Devil's Advocate

Everyone seems desperate for Fred Thompson. Even I'm a little curious for what he might offer that's different from the other wanna-bes. But are we too quick to put aside our usual scrutinous background check for someone new, only because he's answered the questions the 'right' way now that we're listening?

Rolling Stone has a good devil's advocate piece.

"Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is
completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.” - A survey question to
which Thompson checked yes in 1994.

Thompson's change of mind on abortion and skirt-chasing days may be miniscule, but aren't all the hang-ups we have over the majors in the GOP field?

• Romney - flip flopper, Massachusetts 'conservative'
• McCain - 'ingenius' campaign finance reform, ok with gay marriage
• Giuliani - iffy on abortion rights, gun control and gay rights

“The challenge for Fred Thompson,” conservative strategist Frank Luntz told me
recently, “is whether he’s passionate enough. Republicans are so afraid of
losing the White House just like they lost the House and Senate that they will
only vote for someone who they think desperately wants it.”

I don't know if I whole-heartedly agree with Luntz's claim, but I know this Republican wants a passionate conservative who isn't afraid to take a stance and stick to it. If we're going to vote-Fred, shouldn't we give everyone a pass on their past and vote for what they're saying now?
If anything, they should all want to do something, not be something.

Thompson, 64, said much has changed since he rejected calls to run for president in 2000. Encouraged by an effort to draft him into the 2008 race, Thompson said he now finds the prospect appealing for several reasons.

"I am married now, have two children at home. I spend a lot of time thinking about the kind of world that they're going to grow up in, spend a lot of time talking to my wife about that," he said. "And I think the country's different. I think we have challenges now that we didn't have in 2000."

"It's ultimately up to the American people what they think about me," Thompson said. "I've never desired to hold the office, particularly. In fact, not at all. But, at this stage of things, I sometimes think that I do desire the opportunity to do some things that only a president can do."

He said his ambivalence until now about the presidency ultimately might make him a better leader and, thus, a better fit for the White House than others.

"If a person craves power for the sake of power, if he craves the office for the sake of holding the office, he's got his priorities mixed up," Thompson said. "It's a desire to do something not to be something."

I think this Fred Thompson should get in. But let's pick a standard and hold them all to it. It wouldn't be fair to put all our eggs in one basket.