Comedy relief:
From Elendil’s Heir’s link:
FWIW, a Congressperson’s constituents are often looking for very different sorts of performance than we in general look for from Congresspersons in general. He may have had very good constituent service people, and may have been very good in putting little doohickeys in bills that brought the bacon home to Tennessee. That can get you a great reputation with the home folks, but won’t and shouldn’t impress anyone else.
I don’t know if that was the case with Freddie, but just pointing out the possibility.
Well, that shows he can give a good speech. But getting the response to the SotU doesn’t exactly mean you’re “at the highest levels of government.” Didn’t Jim Webb get that job this year? He’d been a Senator for only a few weeks at the time.
Again, this doesn’t support Sam’s claim of his being at the highest levels of government. As you say, he wasn’t even in government.
Especially since he’d been “testing the waters” all summer. He couldn’t have defined his positions on some major issues for purposes of his campaign website?
Yeah, I’ll call him lazy.
Especially since (from Elendil’s Heir’s link again):
:snicker:
Yes, anti-corporate rhetoric is so rare in the Democratic party, especially among the ‘base’ he is courting. Way to stick your neck out there, John.
He became against the war when it became unpopular. Wow. Another profile in courage - to take a position that about 90% of the people he’s trying to woo share. He may be correct, but taking an anti-war stance these days is hardly courageous. It’s the cool thing to do. You want courage? Be a supporter of the war like John McCain, and go on the Daily Show and be interviewed.
And Edwards isn’t in the Republican Party. His positions are shared by everyone he is interviewed by, and by the vast majority of every crowd he speaks to. Oh, yeah, there was that tough questioning by the moderators of the Fox News debate… Oh, I forgot. He boycotted that. Way to stick your neck out there, John.
You mean the ‘old’ Republican party, that said government was the problem, that the EPA, DoE, and PBS should be shut down? Or the ‘lunatic fringe’ today that can only argue about how big the next new entitlement should be, and who have presided over the largest expansion of the Federal Government since LBJ?
The fact is, no matter how ‘wacky’ the Republicans are or aren’t, you can bet that Thompson took some heat for putting hard questions to a sitting Republican president and his staff, just as he took some heat for backing John McCain over Bush in 2000, when push was the party’s presumptive nominee. I actually remember that. Thompson was an up-and-comer, and early on developed a reputation as a bit of a ‘maverick’ for not toeng the GOP line.
That’s just total bullshit. This trope that anyone who advocates states rights is a bigot is nothing more than a smear. Yes, ‘states rights’ were used to argue against civil rights laws 40 years ago, but that says nothing about today. If you have evidence that Thompson is any sort of a bigot, present it.
As I said, you think he’s not a lightweight because he says the things you like. That’s about it. Because the ‘qualifications’ you mention above are ridiculous. I grew up among poor people. So did Thompson. So did half of America. So basically what you’re saying is that he’s qualified because he’s a trial lawyer who goes after corporations. That’s good enough for you.
Yeah, a chronic poster who sticks her foot in her mouth regularly, and who believes in ‘alternative medicine’ quackery. Are we allowed to make as much fun of her as your side made of Nancy Reagan’s astrology?
It is not a factual inaccuracy. Thompson was elected to two terms. One was short because it was a mid-term election. The important part of being a ‘two-term’ anything is not that you put in the time, but that after showing what you can do in office you get re-elected.
I think winning a second election after the voters have been able to judge your performance is a pretty decent measure, yes.
You make a good point - as long as you ignore his work on the Watergate Commission, his running the campaign (and winning) of Howard Baker, his work as special council to the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, His being chosen to give the response to a state of the union address, his work on the select committee for national security, and his beng chosen to lead the team that got John Roberts elected as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
And you’d have a point about lobbying for big corporations - so long as you ignore the fact that he was also a lobbyist for the Teamsters Union. The only big corporation he ever lobbied for was Westinghouse, and I’m unaware of any major scandals they’ve been part of. His other five clients were the Teamsters, two cable television stations, a Savings and Loan institute from his home state, and a consortium of small businesses from his home state. The monster.
