I was not writing this column during the campaign prior to the 2000 election, but I did follow the battles for the Republican nomination with some interest. I found it hard to believe after eight years of the William Jefferson Clinton circus, the American people would wish for symbolic continuation of his presidency.

Unfortunately, the Republican candidates on offer were a lightweight collection of conservative no-hopers, moderate Republican establishment figures and one popular governor of a large Southern state. That governor, George W. Bush, understandably looked like the only reasonable choice, and if his conspicuously non-ideological language was suspiciously protean, it made it easy for conservatives to see in him whatever they wanted to see. (I didn't buy it and did not vote for him. But I understand why many people did.)

It is hard to condemn conservatives for supporting Bush in 2000, even if his "compassionate conservative" language sent a clear signal that he did not consider himself a proper conservative. And, if his disavowal of nation-building and advocacy of a humble foreign policy were misleading, it must be recalled that the vast majority of conservatives initially supported Bush's neocon-inspired world democratic revolution; indeed many still support it today. Nevertheless, Bush was portrayed as a conservative by the entire conservative commentariat – many of whom described him as the second coming of Ronald Reagan – and any blame for being fooled by Bush lies with Bush, his propagandists and his apologists.

There is no similar excuse for having supported Bush in 2004. Despite widespread optimism about his double-secret conservative plans, the Patriot Acts, the Medicare Drug Entitlements, No Child Left Behind, general subservience to the United Nations and his nation-building in Iraq made it clear that he was not only no conservative, but was markedly hostile to basic conservative concepts such as human liberty, small government and personal responsibility.

(Column continues below)

Now, when even the most blindly loyal Three Monkey Republicans are beginning to express some doubts about the president, and the three leading Republican candidates for 2008 appear to be shaping up to play the roles of Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand in a replay of Southeast Asia versus the Indian Ocean, another apparently reasonable choice is being presented to Republicans. This time, however, the nominal Reagan cum Messiah is the laconic actor, Sen. Fred Thompson.

Like President Bush, the younger Sen. Thompson gives off conservative vibes. And as with Bush, those vibes are largely, if not entirely, misleading. According to the American Conservative Union's ratings, Sen. Thompson is little more conservative than Sen. McCain. He voted for Sen. McCain's attack on free speech, voted for first-trimester abortions and, despite his recent opposition to the Bush-McCain Amnesty act, has a mixed record on immigration. In light of his record on immigration and the extreme unpopularity of immigration amnesty, his disavowal of the amnesty act should be taken no more seriously than Bush's pre-presidential rejection of nation-building.

Thompson is actually one of the less conservative candidates; he is markedly less conservative than Tancredo, Brownback, Hunter, or Paul and only looks halfway conservative in comparison with the overt liberalism of Giuliani. Of course, it also helps that the so-called "conservative" commentariat is running interference for him and trying to burnish his appeal to the party polloi, as they did on behalf of George W. Bush in 2000. Consider the way in which Sean Hannity intervened to prevent the senator from committing a gaffe that would have betrayed his true views on abortion to pro-life Republicans on Hannity's show:

After asserting he "always thought Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision," the actor-politician said: "I would not be, and never have been, for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this, for example, that, if they chose to criminalize a young woman, and …" Co-host Sean Hannity then interrupted: "So, states rights for you?" Thompson replied: "Essentially, federalism. It's in the Constitution."

In other words, while Thompson believes, quite properly, that Roe v. Wade infringes upon states rights, he still opposes the criminalization of abortion on a state level. This means he is pro-choice; he is simply not rabidly pro-choice like feminists and other Democrats who are perfectly happy to use the Constitution as toilet paper if that will allow them to murder just one more unborn child.

First-time conservatives were fooled, and it wasn't completely their fault. The second time, they had no one else to blame. If conservatives are dumb enough to be fooled the third time in a row and nominate Fred Thompson as the Republican candidate, they will not only deserve the Clintonian tidal wave that will likely ensue, they will fully merit their dismissal by the Left as a community simply not based in reality.

Related special offer:

"Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause"