The Candidates
I listed my qualms about him a few days ago. Right now I would consider McCain and Rudy above Fred, but not Brownback. This solely rests upon the fact that other than voting correctly and saying good things on Paul Harvey, I am very skeptical of Thompson’s ability to,
1. Formulate good policy (detail work)
2. Negotiate with the other side and foreign governments
3. Run a organization (whether a campaign or an administration)
4. Something that shows those lazy accusations are not true (i.e. some where he has put forth good effort.)
I know that a lot of people look to him as a great hope, but I want to know why? What I am hoping is that someone here can tell me I need not worry if he was to win the nod. Is there something in Fred’s past I have missed? Please fill me in, in the comments section.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Yep, Fred is the flavor of the month. Who will it be next month?
March 27th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
CWPete,
Chirp Chirp!
March 27th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
It’s the classic American fascination with anyone who’s been on television. Nothing more or nothing less.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Same… I see no executive experience at all.
I like Romney from his fiscal conservative background.
I can accept a Guliani ticket due to being a big city mayor and the type of job that entails as well.
McCain simply has zero support from me for the same reason I don’t like any of the top 4 Dems. Senators generally don’t have the resume.
I’m open to see more about Fred. But the only reason his resume gets past the first level screen for me is all the energy around his name.
I’d consider a Richardson bid strongly against Fred simply because of the gaps in displayed skill set.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Personality/charisma/gravitas/character is part of what makes a President, along with experience and positions on issues. You can’t wish that category out of existence. It’s a large part of what explains Reagan and Rudy as well.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Hmmm.
Guess being minority counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee, asking the question that revealed don’t that Nixon hwas recording conversations in the Oval Office, and getting Gov. Ray Blanton tossed out on his ear count, eh?
March 27th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Oh, and btw… I find it incredible that you don’t take Thompson’s candidacy seriously, but
actually seem to think that Rudy Giuliani’s will survive New Hampshire!
March 27th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Bob,
Being a good lawyer does not help him in the above mentioned categories. Those things don’t show that he will have a good executive sense of leadership, nor do they imply a strong sense of policy strategy or negotiating with opposing parties.
I don’t know how a candidacy would shake out. I think it intitially it would play out well, but I think he would be put up to scrutiny and eventually voters will want answers to the questions I am raising. Are they not fair questions?
March 27th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
I posted this in another blog and will post it here. I’m referring to the whole “Thompson quit to be an actor” opinion, not on his candidacy. The Blanton thing has endeared him to Tennesseeans for life, whether one agrees with it or not.
Jason,
I’ve been following this sight for a little while and I’m getting kind of tired of some of the spin. They are all good candidates, but anyone familiar with Thompson knows that the DEATH OF HIS DAUGHTER had a major impact on him not running for reelection here in Tennessee, and saying he quit because he just couldn’t take the heat is utterly ridiculous. GET ALL THE FACTS, NOT JUST THE ONES THAT MAKE YOUR CANDIDATE LOOK GOOD. Yes, he was sick of politics, but there were other factors in his decision. The death of ones child can alter a persons WHOLE outlook on life, in general. Thompson is quite possibly the most popular politician in the state over the last 100 years. If it comes down to it in the primaries, Thompson will sweep the south, unless Gingrich enters. His support here is pretty much untouchable unless some scandal breaks.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Your original post that I was responding to..
Jason Says:
March 27th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Matt,
The Romney campaign just sent me a private email to report here that Thompson did nothing of note while senator. More coming
Oh here is the rest: Thompson left politics to become an actor because he couln’t handle the heat! Thank you Team Mitt.
If Romney’s campaign is spreading this, it’s a low blow.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Tommy,
No the campaign did not send me that info. That was sarcasm. Sorry you missed it. I will add tags next time.
I had no idea his daughter died at the same time he left politics.
Still doesn’t answer my 3 questions. Would you care to try? Those aren’t spin are they? And it’s funny you complain about spin, but then proceed to sum up your points with your own spin of being “untouchable.” And actually that pretty much dilutes everything you said before that.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
I was referring to the “left politics” spin, not the why he should run points. The untouchable thing I am referring to is the support he has in the south, not whether it is deserved or not. I don’t have an opinion on his candidacy at this time. It just seems that others are overlooking his popular support in the south. Not whether it is right or not. But if you talk to people in the region, the man is pretty much untouchable. I’m not arguing whether it’s right or not.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
What upsets me are the quick conclusions about why he left politics. It was common knowledge in Tennessee as to his daughter’s death in an automobile accident was the reason, and those going after him should know this before they say that he couldn’t “take the heat”.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
You obviously haven’t done any significant research on Thompson since that fact is stated in his wiki bio, among many other places.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Actually I have read his bio a couple times, still missed it though. Thanks for the sum up if I missed something I missed something, I’ll admit it.
