The Candidates
Phillip Klein at the American Spectator runs a blaring post titled “BREAKING NEWS: Fred Thompson in 1994: Let The Woman Decide.” I must say that this giving me the strangest feeling of deja vu since I could’ve sworn I pointed this out weeks ago. Oh wait, I did. So, this is pretty old news by blogosphere standards. Yet it’s still apparently a shock to some:
During his first run for the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson said in an interview to a libertarian Republican newsletter that the ultimate decision to have an abortion “must be made by the woman.”
The comments were made in the July/August issue of Republican Liberty, the official newsletter of the Republican Liberty Caucus.
In the interview, Thompson was asked: “Some conservatives got flustered by your comments on abortion and Roe vs. Wade. Would you like to explain your position on abortion?”
Thompson answered: “Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.”
I obtained a copy of the interview from Eric Dondero, founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has more thoughts on the matter here.
Though news accounts have circulated around the internet describing Thompson as pro-choice in 1994, this is the first example I’ve seen of a direct quote in which Thompson espoused a clearly pro-choice position. And there’s likely more where that came from.
Thompson now says he is pro-life and calls Roe “bad law.” It must also be pointed out that during his 8-year career in the Senate, his voting record was solidly pro-life. But should he decide to jump into the race, they’ll no doubt be more scrutiny of his shifting position on abortion.
This just reinforces my belief that the “Fred Thompson as Conservative White Knight” theory is a joke. Isn’t one of the biggest knocks against Mitt Romney that he was for abortion before he was against it? Romney has failed (thus far) to have the conservative movement coalesce around him. That’s the whole reason that the FDT boomlet has gained as much steam as it has.
Many in the GOP were unsatisfied with the “liberal” Big Three so they went in search of a True Conservative to lead them to promised land again. They pulled out a list and went through several issues. Was the True Conservative against abortion? Check. Did they oppose gay marriage? Check. Were they friendly to social conservatives? Check. Did they consistently hold these positions and not flip flop out of political expediency? Check. So when Howard Baker and Bill Frist started floating Thompson’s name a few months ago, the ocean was parted and the stars aligned. The True Conservative was found (plus, it didn’t hurt that he played that District Attorney guy on Law and Order either). Only when you take a peak under those check marks, you realize that everything is not as it seems.
Many people are calling Thompson the “flavor of the month” candidate which I think underestimates the passion a lot of conservatives have for him. He’s polling better than Romney in most polls without lifting a finger. He has a definite appeal to those who are turned off by Giuliani’s liberalism, Romney’s questionable convictions and the latent hatred that many conservatives have towards McCain. Thompson, though, is in essence the generic Republican candidate.
He’s able to exploit the vulnerabilities of the Big Three and if he manages to steal enough votes from Giuliani, Romney and the mass of undecideds out there, he could be a significant force in the primaries and could potentially win the nomination. But that’s what makes the 2008 race so fascinating. The very positions that make Rudy, McCain and Romney (to a much lesser extent) so exposed on their right flank also enables them to be best positioned to run a successful general election campaign. Given that, it’s not surprising at all that the “generic Republican” runs 18(!) points behind the “generic Democrat.” Fred Thompson runs 17 points behind Hillary Clinton. And yet, Rudy and McCain (despite being saddled with an increasingly unpopular war) both manage to beat Hillary and Obama. It may well be that the only GOP candidates capable of winning the White House in 2008 are the two that will have the most trouble winning the nomination.
April 10th, 2007 at 12:10 am
If Rudy continues to push liberal talking points, the unthinkable (for many conservatives) could happen. John McCain could end up as the nominee. This is especially the case if Romney can’t get ahead. It will be interesting to see how Romney and McCain interact.
April 10th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Potential candidates receive much less scrutiny than Candidates. Just ask Gingrich, or Gore. I don’t think Thompson will have a hope if he gets in. His record will be scrutinised, and he will be like Romney without the money and the organisation. Not the best place to be…
April 10th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Oh, I don’t think there is any real harm in Fred Thompson. Who knows, he might actually be the best we have. My impression of him so far is that he was a so-so Senator. He wasn’t particularly bad, but he wasn’t particularly good either. He doesn’t seem to have much of any real executive experience. He has plenty of experience playing them on TV.
So let him come in. If he is any good, he will rise to the top. If he is just so-so, he won’t last long.
April 10th, 2007 at 2:56 am
marK: Boy that was refreshing. I was beginning to think every Romney supporter on here did not come to support their candidate by weighing the candidates against one another, but was just supporting a member of their church. Which is why this blog is a bad place for actual dialogue.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:01 am
I agree with LJ, the “generic conservative” is not going to win in 2008, given the mood of the electorate regarding the GOP. But Fred’s a TV star, so he may end up polling better against the Dems than the “generic conservative” which would lose horribly. I doubt he’ll poll head-to-head as well as Rudy will, however. Nor can he redraw/expand the red-blue map and put an end to the urban-rural partisan devisiveness like Rudy can.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:29 am
What Rudy can do is speculation at this point. He hasn’t been in any debates or had any exposure to most of the public besides 9-11 and some recent interviews.
