As announced by my jubilant Global Issues teacher this Wednesday, Fred Thompson has decided to throw his hat into the ring and join the race to become a 2008 presidential election candidate. Thompson, a former actor from Law & Order, is attempting to earn the nomination for the Republican presidential candidate. My teacher continued on in his announcement, proudly saying that his "Support Thompson" bumper sticker would be coming in the mail in a few days' time. (This is the man, of course, who put a "Condi in 2008" sticker on his filing cabinet in 2006, when the members of the Bush administration were popular.) Not a moment too soon, of course, because the other Republican candidates are doomed losers. "Don't you know, what a success the last actor-turned-president was!" My teacher is ecstatic, bursting. He's referring to America's 40th president, the one whose picture proudly hangs over the door to the classroom. (It's right over the Philadelphia Eagles pendant, another mystery to the decor in my teacher's room. We live in Kentucky, and although Kentucky has no professional NFL team, there are [successful] teams who are closer than Philly.)
Although my teacher is slightly eccentric and misguided in his political affliations, he makes a valid point about the presidential candidates. I have my doubts that any of them could lead America following the Bush administration. Not that I have any love for W.--but currently, America is buried so deep that we need a strong leader, an FDR or Kennedy (any Conservative readers are permitted an indignant gasp at this point) to carry the country above ground. I have no plans to jump to the Republican side, or begin supporting Nader, or even to become an Independent, but I can only hope someone great emerges from the crowd of people currently busting down the nomination door.
This may seem ironic, because most of this entry has been devoted to writing about the potential presidential candidates, but I have a firm belief that they're getting too much coverage. We still have more than a year before the election! How come the GOP debate, a significant event in sorting through the collection of candidates, didn't get more coverage? Are American citizens more interested in hearing about individual candidates, like about how Bill backs Hillary? Why is this relevant? I treat this overcoverage with the same scorn usually reserved for the massive number of articles published on Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Nicole Richie, and Lindsay Lohan. The overcoverage is suffocating. (I will acknowledge that a certain amount of article ideas are "scooped" [meaning an idea was taken after an article is completed but not published, and a different yet strikingly similar article is printed in a different publication before the original article can be printed. However, it would appear most of these articles actually originate in the Associate Press or Creative Syndicate, and the only part that is altered is the headline.)
To clarify my meaning, I believe American citizens following political news should disregard most news articles about individual candidates. Most information can be gained from televised (or streaming video) events. I'm not encouraging readers to ignore the important articles--ones that define a candidate's foreign policy stance, position on immigration, illegal drugs, the war, etc.--but to avoid the rhetoric, the articles rampantly promoting a certain campaign, and the mudslinging. Become a selective reader. It does wonders to aid you in coming to better-formulated opinion that isn't muddled by another's comments.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I hardly think that Thompson is a good candidate. As far as I can tell, he constantly says nothing in a way that people can interpret to mean anything. Who cares if he's an actor? That doesn't mean he's Reagan.
Good candidates? I can think of 3. Dennis Kucinich (d), Mike Gravel (d) and Ron Paul(r)
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Funny you should mention Mike Gravel. His name often gets lost in the mess of candidates. A Libertarian friend of mine claims he's a nobody, this being from the mouth of one of the most politically aware people I know. I like the looks of Mike Gravel, but out of the names I hear most often, I wish his was among them more often.
As for Fred Thompson, I don't care for him, either. The whole paragraph about Thompson was to poke fun at my Conservative teacher, who in casting about for reasons to like Thompson, stated that Thompson was an actor. My teacher believes Thompson will prove himself to be every bit as "spectacular" as Reagan. I view it as political rhetoric. Irrelevant information.
Cheers from Union Jane
"I have only ever made one prayer a very short one: "God, make my enemies ridiculous." And God made it so." --Voltaire
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." --Eleanor Roosevelt
" The whole paragraph about Thompson was to poke fun at my Conservative teacher" I know, but I had to add my own two cents.
Gravel is the least well known of those three. However, none of them are considered to be top teir candidates, but reactions to them during the debates seem to be proving this labeling wrong. It may not be likely, but it is not impossible that that we'll see at least one 'low rung' candidate winning a primary.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
I know I am going to shoot myself in the foot for saying this, since it is really annoying when people mention reality TV show or other unimportant things in a political debate but here it goes anyway. This reminds me of when Simon was like 'these are the contenstants' and all the contendars were the same basic boring thing...it was some dumb MSN headline article a few months back that I unwittingly read. I guess all Americans were hoping for a true Idol in that case too.
I think I actually almost made it connect.
Nice post,serious and fun at the same time, look forward to seeing more of you.
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
Thompson has conservative credentials, but little else. Like most of the candidates of either party he has zero executive experience, the kind that really counts. While it may not matter to some, can we really think of turning over the keys to the most powerful, and I would say, most fraught with peril, office on Earth to relative neophytes? Thompson has never had to make a decision that directly affects millions of people. Voting along with 99 other senators is one thing, making tough decisions, implementing them, and taking personal responsibility is entirely another.
Thompson, McCain, O’Bama, Edwards, Clinton, are good politicians, and have good ideas. Fine. Not one has ever had to make those ideas into policy, then make that policy happen. That takes guts, intelligence, and depth of experience in making things actually work. It takes the ability to create and manage competent teams of people. It takes time and seasoning to learn how to make good decisions when the answers are not clear-cut.
Americans have for many decades chosen governors for President precisely because they understand that having good ideas (o'Bama) does not necessarily equate to the capacity to perform when needed (Romney, Giuliani, even Huckabee).
The White House is no place to learn the ropes of executive power and responsibility. It is the place to bring tried and proven ability, intellect, and strength, along with a new approach to the world’s, and the nation’s, challenges.
While prior executive experience alone does not make a great president as dubya has thoroughly shown. But he is the exception, not the rule. For most, I would contend it was crucial. 8 of the best 10 presidents had it.
Presidents with prior executive experience:
Washington - General of the Army in the Revolutionary War.
Jefferson - Governor of Virginia.
Teddy Roosevelt - Governor of New York.
Woodrow Wilson - Governor of New Jersey
Andrew Jackson - Army officer and Territorial Governor of Florida
FDR - Asst. Secretary of the Navy, Governor of New York
Eisenhower - Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (WWII).
Reagan - Governor of California.
Bill Clinton? Governor of Arkansas.
Presidents without:
Lincoln - True man of his times, and a true statistical outlier in terms of innate leadership.
Kennedy - was inspiring. But what did he accomplish? Bay of Pigs? Got us into Vietnam. Did handle the Cuban Missile Crisis well. Died well before a true judgment could be made.
LBJ - great senator, terrible president. Screwed us up in Vietnam. He knew it before the country did.
Nixon - Terrible. Screwed us in Vietnam and Watergate.
Don't underestimate the true value of real executive training, experience, judgment, and management in the White House.
I really like your reply. It is informative and makes me wish we could score comments also. Thank you.
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo