Now that’s a reasonable usage of the word skeptic.
In light of that, I’m going to edit my earlier statement. He “appears” to be a total douche, from the limited information available. I fully expect him to reveal the extent of his doucheitude once his campaign gets up and running, but until then we can’t blame anyone for reserving judgment on him.
Thompson may be an actor, but he’s not a life-long actor like Reagan was. He’s spent his life primarily as an attorney. He has a degree in philosophy, and a law degree from Vanderbilt. He was a U.S. Attorney from 1968 to 1972, and served as council to the Watergate Committee in the 1970’s. He started his acting career because a movie was made about his work in bringing down a sitting governor in a cash-for-clemency scam. When the producers were trying to cast the part of Fred Thompson, after talking with him at length about the part, they came to realize that he was a natural actor and let him play himself. He did such a good job on screen that acting parts just kept coming, so he kept acting. He had already been a successful lawyer for 20 years before he took his first acting job.
As for government experience, he served as council to the Senate Intelligence Committee AND the Foreign Relations Committee before entering politics. He then ran for the seat left by Al Gore, and won in a landslide after being behind by a big margin early on. As a freshman Senator, he was picked to give the rebuttal to Clinton’s State of the Union, and impressed the heck out of a lot of people. He was re-elected to the Senate by the biggest margin in Tennessee history. In his second term he served as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, one of the most junior senators in history to serve as chair of a major committee. He was also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations
After serving two terms in the Senate he retired while still wildly popular, believing that people should not make politics a lifelong career, but that they should serve a term or two and return to private life. In 2002, he was elected to the Council on Foreign Relations.
After he left the Senate, he was picked by Bush to help John Roberts be confirmed as head of the Supreme Court (and also helped pick him, as I recall), and won rave reviews for the job he did.
I think that resume stacks up a little better than Obama’s, if you ask me. In fact, I think he has as good a resume as any president has had, other that George Bush I, in my lifetime. I do think Thompon and Obama share one thing in common - they are both natural politicians, comfortable in front of the camera and comfortable with who they are and therefore willing to speak honestly.
This last characteristic is why I think Obama might win the Democratic primary, and Thompson the Republican primary. The other front-runners (Hillary, Guliani, Romney, McCain), are representing themselves as something other than who they really are, which means they have to be careful what they say and have to be ‘on message’ all the time. It puts people off. You always get the sense that everything they say is calculated for political effect, and that they might not mean any of it. You don’t get that feeling from Obama or Thompson. They come across as much more genuine, whether or not they truly are.
Uh, no: after serving one term plus a previous two years left over from Gore’s term, for a total of eight years.
Note that this was Thompson’s only experience as an elected official. Obama, on the other hand, put in six years as a state senator before his rise to the federal level. Thompson certainly has much more Washington experience than Obama, being nearly twenty years older, but not significantly more experience as an elected legislator. Neither of them, of course, has been elected to any executive office.
Plus, when he makes important pronouncements, they’ll be followed by that “kuh-thunk-thunk” sound!
If that is true, then he must have either
Cheated shamelessly on all his exams, or
Made the statement about global warming quoted in post #20 while blind stinking drunk off his ass.
Steve Buscemi
Really? Not to denigrate Thompson’s resume whatsoever (which I think is more than adequate preparation to become the PUSA), but that’s a pretty bold statement. I’d go so far as to say that I completely disagree.
I’m not sure exactly how old you are, but I’ll keep this recent (and apolitical):
Let’s start with Nixon. Before becoming President, ol’ Tricky Dick graduated at the top of his class at Duke Law School. He worked as a lawyer before getting himself elected to the House of Reps, where he made a name for himself on the House Un-American Activities Committee. He then became Ike’s Vice-President and an influential one at that. Narrowly lost the 1960 presidential election, so he wrote a book, practiced some more law, and then came back and got the nomination in 68. I’d say the VP experience alone trumps Thompson’s resume.
Then there’s Ford who steps in when Nixon resigns. He was a National Champion football player at UM (which means something to me), and then off to Yale Law School where he graduated in the top 25% of his class. He opened his own practice post-law school, and then enlisted in the Navy after Pearl Harbor. After the war, Ford got himself elected to the House of Reps where he stayed for over 20 years. For eight years, he was the Minority Leader. Then, after Agnew resigned, he became Nixon’s VP. For Ford, I’d say that 20 years of leadership in the House, the Minority Leader position, and his time as the VP trump Thompson’s resume.
Need I go on? I can make a damn good case for Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and W (Governorships?).
Now, again, this is not to demean Thompson’s record. I think he’s sufficiently qualified just like the rest of the field. But I don’t think that his resume is second only to H.W. Bush when considering recent Presidents.
Well, I guess that depands on how much weight you put on being a governor. Carter and Clinton were governors of southern states before becoming President. Reagan was Governor of California.
But yeah, I think your point is valid. Being a governor is probably much better experience for President than is being a Senator or Congressman. Governors have executive experience. They’ve made life and death decisions. The buck stops with them. So maybe that does rank Reagan, Carter, Clinton, and GW Bush higher in terms of valuable experience than Thompson.
But Thompson is no slouch, and he’s not just ‘another actor’. He’s got enough qualifications that I don’t think lack of experience will be a campaign issue at all.
My point stands. Go out and about and you will shortly spot five people uglier. Even Ernest Borgnine or Don Rickles is handsomer than the average (allowing for age).
Sam Stone, thank you for your post. I like your analysis, even if I do not find myself liking Fred Thompson.
Here is his page On the Issues.
On abortion he appears to be against.
Economy and Taxes he looks like a real conservative.
He is clearly against expanding Civil Rights.
I like most of his votes on crime, not sure how to classify it.
His educational votes appear very right wing Republican.
His foreign policy appears to be all over the place, but it is a small sample.
He appears to be very anti-environment, I hope he loses horribly.
Rat bastard wants to drill in ANWR, end CAFE standards, defunding renewable and solar energy. We already know he is strongly skeptical of Global Warming.
I sincerely hope this idiot loses.
Jim
Didn’t Gore vacate his Senate seat in 1992, when he was elected VP? Why the two-year delay?
You misspelled ‘lobbyist.’
Fred Thompson had a decidedly undistinguished record in the U.S. Senate: when someone gets overshadowed by Bill Frist, you know there ain’t much ‘there’ there.
And then there’s his phoney-baloney man-of-the-people pickup truck bit:
A pity that was back in the days before videocams became ubiquitous - that would’ve made a hell of a YouTube video. Maybe someone can do a cartoon of it.
Good question. Did the governor appoint someone who served until the next election cycle?
That’s probably a plus. A “distinguished record” in the Senate is probably the kiss of death for a presidential candidate. Just ask one John Kerry.
Another reason to like Fred Thompson: James Dobson doesn’t like him - he doesn’t think he’s “Christian enough”.
Persuasive, but anti-Environmental is a deal breaker for me personally.
His abortion stance does not help either.
Going to your link on the issues, how do you get anti-environmentalist from those 4 votes? He may very well be anti-, but I don’t think those votes are a good determinant of that.
Include the Energy votes like I did above and his comments on Global Warming.
I think the pattern is pretty conclusive. McCain & Rudy so far are not anti-Environment. In fact McCain might have the edge on Rudy who has no real public position.
OK, I didn’t look at the energy stuff. If you think being pro-ANWAR or pro-nuclear energy makes a person anti-environment, I think you’re mistaken. But it’s not an uncommon view.