In "Thompson's Image Cultivated by Hollywood" we get another MSM attempt to make Fred Thompson seem to be just a hollow, fake actor. The AP offers us an analysis that Thompson's "image" is just a Hollywood invention and that he had no "conscious decision" in shaping the perception that he exhibits the sort of strong, take charge kind of leadership that Americans might want in a president. Of all the lines of attack they've tried thus far, this is the MSMs favorite way to belittle Fred Thompson. This meme has it that Thompson's acting persona is an invention of Hollywood and that his political life is a reflection of this invented persona, that he capitalized on the illusion to launch a political career -- they want to make Thompson out to be a fake. But, in reality, Thompson's roles are a reflection of his real life persona, not an invention by Hollywood but an amplification of reality by Hollywood.
AP does their level best to make Thompson seem the illusionist...
If Fred Thompson is auditioning for the role of a lifetime, he could hardly be any better prepared.
As Thompson prepares for a likely run for the presidency ... his image has been cultivated as much by Hollywood as by his time as a real-life Republican senator in Washington.
Notice how the AP continually links all the less than serious actor euphemisms to Thompson's campaign and Senate career? His running for president is just "auditioning," his image "cultivated," by Hollywood. They insist in seeing Thompson through the lens of a manufactured, Hollywood facade.
The AP tries to cajole readers into viewing Thompson's political career as a mere byproduct of his acting as opposed to a meritorious result of his real-life actions.
Thompson's acting career has long been intertwined with his political one. He was first cast by Hollywood in 1985's "Marie" as himself — an attorney in the true story of a woman who is working at the State Board of Pardons of Tennessee and discovers that the state government is riddled with graft, corruption and even murder.
"There is a strong sense in which Thompson's popularity as an actor, I think, came in part because he seemed to be able to play the role of what a skillful political leader would seem to have. He appears gruff and strong, a very masculine character, and he's very certain in the way he pronounces his words and uses his language. So I think there is a reinforcing connection," said Tom Hollihan, a professor of media and politics the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication.
But, on reflection, one would realize that Thompson's initial fame was garnered by his work as a lawyer. The acting was the byproduct, not the other way around.
It is certain that Thompson has a "commanding presence" but is this a result of his acting career or is his acting career a result of his real life persona? Clearly, he had this presence before the acting so the acting is incidental to his persona. In fact, how often does he play against type? Never. He doesn't play against type because he is not as much an "actor" as he is a presence. His "acting" is not an invention, but a reflection. When he is "being" his Arthur Branch-like roles, he is being Fred Thompson.
I am not trying to belittle Thompson's acting ability because he plays his role well. But Thompson is not the sort of actor that takes on the sort of roles that calls for a subduing of his own personality. His is not the skill of presenting an invented screen image for each film. He is no Johnny Depp, for instance. Thompson plays Thompson in every role. So this "just an actor" claim does not suit him at all. He is just not the sort that presents a manufactured image.
Hollywood reflects Fred Thompson, it does not create him.
But, the AP hasn't the capability to understand such minutia as their efforts to cast Thompson's character and image into the land of make believe prevails. In fact, they cannot even give him the benefit of being able to direct his own acting career, presenting him as a mere beneficiary of circumstance.
Whether such roles were a conscious decision on Thompson's part is another matter.
"Nothing succeeds like success in Hollywood, and if it's worked well once, casting directors and producers tend to go back to the well again. Actors don't get to choose their roles. They only get to accept or turn them down. I think it's less a conscious decision on his part than it is typecasting," said film critic Leonard Maltin of "Entertainment Tonight."
See what I mean? To the AP Thompson has just been typecast in a fake role that he has no control over, one that is guided by producers, writers, and magic makers and not one that reflects Thompson's "conscious decisions" at all. AP just cannot imagine that Thompson could possibility have a hand in such decisions.
And, as a result of the AP's inability to see Thompson as anything other than a faker sporting a make believe image like anyone else would don a Halloween mask, they cannot imagine anyone else can either.
