Sen. Fred Thompson announces on "Tonight Show"

amicus

Literotica Guru
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Posts
14,812
I have to confess that I have not watched the "Tonight Show", since Johnny Carson left it; I cannot stand Jay Leno, David Letterman or "Nightline" when Ted Koppel was doing it, the broadcast channel late night shows. But that is a personal preference.

I did watch tonight for the Fred Thompson announcement and was reminded, by the low class pop culture introduction and the crude entertainment value, why I detest the program. Again, personal preference...

I also watched the Republican Presidential candidates debate this evening and the poorly constructed aftermath produced by Fox News.

The opening question of the debate unleashed an eight candidate broadside concerning Sen. Thompson's decision to announce after the debate, declining to participate in the New Hampshire debacle.

The opening statements and eventual announcement were staged questions and answers, as the media often does, with Leno fawning to Thompson in a predictable manner and the former Senator basically only answering two questions, that of the war in Iraq and the other, wider concept of the global war on tyranny.

Sen. Thompson justified the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as necessary, suggested Iran needed containment and supported the eminent necessity of global participation against the larger war on terrorism, by the free world at large. Also predictable.

After watching the candidates debates, both Republican and Democrat, I have arrived at a conclusion that the top three candidates from each party, Giuliani, McCain and Romney, Clinton, Obama and Edwards, are all six, intellectual lightweights without political substance.

I stand by my prediction of several months ago that Thompson and Gingrich will be the Republican ticket and that the Democrats will have to draft Giuliani and Romney as their ticket to even have a contest.

Mainline Republicans and Democrats are intellectually bankrupt with massive baggage burdens from an ideological base.

It should be an interesting five months ahead until the Primaries, and then another nail biting eight months after that until the General election in November '08.

Bon apetit'

Amicus...
 
amicus said:
I stand by my prediction of several months ago that Thompson and Gingrich will be the Republican ticket and that the Democrats will have to draft Giuliani and Romney as their ticket to even have a contest.

Mainline Republicans and Democrats are intellectually bankrupt with massive baggage burdens from an ideological base.

It should be an interesting five months ahead until the Primaries, and then another nail biting eight months after that until the General election in November '08.
Gingrich has so much baggage, he needs to pay extra to fly.

You're right that it will be an interesting five months. It will be very interesting to see if Thompson can withstand mainstream scrutiny. Intellectual Internet darlings don't have a great track record in their short history to date.
 
JamesSD said:
Gingrich has so much baggage, he needs to pay extra to fly.