At this point in 1999 it was assumed that Bush would win more than the “red states”. Star power candidates like Rudy now or Bush in 1999 always appear better when the public thinks of them as stars (or super heroes) than when they are reminded they’re all too human.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:46 am
Thompson, Romney or Gingrich - any of the three will experience a loss
on the level of Goldwater in 1964. The words “Conservative Repyblican”
are completely radioactive with the majority of voters nowadays. @008
is not going to be the year for staubch conservatives.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:17 am
Dave B,
Do you really think most of Romneys supporter base on this blog
and in general are Mormon? I think most of the Romney supporters
have weighed up the candidates and find him the best. Im not certain
that the same people rooting for Mitt would necessarily be supporting
Orrin Hatch. Mitts support at this stage is much more extensive then what
Sen Hatch ever had.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:25 am
You know using evidence or facts would help make your points. Stating your opinion as fact isn’t convincing. Do you have any proof that “conservative republican” is radioactive.
A brief look at 2006 election returns shows that half the GOP losses occurred in the Northeast among moderate Republicans or among Republicans facing scandal. Outside the northeast many Democrats who won ran as Blue Dogs.
Voter didn’t turn against conservatives (except in the Northeast). Luckily the Northeast is small electorally.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:25 am
Econ grad student - Bush’s polls are around 30% approval across the board.
Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, any of the three, will have no problem painting
Thompson, Gingrich, or Romney as four more years of Bush. None of them are going
anywhere. Only McCain or Giuliani would have a decent shot. Ironically, the candidates
with the best shot in the general are being roughed up by the SoCon blogosphere which,
thankfully, no more represents reality than does the Coastal Lib blogosphere.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:59 am
While Bush is a liability being conservative is not. It is the task of whoever becomes the nominee to be independent without undermining Bush.
That’s a tough task but if you get to close to Bush you’ll likely lose and if you try to undermine him you’ll split the GOP between your loyalists and Bush’s.
Being conservative is just a necessity for keeping the elements of the party together. If conservatives would address Iraq, healthcare, government reform and economic angst seriously they would undermine Democrats’ current popularity.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:43 am
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6017
On the NRLC website, they archive their congressional ratings back to 1997, so they include six of his eight years in the Senate. Thompson took the pro-life position on every vote he cast on the abortion issue. The only reason he didn’t have a 100% rating is that, as Jim pointed out, the ratings also include votes on campaign finance reform, which he supported.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Most of those replies all support Thompson, anyways. The thing his, his base is large, and they’re not going anywhere. Unless they find something more than some 1994 quote, which could’ve been taken out of context, when his voting record is stronger than McCain’s (if memory serves), than people are going to have to brace for it.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:09 am
David B,
That’s a real cheap statement. How about you back it up?
April 10th, 2007 at 7:24 am
“Boy that was refreshing. I was beginning to think every Romney supporter on here did not come to support their candidate by weighing the candidates against one another, but was just supporting a member of their church. Which is why this blog is a bad place for actual dialogue.”
Why do you say things like this David B? It’s vastly stereotypical, insulting, and possibly slightly bigoted. I am one of Romney’s most ardent supporters here. I am not a Mormon. I am a Baptist. I once received a pamphlet rom Mormons, and I’m ashamed to say, I threw it away due to the “weirdness” factor. My support for Romney is entirely in spite of his religion. My support of Romney stems from the fact that he’s brilliant, the consumate executive, fantastically competent, and generally conservative on all the major issues of the day. And it certainly doesn’t hurt that he’s lived an exemplary life. So I’d really advise you and Geoff to lay off the Mormon nonsense. You’re embarrassing yourselves.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Jason:
Know you’re not a Fred guy, but here’s a little more info which you asked about the other day. Apparently, the campaign staff that Wamp spoke of is Frist’s former staff, which was in place for a run. When Frist backed out, it was known through his network in the country that Thompson was probably going to get in, with the TN Mafia’s (not the Corleone kind of mafia) support. Although they lost one backer, they have brought in some other high profile, big money support. Staff of 10,000 is in place nationwide.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:27 am
maybe not in place, but ready.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:40 am
“Thompson, Romney or Gingrich - any of the three will experience a loss
on the level of Goldwater in 1964.”
I think in this partisan political climate the chances of someone winning 49 states is absolutely tiny. None of the Repub options will carry states in the NE, and none of the Dem candidates will win the South.
So, no need to fear embarassment. However, a loss is stil a loss…
April 10th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Yeah,
Sorry but most of Frists staff is already out to other people. I have that form a former Frist staffer.
