Puh-lease.
He’s the LEAST worst of the front contenders in terms of ideology. And yes, Thompson was able to get multiple high-level jobs, but where are the accomplishments or even clear failures? Without a clear history of either, that suggests he may be the type of person who knows how to effectively get out of tough decisions, but that doesn’t translate into actual ability to timely effect policy.
After having someone who’s bumbled as much as GW has for the last 8 years, if Ron Paul can’t win then I’d rather have a semi-competent technocrat like Guiliani rather than another person who doesn’t give a damn about or understands the consequences of incompetence…
This nation doesn’t need another f***-up like Iraq and I’m afraid Thompson may be the right guy to create another “Iraq.”

I think it’s more important for a president to have a philosophical center. Certainly some level of understanding of how Washington works is essential, and Fred has that. Beyond that minimum, I’m ready to try a president that actually believes in the principles of our Constitution, and it’s pretty clear that neither of our last two presidents have that clear belief (see Clinton with HillaryCare, and Bush with McCain-Feingold and Medicare Rx, for example).

I don’t see that qualification in Guiliani, and I sure as heck don’t see it in McCain. Romney… I dunno, maybe, but I can’t shake the feeling that he’s really a Rockefeller Republican under that conservative facade. Perhaps because he was elected governor in Massachusetts. And of course, Hillary fails that qualification big time, and Edwards is even worse if that’s possible. Obama fails the “understand how Washington works” principle, and looks like he’s totally out of his depth.

So, unlike Brookhiser, I have to put Fred as the best of the current crop. I could see someone preferring, say, Guiliani. But claiming that Fred’s even below McCain outs Brookhiser as a pretty fuzzy thinking conservative.