Skip to comments.The Unbearable Lightness of Fred
Posted on 09/08/2007 8:32:15 PM PDT by finnman69
No one noticed the wince. If they did, no one wanted to talk about it, because Fred Thompson's campaign staff (which still exists, the fresh exodus of three top staffers aside) had set up his presidential launch on The Tonight Show so deftly. This was history, and when history's being made you can forgive Jay Leno's dying-man groping for punchlines or a 10-minute giggle-proof lead-in segment where burly housewives and shirtless yokels bumped, grinded and cross-dressed to Rihanna tunes. Sweat it out. You'll want to tell your grandkids about the night you watched Fred Thompson begin his quest for the White House. ------------------------- The rationale for Thompson's run has been refreshingly phony: It's all about his looks, his voice, his personality. His backers have confused all of that with leadership, and Thompson, like the worst actor, is starting to believe his reviews. That's a mistake. The point of Fred Thompson is that he was never serious.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Or very well thought out or from an unbiased source.
Looks like Fred scares the beejeezuz out of David Weigel-—the man is virtually incoherent.
So...the choices are shaping up to be a bad actress in the RAT camp who uniformly gets rave reviews from a fawning, lickspittle press and an actor from the Pubby side that will, no doubt, get uniformly bad reveiws.
Hmmmm...lessee...criminal traitor who is praised by the left, or lightweight establishment actor/pol that is offered as a counterpoint to the vacuous front runners and blackhorse wingnuts...what to do?
Although I voted for an actual Conservative (Tom McClintock) in the California recall election of 2003, we unfortunately elected a liberal actor (SchwartzenKennedy) who has since spent more than Davis wouldn't have imagined in his wildest wet dreams, and who now counsels Conservative Republicans to give up Conservatism and become "moderates" (=Democrats). We are in grave danger.
Jassah Jagson would be more coherent three days into a crack binge in a nitrous bottling plant.
I looked at a few more of Weigel’s articles. They’re all like that.
He’s just another 2004 grad in Journalism/PolySci major.
Here’s how Weigel voted in 2006:
David Weigel, Assistant Editor
Residence: Fairfax, Virginia
Registered party affiliation: None
How are you voting?
“For U.S. Senate: James Webb. Its a choice between him and George Allen; what’s the dictionary’s definition of “no-brainer?” Webb is an honest-to-God renaissance man novelist, historian, soldier, presidential advisor whod immediately balance out the Senate I.Q. scale that Barbara Boxer and Jeff Sessions have been tipping the wrong way since the 90s. Hes right on the war, right on gay marriage, and hideously wrong on taxes and trade, but I care most about that first issue. The thought of Webb sitting in the tall chairs at Armed Service Committee hearings, grilling Donald Rumsfeld until his glasses fog up, is a pleasant one. “
“For U.S. Congress: Democrat Andrew Hurst, whos challenging Republican Tom Davis. Davis epitomizes the 1994 Republican freshman gone wrong hes gotten power-hungry and trivial, blocking development of housing in his district because he worried about Democrats moving in, and presiding over the idiotic baseball hearings. Hurst is a doctrinaire liberal who wont win, so this is basically a protest vote.”
“For ballot initiatives and/or state constitutional amendments: Im voting no on Ballot Question #1, the latest idiotic couples rights rollback masquerading as a gay marriage ban. Its an abomination thatll pass handily.”
“Theres no one else I can vote for, since Virginia holds state legislative elections in odd years. And beyond the Senate race Virginia isnt seeing many close battles Republicans have an outside chance of losing a House seat in Virginia Beach, but that’s it. I will definitely be watching my home turf of Delaware, to see if Joe Bidens dashing son Beau wins the open Attorney Generals office.”
He's the only candidate who is talking about the Constitution other than Dr. Paul.
FDT fact of the day: while serving in the Senate, 'future president' Thompson passed three bills - mostly post office naming stuff. During this same time, McCain passed 17 pieces of legislature. The difference is leadership (even though McCain is an asshat I dislike and don't care for - he is a leader).
Now if he only understood it.
How much of his staff has he picked up now?
Talking about the Constitution isn’t good enough. He was instrumental in getting CFR through, he’s McCain without the insanity. Not voting for either if I can help it. It’s exceedingly looking like I’ll at least be sitting the primaries out. The GOP should feel shame, the entire crowd is pathetic, I’ll vote against the Dem candidate in the general but there really is nobody in this election worth outright voting for. Between the losers the loons and the scumsuckers this is just a lame election.
Usually I like Reason’s articles but this one stank. Thompson has put out more than enough general principles and policy statements and has acted upon them in the senate for a critique to be based on that.
This critique of image and how a guy who owns plaid shirts and a pickup can’t own gucci’s is lame, lame, lame.
It is unbelievable the shallowness and poorly thought out writing of the recent Fred bashing articles. They are so much in a panic to get the Fred bash out they are not even thinking straight and are publishing pure gibberish.
Is that Fred Thompson dancing with Hillary?
Actually, Fred bought the truck at a used-car lot - and still owns it.