A staff of 10,000, ok sure…
BTW Mitt Romney raised 200 million in the first week of April.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:52 am
This is coming from the guy who is running the whole thing, Congressman Zack Wamp. 4,000 have already commited to working for Thompson, 6,000 more by end of week.” Not my predictions, his.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Jaype, Edwards could easily pick up a few in the south.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:57 am
“Thompson, Romney or Gingrich - any of the three will experience a loss on the level of Goldwater in 1964″
Peter I agree, the GOP may be headed for an historic loss. Of the 32 Senators facing reelection, 20 are Republicans and four of those Republicans are running in Blue states.
Without a strong candidate at the top of the ticket, who is able to compete in Blue states, we will not only lose the Presidency, but also have historic losses in the Senate and House. Hillary will have a filibuster proof congress to ram her agenda through.
2008 could be the year that the GOP is pushed into a permanent minority.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Tommy,
Having a pro-life voting record, in the senate, is hardly inherently indicative of being pro-life. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, for instance, considers herself pro-choice, but has very pro-life voting record. This is because she supports almost all of the restrictions on abortion currently allowed under Roe v. Wade, and those nearly allowed under Roe v. Wade (partial birth). These are the only issues that come before the senate: margin pro-life issues. Romney would have likely had a reasonably strong pro-life voting record had he won in 1994, because he supported most of the restrictions allowed (partial birth for instance), and opposed public funding. The simple fact is, bills banning abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother simply don’t come before the senate. And if they had, there’s every indication that (leaving aside questions of constitutionality) Fred Thompson would have voted against them. Because while he may have supporter numerous margin level restrictions on abortion, on the fundamental question of the issue- whether or not women ought to be able to abort their children- he was pro-choice. If you’re unable to deal with that fact, I really don’t know what to tell you. If your candidate needs to have always held a pro-life position, to the point where you need to defend his honor even against all available evidence, then I think you’re out of luck. For what it’s worth, I trust Fred Thompson on judges and Roe because even in 1994 he didn’t seem fond of that decision. And I’m positive that he’d veto virtually all pro-choice legislation, and sign virtually all pro-life legislation. That’s functionally pro-life for sure. But somewhere in there lurks a man who thinks first trimester abortions are just dandy.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Sounds like volunteers, not staff.
If you hired 10,000 staffers all at one time (a tremendous cost) you would have so many problems with organization, in fighting, and costs it would be out of control. Clearly setting up a productive network needs methodical painstaking work, not just signing up a bunch of internet people who like Thompson. It’s called knowing the ins and outs of organizational behavior and using that knowledge effectively, something I really think Thompson does not have…at all.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:09 am
First off, I’m not an exclusive FDT guy. Right now, I’d rate him as my top choice, but closed to supporting someone else. I do defend him however, since I’m very familiar with him, and where he stands. Right for Life has supported him. If he was pro-choice in 1994, that’s fine, but drumming up some fifteen year old quote doesn’t mean he’s a prochoice candidate. I have not said a word about Romney or McCain on this issue either. I don’t doubt there sincerity, and I’m not going to attack them for their views evolving. The only candidate I’ve mentioned on this issue as being pro choice is Guiliani, and that’s because he is, and although I won’t support him, I won’t knock him for it. At one point, wasn’t Bush considered to be on the line on this issue? I think most on here, regardless of their opinion of him would consider him anything but. Views evolve, and I can appreciate that.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Tommy,
That’s a fair statement from you, and don’t get me wrong, I am positive you are a good guy. We just differ on presedential picks, and I just like to banter with people sometimes.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Jason, that’s what I was referring to. And the volunteers are not a bunch of internet volunteers. The guy has drummed up some serious support, and it’s not just the flavor of the month. It’s been a month and he hasn’t gone away and his supporters are just as strong.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:13 am
No harm done, Jason.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Personally, I like Romney, and I remember the first time I saw him I thought, that guy is going places. If he wins the primary, I wouldn’t have second thoughts supporting him. I’m just a proud Tennessean, and am just trying to balance things out here on this site.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Being conservative is just a necessity for keeping the elements of the party together. If conservatives would address Iraq, healthcare, government reform and economic angst seriously they would undermine Democrats’ current popularity.
-Econ Grad Student
No. Like many, you’re missing the point about all the hoopla Giuliani has deliberately created
around his postion on abortion. One of his leadership principles is “Stand Up To Bullies” - in other
words, go into CPAC, go into South Carolina - on the SOCons own turf - and tell them, I’m not backing down.
