After a week of intense political blogging, I need a little break. No, not from political blogging - just from the more combative elements of it. Ever so often, I like to engage in the relative rest and relaxation of pure speculation on the choice of a potential running mate for Fred Thompson. Yes, I'm fully aware that we have to nominate him first. But we Fredheads surely got Fred drafted into the race, didn't we? And, as the only mainstream conservative among the top five candidates for the GOP nod, I have not the slightest doubt that Sen. Thompson's message, based as it is on the same first principles that guided Ronald Reagan, will see him in the limelight on the Republican Party's big stage in Minnesota come September 4, 2008. I'm as sure of it now as I was last March that he would answer in the affirmative to our call of "Run, Fred, Run."

In a recent post on this subject, I discussed the benefits that the Thompson candidacy might accrue, especially among women voters, if Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) were to be chosen early on to run with Fred Thompson. Since then, I've heard from some Alaska residents who are opposed to the speculative proposal. Not that most are down on Palin - just the opposite. I've received negative feedback on Gov. Palin from only one person. It's simply because Palin has only been in the governor's mansion a relatively short time, and she does have some rather important unfinished business. Some Alaskans, it seems, don't want their governor taken away from them just yet. But that will do liittle to deter those who are actvely promoting her as a potential vice presidential nominee in 2008. I'm not convinced that Alaska needs her more than the rest of the nation, the Republican Party and Fred Thompson do. Here at the onset of this discussion, I suspect that Gov. Palin might just be the ideal candidate. However, just for the sake of argument, let's explore some other possibilities and see if we can find a better potential VP candidate. That shouldn't be too difficult, should it?

I've been asked, why not Duncan Hunter? The California Congressman just doesn't bring that much to a Thompson ticket, IMO. Little known outside of his San Diego area district, Hunter can't deliver his home state. His views on trade haven't exactly warmed the hearts of large Republican donors, who tend to be free traders. And Thompson, who is doing fine with small donors, needs more big money contributors to be competitive with the Democrats in the general election. Also, it is the exception rather than the rule in the modern era for a GOP nominee to choose one of his former rivals from the primaries to be his running mate. Finally, any potential Number Two on a Thompson ticket must be a governor or former governor.

Although Fred Thompson has proven leadership abilities, there is a percieved lack of "required" executive experience on Fred's part because he served in the Senate. That he served as counsel to a governor (Lamar Alexander) and some powerful Senate committees (Watergate, Intelligence and Foreign Relations), chaired a key committee as a Senator (Governmental Affairs), sat on some important commissions (nominating Tennessee judges and reviewing US-China economic and security matters) and chaired a State Department board (to advise Secretary Rice), this won't be enough for the executive experience hawks. Never mind that neither Abraham Lincoln nor Harry S. Truman had any executive experience to speak of, and they both rose to the occasion when some decisions critical to the nation's future had to be made. Never mind that Jimmy Carter, arguably the country's worst president ever, had lots of executive experience as Georgia's governor, and it didn't help him much. Thompson will have to name a governor just to mute the roar from the executive experience harpies.

So which Republican governor, other than Palin, would be a good fit for Fred Thompson as a running mate? Georgia's Sonny Perdue is resonably conservative and strong on immigration, but, since the Peach State is already Thompson country, he doesn't bring a geographical balance to a Thompson ticket. The same problem exists for other Southern governors. Although the tag team of Clinton and Gore won twice despite being from neighboring Southern states, I don't think that will work in 2008 - certainly not for Republicans. The drive-bys' double standard, doncha know. So a better choice would be a governor of a state above the Mason Dixon line, a blue or purple one, if possible - one which might reasonably be expected to be turned. There are three Republican governors in the Northeast (CT, VT and RI) but none are strong enough to paint their blue states red, and they aren't the most conservative of governors, either. So that leads us to look at Midwestern state chief executives.

John Hoeven (R-ND) supports S-CHIP and the 63% increase in funding to implement it, so he's out. Minnesota's Tim Pawlenty is one of John McCain's biggest supporters, and he's acquired a record as a flip-flopper. Dave Heineman of Nebraska has been in office only a year, so it may be too early to tap him for a vice presidential run. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) has been in office less than two years, and he upset Indiana conservatives by proposing a temporary tax increase on people earning more than $100,000 per year (Indiana's legislature voted it down). Next!