It looks like he’s created a patchwork of existing programs, ignored the already existing problems with many of them, and called that his plan. In any event, of course I think it would be a disaster.
So if Edwards supports all the liberal bumper stickers, does that make him an empty suit too?
He spoke at Bob Jones University.
Is it your contention that everyone who speaks there is a racist? Is John McCain a racist?
Thompson spoke at Bob Jones University and used “states’ rights” rhetoric when he did. Neither fact by itself might indicate racism, but the two in conjunction do indicate, if not racism, then a cynical willingness to court the racist vote. At BJU, “states’ rights” is bound to be understood to mean pretty much what it meant in the '60s. You know it, I know it, Thompson knows it.
Shorter Sam - RTF dialogue:
Sam: Question A.
RTF: Answer.
Sam: Question B.
RTF: Answer.
Sam: Ha! That’s a sucky answer to Question A! You like him, so that’s good enough for you!
Question A was actually an assertion:
Sam, you gave as a for-instance that Freddie:
And I pointed out that the same was true of Edwards. Freddie didn’t exactly have “a hundred times more [substance] than John Edwards” based on that, or the other evidence you gave.
Question B was:
That working-class background, which I cited, was part of the answer. Damned if I see what the contradiction is. Where’s the double standard? I never said Freddie’s working-class background couldn’t be a source of insight for Freddie. But it sure doesn’t help show that he’s got far more substance than Edwards, does it?
I doubt it. Nancy Reagan’s astrology didn’t cure my wife’s anemia.
But as usual, you have no backup for what you’re saying. You’re just spouting unsupported nonsense.
Sorry, but a U.S. Senate term does have a specific meaning. And Thompson was elected twice - once to the last two years of Al Gore’s term, and once to a full term of his own.
You did know that U.S. Senate seats are divided into three classes, right?
Even if you had a leg to stand on here, you’re making a big deal out of eight v. six years in the Senate. That’s what it comes down to. I’m so fucking impressed.
Of depth and substance? Jeez. So, how deep is Bush? He’s won re-election as governor as Texas, and won a term of his own as President after having served out all of Al Gore’s term. Guess Bush must be pretty damned substantial.
No, that’s the part I am counting. Adds up to what, six or seven years, maybe?
But as usual, you can’t help exaggerating: he only has the “couple of decades in Washington” you claim if you include his lobbying on behalf of corporate interests.
a) You got a cite on this? I assume you’re not making up his client list off the top of your head. So, how long was he a lobbyist for each of those outfits, and when? Did he do 1.5 billable hours for Westinghouse, or 1,500? Since the Teamsters were the union that supported Nixon, btw, that doesn’t exactly impress me, unless it was recent.
b) What do major scandals have to do with it? Lobbying and its abuses doesn’t really have much to do with scandal - the underlying scandal is that, despite what Hillary says, outfits that represent ordinary people can’t hope to buy nearly the influence through lobbying that the big corporations can. There’s no specific scandal, most days, in tilting the laws to favor the well-off, other than tilting the laws to favor the well-off.
This isn’t the sort of thing that should require explanation.
Oh really? So far, that’s just an opinion.
That’s an opinion, period. And you’e welcome to it.
What, did I say there was anything wrong with supporting bumper stickers? No, I didn’t. Go back and re-read. You see where I quote myself, just above where I quote you with the list of bumper stickers? That was the point, bub. You can ignore it, but doing so doesn’t turn your facetiousness into a legitimate criticism.
Continuing to harp on the 2000 election makes you look pretty silly.
I’m glad you enjoyed my bit of sarcasm. I’ll be delighted to send you a signed 8x10 glossy if you send me a SASE, just like I do for all my fans.
The Financial Times’ take on Freddie:
And:
Just sayin’ it isn’t just a buncha leftwingers who are saying this…
Well… I just tried searching for the info again, but searching for anything having to do with alternative medicine leads you into a minefield of quackery sites that have used her name in their keywords to get hits off of anyone trying to search for information about her cancer.
