Ever since President Reagan passed away in 2004, when even liberals seemed to appreciate him and his role in history, there has been a demand among rank and file conservatives that we find another Ronald W. Reagan.

Oh, the demand was there even before that. It goes back to the time that George Herbert Walker Bush broke his pledge, “Read my lips. No New Taxes.” But back then it was more of a wish than a demand. And it was confined more to the politically aware.

What had been a wish became a demand when even liberal commentators found it in their hearts to say kind things about Reagan upon his departure from this world, leaving it to the far left ideologues to trash him.

In today’s presidential campaign, ordinarily decent second tier candidates might have been able to outshine a weak first tier which has a lot of problems. Examples are Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, 1987-2001, or Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, 1996-2007, but this second tier is not being given a second look because they are not “Saint Ron.”

I was very much active politically during the entire Reagan presidency. Our effort to bring evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics together worked. This coalition gave Reagan a landslide and produced the first Republican controlled Senate in almost thirty years. While I recall the Reagan presidency with great fondness, I never got hooked on the notion that we had to have a Reagan clone to save the nation.

Reagan was perhaps guided by the Good Lord because he certainly was the right man for that era. With Pope John Paul II, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, and Director of the CIA Bill Casey, Reagan and his allies helped the Soviet Union to implode. It has been a mere thirty years since the evil empire began to unravel. Yet adults born in 1987 have no clue how dangerous the Soviet Union was, not just to this country, but even to the whole world.

Now we face a different enemy. Where the Soviet Union was a conservative power in that they never invaded unless they were certain they could prevail, today we face a radical power that is more than willing to take their chances even if they, in their view, temporarily fail.

All of this brings me to Republican Fred Thompson. The former Tennessee Senator seems to be about to declare for the presidency. I have not seen such excitement since Reagan ran and won the governorship of California in 1966.

I was a reporter then and I covered the first meeting of the National Governors’ Association that Reagan attended since his election. Hundreds, if not thousands, turned out just to get a glance at Reagan because they were convinced that they were looking at a future President. They were correct. It’s just that they had to wait twenty four years in the process.

A comparable mind-set is now directed towards Thompson; over and over again we have heard their similarities. Both Reagan and Thompson were actors. Both men connect with the voters. Both men excite conservatives and even Republicans. Both men are seen as saviors. Reagan saved us from the inept Jimmy Carter; Thompson could save us from the mistakes of fellow Republican George W. Bush, although that is not said out loud too much.

Reagan certainly connected directly with the American people, but we are not yet certain about Thompson. To be sure, Thompson is right on the issues. He has a new wife and two babies. That fact seems to have focused his mind on social issues. While in the Senate, he generally voted right but we were never sure that he knew why. I can say, with certainty, that he does now know why.

Thompson critics cite how Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, ran circles around him during the hearings about money laundering to the Chinese during the Clinton Administration. True enough. But like Reagan I kept a daily journal. Whereas I was mentioned just twice in Reagan’s journal, Reagan was mentioned many, many times in my journal. Among those references was my disappointment that Reagan failed to take advantage of many domestic issue opportunities. So in that sense “Saint Ron” and “Saint Fred” are alike.

Those who make Reagan’s legacy a myth, as if his wife Nancy were writing the script, forget that he was a human being. For all the good he did for the country, he dropped the ball now and then. I know I must speak such things in a whisper now, but it is certainly true that Thompson, like Reagan, didn’t always do what might have been done. Yes, in dealing with the Soviets Reagan made few mistakes, and, in dealing with Speaker Tip O’Neill, 1977-87, he made a number of them also.

So what about Thompson? Is he the right man at the right moment? Can he rescue the Republican Party from the likes of the first and second tier candidates? Quite possibly. Can he defeat Senator Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., or whoever is the Democrats nominate? I have no idea. I think Thompson would take the right position (from the standpoint of conservatives) on nearly every issue to confront us.

Is he a tough campaigner who will do whatever is necessary to win? That I can’t say. I do recall 1994 when he was running for a Senate seat that had opened because of Al Gore’s election to the Vice Presidency in 1991.

Thompson got in his pick up truck and dressed in jeans crisscrossed Tennessee to the point that by Election Day we were sure his was the one victory we could count on. He defeated Nashville’s Congressman Jim Cooper in a landslide. In 1996, when he ran for a full term, he defeated attorney Houston Gordon in similar fashion and margin. Will he do the same when we are looking at the country as a whole? Again, I have no idea, but if Tennessee is any example, he should not be underestimated.

Now if the Democrat nominee is Clinton and I still believe that is likely, will he campaign below the belt as the Clintons have been known to do? Absolutely not. I believe Thompson believes that if you have to run a dirty campaign to win, he won’t want any part of it.

Can he save us in the War in Iraq? He is not likely to want to pull out of Iraq, giving the enemy advance warning. Does that help or hurt? That probably depends on how things have gone with the war almost a year and a half from now. If we are losing, then I can’t tell you what Thompson would do. As to the War on Terror, clearly Thompson understands the nature of the enemy. Thompson would not cut them any slack. Does that help or hurt? I believe it helps, but we’ll see what kind of mood the voting public is in then.

Is Fred Thompson the second coming of Ronald Reagan? Not exactly. Is he, like Reagan, the right man for this desperate hour? That depends on God’s Providence. If we pray hard, God will answer that last question. Right now without announcing formally, Thompson is doing well in the polls. Will his standing go up or down when he becomes a real candidate? I can only guess. I think his standing goes up. In that case we could have a very lively race in November, 2008.

On the other hand if New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg runs and spends a billion dollars of his own money, what then? All I can suggest is to pray hard.