But at least he looks good on Law and Order

In light of Fred Thompson's poor showing thus far in the Republican primaries, a Thompson staffer from an early primary state dishes the dirt:

Here are some other things missing from the campaign:

1) a finance chair

2) a clear chain of command

3) top-down loyalty

4) a candidate who was willing to campaign for more than 4 hours at day

5) direct mail

6) a college student coordinator

7) a media strategy

Other than that, the campaign had everything.

Fred Thompson speaks!

Just what is Fred Thompson saying these days? Let's look at some of the points he makes in this interview with CNN.

Likely Republican White House hopeful Fred Thompson told CNN Friday that he would work to overturn Roe v. Wade if elected president, and would push for a constitutional amendment that protects states from being forced to honor gay marriages performed in other states.

“I don’t think that one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage and have another state be required to follow along,” Thompson told CNN’s John King in an interview Friday.

Now, obviously no state is going to pass a law "requiring" gay marriage. Heterosexual marriage isn't going to become illegal anytime soon! ("Sorry, Harry, you can't get married to Sally.... go find a man and try again.") You could interpret this phrasing as something sinister on his part, but it's probably just a misstatement. Surely, like most Republicans, Fred Thompson would never exploit the fear of gay marriage for political gains. As for Roe v. Wade, nothing new here-- what Republican wouldn't appoint "strict constructionist" judges willing to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Next, he deals with the obvious question: when is he going to get off his butt and officially enter the race?

“We are going to be getting in if we get in, and of course, we are in the testing the waters phase,” he said. “We’re going to be making a statement shortly that will cure all of that. But yeah, we’ll be in traditionally when people get in this race."

Come on, Fred, quit playing around! Jump in already. "We are going to be getting in if we get in"? Technically true, I suppose. One does get in when one gets in. On to Iraq:

Thompson refused to provide a timeline for how much longer US forces would remain in the country under his administration, but said, “We need to make every effort to make sure that we don’t get run out of there with our tail between our legs before we’ve done the job of securing that place.”

Good, because it would be terrible for the world to see the United States with its tail between its legs. Forget a shrewd reassessment of America's strategic interests. What kind of message does that send to our enemies? Far better to stick out every unwinnable situation we find ourselves in.

Finally, Thompson deals with the burning criticism that just won't go away:

Asked about critics who call him “too lazy” to put in the long hours necessary to run for president, Thompson said: “If I have critics in Washington it's not going to come as a surprise to me. I'll have more by the end of this campaign,” adding, “The proof’s in the pudding. I think that’s curable.”

We've dealt with this issue before. You go, Fred. Cure that laziness!

A New Contender for the Republican Nomination

Some people think Fred Thompson is the hot new thing in the race for the Republican nomination. However, they are overlooking a new contender who has surged into the lead. Who is this dark horse, this man of mystery? Is it Ron Paul? After all, Paul, the anti-war libertarian, has received more than half of all campaign contribution from members of the military to Republican candidates:

52.53% Ron Paul
35.4% McCain
7.9% Romney
5.2% Giuliani
2.2% Hunter
2.6% Others

Shocking, no? Sadly, Paul still lingers at the bottom of the actual polls. He is not the dark horse of which I speak. Instead, I'm talking about "None of the above." That's right. According to the latest AP-Ipsos poll, almost 25% percent of Republicans chose "None of the above" when asked which candidate they prefer. That's higher than Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, McCain, or any of the other Republican hopefuls. I can only hope that Mr. "None of the above" has the cajones to withstand the inevitable barrage of negative attacks that are sure to follow the release of these new numbers. Good luck, my friend!

Fred Thompson, Peter Pace, and the Harry Reid "Controversy"

Fred Thompson has decided to jump into the Harry Reid "controversy":

Well, you've heard by now that Senate leader Harry Reid insulted one of this country's brightest military minds, Marine Corps General Peter Pace -- calling him "incompetent."

...

But Reid's comments are not meant for logical analysis. He proclaimed the war lost some time ago, and the surge as a failure even before the additional troops were on the ground. The problem is that every one of Reid's comments I've noted here has also been reported gleefully by Al Jazeera and other anti-American media. Whether he means to or not, he’s encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical war of will.