You're right that it will be an interesting five months. It will be very interesting to see if Thompson can withstand mainstream scrutiny. Intellectual Internet darlings don't have a great track record in their short history to date.



~~~

Not sure you can dismiss Thompson as in 'internet darling', he is on the road as of tomorrow in Iowa in a grass roots campaign effort.

I would not have mentioned Gingrich had not Thompson referred to him in his opening remarks concerning debate procedures, the only Republican he singled out, which perhaps I gave too much relevance to, but then, we shall see.

Amicus...
 
I agree that Gingrich just has too much baggage to effectively help the ticket. He may or may not make a good candidate, depending on your POV (although most experts say he's among the most intelligent politicians), but he's made stupid statements, hypocritical stands (bringing his mistress to the Clinton impeachment hearings?), and poor choices in his personal life. He brings as many negatives to the campaign as Hillary, without bringing as many positives.

Thompson is interesting because the reviews on his stops so far have been very mixed. It's been said he lacks energy and doesn't bring out enthusiasm from the people listening to him speak (which seems strange due to his acting career). I'd disagree that O'bama or Clinton are intellectual lightweights. Both are well educated and cagey politicians who are very electable, despite the negatives they bring. On the republican side, I agree completely. I am still hoping for a comeback from McCain because the rest of the group is not exactly worth getting excited about.
 
S-Des said:
I agree that Gingrich just has too much baggage to effectively help the ticket. He may or may not make a good candidate, depending on your POV (although most experts say he's among the most intelligent politicians), but he's made stupid statements, hypocritical stands (bringing his mistress to the Clinton impeachment hearings?), and poor choices in his personal life. He brings as many negatives to the campaign as Hillary, without bringing as many positives.

Thompson is interesting because the reviews on his stops so far have been very mixed. It's been said he lacks energy and doesn't bring out enthusiasm from the people listening to him speak (which seems strange due to his acting career). I'd disagree that O'bama or Clinton are intellectual lightweights. Both are well educated and cagey politicians who are very electable, despite the negatives they bring. On the republican side, I agree completely. I am still hoping for a comeback from McCain because the rest of the group is not exactly worth getting excited about.



Interesting, S-Des...hope you will accept a differing opinion as just that...

I think Gingrich has baggage also...not necessarily from the aspect you see, but from the 'faith based' view, he is much too much a dogmatic Christian for my taste, but he is, and I think one cannot deny this, a 'political operative' and organizational genius, the kind of man I would not have a drink with.

Mrs. Clinton has nothing but negatives. She is a socialist, up front and non apologetic. She is also female, a woman president? Major negative(Zenon, girl wonder), plus who in their right minds really wants another Clinton Whitehouse? Rent the Lincoln bedroom to cronies again, c'mon, Hillary is a loser on all fronts.

Obama is a black man with minimal experience and education in anything and I think, 'lightweight' applies, easily.

Edwards is an ambulance chasing lawyer and a 'pretty boy', on top of all his failings to pretend he is a common man in spite of all the trappings of his life.

It is always possible the Democrats could turn to Kerry and Gore and replay the last decade, but other than that, I still, humorously portune that drafting Guiliani and Romney is the best alternative the Dem's have at hand.

Amicus...
 
amicus said:
Obama is a black man with minimal experience and education in anything and I think, 'lightweight' applies, easily.

Do what??

He received his B.A. degree in 1983 in political science with a specialization in international relations from Columbia University,

worked for one year at Business International Corporation before moving to Chicago to take a job as a community organizer.

He entered Harvard Law School in 1988.

In 1990, The New York Times reported his election as the Harvard Law Review's "first black president in its 104-year history." He completed his J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1991.

On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive.

As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.

He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

Let's see how your education compares to his, shall we, ami?
 
i don't know if thompson can get the nomination, but his 'show' will be fine stuff.

was reading about his campaign for the senate, which faltered badly at first.

you all know he's a rich lawyer and washington lobbyist, who dresses the part.

so the guy gets an old red pick up truck and starts touring tennesse, and says, "washington is the problem." he's photgraphed leaning on the truck. (see the pics, in the newspaper story, below).

he manages to convince a passel of tennesseans he's a honest, no nonsense country boy, ready to fight 'washington.'

he pulled off something a bit like edwards is trying, but edwards is halfway honest and says he is a lawyer, albeit of humble roots.

it's the age of image. thompson's a master, whom some compare to Reagan. incidentally, neither is much of a conservative but the cons and neo cons love him anyway.
---
see the Tennessean’s story; excerpted below.



