Social conservatives and hard-ass righties are all wetting themselves now that it appears that the old Tennessee walker, Fred Thompson, is in the Republican race for 2008.
The pundit class, and Republicans underwhelmed and saddened by the mighty herd of flawed GOP candidates, have been heaping honey on Fred: old fashioned values, Washington outsider, plain talker, (read southern accent) tough, no nonsense, culturally conservative, tall, plus- he's a 2nd rate actor- all qualities that play well in the Daddy Party.
Thompson is, by these lights, the new Ronald Reagan. He's the guy he plays on TV- the no-bullshit general; the straight-talking, values-driven prosecutor; the CIA chief; the wise, avuncular Senator; the U.S. President.
Our Rachel Maddow (KPTK m-f, 3-5p) talked to Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald Thursday who has written a long, good article which points out the reality of the Tennessee Republican citizen/saviour.
Greenwald explains the appeal:
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.
But is Thompson our (your) daddy, or does he only play one on TV? Greenwald writes: "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.
Here's his official bio.
As you can see, as fellow tough-guy Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrish, he's never done military service, and avoided the Vietnam War, yet he reads such righteous ads like this so very convincingly.
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.
Thompson is quite adamant about the sanctity of the one woman, one man marriage and has voted against gay rights bills including ones for gay marriage. But traditional marriage seems to be sacred only for others- his own marital history has been, well, non-traditional, to say the least.
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.
As you can see from our picture of the couple after the 2006 White House Correspondent's Dinner, they make quite a striking couple- 
she's four years younger than his daughter.
Values voters may not appreciate his 'tween marital sportin' life: according to The Washington Post's Lloyd Grove in 2002:
"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.
From The Politico's Mike Allen:
During a question-and-answer session with House members on April 18, Thompson was asked about his colorful dating history from 1985 to 2002, while he was divorced.
"I was single for a long time, and, yep, I chased a lot of women," Thompson replied, chuckling, according to an attendee who took notes. "And a lot of women chased me. And those that chased me tended to catch me."
(For a party who loves to savage "Hollywood elites,"it's puzzling that the biggest GOP stars- Reagan, Schwarzenegger, now Thompson- have been actors with the recquisite divorces and Hollywood lig=festyles who played manly-man roles in the movies. (We'd mention George Murphy, and Ron Silver, but who'd know who we were talking about?) Democrats take all the heat about Hollywood, but R's actually put actor at the head of their party).
Fred Thompson is an unknown, really- especially to the conservatives who are rather desperately hearkening unto him right now.
We can pretty much discard the pre-campaign legends- there's simply no indication from his past that he's anything more than a Hollywood actor, Washington politician, and a lawyer/lobbyist with the moral compass you'd expect from someone with such a resumé.
Duff, just reread it and it is 'draft' quality! Sorry.
I don't vote third party - even though I would like to see one - that are allowing democracy to wane. You're not exercising it anymore.
this part doesn't makes sense at all!
I mean: I don't vote third party if it jeopardizes a win on the left. I think third parties are necessary to keep a strong democracy. Their purpose is to keep the right honest and the left honest - both parties true to their constituencies.
By not allowing third parties and diverse voices into the system, democracy itself suffers and wanes. And either differences between the parties become fewer or the parties themselves become extremist.
I see the Dems as having become the mainstream Republicans and the Republicans having become extremists. That leaves me without a party. And until I get a party back, I not going to vote for the current group of Dems out of fear of the current group of Republicans every time. I've done it but I won't keep doing it. And people like Dwight Pelz are the reason I won't keep doing it. And I bet there will be more like me.
So, if a third party looks remotely viable, it could get my vote. Give divergent voices a chance in the party, I would be more willing to stay with the Dems. See some independence from the corporate elite and wall street and less dependence on getting reelected, I would stick with the Dems. But I see none of that currently.
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2007 at 02:56 PM
joanie
Change Dems to Reps and Reps to Dems and you are thinking or expressing a lot of my feelings.
If the Democrat party were what it was thirty years ago, I would go back. If the Republican party were what it was twenty years ago, I would be happy.
Third and forth viable parties would be better. Getting the big bucks out of the game would be best.
Posted by: chucks | June 02, 2007 at 04:24 PM
Duff, I'm sorry you don't appreciate what I dug up, I thought it was good information for everyone. For your information, I also cross post at Red State, where they got all up in arms about it. Hey, the news has been re-blogged by several others since I posted it two days ago on my blog and this morning on DKos. So, I guess the story has legs.
Posted by: Junkyard | June 02, 2007 at 04:29 PM
Junkyard you mis-understood me...I thought it good; just wasted here where we are all generally Dem-leaning : ); I was serious about exposing it to the Conservative side with hopes that they would yet again realize there's no hope for them this time around. No offense intended my friend! : )
Posted by: Duffman | June 02, 2007 at 04:57 PM
Geeze chucks: you and joanie may be closer than you think in your political thinking? :-)
Bla'm I just want to echo what joanie said: I think you have a real flair for words, I always enjoy your content and comments...and you're a good cook too?? :)...such a deal!