Still doesn’t do anything for me, my questions are unanswered and he still did earn a reputation for Laziness and not likeing the nuts and bolts of elections and politics.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Hey Jason,
As a fellow adamant Romney supporter, I can tell you that I LOVE the idea of Fred running. Honestly, I would seriously switching my support from my beloved (and, yes, I still love him) Romney to good ol’ FDT. It’s not that Romney has gone down in my book, I just like the idea of Fred as the nominee. In short: he excites me just as much as romney does.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
1. Formulate good policy (detail work)- FDT introduced 48 pieces of legislation in the Senate during his 8 years there. Most of was aimed at cutting red tape, increasing national security against possible terrorist attacks, and providing tax relief.
Also, as a visiting Fellow at the AEI, Thompson studies national security and intelligence (China, North Korea, and Russia). At AEI he has authored 14 Articles and Short Publications. He is author of a major book about Watergare, “At that Point in Time.” in addition, Fred Thompson’s Papers reside in the Modern Political Archives at the University of Tennessee. the collection includes correspondence, memoranda, reports, audio, videotapes and campaign materials that chronicle the inner workings and accomplishments during his public service.
2. Negotiate with the other side and foreign governments - 8 years of dealing with the dems in the Senate. Thompson is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the the U.S. China Economic & Security Review Commission, positions where he strategized and negotiated with foreign governments. At AEI, he does research into National security and intelligence matters which involve U.S. relationships with China, North Korea and Russia.
3. Run a organization (whether a campaign or an administration)
Fred Thompson has run two very successful Senate campaigns in Tennessee, beating his opoponent by over 20 points each time. For over 20 years, he managed two law offices - one in D.C., and one in TN - and met payrolls for his employees.
4. Something that shows those lazy accusations are not true (i.e. some where he has put forth good effort.) Good Effort? He put himself through college at Memphis State by working as a factory worker, shoe salesman and truck driver. In 1977 Thompson took on the case of a Tennessee Parole Board chairman fired under suspicious circumstances. His hard work helped to expose a cash-for-clemency scheme that ultimately toppled a sitting governor. His standout performance as Watergate minority counsel was based on a lot of effort - and “doing his homework.” And he didn’t get by on just his good looks when he served three times as a Special Counsel, to Senate Committee on Intelligence, 1982. the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1980-1981, and to Gov. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, 1980. He also put a lot of effort into his two wildly successful Senate campaigns.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I don’t usually make a lot of predictions, especially ones that aren’t a foregone conclusion, but I have a feeling in my gut that Edwards’ campaign could very easily take off. If he pulls it out, and we don’t nominate FDT, we’re in serious trouble come general elections. You have to observe it by looking through the eyes of the blue collar southern voter. I think Romney would make a fine President, but can he or Giuliani carry the south against Edwards like Bush did in 2000. The South was able to identify with Bush. Do you guys honestly see an elite class, Morman from the north, or a New York City mayor with a couple of broken marriages appealing to the Bible belt? I live in what is considered to be the “buckle of the Bible Belt,” and I can tell you honestly, that a candidate that doesn’t appeal to the common southern values is not going to carry the south. Are any of you comfortable with forfeiting any of the states that Bush carried and still be confident enough to take the Presidency? We’ll be running against a Senator on the Dems side, more than likely, so that can cancel that portion out. Don’t forget that Clinton won in 1996 Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas (obviously), and Missouri, with close defeats in Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, and the Dakotas, all of which Bush carried. Harold freaking Ford almost took Tennessee because he was able to paint Corker as an elitist, despite the fact that he was a black candidate with questionable ethics. It’s not always right or fair, but that’s what the southern mentality relates to.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I’m not saying that you should abandon your candidate because some big name teased the possibility of running. You just have to take a realistic approach to the situation we are facing. I think most of our candidates could take Hillary, since she is so polarizing, but not the other candidates. FDT is royalty down here. If he doesn’t screw up, the south is his to lose. There’s no way to see it other way. If Thompson enters the race, it could come down to the south in the primaries, and he more than likely won’t be beaten down here. I’m just trying to give your an honest opinion of what will likely happen in this scenario. Whether or not he’s more qualified than Romney, and to a lesser extent Rudy (because his 9/11 performance will have more sway) becomes irrelevant in the situation. Thompson will carry the south.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Thompson will have a much broader appeal to the folks who aren’t debating the election yet, than people who are debating the qualifications of the people running for the primaries a year ahead of it (myself included
). I’m not comfortable that the other candidates will be able to do that. To the average southerner, the Thompson speculation has raised an interest that just wasn’t there beforehand.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Not convinced the South is his to loose. I know you say, it but this is a long election, you talk as if everything is sure thing for him as people were for Rudy only a few weeks ago.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Sturm,
some of that is quality, some is fluff:
1.
