|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject: Fred Thompson's appearance on Jay Leno... |
 |
|
Well, it's been pulled off YouTube already by NBC-Universal (whose parent company, GE, is one of the big businesses - including tobacco and insurance companies - that Thompson has lobbied for...)
He's been rising steadily in polls (as high as #2 among declared Republican candidates) despite not participating in TV debates - which he characterized as somewhat "demeaning" (noting that seekers of the highest office in the land had to raise their hands like school kids in order to be heard...)
While not officially declaring his candidacy, he made it obvious that he's running, and he plugged his website www.imwithfred.com ...
Asked by Jay Leno on "The Tonight Show" if he'd like the nation's top job, the former Tennessee senator said, "I've never craved the job of president, but I want to do some things that only a president can do."
"So," Thompson added, "the answer is yes."
www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070613/fred-thompson-leno/
Prompted by the very supportive Leno, Thompson briefly discusses some of the highlights of his public life, including his asking a key question (which I remember watching) at the Watergate hearings - "Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?"...
He was brought into the Watergate hearings by moderate Republican Senator - and fellow Tenneseean - Howard Baker, who he's still associated with politically...
Although he has made hawkish statements about the Iraq war, he responded very diplomatically when asked to comment on Joe Lieberman's recent statement that we should be prepared to attack Iran (or something to that effect...) He stressed that there were many positive elements in Iran that the U.S. could work with - as well as the obvious negative forces...
He's recently exchanged jabs with Michael Moore:
On May 2, 2007, Thompson wrote an article critical of Cuba's government-run health care, and of filmmaker Michael Moore's visit to Cuba. Moore responded on May 15, 2007 with a challenge for a health care debate. Later that day, Thompson responded with a video, in which he declined to debate Moore and mentioned the case of Cuban filmmaker Nicol�s Guill�n, who was jailed by the Cuban government and subjected to electroconvulsive therapy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson
Since practically all the Republicans try to invoke the memory of Ronald Reagon (who began as a mediocre actor...) Thompson's so-so acting credentials and fairly imposing physical stature (6 feet 5 inches...) are seen by some as part of a winning "outsider" image...
This was probably his most amusing quip:
Referring to his time in the U.S. Senate, he said, "I often say after eight years in Washington, I longed for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood."
He certainly did nothing to hurt his chances - based on what I saw last night. And, he's got a standing invitation to come back on Leno's show to try to launch his official bid with maximum publicity (at minimal cost...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mack4289
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
It bothers me that he hasn't participated in the debates and that he wouldn't debate Michael Moore. The US doesn't need another president who resists hearing conflicting opinions.
I think this could be a case of the party heads picking who they want to vote for, instead of who the people want to vote for. Even for politics the Thompson "movement" feels empty and phony. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Saxiif
Joined: 15 May 2003
Location: Seongnam
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It seems that a lot of politics is being driven by people trying to choose the daddy-figure that makes them feel most psychologically comfortable. Fred is a big guy who's paid a great deal to act like a tough guy on TV. What more do people want? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack4289
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fred Thompson strikes me as manufactured Reagan. Just like the Democrats will spend a long time looking for the next Clinton, the Republicans will spend a long time looking for the next Reagan.
So Fred Thompson comes along and he speaks well enough, he's an actor and he seems like he could play the President. Not Reagan but close enough right? I think Giulianni is the most viable candidate out of any of the Republicans. He's basically stuck to his non-conservative positions so he seems somewhat sincere. McCain and Romney have been pandering shamelessly to the more conservative wing of their party and people don't think they have any credibility.
So before they had Thompson, the more conservative part of the party had a choice between one guy who was honest about not agreeing with them and two guys who pretended to agree with them. Can't blame them for being so quick to latch onto Thompson. The problem for the Republicans (and the Democrats) is that most Republicans pick and choose their views and don't agree with everything the party says. But the biggest fundraisers and the contributors tend to be true believers. So the eternal problem for these politicians is how to stay popular with the majority without alienating their bankrollers.
That's why I think we should figure out a way to make voting mandatory. Then you could have a president who would more accurately reflect what people want. If Ecuador can do it, why can't the US? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogshed
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mack4289 wrote: |
That's why I think we should figure out a way to make voting mandatory. Then you could have a president who would more accurately reflect what people want. If Ecuador can do it, why can't the US? |
If voting was mandatory you would have a lot of people choosing someone
at random to avoid the fine, or choosing the person with the best and most
commercials. Not much different than how it is now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alyallen
Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Location: The 4th Greatest Place on Earth = Jeonju!!!
