March 29, 2007
Fred Thompson: Authenticity and Anti-'Gotcha' Politics Looks Good to Many Democrats (Lanny Davis)
Far be it for me to say anything nice about former Republican Tennessee Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson.
First, he was the chairman of the Government Oversight Committee's 1997 campaign-finance abuse hearings aimed at the Clinton White House — and thus made my life miserable when I served as President Clinton's special counsel in charge of "handling" those hearings and being sure the White House and national political media covered them accurately (I almost say "fair and balanced"). Sen. Thompson was very tough on the Clinton campaign's fundraising practices. And I strongly disagreed with him, at the very least, for not applying the same standard to Republican fundraising practices. (At one point, I must admit, I was flattered when Thompson sarcastically interjected a comment during the televised campaign-finance hearings in the summer of 1997 (I am paraphrasing, but this is close), "This testimony is so significant that even Lanny Davis won't call it 'old news.'")
Second, he is a conservative on many issues, and I consider myself a Clintonian liberal — meaning, I guess, liberal on social issues, moderate on cultural issues, and conservative on fiscal policies. So I guess I can say Mr. Thompson is too conservative for my tastes.
Third, I often disagree with the decisions he makes on whether to prosecute or not on my favorite TV program, "Law & Order."
I am running out of negative things to say about Sen. Thompson, so I guess I'll end with the one that is probably the most important: I don't want to say anything nice about him that may hurt his chances to be the Republican presidential nominee, because if the right wing hears that I like him, that could be the end of his candidacy.
So let me just limit my positive comments by saying: He is authentic and powerfully smart and very fair.
I hope he isn't the GOP nominee because he would be very difficult to beat — although my candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), and he, if they were the Democratic and Republican nominees, respectively, would ensure a great and high level of debate on the issues, rather than "gotcha" attacks back and forth that both of them, I am certain, completely reject.
So Sen. Thompson — you can say that I strongly disagree with you because you are too conservative and am supporting Sen. Clinton. But honestly: I think an awful lot of Democrats and independents would share with me their high level of respect for you, as well as their concern that you may be the most difficult Republican to beat in November 2008.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 13 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Thompson's character comes across as decisive — it's the Sam Waterston character who keeps screwing things up in the court room!
(BTW: I'm not sure if this comment "advances debate" as stipulated by The Hill)
Comment by tony_daysog@moderatedemocrats.com — March 29, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Lanny, there you go again, trying to re-write the history of the Clinton years.
Comment by David Hamlin — March 30, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Lannie — I met and fell head over heals for you when your briefcase burst open outside the elevator at the Goodwin Hotel on election night last fall. Just as you seem to quite admire Fred Thompson, I, too, admire you as a man of integrity and gravitas. That said (as they say), I totally disagree that a debate between Thompson and Clinton would be substantial.
In my reading of the Clinton campaign, Chatty Hillary goes whichever way the wind blows. A follower, not a leader. Fred, on the other hand, is a man I could hitch my wagon to.
Comment by Sissy Willis — March 30, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
Lanny, I mean. You'd never know I won the state spelling bee in eighth grade.
Comment by Sissy Willis — March 30, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
I define 'a Clintonian liberal' as somebody who doesn't care if unpopular DLC policies cost Democrats control of the House and Senate (again) as long as their personal prospects improve with the Clintons in power.
Comment by joejoejoe — March 30, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
More on Draft Fred 2008…
New FDT '08 finds: Draft Thompson '08 blogspot DraftFredThompson.com AnotherRonaldReagan.com I found the logo at right over at No Man's Blog. Out of all the one's I've seen so far, this is my favorite. Thompson's latest article on what we are up …
Trackback by AlphaPatriot — April 1, 2007 @ 12:40 am
Well, if we are still in Iraq when the next election comes around there will not be a Republican party and it won't matter who runs. Lanny, if you are like Mrs Clinton, you probably want some of that blood for oil profit coming your way like the right wingers who share ownership of this blog. Otherwise why would you give these folks the time of day?
Comment by Gary Anderson — April 8, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
It is amazing the Democrats are not looking beyond the 18 month horizon. They had almost recovered from the "Can't Defend America" label left over from Vietnam. Some claim there is not political down side for Democrats current track. If what we are being told that we will be hit again by an even larger terrorist attack and it is done on the Democrats watch, then God have mercy on Democratic Party, because the electorate will not.
Visit http://www.anotherronaldreagan.com
Comment by Philip Bailey — April 9, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Your support for Fred Thompson (if proffered) would merely show that you've seen the light and renounced Clintonism.
Comment by David S. McQueen — April 12, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Reagan may not have gone into Iraq for oil. He didn't have that evil oil lust that Bush has. He doesn't have blood on his hands for sending our troops to make his buddies rich like Bush did. http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com
Comment by Gary Anderson — April 14, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
Dear Sissy–
My belated thanks for your comment and for not minding when my briefcase spilling open. .
And to joejoejoe–last time I looked the Democrats took control of the House and the Senate in 06 –precisely because they ran and elected many DLC moderates. That is an undisputable fact.
If you disagree, why not identify yourself and come out in the open to debate - rather than hiding behind an anonymous name? It's healthier in the sunlight.
–Lanny Davis
Comment by Lanny Davis — April 29, 2007 @ 12:07 am
Take the Pledge
All Presidential Candidates should make pledges like those below. If they refuse, then you should refuse to vote for them.
1. No More Oil Wars.
2. Work for independence from foreign oil on day one.
3. No more wars for corporate profit.
4. No more secret deals for $4 per gallon gas.
5. No more Chicken Hawks promoting wars of choice when they themselves avoided combat.
6. Make government green–if you can't make what you have the most control over green, I don't care about your plans to make the country green.
7. No more torture.
8. No more lying about torture.
9. No more re-defining torture.
10. No more drunken hunting.
11. No more secret deals with big corporations to divide up the spoils before the war even starts.
Comment by Poetry — May 28, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Freds Thompson is the best!
Comment by Fred Thompson — August 3, 2007 @ 7:44 pm