Something that every candidate has to go through in the campaign process is the vetting. When a candidate makes what appears to be a misstep, the press and their opponents jump all over it. Some people don’t have a clear understanding of the person’s background, and how it shapes their opinion, or they just have a hard time discussing it.
When Fred Thompson decided to run, it was not an easy decision for him. I can confirm that. There were many ghosts that would come back into his life and he would have to face them again. When you go through a traumatic experience, sometimes the best way to deal with them is to block them and the memory out. Thompson was well aware that their would be issues that would be very painful for him to discuss, but they were things that he knew he couldn’t escape. This is one of them.
From ABC News:
In a moving, pointed and rare response to a question about the Terri Schiavo controversy, former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee Monday afternoon described details of the death of his own daughter, Elizabeth “Betsy” Thompson Panici, and said that neither federal nor local governments should play any role in making a family’s end-of-life decisions.
“I had to make those decisions with the rest of my family,” Thompson said. “And I will assure you one thing: No matter which decision you make, you will never know whether or not you made exactly the right decision.”
GOP hopeful Thompson said that “making this into a political football is something that I don’t welcome, and this will probably be the last time I ever address it. It should be decided by the family. The federal government — and the state government too, except for the court system — should stay out of these matters, as far as I’m concerned.”
Betsy Panici died in January 2002 at the age of 38 from a brain injury following cardiac arrest after what was deemed an accidental overdose of prescription drugs. The death of Thompson’s only daughter from his first marriage is said to have devastated the lawyer-turned-actor-turned-politician, and friends say it played a major role in Thompson’s decision not to seek re-election two months later.
Thompson didn’t necessarily have a burning desire to be the next President of the United States. However, he was given a second chance at raising a daughter. What motivated the former senator to run for office wasn’t so much ego (although any politician has one), but looking around and seeing the world he now lives in, and having the unique opportunity to make it a better place for his young children to live in.
Last month during a sojourn to Florida, Thompson begged off a direct answer when asked if Congress had overstepped its bounds in March 2005 by preventing Schiavo’s feeding tube from being removed, per court orders and the desires of her husband, Michael Schiavo. “Local matters, generally speaking, should be left to the locals,” Thompson said last month. But since Thompson also said, “I don’t remember the details of the case,” many in the media covered his answer as if he had slept through what was a national frenzy in 2005.
“Obviously, I had heard about the Schiavo case,” Thompson said Monday afternoon after touring the Port of Tampa, when a local reporter asked him if he wanted to revisit his answer from September. “I had to face a situation like that on a personal level with my own daughter. I know this is bandied about as a political issue, and people want to make it such and talk about it in the public marketplace a lot. I am a little bit uncomfortable about that, because it’s an intensely personal thing with me. These things need to be decided by the family.”
Schiavo, whom doctors described as having been in a persistent vegetative state, died March 31, 2005. Despite medical evidence, her parents, brother and many in the religious community insisted she had some cognition.
Sometimes, it’s the things that we lose in life that shapes who we are today. Maybe it’s another blunder to some to jump on, but to others, it’s a reality that nobody wants to face.
UPDATE: Erick at Redstate read the same article I did and had this to say:
It’s an interesting study in contrast for which I know I’ll get hate mail. But there are two first tier candidates this year running for President who have lost children. On the Democratic side, rarely does a news story or interview go by without John Edwards or a campaign surrogate mentioning the tragic death of his son, Wade. It humanizes the man you’d otherwise only think of as the guy who gets $400.00 haircuts while living in 20,000 square foot houses.
See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. In fact, according to Edwards, the death of his son is one reason he got into politics.
On the other side is Fred Thompson, who lost his daughter Elizabeth. You don’t read as much about Elizabeth Thompson Panici’s death, but it is one reason Thompson dropped out of politics in 2002. And it is not something he likes to talk about, but it is important to understand just how deeply it affected to understand just how committed to life he is.
A lot of other candidates have hurled jabs Thompson’s way for his failing to address the Schiavo issue, but reading this interview underscores just how much Thompson understands the personal side of the issue and just how disdainful he is of trying to turn these issues into political battles.
It’s things like this that make me a Thompson fan. He loathes to make the personal a political issue.
UPDATE 2: I just noticed Erick made a slight error. There are actually 3 presidential candidates running for president who have lost children. Joe Biden lost his young wife and child in a car accident.