http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs...ategori=COLUMNIST0101&Lopenr=107050001&Ref=AR


Wednesday, 07/04/07, the Tennessean.

Will Fred's old, red pickup ride again on presidential trail?


[During the senate campaign, 1994] Ingram recalls a meeting with Thompson at the Cracker Barrel restaurant in Cookeville: "He wasn't too happy with traditional campaigning. The conversation went something like this: I said, 'What would you do if you could do what you want to do?' He said, 'I'd go to my dad's used car lot (in Lawrenceburg) and get a truck and drive it across the state.' I said, 'Do it.' People thought he was crazy. It worked because it wasn't an unnatural or unreal thing for him to do."

Ingram sprinkled on some of his marketing pixie dust to make it work. They decided it had to be a red truck because that would be photogenic: "Red made sense. We didn't want anything too flashy, so used made sense. We wanted something that was going to be roomy because there were going to be people with him from time to time, so we got a stretch cab."

But how do you magically produce a truck matching that exact description?

"I said, 'Before the sun sets, I can find you a red truck,' " McMahan said. "I made one phone call to a friend of mine who was the owner of Reeder Chevrolet in Knoxville."

And so it was that on Aug. 5, 1994, Senate candidate Fred Thompson parked his black Lincoln Continental and started driving a used 1990 cherry-red, extended cab Chevy pickup truck with four on the floor and almost 200,000 miles on it. The campaign leased it for $500 a month.

With a package of Red Man chewing tobacco on the seat and country music blaring, Thompson drove from Mountain City to Memphis and back again.

He changed his sophisticated, educated lawyerly look into a good ole boy. He packed 6 feet, 6 inches into jeans, cowboy boots and a work shirt and gave it a "how y'all?" at each stop. He sometimes delivered his "throw the bums out" stump speech from atop the truck bed.

[end excerpt]
====

P: Will it work on americans in general? well as they say, no one ever went broke ..... GWB was 'sold' as a down to earth Texas boy, instead of a Yale party animal and 'skull and bones' [elite club] man.
 
Last edited:
amicus said:
Mrs. Clinton has nothing but negatives. She is a socialist, up front and non apologetic. She is also female, a woman president? Major negative(Zenon, girl wonder), plus who in their right minds really wants another Clinton Whitehouse? Rent the Lincoln bedroom to cronies again, c'mon, Hillary is a loser on all fronts.

Obama is a black man with minimal experience and education in anything and I think, 'lightweight' applies, easily.

Edwards is an ambulance chasing lawyer and a 'pretty boy', on top of all his failings to pretend he is a common man in spite of all the trappings of his life.

It is always possible the Democrats could turn to Kerry and Gore and replay the last decade, but other than that, I still, humorously portune that drafting Guiliani and Romney is the best alternative the Dem's have at hand.
(Eyeroll)

Look up your definition of Socialist. I know real socialists, sir, and Hillary is no socialist. Socialists don't like her, they like Kucinich or Nader or that socialist guy that always runs. She's not even a "progressive", at least by Ultraliberal blogger DailyKos's standards. That said, she has a lot of baggage, and I'm not a big fan of hers. If not for money and name recognition, she wouldn't be in the top of the pack.

Obama and Edwards are both a lot smarter than GW Bush, and he got elected president... In fact, both have that charismatic quality voters like, the "I could see myself having a beer with him."

You left out Bill Richardson; experienced, highly intelligent, just ethnic enough, but lacking charisma or funding. Won't win, of course.

Funny you mention Gore, after all, he's a smart man, who won the 2000 election (and even won the popular vote post manipulation). He's not running though.

I'll be shocked if Thompson wins the nomination, but people said the same thing about Bill Clinton coming into 1992, and look what happened there. (Hint: 8 years of economic strength?)
 
(PS, Cloudy, what has my education have to do with anything? I am not running for Prez this year)

Party diehards and ideological pundits say that every presidential election is crucial for the survival of America and some even believe that, each time, over and over again.

2008 will be no exception. I did notice something during the Republican candidates debate that is worth mentioning, only if to strike fear in the hearts of the left.

Each candidate, without exception as I recall, vowed to work for the abolishment of abortion by reversing Roe V Wade and that gay marriage should be banned by a constitutional amendment. They also hinted at supporting a strict constitutionalist supreme court justice as opposed to a judicial activist. This means that in addition to abortion and gay marriage, the Brown v Board of education, mandatory integration of blacks in public schools might also be overturned with the addition of one more conservative justice.

None of the Republicans favor national health care or socialized medicine, choose your term.

Many feel the Democrat party, because it has drifted so far left, is on the verge of extinction; a Republican victory in the White House for another eight years, or even four years, might indeed prove a 'watershed' era in America.

Only one Republican candidate, Ron Paul, Libertarian, is advocating a complete withdrawal from Iraq, the rest seem to appreciate the global nature of the war on terrorism and advocate continued involvement in varying degrees by the United States.

