The Unbearable Lightness of Fred

[stephanie]

This article was posted on a site called.........REASON magizine...:cuckoo::laugh2:

The Big Voice announces for president.

David Weigel | September 7, 2007

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.

You'll ignore that, in doing so, he looked utterly bored and uncomfortable. He bantered with Leno for a little while ("How's the water?" "Nice and warm.") and lumbered with a brontosaurus' velocity to his big moment.

"We're, uh, right where we need to be right now," he said, raising his eyebrows. "That's one of the things I wanted to talk to you about." It was uncomfortable, doing this sitting parallel to a desk, thighs splayed out, craning his neck over at Leno, so he turned to the audience, camera right. "I'm runnin' for President of the United States."

Wince. Thompson pursed his lips, his great jowls flapping like opera house curtains. The audience was in the palm of his hand and he didn't crack a smile. He just nodded regally in their direction and bobbed his head. "Thank yeeeww."

And Leno applauded like a vaudeville tramp. "Wow! Very excited."

Yes, it would have been exciting if the movie star at the center of all this had only looked excited. Why did he have such a sober, hang-dog mug? It looked for a little while like he wasn't actually enjoying himself. He was forgoing millions of dollars of radio commentary lucre, after all, and passing a safe role on Law and Order to the pencil-necked Sam Waterston.

But he was enjoying himself. The sourness and the shrug were just Fred Thompson's idea of looking serious. He couldn't just enter the race with a smile. When he bears teeth he looks like an Edward Gorey ghoul, sure, but more importantly, when he smiles he looks like he's running for fun. He can't do that. Thompson needs to pretend that he running by the grace of God, that history's heavy mantle has descended on him and, because he loves his country so, he is going to grab onto that mantle and allow us to make him our president. That tingling feeling in your frontal lobe? That's gratitude.

When Thompson made his first run for the Senate in 1994 he rented a 1990 red Chevy pick-up truck, raided Lamar Alexander's wardrobe for plaid shirts, and stumped the state as if he were hawking moonshine. That campaign's been called phony, which it was, and the model for his current campaign, which it wasn't. Thompson's old schtick was prefab small "p" populism. He told the story of a good old boy of modest, Dickensian (this was a time before John Edwards) means who wanted to scare the Washington crowd right out of their Gucci loafers.

This wasn't true for Thompson: He was already rich in 1994, and he owned at least one pair of Gucci loafers. (He still does.) But it rang true because there are everyman candidates who charm their way into Congress with a mess of aw-shucks stumpin' and speechifyin'. Just this year, a doctor and gadfly candidate named Paul Broun won a congressional seat from Georgia over a Republican state senator with everyone on his side: the state party, the widow of the congressman whose unexpected rendezvous with Jesus opened the seat up in the first place.

The angry, outsider populist comes to Washington with two questions to answer: What's wrong with you idiots and why are you still here? And when that was Thompson's political strategy, he did all right for himself. Senator Thompson was a playboy who didn't work too hard and walked in a state of constant wonder at how badly the federal government seemed to screw everything up.

read the rest of this dribble if you haven't already seen enough...:laugh2:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/122352.html

[avatar4321]

im curious. what exactly in there did you think was dribble?

The writer seemed to have some good reasons for why he was saying it. I assume you disagree with him. I am just wondering why.

[Joe Steel]

First of all, it's drivel; not dribble, drivel.

Secondly, it's not.

Thompson is a phony. He's a Washington insider trying to convince the voters he's a regular guy who wants to go to Washington to "clean-up the mess." Ironically, if there's a "mess" in Washington, Thompson helped create it with his pandering to the passions and prejudices of the nut cases and half-wits who vote for Republicans.

Now he wants you to take it a step further by putting him in charge.

He's playing you suckers.

[jimnyc]

First of all, it's drivel; not dribble, drivel.

Ain't that rich! Someone who makes perhaps the most uneducated and foolish posts on this board is going to correct someone's grammar! Well, I guess you have to take something while ya can, huh jo jo? :laugh2:

[Joe Steel]

Ain't that rich! Someone who makes perhaps the most uneducated and foolish posts on this board...

Not as long as you're posting.

You've got me beat.

When it comes to uneducated, you're the king.

As a matter of fact, I'm not sure you even understand the concept. Education requires research and study. Watching Fox News is not research. Change the channel.

