Frederick Dalton "Fred" Thompson (born August 19, 1942) is an American lawyer, lobbyist, character actor and former Republican Senator from Tennessee (now residing in McLean, Virginia).^[1]

He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and a Visiting Fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, researching national security and intelligence.^[2] Thompson is also a public speaker with the Washington Speakers Bureau^[3] and is a special program host and senior analyst for ABC News Radio. He publishes a daily blog and podcast on the ABC Radio web site.^[4]

As an actor, Thompson has performed in film and on television. He has frequently portrayed governmental figures;^[5] in the 1993 film adaptation of Born Yesterday, Thompson played the character of a United States senator prior to his election to the Senate in real-life.^[6] In the final months of his U.S. Senate term in 2002, Thompson joined the cast of the long-running NBC television series Law & Order, playing Arthur Branch. On May 30, 2007, he asked to be released from the show, potentially in preparation for a presidential bid.^[7]

On June 1, 2007 Thompson formed a "testing the waters" committee regarding his possible 2008 campaign for President.

According to Gun Owners of America (GOA), as a senator Thompson voted pro-gun 19 times and anti-gun 14 times.^[6] Three of the votes counted as anti-gun were for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act which GOA refers to as the "McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act" noting that "In many cases, it becomes illegal to even mention a politician's name in on-air advertising the month before an election." On June 25, 2007 the United States Supreme Court ruled that this provision was an unconstitutional violation of one's right to Free Speech.

Additionally, Thompson voted for the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban which can disarm gun owners without compensation for offenses as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This ban generally lasts a lifetime, can be imposed without a trial by jury effectively denying the individual his constitutional Fifth Amendment right to have Due Process and is retroactive.^[6]

Thompson voted against the Smith "Anti-Brady" Amendment which would have prohibited the FBI from using Brady background checks to tax or register gun owners

On Iraq and the war on terror, Thompson as stood by Bush. He voted to authorize use of force and has not backed down.  He supported the Patriot Act.  He has said Iran may need to be dealt with militarily.

Obviously, his positions are a little sketchy.  There is more on him - his own writings on Townhall.  You can read all of his recent writings.  Here are Fred's deep thoughts on the major issues of the day:

Fred supports Federalism
Fred likes cell phones for security purposes (profound, huh?)
Fred opposes the rewriting of history.  Take that, Holocaust deniers!
Fred doesn't think NFL teams should draft players with character issues.  Fred Thompson - saving the NFL one poorly-written article at a time.
Fred questions the Cuban health care system.  Take THAT, Fidel Castro!
Fred opposes gender oppression by Islamic extremists.  Thank GOD!  Somebody is FINALLY speaking out against gender oppression.
Fred supports the Marines.  Hoo-RAH!
Fred agrees with Tenent that Saddam posed a threat.  Maybe that's why he voted for the use of force, no?
Fred is happy the conservative won in France.  A conservative is happy that another conservative won?  Get. Out. Of. Here.
Fred supports the Second Ammendment.  Sometimes.
Fred supports a strong President (you'll need to set aside a good thirty seconds for this one!)
Fred supports traditional edcuation at the universities.  Take THAT, you lovers of illiteracy!
Fred has a problem with Palesinian terrorists.  I'm reminded of a story a mom told me.  One of her children said he was from Earth, and the other said "Really?  Me, too!"  It's kind of cute when they're three.  Not so much when they're in their sixties.
Fred opposes the "Fairness Doctrine."  A talk radio host defending talk radio...?
Fred opposes Comprehensive Immigration Reform (or this bill, anyhow)
Fred opposes human trafficking.  Oh, cumon, Fred!  you sure you don't want to resurrect slavery in America?
Fred thinks America is a swell place to live.  Fred Thompson lives in America??? Me, TOO!!!
Fred is concerned that Palestinians are firing rockets into Israel.  Fred Thompson is from Earth?  Me, TOO!!
Fred thinks we should use radio and other media to advocate for freedom in other countries.  *cough* Radio Free America *cough*
Fred thinks vigilance is a good thing.  OMG, Fred, you should SO join my Neighborhood Watch.
Fred thinks Scooter Libby was treated unfairly.  But what about Paris Hilton???
Fred opposes Iran's taking of hostages.  Jimmy Carter took this position as well.  In 1979.  You're an itty witty bit late to the party, Fred, but thanks for showing up.
Fred doesn't like Robert Mugabe and the UN.  Take THAT, tinpot African dictators!
Fred supports the VA's efforts the recruit more nurses (his LOWEST-RATED article!)
Fred doesn't like Castro and Hugo Chavez (and he points out that Cuba supports Chavez, and vice-versa - how educational!)
Fred doesn't like it when universities ban expressions of speech.  Thake THAT, university administrators!
Fred doesn't like Harry Reid.  A bold position given Reid's 15% approval rating.
Fred opposes Congressional efforts to get rid of union secret balloting
Fred doesn't like CAIR.  Wow!  *I* don't like CAIR, either! Fred and I have SO much in common.
Fred supports keeping the Bush tax cuts.  Good thing he voted for them them.
Fred opposes geonicide in Darfur, and doesn't like the UN's approach to the situation.  Fred Thompson is against slavery and geonicide?!?  He's too good to be true!

