Fred Thompson took his acid bath this morning on Meet the Press. Measured by the traditional standards of Sunday morning political theater, it was an uneven performance. Fred did well on international affairs and “stumbled” on domestic policy. His answer on abortion in particular will come as an uncomfortable revelation to some of his more conservative supporters. I have a team of Jesuits attempting to unravel the yarn-balled logic of Fred’s rambling answer, but it appears to boil down to this: “I’m 100 percent pro-life and have voted 100 percent pro-life. I hope one day Roe will be overturned and this issue will be sent back to the states and allow them to celebrate their wonderful diversity with an informed local decision. That local decision shouldn’t include any crazy pro-life stuff that criminalizes anything that shouldn’t be criminalized for doctors and young women. That’s my firm pro-life record, which has always” – insert subliminal message about slick-talking-Yankee-Mormon feather merchants here – “been exactly the same. Glad I cleared that all up for you, Tim.” My team of Jesuits has just informed me that they have put out an emergency call to the Grand Rabbi of Jerusalem to assist in their efforts to comprehend Fred’s answer. To my ear it sounds like a pro-life manifesto written by a joint committee of conservative constitutional lawyers and the board of NARAL. I suspect Fred will probably catch new trouble from social conservatives over this and his similar “Let the States be Fabulous” view on gay marriage. (Such is the true beauty of “federalism.” It is the Swiss Army Knife of passing the buck on tricky questions. It always sounds pretty good until some state elects a Huey Long.) The style enforcers in the office of Officially Required Candidate Behavior will bemoan these stumbles, as well as Thompson’s way of thinking out loud while trying to wind his way around the exploding fragments of Grenadier Russert’s tricky questions. Thompson’s struggling campaign will probably take little comfort in today’s performance. But I left the interview feeling entirely comfortable with the idea of Fred Thompson being president of the United States. He is informed, thoughtful, and struck me as a decent man trying to navigate the increasingly ridiculous idiom of American politics with all of its trapdoors, over-simplification, and litmus-mania. He resists buckling down and accepting the foolish rules of the presidential campaign game, which in itself is, at least to me, impressively presidential. Tim Russert had the grace to save to the end of the interview an obligatory question about this morning’s breathless Washington Post story on a long-past drug charge against one of Thompson’s friends. In his answer, Thompson was measured and sensible and seemed more interested in giving his friend a fair shake than in winning candidate performance points by instantly tossing a good pal’s still breathing body to the media pack. Good for him.
