Anyone have a clue whether Freddie said anything about Schiavo at the time? Because unless he’s contradicting now what he said then, all I see here is that Freddie has a tough time recalling the details of a two-year-old incident of major newsworthiness at the time.
Similarly George Will’s column. What I get out of that is that Will is still on his anti-campaign finance reform crusade, and will cheerfully crucify Thompson over it if he can find even a trivial reason.
I had vague memories of Thompson saying something about the Schiavo case at the time, but I searched the web and came up with nothing. Which would bolster Fred’s case, really. He certainly wasn’t one of the Republican yahoos running around squawking about it and demanding the federal government do something to stop it. I suspect what he says is the literal truth - he didn’t think congress had a role to play, and therefore didn’t pay any attention to the issue at all. So now he can’t remember the details of it, because it was never on his radar screen in the first place.
Sam, it’s a matter of interpretation. I feel that if Thompson had strong feelings that Schiavo’s situation was not a matter for government action, he should have said so at the time. Others who felt that way went on record with their beliefs. And plenty of people who wanted the government to intervene also went on record. Thompson appears to have stayed out of it. You can assume he did so as a matter of principle - although I find it hard to see how not stating your principles can be a principle - but it can also be interpreted as Thompson sitting on the fence and not wanting to alienate voters on either side of an issue. Now that passions have cooled a little, Thompson appears to be willing to tepidly agree with the majority - while also saying that he respects the opinions of the minority.
Thompson wasn’t even in government at the time, and had no intention of returning to it. He was issuing lots of opinions on issues he cared about, and was chairing a working group on national security at the time. Since he said nothing about it then, why is it so hard to believe him now when he says he has no opinion on it, didn’t pay attention, and thinks Congress was overreaching?
I think you’re making something out of nothing here.
Oh really? Details, please.
Sorry, it was the International Security Advisory Board, under the Department of State. He chaired it from 2005 to 2007.
So he didn’t chair a national security working group while people were fighting to keep Terry Schiavo alive. OK.
He chaired the International Security Advisory Board in 2005. He was a member of the National Security Working Group while he was in the Senate. I just mixed up the two names. What’s your problem?
Oh, for the love of Pete. It’s got nothing to do with any confusion of names. Look at the dates.
Terry Schiavo died on March 31, 2005. This was two years after Thompson’s Senate term ended, and five or six months before he joined the ISAB. (See post 98 for previous discussion of ISAB dates.)
It’s a minor point, I know, but not only is it generally good to look this sort of thing up before tossing it in, but this date was already part of our discussion.
I’ll admit I was mistaken. I thought Thompson was still in the Senate at the time of the Schiavo debate. As a Senator, I’d expect him to think about issues like this. But as a private citizen, he’s free to ignore them if he wishes and isn’t obligated to make any announcements.
I gotta hand it to Fred, he’s so eager to debate the issues, he’s looking forward to going to a debate that was canceled weeks ago.
I (thought I) caught something on CNN this afternoon about a bill being introduced in Congress to make illegal immigration a felony, but I can’t seem to find anything about it anywhere on the Internet, including CNN’s own website. Does anybody know anything about this?
(Posting the question in this thread because it sounds like the kind of thing Fred would jump on.)
I don’t think a Presidential candidate’s potential can be measured with such simple (and frankly ridiculous) calculus as adding all of their good deeds and subtracting their bad ones. I think its more complicated than that. You also have to factor an electorate weary of Republican corruption, frustrated with the progress in Iraq, and a train of GOP Presidential candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) who refuse to adopt a sensible and modest foreign policy.
I’m not too impressed by Thompson but I’m not really impressed by any of the Republican candidates who all seem uninterested in dealing with domestic issues like health care, poverty, and education. If I am wrong, please fight my ignorance.