There was, in addition, a PBS program, "America at the Crossroads" broadcast a few nights ago, publicizing a portion of news 'below the media radar', that concerned American military involvement in several countries seldom mentioned:, the Russian state of Georgia, Mali in Africa, Columbia in South America and the Philippines in the western Pacific.

US military forces and 'advisory groups' are training and supplying pro democratic forces in those countries and many more to confront the spread of militant Islamism on many levels.

So, critical or not, the coming election does seem to hold rather more potential impact than some past elections.

Amicus...
 
Calling someone "uneducated" who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School makes you look rather silly.

You might want to reconsider that.
 
amicus said:
Interesting, S-Des...hope you will accept a differing opinion as just that...
Always
Mrs. Clinton has nothing but negatives. She is a socialist, up front and non apologetic. She is also female, a woman president? Major negative(Zenon, girl wonder), plus who in their right minds really wants another Clinton Whitehouse? Rent the Lincoln bedroom to cronies again, c'mon, Hillary is a loser on all fronts.
But you're looking at it from only your perspective. If you look at her voting base, many of those are strong positives (Bill would be elected in a heartbeat if he could run again). I know your opinions about women, but seriously, half of the country (slightly more) are women . . . do you honestly think they view her being a woman as a negative for a leader (well, at least not most of them ;) )? Since we're talking about what other people think, you have to step out and be honest about their opinions, not let your own affect it.
Obama is a black man with minimal experience and education in anything and I think, 'lightweight' applies, easily.
Amicus...
His education (as Cloudy pointed out) is easily the most impressive of anyone in the field. He lacks political experience and practical leadership, but to attack him on the basis of his education is a bad approach. I don't know what your problem is with minorities (and don't want to know), but I honestly wish you would get off it. Any time a person professes a predjudice against someone they don't know based on some accident of birth, it is unfortunate. I won't try arguing the point with you, it's pointless. I just wish it was different.
 
amicus said:
Obama is a black man with minimal experience...
I predict, in 20 years, or after Ami is gone, (whichever comes first) women and minorities won't be identified as such in political discussions.
 
Education - BA in international relations, 1983, Columbia University. JD from Harvard Law School, where he was Editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Yeah, Harvard Law is just so fucking easy now that Reese Witherspoon broke all the rules with her little dog and pink outfits.

Ami, of all the dumbfuck uniformed drivel. To attack Obama's education? Wow. Got any flat-earth maps to sell me?
 
Your continuing personal attacks are silly in nature and silly by definition and although they don't much trouble me personally, they do give me to opportunity to point out the silliness once again.

The molasses thick mantra of the left, that everybody, regardless of sex or ethnic group, is absolutely equal in all things, is worse than silly, it is ludicrous.

I fully accept and thus does everyone with a rational mind, that all humans are treated equal under the law; their freedoms and liberties are innate and society protects and defends those rights of equality under the law.

But to deny that women in general and all ethnic groups in specific, do not have their own special, significant differences and attributes and thus, as such, earn and deserve a different perception by others, is to destroy the diversity of cultures and differences.

There are also generalities naturally drawn by the mere function of the human mind, that separates and categorizes experience and knowledge to form general, if not absolute conceptions concerning all things.

Even among Europeans, the ethnic and cultural backgrounds of people from adjacent nations has been in play forever. The French are different from the Italians and Spaniards and different from the Suisse and Norwegians. Jews are identified as special in some ways, Germans and Irish in other ways and all societies view women differently than they do men.

The typical left wing mindset of a future cafe' latte skin color with genderless manifestations, is so absolutely silly that I am amazed you can even pretend to hold such views, let alone act in a morally superior manner because you believe that way.

Aside from all the scientific method documentation of those differences, yes, both gender and ethnic, despite the general common cultural knowledge of those differences, it amazes me that so few on this forum have the courage to appreciate and cherish those differences rather than to destroy and hide them.

If you 'get off', by calling me a misogynist, racist, bigot, if that permits you to evade the efficacy of my arguments without ever facing them, well....if it works for you...

Amicus... :)
 
Belegon said:
Education - BA in international relations, 1983, Columbia University. JD from Harvard Law School, where he was Editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Yeah, Harvard Law is just so fucking easy now that Reese Witherspoon broke all the rules with her little dog and pink outfits.

Ami, of all the dumbfuck uniformed drivel. To attack Obama's education? Wow. Got any flat-earth maps to sell me?