It's unclear whether voters nationwide will accept Thompson in a role other than that of an actor.
Unclear? What IS clear, AP, is that Thompson's candidacy thus far has been the most successful "draft" style candidacy we've seen in US politics for decades. He has a large Internet following and has raised several million dollars for his exploratory committee. If that doesn't show a level of votes coming his way, what does?
Next the AP attempts to turn his positives against him.
Hollihan said the very thing that helps Thompson as an actor could also hurt him.
"The character you play and the character you are cast as has to resonate. That's the case if you're casting somebody for a movie or you're casting somebody for higher office," he said. "People are so aware that contemporary politics involve media. They are going to be looking for that ongoing related persona."
So, if America doesn't see "Arthur Branch" they will turn away from Thompson?
One other thing that AP and the rest of the MSM don't get. Not every American knows Thompson's work on "Law & Order." I, for instance, have never seen Thompson on that TV show because I have never watched a single episode of "Law & Order." There are more like me than otherwise. We will rate Thompson on what he presents during his campaign, not by what we saw (or didn't see) on a TV show.
And during that campaign, we will see that Thompson is Thompson. He is not an image conjured up by Hollywood.















Comments Policy
Fred ''Kenobi'' Thompson: The GOP's Only Hope
August 23, 2007 - 05:52 ET by HeikiI think Fred's got the nomination for the asking, and he hasn't even formally declared yet. IMHO, it's only going to be a matter of who he chooses for a running mate. Also IMHO, I think he's the only GOP figure having a better than even chance of winning a general election in '08. He's also the best hope for the innocents of the Iraqi people, because I believe a liberal, if elected to the Oval Office, would abandon the people of Iraq, who we are morally responsible for, having overthrown their government. I think that Fred would do more than ''Stay the Course.'' I think he would do everything in his power to not only achieve ''victory'' (stabilization) in Iraq, I think he would go along way toward bringing down the Iron-Silk Curtain in the Muslim world, and further marginalize (de-legitimize) extremest Islamic ideology by frank, could-care-less-if-it's-politically-incorrect dialogue making clear that the moderates in the Islamic community are not going to get off the hook by not taking sides, or by condemning violent extremists with lukewarm platitudes but by insisting that they instead need to speak out loudly and frequently in denunciation of the Islamists. Run, Fred! Run!
I think you give the
August 23, 2007 - 10:31 ET by Dan The Man 2I think you give the phrase ''Stay the Course" a diservice. It is a time honored phrase used in steering a ship and means staying on a preplanned course set by the Captain of the ship. It does not mean adjustments may not be made. usually it is a genreal direction than being on a train track without and option of doing something different.
In short you have bought into the MSM idea of what they want it to mean.
In my opinion the course was to get Iraq stable and anything that needed to do so was applicable.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Clinton isn't acting?
August 23, 2007 - 06:20 ET by ThisnThatAt least Fred Thompson is a good actor. Hillary Clinton is also acting, and she's a terrible actor. She can't pull off her "Southern" accent; she can't answer an unrehearsed question to save her life; her fake concern for America and U.S. troops has been exposed multiple times; and her makeup team simply can't do anything to help that frozen expression.
I'll take Fred (what's in a name) Thompson over Hillary (I don't bake cookies) Clinton any time, all the time.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Ummmm....Reagan was "Just an
August 23, 2007 - 06:21 ET by mostlymoderateUmmmm....Reagan was "Just an Actor" That turned out ok.
Fred Thompson is no Reagan.
August 23, 2007 - 08:05 ET by CTFred Thompson is no Reagan, not even close.
Actually...
August 23, 2007 - 08:34 ET by rbchaffeI've read Fred's articles at Townhall.com. I'd say their politics are pretty close.
Pretty Close - NOT IMHO
August 23, 2007 - 08:39 ET by CT"...I've read Fred's articles at Townhall.com. I'd say their politics are pretty close..."