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
He could have said that from the start.
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Some things are just to damn hard to discuss in public. I know from personal experience.
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
It sounds like he really didn’t want to talk about it until people like “thomas alan” criticized him for not giving a more detailed answer. C’mon man, give the guy a break. It was his daughter for crying out loud.
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
[...] post by Tommy Oliver and software by Elliott [...]
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I think the problem here is that Thompson makes the case sound like the Government was trying to interfere with the wishes of the family. As anyone who remembers the Schiavo fight, that was not the case. The family was divided, and the woman lacked a living will. What Social Conservatives (and other Republicans) tried to do was preserve her life, since there was no real indication she would have wanted it any other way.
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:58 pm
ACT,
Even so, what did that have to do with the federal government? It was, at most, a state issue. Aren’t conservatives supposed to be defenders of federalism?
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
LJ, indeed. And it had already been through the court system.
Not only did the federal government intervene, but CONGRESS ITSELF did. When the American public expects it get real priorities done.
It was around this time that the approval rating for Congress and the GOP went into the toilet.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:02 pm
#2
I’m not talking about his daughter, I’m talking about his position. He didn’t need to bring up his daughter to say the government should have stayed out.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
ACT Blog,
Until you’ve been in their shoes, I’d really rather let them understand the situation. That’s part of the deal with being for a limited federal government. The family and the courts are the ones to decide in this matter. If not, you’re setting a mighty large precedent. You’re giving the government authority to control something that in many cases, they don’t have the right to control.
You set a precedent. There is no problem with what he is saying. You give the federal government authority over matters such as life and death. Like it or not, when one gets married, it is up to your spouse to make that kind of decision. Next thing you know, we’ll have a braindead person who will never wake up, and then suddenly Yyour step aunt once removed, whose against it, would have legal authority to stop them from pulling the plug.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:04 pm
#3
Don’t talk about what you don’t know about. That was my first post on the subject.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Thomas Alan,
He stated his position the last time he was asked about it, and his opponents tried to take advantage of it. He said he didn’t think the federal government had a place in cases like that.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
#9
It really concerns me when conservatives begin looking at the courts as being some entity outside of government.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Why, Thompson seems to be…reasonable!
He’ll never win the nomination from the Christian Right now.
But he’s fast becoming a candidate I could get enthusiastic about.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Thomas Alan,
When the federal government has no right to interfere, you must rely on the rule of law. It was not the fedeal governments place…
Frankly, it scares me when people who consider themselves conservative want the federal government to intervene in peoples lives at all.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:09 pm
LJ hit the nail on the head.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:09 pm
This is a poignant autobiographical anecdote that could prove to humanize Thompson especially among female voters. However, his position on this issue will likely anger many Values Voters who are already slightly distrustful of Senator Thompson on life issues.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
#11
Like I said, I didn’t read too deeply into the subject, but all reports I read were that he gave no opnion on the subject.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Thomas Alan,
Then you didn’t really read the reports. You read what you wanted to read and ran with it, without taking an objective look at it. You read it and probably thought “what an idiot” and laughed at how dumb he was. If you read his entire quote from the first time it was brought up, you would’ve seen that.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
#14
That was a switch of the subject.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Rudy hits 46 on Intrade today, an all-time high. Admist all this other news, Rudy has the real momentum.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Tommy, Would the 1964 Civil Rights Act have scared you? The federal government stepped in to end segregation in US schools and public places when states, particulary those southern, would not.
I’m not talking about over-compensating like forced-busing, quotas, etc. The states should always be given the first shot concerning local control, however, there are times when the Fed does need to step in(or at least be an avenue of recourse) as in the case of gross injustice with regard to past state segregation policies.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Scott,
Do I oppose civil rights? Of course not. there are times that it is entirely reasonable for the federal government to step in and fix things. This, however, was not one of them.
Word of warning: Us southerners are particularly sensitive to throwing around the racist charges. I’d watch it. Many of us are too young to have lived through it. It’s one reason that I wouldn’t be suprised to see a third party southerner ticket next year. There’s a lot of resentment on both sides of the line.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Yo — post this.
h++p://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/candidate-match-game.htm
New candidate quiz. It’s the best one so far.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
TLG, I’ll check it out.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Nixon was right. This man is simply not very bright.
