As I browse my usual haunts (Hotair, Townhall, and now Conservative Grapevine) I see a number of people touch on the potential presidential aspirations of the one and only Fred Thompson. Yes, I'm a fan.

There is quite a bit of buzz out there, both positive and negative, and as the reports of Rudy's Planned Parenthood donations ends his Republican candidacy - oh come on! Rudy might be able to pull off a win in the general election with such a history but the base of the GOP is overwhelmingly Pro-Life and you know it - I thought it was time to address a re-occurring assertion of why Fred Thompson can't win.

That assertion, of course, is that he can't raise enough money in the time remaining to win. And everyone knows that you need money to win an election.

Everyone is wrong.

I direct your attention to Steven Levitt's and Stephen Dubner's book "Freakonomics" pages 9-12. Levitt and Dubner make a convincing case against the common knowledge that money wins elections. They don't suggest that one can win without ANY money, only that the influence of money usually only varies the vote by about 1%. That is to say, the candidate with the most money might very well (and often does) win, but they don't win BECAUSE they have more money. 

So don't "Dis" Fred Thompson.

After all, he's going to be the next President of the United States.