Fred Thompson... unclear on the concept?

Huh? Weird.

When Cyc said "Great White Hype", I thought he was making fun of the fact that Thompson has frequently been touted as the "White Knight of the GOP", or as the "Dark Horse White Knight"....

Apparently, I was mistaken.

(So we can't call him "White Knight" any more?)

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Huh? Weird.

When Cyc said "Great White Hype", I thought he was making fun of the fact that Thompson has frequently been touted as the "White Knight of the GOP", or as the "Dark Horse White Knight"....

Apparently, I was mistaken.

(So we can't call him "White Knight" any more?)

You aren't mistaken: you are talking about a different literary term for the same thing, ie., that Thompson is the 'white knight' who will ride in and save the day.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ah, good.

Honestly, I've never thought about whether the metaphor "White Knight" might have racial overtones. Wouldn't have thought so, really ....

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Lol, you guys...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116448/

Which, of course, is a parody of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_White_Hope

Study up a bit and you'll see that there's no racism involved.

Cycloptichorn

Sure there is.

From the article...

"Acting as a lens focused on a racist society, The Great White Hope explores how segregation and prejudice created the demand for a "great white hope" who would defeat Johnson and how this, in turn, affected the boxer's life and career."

Shame on you.

You could have said "Great Hollywood Dope" to describe Thompson, but no, you decided to play the race card.

And you call yourself a "liberal"...Indeed!

But, I didn't say 'the great white Hope,' I said 'the great white HYPE,' referring to the first link, which is a parody of the second one.

There's no race card. C'mon, you can do better than this.

Cycloptichorn

I never mentioned the word "HYPE" or HOPE". You did and even supplied the link to "HOPE". You threw out the "WHITE" and made it racial...not me.

Don't try to double talk your way out of this one and blame ME.

You were better off saying he is the GREAT HOLLYWOOD DOPE.

Especially since ALL the candidates so far are "White" (to varying degrees), any of them could be called what you called Thompson.

Liberal INDEED!!!!!

Sigh

What do you mean by 'Liberal Indeed?'

let me hold your hand through this one:

I said:

Quote:

He's the Great White Hype for the Republicans this cycle.

I think he has more chinks then armor itself...

Cycloptichorn

You and BrandX accused me of racism, so I link to:

Quote:

Lol, you guys...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116448/

Which is a movie called 'the Great White HYPE.' Which is about finding a candidate, someone, who can beat a boxer who can't be beat. While the movie does have some racial elements to it, it isn't about racism, but putting hope behind a candidate who doesn't really have a shot.

I added:

Quote:

Which, of course, is a parody of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_White_Hope

Study up a bit and you'll see that there's no racism involved.

Just to give you some background on where the term 'great white hype' comes from. And the WHOLE THING is a take-off on the 'Great White Whale,' of Moby Dick fame.

Your accusations that I must not be a real 'liberal' fall flat in this instance.

I don't have a problem if you want to take a quick shot at me; I do it myself often enough. But it needs to be of a higher quality if you want to actually make a dent.

Thanks for playing, though

Cycloptichorn

Man you are backpedeling faster than Ali from George Forman (another boxing reference for you).

The more you have to explain your reasoning behind the use of a phrase, the more it makes me think of you making excuses for making the mis-statement in the first place.

You could have said "Thompson, the Flavor of the Week".

But NOOOOOOO!!!!

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

You could have said "Thompson, the Flavor of the Week".

But NOOOOOOO!!!!

woiyo, do you think that calling Thompson the "White Knight of the GOP" is playing the race card, too...??

0 Replies

No need to backpedal.

Not all Republicans are racist... but there is a real racist element in the Republican party.

Fred Thompson, at least right now, seems to be saying the right things to get the votes of people who think (and even openly say) that American should be considered a White Christian country.

The Great White Hype is a great metaphor for Thompson.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Lol, you guys...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116448/

Which, of course, is a parody of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_White_Hope

Study up a bit and you'll see that there's no racism involved.

Cycloptichorn

Sure there is.

From the article...

"Acting as a lens focused on a racist society, The Great White Hope explores how segregation and prejudice created the demand for a "great white hope" who would defeat Johnson and how this, in turn, affected the boxer's life and career."

Shame on you.

You could have said "Great Hollywood Dope" to describe Thompson, but no, you decided to play the race card.

And you call yourself a "liberal"...Indeed!