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:07 am Post subject: Re: Fred Thompson's appearance on Jay Leno... |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
He's recently exchanged jabs with Michael Moore:
On May 2, 2007, Thompson wrote an article critical of Cuba's government-run health care, and of filmmaker Michael Moore's visit to Cuba. Moore responded on May 15, 2007 with a challenge for a health care debate. Later that day, Thompson responded with a video, in which he declined to debate Moore and mentioned the case of Cuban filmmaker Nicol�s Guill�n, who was jailed by the Cuban government and subjected to electroconvulsive therapy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson |
What's to be critical about? According to the World Health Organization, American and Cuba men have the same life expectancy. So what's so freaking awesome about the U.S. healthcare system where it is tied for 33rd with a communist country?
| Quote: |
| Cuba was among the countries that tied the United States for 33rd place at 75 years. |
from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/18/AR2007051801645.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Masta_Don
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Hyehwa-dong, Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:19 am Post subject: Re: Fred Thompson's appearance on Jay Leno... |
|
|
| Alyallen wrote: |
What's to be critical about?
|
It's that Moore broke the law by spending money in Cuba. That's the gist of it. And to make matters even more stupid, in his reply he smokes a cigar after Moore asked him about Cuban cigars that were seen in another video on his desk. Some crap like that.
Anyway, here's an article about Thompson and a bit of Freudian analyzation of the GOP. Sorry it's so long but could only copy and paste.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Thompson, "tough guy" and "folksy cultural conservative"
[By Glenn Greenwald]
Newsweek's Howard Fineman -- last seen expressing admiration for the "reassuring" "male" qualities exuded by the GOP presidential field -- was on Hardball last night heaping praise on Fred Thompson. According to Fineman, Thompson not only is "tough on defense," but he himself is "a tough guy." Fineman also swooned: "He's got a strong record on cultural issues as a cultural conservative from the South."
What, in Fineman's mind, makes Thompson "tough on defense" and gives him credibility as "a tough guy"? Fineman obviously means that as a high compliment, but what -- in actuality -- has Thompson ever done that warrants such praise for his alleged "tough-guy-ness"?
Here is Thompson's biography -- his own official, endorsed version. He's been a government lawyer, an actor and a Senator. Though Thompson does not mention it, he also has been -- for two decades -- what a 1996 profile in The Washington Monthly described as "a high-paid Washington lobbyist for both foreign and domestic interests." This folksy, down-home, regular guy has spent his entire adult life as a lawyer and lobbyist in Washington, except when he was an actor in Hollywood.
And -- like the vast, vast majority of Republican "tough guys" who play-act the role so arousingly for our media stars, from Rudy Giuliani to Newt Gingrich -- Thompson has no military service despite having been of prime fighting age during the Vietnam War (Thompson turned 20 in 1962, Gingrich in 1963, Giuliani in 1964). He was active in Republican politics as early as the mid-1960s, which means he almost certainly supported the war in which he did not fight.
So what exactly, in Fineman's eyes, makes Thompson such a "tough guy"? Fineman clone Mark Halperin, in a fawning piece in Time last week -- hailing Thompson's "magnetism" and praising him as "poised and compelling" and exuding "bold self-confidence" -- provides the answer:
quote:
Even before his Law & Order depiction of district attorney Arthur Branch, Thompson nearly always played variations on the same character -- a straight-talking, tough-minded, wise Southerner -- basically a version of what his supporters say is his true political self.
And he is often cast as a person in power -- a military official, the White House chief of staff, the head of the CIA, a Senator or even the President of the U.S. It could be called the Cary Grant approach to politics. As the legendary actor once explained his own style and success, "I pretended to be somebody I wanted to be, and I finally became that person."
The only thing that makes Thompson a "tough guy" is that he pretends to be one; he play-acts as one. There is nothing real about it. But in the same way that George Bush's ranch and fighter pilot costumes (along with his war advocacy) sent media stars swooning over his masculinity and "toughness," the Howard Finemans and Mark Halperins, along with the Bush followers in need of a new authoritarian Leader, are so intensely hungry for this faux masculine power that the illusion, the absurd play-acting, is infinitely more valuable to them than any reality, than any genuine attributes of "toughness."
Last week, in response to Michael Moore's request that Thompson debate him over health care, Thompson -- showing what a tough guy he really is -- filmed a forty-second You Tube video where he smoked a cigar and told Moore to check into a mental hospital. Chris Matthews had Mark Halperin on his show (who, it is always worth noting, was until recently the Political Director of ABC News and is now at Time) to giggle like sixth-grade boys high-fiving each other after the cool kid they are desperate to be near (played by Thompson) unleashed some adolescent prank on the nerdy kid in the corner:
quote:
MATTHEWS: Wait till you catch this. . . .