In Thompson’s years 8 years in the senate 4659 pieces of legislation were introduced. That leaves FDT having introduced 1% of the total legislation introduced. Sounds like he is average in that area. They do sound like good pieces though.
2.
I know nothing of his publications or the length of term at AEI. But I really don’t see penning 14 articles as a major qualification. IF that’s allit took then everyone at NR is now in the running.
3.
He was a senator. I would assume this would happen somewhere.
4.
So did 50 other repubs, how did his work eclipse everyone elses? I applaud him for being there.
5.
The first part I think speaks well of him. The second part is no biggie. How many lawyer offices are there in this country, they are all ran by someone.
6.
That’s something everyone does who parents don’t pay for him. I worked as waiter, landscaper, busser, pizza delivery boy, morticians assistant, Teaching assistant and music teacher. Holding a job is just part of life. Does he get points for brushing his teeth every day?
7.
He was a good lawyer no denying and it does help him. But there are ton of good lawyers who bring people down. I think it’s great he did it, and it’s probably the est thing on his resume, but you need more to be president.
Sturm Ruger, thanks for answering. It does help put a face on Fred, and really you were the only to make an attempt, both here and Free Republic where I also posted this. But I really (and I know I am biased- trust me) that anything you mentioned qualifies him for the job. So far what we have is a good lawyer who did an average job while in the senate and worked hard in college. He also has a good demeanor, speaking skills and is conservative. But I think if I walked around DC for a little bit I would find a handful of people that fit that description.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Jason, you said you were very skeptical of Fred Thompson’s ability to formulate good policy, negotiate, run a organization and something that shows those lazy accusations are not true, i.e. where he has put forth good effort.
My answer showed that Fred Thompson has considerable experience in forumulating policy - as an AEI Visiting Fellow, as a member of the CFR, as a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission,as a member of as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the National Security Working Group, as a member of the Senate Committee on Finance (with juisdiction over, among other things, international trade) and as Special Counsel to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
In response to you other questions, also pointed out several areas in which he has had to negotiate, how he ran his small business and met payrolls for over 20 years and how he has worked hard, not only to put himself through school (unlike the Al Gores and John Kerrys of the Senate), earn his seat in the Senate twice and gain a reputation as one of the best lawyers in a country full of mediocre ones.
Now these are just a few of his accomplishments and areas of expertise, but I’m not seeing approaching FDT’s foreign policy creds in Romney or Guiliani. There’s much,much more to this man Fred Thompson than we have discussed here, but you don’t seem to be inteerested in learning any of it. All you want to do is sit back and take shots at what is presented to you. Does Thompson represent that much of a threat to the guy you’re backing?
March 27th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Sturm,
Romney has and will be discussed to no end here. I would say out of all the candidates Fred is the least qualified out of any candidate. He is the flavor of the month.
Honestly, this is for the PResident. We need the best. Not a guy who has some executive experience, a ran a law firm. We need someone who is not just the cream of the crop, but the hilt f intelligence and ability- nothing you have shown points Fred in that direction. If you had something that did, I would be honest enough to admit it.
Like it or not, 14 articles 48 pieces of legislation and runing payrolls for 20 years is not a stellar resume. If there is so much to this man, how come you gave me such low level stuff. Are you going to surprise me later? Is Fred hiding all his accomplishments from google too?