Fred, there was competing and irreconcilable family desires in the Schiavo case.
An objective Court decision was a must. Or would Thompson have preferred a dual at dawn between the parties?
Personally, I find his bringing up his deceased daughter as an inappropriate answer for this situation very off putting. But then he also has no hesitation when he brings up his young daughter on stage- and even mentioned her in the debate- to evidence his virility.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Tommy, I don’t, for a minute, think you would oppose civil rights.
However, the way you phrased your comment would lead people to believe otherwise.
“Frankly, it scares me when who would consider themselves conservative want the federal government to intervene in peoples lives at all.”
That is a huge blanket statement which I did not believe you meant. See the difference with your later response?
“…there are times that it is entirely reasonable for the federal government to step in and fix things…”
Easy with the warnings, OK? It wasn’t meant as a race issue but as a fed gov intervening vs. a TRUE consevative thing as you seemed to characterize it. There are no doubt, wounds on both sides but that dosen’t mean we can’t look at precedent otherwise it would be dysfunctional on all parts.
Yes, the Schiavo thing was a tough one. Yours, Thompson’s and the majority of the country’s opinion may have been correct but I don’t think so. Starving a human being over the course of more than a weeks time is not mercy to me.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Opinionated, for once, you are just being…well, you quite obviously didn’t read the article.
What you said and what Fred said do not clash!
The court decision was not the federal government intervening! “The state government too, except for the court system — ” said Fred.
Foot. Mouth. Insert.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy
He said ““I had to make those decisions with the rest of my family,â€
That makes his personal tragedy totally different and irrelevant to the Schiavo case.
He states the obvious and some people infer brilliance. We all expect and demand to make personal decisions for our family.
But, Fred, dare I mention Abortion.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:22 pm
…I don’t see what conflicts in what Fred said with your opinion, Opinionated.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Opinionated,
When you’ve lost a child, come talk to me. I have never personally attacked someone here, but I am at my limit. One more comment like that, and your gone.
You are sick and your little fascination with being political looks bad on you, your candidate, and your intelligence.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:28 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy
I don’t like that he uses the irrelevant tragedy of his daughter to try to make up for his lack of understanding of the Schiavo case and his previous damaging misstatements on the subject.
You tell me what is he trying to say by using his daughter’s death?
Family should make decisions? Ok. What if family is in conflict? What if one side’s decision- against the wishes of the other- will result in death.
In the Schiavo case a father and mother were trying every avenue to try to do what they believe was in the best interest of their daughter. I applaud them for exhausting every possibility.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Opinionated,
Last warning. This is something I’ve been through as well.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Tommy Oliver
Explain to me to what you are objecting.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Tommy, where were you personally attacked..?
Then again, you should ban him for crimes against logic!
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
It will be interesting to see if Romney moves to the right on “end of life” issues to help solidify his recent gains with the Values Voters.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:36 pm
TLG,
I haven’t been personally attacked. I’ve lost a child, and can be sensitive to those who use it to attack somebody. I was saying I was about to call opinionated an idiot.
Opinionated,
I am objecting to you attacking anyone for something like this when your knowledge of the case is lacking, and accusing them of using it for political gain, and for calling any death “irrelevant”. It makes perfect sense. His daughter was in a vegetative state, and he had to go through the same situation. He was the one who had to pull the plug. It should be up to the next of kin. In order… Husband, then children, then parents. That’s the law.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Tommy Oliver
“any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, …”
But not every death is relevant to every subject.
Schiavo was not about when to cease medical care. My family had to deal with that very issue last Spring.
The issue in Schiavo was in competing family decisions. One possibility resulting in an unnecessary death.
You support Thompson and you are seeking an excuse to boot me because I criticise how he answered an issue that he fumbled on his first try.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Opinionated,
That is about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. If I’m looking for an excuse to boot someone for attacking Thompson, then this site wouldn’t have any other posters. I’ve never recommended booting anyone, and I don’t want to start now.
I might also be one of the most laid back here, when someone attacks him, but this is different.
2nd of all,
You, who bash all social conservatives? First, Schiavo was brain dead, legally. She wasn’t improving, by objective accounts. It is in the hands of the family, not the government. The next of kin is the husband. THAT is who the final decision comes down to. It is the next of kin.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
“It is in the hands of the family, not the government. The next of kin is the husband. THAT is who the final decision comes down to. It is the next of kin.”