But, I didn't say 'the great white Hope,' I said 'the great white HYPE,' referring to the first link, which is a parody of the second one.

There's no race card. C'mon, you can do better than this.

Cycloptichorn

I never mentioned the word "HYPE" or HOPE". You did and even supplied the link to "HOPE". You threw out the "WHITE" and made it racial...not me.

Don't try to double talk your way out of this one and blame ME.

You were better off saying he is the GREAT HOLLYWOOD DOPE.

Especially since ALL the candidates so far are "White" (to varying degrees), any of them could be called what you called Thompson.

Liberal INDEED!!!!!

Sigh

What do you mean by 'Liberal Indeed?'

let me hold your hand through this one:

I said:

Quote:

He's the Great White Hype for the Republicans this cycle.

I think he has more chinks then armor itself...

Cycloptichorn

You and BrandX accused me of racism, so I link to:

Quote:

Lol, you guys...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116448/

Which is a movie called 'the Great White HYPE.' Which is about finding a candidate, someone, who can beat a boxer who can't be beat. While the movie does have some racial elements to it, it isn't about racism, but putting hope behind a candidate who doesn't really have a shot.

I added:

Quote:

Which, of course, is a parody of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_White_Hope

Study up a bit and you'll see that there's no racism involved.

Just to give you some background on where the term 'great white hype' comes from. And the WHOLE THING is a take-off on the 'Great White Whale,' of Moby Dick fame.

Your accusations that I must not be a real 'liberal' fall flat in this instance.

I don't have a problem if you want to take a quick shot at me; I do it myself often enough. But it needs to be of a higher quality if you want to actually make a dent.

Thanks for playing, though

Cycloptichorn

Man you are backpedeling faster than Ali from George Forman (another boxing reference for you).

The more you have to explain your reasoning behind the use of a phrase, the more it makes me think of you making excuses for making the mis-statement in the first place.

You could have said "Thompson, the Flavor of the Week".

But NOOOOOOO!!!!

Fortunately, I'm not concerned what you think about my reasoning. I stand behind my original statement: Thompson is the Great White Hype for the Republicans this year.

If you want to take that as racist, have fun with it. But it isn't an effective criticism of my actions, because the statement I made isn't racist in any way; it doesn't have anything to do with race, but with exaggerated hopes for a candidate.

I didn't say 'flavor of the week,' because that's not an accurate way to describe the situation.

Now, let's move on...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

No need to backpedal.

Not all Republicans are racist... but there is a real racist element in the Republican party.

Fred Thompson, at least right now, seems to be saying the right things to get the votes of people who think (and even openly say) that American should be considered a White Christian country.

The Great White Hype is a great metaphor for Thompson.

Why do you people, especially you so called liberals, have to play the race/religion card? Is it because the "democrats" have no ideas that will have a meaningful impact on the policies that effect the majority of mainstream, working class Americans? The "democrats" and even "repuglicans" start off talking about how they will help this special interest groupor that group of illegal aliens or this group of poor etc...

Then you say a non candidate said America should be considered a WHITE CHRISTIAN country when he said no such thing?

You are the only one who thinks race and religion matters. That makes you racist .

Thanks guys!

0 Replies

Woiyo,

This thread is about electoral strategy.

The key to winning elections is to get the most votes. Annoying or offending voters is not a very good strategy.

Whether you (who will almost certainly not vote for any Democratic candidate next year) think these statements are racist or not is irrelevant.

The fact is that many voters, particularly Hispanic voters (some of whom are traditionally conservative and voted Republican in the past) see these comments as racist.

You can rant all you want about how these comments aren't really racist, or about how unfair it is for "so-called" liberals to play the so-called race card. Telling voters that their concerns about the rhetoric being used aren't valid is an interesting tactic.

We will gladly take the votes, as that is all that is really going to affect how these issues are resolved.

0 Replies

Why is it that conservatives love hambone actors?

David Broder apparently holds Thompson is some derision. He said that Thompson, when a senator, started a number of projects, but would lose interest in them and walk away.

0 Replies

Huh. I'd never been aware of the racist connotation to "Great White Hope". I thought it was just an expression, I see it used every so often without explicit racist overtones..

I guess it makes sense that it would have, these expressions come from somewhere after all.