The calculation has already been made that this is politically viable - he’s said, “If you can’t vote
for me because of this, I’m comfortable.” Please don’t think people following all this aren’t saying
“Wow, how refreshing to have a Republcian candidate standing up to these people.” All this has been
thought out well in advance by the Giuliani team.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Tommy,
Perhaps you can educate us here. What has Thompson actually accomplished? Not just what he stands for, or has voted for. What has he done where he was the chief guiding force? What positions of executive authority has he held? What pieces of legislation did he originate and push to completion? Are there any successful businesses he started up from scratch? Yes, he did manage to get elected Senator (one term, wasn’t it?) but Senators make notoriously poor Presidencial candidates.
In other words, what do you have to say that might convince us that he will be a great President and not just simply play one on TV.
That was not a cheap shot. I have no doubts he will be very effective at using the bully pulpit. But what sort of President will he be away from the cameras? He can’t be on TV 24/7. He has to actually govern. The bully pulpit is only one tool he has to be adept at using. How good is he with the rest of them? Has he ever shown any skill or desire in using them?
April 10th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Hey, thanks for posting my story on Fred Thompson. It’s all over the Blogosphere now.
If anyone is interested we’ll be discussing this controversy tonight on “Libertarian Politics Live” at 9:30 pm cst. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/libertarian
April 10th, 2007 at 10:30 am
marK - in terms of actually doing something in governing that makes a real, tangible difference in tevery day lives of citizens, Giuliani has done more than Thompson, Romney and Gingrich put together.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Peter said: The calculation has already been made that this is politically viable - he’s said, “If you can’t vote for me because of this, I’m comfortable.”
Please don’t think people following all this aren’t saying “Wow, how refreshing to have a Republcian candidate standing up to these people.” All this has been thought out well in advance by the Giuliani team.
A lot of Independents noticed that too and liked it a lot, as did some blue dog Democrats. My family, which never agrees on politics, is backing Rudy 100%.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Peter
Thanks for your input, but this thread is about Thompson, not Giuliani. I already have a fair picture of Rudy in my head. He is (was) a great administrator. He is the only candidate on either side of the aisle that is even in Mitt Romney’s league when it comes to executive ability.
But I am trying to learn more about Thompson. How about it, Tommy?
April 10th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Mark and Peter,
I’m at work right now. I will post a write up on Fred Thompson here this afternoon or early evening, eastern time. I’ll need to double check some of my facts too, since I want to make sure I’m right on the Blanton affair (It’s been a long time, and I want to get the story right), and his other strengths as a candidate, besides the basic talking points.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Please, I wouldn’t let Chuck Hagel direct my coffee break. Hagel needs to be removed from any Republican, Presidential list — forever.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Here is my answer…. IT’S LONG…….
April 10th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
As a member in the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, it remains to be seen how many members of the Church vote for Romney. For example, Romney does not support a national flat tax. On this issue alone,
Romney will not receive my financial support for the Republican nomination. In a general election, let’s say, against Hillary Clinton, I am voting “early and often” for the Republican candidate –whomever that might be.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
I typed it up on Word, so I’ll divide by each section:
Thompson is a specialist in diplomatic relations and foreign intelligence.
Has served on the US-China Economic Review Commission/ link to 2006 report
http://www.uscc.gov/annual_report/recommendations/06_website_recommendations.pdf
AEG Scholar specializing in Diplomatic Relations and Foreign Intelligence
Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson served as Special Counsel to both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Senator Thompson was a member of the powerful Senate Committee on Finance, which has juisdiction over, among other things, international trade.
While a strong supporter of free trade, Senator Thompson has advocated a balanced approach to trade and national security. He has pushed for an export control policy that protects our country’s national security without unnecessarily burdening American industry with bureaucratic red tape. He has also proposed legislation to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by China and other countries and to strengthen the United States’ response to such activities.
Senator Thompson also served as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the National Security Working Group, which observes and monitors executive branch negotiations with foreign governments.
In 2002, he was elected to the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, an organization that promotes improved understanding of international affairs through public and private discussion.
A Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Policy Research, Fred Thompson studies national security and intelligence, with a focus on China, North Korea, and Russia. He has authored articles and ahort publications on a wide range of policy-related topics.
Thompson has also served as a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.78,filter.all/scholar.asp
April 10th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
ADDRESSING THE LAZINESS MYTH AMD SENATE PERFORMANCE:
sponsored or co-sponsored 48 pieces of legislation, most of it aimed at increasing our national security against terrorism, providing tax relief to citizens and small businesses, and cutting government red tape.