~~~

"...
After watching the candidates debates, both Republican and Democrat, I have arrived at a conclusion that the top three candidates from each party, Giuliani, McCain and Romney, Clinton, Obama and Edwards, are all six, intellectual lightweights without political substance...."


Recounting that I have read hundreds of comments on this forum as to how 'all politicians are ignorant scum', in one form or another, I guess that changes when 'he or she', becomes your candidate of choice?

Although you may not be, I am following and have been for several months, the interviews, words, speeches and ideas of all the candidates. I concluded them all to be 'intellectual lightweights', lacking mature wisdom in almost every area of endeavor, Fred Thompson notwithstanding.

While a person may be educated and even at a prestigious Ivy League school, it does not follow with certainty that, that person has necessarily learned from that education.

All of these candidates are accomplished politicians, accomplished in the art of compromise and the vagueness of political encounters. That is the nature of the beast, that is what is required to face the public and the swarm of political reporters and pundits. A rational man with any degree of wisdom would never consider participating in such an endeavor.

Thus, I stand by my assessment of not just Clinton and Obama, but the entire field of candidates on both sides.

Amicus...
 
amicus said:
The typical left wing mindset of a future cafe' latte skin color with genderless manifestations, is so absolutely silly that I am amazed you can even pretend to hold such views, let alone act in a morally superior manner because you believe that way.

I'll be sure to tell my daughter that she's just a "silly" figment of the imagination.

She'll laugh at you just like the rest of us do.
 
amicus said:
Thus, I stand by my assessment of not just Clinton and Obama, but the entire field of candidates on both sides.

Amicus...

but that's not what you SAID....
amicus said:
Obama is a black man with minimal experience and education in anything

you can believe anyone you want is an intellectual lightweight. That would be your OPINION.

Above, you did not say, "I don't think Obama learned from his education"... you said "Obama is..."

that is presenting something as fact, not opinion.

Naughty, Amicus. Go back to your stall next to the Distinguished Gentleman from Idaho.
 
amicus said:
I concluded them all to be 'intellectual lightweights', lacking mature wisdom in almost every area of endeavor, Fred Thompson notwithstanding...... A rational man with any degree of wisdom would never consider participating in such an endeavor.

Thus, I stand by my assessment of not just Clinton and Obama, but the entire field of candidates on both sides.

Amicus...
Question - if none of the presidential hopefuls are qualified for the office, and a "rational man with any degree of wisdom would never consider participating in such an endeavor", then where do we find our presidential canditates, while remaining true to the "by the people for the people" intent of the constitution?

Does this mean that the American ideal of democracy if fatally flawed? By your assessment of the situation, that appears to be the case.
 
DeeZire said:
Question - if none of the presidential hopefuls are qualified for the office, and a "rational man with any degree of wisdom would never consider participating in such an endeavor", then where do we find our presidential canditates, while remaining true to the "by the people for the people" intent of the constitution?