[jimnyc]

Not as long as you're posting.

You've got me beat.

When it comes to uneducated, you're the king.

As a matter of fact, I'm not sure you even understand the concept. Education requires research and study. Watching Fox News is not research. Change the channel.

More idiocy from the resident dolt!

Outside of catching the weather or sports updates in passing, I'm not really sure I've ever sat down to watch Fox news before. They generally have more regional coverage and I'm more interested in international coverage. Gets a little sickening hearing about all of the fruitcakes in NYC like yourself all the time. Luckily for me, I have DirecTV and access to dozens of news channels. But even still, I tend to get my news from reputable news sites around the internet for the most part.

Let me ask you a question, Jo Jo. Do you think claiming Michael Moore is NOT a self proclaimed 'documentary film maker' would require any research? Maybe even to spend, let's say, 8-15 seconds at his own home page?

Thanks for playing again, Jo Jo. I always love an easy score early in the morning!

[Gunny]

Not as long as you're posting.

You've got me beat.

When it comes to uneducated, you're the king.

As a matter of fact, I'm not sure you even understand the concept. Education requires research and study. Watching Fox News is not research. Change the channel.

THIS is supposed to be a witty comeback? :lame2:

For someone who is mindlessly going to follow the herd down and push the "D" button even though your two top candidates are "Worse" and "Worser," you've got some nerve even opening your flap about anyone else.

Your criticism of Thompson is nothing more than generic, anti-Republican drivel. Care to be specific and back up your mouth with some facts?

[stephanie]

Not as long as you're posting.

You've got me beat.

When it comes to uneducated, you're the king.

As a matter of fact, I'm not sure you even understand the concept. Education requires research and study. Watching Fox News is not research. Change the channel.

............:poke:

[Abbey Marie]

...
Let me ask you a question, Jo Jo. Do you think claiming Michael Moore is NOT a self proclaimed 'documentary film maker' would require any research? Maybe even to spend, let's say, 8-15 seconds at his own home page?
...


Thanks, Jim; I forgot who had posted that! For all my years on message board, that had to take the cake for sheer lunatic denial.

[Joe Steel]

More idiocy from the resident dolt!

Outside of catching the weather or sports updates in passing, I'm not really sure I've ever sat down to watch Fox news before. They generally have more regional coverage and I'm more interested in international coverage. Gets a little sickening hearing about all of the fruitcakes in NYC like yourself all the time. Luckily for me, I have DirecTV and access to dozens of news channels. But even still, I tend to get my news from reputable news sites around the internet for the most part.

Let me ask you a question, Jo Jo. Do you think claiming Michael Moore is NOT a self proclaimed 'documentary film maker' would require any research? Maybe even to spend, let's say, 8-15 seconds at his own home page?

Thanks for playing again, Jo Jo. I always love an easy score early in the morning!

There's your problem. Complex ideas are beyond you.

Just because Michael Moore use a term as a rhetorical convenience doesn't mean he's claiming the title. Get it? Substantive discussion requires more than casually parsing a few sentences.

Complex ideas are a big problem for conservatives. I don't hold out much hope for you but you try some of your "news" sites (NewsMax, Drudge?)

[jimnyc]

There's your problem. Complex ideas are beyond you.

Just because Michael Moore use a term as a rhetorical convenience doesn't mean he's claiming the title. Get it? Substantive discussion requires more than casually parsing a few sentences.

Complex ideas are a big problem for conservatives. I don't hold out much hope for you but you try some of your "news" sites (NewsMax, Drudge?)

He is listed as a documentary film maker on all major media related sites.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601619/bio
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800064216/bio
http://movies.aol.com/celebrity/michael-moore/103383/biography
http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542483&page=1

He accepted an Oscar as "best documentary filmmaker"

And a google search string utilizing just MM's site and "documentary" - and quite a few links where he refers to his own works as documentaries.

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=site%3Amichaelmoore.com+documentary&btnG=Google+Search

And last but not least, he has himself listed as a "documentary filmmaker" on quite a few major search engines, where website owners are solely responsible for what's contained in their sites search results.

If you don't mind continually looking like and idiot, I don't mind continually pointing out that fact that you're an idiot. :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Thanks, Jim; I forgot who had posted that! For all my years on message board, that had to take the cake for sheer lunatic denial.