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d107&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Sen+Thompson++Fred))+01447))
Here is a liberal hit piece from 1999, and even they admitted THOMPSON WAS NOT LAZY. For an article that was supposed to attack him, they respect the hell out of him:
From the liberal Magazine Washington Monthly:
Of course, these days every politician wants to be seen as a man of the people. Thompson’s upbringing, however, gives him an edge: The senator’s good ol’ boy credentials are impeccable–at least during the early years. Born in Sheffield, Ala., Thompson grew up in a middle-class family in the small, central Tennessee town of Lawrenceburg. Married at 17, and a father soon thereafter, he worked as everything from a bicycle assembler to a shoe salesman to earn money for college. He received his B.S. from Memphis State University, then went on to Vanderbilt University Law School–a great place for a son of the rural South to forge bonds with the state’s up-and-comers. (Al Gore and former Sen. Jim Sasser are both Vanderbilt Law arums.) Fred and his wife, Sarah (from whom he was divorced in 1985), both worked to put Thompson through Vanderbilt and support their three kids. (worked his own way through college, and law school with help from first wife, what is that about lazy?)
Whatever Thompson’s behavior behind committee doors, when it comes down to a floor vote, he pulls the lever right along with the party. In a database of congressional voting records maintained by the non-partisan Project Vote Smart, Thompson shares the No. 1 spot with a handful of senators who most consistently vote the Republican party line. And in a November 1995 analysis, Vote Smart lists him as having supported Contract With America items 100 percent of the time. So Thompson may be seen as a moderate, but his voting record has made him a darling of the far right. ‘When Thompson was first elected, we were afraid he would prove to be a liberal Republican like Howard Baker,” says John Davies, head of the Tennessee Conservative Union, “but we’ve been extremely pleased with his voting record so far.
Once in office, the unthinkable happened: Thompson began working to make good on his word. As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, he helped pass the Congressional Accountability Act, making Congress subject to the same labor laws as other businesses. He also sponsored a constitutional amendment to establish term limits, introduced legislation to overhaul the budget process, and co-sponsored a smart, comprehensive campaign finance reform bill that would have, among other things, banned PAC money and required 60 percent of individual contributions to come from a candidate’s home state. Not surprisingly, the three measures failed–as did most of the substantive reform efforts of the 104th Congress. Undaunted, Thompson continued beating the reform drum during this year’s campaign. One of his ads featured the senator recounting all the measures that narrowly failed during his first term, concluding with the hopeful message: “It’s a good start” The press seems to agree, frequently praising Thompson for having the courage to stand firm on tough reform issues–even those that could hurt his popularity among fellow legislators. Of course, congressional reform enjoys strong public support; so as long as Thompson doesn’t rally enough votes to seriously threaten incumbents’ power, he’s unlikely to be tarred and feathered for providing senators an occasional opportunity to appear reform-minded.”
Copyright © 2000
The Washington Monthly 1611 Connecticut Avenue. Washington DC. 20009. 202-462-0128
Sturm Rugor at Free Republic:
“Even the liberal Washington Monthly, in a 1999 hit piece on Thompson, had to begrudgingly admit that as a Senator, Thompson worked hard to keep his campaign promises.”
Because Thompson acts from principle, he does not need to engage in the Machiavellian machinations which pass for “work” in Washington. The reality is that it is absurd to consider Thompson, who has worked during his life in more real jobs than almost any politician in Washington and who today stars in two television programs as well as being the substitute for Paul Harvey and a frequent commentator in conservative periodicals is “lazy” at all. Like Reagan, he probably works harder than anyone in Washington.
- Bruce Walker, Intellectual Conservative, March 22, 2007
People openly question if he has “the fire in the belly” to really make a serious race.
“They used to say I moved slowly,” he chuckles. “But I move deliberately. I won every one of my races by more than 20 points in a state Clinton carried twice.”
- John Fund, WSJ Opinion Journal, March 17, 2007
April 10th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Ratings (since you guys have been comparing him to other candidates on his positions):
National Abortion Reproductive Rights: 0
US Chamber of Commerce: 100%
ACLU: 11%
American Conservative Union: 85%
AFT: perfect 0
League of Private Property Owners: 90%
National Tax Limitation Committee: 97%
National Taxpayers Union: 88%
ADA (liberal): perfect score
Supported Newt’s Contract with America 100% of the time
Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee 1997-2001
Chairman, Youth Violence, 1995-96 Member, Foreign Relations Committee, 1995-96
Member, Judiciary Committee, 1995-98
Judiciary Subcommittes
Member, Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights, 1997-98
Member, Technology, Terrorism and Gov’t. Information, 1995-98
\
Ranking Minority Member, Governmental Affairs Committee, 2001-2002
Member, Finance Committee, 1999-2002
Finance subcommittees
Member, International Trade, 1999-2002
Member, Taxation and Oversight, 1999-2002
Member, Social Security and Family Policy, 1999-2002
Member, Health Care, 1999-2002
April 10th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
LOCAL HERO:
(No Sources needed since this is from memory; but feel free to research the case)
Thompson cleaned house of the most corrupt government in the history of Tennessee. Do some research on the Ray Blanton case. It’s very complicated, but the former Head of the State Parole Board put Thompson in charge of the case. He was the one who uncovered the whole clemency-for cash operation around 1978. Blanton used his office for some pretty disgusting favors, including R. Humphries scandal. This guy was a convicted double murderer that Blanton pardoned since his father served as Blanton’s county chairman. When Blanton left office, his office door was nailed shut to ensure that evidence wasn’t removed, and Lamar Alexander, his elected successor, was sworn into office three days early to keep more pardons from being issued.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Thank you, Tommy. That helps fill in some of the blanks.