Since there's liable to be lots of people ignorant of the term's background like I was, however, I think its a bit hysterical to immediately accuse anyone using the term of "playing the race card". (I mean, apart from the whole thing of how Cyclo said hype not hope.)

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Not all Republicans are racist... but there is a real racist element in the Republican party.

As there is in the Democratic Party and every other party, there are probably a few racists that are registered Republicans. And racists are not always white, ebrown. Which brings up a question, ebrown, about the only thing you seem to be interested in is race, and you can't seem to post much of anything without resorting to accusations of it in somebody else. The immigration issue is your hot button, and you constantly bring in accusations of race. What is that about anyway?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Why is it that conservatives love hambone actors?

David Broder apparently holds Thompson is some derision. He said that Thompson, when a senator, started a number of projects, but would lose interest in them and walk away.

Same reason liberals love their Hollywood elite.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Woiyo,

This thread is about electoral strategy.

The key to winning elections is to get the most votes. Annoying or offending voters is not a very good strategy.

Whether you (who will almost certainly not vote for any Democratic candidate next year) think these statements are racist or not is irrelevant.

The fact is that many voters, particularly Hispanic voters (some of whom are traditionally conservative and voted Republican in the past) see these comments as racist.

You can rant all you want about how these comments aren't really racist, or about how unfair it is for "so-called" liberals to play the so-called race card. Telling voters that their concerns about the rhetoric being used aren't valid is an interesting tactic.

We will gladly take the votes, as that is all that is really going to affect how these issues are resolved.

You arrogance is disgusting. Who is "WE" you refer to?

How do you which way I will vote?

Unlike you and your fellow sheep, I refuse to support political parties since their incentive is only motivated not by what they will do for the people, but how much "power" the party can obtain.

I smarter than you. I look at the candidate and determine what that person will do for ME, regardless of party affiliation.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

You arrogance is disgusting. Who is "WE" you refer to?

The Democrats, obviously. Thought that was pretty clear from context.

woiyo wrote:

How do you which way I will vote?

Uhmm.. by reading your posts for the past two years?

There may be conservative Democrats still that you'd vote for - I think you're in the West, so there might be enough of 'em there - but it doesnt take a genius to figure out you wouldnt quickly vote for a liberal, for example.

woiyo wrote:

Unlike you and your fellow sheep, I refuse to support political parties since their incentive is only motivated not by what they will do for the people, but how much "power" the party can obtain.

Umm no. Sure there are politicians who only care about the power in itself, but both the Republican and Democratic parties also have a clear vision of how the US should change and what it should look like, and wanting to achieve that is motiovation enough in itself.

woiyo wrote:

I smarter than you. I look at the candidate and determine what that person will do for ME, regardless of party affiliation.

Hm. Im guessing that Ebrown, like me, looks at the candidate and determines what that person will do for SOCIETY. For the country as a whole.

Hence how, I'm guessing, we would vote for a leftwing candidate even if we were rich and it would be against our personal financial interest to do so.

Is that really "less smart" than purely voting on "what they will do for ME"? I dont think so..

OK I gots to get off of here now..

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Why is it that conservatives love hambone actors?

David Broder apparently holds Thompson is some derision. He said that Thompson, when a senator, started a number of projects, but would lose interest in them and walk away.

Same reason liberals love their Hollywood elite.

But the libs don't put them in positions in which they run the country. Big difference!

0 Replies

Do you Reps really want to put a fox in the henhouse? Thompson is all about lobbying and special interests.

Fred Thompson: K Street Welcomes Fred Thompson Home
Mon, 07/02/2007 - 12:47 ?- admin
June 29, 2007 -- Former lobbyist turned actor Fred Thompson is coming home to Washington, DC today to shore up support from his Capitol Hill friends as he tentatively prepares for a late entrance into the GOP presidential primary. While Thompson tries to run as an outsider, the truth is that Thompson is a well-heeled and well connected Washington insider adept at lobbying for his special interest clients, with a home just inside the D.C. Beltway. In the true fashion of a Washington insider, Thompson seems to be trying to skirt campaign finance laws so that he doesn't have to disclose his supporters until October.