Any time the terms "aw-shucks" or "folksy" appear in a story about Fred, I make it a habit to stop reading at that point - Invariably, nothing insightful or truthful will follow.
Oh so that's his problem. He's gay and liberal. Glad to see he's got the good sense to fear Thompson.
“The rationale for Thompson’s run has been refreshingly phony: It’s all about his looks, his voice, his personality. His backers have confused all of that with leadership, and Thompson, like the worst actor, is starting to believe his reviews. That’s a mistake. The point of Fred Thompson is that he was never serious.”
A lot of folks are convinced that Thompson is a conservative. Now they’ve even got him believing it. Lessons are sure learned the hard way.
Well, I learned from this thread that there is a such a thing as “Reason Magazine”. Never heard of it.
Yeah, I think the only “lightness” is in Weigel’s loafers!
Here’s what he said about Fred in April:
“Hes handsome? What? Im pretty darn gay, myself - I can imagine snogging Hugh Jackman or Anderson Cooper or that one guy from Fall Out Boy. But Thompson? Fred Thompson?”
Thompson has an ACU rating of 86, Hunter is at (I think) 92. Thompson IS a conservative. Its those who think he isn’t who are in fantasyland, especially if they believe the ridiculous crapola dished out in this poorly written idiotic leftist article.
McCain has an ACU Rating of 83.So Thompson is rated slightly more conservative than McCain.
Interesting that the worst comments about Fred so far are from the right, not the left. Didn’t Reagan say something about not eating our own?
Factually incorrect. Good to know where you take your cues from.
“Looks like Fred scares the beejeezuz out of David Weigel-the man is virtually incoherent.”
To which do you refer?
Fred’s been a disaster so far. Just saying.
McCain wrote McCain-Feingold, Thompson was a key support of it. McCain-Feingold did more damage to the first amendment than the previous 20 years of crappy laws. Nobody that supported that hunk of crap is a conservative no matter what their ACU rating is.
What is "snogging", and does it involve fecal matter?
I'm not sure, I haven't really been following Fred lately. I just know that he's not as liberal as Schwarzenegger.
According to http://english2american.com/dictionary/s.html
snog v. This may or may not be a verb, depending on who you are snogging. The closest equivalent to snogging is making out, which is a terrible phrase and as far as I can see describes anything on the sexual scale which can be performed on a couch. Snogging translates to playground-speak as kissing-with-tongues and I suppose is French-kissing, which is another appalling phrase.
Yeah right! Concerns of lefty gay girlie men maybe!
Yup, and Hunter only slightly more than Thompson. So what does that tell you? It tells me that a conservative voting record is only part of the picture, albeit a very important one. McCain is nuts....therefore he is out despite his record. He did have potential at one time, that time has long passed.
I have no problem with genuine legitimate criticisms of Fred, but saying he is not conservative is simply bullcrap, when compared to the other candidates.
I don’t concern myself too much with the ACU ratings. They only tabulate the votes a person makes. Thompson may very well vote on the conservative side most often. I don’t disagree with that, most repubs do. What I am most concerned with is his willingness to fight for conservative issues. Is there a history of him laying his reputation and political career on the line fighting for conservative causes near and dear to him? Like abortion? Tax reform or tax cuts? WOT? Strong military? Has he been out front on these or anything? Has he displayed passion for any conservative issues as a senator or at any other position?
Too many republicans can mouth the conservative message. They know all the right words to say but when it comes down to crunch time, they fold like a cheap suit. And that is my main concern with Fred Thompson. Eveyone says he is a conservative. Where is the proof?
personally I think the ACU ratings are worthless, as is the ACU.
Does this guy have a degree in anything remotely resembling a college major that would require a passing grade in writing skills?
These article authors who somehow think that they are being "really, really cute", need to wise up.
There is sure some sad, sad articles being posted for perusal on FR these days.
Awww, concern from the RudyBooster. Isn’t that nice? So glad you’re so concerned...you should be.
Supporting a candidate is great. Supporting a good man is even better. Supporting a guy who has absolutely zero chance in the election is ideological suicide.
I do not doubt Thompson is a conservative. I do not doubt he is a decent actor.
I doubt he is a good leader. I doubt he would make a good president.
“Interesting that the worst comments about Fred so far are from the right, not the left. Didnt Reagan say something about not eating our own?”
I don’t believe I made any disparaging comments about Fred in my post. Just because I am not convinced that Thompson is a conservative isn’t bashing him. If he is nominated, I would vote for him. I won’t be disappointed in him but I am afraid his avid supporters will be.
Look, we have ten different candidates running and they all have their supporters. It is important to slug it out now during the primaries. Once the candidate is chosen, then we can invoke Reagan’s eleventh commandment and get behind our candidate. That is what he did. Reagan wasn’t all too kind to his primary opponents.
The only eating I remember him talking about was jelly beans.
How is Thompson on trade? Do you think he is a secret CFR, NAU “conservative”? Look at other “conservatives” such as Lindsey Graham, Brownback, Orrin Hatch and oh yes ...George W.