Does this mean that the American ideal of democracy if fatally flawed? By your assessment of the situation, that appears to be the case.

~~~

That is a most interesting question, Deezire, one that more than one professor in political science classes raised in my college years.

Can you, in your mind, tick off the name of each elected President in the 20th and 21st centuries?

It is a curious, but by no means, profound list of men who reached the White House via popular vote in a democratic nation.

The representational republic we have in the United States produces no aristocratic 'statesmen' to guide the affairs of the nation. Unlike the market place which functions basically as a meritocracy, 'of, by and for' the people is a messy and nefarious affair.

Just as the constitution and the bill of rights limit the power and authority of government, those same documents establish the limits by which the people, the democratic process, can work to change with the times. Those basic unalienable rights afforded the individual, cannot be removed by either government or by the voters.

It takes the passage of time and many elections, many issues, many crisis's to fully appreciate the ability of a 'politician' to moderate the compromises between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. It requires neither an expert or a genius or a statesman in any of those areas, rather an efficient manager and leader who may or may not reach the expectations of those who chose him.

Thus I do not perceive the inherent untidiness of democracy as a 'fatal flaw', but rather as a necessity that periodically gives the people a voice in their governance and consequently leaves them to enjoy the wisdom of their choice or the inadequacies of it.

That does nothing to clarify or defend either extreme of the political spectrum that is continually in opposition.

I suggest it lies with the people, those of us not directly involved in politics, at least at the present time, to present our views as clearly as possible wherever within the political spectrum we reside.

Amicus...
 
So you're saying that, basically, qualifications don't matter? I would agree that, in the context of 'by the people, for the people', the only qualification would be that the people's voice be heard. In that sense, I would think Obama would be the most qualified of all the candidates, based on his work at the grassroots level. I suppose one could say the same for Guliani, but I perceive him as having had a lot of experience looking down at the grassroots, keeping them in line, where Obama was actually down in the grassroots, looking up, protecting the welfare of those members of society who couldn't find representation in the government they were supposed to be a part of.
 
DeeZire said:
So you're saying that, basically, qualifications don't matter? I would agree that, in the context of 'by the people, for the people', the only qualification would be that the people's voice be heard. In that sense, I would think Obama would be the most qualified of all the candidates, based on his work at the grassroots level. I suppose one could say the same for Guliani, but I perceive him as having had a lot of experience looking down at the grassroots, keeping them in line, where Obama was actually down in the grassroots, looking up, protecting the welfare of those members of society who couldn't find representation in the government they were supposed to be a part of.

~~~

Qualifications do indeed matter, although perhaps not in the way you define them.

Just as small examples, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in a wheelchair, yet he served longer than any previous or following President. He came from a political family and political machine. So did the haberdasher, Harry S. Truman, but his political roots were shallow and rooted in state level corruption and political bossism.

Dwight David Eisenhower was a military man, basically without political roots. John F. Kennedy came from a very political family, upper class, wealthy and well educated. Lyndon Baines Johnson was a political buffoon of the old style, Richard Nixon a political hack, Gerald Ford is basically lost to history. Just off the top of my head, from memory and past knowledge, are there 'qualifications' apparent there, in any case?

I suggest that in the last few sentences of your post, that your political roots begin to filter through, sift down, to your concept of what a 'government' is supposed to do.

Both your and my political roots have been expressed before here and they are somewhat in opposition.

I hold that the vital dynamic of a people emerges from the people, without direction or guidance, only protections as outlined in our founding documents. Simple as that.

That is all our particular form of government is authorized to do and I choose to remain withing those guidelines.

If you wish to move the vital dynamic from the people, from the individual, to the collective power of government, I, and most of the country will take arms against you.

Simple as that.

Amicus...
 
How cute. The Republicans again have a Presidential and manly looking actor to get them all hot and bothered. Boy, for a party that hates homosexuality, they do get their man crushes, don't they? :D
 
Frankly, if at some point I had completely lost my mind and given up on all life on planet Earth other than my own in the typical, selfish, Right-Wing, Republican way, 2008 is NOT the year I would run for president.

The Republican Party in 2008 will be the party of losers. With a flourish and a bow, I thank your George W. for guaranteeing control back in the hands of those with responsibility. :)
 
Jenny_Jackson said:
Frankly, if at some point I had completely lost my mind and given up on all life on planet Earth other than my own in the typical, selfish, Right-Wing, Republican way, 2008 is NOT the year I would run for president.

The Republican Party in 2008 will be the party of losers. With a flourish and a bow, I thank your George W. for guaranteeing control back in the hands of those with responsibility. :)
Yeah, hopefully the Republican run for the nomination will be the equivalent of an intermural sport.
 
Oddly, enough, I sort of like Fred Thompson. Good lawyer, seems squeeky clean (or, at least, hasn't been arrested in the Men's Room in Minnapolis) and he seems to have had a sterling career both as a lawyer (attorney for the Senate Watergate Investigating Committee), as a US Senator (at least he did nothing wrong during his tenure) and as an actor.

Beyond that, most of his politics are not so right wing with the exception of stands on abortion, etc one would expect from the Republican Party.

I would give him the same vote I gave to Ronnie Regan and GW Bush.





You really don't think I voted for those two do you? :eek:
 
Back
Top