Said someone is still in another dimension's denial. He learns a new term, "rhetorical convenience" and expects us to believe the MANY times the fat blob has referred to himself as a documentary filmmaker is ALWAYS rhetorical.

Does MM not have any say at all in how his films are advertised and/or sold? Funny how I see "documentary" alongside some of his films.

Admitting that the industry follows what he calls himself and claims his films as will be admitting that he has entered his films as fact, and Jo Jo was afraid to do that before, so now he's stuck in denial mode. Funny how he loses either way! LOL

[Hugh Lincoln]

Complex ideas are a big problem for conservatives.

Yes, liberals do enjoy "complex ideas," but put them into practice and it's always a royal fuck-up. So much for political genius.

[Abbey Marie]

This article was posted on a site called.........REASON magizine...:cuckoo::laugh2:

The Big Voice announces for president.

David Weigel | September 7, 2007

...
Yes, it would have been exciting if the movie star at the center of all this had only looked excited. Why did he have such a sober, hang-dog mug? It looked for a little while like he wasn't actually enjoying himself. He was forgoing millions of dollars of radio commentary lucre, after all, and passing a safe role on Law and Order to the pencil-necked Sam Waterston.

But he was enjoying himself. The sourness and the shrug were just Fred Thompson's idea of looking serious. He couldn't just enter the race with a smile. When he bears teeth he looks like an Edward Gorey ghoul, sure, but more importantly, when he smiles he looks like he's running for fun. He can't do that. Thompson needs to pretend that he running by the grace of God, that history's heavy mantle has descended on him and, because he loves his country so, he is going to grab onto that mantle and allow us to make him our president. That tingling feeling in your frontal lobe? That's gratitude.
...
This wasn't true for Thompson: He was already rich in 1994, and he owned at least one pair of Gucci loafers. (He still does.) But it rang true because there are everyman candidates who charm their way into Congress with a mess of aw-shucks stumpin' and speechifyin'. Just this year, a doctor and gadfly candidate named Paul Broun won a congressional seat from Georgia over a Republican state senator with everyone on his side: the state party, the widow of the congressman whose unexpected rendezvous with Jesus opened the seat up in the first place.
...
http://www.reason.com/news/show/122352.html

If only Thompson could muster up a $400 haircut and a phony jury-pleasing shark smile; then we could really get behind him. :rolleyes:

[avatar4321]

There's your problem. Complex ideas are beyond you.

Just because Michael Moore use a term as a rhetorical convenience doesn't mean he's claiming the title. Get it? Substantive discussion requires more than casually parsing a few sentences.

Complex ideas are a big problem for conservatives. I don't hold out much hope for you but you try some of your "news" sites (NewsMax, Drudge?)

so what your saying is he lies about being a documentary maker, but doesnt really claim the title.

Atleast you finally conceded that he lies.

[bullypulpit]

Fred Thompson is but the latest in a string of mediocre GOP candidates for the Presidency in '08. Insipid and uninspired are the mildest adjectives I can think of to describe the lot of them, and most of their rhetoric seems to involve simultaneously distancing themselves from Bush while supporting his failed policies in Iraq.

If you want to comfort yourself in the embrace of Fred's flabby man-boobs, go right ahead.

[avatar4321]

Fred Thompson is but the latest in a string of mediocre GOP candidates for the Presidency in '08. Insipid and uninspired are the mildest adjectives I can think of to describe the lot of them, and most of their rhetoric seems to involve simultaneously distancing themselves from Bush while supporting his failed policies in Iraq.

If you want to comfort yourself in the embrace of Fred's flabby man-boobs, go right ahead.

Mediocre? Every single one of them, excluding Ron Paul, is lightyears more qualified than every single Democrat candidate.

[Joe Steel]

He is listed as a documentary film maker on all major media related sites.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601619/bio
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800064216/bio
http://movies.aol.com/celebrity/michael-moore/103383/biography
http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542483&page=1

He accepted an Oscar as "best documentary filmmaker"

And a google search string utilizing just MM's site and "documentary" - and quite a few links where he refers to his own works as documentaries.

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=site%3Amichaelmoore.com+documentary&btnG=Google+Search

And last but not least, he has himself listed as a "documentary filmmaker" on quite a few major search engines, where website owners are solely responsible for what's contained in their sites search results.

