Pejman has a long endorsement of Fred Thompson. I agree with most of it. If I were a Republican, he'd get my vote.

[Update in the evening]

Matt Lewis says don't write off Fred Thompson..

[Late night update]

OK, call me crazy [raucous chorus of Transterrestrial readers: "You're crazy!"], but I think that this could be a winning campaign ad for Fred.

If I were a Republican, he'd get my vote.

So what keeps you from registering as a Republican and voting for him? Do you expect good wishes alone to take him to the White House?

So what keeps you from registering as a Republican and voting for him?

My lack of desire to be a Republican.

My lack of desire to be a Republican.

Gee, if you can't work up the desire to vote for Thompson, then you're just as tired as he is. If you register as a Republican, that doesn't make you "be" a Republican, it just lets you vote in the Republican primaries. You could still vote for anybody or nobody in the general election.

It's no mystery where many of Fred Thompson's supporters will be on January 29 in Florida: sitting on the porch.

Gee, if you can't work up the desire to vote for Thompson, then you're just as tired as he is.

Neither of us are "tired." A lack of desire to something is not necessarily related to energy level.

If you register as a Republican, that doesn't make you "be" a Republican, it just lets you vote in the Republican primaries.

It takes away my ability to point out to morons who continually accuse me of being a Republican that I'm not.

It's no mystery where many of Fred Thompson's supporters will be on January 29 in Florida: sitting on the porch.

I doubt very much that I'm a typical Thompson supporter.

It takes away my ability to point out to morons who continually accuse me of being a Republican that I'm not.

You've just conceded the essential point to the "morons".

I doubt very much that I'm a typical Thompson supporter.

Atypical mainly in the sense that you won't vote for him. Most people do vote for candidates that they like.

So, if a person never votes at all, they aren't a Republican, regardless of the stances they take in public? The confusion may come from how states have different rules for primaries. My state technically doesn't have an open primary, but the rule is not ever enforced or even typically known about - the rules is about as honored as no spitting on the sidewalk type rules - so my is an effectively an open primary state. Maybe Jim's is too. I don't understand the logic behind closed primaries -- seems crazy to want to limit people's membership and investment in a party. Today's "cross-over" voter could be tomorrow's convert.

You've just conceded the essential point to the "morons".

Nonsense.

So, if a person never votes at all, they aren't a Republican, regardless of the stances they take in public?

No, if a person never registers as a Republican, they're not a Republican.

FWIW, I rarely vote for Republicans, either, though if Fred is the nominee, I will probably vote for him in the fall.

Just to be clear: in my state, you don't register for a political party. Hmmm. Well, maybe you can, but no one ever told me about it. I always vote. In primaries, they politiely ask "Would you like a Democratic or Republican ballot?" without checking for any sort of party registration or for anything else other than that I'm registered to vote. I'm sure nearly all people who would happily call themselves Repuplican around here (and that's the majority for my suburban town) aren't registered as Republicans.

No, if a person never registers as a Republican, they're not a Republican.

Hey, if a registered Republican can be a RINO, then you can be a REIN -- Republican Except In Name. That appellation is then out of your hands.

If Fred is the nominee, I will probably vote for him in the fall.

Fat chance of that. Unless you write him in, no one will be able to fairly accuse you of any more than idle opinions.

I'm sure nearly all people who would happily call themselves Republican around here (and that's the majority for my suburban town) aren't registered as Republicans.

Then the word doesn't have much meaning. I have never registered as a Republican, and rarely vote Republican. It's nonsensical to call me a Republican.

Unless you write him in, no one will be able to fairly accuse you of any more than idle opinions.

If it's Huck or Hill, I probably will.

Hey, if a registered Republican can be a RINO, then you can be a REIN -- Republican Except In Name.

Well, I suppose I could be, in some alternate universe, in which I didn't differ with many Republicans on a large number of issues.

Give it up Rand, you disagree with them on certain key issues, so by definition you MUST be an evil racist Republikkkan pig.

And no, you don't get any say in the matter.

Well, I suppose I could be, in some alternate universe, in which I didn't differ with many Republicans on a large number of issues.

Whoever you are, I suppose you may or may not be, depending on whether these alleged differences matter for anything. If you are driven to argue that no one should take mistake any of these differences to be praise for Democrats over Republicans, then the alleged differences are just hair-splitting that will never fool anyone. (Or at least, no one other than yourself.) Fawning over Fred Thompson also speaks louder than splitting hairs until the cows come home.