Former Colorado governor Bill Owens is an advisor to Mitt Romney's campaign. Let's move along... Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota has endorsed Mike Huckabee. My own state of Missouri has boy-wonder governor Matt Blunt, but he's drawn the ire of Show-Me State conservatives for his choice of Missouri Court of Appeals Judge Patricia Breckenridge for appointment to the State Supreme Court. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich from the Free Congress Foundation and Kay Daly of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary issued a joint memorandum which concludes, "Judge Breckenridge will inevitably become Gov. Blunt's version of David Souter." Moving right along...

So now we're forced to look outside the Midwest. Little-known Felix Camacho of Guam has an earmark problem. We ruled out Linda Lingle of Hawaii last time as too liberal. On to the West. Arnold... ouch, I had to bite my tongue! Besides, he's not eligible. Jon Huntsman (R-UT) is a McCain backer. Nevada's Jim Gibbons and Idaho's Butch Otter have both been in office for only a year.

We're all out of Republican governors, folks. If we have to consider a governor who is a relative short-termer, we already had the best choice before we began this second exercise in vice presidential speculation. Bottom line: the women's vote has more potential to turn blue or purple states to a Thompson candidacy in the general election than any choice of a governor from a single such state. I cannot stress how important the votes of women will be to the election of 2008. It will make or break Fred Thompson's bid for the Oval Office.

You know, I just relaized something. I have convinced myself. While I was leaning toward Palin at the start of this exercise, here at the conclusion it's a lock. Sorry, Alaska, but Fred Thompson, the Republican Party and the United States of America need her more than you do. Sarah Palin for vice-president! For what it's worth, consider this an unqualified endorsement.

- Josh Painter

It is not unreasonable to see the race for the Republican Party's presidential nomination eventually boiling down to the two men currently atop the national GOP polls, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. But if this happens, it will be a contest between more than just the men. It will be a battle between two distinctly different political philosophies.

In a New York Daily News article written by the paper's Senior Correspondent David Saltonstall last month, we learned about some of former Mayor Giuliani's closest advisors:

They are officially known as Rudy Giuliani's senior foreign policy advisory board, but they also could be dubbed something else: Neocons For Rudy.

Included in the group Saltonstall describes are neoconservative heavyweights Norman Podhoretz and Daniel Pipes, among others.

Conservative think tanker Irwin Stelzer is with the Hudson Institute:

"I think Giuliani has a reasonable claim to the neoconservative mantle," said Stelzer. "And Norman is in the position to put the crown on anyone's head."

I find it interesting that Rudy is taking foreign policy advice from neoconservatives, is less than conservative on some social issues and has a record of being soft on illegal immigration. Is it just me, or does anyone else see George W. Bush Lite here?

In The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism, C. Bradley Thompson quotes Nathan Glazer, who "has stated publicly that the differences between socialists and neoconservatives are greatly exaggerated. In fact, he says, they 'agree on more and more'":

"It is very hard for us to define what it is that divides us, in any centrally principled way. We might, depending on which socialists, and which neoconservatives are arguing, disagree about the details or the scope of health insurance plans; or about the level of taxation that should be imposed upon corporations; or how much should be going into social security. . . . But where are the principles that separate us?"

Where, indeed.

Neocons agree with the underlying moral principles of the socialists; they disagree merely over the best means to achieve their shared ends. As do all good socialists, neocons hold that welfare should be regarded as a right because it is grounded in people’s 'needs'—and, as Kristol explains, for the neocons, 'needs' are synonymous with rights:

"In our urbanized, industrialized, highly mobile society, people need governmental action of some kind if they are to cope with many of their problems: old age, illness, unemployment, etc. They need such assistance; they demand it; they will get it. The only interesting political question is: How will they get it?"

The neocons rhetorically hide their fundamental moral commitments, for example, to satisfy people’s 'needs' — in the guise of pragmatism, for example, by insisting that the only meaningful question to ask is 'How?'

In an essay published several years ago in The Wall Street Journal, [Irving] Kristol joined many liberals and socialists in characterizing Bill Clinton’s 'two years and out' welfare proposal for able-bodied welfare recipients as 'cruel' 'unfair,' and 'ruthless.' Kristol also described the likelihood that the proposed Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act would actually pass in Congress and then work in practice as a 'fantasy.' Well, the fantasy became reality, and Clinton’s welfare reform legislation has been a moderate success story. Do not expect such success stories from advocates of a conservative welfare state.