Lest you think I'm being unfairly condescending, I invite you to read the articles yourself.  You can see there isn't a bold position or profound thought in the whole bunch.  It's great that he's talking to people and taking the time to write adolescent articles, but what does this tell you about Thompson?  Nothing, unless you were dying to know what he thought of the Marines.  (Psssst... ALL of the candidates like the Marines.  Even Dennis Kicinich.)

So why aren't Thompson's opponents writing these sort of articles?  Because they can write at or above the 8th grade level, which would go right over the head of Townhall giants like Kevin McCullough. Thompson, on the other hand, has chosen to write articles that are two IQ points above mentally retarded, which pleases McCullough to no end.  Whether this dumbing-down is intentional on Fred's part, one can only surmise.

Why Fred Should Be the Nominee
Thompson is the down-the-middle conservative.  He is the one candidate in the Republican field who can keep the Bush Coalition together.  With his ability to keep the conservatives on board, he could generate enough energy to squeak out a narrow victory, along the lines of 2004.

If - and it's a HUGE "if" - Thompson shows energy and enthusiasm, he can take the fight to the Democrats, project his leadership qualities in debates and big speeches, and win in a very close election.  He has the personality and look of a President, and he's right in the center of Republican sentiment on the issues.

He'll unite the anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-tax, pro-war on terror, anti-gay positions.  If you believe that the Karl Rove strategy is the only one that can win, Fred is the man.  He is articulate and charming, and he will give us what conservatives have been longing for since Reagan - a conservative who can win a debate.

Why Fred Should Not Be the Nominee
The flip side of the Rove Strategy is that Fred offers no opportunity for outreach.  His positions put him in good graces with conservatives and die-hard Republicans, who make up 35-40% of the electorate.  He doesn't offer anything to encourage those who didn't vote for Bush in 2004 to come over to his side, so the margin of error is very, very small.

Thompson doesn't bring anything new to the table.  His positions are the same GOP positions of 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000.  It's solid and stable, but also stale.  He comes off as an old man with old ideas, an old dog who won't learn new tricks.  Is that where the electorate is in 2008?

The bigger concerns, though, center around his energy and background.  Fred Thompson looks tired and uninspired.  In major speeches, he's looked like a guy who needs a snack and a nap.  He has a reputation of being a lazy campaigner and legislator.  He spent eight years in the Senate and has nothing to show for it.  With Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama chomping at the bit, how is a tired, lazy Thompson going to compare.

His lobbying past is an albatross.  People like to gloss it over, but if there isn't a picture of Fred Thompson with Abramaoff somewhere out there, I'll eat my hat.  It's a different ball game than it was when he was in the Senate, and his lobbying days are not going to sit well with voters.

My biggest problem with Thompson is his decision to abdicate his Senate responsibilities in the middle of a war.  I hate that "chickenhawk" lablel, but it's going to stick.  When the going got rough, Fred bailed on us.  Now he wants to be President?  It looks bad.  His big weakness happens to be in the area of the GOP's biggest strength - leadership and national security.  That's a veeeeeerrrrrrrry bad combination.

Bottom Line: A Fred Thompson Nomination  = Hillary Clinton Presidency
Fred Thompson is the quintessential September 10th Republican - September 10th 1980.  He is old, outdated and uninspired.  Picture Bob Dole without the experience, the war heroism, the energy or the intelligence and you have Fred Thompson, a watered-down version of a mediocre Republican

Let me make it clear - there isn't a Republican candidate out there who could put the party in "permanent minority status."  I get sick of the doomsayers and their baseless conclusions, so let's look at facts.  Whether we win or lose in 2008, the Democrats are still going to be the Democrats.  Notice how quickly they tanked since taking over Congress?  They'll do the same in the White House.

