Posted on 06/24/2007 9:52:33 PM PDT by Gravy Boat Jones
Playwright Arthur Miller would have been fascinated by the rapid ascendancy of the GOP's purported celluloid savior, Fred Thompson (R., Hollywood). I thought of Miller, who died in 2005, while pondering Thompson's nascent presidential candidacy, which seems partly based on the proposition that he can collapse the permeable wall that separates stagecraft from statecraft. Miller gave the 2001 Jefferson Lecture at the Kennedy Performing Arts Center, a lecture that later appeared as a slim volume titled On Politics and the Art of Acting. He would have nodded knowingly at Thompson's plans to transfer his folksy, avuncular TV/movie persona to the political arena. Imagery is paramount in this culture, so perhaps it follows that a guy who plays aw-shucks, down-home authority figures is thus well-suited to take custody of our nuclear weaponry.
Miller wrote: "One of the oddest things about millions of lives now is that ordinary individuals, as never before in human history, are so surrounded - one might say, besieged - by acting. Twenty-four hours a day, everything seen on the tube is either acted or conducted by actors in the shape of news anchormen and –women, including their hairdos. It may be that the most impressionable form of experience now, for many if not most people, consists of their emotional transactions with actors, which happen far more of the time than with real people."
Our transactions with Thompson have extended over several decades. He's the archetypal American just-folks country boy, whether he's a faux Navy admiral, CIA director, White House aide, district attorney, FBI agent, senator or commander in chief. He comes off as comfortable as an old shoe, as affable as a man's man with his feet perched on a cracker barrel. He even calls himself "Ole Fred," and you'd never know, by focusing on the artifice
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Presidents need to react quickly and summarily to some situations, Clinton's overall demonstrated corruption to be specific. Fred wanted to sound well-thought-out, and not taking the situation too lightly.
But Clinton was a curse on this nation and Fred's lawyerly reaction and action didn't cut it with me. Fred had his chance and he blew it, at least with me, until he apologizes!
He won’t apologize for voting according to his convictions. He voted FOR one count against Clinton and against the other.
I think YOU should apologize for advocating for president a serial adulterer who dumped TWO wives when they became seriously ill, and refused to support his children.
After having 3 unfaithful wives myself, adultery is an important issue with me, but I'll still vote for Newt.
However... Fred could apologize.
It won’t be Bush/Cheney. Thompson is against illegal immigration.
I think that is a small matter and really wouldn’t be a reason for me not to support Fred. If you think about it, although I doubt this was Fred’s thought process, it prevented Gore from any opportunity to appear presidential. What I am saying is had Clinton been impeached, then Gore would have been president and the race was very close and this may have given Gore an edge. So, looking past what he has wrought to what he is now producing I offer you this, a reality check on his knowledge of foreign policy and terrorism. This seems more an idea a Democrat would come up with rather than a conservative, it’s a stupid idea and at best pandering in the UK. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1853202/posts
And when the opposite happens...what's your next excuse?
Then you, or others, would start talking about flip flopping.
Fred made a judgement about the law, he has articulated an excellent reason, and I won’t second guess his opinion.
His wasn’t the deciding vote, and if they had succeeded we would have had President Gore for several terms. *Shudder*
Good advice.
What a cozy group!
Calling people Bushbots doesn’t make those people Bushbots. It does make you a name caller.
President Bush has been pretty true to what he ran on. On things he didn’t emphasize when he ran, he nevertheless still lines up pretty much with his stated positions. CFR is one of a very few exceptions, in that the McCain version he signed didn’t square with his position. If it hadn’t been McCain’s baby, I say he wouldn’t have signed it. McCain is herioc to many people, including Bush 41. The President signed something that was never his design, whereas some other things he’s pilloried on have been Bush positions all along.
Fred himself voted for CFR, and is one of those who calls McCain a hero and personal friend. I see people who hate President Bush that is from all the vitriol they aim his way but are willing to understand and forgive Fred. That’s where things stand with all the anti-Bush vitriol. It’s out of control and devilishly so.
President Bush is both right and wrong on Illegal Immigration. There’s some points where he makes some sense but the points where he doesn’t are too large and too bad. His overarching problem is to suspend belief that the Feds are capable of even implementing the bill he hopes to sign.
The President has been very good on the economy and tax cuts. He’s been strong on pro-life issues. He’s appointed two strong justices to the SC and made numerous good lower court appointments. The Miers thing was a breakdown of something. He wanted a woman and he personally trusted Miers. I believe he thought she knew his position on how jurists should decide cases and would rule accordingly. Right or wrong, somebody failed to do their homework on her past and how could she be sold to Republicans never mind Democrats. When she withdrew, to come out of the chute quickly with a SAM ALITO proves he wasn’t trying to put a liberal ringer on the court. It was simply an error.
He has been a lion on the WOT issues. Yes you can fault him somewhere, as you would be able to fault anyone. Compared to what he’s had to face in that area, he has been remarkably stalwart.
As far as we know he has been a moral man in the office and tried to return personal integrity there.
I’m thankful for President Bush for the good he has done. If I disagree with him on a specific issue, I certainly still respect him (as do Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson) and I totally oppose the vitriolic anti-Bush takeover of FR.
Not much I can do about that, except once in a while speak out.
I won’t vote for Fred. I believe the Open Borders Lobby must have a candidate and it very well could be Fred Thompson. I’ve based that decision on these red flags...NAFTA, Council on Foreign Relations, his campaign advisors (Lindsey, Federal Reserve), endorsers (George P. Bush), and supporter (Busher Jerry Patterson Texas Land Commissioner)and other information gathered here at FR on his gun control, abortion, and Iran positions all of which are either weak, questionable, or unacceptable to me.