It looks like he worked hard on advancing the conservative agenda. Very good. That says his idealogy is in the right place. Good. He also is a hard worker. Even better.
Now how about the skill set necessary to be a good President, rather than a good legislater? In terms of executive experience, if I read this correctly, he really only has his four year stint as Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee to point to. Is this assessment correct? Kind of slim pickin’s, don’t you think? How about private life? Anything there? Has he run his own lobbying firm, production company, consulting agency, anything?
I am also looking for something that he originated, fought for, and accomplished. I really don’t see that in the list other than actually getting elected. McCain for example had McCain/Fiengold. Whatever you may think of that (and trust me, I think very little of it), it still points to something that he started, championed, and brought to fruition. Help me out with Thompson, please.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
You’re welcome: Actually, that’s not my whole essay. I left some parts out. Here is his private life:
A star athlete in high school, Fred attended Memphis State University, where he earned a degree in Philosophy and Political Science in 1964. Thompson turned down a full scholarship to Tulane Law School in order to attend Vanderbilt University, which awarded him a Law degree in 1967. Fred worked his way through college by holding jobs as a shoe salesman, truck driver, and even a factory worker prior to becoming a lawyer. This work ethic, combined with his extensive study of classical philosophy and political science, led Fred to a firm belief in conservative ideals.
The marriage of Fred Thompson and Sara Lindsey began on September 12, 1959 when they were both very young (he was just 17), and the couple lived in public housing for a year. It ended amicably in divorce in 1985. They had three children, two of whom are grown. They lost the third, daughter Elizabeth Thompson Panici at age 38, in 2002 after she failed to come out of a drug-overdose-induced coma. After her death, Fred did not run for re-election to the U.S. Senate.
On June 29, 2002, Thompson married Jeri Kehn.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
background research courtesy of Sturm Ruger on that one. Can’t provide link, but it can be looked up pretty easily.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
For a number of years Fred continued to practice law and maintained offices in both Nashville and Washington. When Congress called upon him to serve as Special Counsel to both the U.S. Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees, he served each post with distinction. His skills are highly regarded by Republicans and Democrats alike, and he is listed in Naifeh and Smith’s book, The Best Lawyers in America.
Fred has experienced first hand both the disappointments and the triumphs that come from hard factory work, running a small business, and meeting a payroll [for both branches of his law practice] for more than twenty years.
http://www.vanacker.net/fred.htm
April 10th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
No skeletons that have been identified. The closest thing to bad is that he dated a lot after his divorce. However, he was decent to all of his former girlfriends and is on good terms with all of them. He has been married twice, but they were not overlapping. No cheating (not to belittle other candidates, it’s just the truth of his own circumstances). He’s a stand up guy. Even the dems respect him:
ADDRESSING THE LAZINESS MYTH AMD SENATE PERFORMANCE:
sponsored or co-sponsored 48 pieces of legislation, most of it aimed at increasing our national security against terrorism, providing tax relief to citizens and small businesses, and cutting government red tape.
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d107&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Sen+Thompson++Fred))+01447))
Here is a liberal hit piece from 1999, and even they admitted THOMPSON WAS NOT LAZY. For an article that was supposed to attack him, they respect the hell out of him:
From the liberal Magazine Washington Monthly:
Of course, these days every politician wants to be seen as a man of the people. Thompson’s upbringing, however, gives him an edge: The senator’s good ol’ boy credentials are impeccable–at least during the early years. Born in Sheffield, Ala., Thompson grew up in a middle-class family in the small, central Tennessee town of Lawrenceburg. Married at 17, and a father soon thereafter, he worked as everything from a bicycle assembler to a shoe salesman to earn money for college. He received his B.S. from Memphis State University, then went on to Vanderbilt University Law School–a great place for a son of the rural South to forge bonds with the state’s up-and-comers. (Al Gore and former Sen. Jim Sasser are both Vanderbilt Law arums.) Fred and his wife, Sarah (from whom he was divorced in 1985), both worked to put Thompson through Vanderbilt and support their three kids. (worked his own way through college, and law school with help from first wife, what is that about lazy?)