So, no, Fred Thompson will not lead the party into permanent minority status, but he will lose, and probably very badly.  Idiologically, he's a little too conservative, which is okay, but he's also unimaginative, so he's selling the same warmed-over plate of goods that Bob Dole was selling in 1996.  To say Thompson is the Bob Dole of 2008 is unfair to Bob Dole.  Dole was a war hero, a sharp wit and an energetic campaigner.  Thompson is none of those things.  Thompson is Bob Dole light.

Thompson will start with somewhere between 35 and 40%.  That's the conservative base, which he'll nail down.  He'll also draw in another 5% of "anti Hillary" voters who will be motivated by their hatred of Clinton.  So he gets 40-45% going in, but where's he going to get the rest?  The problem is, for Thompson to win, he has to get a huge majority of the "security voters," as Bush did in 2004.  The fact that he has a light resume, coupled with his leaving the Senate in the middle of the war only to return a few years later asking for the top job, will turn off security voters.  He could top out at 45%, a landslide defeat.  Maybe he could get it up to 47-48%, if the Dems really step in the mess, but that's optimistic.

With Thompson, the best we can hope for is a close election.  We can say goodbye to Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico, which means we can say goodbye to the White House right off the bat.  If it gets bad, and it probably will, say goodbye to Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and maybe Arkansas.  It could get even worse.

This won't spell doom for the Republicans, because the Democrats will most certainly remind people why they shouldn't be in power, plus the realities of the GWOT are going to put any Democratic President in an impossible situation.  So we'll bounce back nicely in 2010 and might be in great shape for years to come.

But this isn't any old election.  We're fighting a war.  These people want to kill you, your children and grandchildren.  A Democrat in the White House means more US civilian deaths, there's no other way to put it.  Are you willing to sacrifice somebody else's child for the sake of Republican electoral success?  How about yours? 

As Fred Thompson would say, "that's something you might want to think about."

"So what pushed me over the edge? Well, Fred has had some bang-up speeches and television appearances. He's written a weekly column for us here on TownHall bringing his common sense directly to us, and in doing so he's eliminated a lot of the filters by which messages can usually get mangled. He also speaks so that everybody in the room can understand - and funny enough according to the poll numbers - they do. I do look forward to seeing Fred in the debates and when he arrives, look for him to shoo away the attacks of the others with the ease that he puffed cigar smoke into the face of Michael Moore.

But if you really have to know what pushed me from Mitt to Fred: National Right To Life 100% rating... and the rest of what he says in this video to the NRLC that met in Washington last night"

This is classic projection.  And it's a perfect example of an insecure, intellectually lazy person jumping on a bandwagon to compensate for his own personal shortcomings.  McCulough's shortcomings are obvious to anybody who reads his blog.  The man is perhaps the dimmest bulb on Townhall.  Even when he's trying his very hardest to be smart, he can't put together a complete thought, and can barely construct a complete sentence. 

Furthermore, he's aware of his deficiencies.  He's a third-rate radio personality and a fourth-rate author.  Getting lapped by Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt has to be tough on a guy, and he can feel that glass ceiling on his head.  Anybody who calls himself a "musclehead" is painfully aware of his intellectual shortcomings and is desperately trying to compensate.

But enough psychobabble.  My point is, even his intellectual argument for Fred! is void of any fact or reason.  He likes Fred because Fred makes Kevin feel good about Kevin.  As far as the 100% pro-life rating for a man who was solidly pro-choice while in Congress, according to his own survey responses, this is another case of blind projection.  At least Giuliani and Romney supporters acknowledge their candidates' shortcomings.  People who project perfection on anybody are setting themselves up for painful disappointment, aside from setting themselves up to look like complete fools.

Of course, for many of the Fred-heads, looking foolish is nothing new.  That's part of the reason they're jumping on the bandwagon in the first place, they want to be one of the first to support a winner, so they can finally be right about something.  But don't lose heart, Fred-heads, after Fred shows his humanity and breaks your heart, there's always Michael Bloomberg to fall back on.  I hear he once said something disparaging about abortion and the checkout clerk at Trader Joe's says he's the real deal.