Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

June 13, 2007

Trying to Poke Holes in Fred

Of course it was bound to happen. As Fred Thompson's popularity grows, his rivals will do what they can to poke holes in his political persona. This is politics, folks, and it's what happens when you run for office. According to Politico (h/t Cookiewrangler), the key problem areas for Thompson include:

*His lobbyist past
*His career as a trial lawyer
*He backed McCain-Feingold
*He can be a centrist
*He believes abortion should be regulated by the states

*As a lobbyist, Thompson made $1.3 million over two decades. That breaks down to what, $65K per year? Not exactly big bucks when you compare it to what other lobbyists make. And the money was earned legally, even if you don't approve of lobbyists. Mountain, meet molehill.

*So, he was a trial lawyer. Most of our representatives in the House and Senate are lawyers of one kind or another by trade. If we began "outing" all of the lawyers, there would barely be anyone left in Washington! (Say, that's not a half-bad idea...) Seriously, though, most of the major candidates on both sides (Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama) were either active lawyers at one point or at least attained a law degree. Trial lawyers as a group may have a lousy reputation, but it doesn't follow that all trial lawyers are lousy. Thompson also served as an assistant U.S. attorney, Watergate congressional counsel, and helped uncover a payoff scheme that put a Tennessee governor behind bars. He doesn't sound much greedier than your average lawyer to me.

*He backed McCain-Feingold. Well, I'm not a fan of the legislation, and it's too bad that he voted yes. But I am not the kind of voter who is so unyielding that I will refuse to forgive a candidate for disappointing me now and then. Don't forget who signed that legislation...

*The charge of centrist stems mainly from Thompson's split vote on Clinton's impeachment. Thompson's statement about why he voted the way he did can be seen here. But his conclusion boils down why he voted the way he did:

Is removal appropriate when the President lied to the grand jury that he denied to his aides that he had engaged in sex only as he had defined it, when in fact he had denied engaging in oral sex? Is removal warranted because the President stated that his relationship began as a friendship in the wrong year and actually encompassed more telephone encounters than could truthfully be described as `occasional'? To ask the question is to answer it. In my opinion, these statements, while wrong and perhaps indictable after the President leaves office, do not justify removal of the President from office.

He didn't believe the punishment fit the crime. And if he stands by his vote, you have to respect it, even if you don't agree with it. Honestly? This is water under the bridge. Bill Clinton's behavior with women while in the White House is an unattractive blot on our history to be sure, but let's put that particular incident behind us. (We should worry, though, if his partner in "crime" Hillary were to be elected.)

*Thompson's stance on abortion matches mine: I believe it should be a state issue, not a Supreme Court issue. Abortion on demand bothers me, but frankly it is not the defining issue for me. National security is number one in my book. Everything else is gravy.

Thompson was on the Tonight Show last night. I was too pooped to stay up, so I caught the highlights on Hot Air. It's the first time he actually admitted he wants to be president, even though he hasn't been dreaming of it all of his life. And the audience seemed to like him. He even made Leno laugh.

The left has started piling on Thompson for being too "folksy" and another "dumb" actor. Camille Paglia, whom I sometimes agree with, sometimes not (although I always find her work enjoyable to read), said

“Right now, the Democrats’ best hope may be for the Republicans to veer right and nominate an erratic aging boy like the seedy Newt Gingrich or a Hollywood caricature of vintage 1910 American small-town life like the phlegmatically pithy Fred Thompson, whose homespun act feels tired and looks tired.”

Small-town life. You can hear Paglia shuddering from here. Her response to Thompson's appeal is sadly typical of many liberals, who believe their sophistication is too much for red state rubes to handle. Oh, to be as worthy of adulation as they are!

Once Thompson officially announces, he can take part in debates. We'll then get a better idea of who he is, what he stands for, and what he has to offer. In the meantime, keep reading his columns on TownHall.com and elsewhere to start your education on Thompson. Will he hold up? Only time will tell.