Mark Halperin, is Thomas' cigar-chomping chide a sign that he's serious about getting in this race?
HALPERIN: Chris, I've got to see your, "Ha ha!"
MATTHEWS: I have to tell you, Mark, it's for real. I can't fake it. But let me ask you this...
HALPERIN: I agree.
MATTHEWS: Is this the kind of winning performance that the avuncular Fred Thompson needs to win this thing?
HALPERIN: I echo your "Ha ha." Mega "ha ha" to you, Chris. Because that is exactly what this kind of campaign is going to have to be. He said he has said he's going to run in an unorthodox campaign.
That kind of video gets the net roots totally in a lather. They hate Michael Moore. They like the jab. They like the cigar. It's a total winner.
MATTHEWS: So there is a right-wing net roots as well as a left-wing net roots?
HALPERIN: Look, it shows that this guy has the flair for the dramatic. He understands what the net roots cares about. He was aggressive on immigration. I think right now that this guy is poised to come in and be a key player in this.
MATTHEWS: He's also brilliant, because the attack from a defensive position is one of the smartest moves in politics. There you go again. He posed as if he was defending himself against Michael Moore and took his head off.
Chewing on a cigar in front of a camera and telling someone to go to a mental hospital is, to them, what makes someone a "tough guy" -- "aggressive" and "avuncular." And the discussion which Fineman and Matthews had about Giuliani last night, in exactly the same way, was so creepy that it bordered on pornographic:
quote:
FINEMAN: I mean, "commanding daddy" is not the phrase I would use because "daddy" implies some generosity of spirit.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
FINEMAN: What's appealing about Rudy Giuliani is not the generous side, what's appealing about him is the tough cop side.
MATTHEWS: Right. You just wait until daddy gets home.
FINEMAN: Yes, that part...
MATTHEWS: That Daddy.
FINEMAN: ... of the daddy. It's the tough cop side, so...
MATTHEWS: Yes. Yes.
They are right in one sense. For the authoritarians comprising the Republican base and the faux-masculine-power-worshipping media pundits, what is "appealing" about Giluliani is that he conveys: "You just wait until daddy gets home." Craving a stern "daddy" as a political leader is the root of the authoritarian mind. Yet these are the warped images that not only dominate their psyches, but their political "analysis" as well.
The same is true for Fineman's mindless claim that Thompson is "tough on defense." What does that even mean? Marvel at this quote from Thompson, from CNN on March 1, 2003, when he was urging the invasion of Iraq:
quote:
Can we afford to appease Saddam, kick the can down the road? Thank goodness we have a president with the courage to protect our country. And when people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11?
That is quite an incredible mentality, and it has applicability for all sorts of situations. One can easily extend it:
quote:
THOMPSON: I think we should invade and bomb Uruguay.
QUESTION: What has Uruguay done to us?
THOMPSON: When people ask what has Uruguay done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11?
That mindset can be described by many adjectives, but "tough" is not one of them. "Toughness" can be demonstrated by actually fighting in a war. "Toughness" is demonstrated when a political candidate tells people what they do not want to hear. "Toughness" is not demonstrated by sending other people to war. But people like Fineman (i.e., media purveyors of Beltway conventional wisdom) reflexively, and incoherently, equate blind militarism and warmongering with "toughness" even though it is anything but.
This is what Thompson said last month when interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News:
quote:
WALLACE: What would you do now in Iraq?
THOMPSON: I would do essentially what the president's doing.
Outside of the dwindling band of dead-ender neocons and other assorted Bush followers, the only people who mistake that sort of mindset -- " I would do essentially what the president's doing" -- with "toughness" are Beltway pundits who continue to promote the view that the more wars one urges, the more militarism one embraces, the "tougher" one is. Conversely, the more one wants to avert sending fellow citizens into war, the "weaker" or "softer" one is, or -- to use Fineman's post-debate formulation -- the less "masculine" one is.
And then there is Fineman's assurance that Thompson has "a strong record on cultural issues as a cultural conservative from the South." In what way, exactly, is Thompson a "cultural conservative"?