There are lots of “conservatives” who will go along with what the base wants because they know what they have to say to get elected, but what about free trade, illegal immigration, and sovereignty? Some of our “conservatives” have sold their souls to big money. It pains me to say this but it is true.
So what do you suggest I do? Support a guy I don’t have any faith in just for what? To save us from Hillary? Rudy? Mitt? What about saving us from Fred? I really do think that many of the Thompson supporters are for him more out of fear than a strong belief in his candidacy. Not all, so to you who support him for all the right reasons, don’t get all offended.
Yes, I do believe Hunter can rise in the polls. I do believe he can win. I also believe if he were nominated, he would capture more votes than anyone else the GOP could nominate. If I didn’t I wouldn’t waste my time. I have absolutely no interest in any other candidate at this time.
I will say that if I had to go for one of the current front runners, it wouldn’t be Thompson.
“Fred’s been a disaster so far. Just saying”
And how, pray tell, has he been a disaster?
And who do you support?
Thompson’s record on the issues you have raised have been posted time and time again on FR, do a search and focus on Sturm Ruger’s posts.
This is what gets me most about the Fred bashers. They keep asking the same questions even though those questions have been answered ad infinitum here at FR. Fred’s record is out there for all who are genuinely interested in finding it.
If you don’t like Fred after looking at his record then fine.....but please......look at his record!
What you just said!! I want a candidate who is conservative deep down in his soul, steeled in his beliefs from a lifetime of living them. I want a true believer, not an election year sloganeer.
Oh, geesh. Not this again.
Since you cite his ACU rating to "prove" he is a conservative, here are some lifetime ACU ratings from various politicians. In order of most conservative to least conservative:
JOHN KYL (R-AZ) 96.9
CHRIS CANNON (R-UT) 96.3
JEFF FLAKE (R-AZ) 94.7
SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA) 94.4
SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS) 94.0
LARRY CRAIG (R-ID) 93.4
TRENT LOTT (R-MS) 92.4
WALTER JONES JR. (R-NC) 91.9
LIDDY DOLE (D-NC) 91.0
LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC) 90.6
MEL MARTINEZ (R-FL) 90.0
ORRIN HATCH (R-UT) 89.9
MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY) 89.7
JEAN SCHMIDT (R-OH) 87.8
BILL FRIST (R-TN) 87.8
RANDY KUHL (R-NY) 87.5
JERRY WELLER (R-IL) 86.4
CHUCK HAGEL (R-NE) 86.2
What do those politicians all have in common? They've all been denounced as RINOs, traitors, sellouts, unworthy to hold public office, given nicknames like "Brokeback", "Goober", "McCain's VP", and had freepers proclaiming that these guys are soooo awful that we should vote for the RAT in the general election if they make it through the primary. And every single one of them has a lifetime record of supporting the conservative position MORE often than their hero Fred does.
A few of these politicians have been pissed off freepers because they are gutless types who let the Dems run circles around them (Lott, Dole, etc.) Many of them (Kyl, Chambliss) are subject to nothing but bitter gutter level attacks because they voted the wrong way on ONE bill and it's someone's pet issue. Ususally this is amnesty for illegal aliens, which is rather odd since the same people who want to lynch Kyl for that don't seem to have a problem with the fact Fred Thompson has given support to amnesty in the past. If you bring it up, they're either say you're "lying" and Fred was only trying to help "legal" immigrants (no matter how many times you show them the word ILLEGAL to describe the aliens that Fred supported "aspirations of citizenship" for), or they'll "hey Fred didn't vote to give 20 million amnesty, it was only 1 million", as if rewarding people for breaking the law is OK as long as it's not blanket amnesty. A couple other politicians denounced as "RINOs" here simply rub people the wrong way, like Jean Schmidt. Or, there voting record is solidly conservative, but they're friends with McCain. According to the Fredheads, being McCain's buddy and supporting his legislation is automatic grounds to make you a RINO... unless of course your name is Fred Thompson.
Most of the Fredheads who keep pointing out that "nobody's perfect" and "Reagan said a person who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy" have no problem screaming "RINO" at people who agree with them 90% of the time and some even stoop to backing the Democrat if they don't get their way in the primary.
Either an 85% ACU rating makes a person a reliable conservative or it doesn't. To say Fred's 86% rating is proof that he's Reaganesque but Graham's 91% rating makes him a traitor is total bull. They get those ratings for a reason. Whether the Fredheads like it or not, Graham's record is simular to Fred's on just about every issue, but Graham HAS voted slightly to the right of Fred on several important bills, including the defense of marriage amendment and the Clinton impeachment.
I have no interest in the Fredhead hypocrites definition of Fred's "true conservativism" by his congressional ratings, as long as the Fredheads break their own rules of thrsehold of a "true conservative"
If you believe anyone with an 85% conservative rating is a fairly acceptable conservative, take it up with your fellow Fredheads. When they stop their blantant hypocrisy, I'll take them seriously.
Packaging doesn’t seem to require proof. Same thing with Romney.
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.