The Candidates
Featured Archives
One of the knocks against former Senator Fred Thompson thus far in his pre-launched campaign has been that he’s lazy. Washington Monthly magazine says that “his most famous quality is his laziness.” The New Republic has given Thompson the nickname “Lazy Boy”. The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal says, “he had a reputation for being a little lazy.” New York Magazine wrote that “Thompson developed a reputation for being lazy.”
This issue has risen to the forefront again when Thompson told Politico that if he ran, he would rely on technology and on large events so that he could “avoid some of the slogging through the snow in Iowa and New Hampshire that is normally required of White House hopefuls.”
Well, now Jonathan Martin, GOP blogger at the Politico, adds a little more fuel to the fire. He links to a reporter in the Tennessean who got a hold of a copy of Thompson’s high school yearbook (where he is known as “Freddie”), which may further show his penchant for laziness:
What’s notable from the piece is that the same knock on Thompson now — he’s lazy — is apparently nothing new. Says the high school football coach of the the class clown and lineman at Lawrence County High (Class of ‘60): “He probably could have been a straight-A student if he’d applied himself.”
And Thompson himself appears to admit his penchant for procastination in his senior yearbook quote: “The lazier a man is, the more he plans to do tomorrow.”
Fair or not, this is a meme that the former Senator is going to have to deal with when he decides to enter the race.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Laziness will come through in a lacklustre campaign. Huckabee similarly. You have to campaign like you really want it, like McCain, Romney & Brownback have done.
Are people tired of Bush’s “I delegate donkey work to others, and make big deciisions” approach? Cos if so that favours micro-managers like Romney.
If FDT campaigns hard, he’ll prove the characterisation wrong.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
In an effort to read up on the GOP candidates, I just finished the Fred D. Thompson book, “At That Point In Time,” which chronicles his work as chief minority counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee. He worked morning, noon, and night in that capacity, as the story relates – for what it is worth.
So the entirety of FDT’s history needs to be looked at, and JayPe makes a good point in #1.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
I could have been a straight A student had I applied myself as well. I’m just glad no one ever pulled out my high school yearbook for any of the jobs I’ve tried to get!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:32 am
My dad’s lawfirm hosted Sen. Bob Corker of TN recently to speak at a breakfast, and when asked about FT he confirmed that he was indeed lazy. I’ll try and get the actual transcript if possible. Someone in the press needs to get him saying this on record.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Thats a careless thing for a Senator to say. I bet he wouldn’t be impressed to hear it being attributed to him!
May 8th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Personally, if FDT wants to be President he needs to get in there and start pounding the streets. You can’t have it handed to you on a silver platter. Effort is rewarded.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:28 am
While the blogosphere might love this type of virtual candidate the kind folks in Iowa and New Hampshire will have none of it.
How can a virtual conference call compete with the 5 sons of Mitt Romney buy a cheap Winnebago to travel all 99 counties in Iowa?
How do you compete with McCain’s force of center-left Republicans who travel retirement homes to see him win in Florida?
Who is Thompson’s county chair in Stafford County NH? Who is on his finance committee in Greenwich, CT? Who are the student reps for Thompson at U of Mich?
This simply will not do.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:48 am
If this is true, he is either incredibly lucky or he has been the recipient of nepotism, cronyism, or some combination of the three. I think this is a stretch. I don’t think FDT could have accomplished anything, or become what he has become by being “lazy.”
I can understand if the man does not like campaigns. That should not earn him the lazy label.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:58 am
HeavyM,
I have a new poll from NH conducted by a Boston TV station. Thought you might be interested in it. Look who’s on top.
http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_127103629.html
May 8th, 2007 at 8:22 am
The New York Sun has a piece ( http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/thompsons-1994-issue-positions.html ) on Thompson’s Project Vote smart. Here’s a quote from the article.
“Under abortion: He checked the box for: “Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.” He did, however, support a number of restrictions on abortion: requiring parental notification, allowing states to impose waiting periods, and eliminating all federal funding of abortion. Lastly, he said Congress should leave legislation on abortion to the states.”
Huh, surprise! It turns out Thompson was pro-choice (albeit moderately). Who would of thought? I was assured that the pro-choice video we saw a few weeks ago, was really some sort sort of states rights thing. Oh well.
It’s time for us to ask Thompson about this nonsense, and ask him “what does pro-life mean to you?”. Because he’s becoming less credible as the “conservative savior”, by the day.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:43 am
If FDT thinks abortion policy should be left to the states but that he himself believes it should be legal within the first trimester, that’s plenty conservative enough for me. In fact, that’s probably where the majority of the country is, with the exception of the folks on the left who view fetuses as the absolute property of the carrier.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:43 am
I’m not going to let laziness rumors worry much. If Thompson is lazy, it will show in his campaign. Its a self-correcting problem.
Matt,
that’s a very interesting article. I’ve maintained all along that the only way this would hurt Thompson is if he kept acting like he’d been pro-life all along.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:46 am
If lazy is the toughest accusation opponents can make about FDT, then he will be in very good shape.
Thompson has clearly indicated, in response to #11, that he is a lot more pro-life after having had children later in life and been able to see their sonnograms.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:49 am
I agree Marksal, that it’s an effectively pro-life position. And there’s no one I’d trust more on judges then a pro-choice, anti-Roe, Republican. Plus, it’s hard to imagine any actual difference in action at the federal level, between someone with Thompson’s position, and someone with Romney (exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother, but no amendment). But it’s not a pro-life position. 90+% of abortions occur in the first trimester. Even under the loosest definition of pro-life, someone who supports giving women the “choice” to abort, 90+% of the time, isn’t pro-life. They’re pro-choice. And if he and his supporters continue to claim otherwise, they’re just going to making intellectual fools of themselves.
