I second that!
Posted on 10/15/2007 6:04:47 AM PDT by Spiff
In his only attempt to manage a high-profile Senate hearing, the lawyer-turned-actor blew it. In his many film and television roles, Fred Thompson has almost always played a strong executive. On Law & Order, as Arthur Branch, the inexplicably Southern and conservative Manhattan district attorney, he’s invariably telling Sam Waterston’s deputy-D.A. character to settle the case. In The Hunt for Red October, he commands an aircraft carrier, fighting the Soviets.
Closer to the White House, he’s an irritable chief of staff in In the Line of Fire, and in two other films he, perhaps presciently, plays the president. But Thompson’s real executive experience is limited. He has never run a large organization, as did that other actor to whom he’s often likened, Ronald Reagan, California’s governor for eight years. Compared with this year’s crop of presidential wannabes, he has less executive experience than, say, Mitt Romney or even former Cleveland mayor Dennis Kucinich. True, as a lawyer in Tennessee, Thompson won acclaim for representing a whistleblower in a cash-for-clemency scheme, and he did a respectable job as the Republican counsel on the Senate Watergate committee. But running anything? Please. You could argue that Thompson’s only executive experience came at an outpost called the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, where he wielded the chairman’s gavel from 1997 to 2001. Running a committee involves setting an agenda and bringing people together; it takes some executive skill but not as much as, for example, a governorship does.
The Governmental Affairs Committee, since given the more sweeping name Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has a purview that mostly encompasses waste. By far the most important set of hearings that Thompson managed as chairman was an examination of campaign-finance abuses during the 1996 presidential election. The hearings made front-page news for months and were covered live. They offer one of those occasions where we can judge potential presidents—how they fought for their ideals and balanced constituencies, roused the public, and moved their colleagues. At this crucial moment, Thompson blew it.
The hearings began after disclosures of sleaziness in Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign. Some of those incidents are now well-known. There was Al Gore’s famed visit to a Buddhist temple in California and the White House coffees for top donors, not to mention the practice of allowing major contributors to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom. (Hey, better that than, say, letting oil bigwigs have their way, as seems to have happened with Dick Cheney’s energy task force of a few years back.) Some Clinton donors, 22 to be exact, were convicted of making illegal campaign contributions. The names of those embroiled—James Riady, Maria Hsia, John Huang—read like answers in a ’90s version of political Trivial Pursuit. (I should note that my spouse worked for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential bid and now works for Hillary Clinton, but did not work on the 1996 campaign.) In 1997, as these revelations unfolded, Thompson used his chairman’s powers to investigate. For Thompson, the hearings represented his highest-profile appearance since being elected a senator from Tennessee in 1994, when he took over the seat vacated by Al Gore. Then as now, Thompson was a star, and the campaign-finance hearings should have been a natural fit for him. During the 1973 Senate Watergate hearings, Thompson earned plaudits for his bipartisanship and for famously asking the questions that revealed to the public the existence of a White House taping system.
Indeed, when the campaign-finance hearings opened on July 8, 1997, Thompson, the actor-senator, showed his flair for the dramatic. He announced that the proceedings would reveal the Chinese government’s effort to manipulate America’s elections through an elaborate scheme of financing campaigns. He went on, “The plan had a goal: to buy access and influence in furtherance of Chinese government interests. . . . The committee believes that . . . Chinese government officials crafted a plan to increase China’s influence over the U.S. political process. . . . Although most discussions of the plan [focus] on Congress, our investigation suggests it affected the 1996 presidential race and state elections as well.”
The charge made headlines but so too did the immediate rebuttal from Senator John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth and the committee’s ranking Democrat. Glenn had seen the same intelligence that Thompson had and remained less than convinced. During the next several months, as the hearings progressed, a number of campaign-finance abuses were uncovered, but the explosive charge with which Thompson began the hearings—that the Chinese government had manipulated American elections—was never proved. Indeed, it was disputed. Imagine if the Warren Commission had split over whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
When the committee issued its final report, in March 1998, Thompson had failed to forge the kind of bipartisan consensus that dominated the Watergate hearings, which were co-chaired by his mentor, former Republican Senate leader Howard Baker of Tennessee. Thompson’s committee fractured. While acknowledging the abuses of the campaign-finance system and Beijing’s efforts to lobby in Washington, Democrats never bought his claims of Chinese-government money infiltrating the Clinton campaign or any congressional race. (Today, in echoes of the Thompson hearings, the right is making noises that Norman Hsu, the recently arrested financier who donated to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, might be part of a Beijing plot.) Even the reflexively bipartisan Joe Lieberman couldn’t sign on to Thompson’s report.