Posted by: Duffman | June 02, 2007 at 05:38 PM
Joanie, I was reading your comments and going along just fine, making mental notes about what I wanted to say, then I got to this:
You sound like Good Germans. A bit dramatic? We'll see.
I don't care if you were talking to me or Michael or both of us. I have to desire to talk to people who use inflammatory language like that. No better than Limbaugh and his Feminazi crap. Good Germans my ass. Just someone who doesn't happen to agree with you.
Robinz
Posted by: Robinz | June 02, 2007 at 05:43 PM
robin: I too found it strange of joanie to say this?? Didn't seem to be like her when talking with/to someone that I thought might have been a soul mate in a way. I'm puzzled...may be joanie is having a bad hair day : )??
Posted by: Duffman | June 02, 2007 at 05:49 PM
Nah Duffy,
We are miles apart. I think Gov't has gotten too big for the old britches. In spite of her occasional slam towards you, I think she is closer to you.
She is bull headed as all get out, but at least her "thoughts" are thought out.
Posted by: chucks | June 02, 2007 at 05:54 PM
And she had me kill my father. That one perplexes me. I love my dad and forgive him for being a life long D.
Posted by: chucks | June 02, 2007 at 05:56 PM
One more try here: I think we have a better chance of regaining our country if things get worse faster than if we keep trying to hang on to what's left. We are not the America we were pre-Reagan. And I think the longer we wait, the more tightly corporate control will be of our government. Perhaps now is the time to see how bad things can get or will get before the American people wake up.
The more control corporations take, the more ingrained becomes our dependence on them, the more they rape this country of its wealth, the harder it will be to take back our country.
I think a lot of you believe this country will survive Constitutionally no matter what. I don't agree. There's a lot of smart people out there comparing us with the Roman Empire. I for one have no certainty about our future. It is the people that make the difference. If they become apathetic, accepting of the status quo, not wanting to rock the boat or take chances to keep what they have, they will lose it. It is as simple as that.
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2007 at 06:13 PM
Well, you know chucks it's all good - I've tried other blogs and I seem to be drawn to this one. A fine set of characters lies herein and all have interesting slants on politics...and life :)
Posted by: Duffman | June 02, 2007 at 06:15 PM
Robin, it is a reference. If you don't like it, fine. Nobody is forcing you to like it or buy it.
You have very strong points of view as do I. This is a free blog for saying what you think. So we do. Perhaps the phrase bothers you because there is truth in it?
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2007 at 06:16 PM
Wow! I'm the conversation now? Kind of fun listening in . . . and I didn't actually have you killing your father. I think you knew what I meant, chucks. Sometimes one must be brutal to make a point. Es corecto?
Duff has this problem of never knowing quite who to agree with . . .that's why I'm not quite sure about his politics. They sort of ebb and flow with the tide . . . just like his posts. Right Duff?
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2007 at 06:25 PM
But, I agree with one thing, we're having fun.
And, Michael darlin' yourself, you know I have sweet thoughts for you! (Even if I do think you're all wet on this one!)
And Robin, hope you stick around but sometimes the rhetoric gets a little hot . . . we not chatting over the back fence here. No good neighbor policy as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2007 at 06:29 PM
Duff has this problem of never knowing quite who to agree with . . .that's why I'm not quite sure about his politics. They sort of ebb and flow with the tide . . . just like his posts. Right Duff?
Well...who was it that said...always keep them guessing...ha : )
Posted by: Duffman | June 02, 2007 at 07:50 PM
Colbert is hosting a panel on CSpan2 right now . . .repeat from a live feed earlier today.
Posted by: joanie | June 02, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Just to let you know, I posted versions of my two diatribes on Red State and they got all real mad and "BLAMMED" me then they "ERASED" me. So, going into the belly of the beast isn't always a fruitful endeavor.
Posted by: Junkyard | June 03, 2007 at 07:24 AM
well, you broke the cardinal rule...you presented...FACTS!!! Of course they zapped you :-)
Posted by: sparky | June 03, 2007 at 08:15 AM
A revealing piece on Hillary from NYTimes Magazine
Posted by: sparky | June 03, 2007 at 09:34 AM
You're always welcome around here, Junkyard- and we'll take any version of the facts- as long as we agree with 'em!
Posted by: blathering michael | June 03, 2007 at 10:46 AM
"Duff has this problem of never knowing quite who to agree with . . .that's why I'm not quite sure about his politics. They sort of ebb and flow with the tide . . . just like his posts. Right Duff?"
Well joanie, lets see how your tide is doing
Some quotes from Joanie in this thread.
"That is not my kind of Democratic party"
"I'm a Great Society Dem."
