Thanks for the links.

Dr. Rice is without doubt the "Best and the Brightest" among us. It is, of course, to be seen whether she has the desire or the bent for politics in the trenches. Sen. Thompson would make a V.P. to be feared (ala Dick Cheney) by the opposition.

I would also consider Sen. George Allen and a wild card; Peggy Noonan.

I love Peggy Noonan, but she has no experience with the decision-making side of the executive branch. She's a writer: too much Spock, not enough Captain Kirk.

I want people in the White House and the VP's mansion who can act decisively when the need arises, rather than pen beautiful essays about why they did what they did after the fact.

Point well taken.

Won't fly. The Religious Right holds veto power over the primaries

Won't fly?!?!? You don't get any farther right than me, religious or otherwise, and I just got a wet spot in my pants thinking about a Thompson/Rice ticket!

I think Dr. Rice may be in a special category: the way she conducts herself conveys a high level of religious faith, and I believe many Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) are likely to believe that her "technically pro-choice" position is one of integrity, that she places individual conscience as a supreme value. There is still an underlying sense that abortion is deeply repugnant to her, and that she'd like to see more restrictions on it.

Of course, in light of the abortion issue Thompson might be best suited to the head of the ticket, leaving Rice as the VP candidate.

In the realpolitik of America at large, it would have to be Rice/Thompson. Y'have to short-circuit the disgusting racial and gender-oriented rhetoric the DemonCreeps will trott out involuntarily about a black woman "being at the back of the bus" while they run a woman for the top slot.

But Mr. Atrocities is unfortunately correct. The flyover country caucas will not allow any candidate even VAGUELY pro-choice to get nominated. That's their third rail and the single issue for which they'd be willing to torpedo GOP chances of victory, any more tolerant "values conservative" bloggers who are pro-Condi notwithstanding.

If Denzel Washington were a conservative with at least one term as Governator under his belt, the GOP could ensure 8 years of Oval Office dominance, but they're not bright enough to search for a guy like that, busy as they are playing Texas Two-Step with the snake-kissers.

Yanno I am new at this. Let me see if I have the drift of what's goin on. I live out here in "fly over country", so I doubt if I get it.

I read references to Denzel Washington, Fred Thompson, Peggy Noonan, Spock, Capt Kirk, and some extras like Cheney, Rice and Allen. So, obviously the choices for president are based on fantasy, tv movies and such. Here's a thought, perhaps we need a casting director to replace elections?

Jim, isn't that what we got with Ronald Reagan, who is now sorely missed by so many of us?

What precludes someone who has been an actor from being a good President? Reagan was governor of CA for 8 years, proving he could "govern" and implement an agenda, whether you agreed with that agenda or not. Does the fact that he or Thompson or Swarzeneger-I-can't-spell-his-name, were actors mean that they aren't also smart enough or able enough to govern and be President? Must we always have the "smartest" boys in the class (Carter, Clinton)...look what they brought us.. Lets judge potential candidates by their ideas, ideals, integrity, demeanor, professionalism, and ability to lead.

Reagan was Unique. I agree he was an original. He did possess ideas, ideals, integrity, demeanor, professionalism, and ability to lead. Over and above that he communicated directly with the people. He connected.

Thompson et all had a chance and fell short.

George Patton had those qualities as well, yet he would have been unacceptable as president for a list of reasons, starting with abrasive.

Most military leaders would dodge politics. The best leaders would not necessarilly make the best president.

Most actors would also suck. Arnold actually thinks he is a Republican for example. The vast majority are extreem liberals and fit only to play presidents on Left Wing, or Bullworth style productions.

What I really read into all this is a mutual desire for someone with charisma, and style, plus the abilitiy to inspire and lead, as being a thing desired by most.

I'm not sure that you can say definitively that "Thompson et al had a chance and fell flat".

Thompson was only a Senator from Tenn. And he hasn't run as a national candidate.
Swarzen... is a newbie governor...still too early to tell how effective he will be governing.

If Thompson runs for the Pres he will have to present his ideas etc for the electorate to judge. My only point is we shouldn't write him off just because he's been an "actor".

...I will grant the point however that most "actors" or others in the entertainment industry would "suck". However Reagan proves that there are always exceptions.

It's the television age, and we need to be realistic about that. For example, we know that we no longer elect short guys, or guys with facial hair. The person has to photograph reasonably well.

And I agree that: 1) Thompson is relatively untested polically, and 2) no one should be written off because he/she has an acting background. (Actually, I mean "he." Our first female President/VP won't have any kind of a "novelty" background: only chicks with gravitas to burn [or Presidential spouses] need apply.)