Do you think for one minute that Ronald Reagan would have supported let alone signed 'McCain-Feingold'???
I think he would have.
August 23, 2007 - 10:38 ET by BruzillaI think he would have. McCain-Feingold was intentioned to prevent political hacks with lots of money from dropping a ton of bucks at the last minute, air a bunch of false claims right before an election, and leave the challenger unable to respond in time. I think that's something Reagan would have definately supported.
I think the law is a good one, but needs some refinement. I think if you've got something to say about someone, especially in an era where the next election campaign has started as soon as the current election's votes are counted, then you've got plenty of time to make your point. There's no reason why you need to be making your case 30 days before the election, and if you are then most likely you're just trying to sandbag your oponent.
Not the Reagan I voted for.
August 23, 2007 - 10:46 ET by CTThe Ronald Reagan I voted for did not find the Constitution much less the Bill of Rights and specifically the 1st Amendment an inconvenience. I do not believe for one minute that he would have signed McCain-Feingold into law.
Understatement of the year!
August 23, 2007 - 10:53 ET by Sergeant ROCKI think the law is a good one, but needs some refinement.
lol! No kidding! McCain-Feingold is a horrible law that favors the MSM while disarming everyone else. Refinement, my @ss. It needs to be eliminated.
Want campaign finance reform? Here's an idea - If you can't cast a vote at the ballot box, then you can't make a contribution.
Let me ask you this: which
August 23, 2007 - 13:05 ET by BruzillaLet me ask you this: which situation is better:
A: 60 days before a general election, the MSM does reports on election stories, usually revolving around general issues, voter concerns, election fraud, etc. Some of these make your point, some of them don't. In order to challenge any negative reports you call MSM people friendly to you and have them do stories on your position, and in the meanwhile you keep going out meeting the people and making your stump speeches until the voting starts.
B: Two days before the general election, ads starts sweeping across every TV channel stating that alegations that you sexually mollested your two year old son have risen and people should think twice before voting for you. There's no evidence to support the claims, just reports that claims have arisen. The MSM jumps on the story, and instead of making your stump speeches and getting your point across, you are now 100% in defense mode, and no one cares about your views on taxes or heathcare, they just want to know did you molest your kid, and if not why you seem to be ducking the question. You lose the election, and after your opponent gets sworn in there's a tiny piece in the back of the newspaper stating that an indepth investigation of the abuse stories showed no indication of being true, and might have been planted by someone who supported your opponent. The story goes on to say that changes need to be made, but the election is now over and no one cares.
So... which is a more desireable option for you? Granted, neither us desireable, but at least with McCain-Feingold you know who's behind the ads and all you have to deal with 60 days out is media bias, which is much easier to counter than a last minute sandbagging.
Free Manipulation
August 23, 2007 - 13:12 ET by Sergeant ROCKYeah, the only sandbaging that will be condoned is by that of the MSM. Because that is 'free' political manipulation.
To answer your question: None of the above. Get behind Keyes' idea and quit settling for the lesser of two evils. That is, if you're really serious.
Kucinich/Paul '09
C'mon Sarge, you can't duck
August 23, 2007 - 13:59 ET by BruzillaC'mon Sarge, you can't duck the question. Keyes and many others have great ideas, but until they get passed into law they are just that... ideas. So, back to my point, which option do you choose? Do you deal focus on countering MSM bias, or do you choose to deal with a last-minute ad blitz based on blatant lies? There is no option C, at least not yet.
Answer
August 23, 2007 - 14:06 ET by Sergeant ROCKWhy should I be compelled to embrace the lesser of two evils? McCain-Feingold is bad law. You support it, I don't - in any form. That's my position.
Kucinich/Paul '09
War on terror?
- Ron Paul
Sergeant ROCK will not yield to paper..
August 23, 2007 - 16:58 ET by CTGee ROCK, don't you know resistance is futile, you must comply, with the parameters of Bruzilla's understanding of the world. Discussion in this thread on NewsBusters today has been very revealing and unfortunately very disappointing.
... how would you know?
August 23, 2007 - 17:19 ET by Warner Todd Huston... how would you know? You've not participated in any.
Warner is that really your picture at the top of the blog?
August 23, 2007 - 22:41 ET by CTBecause I've had the distinct impression that I've been corresponding with a ten year old.
Overhype
August 23, 2007 - 19:45 ET by PopularTechFunny I like Keyes better than Thompson. I don't really think people are picking candidates based on their stance on issues rather some fabricated persona. Nothing against Fred but his stance on issues is hardly ultra-conservative.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
On Keyes
August 24, 2007 - 00:01 ET by UnsaneKeyes focuses too greatly on social conservative matters for my taste. When I look at a Presidential candidate (and I was spoiled rotten by the Reagan presidency in my youth, well before I was old enough to vote!), the two biggest concerns I have are 1) foreign policy and 2) fiscal/economic issues.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
And you would be wrong..
August 24, 2007 - 08:29 ET by Sergeant ROCKKeyes was very strong on foreign policy. I recall during one debate where he made it clear that there he would not allow Red China to take Taiwan, unlike Bush. He mopped the floor with the others in those debates. Of course, the idiots asking the questions wanted to keep asking him about racial issues as though that was the only thing he was qualified to comment on.
Keyes is a lot closer to Reagan than Bush is by far.
Kucinich/Paul '09
Hollywood's
August 23, 2007 - 07:54 ET by AntiMediaHollywood's Bloodworth-Thomason helped the Clinton's with their image.
The MSM never has an
August 23, 2007 - 08:14 ET by Six String SpiffThe MSM never has an issue when some Hollywood liberal gas bag goes on an anti - American rant, but when it comes to a CONSERVATIVE (Who served 9 years in the Senate) attempting to run for POTUS, well... he ONLY an actor. The MSM couldn't be any more transparent.
Only an actor... please. Where are your complaints when 'Hillra Clintn' was "No ways Tard"? Pathetic. Your monopoly is crumbling at your feet, and I hold the hammer.
The American Revolution Continued
he's just an actor, ow that one stings
August 23, 2007 - 08:33 ET by lunaticcringeradiobut not as bad as simpley being called a liberal
They are
August 23, 2007 - 08:37 ET by USA4freedomThey are worried..
good.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
You can't have it both ways Warner
August 23, 2007 - 08:35 ET by CT“…His "acting" is not an invention, but a reflection. When he is being Arthur Branch, he is being Fred Thompson…” Warner Todd Huston
“…One other thing that AP and the rest of the MSM don't get. Not every American knows Thompson's work on "Law & Order." I, for instance, have never seen Thompson on that TV show because I have never watched a single episode of "Law & Order." There are more like me than otherwise. We will rate Thompson on what he presents during his campaign, not by what we saw (or didn't see) on a TV show…” Warner Todd Huston
I am not a fan of the AP, but who has the credibility problem here?
CT - What?
August 23, 2007 - 09:00 ET by Six String SpiffI completely agree with Warner. What are you trying to say?
The American Revolution Continued
How can Warner provide and
August 23, 2007 - 09:04 ET by LeonHow can Warner provide and assessment on Fred Thompon as a character, when he's never even seen him as that character?
aka He's never even seen the show.
Actually, it is YOU with the
August 23, 2007 - 09:04 ET by Warner Todd HustonActually, it is you both (CT and Leon) with the credibility problem. It is also you with a reading comprehension problem. The point is not, as your overly simplistic and uncluttered minds have it, that Thompson's Arthur Branch character is more Thompson than act, but that ALL OF THOMPSON'S ACTING is more Thompson than act. Even a slight reading of the whole article would get that point understood. But, then, you aren't looking for a wholistic analysis. You just want a talking point. So, I am sure logic escapes you.