How does a conservative welfare state work? And how does it differ from a liberal welfare state? The neocons advocate a strong central government that provides welfare services to all people who need them while, at the same time, giving people choice about how they want those services delivered. That is what makes it 'conservative,' they argue. That is how the neocons reconcile Adam Smith and Karl Marx, Hayek and Trotsky...

It is the neoconservatives and compassionate conservatives who have put the Republican Party on the chopping block. Big government and tax cuts without reduced spending are helping to run this country right into the ground and are key ingredients in the Kryptonite Kool Aid which is slowly weakening the party of Jefferson, Lincoln, Goldwater and Reagan. Like a cartoon coyote in a sheepdog suit, many neocons/compassioncons are socialists masquerading as conservatives.

If Rudy Giuliani will indeed be the heir to the neoconservative mantle, then he and his backers must be stopped before they destroy both the Republican Party and this republic. Our founders, who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to establish this nation asked only of future generations that we keep it. We cannot long preserve a republic led by proponents of a political philosophy as bankrupt and misguided as that which begat the Siamese twins of neoconservatism and compassionate conservatism.

The solution to the problems brought on by the fauxcons can be found in the "New Federalism" of Ronald Reagan. Reagan's mantle as leader of the new federalist movement now rests with Fred Dalton Thompson, who is its leading proponent. Thompson prefers the politically non-threatening tag of "mainstream" conservatism to describe a conservatism that is guided by Reagan's first principles. "Mainstream" conservatism directly descends from Burke, while George W. Bush's "compassionate" conservatism, cojoined as it is with neoconservatism, traces its roots to disaffected liberals and the socialists they once so admired. Whether we call it federalsim, new federalism or mainstream conservatism, Reagan's philosophy in practice is what set the nation on a sure and steady course, rescued it from the Carter years of malaise and strengthened it enough to even survive eight years of the Clintons in the White House. But what the Clintonistas failed to finish, the neo/compassionate cons are determined to conclude.

Under George H. W. Bush, new federalism and some other key Reagan conservative principles were gradually abandoned. But it was his son George W. who allowed the neocons to have unprecedented power in his administration and to subsequently bring the GOP to its knees. This republic can ill afford to be brought to the brink of ruin at the hands of the "neosocialists" of either major political party.

Though he has only been in the race a relatively short time, Republicans across the country are beginning to realize that Fred Thompson, with his dedication to Ronald Reagan's federalist-based mainstream conservatism, could help to save the GOP and steer the republic back onto the course which Reagan charted for it.

That great battle brewing in the Republican Party is indeed about much more than just two men fighting for the party's presidential nomination for 2008. It will be between neo/compassionate conservatism and mainstream conservatism for the very soul of the Republican Party. The former has its roots in socialism, Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol. The latter has bloodlines rooted in movement conservatism, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Like so many of my fellow disaffected Republicans are now doing, I choose the latter.

Eight years of big government, big spending and a failure to secure our borders here at home have served to disconnect many Americans - not just conservatives - from the compassioneo way of doing things. I firmly believe that Ronald Reagan's coalition of "mainstream" conservatives, conservative libertarians, independents and Reagan Democrats can be put back together by Fred Thompson to propel himself to the GOP nomination and into the White House.

Keep this in mind as you watch his young campaign develop and grow. Don't lend too much creedence to the nitpicking and drive-by attacks. Don't focus, as the media does, on process. Keep your eye on the policy positions that Thompson, guided by Reagan's first principles, stakes his political future on.

- Josh Painter

No doubt about it - the ladies love Fred - those who know him, that is. He's a charmer in the meet-and-greet moments of the campaign, and his former girlfriends all say only positive things about the former Senator. Even his ex-wife and her family are supporting the Thompson run for the GOP nomination. But most women voters will not have the chance to meet Fred, shake his hand and be swayed by his personal magnetism and gravitas.

And that's a shame, because such an up close and personal experience could make a big difference in how women voters view Fred and the other GOP candidates. An Inside Advantage  poll taken in Florida last month showed Thompson and Rudy Giuliani in a dead heat, with Fred being supported by Republican men over Giuliani 31% to 23%, while Republican women favored Rudy over Fred 25% to 16%. Florida is a "must win" state for Team Thompson, and he must cut into Giuliani's lead among women to gain the ultimate advantage over the former New York City Mayor. Nashville, we have a problem.