That was the tragedy of the Schivo case, that the family was not united in the decision. And there were questions as to the motivation of that next of kin.
Can anyone honestly fault the parents for going all out to try to protect their daughter- wrong or right.
But that is not what we are arguing about. I take exception- and you take exception to my taking exception- that Thompson’s explaination for his view has nothing to do with the particulars of the case.
I didn’t criticize his tragedy (or yours). I criticize his politics methods. Is that out of bounds?
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Both the Schaivo case, and the Elian Gonzales case, did irrepreable damage to the hard-right conservative movement. In both cases, all respect for family (and yes, ordered relations starting with the spouse in the Schaivo case), was thrown out the window and recourse made to raw political power in order to arrive at the outcome that the ideologues wanted.
In one case to try to trump the natural right of the husband to make the most difficult of all decisions. In the other, and attempt to steal a child from his own loving father in order to score political points.
In both cases the common sense of the American people prevailed in the end, but the glimpse into the soul of the hard-right turned millions off from that kind of conservatism.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Tommy, I don’t think you should be so hard on Opinionated.
I, too, lost two daughters in 1988. I had twin Down Syndrome girls in 1988. They were 2-1/2 months premature. The smallest girl died after four weeks. The doctors removed her oxygen and she was gone in 15 minutes. The other twin survived and is now 19 years old and lives with her adoptive mother in Oregon. She is doing great.
I am pro-life and wouldn’t even consider getting an amnio since abortion was not an option for me.
We wrestled over the adoption but didn’t feel we were emotionally prepared to raise a Down Syndrome child. We had a 3 & 4 year old at the time. God provided Stephanie. She came to us. She had heard about us. She said that she had been praying that God would give her a baby girl with Down Syndrome and she wanted to name her Rachel. That was our baby’s name.
Tommy, I understand the pain of loss and having to make hard decisions.
I wasn’t going to make any comments on this thread, in respect for you because I know you are sensitive about people criticizing Fred, but when I read this by Opinionated, I knew I had to say something: (#31) “I don’t like that he uses the irrelevant tragedy of his daughter to try to make up for his lack of understanding of the Schiavo case and his previous damaging misstatements on the subject.”
I would not have used the word “irrelevant,” because no loss is irrelevant to one’s life and surely does shape the direction one’s life goes in, but this story just reminded me of the Edwards and how they use their son’s death to garner pity from voters.
I don’t think Fred is trying to garner pity, but I do think he may be using it to cover up the fact that he wasn’t up on the Shiavo story.
His campaign is understandably going back and trying to smooth out some of his previous gaffes, and this is one of them.
I think that Opinionated needs to learn to present his or her opinions in a much more gracious way, that’s for sure.
I hope you’re not angry at me for voicing my opinion. I give it with the utmost respect for you, but felt I had to speak.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Opionated,
When you have no idea what his motivation is, then yes. He gave the same position that he did when he first answered the question, only this time he gave details.
Thompson was, and is, uncomfortable discussing it. It’s the same thing as when people accuse him of quitting the Senate because he was lazy. Those who knew him understood why he left the senate, but instead of trying to find the reason, people ran with the quote to use against him. Thompson said earlier that he didn’t support the federal government getting involved.
His case is perfectly in line with this one. He was in the almost exact same dilemma. It was up to him and his family to make that decision, and it would’ve been very wrong for the government to step in and stop. What it does is set a precedent where the government makes that decision for the person who the responsibility falls too.
Also, it is perfectly fine to argue whether you agree or not. It is out of bounds to accuse him of using his daughters death politically. That’s unfair, and wrong.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
P.S. Tommy, I was deeply involved (via the Internet) in the Schiavo case. It was a horribly complex case.
It didn’t make sense to me that her husband was so anxious to have her die when her immediate family was so willing to take care of her in her present state for the rest of her life.
I always felt that he had something to hide and that he had harmed her in some way.
He was free to go on with his life, remarry, whatever. What did it matter to him?
I do believe, though, that he was terrified that she would “wake up” one day and tell all.
Just a gut feeling I got from what I had read about their relationship from friends and family members.
