Yesterday on the Special Report with Brit Hume roundtable, Charles Krauthammer articulated an opinion that I have held for a while. The panel was reviewing the performance of each candidate, and when they got to former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, Krauthammer exhorted him to drop out of the race because he is "diminishing" himself. There was general agreement on the panel that Thompson appears to be out of his league.

I certainly agree with this. In the two GOP debates to date, Thompson has been the only candidate who consistently induces cringes from me. It is painful to watch him. He evokes memories from my youth of piano recitals where, after having practiced for weeks upon weeks to learn a song, I can't get the first note right and the auditorium is filled with the awful sound of me trying to cheat my way through "Flight of the Bumblebee." This exchange from the debate is probably the best example:

MR. GOLER: Governor Thompson, Brian from Fort Wayne asks this question via the internet, a question about controlling government spending. Some of your critics say you lack fiscal discipline. Tell me three federal programs you consider wasteful and would eliminate.

MR. THOMPSON: Well, first off, you've got to realize where I come from. I'm the only candidate up here that has over 1,900 vetoes. I've had more vetoes than all of the candidates on the both the Republican and Democratic side. I've reduced taxes by 16-and-a-half billion dollars when I was governor of the state of Wisconsin, and I've reduced spending. And I also cut taxes wherever I possibly could.

There are several programs that need to be cut in Washington, several of those in my former department. I would first make every agency come in with a budget at 95 percent of last year's budget and one at 100 percent.

And you will be able to use that category and that exercise in order to reduce budgets all across the line. There are many ways to do it, and there are so many programs that need to be reduced and eliminated; because what happens in Washington, Wendell, is that programs get started, nobody ever supervises those or looks at them and tries to find ways to eliminate them. But there are many departments that could absolutely have programs that could be eliminated.

MR. GOLER: Governor, I didn't hear three programs. Can you tell me one?

MR. THOMPSON: Well, the first one I would eliminate is a program in the Department of Health and Human Services in CDC that deals with the stockpile. The stockpile does a great job, but there are some inefficiencies there that we're able to make some efficiencies and make some changes in that would eliminate that program.

Somehow, in a single exchange, Thompson manages to evoke the two stereotypes that most turn off the electorate. On the one hand, he comes off as a slippery politician who refuses to answer a tough question. And then, when Wendell Goler calls him on it, he reverts to bureaucratic-speak. The stockpile?! What on earth is the stockpile, Governor? My hunch was that it has something to do with some stockpile of vaccines (Flu? Mumps? Polio?), but I am still not sure. I am sure that this is a dreadful answer.

And, God bless Wendell Goler, who is just absolutely merciless to the floundering Thompson. This is what he says next.

MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, can you do better than that, sir?

Zing!

This is a shame. Given the impressive accomplishments of Tommy Thompson, one cannot help but admire him, and therefore feel bad for him. He is better than this.

This is more than a shame, though. It is a reminder of the changes in our presidential nominating system that have occurred in the last 60 or so years. Sixty years ago, before the rise of television and before the rise of the primary as the principal tool for selecting presidential candidates, a man with Thompson's record would have been a very strong contender for the GOP nomination. This would have been when state party leaders were in charge of selecting nominees for the White House, back when the conventions were actually the convening of these leaders for this purpose and not to bump temporarily the pre-determined nominee's poll position by a half dozen points. These leaders would probably have been very attracted to Thompson. Four terms as governor and a successful stint in an important cabinet-level department -- these are impressive accomplishments. And he is from Wisconsin. Conceivably, he could swing not just the Badger State to the GOP column, but also Minnesota and Iowa.

Unfortunately for Thompson, it is 2008 and not 1948. We have a new way of nominating presidential candidates today. It requires a candidate to come off as competent, honest and likable on television. So Tommy Thompson is a non-starter.

Mind you, I'm not necessarily lamenting the change in the nominating system. We can point to accomplished men like Tommy Thompson who might have been selected in the old system but not in today's system, and then bemoan the demise of the old scheme. But, in fairness, we would have to look at somebody like Warren G. Harding, an entirely underwhelming human being who was selected by the old system precisely for this reason. And, on top of that, the best word to refer to the old scheme is "plutocratic," which is probably normatively worse than any word you would choose to describe the current scheme. No -- I am not arguing better or worse. Just different. Thompson's impending departure from the race is, I think, a sign of just how different presidential politics is today than it was just a few generations ago.