Ah, but it's not one without a solution. Several pundits and bloggers have suggested that Fred should choose Giuliani as his running mate to gain support among female voters in the general election against a likely Hillary Clinton as his opponent. I see two things wrong with that thinking. First, Fred has to beat Giuliani for the right to run as the Republican nominee in the general. Second, choosing someone as socially liberal as Rudy for a running mate would undermine Thompson's strong support among men, especially conservative men.

Picking Mitt Romeny as a running mate would not be much of a better choice. Stuck at just 8% to 10% in the polls, the Mittster doesn't bring that much to a Thompson campaign, and what he does bring is not all that positive. The remaining GOP candidates have even lower numbers, and most are not doing so well among women voters themselves.

So what's a campaign that promised "bold moves" to do? Why, make a bold move, of course. Fred Thompson should name a woman as his running mate, and he should do so well before the GOP convention takes place in Minnesota at summer's end. But which woman should Fred choose?

Not Elizabeth Dole. One Senator is enough for the ticket, thank you very much. Plus, Ms. Dole is not very conservative, and she has a last name that is associated with "not winning". Not Kay Bailey Hutchison, either - another Senator, and not a solid conservative. Not Gov. Mary Jodi Rell of Conecticut, a liberal. Not Gov. Linda Lingle of Hawaii, who is pro-abortion. How about Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska? Ding-ding-ding-ding, no more calls, folks - we have a winner!

Sarah Louise Heath Palin is not just the youngest governor in Alaskan history, but a conservative one as well. The former beauty queen is very media savvy, with a a bachelor's degree in journalism and experience working in the media. My favorite Sarah Palin asset: she's a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association, and no, she didn't join the NRA just prior to running for office.

With over 14 years in the public sector, Ms. Palin served two terms as a Wasilla City Council member and seved two-terms as Wasilla's mayor and manager. She is also a past President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. Palin also served on Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, from which she resigned after one term, in protest over what she believed was a lack of ethics of several Alaskan Republican leaders. One of those leaders was state party chairman Randy Ruedrich. The resignation and protest earned Sarah Palin the reputation of being a fearless and strongly principled leader. She is the most popular governor in the United States, with an approval rating rating in the mid-80s, with only 5% disapproval.

Gov. Palin is well-versed on energy and environmental issues. She is fiercely pro-life and opposes same-sex marriage, although she is not hostile to same-sex domestic partnerships. Although Palin signed off on the largest operating budget in Alaska's history, she used the veto to make over $237 million in cuts to the state's soaring construction budget.

Alaska's governor has been widely touted as a possible choice for the number two slot on a Republican presidential ticket, and there's even a website, Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President, devoted to making that possibility become reality. though her resume isn't long, it's heavy on executive experience, and she's a tireless and dynamic campaigner.

What would Gov. Palin bring to a Thompson ticket? Balance. Sarah brings executive experience to balance Fred's legislative experience and state to balance his federal. She brings youth and vitality to balance his maturity and laid-back style. She brings northwest to balance his southeast. But most importantly, she brings female to balance Fred's male.

With Sarah Palin on the ticket, many women voters who wouldn't ordinarily even consider voting for Fred Thompson will be drawn to Fred's candidacy by their interest in Gov. Palin, an intriguing political figure.

And just think of the contrast between Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton! Here's a woman who won public office through her own hard work and merit, without need for a former president husband to pave the way for her. And Gov. Palin doesn't need to explain so many potentially embarassing things as does Sen. Clinton. She has hired no Sandy Bergers, supported no Black Panthers and played no hide and seek with Rose Law Firm documents. Palin doesn't want to take things away from us "for the common good," believes it takes families - not villages - to raise children and instead of treating military aides with contempt is the proud mother of a son serving in the U.S. Army.

At age 43, Palin would be a still relatively young 51 after two Thompson terms, and she would have gained the kind of insider knowledge of the workings of the Senate that a vice president, who is charged with presiding over that body, learns over the years. As a trusted advisor and confidant to the president, she would benefit from Fred's extensive knowledge and experience in matters of foreign policy. Fred Thompson would be the perfect political mentor for this remarkable young woman. Sarah Palin would emerge from two Thompson terms as vice president nearly perfectly positioned for a campaign to become the nation's first female commander in chief. The day of a woman president is coming. It is only fitting that the first female U.S. president should be a conservative Republican!

- Josh Painter