"I still consider myself an independent even though I generally vote on the Dem side"
"I don't vote third party - even though I would like to see one"
"So, if a third party looks remotely viable, it could get my vote."
"We do have a slim hold on power."
"Besides, we don't have a true majority."
"We could have them . . . if our party would go back to its roots"
"That leaves me without a party. And until I get a party back, I not going to vote for the current group of Dems out of fear"
"I would be more willing to stay with the Dems."
"I would stick with the Dems."
And what is this Joanie,
"If you want to muck around in resources that are twelve years old when discussing current topics"
and now you come back with this,
"if our party would go back to its roots - probably not the "Great Society" model but certainly the FDR model.
FDR, is that like 65-80 years ago.
Looks like you have alot of conflicts going on within yourself. Better get help soon or you will wakeup one morning next to a grocery cart full of cans.
Posted by: Nevets | June 03, 2007 at 10:02 PM
There you go again, taking things out of context. You know, Steven, you only get confused when you do that.
And yes, FDR was a long time ago. It is called "history" Steven. Some of us know and learn from it; some of you don't.
BTW, you looking forward to The Decider declaring martial law now that he's made himself the official dictator?
Posted by: joanie | June 03, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Steven, I will give you some satisfaction here.
The left is not the right. We are not herded like sheep. I am conflicted. Not only do we disagree amongst ourselves; some of us disagree within ourselves. (You wouldn't understand that.)
I am not a Democrat. I am liberal/progressive. (Same thing to me.) I believe in the New Deal and the Great Society and think America has benefited from both generations of liberal socialism.
The Democrats are culpable in our set backs socially. But, they are still better than the current crop of Republicans - you.
So, it is with reluctance I vote Dem but I reserve the right to say a pox on both their houses and vote green or any other third party I wish if I choose. A point will come when I won't feel guilty if the Dems lose because they don't represent me anyway. And if keeping a timid group of corporate-dependent politicians in office is my only choice to keep this country in the hands of people who at least tip their hats to the left, then let the country be ruled by the Republicans.
There is a point at which I won't be intimidated or bribed. If most Americans want to live under fascism, so be it.
Posted by: joanie | June 04, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Michael, you gotta get the robot back!
Posted by: joanie | June 04, 2007 at 12:33 AM
"It is called "history" Steven.
Isn't that what i said a thread or two ago and you said what, I'm ass-backwards or something. are you saying you are ass-backwards then too.
Posted by: nevets | June 04, 2007 at 05:06 PM
You should teach a masters course on selective reading, Steve-0, it appears to be your strong suit.
Sadly we have very little choice in the party we seem to be in bed with for obvious reasons that would be repetitious to mention. The choice is between a manageable future and one of fucking fairy tales that we hear endlessly from the right. Their nearly monolithic authoritarian daddy-pants wannabees are the worst thing that has happened to this country in ages. Sure there may be some empty suits in the Democratic party, but it sure beats a gaggle of Neanderthals who pride themselves on being uneducated and thump their chests to show their bona fides.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | June 04, 2007 at 05:20 PM
I see you made it back, will you ever answer those tough questions I asked of you in the other thread or were you just acting like one of those,
"Neanderthals who pride themselves on being uneducated and thump their chests to show their bona fides."
Capt, you need to quit describing yourself.
Posted by: nevets | June 04, 2007 at 08:55 PM
"BTW, you looking forward to The Decider declaring martial law now that he's made himself the official dictator?"
Joanie, you know better now don't you. Unless you read this on that "Think Progressive" site or heard it on AA 2.0 (Namely Randi)lets see some sources. And speaking of FDR, what was that he did during WWII to them Japaneese Americans. Was that part of the New Deal and being a Great Society?
Posted by: nevets | June 04, 2007 at 09:03 PM
Oh, Steven, you're hopeless. It's hard not to like someone whose thinking is as impossibly convoluted as yours.
Trying to make sense of any conversation with you is like Alice trying to make sense of Wonderland where everything is ass-backwards and upside-down.
In other words, you amuse me. :)
Posted by: joanie | June 04, 2007 at 10:57 PM
You really ought to define "that other thread" or "those questions" if you want an answer. The truth is that you don't because I'll clean your clock again. You seem to have this insipid ability to ignore every single question posed to you then accuse somebody else of the same. Then when somebody slams you with an appropriate description (uneducated Neanderthal) all you can do is copy 20 year old Pee Wee Herman defenses: "I know you are but what am I." Pathetic.
If you want to sit at the adult table, learn to debate issues and quit hiding behind minutia. It won't be pretty but you MAY get educated for a change...simpleton.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | June 05, 2007 at 08:03 AM
So Joanie, no sources there, just some made up stuff?
And in the future, when you think of names to call me, don't look down first ok.
Posted by: Nevets | June 05, 2007 at 01:55 PM