It was a very, very tough case — no doubt about it.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Beth,
The problem with your reasoning is that he basically said the same thing. A lot of people took his quote out of context originally and ran with it.
He said then and now that he doesn’t want the government involved in that decision. Can you fault the man for not going into details when he was first asked about it? He even said that since he didn’t know all the specifics, he was not going to get into it. If he had jumped out and said “well, when my daughter died” people would’ve accused them then of using it for political gain.
You guys have to look at things without blinders on, objectively, without believing the worst in someone. I have learned to find out the whole story before I run with something.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:19 pm
bethtopaz — 43 — Yeah, I do know what you mean, there, actually.
But the law doesn’t account for gut feelings, nor should it.
The autopsy report vindicated the Schindlers, though.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
As far as the Schiavo case goes, Micheal, her husband, petitioned for the money to be used for the care of his wife. After having received that money, and YEARS later, he said that his wife had made reference to the fact, in passing conversation, that she would never want to be on life support. That would have been after Michael had shacked up with another woman.
Mr. Schiavo’s lawyer is and has been a promoter of euthanazia and had actually referred to Mrs. Schiavo’s passing as “beautiful”. Starving a fellow human being to death, watching a person turn blue and pale was quite satisfying for Mr. Schiavo’s lawyer and is well documented.
There are certainly situations in which persons are not required to be kept alive artificially with no good prospect of recovery. That situation was not one of them. The courts forced starvation, a cruel and painful death, on a disabled woman.
The culture of death won that battle and called it “beautiful” to boot. By the way, Michael has used up her money and has serious legal ramifications concerning his professional life as a nurse post Terri.
The vow was never carried out…until death do us part.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:21 pm
beth,
I know it was a complex case. The husband was a bastard. The problem is that it sets a precedent that can be used again and again. The case went to court and was turned down. As painful as it is, you can’t write new laws when life knocks you down. The government should not have the authority to interfere in matters like that. The whole thing led to congress trying to write a law after the fact, which is wrong. If all the legal avenues are played out, then the law must be followed.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:26 pm
beth,
My daughter was born in a vegetative state. I am sorry for what happened to you, and understand where you’re coming from, in that regard.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
#18
Actually I only started looking at the reports this evening. The thing looked small ball and beneath my interest.
Now that I’ve looked a bit I still haven’t seen a report with what you claim he said.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
#46 – The Church of Scientology was involved also. There were some creepy things going on with this case.
You are right, Scott, the culture of death won that battle.
Obviously, this is a warning to all of us that we make our wishes absolutely clear as to how we want to treated in case we are ever found in a vegetative state, for whatever reason.
And we have to put something in writing and have it put in a place that can be found by an objective party.
The uncertainty of her wishes caused so much grief to everyone involved.
#48 – Tommy, I am very sorry to hear about your daughter. No one, I repeat, no one can know what it’s like to have a child that is born with deformities or incurable illnesses.
I was judged harshly by several people at my church. They were followers of Bill Gothard and said that if I gave up my baby for adoption God would do something worse to me. They were expecting a child on the same day as we were and had a healthy baby boy.
I was bitter about that for a long time.
In fact, it was the Mormons in my town that came out and wrapped their arms around me during this time — with no judgment, only help — and never mentioned or encouraged me to go to their church.
Thank God it worked out the way it did. I will always know that it was the right thing to do.
Also, we were on 20/20 in 1991. We and another couple were in a segment on Special Needs Adoption. Being pro-life I was able to talk to many couples all across the country about the loving option of adoption (instead of abortion).
When Stone Phillips interviewed me at my home, he said: “You say that you are against abortion, and yet you chose to give your baby up for adoption. How do you rationalize that?”
I said, “Abortion is about taking a life. Adoption is about giving a life. We gave our baby the best life she could possibly have.”
Rachel’s mom, Stephanie, has a Masters in Special Ed and a specialty in premature infants. She used to adopt babies that had been abandoned in the hospital, who were dying, so they would have a home of their own, until they passed away.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Tommy Oliver
I was posting maybe with an incorrect assumption that we are engaged here in cold hard political analysis.
But I guess we can never get away from the truth that we all come at issues with our unique experiences.
My comments came from my reaction to Thompson’s initial appearance when his child came on stage to grab his leg. To the appearance with Hannity with the child on his lap. To yesterday’s reference of the existence of that child as proof that he is not lazy.