Jim Gilmore had the exact same position at the debate the other day. And everyone, including the liberal MSNBC which distrusts anyone who isn’t for all abortion all the time, called him pro-choice. Thompson’s not any different, even if he must be a conservative savior.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Republius,
“More pro-life” huh? Nice spin. You and I both know that a person who supports making first trimester abortions legal, isn’t pro-life at all.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Im not sure that position will fly with the pro-life crowd. Pro-life to them means anytime after conception. Agreed though thats about where american public opinion.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Billy Valentine:
You need to stop bringing up Corker. You’re going to get him in trouble with some working for FDT here. And Corker is not reliable, and you’re aid lied last week.
Corker is doing nothing but praising him in the papers.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:35 am
For Billy Valentine: Here’s a letter we recieved from the Corker Staff questioning him about your last claim.
“Sen. Corker has not, is not, and will not say anything critical of Sen. Thompson. These two are very good friends. To give foundation to my state, a few months ago I was riding in a car with both Bob and Fred. From the conversation among us, I want you to know that these to men wholly and fully respect each other. Furthermore, while I have not talked to Bob today, I have talked to my friends in his D.C. and they all said that Sen. Corker absolutely did not say anything critical of Thompson.”
May 8th, 2007 at 9:40 am
I don’t give a damn what he said in 1994, nor do I give a damn what Romney said in 1994.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Matt, We both know that Thompson has always supported overturning RvW. Romney has not. We’re not going to get into this again. I don’t doubt Romney on this one, so lets drop 1994.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:51 am
“Thompson has clearly indicated, in response to #11, that he is a lot more pro-life after having had children later in life and been able to see their sonnograms.”
Just in the last few weeks he’s said that he has no idea where all this talk about him not being soldlily pro-life has come from and that they must be taking some quote out of context. It sounds pretty shabby to me.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:55 am
20- Henry
a. Look at his record
b. According to most people, you can apparently be pro-life while supporting parts of RVW (see Romney, Giuliani, McCain). They’re all “pro-life” so I don’t really think that’s going to stick. By 2000, he’d recieved 100 percent ratings.
If he gave to Planned Parenthood, I’d worry.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:57 am
You’re going to have a lot harder time pulling one on Thompson than you are on the others, because he’s been endorsed by Right to Life, and recieved top marks from every Pro-Life goup that gives national interest ratings.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:07 am
To HeavyM: Thompson worked three jobs to put himself through college and Law School, after turning down scholarships to weaker schools than Vanderbilt. That’s not going to pull much weight.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:08 am
while supporting three children.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Tommy you have to pay for additional boxes.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:55 am
If someone is “Lazy”, then he is not going to become President, period. It is certainly within the relm of possibilities that a lazy person can obtain a variety of high offices — mayor, governor, congressman, even senator. These have limited geographic scope. Local factions can easily be manipulated. A combination of luck, patronage, good looks, and timing can get a less-than-active man elected to any of these positions. (Hey, dead men have been elected a number of times. Who can be lazier than a dead man?) But the Presidency is the big leagues. It is national in scope. The campaign is a crucible that destroys the weak. Sliding by is nigh impossible.
So Tommy, chill dude. If Thompson is lazy, his campaign is doomed, and there is nothing you can do about it. If he isn’t, then his campaign will prove all these guys wrong, and it will all sort itself out. So relax.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Tommy,
I’m not concerned about Thompson’s pro-life views. Whatever they have been in the past, I’m pretty sure he’s solidly pro-life now. I am concerned that he’s not been upfront about his past positions. In just the las few weeks he’s given interviews where he pretended that he had no idea where people were getting this idea that his views had changed.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I think stick a fork in Fred Thompson…..he’s done.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Hardly.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Laurent,
If there is one thing I have learned watching people, is that it is always very dangerous to stick forks in them. They often get mad and come out swinging.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Agreed Henry. Double standards are so unpleasant.
Tommy,
The problem with Thompson’s pro-life voting record is, it doesn’t necessarily tell us much. Every vote that he’s made in the senate, on the issue of life, is fully consistent with a moderate pro-choice position (one which supports all minor restrictions, but allows for abortion in the first trimester). It’s not as if bills come before the senate attempting to ban abortion in the first trimester. Also, Romney was endorsed by the Massachusetts Right to Life in 1994.
All in all, I agree that 1994 isn’t important, given both Romney and Thompson’s history’s since then. That was all I was trying to convey. That Thompson’s conversion shouldn’t be brushed over by the same people who are trying to eviscerate Romney for a similar conversion. If you’re not trying to do that, we’re in good shape. If your position is “yeah, they both might have had different positions in 1994, but he really doesn’t matter”, then I have qualms with you. I’ll drop it. Until other Thompson supporters start frequenting the board and pretending that Thompson has been a pro-life God since birth.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
You have “no qualms,” you mean.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Everythign he is doing simply adds to this notion. he is staying on sidelines and writing op eds here and there while everybody else is criscrossing the country meeting and wooing voters. Why get in when he doesn’t have to do anything and still gets free media with no real scrutiny.
people always say, oh, fred is doing well even though he is not even in the race yet. that is ridiculous, that is WHY he is doing well. the narrative that the msm simply adopts is just that. when the scrutiny begins, then we will see if he really has what it takes to be presdient. as for now, i am beginning to believe that he really is lazy. i am annoyed every time he writes some short op ed with minimal effort and then speaks here.
We all know he is running, he is simply doing what he does best, tryign to get what he wants with the least amount of work.
Fred supported abortion (http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/thompsons-1994-issue-positions.html) he is just as conservative as mccain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/05/AR2007050500284_pf.html) and appears to be lazy. I don’t know why is the darling of so many conservatives.