For those of you who haven't been following this sorry Republican talking point, the gist of it is that Reid (supposedly) called Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, incompetent in a conference call with bloggers. This is, apparently, not only hugely insulting to Pace but a boon to our enemies. So says White House spokesman Tony Snow:

Snow told reporters that he hoped what he had read about Reid is "not true, because in a time of war, for a leader of a party that says its supports the military, it seems outrageous to be issuing slanders toward the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and also the man that is responsible for the bulk of military operations in Iraq.

Of course, Pace will only be responsible for military operation in Iraq until September 30, 2007, because Bush has essentially fired him. (Bush Defense Secretary Robert Gates advised President Bush not to renominate Pace for the job, and Bush agreed.) Pace didn't want to step down:

In his first public comments on the Bush administration's surprise decision to replace him as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace disclosed that he had turned down an offer to voluntarily retire rather than be forced out.

Now, let's get this straight. Calling General Pace incompetent in a conference call gives aid to our enemies, but firing him doesn't? Joe Sudbay at AMERICAblog is all over the cognitive dissonance here:

If Pace is so competent, why is he losing his job as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff while we are in the middle of a war?

Is Tony Snow telling us that it's Pace's competence that has led us to where we are in Iraq? Pace is being fired as our top military commander either because he's incompetent (which is fine) or for purely political reasons (which is not fine in the middle of a war), so which one is it? Either way, Bush made the decision to get rid of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs "in a time of war." And now that Harry Reid agrees with Bush for once, he's the bad guy? Then who is to blame for how horribly things are going in Iraq? Not Bush, apparently. And not the military commanders either, we're now being told. So does the White House blame the troops, or did some magic pixie run the war into the ground when nobody was looking?

There is nothing inherently with either criticizing or firing generals in the middle of a war. We've done it many times before in our history. As Kos puts it:

How many generals did Lincoln go through before he found Grant?

If I was in a satirical mood, I might write something like this:

"Personally, I think it was a huge mistake on Lincoln's part to fire General George McClellan in the Civil War. Not only was it insulting, but it made the Confederacy believe they were winning the war of wills. War isn't about competence and job performance, remember, it's about stick-to-it-ivness. Lincoln should have stood by McClellan through thick and thin. If only he could have turned to Tony Snow for advice, he might have learned a thing or two about leadership."

UPDATE: For more on this topic, check out the excellent Glenn Greenwald:

But beyond that obvious point, the spectacle of George Bush's press secretary lamenting attacks on military officers is just laughable. The President was re-elected following a political convention where his followers mocked John Kerry's purple hearts by waiving around band-aids. And decorated war veterans from John Murtha to Max Cleland to Wes Clark have seen their character and integrity -- not their mere competence -- publicly mauled by the President's political movement.

Obama, Thompson take lead in South Carolina

African-America support has pushed Barack Obama in front of Hillary Clinton, 34% to 25%, in the latest Mason-Dixon poll in South Carolina. John Edwards is in third with 12%, and 24% of respondents are undecided. (Maybe they're going to break for Mike Gravel! Don't laugh... haven't you seen his new avant-garde campaign ad?
'Nuff said.)

Meanwhile, Fred Thompson has taken the lead on the Republican side, leading Rudy Giuliani 25% to 21%, despite the fact that he has yet to officially declare his candidacy. Mitt Romney is third with 11%. McCain really does look like he's finished, polling a paltry 7%.

Is Fred Thompson too lazy to be president?

I have to say, I am impressed by how quickly Fred Thompson has risen in the polls. As Fz points out below, Thompson is now even with Giuliani in the race for the Republican nomination. Will he be able to hold on to his commanding numbers? Tom Dickinson at National Affairs Daily has his doubts:

I fear, though, that Fred’s numbers are softer than his Dixie Drawl. While Thompson may play a Reagan Republican on television, his real-life record is that of a lazy man’s John McCain. Thompson co-chaired his friend’s presidential campaign in 2000, and helped fine-tune McCain’s conservative-detested campaign finance reform law. He’s also has a well earned reputation for laziness. “I don’t do frenetic,” he said recently, predicting a low-key campaign.