Warner, No. He's
August 23, 2007 - 09:07 ET by LeonWarner,
No. He's right. There's no reading comprehension problem.
You didn't speak generally about Thompson's acting. If the point was all of Thompson's acting, why did you bring up Arthur Branch by name?
You specifically referenced a character he plays in a show you've never seen (self-proclaimed).
You can spin all you want, but you commented on a show you've never seen with an air of authority that was not warranted.
Leon, My point was the
August 23, 2007 - 09:23 ET by Warner Todd HustonLeon,
My point was the acting NOT the character. I don't give a crap about the character. The "authority" I spoke from was about Thompson's acting career. Any particular character is immaterial.
Further, it is no "spin" when the preceding part of the paragraph is read. Did you bother to read it, or did you merely read the few words you are worried over?
The preceding segment CLEARLY is talking about his CAREER, not not just one show! The preceding segment is CLEARLY talking about his character BEFORE acting -- and remember his acting began in the 1980s which was, oh, about a DECADE or so before his Branch character.
In case you cannot find it, here is that preceding segment. I will helpfully bold the mitigating words that speak to Thompson's entire career instead of just his last show which came about many years later...
All of that is clearly talking of a career, not a single role.
Further, I never said I haven't seen ANY role that Thompson has appeared in. I only said I had not seen "Law and Order."
So, yes. The reading comprehension is obviously a problem you and CT posses.
But how is this for a change to end the paragraph...
If this meets with your "considered" approval, I will change the original to suit those who have a hard time assimilating information, with everyone's full knowledge of this exchange between us.
Warner, your statement was logical and accurate
August 23, 2007 - 09:28 ET by RJAs you said, Leon and CT have comprehension (or agenda) problems.
They fixate on the last sentence of that particular paragraph, ignoring the logical sequence that led up to it.
Itching
August 23, 2007 - 09:35 ET by JDWUnfortunately they fixate on subjects which will permit them to irritate others. They are like mosquitoes who bite and watch one scratch. Ignoring the itch will alleviate the problem faster than scratching.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
What agenda would that be RJ?
August 23, 2007 - 09:38 ET by CTWhat agenda would that be RJ, that I am not supporting your candidate for president? I'am not fixated on anything. All I want to see is a Republican candidate for president that can win.
Well, CT, your agenda is not much different than Leon's
August 23, 2007 - 09:55 ET by RJYou both have the intent of tearing down Thompson. You both use, either deliberately or through inability to comprehend, a weak argument that, selectively and out of context, attacks the last sentence of a logical paragraph.
RJ, This discussion is
August 23, 2007 - 09:56 ET by LeonRJ,
This discussion is about Warner, not Fred Thompson.
Where has anyone even said anything negative about Thompson in this particular discussion?
Sure it is, Leon
August 23, 2007 - 10:05 ET by RJTry to follow:
Warner was being complimentary of Thompson. You (and CT) attempt to use your out of context argument as a stalking horse. If you can successfully discredit Warner, you somewhat negate his positive writings about Thompson, here and in the future.
Convoluted much?
August 23, 2007 - 10:40 ET by LeonConvoluted much?
Yeah, Leon, I expected something like that
August 23, 2007 - 10:57 ET by RJYour inability to follow logical thought is well-known and demonstrated here daily.
The only question is whether it's a deliberate ploy or innate.
RJ, explain this: If
August 23, 2007 - 11:01 ET by LeonRJ,
explain this:
If you can successfully discredit Warner, you somewhat negate his positive writings about Thompson, here and in the future.
Sure. OF course, if Warner's credibility is found to be dicey, than ALL of his writings could be negated, not just those concerning Thompson. That's the nature of credibility.
What I don't understand is how this negatively impacts Thompson at all. How are we attacking Thompson as you claim?
Leon, it's difficult
August 23, 2007 - 11:12 ET by RJto argue with your illogic.