Trust me Strum, Fred does not have the resume. He has the right views, and is charismatic, but that’s about it. Don’t worry once he becomes a candidate I won’t be able to question him like this anymore here.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Wait a minute. Are you saying that you want MORE laws on the books, Jason? I think I’m beginning to understand where you’re coming from. And it’s not from the same “Government IS the problem” place as Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson, myself and and millions of conservatives.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:47 am
Jason,
When more people in the south become aware of Rudy’s personal life, it will have a serious negative affect. You have to realize the south is different than anywhere else. It is still backwards, in some regards. If we are voting on the most qualified candidate….. well, that usually doesn’t win elections if they can’t get people to listen to their message. I’m not comparing Reagan to FDT, but Reagan wasn’t necessarily the most qualified candidate. GWB wasn’t the most qualified candidate. Clinton wasn’t the most qualified candidate. JFK wasn’t the most qualified candidate . Since when did this win elections. It’s all about how one presents their ideas, right or not.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:09 am
One last thing; accomplishments or not; you were already going after Thompson saying that he was lazy and couldn’t take the heat of the senate. Where is the proof of those things? The ‘can’t take the heat’ theory has already been debunked by a simple wiki search. Where does the proof that this guy is lazy come from, other than second hand sources? It just seems like you are reaching to go after Thompson because he is all of a sudden a threat to your guy. If you want to go after him, the issues about what he is done is fair game. But calling him lazy? That’s reaching… 2nd hand source. Remember, Reagan spent 4 years between 76 and 80 going on the radio in a Paul Harvey style commentary to get his beliefs out there.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:15 am
“Are you saying that you want MORE laws on the books, Jason”
That is exactly what I want: more laws, telling people what to do. You got me. Actually I think you know what I mean, and I think you realize 48 pieces of legislation wasn’t quite the number you thought it was when you first put it down. Because I am sure at first you thought that number was impressively large, since it was given as an answer to his lacking resume, now I doubt you will site that again.
Tommy,
If you all th south wants is someone who presents their message well, than I don’t understand why Thompson would be better than Romney or Giuliani. Also, That is a ridiculous knock on southern intelligence.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Tommy,
I didn’t make up either of those things. And after rereading the Wiki article it alludes to that being one of the reasons he left. Several other article point to the fact that Thompson doesn’t like politics all that much and doesn’t care too much for the nuts and bolts of campaigning and politicking. For instance read Chris Cizzila’s article in WaPo. The “Lazy Fred” question isn’t something I just pulled out of my rear. Are you saying he loved politics and left to be an actor in holywood only because his doughter died?
March 28th, 2007 at 7:34 am
I’m not saying its right or not, that’s just the way it is in the south. The south is a very divided place in terms of wealth. Here is an example. I’m from Chattanooga. This city is controlled by seven or eight families that come from old money, and they all live on Lookout Mountain. Those who live in the city hate it, and it has gotten worse. Bob Corker lost Chattanooga, his own hometown, in the senate election because he was seen as the choice of the rich establishment, where Ford was able to appeal to the everyday church folks. Fred Thompson overcame a 30 point deficit in 1996 because he drove around in a pickup truck and talked to the working communities. Research the campaign that year. Lamar Alexander was first elected governor when he walked across the state in a flannel search and spoke to the people. Down here, it has become all about the common folk. In my own state senate district, we had an extremely talented, qualified centrist democrat businessman run for state office. The guy was a good politician. He lost to a retired door to door salesman who went to old folks homes and talked about abortion and 9/11. Thats how you win elections here. They had a forum at UTC and it was obvious one was more qualified than the other, but it didn’t help. The everyman will come out on top 9 times out of ten. It’s not intelligence that I’m knocking. It’s just the way things are down here. Candidates who appeal to the common folks win elections. Look at the 2000 election, Gore lost his own home state because Bush was able to paint him as an elitist who had turned away from his Tennessee roots, and Bush appealed to them as a southerner of the people, who they related to. No other Republican would’ve been able to do that. Accents and talk go a LONG way. Class division runs rampant in the rural south. Giuliani still has the good will of 9/11 working for him, as opposed to Romney, who really doesn’t have a chance here. I’m a political science major who has spent the last ten years studying this.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:36 am
error above; Alexander walked around in a flannel shirt, not search; I couldn’t see what I was writing because the column keeps going off my screen.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:43 am
here is an ae=rticle:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n32_v13/ai_19701862
Sen. Fred Thompson is leading the inquiry into campaign-spending abuses. This unusual man is seeking authentic reform amid a crossfire of competing ambitions, partisan nastiness and ugly foreign intrigues.
