Fred Thompson steps into the White House...briefly

Scripps News ^ | May 24, 2007 | TERRY MORROW

[Politicalmom]

Fred Thompson will become president -- briefly -- on Sunday night.

He plays Ulysses Grant in the drama "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee," based on the best-selling book. Thompson, a former Republican senator from Tennessee, is currently considering run for the White House.

"Wounded Knee" airs 9 p.m. Sunday on HBO. The cast also includes Anna Paquin ("X-Men") and Aidan Quinn.

This adaptation follows the plight of the Sioux when the U.S. government claims their land. It begins with Custer's last stand and explores the implications of that slaughter for the Indians and government officials.

The story is personalized through the eyes of Charles Eastman, an Indian who is educated and assimilated into the white man's culture.

Eastman wants to be an advocate for his people, but he finds working the government system even 125 years ago was difficult, too.

Thompson plays Grant as being sympathetic to the Indians, but a man who, nonetheless, is baffled for answers.

Producer Dick Wolf, best known for Law & Order," asked Thompson to play the role.

"I literally just picked up the phone and called him and said, 'Let's see, I think this is your third or fourth President. Do you want to be Ulysses S. Grant?' And he said, 'Not if I have to grow the beard,'" Wolf recalled with a laugh.

So why did he take the part?

"He was as struck by the story as all of us have been, because the resonances in this are not only instructive for our relationships with American Indians but other cultures, that this is a metaphor for many things," Wolf said.

[Politicalmom]

Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference

Please FReepmail jellybean if you want on/off this list. WARNING: This ping list is EXTREMELY active.

[Huck]

Some freepers probably didn’t dig that book too much.

[alienken]

Good move Fred. He did this to show Americans how well he will fit into the role. GO FRED GO!!

[the anti-liberal]

I did a search in the Fredipedia for 'UN,' 'United Nations,' and came up empty handed. Do you, by any chance, happen to know his stance vis a vis the UN?

Is he likely to sell our sovereignty to that body, or pressure them through fund withholding to conform to their original mandate - in service to freedom and democracy?

Thanks.

[Politicalmom]

He just did a scathing piece on the U.N. last week. I’ll try to find it for you.

Lots of people are claiming he’s a “globalist” but that is completely ridiculous, because of his strong stance on state’s rights. You can’t be both.

He IS for free trade.

It’s nice to have someone asking sincere questions. :)

[Politicalmom]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1837698/posts

[the anti-liberal]

The more I hear of him, the more I like him.

Now if you'll tell me that he'll:

strengthen the Executive in order to overcome the problems of an entire political party held enthralled by the transient opinions peddled by unelected and non-representative organizations such as moveon and code pink and the impact of that on congress;

work to overturn the Kelo Decision;

work to disband or reform the ACLU; strengthen the CIA after Clinton decimated it;

and arrest violators of the Logan Act, a la Pelosi (thus emphasizing US v Curtiss Wright Export - reasserting and strengthening the President as the sole organ of US in foreign policy)

he'd be absolutely perfect and I'd then know beyond a doubt that I'm dreaming and none of this is real.

;^)

[Politicalmom]

Well, we don’t have that much detail yet, but he had an article about the weakening of Executive powers a few weeks ago, and he says he’ll pardon Scooter Libby first thing.

Does that help any?

[Politicalmom]

Oh, I think there’s an article about intelligence around here somewhere.

[the anti-liberal]

It does - and it tells me that he understands the Constitution (a requisite for be able to uphold the oath of office) and that he understands the rule of law (requisite for be able to be the Chief Executive).

Thank you.

[the anti-liberal]

"Oh, I think there’s an article about intelligence around here somewhere."

I'm glad he's thinking about it - perhaps he'll be intelligent about intelligence!

[the anti-liberal]

“for be able” s/b “for being able”...

[Politicalmom]

Power of the President

http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=406874&SPID=15663

You’re Listening to Radio Free Congress

http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=408967&SPID=15663

For more:

http://www.abcradio.com/Blog.asp?id=15663&m=5&y=2007

(Check out the Case for Competence Podcast)

[Politicalmom]

He was the lone hold out in several 99-1 Senate votes, based on his States’ Rights positions. (One was forcing seat belt laws for highway funds)

[the anti-liberal]

You're a good saleswoman - I'm sold.

:^)

[Politicalmom]

Woohoo!!

[Politicalmom]

You do know he voted for CFR, right?

He was trying to get rid of the corruption in campaigns, and he tried to get a lot of mitigating amendments passed. I don’t like the vote, but I understand his reasoning.

“I agree with you that Thompson’s support for McCain-Feingold is serious. I did some research on it, and found that while he did indeed support campaign finance “reform,” he was not in lockstep with McCain about the details. Below is a list of campaign finance “reform” votes where Thompson’s and McCain’s votes differed. Most significantly, Thompson introduced an amendment that would increase hard money contribution limits. McCain voted to kill discussion of Thompson’s amendment, but Thompson prevailed, and the amendment passed (with McCain ultimately voting for it). In the discussion of this amendment, Thompson specifically noted that individual contributions are free speech.

For me, this doesn’t fully mitigate Thompson’s support for McCain-Feingold, but it does seem to add credence to Thompson’s recent criticisms of the bill.

CFR related items where Thompson departed from McCain
March 19, 2001 - April 2, 2001
Votes 00037-00064
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_107_1.htm
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00037
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00038
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00046
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00047
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00049
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00053 (this was Thompson’s amendment to increase hard money contributions — McCain voted to kill it)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:1:./temp/~r107Kv5YyZ:e0 (here is the discussion)
:http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00054
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00055 (this is the final vote on Thompson’s successful amendment to increase hard money limits. McCain ended up supporting it, although he tried to kill it)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00056

83 posted on 04/02/2007 3:42:39 PM EDT by ellery

#####

Thompson Floor Speech on CFR

http://web.archive.org/web/20020825004251/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/speeches/fs032701.html

[the anti-liberal]

I'll go over this when I have the time to do so.

It sounds like he doesn't jump before looking - a good quality for a President to have.

[dixiechick2000]

Politicalmom knows her candidate, that’s for sure.
There’s hardly a thread where I don’t learn something new.

I see you are in Oregon...so am I.
You don’t know how good it is to see someone here asking excellent questions...

...and you are conservative, too! ;o)