Unlike, say, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards -- all of whom are still married to their first spouse -- Thompson divorced his wife (and the mother of his two children) after 25 years of marriage and then proceeded to marry a woman 25 years younger than he. And according to The Washington Post's Lloyd Grove in 2002:
quote:
Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn met six years ago on the Fourth of July in Nashville. Since then, the Republican senator and the GOP media operative have been romantic, rocky, stormy, passionate, hot and cold, but never lukewarm.
"Hollywood Fred" -- as the divorced Thompson was nicknamed because of his successful movie career -- has been linked to a variety of women, including country singer Lorrie Morgan, pundit-pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, Time magazine writer Margaret Carlson, Nathans restaurant owner Carol Joynt and Washington PR executive Sydney Ferguson.
Grove continued:
quote:
Now we're pleased to report that Kehn -- whom we've occasionally imagined strapped to a fighting chair on a metaphoric fishing boat, gripping her metaphoric rod and reel -- landed the big one Saturday. The 35-year-old Kehn and the 59-year-old Thompson were married at the First Congregational Church of Christ in the bride's home town of Naperville, Ill. Yesterday the newlyweds were bound for a week- long honeymoon on the French Riviera.
In the very same show where Thompson was hailed as a "cultural conservative," Matthews continued his insatiable obsession with the Clintons' marriage, and one of his guests referred to "the incredible fascination that the American public has . . . on the private lives of the Clintons." Matthews, as he does on a virtually nightly basis, dredged it all up -- Gennifer Flowers; Kathleen Willey; the Weekly Standard cover story this week that "calls the Clintons 'a riveting saga of lust and ambition'"; "the women who want us to know about the relationships with Bill," and -- as Matthews put it -- the "pair of new books [which] exquisitely expose Bill and Hillary Clinton as a couple of soap opera characters."
But Fred Thompson? Fineman: "He's got a strong record on cultural issues as a cultural conservative from the South." Matthews: "he fits the need for a Bible Belt candidate." And last week, Matthews provoked this exchange:
quote:
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your party and the cultural right. I noticed that there is no cultural conservative southern Baptist type running this time. The president isn't quite in that category, but people are very comfortable with this president, in terms of his beliefs, his Christian beliefs, his cultural values. Is there a candidate out there now that shares the president's cultural values.
KEN BLACKWELL, FMR OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE: It seems as if Fred Thompson, who has yet to declare, is starting to build a momentum among social conservatives. But I will tell you �
MATTHEWS: Well, he's from Tennessee. He's from the buckle of the bible belt. I believe he is Baptist. He fits. He is pro-life. He has been for many years. He fits all of the categories. There's nobody else like him.
Beltway pundits are so easily fooled, because they are so eager to be. Their brains and emotional reactions -- and thereafter their political statements -- are dominated by these shallow and inauthentic symbols of masculinity and piety which overwhelm reality. They search so desperately for these attributes that they find two-dimensional cartoon images which are just archetypes -- really caricatures -- deeply satisfying.
Thus, parading around in military costumes or excitedly talking about sending people to war is infinitely more important for showing "toughness" than actually doing anything that evinces toughness. Warning in a Southern drawl that God wants marriage to be between a man and a woman is infinitely more important for demonstrating one's "cultural conservatism" than the question of whether one's behavior is actually "culturally conservative."
There is nothing in Fred Thompson's life that he has actually done that makes him "a tough guy" in the sense Fineman means it, nor is there anything that makes him a "cultural conservative." If anything, what his life actually is -- his behavior in reality -- seems to negate those characterizations.
But the illusion of manliness cliches, tough guy poses, and empty gestures of "cultural conservatism" are what the Republican base seeks, and media simpletons like Fineman, Halperin and Matthews eat it all up just as hungrily. That's how twice-and-thrice-divorced and draft-avoiding individuals like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh become media symbols of the Christian "values voters" and "tough guy," "tough-on-defense" stalwarts.
And it's how a life-long Beltway lobbyist and lawyer who avoided Vietnam, standing next to his twenty-five-years-younger second wife, is held up by our media stars as a Regular-Guy-Baptist symbol of piety and a no-nonsense, tough-guy, super-masculine warrior who will protect us all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I really can't believe that he has any support. I had never heard of him until the Moore incident. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack4289
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dogshed wrote: |
| mack4289 wrote: |
That's why I think we should figure out a way to make voting mandatory. Then you could have a president who would more accurately reflect what people want. If Ecuador can do it, why can't the US? |
If voting was mandatory you would have a lot of people choosing someone
at random to avoid the fine, or choosing the person with the best and most
commercials. Not much different than how it is now. |
Yea I should've said that a "none of the above" option is a must if you have mandatory voting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
