a true-blue conservative, comfortable with all the positions on social issues (abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc.) that give Rudy Giuliani so much difficulty and that have inspired John McCain and Mitt Romney to “flip-flop” in recent years to curry favor with social conservatives. In the second place, he is (as his television career demonstrates) an immensely attractive personality at 64, with a rumpled and thoughtful charm. Thirdly, his service for eight years in the U.S. Senate (four times Barack Obama’s current tenure) attests to his success as a political leader. And finally, he hails from a border state — Tennessee — with all that implies for electability in the South and elsewhere.

The second and third points are good enough — who wouldn’t want a president with “rumpled and thoughtful charm”? — but it’s the first one that means the most to me. And it seems to me that even if you’re not a conservative, you might want a “true-blue” conservative for the Republican candidate as well

The reason is to advance the national debate at least one step. Liberals say that the interests of all Americans would be best served by a liberal agenda intelligently and vigorously carried out. Conservatives say the same about a conservative agenda.

We have now tried a “New Democrat” — Clinton — and a “compassionate conservative” — Bush. In order to mollify fence-sitters, we’ve had both a Republican and a Democrat that have watered down the agenda, to the annoyance of their party loyalists, the fury of their respective kook fringes and the befuddlement of the fence-sitters themselves. Clinton did it with NAFTA and pulling back from healthcare reform, not to mention having to compromise on getting gays openly into the military. Bush has done it with his profligate un-Republican spending, his compromises on things like No Child Left Behind and the prescription drug program, and his position on immigration (work visas?).

It seems like no matter which Democrat we have as a candidate, we’re likely to get a no-compromise, no-holds-barred liberal.

Dandy!

Let’s stop waffling, for goodness’ sake. Bring on Hillary or Obama, and I hope they’re as pinko/lefty/Socialist as they wanna be. It’s time to find out once and for all who’s right — uh, correct, I mean. If the ideology of pure liberalism is as destructive as I think it is, it’ll be clear to everyone that it isn’t the direction we need to be going. If it turns out to be wonderful and leads to new days of prosperity, industry, strength, peace and moral decency — hurray! I would be glad to be proved wrong.

On the other hand, if we elect a true and unalloyed conservative, I hope the guy doesn’t pull any punches either. There’s simply no point right now in trying to build bridges, because the chasm has grown larger than the Grand Canyon. Bush has been trying since he got into office to extend the hand of friendship and all he has to show for it are bloody stumps where his fingers used to be. Besides, sorry to break it to the many people who have a horror of all disputative unpleasantness, but the simple fact is that neither side want a bridge. Those on the left think they can best govern the country; those on the right think they can best govern the country. Why would you build a bridge away from what you think is the best and only answer to a noisy gaggle of numbskulls?

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Fred Thompson has a real uphill battle — he’s getting into the race late, doesn’t have the big backers that the other guys have, and hasn’t got a lot of name recognition (unless you’re a “Law & Order” fan, maybe, since he’s been a regular on that show). There’s a much better chance that the GOP guy will be Giuliani or Romney. Giuliani’s stance on gay marriage and abortion mark him as a “rhino” — Republican In Name Only — and Romney doesn’t seem to be a true believer either. (There are, of course, other problems with Romney, but that’s a story for another bloggy day.)
Too bad. It would be great to actually settle this debate, or at least have some real evidence to go on. Until then, it’s all an unsettled question, which means it’s likely to continue being an endless harangue with both sides trying to out-shout each other.

So, Thompson in ‘08! Hillary or Obama in ‘08! If not, Earplugs and Valium in ‘09! Rah rah!