Fred Thompson, so far, has struck me as a candidate running more on the ideal of who people think he is than who he actually is or what he actually believes. Apparently, George Will (a brilliant writer as far as I’m concerned) agrees, and cites numerous examples of how Thompson, who sat on the sidelines for months before finally announcing on Leno, is not really “up” on what’s even going on in the political world.

Sean Hannity, who is no Torquemada conducting inquisitions of conservatives, asked Thompson: “When you look at the other current crop of candidates — Republicans — where is the distinction between your positions and what you view as theirs?” Thompson replied: “Well, to tell you the truth, I haven’t spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions.”

Wait, what? As a candidate, that’s usually what makes you enter in the first place. You enter because you see a void not being filled by another candidate. Even if you don’t have a precise idea and inventory of all their positions, you still know where you fit into the mix. Not Fred. Fred hasn’t spent a whole lot of time getting into the details of the other candidates’ positions. Despite numerous videos released after the debates he was too cowardly to get into, he has no details on the people whose positions he attacked.

Sounds like a hell of a guy. Get him into the oval office!

Will continues:

Thompson, contrary to his current memories, was deeply involved in expanding government restrictions on political speech generally and the ban on issue ads specifically. Yet he told Ingraham “I voted for all of it,” meaning McCain-Feingold, but said “I don’t support that” provision of it.

Oh? Why, then, did he file his own brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold McCain-Feingold, stressing Congress’ especially “compelling interest” in squelching issue ads that “influence” elections?

Most lamely, Thompson takes credit for McCain-Feingold doubling the amount of “hard money” an individual can give to a candidate, which he says reduces the advantages of incumbency. But that is absurd: Most hard money flows to incumbents.

If you’ve ever noticed, most supporters and advocates for the horrifically anti-American McCain-Feingold bill never really have a good solid grip on the facts. None of them really have a strong grasp on what the bill prevents or decreases, and none of them ever seem to know exactly what was going on beforehand. It’s not only, as George Will points out, the hard money flowing to incumbents. It’s the soft money. Money in the form of candidate endorsement ads that are run by unions, charities, etc., for example. Or money coming from various 527 groups. The ironic part of the 527 provision is that those same people who couldn’t make donations to the candidate as individuals can filter hundreds of thousands of dollars to the exact same candidate as part of a 527. In other words, the flow of soft money is not affected in any way.

I won’t even get into the free speech issues associated with this bill. The Supreme Court has already held that the law’s provisions about issue ads are grossly unconstitutional. In fact, anyone with a brain should realize that aside from the PATRIOT Act and PATRIOT Act II, this is probably the worst piece of legislation ever written.

Will finally closes his article with a scathing attack on the hypocrisy of someone who championed this mishmosh of bad ideas trying to get into a presidential race this late.

So he believes, as zealous regulators of political speech do, that political contributions are incipient bribes — but that bribery begins with contributions larger than $2,300. Which brings us to the financial implausibility of his late-starting campaign.

Suppose he does something unprecedented — gets 100 people a day, from now until Jan. 1, to contribute the permitted maximum of $2,300. After subtracting normal fundraising costs and campaign overhead, he would still enter 2008 vulnerable to being outspent at least three-to-one by his major rivals.

So… Barring some shifty fundraising, he can’t stand up against the other Republicans who are already in full-tilt campaign spending mode. In other words, he’ll have to go directly against the law he so strongly believes in and helped to co-write so that he can actually survive a presidential election.

Or somehow turn roughly 10,500 people into $2,300 contributors and make $24,150,000 all in 105 days.

Good luck with that one, Fred. As your campaign falls flat on its face, you’ll have yourself to thank for it, which might actually be the sweetest irony of it all; undone by his own bill.

Technorati Tags: fred thompson, bcra, campaign finance reform, mccain-feingold