ANALYSIS: Ranking Thompson's views on Iran and the Palestinians
Tags: Shmuel Rosner US electionFinally, Thompson
When his rivals appeared in a New Hampshire debate last Wednesday, Fred Thompson was on the Jay Leno show. However, he is now officially running. Finally.
Some think his entry was too late. Others believe it is just the right time. But these are not questions for our panel to judge (As of yesterday, Thompson was already leading in one poll).
The panel is charged with the often quite challenging mission of guessing the future policies of a possible candidate. With Thompson, it's even more problematic (in this lengthy Time profile of him you'll find not even one clue), as he hasn't served in any position lately that required him to express an opinion or execute policies related to foreign affairs. As the one tasked with providing the panel with the relevant material, I can testify to the fact that his track record on all-things-Israel is quite thin.
Some background on Thompson and Israel can be found in my previous analysis of his candidacy. And there is this one article in the National Review, from which we drew our weekly question for the panel (from Labor Day until February 2008 we will try to have questions for the panel on a weekly rather than monthly basis). The group was asked to rate some of the remarks Thompson made in the course of the argument. The conclusions we received were quite remarkable.
The first comment was: "What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza. We would use whatever means necessary to win the war."
The panel's average assessment of this remark on a 1-5 scale was 4.375, but this may be somewhat misleading. The truth is that 6 out of 8 panelists gave Thompson a 5 on this statement. The other two didn't like it at all, and this dragged his marks down somewhat. The interesting thing is that this pattern repeats itself, with very small variables, with all of the first four quotes we presented to the panel (the quotes and marks are all here). Six panelists gave Thompson a 5 or a 4 ? the two persistent dissenters give him a 2 or a 3.
Quote number 5 was different though, and the reason is clear. "If the world doesn't act to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, it must be prepared for the consequences of Israel defending itself," Thompson wrote.
Is this good for Israel? On the one hand, Thompson doesn't show any sign of wanting to restrain Israel, but on the other hand, he practically says it will be Israel dealing with Iran - alone. No wonder that the panel is not as enthusiastic about the statement (actually, I thought it would be even more so).
And what can I say about these two dissenters who don't like Thompson? They are also the two who rate Giuliani the lowest (still high, but lower than other panel members).
Gore, Gingrich, gone
It was not an easy decision, but this month we eliminated both Al Gore and Newt Gingrich from our list of candidates.
They were both quite popular with the panel - Gingrich up until the last survey, Gore started higher but didn't fare as we progressed with the ranking. They are attractive for the purposes of our survey as they are well known and have stature and experience - and because the possibility that they would join the race at a later date was always part of the political guessing game. That's why we left them on the list until now.
However, this month we are dropping their names. And no, we don't have any inside information to indicate that they aren't running. Different political outlets have made different decisions as to the viability of such candidacies; some didn't think it was time to drop their names from the process, while others did. RealClearPolitics is still trucking the numbers for Gore, and Gallup has included Gingrich in some polls and analysis. But at the Washington Post, Dan Balz was asking last Sunday "Is it too late for Al Gore or Newt Gingrich to get into the race?" His answer was simple: "In a word, yes. Not that they couldn't jump in. But the prospects do not look bright for either".
We've decided to go with the latter assessment. We want the readers to be able to see as clear a field as possible, and the panel to rank real candidates, not mirages. So this month, with Gingrich gone from the list, you can see who the panel's real second choice is (Bloomberg, followed this week by McCain, Clinton and Thompson). With Gore gone, you can see the most preferred Democrat after Hillary Clinton (Richardson). And if Gingrich and Gore eventually decide to run, we'll bring them back.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Fred "Frankenberry" Thompson's campaign is "too litle, too late". If a washed-up actor who can read a script is what you seek in a president, Fred's the go-to guy. Especially from an Israeli perspective. Fred is comfortable with the War Lobby, an undemocratic coalition which consists of the Defense Lobby the Energy Lobby and the Israel Lobby. If one seeks a president who will put America's national interests foremost in policy-making, then all of the "Israel Factor" favorites represent a poor choice for America. If permanent war to defend faith-based colonialism, apartheid and Jim Crow in the Holyland is the goal, Rudy or Hillary represent the right choice. The GOP and the Dems both acquiesce to the War Lobby, so for Israeli war-mongers, there is nothing to worry about. Chuck Hagel for Prez! If the Israel Factor panelists rejected him, patriotic Americans should support him. Bring the Diaspora to America - let the hotheads in the Holyland fend for themselves.
THANKS FOR THE INFORMATION. Thompson just keeps lookiing better and better.
Don't worry your little heads about Thompson. If his trophy bimbo wife or his working as a lobbyist for anti-abortionists didn't kill him, word getting out that he worked for AEI--home to Wolfowitz and assorted other neocons--will do it.
Would you spell out what you mean by "stereotypical images?"
Before people get too worked up about a Thompson candidacy and his views and possible policies it might be prudent to remember that Mr. Thompson has had cancer, and that disease ,as currently diagnosed, apparently is in remission.It has not been cured. Would his health issues make Mr. Thompson electable under any circumstances?
You nailed it on the head. I completely agree with your comment. thanks J.
Obviously Mr. Rossner and many Israelis feel they should be part and parcel to the United States' presidential election. I am not a Republican nor do I support Mr. Thompson's candidacy. I do resent comment like "I can testify to the fact that his track record on all-things-Israel is quite thin. "Who cares?" Mr. Rossner is not an American citizen and as such is not able to vote in OUR elections. Sticking your nose into other countries elections only supports stereotypical images that Rossner would be the first to whine about. I don't see American newspapers critiquing Israeli PM candidates on how well their records are on all things United States. Then again that wouldn't be a bad idea since few PM's have held the United States' interests in very high regard except for how much aid the country could provide Israel.
I am always amused when people say Thompson has no (or limited) foreign policy experience or credentials. He served on both the Senate Foreign Relations and Senate Intelligence Committies. After leaving the Senate he became a visiting fellow at American Enterprise Institute for national security. He also was chairman of the Secretary of State's International Security Advisory Board. I'd say he has as much (or more) foreign policy exposure as Romney or Guillani.
I am pro Isreal and I watch the responses to world events from both sides of the isle. I find your concern with the panels decision left of center. The two decenting panaeist do not intrest me as much as the others right now. As a reader I am hard pressed to find any usefull details or balanced reporting on Mideast events. In the United States we get the Left Wing bias in almost every news sourse, so you could imagine why your collumn matters enough to me to make this response . The left here is becoming more anti-semitic with their aliances policy making. Joseph Leiberman was dumped by the demoncratic party, that should tell you something. I am not sure of Fred Thompson though, he is still new. Let us watch and learn what we can, then make a dceision. Respectfully Yours Scott J. Yamauchi
The question is a leading question that does not take into account the many different variables in the region. The U.S. did not occupy Canada and is not strangling its livelyhood and literly starving its people. It is like rating a person on his answer to the question "If someone rapes your wife and murders your children in front of your eyes, what would you do?". Maybe the panel is expecting the "good Christian" answer "I'll forgive him and let the Lord deal with his sins". Yeah right, there is a nice bridge for sale in Brooklyn, cheap too.