Has Peggy Noonan Been In Politics Too Long?

Over the past week, many pundits, including the inestimable Peggy Noonan, have weighed in on Fred Thompson's candidacy.

Larry Kudlow, editorial writers on the Wall Street Journal staff, and Noonan all decry Thompson's lack of 'new positions.'

To a person, they express something like the following:

'Nice try, Fred. Sure, you're folksy and charming. You have great visibility and name/face recognition from your films and Law & Order role. But do you have anything new to say? Any new, untaken positions to add to the Republican Presidential race? Being charming and folksy just won't cut it. You might shove McCain out, finally, and elbow past Romney. But why are you doing this? Finally, do you have the money and ground troops to actually win primaries?'

Honestly, when I read this sort of thing in Noonan's latest columns, I sighed to myself and wondered whether she's been in the political wars so long she's no longer capable of identifying with the average conservative voter.

True, Ronald Reagan had new ideas when we ran, and won, in 1980. And, now, Thompson's appeal, in part, is a return to Reagan's values and orientations.

What Noonan, Kudlow, and others, miss, in my opinion, is Thompson's character. Apparently, Bill Clinton was so effective at brainwashing Americans that Presidential character doesn't matter that even these conservative, Republican pundits have forgotten the concept.

I have not.

What I see in Thompson is the character I want in the Oval Office when the unexpected occurs. It's an often-overlooked fact that what a President focuses on in his/her campaign is rarely what s/he actually finds is the salient issue and crisis of her/his term in office.

For example, our current President ran primarily on domestic issues in 2000, but the salient issue of his two terms has been foreign-sourced terrorism's attack on our country, throughout the world.

Further, as a conservative friend reminded me yesterday at my health club, the President can only suggest and offer legislative expressions of his/her platform. Congress must pass it. Thus, the candidate's own agenda does not necessarily become his/her actual focus in office.

That said, two of my conservative friends agreed with me- the professional pundits seem to have forgotten that who says what is important in Presidential campaigns.

Thompson has been crystal clear from the beginning, as has Newt Gingrich, that if certain issues and positions are not appropriately handled or represented by the current crop of Republican candidates, then he will run. And he has decided to do so. Is that so hard for Peggy Noonan and Larry Kudlow to grasp?

Giuliani is suspect on two aspects of his candidacy. First, he's a social liberal among conservatives. No question. Are we getting the latest genetic product of the old Rockefeller wing of the party? Probably so. Second, why is he running? I don't hear Noonan screaming about Giuliani's reasons for wanting to be President, but they are, if anything, more suspect than Thompson's. I would venture that Rudy wants to be President as the crowning feather in his public service cap. Sure, he has good intentions, and is a desirable candidate on many bases. But he wants this. Really wants it.

Romney even more so. For Mitt, it is a sort of grand coronation to conclude his logical, Hooverish progression from successful private businessman, public servant for at the Salt Lake City Games, and governor of a blue state. Plus, to attain the office his father could not.

McCain is, quite simply, cut from the old Bob "It's My Turn" Dole cloth. He's been a wheeling-dealing, hacked up Senator long enough. By God, it's payback time for his years in the Hanoi Hilton.

Sorry, John, but that's not how it works.

Of all the Republican candidates, I personally find Thompson to be the most convincing, trustworthy, and credible. He'll decide among policy options using values I respect, often share, and trust. If the policies were devised by someone else, so be it.

Am I so unusual in recalling that it's the President's character, values and orientation which ultimately matter? What tests s/he will face are rarely known in advance. S/he can't control Congress- even his/her own party's leaders in those chambers. The only thing we elect, at the end of the day, is a President's values and capability to exercise power in a manner which is consistent with what s/he expressed during the campaign.

I'll discuss Thompson's one glaring weakness- executive experience- in another post.