In any event, having thought about it, I’m willing to retract that accusation. The woman has Stage IV metastatic breast cancer. Even if she did seek out alternative treatment, it appears she’s gone the full medical route as well, and I can’t really fault someone for taking longshots at that point. So consider that a retraction (and an apology to Mrs. Edwards if she’s reading this).
One thing I will say for the Edwards - they’ve been through a lot of rough times in their lives, what with losing their son in a car accident and now the cancer. So I wish her nothing but the best with regards to her health.
Let’s back up for a second. This thread started out by calling Thompson an ‘empty suit’ and ‘less than nothing’ in terms of experience. Are you willing to concede that that’s not actually true, or be willing to lump Edwards in with him, since by all accounts Edwards has less experience than Thompson? I mean come on - at least you have to acknowlege that. All Edwards has ever done in his life was act as a trial attorney, and win a senate seat once. He may be the least qualified major candidate to run for president in my memory. Hell, even Dan Quayle had more experience, having been both a congressman and a senator before being picked as Bush’s VP.
So, you’re now claiming that things like resume just don’t matter at all? Bush had exactly the kind of resume that people in this thread say you need to have - he was a 2 term governor of a large state.
No, the things I mentioned were things he did when he wasn’t a Senator. He was a Senator for 9 years. He ran Baker’s campaign in '71-72. He sat on the Watergate Commission From 1973 to 1974. That’s four years of straight Washington experience right there.
Then he was special council to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1980-1981, and Special council to the Foreign Affairs Committee in 1982. There’s another three years.
Also, after he left the Senate in 2003 and until 2007, he was chair of the International Security Advisory Board, a bipartisan advisory panel that reports to the Secretary of State and focuses on emerging strategic threats.
So, 7 years’ experience before becoming a Senator, 9 years as Senator, then four more years since. Whaddya know, that adds up to 20 years. Pretty close to ‘a couple of decades’ where I come from.
Would you like to compare that to Edwards’ Washington experience?
From Wikipedia:
He also did some legal work in Washington, some of which the right won’t like:
Good for him.
Reading on, it seems that after he left the Senate he took on another client:
So are you saying all lobbying is bad? How about lobbyists for Greenpeace? Or for various trade unions? Are they also evil, because they peddle influence the ‘common people’ don’t have?
By the way, I hope I’m not coming across as defending a candidate’s requirement to have experience. If Edwards can get elected, more power to him. I don’t think he has much experience, but I also think a president needs other qualities as well, and a lack of experience can be overcome through good judgement in picking advisors and a vice president, good intelligence, and good communcatios ability.
And here’s something that John Edwards has in common with Fred Thompson - both of them are excellent in front of a camera. I happen to think this is actually an extremely important skill for a president. You have to be able to sell your plan to the other party if you want to gain bipartisanship. You have to sell it to the people if you want to have the country be unified and get widespread support for critical issues. And you have to sell your country and ideas to other leaders and the world if you want international cooperation.
Watching Bush for the past 7 years has driven home how incredibly important it is to have a leader who knows how to communicate. The last two successful presidents were Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, and both of them were brilliant at communication. What some people call John Ewards’ ‘slickness’ or ‘smooth tongue’ I’d say is one of his best assets. Same with Thompson. And Obama, for that matter.
Think about why Republicans are so dissatisfied with their field. It not the lack of conservative credentials - Huckabee and McCain have near 100% conservative voting records. Tancredo is so conservative he scares other conservatives. No, the problem with the Republican field is that they are Boring. None of them seem capable of giving an electrifying speech or communicating any kind of bold vision. They have no charisma and no gift for rhetoric. And damn it, that’s actually really important.
Edwards would have won re-election in a walk if he had run in 2004. Richard Burr was a non-entity, and only managed to win because Erskine Bowles was even moreso. Hell, if he wanted back in he could probably take either of the current incumbents without breaking a sweat.