On the reception walls of Sen. Fred Thompson’s Capitol Hill office hang about two dozen newspaper cartoons featuring the Tennessee Republican in his successful 1994 Senate race against veteran Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper. One of the drawings portrays the newly elected lawmaker driving his red Chevy pickup in the direction of Congress. On the truck’s side are emblazoned the words: “Mr. Thompson Goes to Washington.”
Published shortly after Thompson routed Cooper, that cartoon may contain a major clue about the senator’s political character — one being missed by jaded politicians and pundits who mistakenly think all Thompson cares about is trading his Hollywood movie roles as CIA director, chief of staff and the like for a real-life presidency. It also may hold a key to understanding Thompson’s conduct of his high-profile Senate Governmental Affairs Committee probe into the role of foreign money in politics and what that may mean this fall when the campaign-finance hearings reconvene.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:44 am
more:
The cartoon, of course, was meant to be a tart joke on Thompson. The fact that during the election he exchanged his luxury sedan for a rented pickup and donned Lamar Alexander-style cowboy boots and work shirts prompted hoots of press derision. Here was a Beltway and Hollywood sophisticate masquerading as a down-home good ol’ boy. Their joke, though, ultimately may bite back. Mr. Thompson has arrived in Washington and appears seriously intent on using his lawyer-lobbyist and acting experience to help engineer the sort of change that opinion polls suggest is desired by those outside the capital. The Potomac crowd, used to conventional ambition, doesn’t seem to get it yet.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:02 am
The facts are that his daughters death altered his outlook on what he was doing at the time. It was common knowledge in Tennessee, such as on the local talk show circuit, that her death was the underlying, undiscussed but acknowledged factor that led to him wanting to get out and enjoy life. There’s articles that point any different direction for his personal reasons. What I’m saying is that when you lose a child, your whole outlook on things is affected, and that alters the way your decision making process works. It’s not like his daughter died so he quit, it’s that the effects of dealing with it and the strain it caused made him step back and think about whether he was happy in his role at the time. It wasn’t the only reason, but it was rooted in his decision and the strain of it affected him.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:12 am
The thing is, when you lose a child, it stays with you and effects your decisions and roles in every aspect of life for a good while. It eventually fades from the forefront, but will always stay with you. It causes dramatic changes in its sudden aftermath. I know this from experience. Nothing is fun and games anymore and it becomes a chore to get out of bed every morning, much less go to work to have to deal with the everyday things, not to forget how bad it could be on one in politics. You slowly learn to live with the pain, but the years directly following are a crossroads that are painful in the worst way. Especially, when it is an unexpected death. Everyone reacts differently, some use work as a way of putting it out of their mind, while others have to get away from their everyday dealings.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Sorry for the multiple posts;
What I’m saying is that your childs death can’t be compartmentalised into just one reason. It is the grat, unspoken cloud that suffocates every decision you make in life. If an article says, for example, “his daughters death may have had a factor in his not seeking reelection when she died that year,” that completely overlooks the psychological effects that it causes. I know Thompson, not well enough to know what goes on his inner mind, but to just sya it was one of the reasons he didn’t run kind of misses the enormity of that type of situation (I’m not trying to say that you are doing this, but that articles that say it was just a factor are kind of missing the point)
March 28th, 2007 at 8:26 am
gotta go to work; will be back later tonight.
everyone have a good day.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Jason,
One last thing while I got a minute off. Look at the example of Ryne Sandberg retiring from baseball only to return a couple of years later. At the time he retired in 1994, he said it was because he had fallen out of love with the game and didn’t have the desire to play anymore. Two years later, he’s back. He said in hindsight, the reason that he wasn’t enjoying the game anymore was because of the effects in his personal life caused by his divorce, batlle for child custody, and all that stuff that some reporters think “might be a factor”. In the end, it was that overlying factor that effected all his decisions. Can you see how this story relates? Thompson announced his candidacy for re election, then his daughter died, then he announced that he wouldn’t seek it afterall, “that he didn’t like politics, and wanted to enjoy life.” Personal crisis of these magnitudes have to be looked at in reflection as to how they shaped all his decisions in life.