Whatever Thompson’s behavior behind committee doors, when it comes down to a floor vote, he pulls the lever right along with the party. In a database of congressional voting records maintained by the non-partisan Project Vote Smart, Thompson shares the No. 1 spot with a handful of senators who most consistently vote the Republican party line. And in a November 1995 analysis, Vote Smart lists him as having supported Contract With America items 100 percent of the time. So Thompson may be seen as a moderate, but his voting record has made him a darling of the far right. ‘When Thompson was first elected, we were afraid he would prove to be a liberal Republican like Howard Baker,” says John Davies, head of the Tennessee Conservative Union, “but we’ve been extremely pleased with his voting record so far.
Once in office, the unthinkable happened: Thompson began working to make good on his word. As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, he helped pass the Congressional Accountability Act, making Congress subject to the same labor laws as other businesses. He also sponsored a constitutional amendment to establish term limits, introduced legislation to overhaul the budget process, and co-sponsored a smart, comprehensive campaign finance reform bill that would have, among other things, banned PAC money and required 60 percent of individual contributions to come from a candidate’s home state. Not surprisingly, the three measures failed–as did most of the substantive reform efforts of the 104th Congress. Undaunted, Thompson continued beating the reform drum during this year’s campaign. One of his ads featured the senator recounting all the measures that narrowly failed during his first term, concluding with the hopeful message: “It’s a good start” The press seems to agree, frequently praising Thompson for having the courage to stand firm on tough reform issues–even those that could hurt his popularity among fellow legislators. Of course, congressional reform enjoys strong public support; so as long as Thompson doesn’t rally enough votes to seriously threaten incumbents’ power, he’s unlikely to be tarred and feathered for providing senators an occasional opportunity to appear reform-minded.”
Copyright © 2000
The Washington Monthly 1611 Connecticut Avenue. Washington DC. 20009. 202-462-0128
Sturm Rugor at Free Republic:
“Even the liberal Washington Monthly, in a 1999 hit piece on Thompson, had to begrudgingly admit that as a Senator, Thompson worked hard to keep his campaign promises.”
Because Thompson acts from principle, he does not need to engage in the Machiavellian machinations which pass for “work” in Washington. The reality is that it is absurd to consider Thompson, who has worked during his life in more real jobs than almost any politician in Washington and who today stars in two television programs as well as being the substitute for Paul Harvey and a frequent commentator in conservative periodicals is “lazy” at all. Like Reagan, he probably works harder than anyone in Washington.
- Bruce Walker, Intellectual Conservative, March 22, 2007
People openly question if he has “the fire in the belly” to really make a serious race.
“They used to say I moved slowly,” he chuckles. “But I move deliberately. I won every one of my races by more than 20 points in a state Clinton carried twice.”
- John Fund, WSJ Opinion Journal, March 17, 2007
April 10th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
oops, accidently posted that one before.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
LIBERAL’S ARE SCARED OF HIM:
Why the left needs to be watching Fred Thompson with concern-
http://www.deadroo.com/index.php/why-the-left-needs-to-be-watching-fred-thompson-with-concern/
- A Liberal Blogger
[Fred Thompson] is now considering the race, amid indications his conservative record combined with a blue-collar, pickup-truck appeal, to independents and moderate Democrats might make him the right guy at the right time.
If he runs — at least on paper — Thompson has the potential to win the Republican nomination and the White House…
He could run as a common sense Washington outsider with Ronald Reagan-class communications skills, Thompson’s name recognition is still limited, but his celebrity means his face recognition is unusually high and very favorable.
“He’d have instant credibility within the party and would be a very formidable candidate against any Democrat in November,” said former U.S. Sen. and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, who is neutral in the nomination fight. “He has a very solid conservative record, but like Reagan, he has been able to charm many who may not agree with him on every issue.”
Bob Beckel, who managed 1984 Democratic nominee Walter Mondale’s campaign, called Thompson potentially a Democratic electoral nightmare because of his communications skills and ability to appeal to swing voters.
Thompson’s candidacy is intriguing to some because of his potential to appeal to independents and moderate Democrats, like McCain and Giuliani. But unlike they, his background and charisma could fire up the GOP base, which is searching for a champion.
- Peter Brown, Real Clear Politics, March 19, 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070319/cm_rcp/thompson_could_fill_the_missin
April 10th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Here’s what Democrat strategist Lanny Davis had to say, and he’s an opponent:
Fred Thompson: Authenticity and Anti-’Gotcha’ Politics Looks Good to Many Democrats (Lanny Davis)
@ 2:46 pm
Far be it for me to say anything nice about former Republican Tennessee Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson.
First, he was the chairman of the Government Oversight Committee’s 1997 campaign-finance abuse hearings aimed at the Clinton White House and thus made my life miserable when I served as President Clinton’s special counsel in charge of “handling” those hearings and being sure the White House and national political media covered them accurately (I almost say “fair and balanced”). Sen. Thompson was very tough on the Clinton campaign’s fundraising practices. And I strongly disagreed with him, at the very least, for not applying the same standard to Republican fundraising practices. (At one point, I must admit, I was flattered when Thompson sarcastically interjected a comment during the televised campaign-finance hearings in the summer of 1997 (I am paraphrasing, but this is close), “This testimony is so significant that even Lanny Davis won’t call it ‘old news.’”)