If you fawn over Thompson but then don't vote for him, that's just pathetic.

Whoever you are, I suppose you may or may not be, depending on whether these alleged differences matter for anything.

They obviously do to me, which is why I'm not a Republican. Morons' mileage may vary.

I think your position is just a symptom of living in a closed primary state. California and Florida both have closed primaries.
In an open primary state, there may well be no benefit to registering as a Republican. Your political identity is, no doubt, not Republican. I think I've figured out what it is: you're a libertarian neo-conservative, which makes you either a classic liberal or a conservative liberal. The people who can't figure out what "neo-conservative" means are going to get really confused by the term "conservative liberal".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

It's no mystery where many of Fred Thompson's supporters will be on January 29 in Florida: sitting on the porch.

Except for those of us who will be looking for Jim Harris to kick his...

you're a libertarian neo-conservative

Again, I don't understand why it's so important to some people to be able to pigeonhole me, or anyone, with a label? Perhaps because it makes it easier to fantasize what position I might have on a range of issues, and eliminate the need to actually do analysis or think?

Generally, it isn't important to label people, nor is it even very interesting. In your case, it is interesting (but admittedly still not very important). It is interesting because when you espouse politcal veiwpoints in public, you sound like a Republican (to the first approximation), but then you say you aren't a Republican, and it leaves a mystery for people (well, for me, for sure). I decided to solve the mystery. It is really just an exercise in political taxonomy. It is just a game. If you play the game, you can learn more about political science. The world's shortest poltical quiz is an example of how the game can be instructive.

A reason for you, Rand, in particular to play is that because you are unusual, you have the opportunity to shake up people's stereotypes and make them think about what political options are available to them. Presumably you are dissatisfied with the Democrat/Republican dichotomy in this country -- you can do something about changing the boundries by trying to categorize your positions. If you can hang a name on your belief system, it is easier to invite other people's to join it and make a difference.

My firm belief, at this point, is that you are a "conservative liberal". If you don't want to talk about this further, it is (as always) entirely up to you, and I don't want to be intrusive. But I would be very curious if there is any position on the following list of positions that you disagree with. Ideally, you'd even say which ones.

So, my question is: Do you disagree with any of the positions listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism

The weird thing is how many of the "Republican positions" Rand has supported that would have been "Democratic positions" in 1969. All glimmers of JFK are gone.

The weird thing is how many of the "Republican positions" Rand has supported that would have been "Democratic positions" in 1969.

You must be joking. By 1969, the Democrats had already adopted dozens of the outrages of "liberal fascism" (as Jonah Goldberg calls it), in particular the Medicare Act and the desire to surrender in Vietnam.

1869 is more like it. Many of Rand Simberg's positions would indeed have been Democratic positions in 1869.

A loose late night comment: Jim, there really wasn't a consensus on Vietnam within the Democratiic party in 1969, was there? I think Al is completely right. Neo-conservatism was a pretty mild reaction to liberalism -- it tried to not throw the baby out with the bathwater (from their point of view). I need to read more, but I know the phrase "Scoop Jackson Democrats" is relevent, as is JFK and Johnson's anti-communism. Great Society is the counter point.

Anyway, the wikipedia article I cited above describes Rand's positions perfectly -- as far as I can tell. Heck, I'll cite it again, because it is just so good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism

Oh, sorry, but Al, I think you might find that if Hillary is elected president, there will be at least of a glimmer of JFK's policies, as there was with Bill Clinton: liberal but flawed intervention in Haiti, excellent intervention in Kosovo, continous intervention in Iraq, expansion of Nato eastward -- all things JFK & Reagan would have approved of, and all things Hillary might have done as well. Maybe Obama too, but I'm less sure about him.

Jim, there really wasn't a consensus on Vietnam within the Democratic party in 1969, was there?

Once Lyndon Johnson stepped out of office, it was pretty darn close.

I think you might find that if Hillary is elected president, there will be at least of a glimmer of JFK's policies, as there was with Bill Clinton

All the more reason not to vote for Hillary in November. (Except that I might defect to the dark side.)

I'm surprised Glenn didn't hat tip Frank J for the original lines that created the add. More over, the Fred Thompson fact on Glenn's site is one that would probably give social conservatives pause in voting for Fred. But then, that might explain why a liberterian would then be more inclined to vote for Fred. He definitely isn't as stuffy as some social conservatives. He knows how to make and take a joke.

Fred does need to air such an ad. He simply isn't doing anything to really stir things up and get media attention, negative or positive. This ad would do exactly that.