So it’s not really fair to say that Thompson’s Senate career is more impressive because he was re-elected. Edwards could have been.
This news can’t be good for Thompson.
I agree with Thompson that everybody, no matter how publicly reviled, is entitled to representation. Recall that John Adams represented the British soldiers accused at the Boston Massacre, an unpopular but correct move. But I don’t think most people are going to see it that way, it’s going to be Thompson represented terrorists and despots. I don’t know what other skeletons live in his closet, but having this come out in the first week of his candidacy isn’t a good sign.
I’ll accept the retraction, but you’ve got to start being careful about those unsupported factual assertions, OK?
No, it didn’t. Here’s the OP again:
You’re the one who has made experience the sine qua non here - not the OP, not me.
Consequently, when you say this:
I don’t really care. And when you ask:
I wonder just what you’re thinking: it’s as if you’ve assumed the absence of any middle ground while reading my words. Just because I regard experience as less than everything, doesn’t mean I regard it as nothing.
Experience is not unimportant, but at least of equal importance is what you draw from that experience, and what you make of it. In however many years in the Senate, and in their lives before and since, who gained a better idea of the problems Americans really face, and that America faces in the world? Which one has tried to come up with good solutions that address the complexities of the problems?
Dan Quayle may have risen to the rank of Vice President, but he always seemed to be the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. The world didn’t seem to affect him much, and aside from the comedy fodder he unintentionally provided, he pretty much returned the favor.
Unlike Quayle, Freddie actually has some accomplishments beside simply holding office. But the ones you cite are way, way back. What’s he done in the past 20 years that doesn’t say ‘empty suit’?
But, like you say, let’s back up for a second. I’m not here to defend the OP. I jumped in in response to this assertion of yours:
I was responding to that latter assertion, and I think I’ve put it to rest.
Well, yeah, that’s what I was counting too. Excluding Senate and lobbying, how many years of Washington experience? Gimme a number.
Well, at least you’re now only exaggerating by a year.
Running a campaign in Tennessee is Washington experience? And the Senate Watergate Committee was in existence for just over a year between its formation in the late spring of 1973 to the publication of its final report in June 1974.
So that’s one year, not four. Oops.
No, that’s parts of three years. You’re assuming completeness.
According to the ISAB website:
Guess that four years just collapsed into less than two. If that, since this appears to be one of those advisory boards that meets quarterly, except when it doesn’t:
I’m on an interagency team that meets monthly, except when it doesn’t, which is most of the time. There’s a lot of that.
I’m getting more like 3+8+2, and the ‘2’ is giving a hell of a lot of the benefit of the doubt.
Sure. Edwards has less, but Thompson hardly eclipses him. And it’s clear that Edwards was a hell of a lot more active as a Senator than Freddie was.
And that’s Thompson’s strong point - his resume. But a resume doesn’t differentiate a human being from an empty suit.
I can distill a pretty good liberal platform into ten words: end the war, institute universal health care, address global warming. Ten words, three issues, three bumper stickers.
Obviously, I don’t think this invalidates any of the issues. The problem with bumper stickers isn’t their existence, but when they’re not the distillation of a sufficient amount of thought, but rather a substitute for it.
Hence Freddie. OK, he’s for continuing the war in Iraq. Fine. What does he think our war aims should be? How does he believe they can be achieved? How long will it take, and how much is it likely to cost, in blood and in treasure? Why does he think we can do better in the upcoming years than we have in the past four years? What does he think about the fact that an increasing number of war proponents (including Gen. Petraeus) think we’ll need another decade or so to stabilize Iraq? Does he think it can be done much more quickly? If so, why? If not, why is it worth the cost?
I’m sure you can produce Freddie’s thoughts on this, Sam, because you say he isn’t a lightweight. Let’s see some evidence. Let’s see that his stance on the war is more than just a bumpersticker.
Do you have a cite on this? Depending on how one structures one’s law school education, one can easily get an impressive educuation in any and all of these subjects.