First you say it's possible to negate what a writer says, then you say it doesn't negatively impact Thompson. Since the column was a positive piece about Thompson, by attacking the author, you indirectly attack Thompson.
Perhaps you could save time by just repeating "why daddy?" over and over.
RJ, Ok. You are wacky
August 23, 2007 - 11:19 ET by LeonRJ,
Ok. You are wacky today. The only way to attack Thompson is to attack Thompson.
Attacking Warner about the consistency of his article doesn't say anything about Thompson peronsally or politically.
I fail to see how questioning the author of the article has anything to do with the person he was writing about.
You make no sense. I'm right, you're wrong. Just give up.
Poor Leon
August 23, 2007 - 11:32 ET by RJCan't handle logic, so he retreats to "I'm right, you're wrong."
Did you stick your tongue out at the screen, Leon? ;^>
Sorry. Rationalizing the
August 23, 2007 - 11:34 ET by LeonSorry.
Rationalizing the irrational is beyond my comprehension.
Believe it or not, I do have my cognitive limits.
Oh, I believe you, Leon
August 23, 2007 - 11:39 ET by RJYou show us your cognitive limits every day.... ;^>
What's wrong
August 23, 2007 - 10:07 ET by Sergeant ROCKAll I want to see is a Republican candidate for president that can win.
That's what is wrong with this country. People are fixated on the 'winning' rather than picking the best candidate. This logic perpetuates the 'lesser of two evils' being the likely choice more often than not.
If everyone voted on principle, rather than on who will most likely win (that, in spite of the fact that no votes have been cast beforehand), then maybe the best candidate will WIN.
You are correct Sergeant
August 23, 2007 - 10:23 ET by CTWinning isn't everything, but when the alternative is Madam Hillary it takes on new meaning.
Back in the day Country Joe MacDonald of the Fish had a good line about choosing between the lesser of two evils, "I mean, I mean was George Washington the lesser of two evils?", then he would go into a rendition of "I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-to-Die Rag". It got a lot of play on our secure radio while we were in country at the time.
Warner, Your general
August 23, 2007 - 09:39 ET by LeonWarner,
Your general analysis is fine and spot on I'm sure. And if you had left it at that you would have been a-ok.
But you went on to specifically reference one of his characters from a show that you had never even seen.
When you made the Arthur Branch statement you were speaking about something you didn't know about. Sure, you know how Thompson generally acts, but you have no idea how he acts as Arthur Branch. He could handle the role in an entirely different way from all his others. He is an ACTOR. The point is, you have no idea how he acts as branch because you've never seen him.
Your adapted language is more accurate but you act as if I'm confronting you over something petty. You do this type of analysis every single day. I'm simply holding you to the same level of accountability that you hold the MSM. If a liberal had commented on Thompson's acting as Arthur Branch and then went on to say they'd never seen the show, you would be all over it.
If I was you, I would have just chosen a character that I had actually seen. Like the guy from Cape Fear, or something.
...you act as if I'm
August 23, 2007 - 09:43 ET by Warner Todd HustonAnd so you are.
Your other agendas I'll leave to others to speculate over.
I strive NEVER to be merely petty in my analysis of the MSM. I think my reputation here on Newsbusters speaks for itself.
Warner, No matter what
August 23, 2007 - 09:54 ET by LeonWarner,
No matter what you say, it's public record that you commented on a topic for which you had no actual knowledge.
I don't see what the debate is about. Although your stubborness shouldn't be surprising considering the leaders you venerate.
Try reading the entire paragraph in context, Leon
August 23, 2007 - 09:58 ET by RJNot that I have any expectation of your admitting that you're making a selective and out of context argument.
I read it and I don't see
August 23, 2007 - 09:59 ET by LeonI read it and I don't see how it excuses Warner's comment on a topic for which he had no knowledge.
Who ARE those "leaders," Leon?