Newsweek has the rundown on Fred Thompson's reputation for being a little light on the work ethic:

The former senator turned "Law & Order" actor, who launched an exploratory committee last week, has been dogged by rumors that he doesn't have the work ethic for a long campaign. "The book on him is he's lazy," David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union, said last week. The criticism seems fed by Thompson's time in the Senate, where he maintained a less rigorous schedule than his colleagues and was known to duck out of late-night debates. Of the 90 bills he introduced during his eight years in the Senate, only four became law.

Then there's this amusing quote:

In his yearbook at Lawrenceburg County High, Thompson put this quote next to his senior portrait: "The lazier a man is, the more he plans to do tomorrow."

Which completely sums up how I felt in high school. In any case, it does seem like the issue will be a problem for him. Over at Slate, John Dickinson argues that whether or not Thompson really is lazy (and Dickinson seems to think he is), the charge will hurt him:

Fair or not, the laziness rap against Thompson is like the rap that former presidential hopeful Sen. George Allen isn't a genius. Or that John McCain is a hothead. It's an unresolved issue waiting for its moment to become a crisis for the campaign. Thompson's spokesman, Mark Corallo, brushes off critics with a line Ronald Reagan used when belittling what he considered his opponent's hysterical distortions: "There they go again."

The laziness charge can be deadly because however much voters like the notion of no-sweat solutions, they also want to be sure that their president is up at night worrying about terrorist attacks so they don't have to. They also like to know they're getting their money's worth from their public officials. After the early-to-bed Bush administration, this may be truer than ever.

Yikes. And the laziness issue isn't his only problem. Check out what he had to say about abortion a while back:

I can't wait to see what happens when the campaign really heats up and Rudy McRomney let loose their attack dogs.

Thompson and Giuliani are Even

The still-officially-unannounced Fred Thompson is now tied with Rudy Giuliani as the Republican Party's front-runner, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll. The change from a week ago is remarkable. Just a week ago, the polling stood as follows:

Giuliani: 23%
Thompson: 17%
Romney: 14%
McCain: 13%

And now:

Giuliani: 24%
Thompson: 24%
Romney: 11%
McCain: 11%

This isn't all that surprising, actually. It has been noted that the front-runners in the Republican field all lacked decent conservative credentials (which has to make us wonder how they became front-runners). And the conservatives in the Republican bunch (e.g. Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, etc.) are all insane. So, the Republicans (or at least the so-called "base") are desperately craving a reliable conservative who also has a shot at winning the general election. They think they've found that in Thompson.

I'm not so sure, though. When Thompson is making claims that Scooter Libby was the victim of a severe injustice and should be immediately pardoned, he seems to be suggesting that corruption would be A-okay in a possible Thompson White House. Defending the Bush administration in any way will not get a candidate enough votes to win in 2008. I've said it before; if a Republican wants any chance of winning in 2008, he will have to come out swinging - against Bush. In this case, the Republican Party should not worry about its base, because no matter who the Republicans pick, the base will come around (what, do they think they're going to switch up and vote for the Constitution Party?), but the moderates and unaffiliateds (according to another Rasmussen poll, the number of unaffiliated voters is at an all-time high) are unlikely to vote for a candidate who defends the actions of the Bush administration. Although, as a side note, it would be interesting if the Republicans did choose a conservative like Thompson and if the Democrats chose Hillary; such a match-up would probably free up the most votes for a third party candidate like Michael Bloomberg (some interesting Bloomberg polls here - keep in mind, the polling area is New Jersey, and we all know those savages are by no means representative of anyone else).

If there is anything surprising about this poll, it is that Thompson is doing so well without having even announced (although, he's made an "exploratory committee," so I guess that's close enough). I would not be surprised to see him take even more votes away from McCain and Romney and possibly even some away from Giuliani.

But, as I've probably said before, national polls about presidential primaries can be extremely misleading. So, take from this what you want.