I don't know if this will help or hurt, but apparently, Rush Limbaugh said today that the only conservative on the stage last night was Fred Thompson.

This morning on Fox, they showed the audience response graphs to questions FT answered last night. The highest marks of the night went to him on illegal immigration and his ideas.

I have wondered if FT is being kept out of the MSM because they, and their bosses at the DNC, fear him the most. He's well known, he's articulate and he's dead set on closing up the country to illegals. That combo could be just the stuff to help kill the Clintonistas Redux.

and he's dead set on closing up the country to illegals ... Dead right my man. Which would go over better if he wasn't also trying to play the part of looking dead, or nearly there.

Steve, you have some serious conspiracy theory going on here. Almost as bad as Rand's CDS ;-)

Are you suggesting that Fred's failure to connect is due to his being excluded? You really think the MSM is capable of such major subterfuge?

Really now, I think it's more likely he isn't sleeping well which would explain his generally groggy demeanour. Now why he isn't sleeping well, that's another question, though such a nice young wife may be keeping him up more than metaphorically speaking. That can be fixed without Rush's advice on painkillers. He should try Modafanil: http://www.modafinil.com/

That should get him going. I'm looking forward to a rollicking bright performance the next time around.

Thompson keeps getting written off as a candidate by people who are eager to discuss everything about him except his ideas.

But he's getting quality medical advice. I hope he writes this all down.

Thompson has excellent ideas, no doubt about it. The problem is that there is a difference between having good ideas and being able to implement them as legislation and policy. Some of Bush's best ideas are the ones he has been completely unable to get through the congress. I have serious doubts about the ability of someone whose real political experience consists of less than two terms in the senate, where he played no major role on any significant piece of legislation, effectively to get his legislative program passed, especially if the Democrats remain in control of congress. I'm torn this year, the guy I think has the best ideas I also think would not be effective at implementing them but the ones who might be more effective have ideas that I am not so crazy about, though they would still be better than the Democrats. Of course the nomination is likely to be all but settled before the Texas primary anyway so my opinions don't matter very much anyway.

My point is that many commenters mention only Thompson's weaknesses. Imagine if most of the discussion about Hillary were about corruption.

Michael, I agree with your premise, and most of your points. I certainly agree FT's legislative experience is marginal. However, I disagree that he may be a weak President in pushing his ideas. IMO, he's seems the most comfortable candidate on either side with comfronting the media and making his point to the citizenry. Reagan was great as a communicator, and I think FT has many of those traits. Sure, it comes from the acting background, but unlike W, who rarely brings his arguments to the American people, I think Fred would. I don't think Mccain would, Guiliani maybe, and the rest need practice.

he's seems the most comfortable candidate on either side with comfronting the media and making his point to the citizenry.

Leland,

I think Obama is at least as good, and will more easily connect with a younger generation.

In any case I agree with your general point. May I add that I love the word comfront, so rarely used these days, which so beautifully captures the pleasant confluence of the words comfort and confront .

Karl, my pleasure.

Guiliani is very good at communicating his ideas, I'm just not sure about all of them. However, he is the most known to me, I doubt anything he does if he becomes president will surprise me.

Its seems to me that a conservative President that is unable to force through legislation is perfect!

1) Liberals in Congress pass dumb laws, President vetos them.
2) Consrevative President unable to push laws through liberals in Congress.

3) Fewer laws!

Everybody wins!

I think Fred does get bored with the stupid format of these 'debates'. He should just buy an hour of airtime and invite Rudy and Mitt to show or not... regardless of who shows up he makes his case. Stuff the moderators.

TnT, good job catching the typo. I do agree that Obama connects better than Hillary.

Are you suggesting that Fred's failure to connect is due to his being excluded? You really think the MSM is capable of such major subterfuge?

Uh, yes and yes. I agree with Michael, all the MSM has to say about him is negative. Is the cure for BDS, TDS? It seems likely.

Really now, I think it's more likely he isn't sleeping well which would explain his generally groggy demeanour.

I'll admit the guy is not a "looker", but he's not wearing a $400.00 haircut now is he? Are we talking America's Top Model or are we talking about electing a President? Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both always looked great, but they sucked as Presidents.

I'll ignore your foolish reference to Thompson and his young wife as it was base, rude and senseless.

I'll ignore your foolish reference to Thompson and his young wife as it was base, rude and senseless.

Gee, Steve, what would you think of your dad if you were older than your "stepmother"?

Steve,

All in jest. No intent otherwise. However, you just keep feeding the beast:

I'll admit the guy is not a "looker", but he's not wearing a $400.00 haircut now is he?

Have you looked at his pate? If he did, it probably cost $20.00 per hair, which would be much higher than Edwards PHC (Per Hair Cost).

Have you looked at his pate? If he did, it probably cost $20.00 per hair, which would be much higher than Edwards PHC (Per Hair Cost).

TnT, apparently you didn't understand Steve. He doesn't base his vote decisions on stuff like that. You might, but not him. So I doubt Steve noticed or cares.

Leland, I think TnT's point was how a man with essentially no hair could get a $400.00 haircut as Steve suggested.