Maybe I’m alone in feeling uncomfortable that I believe he uses the child for political purposes.
To me it seemed more of the same.
If it touched a nerve with you, I understand why. I’m sorry I inadvertently offended you.
I remain unimpressed by Thompson.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Wow, Beth…what a story. Thanks be to God Rachel found a place to be loved despite her downs syndrome.
I’ve worked with medically fragile children and their families in the home care business for the last several years. And I can’t relay properly the joy that disadvantaged children who are reliant on tracheostomys for breathing and super techno wheelchairs, etc bring to those around them.
Glad you shared that with us Beth.
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Thanks, Scott!
The story wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t tell you a little bit about RachelJoy. (Her mom added the name Joy).
Rachel has beautiful, long, dark brown hair and her mother, who once had leukemia, would cut it as it grew and donate it to kids who have leukemia.
Recently, she said, “Mommy, I don’t want to cut my hair anymore!” She’s into long hair and long nails – quite the lady.
Also, the really great thing is that Rachel has a healing ministry.
Stephanie told me last week that Rachel, who doesn’t talk very well or very much, is very much a part of their church, and she has become quite a healer.
She was at a prayer meeting a couple weeks ago and she went up to one couple and laid her hands on the man’s shoulders and started praying.
Shortly afterwards, the man broke down in tears. He said that just that day the doctor had found a tumor in his chest.
*************
Another lady they know, who lives in Washington D.C. has liver cancer and Rachel was asked by the family to fly out to D.C. (a couple weeks ago) and pray for this woman, Jeannie.
Jeannie was lying in the hospital bed and was in a coma. The doctors had said there was no hope for her and she had little time.
Rachel was praying really hard for Jeannie and looked up at her mom and said, “Jeanie dancing.”
Everyone just shrugged and thought, “Whatever.”
A week later, Jeanie was well enough to get out of bed, attend her daughter’s wedding and dance at her wedding.
*************
I feel that if I never do anything of significance in my life, I have given birth to this wonderful child and given her to someone who gave her the best life possible and now she is an instrument of healing.
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
49
Thomas Alan, that you are actually looking for reports to use as political fodder should be beneath my interest, but I am about to post a follow up on the details of Thompson’s daughters death.
But since you asked anyway, and since this is the one issue where skepticism really angers me…
Here’s the link to the original story when he said the original quote, written by the same journalist
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Those looking to use it with skepticism or to attack are downright sad and should be ashamed of yourself.
(not meaning you beth)
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Opinionated,
“To yesterday’s reference of the existence of that child as proof that he is not lazy.”
Where did he use that as proof he is not lazy? He used it to explain why he felt the way he did. Look, everyone needs to learn the good and the bad about the candidates. keeping a closed mind or preconceived notion towards someone because you don’t support them in a primary is beneath you.
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Definitely a sensitive thread.
Thomas Alan unintentionally stepped on a land mine it looks like.
I’ve no problem with Fred’s stance here and the Schaivo case was a wild ride. Next of kin should make the decisions and that has to be the rule . . . even if they’re greedy SOBs (like her husband).
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:00 pm
And fortunately, greedy SOBs can be taken to court and the “next of kin” can be challenged in extreme circumstances.
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Jeff,
Thank you for the honesty.
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I’ve been upfront about not following the story. Not sure why I deserve a rebuke for not paying attention to a minor Thompson gaffe, and then doing a bit of research when it’s brought up out of nowhere a month later. Even the article you posted suggests he didn’t answer the question back then.
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:09 pm
TLG (#13),
Be careful what you say . . .
Romney (several months back) said that he thought that Congress was wrong to intervene in the Schaivo case (Bill Frist, who led that crusade, had some unkind words for Romney when all that happened . . . and now he’s endorsed Thompson who holds the same position of Romney . . . I found that a tad ironic)
Romney did get a lot of negativity from a large portion of the Christian Right/ Pro-life community for saying that it was a matter that should be left to the courts (But, listening to most around here he’s just a full-blown panderer who adopts positions to increase his support on the right, eh?)
Romney gave the good line about this case: “Just like it’s wrong for judges to legislate . . . it’s a very bad idea for legislators to adjudicate” (paraphrased)
So TLG . . . you ready to rephrase your comment since thier positions are the same?:
“Why, [Romney] seems to be…reasonable!