Second, he is a conservative on many issues, and I consider myself a Clintonian liberal meaning, I guess, liberal on social issues, moderate on cultural issues, and conservative on fiscal policies. So I guess I can say Mr. Thompson is too conservative for my tastes.
Third, I often disagree with the decisions he makes on whether to prosecute or not on my favorite TV program, “Law & Order.”
I am running out of negative things to say about Sen. Thompson, so I guess I’ll end with the one that is probably the most important: I don’t want to say anything nice about him that may hurt his chances to be the Republican presidential nominee, because if the right wing hears that I like him, that could be the end of his candidacy.
So let me just limit my positive comments by saying: He is authentic and powerfully smart and very fair.
I hope he isn’t the GOP nominee because he would be very difficult to beat although my candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), and he, if they were the Democratic and Republican nominees, respectively, would ensure a great and high level of debate on the issues, rather than “gotcha” attacks back and forth that both of them, I am certain, completely reject.
So Sen. Thompson you can say that I strongly disagree with you because you are too conservative and am supporting Sen. Clinton. But honestly: I think an awful lot of Democrats and independents would share with me their high level of respect for you, as well as their concern that you may be the most difficult Republican to beat in November 2008.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/03/29/authenticity-and-anti-gotcha-politics-looks-good-to-many-democrats/
April 10th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
held a tremendously important Committee Chairmanship while there. Combined with his work in a US Attorneys office, leading the Watergate investigation, and as an attorney advising Senate committees, he has enormous experience dealing with government reform issues and an understanding of the workings of the highest levels of government.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
From the State department site on Thompson after he left politics in 2002:
Senator Fred Thompson (Chairman)
Senator Fred Thompson is currently the chairman of the International Security Advisory Board at the United States Department of State. Senator Thompson also is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission and a visiting fellow with the American Enterprise Institute
http://www.state.gov/t/isn/isab/68268.htm
He’s got a lot of foreign diplomacy experience.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I see he ran his own law firm. That was about the extent of Abraham Lincoln’s executive experience, too.
I see a good, solid, honest, hardworking citizen who has earned the success that he has had. True, he has been divorced, but so had Reagan. It appears he was honorable there.
He sounds very much like Romney, except the divorce thing. You can’t say Thompson has movie star looks just like Romney. Thompson IS a movie star.
I still think Romney and Giuliani have the upper hand when it comes to executive experience. Nothing in Thompson’s resume comes close to either of them. You have to admit this. I would feel comfortable putting either man into the Oval Office. However, Giuliani’s unforced strategic errors of the past week or two do give me pause. If he can’t take running for the office seriously, why should we believe he will take running the office seriously?
Also, Americans prefer Presidents with solid executive experience. Given the choice between an executive and a legislator, they choose the executive nearly everytime.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Mark, you make good points on executive experience, I haven’t denied that they have that in their favor. Thompson’s a man of ideas, and that inspires me, and I’m sure others too. On the other side, when it comes to international relations and strategy, you have to go with Thompson. He has been deeply involved in that part of diplomacy for a long time. Not to compare, but Jefferson had absolutely no executive experience. Not saying that Thompson will be the next Jefferson. But I do think the sky’s the limit when it comes to potential. Thompson is an intellectual without being an elitist candidate, and that excites people like me.
One more thing off topic… I don’t know if you guys know about this, but I just found out about some Hollywood movie that’s coming out about Mormons. I bring this up because it comes out in May, and it’s called “September Dawn.” It is very anti-Mormon, apparently. I thought I’d let you Romney guys know about this thing, although you probably already do. I hope every candidate will condone this, it’s tastelss. An obvious hit job on a religion. I’d look into it and check out what and prepare some sort of response to it.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
No more than a movie about the Spainish Inquisition would be damaging to a Catholic candidate such as Giuliani.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Ok, thats good. Just trying to be some help.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Tommy, I just wanted to say how refreshing it was to see good, solid info on Thompson. I had never heard anything about him other than he was an actor and an okay Senator. It was good to read something in-depth on him. I am still a Mitthead through and through, but if he won the Republican nomination, at least I could feel really good about voting for Thompson in the generals.
Regarding September Dawn, I hadn’t heard anything about it, so thank you for the heads up. Just a quick note though, “condone” means to overlook, forgive, or disregard. I’m thinking you meant to say “renounce” although of course I could be wrong.
Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to write the info up.
Havs
April 11th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Renounce… my bad! It was eleven oclock last night and sleep was catching up to me.
April 11th, 2007 at 7:35 am
You’re welcome.