Your affection for Fred is obvious. If I or the rest of American voters turn off the TV, where will Fred be. Without a record, without a legislative footprint, he is nada.

A meaningful footprint in Congress would surely have added a gravitas and credentials to Thompson rather than his stentorian voice and wooden presence on TV. He is Hollywood’s inexpensive alternative to Gene Hackman as the admiral back on ship or the DA boss back as headquarters approving a plea deal. I do recall Watergate; he played the same walk on bit part to Sam Dash, he was Howard Baker’s boy. As an attorney, he was no heavy lifter like Guiliani. His “clarity of vision of considerable merit,” pales before Rudi and McCain. He is the media alternative to the others. Alternatives tend to shine in the half light before scrutiny and campaigning.

McCain (bless him) is too old and too much of a maverick. Fred, who is very appealing, has neither the energy nor the resume. Rudy is hard headed enough to make a good President in a time of war and might win an election but conservatives will only support him if there is no other viable conservative candidate. He has stumbled badly out of the gate.

There is someone else worth mentioning. He too is appealing, tough, hard headed about GWOT, experienced and young.

I’m smitten by Mitten. The more I see of him the more I like.

Meaningful footprint leavers or not, the House/Senate are poor historical springboards from which to leap to the Presidency.

I’m not holding Thompson’s acting against him. He has hardly been a lightweight attorney (remember Watergate?) and it is increasingly clear he has a clarity of vision of considerable merit, and likely the abilities and connections to deliver thereon.

Yes, I am so tired of hearing the same politically correct answers to the same politically correct questions…

Be a leader or get out of the race…

Jedrury, are you a Weekly Standard opinionist?

Roger: the Novak hyperlink is wrong.