Here is a link to quotes given by FT on illegal immigration. I find his position mimicks that of Bush and Guiliani:
Fred Thompson: No Restrictionist Hero
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/fred-thompson-no-restrictionist.html
And more on Fred:
The Zero-to-60
Thompson Run
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/751wkmre.asp?pg=2
Key Bush backers rally to Fred Thompson
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4309_Page2.html
And frankly, not only am I suspect of his non-committed, yet financially successful race to the top, refusal to commit (and thus, debate) but I am disgusted with the strong arm tactics some will use to squelch any dissent towards Fred and it isn’t just here. When I find internet sites where entire sections dedicated (as does the DU) to a ‘rapid response’ by anyone they deem to be ‘attacking’ poor old Fred...double red flags!! The man hasn’t even declared yet and his followers are already attempting to shut down debate. I believe that’s what is happening here.
The sovereignty and security of our country is what’s at stake should an OBLer be elected in ‘08. If I saw ANY of this in Hunter or any other candidate they wouldn’t get my vote either. I’ve devoted too much of my time and energy to prevent the passing of legislation that would destroy this country. I’ll be danged if I vote for anyone I suspect to be a Busher who’d move his OBL agenda forward. I won’t settle.
That’s exactly the problem. Fred Thompson does have an acceptable ‘conservative’ record, i.e. he has been mostly conservative voting record with a few red flags. Bush was more acceptable to McCain and look what we end up with! The red flags of campaign finance reform and not being steadfast with illegal immigration are enough they ought to make people question him more and rely less on the fact he is an actor and the supposed savior. And he doesn’t exactly have enough of a Senate record in showing leadership that deserves the accolades and hype he is getting.
That mindset about Hunter is what to thank. If Hunter had a vote for every person who says that they like him but will not vote for him because he ‘has no chance’!! ‘Conservatives’ aren’t what they proclaim to be and have no right to whine and b**ch about the way things are with GOP leadership when they jump on board so easily.
Just jump on board and be happy because Fred ‘can win’! Forget these things that make you question his judgment and how steadfast he is and how much he’ll ‘compromise’ with a Demonrat Congress and make bad calls like McCain-Feingold. He’s an actor and that assures us of the fact he will definitely win the next election. /s
Oh Rudy, the liberal in disguise.
He defied federal law, keeping NYC a sanctuary city (where police officers and INS officials couldn’t ask about an immigrant’s legal status)...even after the SCOTUS told him to stop.
Taxes, he did take a lot down...but he also raised taxes several times as well. He endorsed Mario Cuomo over George Pataki because of Pataki’s stance on cutting taxes.
On government regulation...he favors a national ID. And a DNA database, holding your DNA from the moment you’re born. Get the picture?
Limits of Federal power? Rudy says “What limit?”
That’s a very good point and one I have examined for a month or so and still have no answers. Perhaps it is genetic and has some relationship with the missing irony gene that is obviously absent in those who make that statement. :)
For all the opinions and analysis about Thompson, the scribblers in the press are missing the most obvious and pleasing trait about this man: He doesn’t look like or sound like Hillary.
That’s what makes him dangerous to the left’s dream of taking the Whitehouse.
So if (when, I think) Fred wins the nomination, you won’t vote for him? How does that help your causes?
I’m all too familiar with holding my nose at the voting booth or voting against the RAT, that’s why I’m excited about actually being able to vote FOR a candidate like Fred.
Certainly, support as your heart and conscience directs you at the primary levels. But my point is, if you are going to stay home should Fred win the nomination, you’ve hurt yourself IMO.
If this is what you are saying, that is.
He certainly does tend to come off sounding like an a*hole much of the time though. In that respect, Frederick and Hillary have plenty of similarities.
I swear, if George W and Dick could morph into one guy, this is what he’d look and sound like (FRick). Just an ornery pretend country boy who thinks he has all the answers, when actually, he offers not a single workable solution to anything. All filler, no killer.
But what can you expect? He’s an actor. He’s just starved for attention, he could care less about making this a better country to live in.
I mean, I’ll wait until he at least gets to debate once (4 months after everyone else), but at this point, Rick isn’t impressing me.
Why I feel that Fred Thompson is the only one in the bunch that can revive that old-time religion of genuine Reagan-like conservatism. Its his remarkable ability to communicate, honestly and openly and with such flair.
A major irritation of the Republican base has been Bush’s trouble articulating. Given a prepared speech he can deliver it with the best of them, but slap a microphone in front of him like at a press conference and we Republicans cringe. His sloppy speaking style only serves to bolster the perception of his incompetence.
That is why the most important but least discussed asset we are looking for in a candidate is the ability to communicate, and Fred Thompson seems to be what we the Republicans are yearning for.
We need to not just get a victory in 2008, but we need to look beyond Bush and focus on the long term vision of the Conservative movement. Each of the candidates running have good attributes, and maybe just maybe a few of them have what it takes to beat Hillary, but where will they take the party?
Is this just about beating Hillary? Yea, we get some sweet revenge, but four years of more of the same politics as usual in D.C. .
Or is this about a rediscovery of our values and our common sense as a Nation, and the resurgence of national pride? We need the President to be the “Nations President” once again.
It’s been written not long after the mess in Florida with the hanging chads, that to half the Nation, President Bush was their President, but to the other half he was not President at all. We can as Americans no longer afford to have that sort of a divide between our people.
Ronald Reagan said he left the entertainment world for politics because he wanted to protect something precious. Well the office of President is something precious and the respect for it should be preserved. The President once again needs to be “Our President”, weather you voted for him or not. Out of all the potential presidential candidates, Fred Thompson is the one that can unite us and move us forward to better things.
In President Reagan’s Farewell Address he said, “I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things.” Fred Thompson is a communicator of great things and I am honored to be behind him.
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.