« Takes Two to Make a Secret | Main | Jordan Option » No Evil Shall Escape His Sight19 Jun 2007 08:07 am
Fred Thompson on Harry Reid: "Whether he means to or not, he’s encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical war of will." Needless to say, K-Lo loved it. The guys kind of smells like a primary winner to me and while he's a buffoon, if the Bush years have taught us anything it's that being a buffoon is no obstacle to also being a successful nationwide politician. Comments (21)
(Although, I guess, er, that "Don't discount him" is precisely what you're saying.) 
Thompson is a moron, but that means he'll be good for 70% of Americans.
Critical wars of will are best fought by heavy rocks and mules. Heavy Rock / Mule in 08! They'll never give in to anything whatsoever!
I prefer Hal Jordan.
Pfft. Mogo, the Green Lantern planet >>> all others.
Um, Thompson's an accomplished lawyer, lobbyist, and senator. He's been an AUSA and was co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee. He has a more objective claim to experience and responsible, complex thought than Al Gore. Stop buying into a blind stereotype.
But Mogo doesn't socialize.....
Matt, Is your untitled Matthew Yglesias book project still untitled, and if so, have you considered doing something with the whole Green Lantern concept? It risks trivializing it, I realize, but it would be pretty awesomely cool too. And can you imagine the book cover? Your nerd-cred would be incalculably high (an ambition of yours, I'm sure).
Thompson is neither a moron nor a buffoon. He has had a very successful career as a campaign manager, a lawyer, a lobbyist, a consultant and an occasional politician, all the while shrewdly managing his own public relations and self-promotion by crafting and maintaining a consistent screen personna. His characters are typically paragons of in-charge, authoritative southern manhood, invested with important leadership positions, an useful fantasy image which Thompson has been able to parlay into real-world success. Thompson seems to have a very alert sense of where power and wealth are located, and how to both serve them and acquire them for himself. He clearly understands the positioning of the levers of influence in Washingtgon, as is shown by the trust that has been placed in him by a series of important clients, who have charged him with a number of important lobbying assignments, which he generally carried out successfully. This guy is no fool. That said, the guy is a lobbyist - a hired gun and corporate whore in one of the most detested of professions. If Democratic opponents can't make something of this, they're in the wrong business.
Agree with Dan Kervick re Thompson as a lobbyist, but why wait for the general election? Thompson is being thrown in there as the anti-Ron Paul establishment candidate, but I'd love to see it come down to those two: the entrenched lobbyist vs. the country doctor congressman who says Washington is broken and he can fix it.
Well, you've heard by now that Senate leader Harry Reid insulted one of this country's brightest military minds, Marine Corps General Peter Pace -- calling him "incompetent." Regardless of whether Thompson is a buffoon, this is clearly buffoonery. It is idiotic to complain about Reid describing Pace as incompetent while ignoring the fact that the president just shitcanned Pace, presumably for not being capable of carrying out his duties.
Um, Thompson's an accomplished lawyer, So, that's it, then. Thompson believes Griswold was wrongly decided, and supports states being able to make contraception illegal. Because the alternative would be that this accomplished lawyer declared the basis of Roe to be "made up out of whole cloth" without having any idea what composed that legal basis. You know, the reasoning of an ignorant buffoon. Fortunately, the former explanation puts him much more in touch with the American electorate. (Of course, there is also the third, most likely explanation, which also covers the passage noted by Gabriel: lying demagoguery. Yup, the man's a modern Republican, all right.)
Thompson is a moron, but that means he'll be good for 70% of Americans. I think you meant "Republicans", not "Americans".
the Green Lantern effect is just a comical representation of unmoored Clausewitzian strategic logic, right? to restate my point, can the lieberman/thompson et al position on green lanternism be clarified and better-refuted by making clear that their assumptions about strategy are the bastardized offspring of Clausewitz and DC comics?
"That said, the guy is a lobbyist - a hired gun and corporate whore in one of the most detested of professions. If Democratic opponents can't make something of this, they're in the wrong business." As opposed to Edwards, whose profession is pure as driven snow. But at least we're sliming him morally, instead of making demonstrably (at least by what evidence we have) false claims that he's uneducated or idiotic. Or maybe not. "So, that's it, then. Thompson believes Griswold was wrongly decided, and supports states being able to make contraception illegal. Because the alternative would be that this accomplished lawyer declared the basis of Roe to be "made up out of whole cloth" without having any idea what composed that legal basis. You know, the reasoning of an ignorant buffoon. Fortunately, the former explanation puts him much more in touch with the American electorate." I could go on to explain that, yes Griswold was kind of made up too and for all we can tell Thompson probably knows full well about it. Or that the Connecticut law was archaic and unenforced and would've been repealed anyway. Or that many at the time understood the decision's reasoning as being limited to contraception by married couples--a far cry from abortion for anybody. Or that the penumbra argument in Griswold was entirely abandoned by Roe in favor of substantive due process anyway, so one could still agree with Griswold generally and still think Roe was kinda screwey. But I won't. Because you're announcing a ideological disagreement with Thompson. That's fine. Implying that he's obviously a buffoon because--OMG like Reagan!--he's acted in a movie or two, is bizarre. And the quote isn't exactly compelling evidence either.
That said, the guy is a lobbyist - a hired gun and corporate whore in one of the most detested of professions. If Democratic opponents can't make something of this, they're in the wrong business.Amen. As I said on my blog, we need to make 'lobbyist' his first name.
Dan Kervick is right. Thompson is a reasonably bright fellow. Unlike Bush, he is a buffoon by choice. However, if I recall, his character in In the Line of Fire was neither authoritative nor leader-ly, but rather, was portrayed as something of an idiot.
While I agree, somewhat, with Um that the tagging of Thompson with opposition to Griswold was a bit of a stretch, let's clear it up: Can't someone ask him? Or for that matter, any of the GOP candidates? And don't give me that bullshit about how the CT law was going to be repealed anyway -- there's a still a principal here: Can states constitutionally prohibit couples from practicing contraception, and if not, then why not? Let's see how brilliant a mind Thompson actually is.
Amen. As I said on my blog, we need to make 'lobbyist' his first name. ... and "foreign agent" his second.
yo, kyle rayner's no longer green lantern of earth. it's back to the silver age original: hal jordan.
Comments closed July 03, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I roll my eyes every time someone on our side says of a rising GOP politician, "Oh, what a buffoon! Who could ever possibly take this guy seriously?" That's because to me it always sounds like what I used to hear when I was your age: "Oh, this guy did a movie with a monkey! Who could possibly vote for him?" We should never, ever fall into that elitist trap again.
BTW, what did you think of Thompson blaming Reid and Pelosi for the existence of the 9/11 truth movement?
Posted by Steve M. | June 19, 2007 8:39 AM