While maintaining that he is "testing the waters" and thus doesn't have to file, Thompson this week told the Associated Press "You're either running or not running. I think the steps we're taking are pretty obvious."According to the Federal Election Commission, a candidate is no longer testing the waters if he or she "Makes or authorizes statements that refer to him or her as a candidate." In an article in The Hill this morning, the campaign continued to assert its right to not file, despite Thompson's own statements. [AP, 6/27/07, http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/candregis.shtml#Testing, The Hill, 6/29/07]

"For all his empty rhetoric, Thompson is more at home on K Street or lobbying in the halls of Congress than out in middle America," said Democratic National Committee spokesperson Amaya Smith. "Thompson's latest maneuvering to skirt campaign finance laws just goes to show that he would offer more of the same failed leadership as the Bush Administration. Americans don't want another President who caters to the special interests and thinks the rules don't apply to him."
Thompson's Lobbying Career Full Of Landmines

Thompson Earned More Than $500K As Lobbyist. "The Thompson campaign figures indicate his gross lobbying income from 1975 through 1993 was $507,000." [Memphis Commercial Appeal, 11/5/94]

Thompson Paid As S&L Industry Lobbyist, Fighting For Deregulation Before The Industry Collapsed. According to federal lobbying records, in 1982 Thompson lobbied on behalf of a Tennessee Savings And Loans trade group for the Garn-St. Germain Act, "widely considered to have opened the gates for the eventual failure of many S&Ls and their $200 billion bailout by the federal government." The controversy became a major issue late in his 1994 campaign. [Memphis Commercial Appeal, 10/21/94]

Thompson Lobbied White House On Behalf Of Haitian Leader. From 1991 to 1993, Thompson was a registered foreign agent for Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who was seeking US help in being restored to power in Haiti. A week after Thompson called then-White House chief of staff John Sununu to lobby him for the foreign leader, Thompson's lobbying firm was paid $10,000 for its services according to Justice Department Records. [Time, 7/28/97; Knoxville (TN) News-Sentinel, 9/5/94]

0 Replies

Fred Thompson was a mole for the Nixon White House, not the brave Rep prosecutor working to bring down the president.

Not all would put a heroic sheen on Thompson's Watergate role
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | July 4, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The day before Senate Watergate Committee minority counsel Fred Thompson made the inquiry that launched him into the national spotlight -- asking an aide to President Nixon whether there was a White House taping system -- he telephoned Nixon's lawyer.

Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Thompson tipped off the White House that the committee knew about the taping system and would be making the information public. In his all-but-forgotten Watergate memoir, "At That Point in Time," Thompson said he acted with "no authority" in divulging the committee's knowledge of the tapes, which provided the evidence that led to Nixon's resignation. It was one of many Thompson leaks to the Nixon team, according to a former investigator for Democrats on the committee, Scott Armstrong , who remains upset at Thompson's actions.

"Thompson was a mole for the White House," Armstrong said in an interview. "Fred was working hammer and tong to defeat the investigation of finding out what happened to authorize Watergate and find out what the role of the president was."

Asked about the matter this week, Thompson -- who is preparing to run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination -- responded via e-mail without addressing the specific charge of being a Nixon mole: "I'm glad all of this has finally caused someone to read my Watergate book, even though it's taken them over thirty years."

The view of Thompson as a Nixon mole is strikingly at odds with the former Tennessee senator's longtime image as an independent-minded prosecutor who helped bring down the president he admired. Indeed, the website of Thompson's presidential exploratory committee boasts that he "gained national attention for leading the line of inquiry that revealed the audio-taping system in the White House Oval Office." It is an image that has been solidified by Thompson's portrayal of a tough-talking prosecutor in the television series "Law and Order."

But the story of his role in the Nixon case helps put in perspective Thompson's recent stance as one of the most outspoken proponents of pardoning I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Just as Thompson once staunchly defended Nixon, Thompson urged a pardon for Libby, who was convicted in March of obstructing justice in the investigation into who leaked a CIA operative's name.

Thompson declared in a June 6 radio commentary that Libby's conviction was a "shocking injustice . . . created and enabled by federal officials." Bush on Monday commuted Libby's 30-month sentence, stopping short of a pardon.

The intensity of Thompson's remarks about Libby is reminiscent of how he initially felt about Nixon. Few Republicans were stronger believers in Nixon during the early days of Watergate.
--boston.com

0 Replies

What the hell -- they paid well.

Group Says It Hired Fred Thompson in Abortion Rights Bid

By JO BECKER and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: July 7, 2007
Former Senator Fred D. Thompson, who has positioned himself as an opponent of abortion rights as he prepares to run for president, was hired as a lobbyist 16 years ago by a group on the other side of the issue, according to documents and people involved with his hiring.