If you don't mind continually looking like and idiot, I don't mind continually pointing out that fact that you're an idiot. :laugh2:

You can try but you're going to have to try much, much harder. So far all you've done is proven you just don't understand the issue.

By the way, Fox News calls itself "fair and balanced." Some repeat the claim. We all know it's not true no matter who says what.

[jimnyc]

You can try but you're going to have to try much, much harder. So far all you've done is proven you just don't understand the issue.

By the way, Fox News calls itself "fair and balanced." Some repeat the claim. We all know it's not true no matter who says what.

Allow me to translate for those who aren't familiar with your delusional rhetoric:

"Jim has provided proof that Michael Moore is listed as a documentary filmmaker. Jim has provided proof that Michael Moore has repetitively referred to himself as a documentary filmmaker. Jim has provided proof that Michael Moore sells his work as documentary films. Since I cannot refute these claims with anything at all of substance, I will therefore obfuscate the issue by mentioning Fox News."

Jo Jo, you can deny Moore's own fat, vile words from now until the end of time, but the entire board sees you as a fool for doing so. He has presented his works as "matter of fact" and as a result looks 'almost' as foolish as you do right now.

[truthmatters]

He is not a Self Proclaimed Filmmaker.

He is a Film maker.

Dont you people know the differance between those two?

[jimnyc]

He is not a Self Proclaimed Filmmaker.

He is a Film maker.

Dont you people know the differance between those two?

"He is not a self proclaimed filmmaker"

"He is a film maker"

Do you proofread before you hit the submit button?

And HE DOES CALL HIMSELF A DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER, can you not read what I wrote? I disagree with his assessment, but he does in fact refer to himself as that.

[theHawk]

Fred Thompson is but the latest in a string of mediocre GOP candidates for the Presidency in '08. Insipid and uninspired are the mildest adjectives I can think of to describe the lot of them, and most of their rhetoric seems to involve simultaneously distancing themselves from Bush while supporting his failed policies in Iraq.

If you want to comfort yourself in the embrace of Fred's flabby man-boobs, go right ahead.

And yet again you come out slamming another GOP candidate, yet you're too afraid to say who your choice is for Prez.

[KarlMarx]

First of all, it's drivel; not dribble, drivel.

Secondly, it's not.

Thompson is a phony. He's a Washington insider trying to convince the voters he's a regular guy who wants to go to Washington to "clean-up the mess." Ironically, if there's a "mess" in Washington, Thompson helped create it with his pandering to the passions and prejudices of the nut cases and half-wits who vote for Republicans.

Now he wants you to take it a step further by putting him in charge.

He's playing you suckers.

That's beautiful... this is like a skunk complaining about someone farting!

Let's see how the Democrats fare....

Hillary Clinton - former first lady, currently a Senator
John Edwards - currently a Senator
Barak Obama - currently a Senator
Joe Biden - currently a Senator

And speaking of pandering to "nuts" --- wow, break out the stink repellant dude!

The Democrats are so in bed with Big Labor and with the Trial Lawyers so bad, it's a miracle they don't all have the Clap.

Moveon.org, the NOW, the abortion nazis, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, the radical gays, even Fidel Castro --- these people are not nuts?????

Seriously, the only nut that's not endorsing the Democrats is Mr Peanut!

[Joe Steel]

so what your saying is he lies about being a documentary maker, but doesnt really claim the title.

Atleast you finally conceded that he lies.

It's not lying. It's marketing. Moore knows better than to make a discussion of the issue more complex than it has to be by trying to make too fine a point. If consumers wish to describe his work as documentary, let them. Viewing, contemplation and discussion are the important things.

[Abbey Marie]

Allow me to translate for those who aren't familiar with your delusional rhetoric:

"Jim has provided proof that Michael Moore is listed as a documentary filmmaker. Jim has provided proof that Michael Moore has repetitively referred to himself as a documentary filmmaker. Jim has provided proof that Michael Moore sells his work as documentary films. Since I cannot refute these claims with anything at all of substance, I will therefore obfuscate the issue by mentioning Fox News."

Jo Jo, you can deny Moore's own fat, vile words from now until the end of time, but the entire board sees you as a fool for doing so. He has presented his works as "matter of fact" and as a result looks 'almost' as foolish as you do right now.

Jim, isn't this like trying to prove to someone that the Pope is Catholic, or that the sun is hot? Some things are just too irrefutable and obvious to be worth debating.