He’ll never win the nomination from the Christian Right now.
But he’s fast becoming a candidate I could get enthusiastic about.?
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Thomas Alan,
Don’t take it personally . . . reading trough the thread, I think that people jumped on you pre-maturely. Informing yourself when you weren’t too acquainted with the story is nothing to be apologetic for . . . and your right to defend yourself when others say that you were doing it for “political fodder”. Like they’re inside your brain or something. I know that you’re an intellectually honest and level-headed blogger/poster. Don’t let them bug you.
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Thomas Alan,
Good grief. It was brought up because the same journalist asked him if he had any further thoughts, when he was campaigning in the same place that he was last month. Plus, the fact that you still are trying to use it is insensitive When you didn’t even get the whole story right, and you just ran with whatever was said in the mainstream. Some of you (not all of you) are so quick to buy into whatever the media reports, but when it is your candidate that’s under attack, then the media is dishonest and untrustworthy. I don’t like the media, and that applies to the way they treat all of the candidates. I make sure I know the story before I go off on it.
Remember how defensive you were to the Larry Craig connection? How people were using it to hurt Romney? Well, I rest my case. It’s not that you are unfamiliar with the story, it’s that you didn’t read the whole story before you jumped to conclusions, and automatically assumed the worst of someone.
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
You see, in your first post you said
“he could’ve said that from the start”
In the next post you said
“I’m not talking about his daughter, I’m talking about his position. He didn’t need to bring up his daughter to say the government should have stayed out.”
In your third post you said
“Don’t talk about what you don’t know about. That was my first post on the subject.”
You should’ve left it alone, but instead, you want to try and prove that Thompson used it for some undercover motive. That type of skepticism, when it comes to the candidates, is not right. All of them have their faults.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:34 am
You want me to dig deeply into a story I have minimal interest in?
I didn’t give a damn about the story a month ago. I didn’t blog about it. I don’t even remember clicking on any of the stories.
I’m not even sure what undercover motive you thought I was prescribing to him.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:02 am
Tommy Oliver Says:
Opinionated,
“To yesterday’s reference of the existence of that child as proof that he is not lazy.â€
Where did he use that as proof he is not lazy?
………………………………..
You jump to accuse me, again, that I have a closed mind. Below, from the debate transcript, he uses his children- the young ones especially -AS PROOF- that he is not lazy.
…………………………………….
GOLER:…….Some people say you’re lazy, sir.
How do you deal with that?
THOMPSON: And I should add, the most important — the most important part is I’m a proud father of five; two of them are under the age of four. So let me add that to the list.
…………………………………..
Maybe you can explain to me how his answer is relevant to the question?
Or if it fits Thompson pattern of using props and gimmicks. Such as driving a red pickup truck to campaign events as evidence that a lobbyist is a man of the people.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:03 am
Jeff Fuller — Romney (several months back) said that he thought that Congress was wrong to intervene in the Schaivo case (Bill Frist, who led that crusade, had some unkind words for Romney when all that happened . . . and now he’s endorsed Thompson who holds the same position of Romney . . . I found that a tad ironic)
Romney did get a lot of negativity from a large portion of the Christian Right/ Pro-life community for saying that it was a matter that should be left to the courts (But, listening to most around here he’s just a full-blown panderer who adopts positions to increase his support on the right, eh?)
Romney gave the good line about this case: “Just like it’s wrong for judges to legislate . . . it’s a very bad idea for legislators to adjudicate†(paraphrased)
So TLG . . . you ready to rephrase your comment since thier positions are the same?:
The difference is: I have no idea if Romney really believes a word he says.
It’s not Romney’s “positions” that I have a problem with, but his inability to display even a remote degree of conviction in what he says. I don’t want another Bill Clinton presidency, where policies change with the polls. This looks like another guy who would commission a poll so he could pick a popular vacation spot.
He really is all business, but he doesn’t get the fundamental difference between business and politics: in one, the goal is to make money. There are competing sets of visions for how to get there, but there’s one goal. In politics, the goals are the issue. He’s still in businessman mode when he goes into politics: trying to be all things to all people. In business, that’s great. The aim is to please everyone. You can’t — and shouldn’t — do that in politics.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:03 am
Woops…mine starts with “It’s not Romney’s positions…” ^