The group, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, hired Mr. Thompson in 1991, three years before he was elected to the Senate from Tennessee, as part of the group's effort to overturn a ban on federally financed family planning clinics giving women information about abortion, according to the group's board minutes and former president. The association's president at the time, Judith DeSarno, said she was looking for a Republican lobbyist who could help find a compromise at a time when the first President George Bush was opposed to lifting the ban, put in place during the Reagan administration. Mr. Thompson, then a lobbyist at a prominent Washington law firm, fit the bill, she said.

In the group's board minutes of September 1991, Ms. DeSarno reported hiring Mr. Thompson to "aid us in discussions with the administration." Ms. DeSarno, who provided the minutes, said in an interview that Mr. Thompson served as the group's liaison to the White House.

A spokesman for Mr. Thompson said yesterday that Mr. Thompson had "no recollection of doing any work on behalf of this group."

"He may have been consulted by one of the firm's partners who represented this group in 1991," the spokesman, Mark Corallo, said in a statement. "As any lawyer would know, such consultations take place within law firms every day."

Mr. Thompson's link to the group was first reported Friday by the Web site of The Los Angeles Times.

Any damage to Mr. Thompson's credentials on the abortion issue could complicate his efforts to present himself as a faithful conservative. Mr. Thompson has sometimes indicated he supported some abortion rights although conservative groups say he voted with them whenever abortion questions came before the Senate.

Mr. Thompson's record on the issue of abortion rights is being subjected to particular scrutiny because many social conservatives have been looking for alternatives to the current field of Republican presidential candidates. None of the leading candidates have aroused much enthusiasm among the religious traditionalists in the Republican base: Rudolph W. Giuliani supports abortion rights; Senator John McCain supports embryonic stem cell research and sometimes clashes with religious conservatives; and Mitt Romney has only recently adopted a position in opposition to abortion rights.

Spokesmen for Mr. Thompson have pointed to the fact that he voted in favor of every abortion restriction bill that came before him in the Senate. That included a ban on the procedure known as partial-birth abortion as well as a ban on government-financed abortion for defense department personnel. Mr. Thompson has said he opposed as an infringement on states' rights the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion.

But Mr. Thompson has also sometimes indicated that he opposes outlawing abortion. Among other things, he has opposed a constitutional amendment banning all abortion ?- something the Republican platform calls for ?- again on the grounds that the issue should be up to the states.

In a questionnaire that he answered during his successful 1994 Senate campaign in Tennessee, Mr. Thompson or his campaign staff checked a box stating that he believed abortion should be legal under any circumstance during the first three months of a pregnancy. In a televised debate the same year, Mr. Thompson appeared to tell the moderator that he personally disagreed with outlawing abortion. "Should the government come in and criminalize let's say a young girl and her parents and her doctor?" Mr. Thompson said. "I think not."

In addition, the Gannett News Service has reported that another questionnaire submitted during Mr. Thompson's 1994 campaign contained a handwritten note that stated: "I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people."

Former Representative Michael Barnes, Democrat of Maryland, said he recommended Mr. Thompson to Ms. DeSarno, who worked for Mr. Barnes when he was in Congress.

At the time, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Barnes worked together at Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn. Ms. DeSarno said Mr. Thompson gave her regular updates by phone and that she met him on at least two occasions in person. Over dinner at the Washington restaurant Galileo one night, she said Mr. Thompson told her he had spoken with John Sununu, then the White House chief of staff, about the matter.

"Fred had a big smile and he said, how about if only the doctors can talk but not all these other nurses and volunteers," Ms. DeSarno recalled, referring to a potential compromise on the ban. "It wasn't formal. It was, ?'How about this?' "

Ellen Battistelli, who worked with Ms. DeSarno on getting the ban lifted, said: "He was certainly willing to contact the administration about this." Mr. Sununu did not respond to messages left for him on Friday.

0 Replies

Has anyone bothered to point out that many of the 12 million that would be granted instant citizenship, and the right to vote, can barely if at all speak/read/write the language of the nation? The process of naturalization requires that applicants be proficient in the language and have a basic understanding of US history. If they are granted citizenship without these things, should they really be allowed to vote? I seem to me that without these tools (english language and some history) that they cannot possibly make an informed decision.

0 Replies

Fred Thompson... unclear on the concept?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know