To be fair, Thompson’s hearings weren’t a total failure. He extracted a lot of sleaze out of Democratic witnesses and, as a supporter of his friend John McCain’s then long-shot proposal for campaign-finance reform, he at least tried to use the hearings to promote the larger issue of cleaning up elections. He was willing to ask Republicans some tough questions as well, at one point grilling lobbyist Haley Barbour, now governor of Mississippi, about his ties to Chinese lobbyists. But the hearings never turned into a galvanizing force for campaign-finance reform. The McCain measure remained stalled and wouldn’t pass until four years later, in 2002, owing little to Thompson’s efforts. In the end, as newspapers noted at the time, Thompson wrapped up the hearings under enormous pressure from Senate Republicans to end them, lest he start probing too deeply into G.O.P. campaign woes.
The specifics of campaign finance from a decade ago aren’t that important. But if Americans are looking for competent governance after the current president, there’s no indication that Thompson, for all his stage presence, is any more capable of delivering it. And if the country’s now looking for a uniter instead of a divider, there’s even less indication that Thompson is that man. Tasked with investigating what everyone acknowledged to be a particularly flawed campaign in a flawed system, Thompson managed to alienate both Democrats and his own party.
It’s worth contrasting Thompson with another Tennessee senator and presidential aspirant, Democrat Estes Kefauver, whose seat Thompson held. Compared with Thompson, Kefauver was a whirling dervish. His famed hearings deposed more than 600 witnesses and led to a huge crackdown on organized crime. Unlike Thompson, Kefauver really took it to his own party. He bucked Democrats who wanted him to avoid investigating Chicago’s corruption and pressed ahead, helping bring about the defeat of the Senate majority leader, a Democrat from Illinois.
Look, if it’s any consolation to Thompson, his eight-year Senate career more closely resembles that of John F. Kennedy (who served the same tenure): modest in achievement, high in glamour. But Kennedy showed his mettle in other ways—the grit he displayed with the sinking of PT-109, for instance. Thompson’s trajectory as a lawyer, lobbyist, senator, and actor shows someone who’s good at pretending to be someone like that. Fred Thompson's Big Flop
by Matthew Cooper November 2007 Issue
Thank you, Democrat, for your opinion.
“The plan had a goal: to buy access and influence in furtherance of Chinese government interests. . . . The committee believes that . . . Chinese government officials crafted a plan to increase China’s influence over the U.S. political process. . . . Although most discussions of the plan [focus] on Congress, our investigation suggests it affected the 1996 presidential race and state elections as well.”...I believe this investigatory premise is still under scrutiny. It ain’t over yet.
Go back to your drinks and dinner with Valerie and her pimp!
Why not just post all of Hillary’s press releases?
Basically. it is not only an opinion it is a fact! Fred Thompson was my senator for eight years.
The libs in general are scared $hitless of Fred...the more they smear, the more afraid they are...and they should be very afraid
He's married to another sleaze-bag in the profession, Hillary Clinton's media consultant Mandy Grunwald. Mandy is a sure bet to be the replacement for Helen Thomas in the looks department upon Thomas' long-anticipated but never-fulfilled retirement from left-wing journalism.
Matthew Cooper is no Adonis himself. They all deserve each other both physically and ideologically....i.e.....the pits.
Leni
And that's on top of his involvement in the Plame issue.
Obviously Hillary does indeed fear the Fred if they are striking out this early.
Thank you Spiff for pointing this out to us, I knew you would come around and back a Conservative...
Jellybean, this deserves a DailyFred thread link...
I don’t nessesarily agree 100 percent with Thompson’s views, but if he wins the primary I will support and vote for him. Which I cannot say for Rudy. Having said that, Hunter is still my first pick Tancredo my second.
These leftists are scared to death of Fred Thompson.
Matthew Cooper??
