He didn’t seem ill in his pre-recorded commercial, but it was kinda flat and nondescript. I doubt that many people who saw it could tell you why Thompson said he was running.
There are more debates scheduled. Here’s a Wikipedia article listing the Republican debates:
Seems pretty dumb to announce the night of the Fox debate. Gotta figure that Fox is the network of choice amongst Repub primary voters, and if he chose another night to announce, even if it was one with a prez debate on another channel, he could’ve gotten a lot more air time on Fox. But since the debate was on their network, they’re almost certain to devote most of their Campaign 2008 reporting for the next few days to the debate, and Thompson will get a lot less coverage of his announcement then he would’ve otherwise.
McCain, God love him, got in a zinger last night, suggesting that mebbe ol’ Fred failed to appear for the debate because it would have kept him up past his bedtime. 
The NYT had a good recent examination of Thompson’s role in the Watergate investigation. Long story short: He sometimes acted as the GOP panel members’ conduit to the White House, but worked well with the majority counsel, and looking back, is still considered honorable and a straight shooter by committee Democrats. Not a peep about lacking a serious work ethic (perhaps that was more during his own Senate years).
I kinda agree with the Wesley Clark analogy. I suspect Fred will not wow the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire (or whichever state leapfrogs ahead of them) quite as much as some thought, now that he’ll actually be out there, y’know, campaigning.
Got a link?
My main question about his Senate Watergate Committee experience is: did he actually do anything that made a difference? I followed those hearings pretty damned closely, and while I was quite aware of who Sam Dash (majority counsel) was, and had a pretty good idea of what his role was, I have no recollection at all of Fred Thompson from that time.
(Of course, that entry might be changed at any time by any body, as we know.)
“Is said”?? By whom??
Fox News, according to Wikipedia. So much for that.
The idea that that question led to Nixon’s downfall is absurd. It’s not really clear that it made much of a difference. Even at the time, the question was regarded as being ‘for show’ more than anything else. IIRC, the question was asked of John Dean, who was eager to divulge everything he knew, so it wasn’t like Howard Baker had to twist his arm to get this vital information out of him.
Doesn’t seem to be much ‘there’ there, either.
So far, zilch, then.
I worry a lot about this candidate. Seems people are tired enough of the status quo to vote for anyone “fresh”, no matter how lightweight they are. Ross Perot got tons of votes just by complaining that things needed shaking up. But the lightweight guys end up puppets for the real power brokers.
Here you go. You’ll have to sign in, but it’s free. Has a bit about his Reagan-era freelancing, too: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/us/politics/27thompson.html?ex=1189224000&en=2d244c7a415fd460&ei=5070
I hate the guy, just because all the nimrods here in Tennessee will vote for him “'cause he is a lo-cal boah”. :smack: :smack: :smack:
Knee-jerk voters… :rolleyes:
Didn’t work for Gore.
Is ‘lightweight’ the new Democratic talking point against Thompson or something? Look at the record I posted earlier. Thompson has plenty of experience. He’s been moving around in the highest levels of government for 30 years. He’s been elected twice as a Senator, both times in a landslide (and the first time, he came from 20 points behind to finish 20 points ahead). He’s a skilled lawyer, he’s got an impeccable record for being fair and honest. He was a US attorney and council to the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee.
He became an actor because a movie was being made which was in part about him and his role in bringing down a corrupt governor, and they couldn’t find anyone to play Fred Thompson as well as Fred Thompson could. So he got the part, and impressed people in Hollywood so much that he’s been working steadily ever since.
So a ‘lightweight’ he’s not. He’s an experienced player and two-term Senator.
Maybe this is just typical Democratic arrogance against anyone who’s got a southern accent or something, or you’re equating ‘actor’ with ‘lightweight’. That’s what the Democrats did with Reagan - they called him an inexperienced actor, a bumpkin, and a know-nothing who was nothing more than a puppet for the real hidden players - the dark forces of evil that Democrats think lurk in the shadows of the Republican party.
I remember the Reagan election in '80. There was plenty of ‘lightweight’ talk. Of course, Reagan was a two-term governor of the largest state in the country, and had been making a name for himself in politics for 15 years before he ran. But his ‘aw shucks’ demeanor and the fact that he was an actor caused Democrats to completely underestimate him - to their detriment.
Does anyone else see the humor in this statement?
FT is being interviewed right now on Fox News . . . He’s talking about the possibility of a revolution in Iran, and the U.S.-military option should be a last resort but “nothing should be taken off the table” . . .
I don’t know how non-biased this site is, but it seems reasonably accurate.
Thompson apparently:
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)
Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (Mar 1996)
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Although I did find the odd vote here and there that I could support, by and large I disagree with virtually everything he did and stands for.
I have no idea. It’s certainly my conclusion.
I did, and commented.
No, he hasn’t. He’s never been “at the highest levels of government” by any definition I would apply, not for one day. He never had an Executive Branch position of the sort that gets you direct access to the President. He never had a leadership position in the Senate. And he hasn’t been in government for anything approaching 30 years. If you pile it all together, you might get, what, 12-15 years?
Sam, you’re guilty of gross exaggeration here. Your crush on ol’ Freddie is showing.
No, it’s your bias that’s showing. How is being a 2-term Senator NOT being ‘at the highest levels of government’?
Do you consider Barack Obama to be a lightweight? How do you think his resume stacks up against Thompson’s? How about Hillary’s? Aside from being a first lady, she looks a lot like Thompson - successful lawyer, 2-term Senator (term and a half, really - just like Thompson), worked in Washington as a lawyer. Thompson has the added experience of being council to two Senate committees and the Watergate Commission, and having about 10 years more experience.
Yeah, darn knee-jerk voters. How dare they do something!
:rolleyes:
Somehow, BobLIBDEM, I don’t think he’s angling for your vote…
Hey, I’m not the one who’s turning eight years as a Senator, and another five or six years of this and that, into ‘30 years at the highest levels of government.’
Sorry, but being (on a weighted basis) 1/200 of the legislative branch doesn’t qualify, in and of itself. So many Senators have come and gone, and made little difference besides their votes. Nobody thinks of them has having been “at the highest levels of government,” because they didn’t, as individuals, affect how America was governed; any other warm body of their party, from their state, would have done as well.
If you want to start a “who is a lightweight and who isn’t” thread, go for it. I’ll discuss Freddie here, but I’m not going to comparatively evaluate every Tom, Dick, and Harriet you care to bring up. I came to this thread to discuss Freddie Dalton Thompson.
Yeah, that occurred to me. But his record doesn’t show him to be substantially different than your run of the mill right wing Republican. If people think he’s going to pull one tenth of the crossover voters that Reagan did, I think they’re sadly mistaken. One advantage Reagan had was that he didn’t leave a trail of votes in the Senate.