UGH!
All I had to do is read the byline, and I knew that I would NOT be reading it. Thanks anyway.
People just attack the messenger and refuse to consider the message. The fact of the matter is that Thompson's executive experience is so minimal that you have to dig to find it. And what you do find is not good.
Along the same lines, and often corresponding with executive experience, is leadership experience. This is what I recently had to say about Thompson's leadership qualifications:
Let's talk about Fred's leadership experience. Yes, he does have some. He was one of the leaders of the effort to push through the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold-Thompson CFR legislation. I guess that counts. But where did his leadership actually lead and what was the outcome? I'm pretty sure you're not going to be seeing any Thompson TV ads touting this leadership success.You know, FReepers were gung-ho to bring the Clinton administration down for their campaign fundraising crimes. We had a string of convicted donors and fundraisers. We had proof of Chinese corruption. We had Clinton renting out the Lincoln bedroom, etc. Then arose Thompson as our champion to run the Senate investigation and help bring the administration down or at least do terrible damage to the Democrat Party. He failed. He demonstrated that he didn't have the guts to do what he needed to do, the leadership to keep the investigations pointed in the right direction, or the backbone to really take it to the Democrats. It was one of Free Republic's greatest disappointments as we were all over the issue, watching the hearings unfold, and hoping and praying that we'd see the Democrats and the Clinton Administration brought to justice. Heck, Fred Thompson couldn't even bring himself to join the Republicans in voting to convict Bill Clinton on the impeachment perjury charge.Then there's his leadership of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. His greatest leadership accomplishment there was to turn an investigation of Chinese influence and corruption in the Democrat Party into an investigation against Republicans because he was so stymied by Democrat stonewalling and he wanted to make it look like he actually did something.
Fred knew he didn't have what it took to run for or be President. A bunch of people convinced him otherwise and he put his name in. Then some of us realized that electing someone who would rather take a nap than be a leader is not someone we're too interested in supporting. And putting someone into the highest leadership position in the United States - even the free world - who is almost completely untested as a leader (except maybe for the two colossal blunders I mentioned above) is irresponsible. Fred isn't District Attorney Arthur Branch. He only plays him on TV. And the threats and challenges that the United States faces aren't played by Hollywood actors or just a part of some TV show plot. They're very real.
Then there was McCain-Feingold-Thompson CFR legislation. Free Republic was a hotbed of activity opposing the unconstitutional mess. We knew what kinds of restrictions on our political speech enforcement of the proposed laws would cause. We talked of civil disobedience even as activism against the laws if passed. We joined the NRA and the National Right to Life Committee along with just about every other social and religious conservative organization in opposing the legislation. Yet it was Fred Thompson who was one of the architects of the legislation and was McCain's right-hand man in pushing it through the Senate. How soon Free Republic forgets.
I second that!
You and I are in complete agreement on this.
I have no idea who Matthew Cooper is. Thanks for the info. But that is beside the point. Can no one dispute a single point of his article or is it sufficient to just discard it because it was written by someone you don't like.
Please, someone find examples of Fred Thompson's executive and leadership qualifications. Defend the guy, for Pete's sake.
Well said. But, even knowing all of Fred’s failure’s I will vote for him if push comes to shove.
His failures in that Senate investigation are very real, and make my very hesitant to throw my support to Fred. I want him to prove during this run up to the primaries that he has the guts and leadership to run the Federal government. I would love to support him ,but I want to see something from him. His radio monologues are fantastic. He may have it in him, but he did not demonstrate in the Senate.
Plus, I think one of the great criticisms of Hillary (and especially Obama) is their utter lack of experience. A true executive (former governor, mayor or business leader) has run organizations effectively. Many believe that type of experience is necessary and that can hurt HRC in the general election if the GOP candidate has that experience. Fred has about the same amount of Senate experience HRC has, and she can actually play the experience card over Fred because she also was ‘co-president’ for eight years. Experience would actually a strike against Fred that should be a positive vs. any of the Dem candidates.
But Kennedy showed his mettle in other ways—the grit he displayed with the sinking of PT-109, for instance.
Adm Halsey (IIRC) wanted to court martial the bonehead but daddy Joe schmoozed FDR into giving him a stinking medal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.