August 23, 2007 - 09:59 ET by Warner Todd HustonConsidering the leaders I "venerate"? What "leaders" would that be? Do you have any "authority" to speak to the specific leaders I "venerate," Leon? Do you know me so well that you have a nice little verified list of those leaders? What "authority" do you speak from?
Your agenda is becoming more obvious all the time.
Warner, I was speaking
August 23, 2007 - 10:01 ET by LeonWarner,
I was speaking generally. But you know, leaders like Rumsfeld.
I suppose when I say you sometimes, I mean the Newsbusters staff. For that I apologize. When saying you in the future I will only reference you specifically.
Ok I'm not cutting and running. I have a meeting. Be back later.
Thanks
You'll excuse me if I don't
August 23, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Warner Todd HustonYou'll excuse me if I don't wait on the edge of my seat for your return since you have replied compounding your clear inability to comprehend with a hypocritical retort of your own, violating the same tenet that you scolded me for violating --that of first hand knowledge.
Hey Hey Warner, I didn't
August 23, 2007 - 10:45 ET by LeonHey Hey Warner,
I didn't violate the same tenet. I know who/what leaders the Newsbusters venerate. It can be easily demonstrated.
How about Reagan? Are we serious?
It's clear and you could pull up thousands of articles to back up this assertion.
So I wasn't speaking from the dark at all. Whereas you were.
Sorry, but you did EXACTLY
August 23, 2007 - 10:52 ET by Warner Todd HustonSorry, but you did EXACTLY what you blame me for, pal.
You spoke to ME. Said the leaders I "venerate." You didn't say "leaders you Newsbusters people venerate."
You directed it to ME alone.
No matter how you spin it, you are guilty of the same thing you blamed me for.
Unfortunately for you, I had other context to make clearer what I was writing about. YOU did not.
Now, I KNOW you have a problem with reading comprehension.
Ta, ta. Enjoy your day.
Oh Warner, Thankfully my
August 23, 2007 - 10:55 ET by LeonOh Warner,
Thankfully my credibility as an anonymous user on a political blog doesn't affect my career.
Your credibility does.
My credibility suffers
August 23, 2007 - 11:09 ET by Warner Todd HustonMy credibility suffers little at the hands of the likes of you. Considering the source of this particular criticism easily sets it in perfect perspective.
careful, Warner
August 23, 2007 - 11:38 ET by RJWhen Leon sits down at the computer he really believes he's omnipotent....
Upwardly mobile professional.
August 23, 2007 - 11:47 ET by MightyMouthThis is how I picture Leon.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
"...as your overly simplistic and uncluttered minds have it..."
August 23, 2007 - 09:31 ET by CT"...It is you with a reading comprehension problem. The point is not, as your overly simplistic and uncluttered minds have it..." Is that right Warner, you don't like my comment so you reply with a personal attack? Not what I've come to expect here at NewsBusters. All I was trying to point out was the apparent conflict in your statements that "...When he is being Arthur Branch, he is being Fred Thompson..." and "...I, for instance, have never seen Thompson on that TV show because I have never watched a single episode of "Law & Order..."
I hope Fred Thompson’s supporters can bring better arguements for his candidacy than you have here.
Far from just "trying to
August 23, 2007 - 09:39 ET by Warner Todd HustonFar from just "trying to point out the apparent conflict," you only revealed you have no ability to understand a paragraph in context. But, one suspects, that your only point is to attack candidate Thompson because so far every one of your posts on this thread is a personal attack of Fred Thompson. I guess that is what I've come to expect from the likes of you, personal attacks. (You make this too easy. I need more of a challenge this early in the morning)
Personal Attack?
August 23, 2007 - 09:52 ET by CTI haven't posted a personal attack to anyone on this thread, however your comments are tempting. As to your credibility on NewsBusters, it has taken a hit with me.
When such as you doubt me, I
August 23, 2007 - 10:01 ET by Warner Todd HustonWhen such as you doubt me, I feel all the more justified.
Take a pill and go lie down Warner
August 23, 2007 - 10:06 ET by CTYou have become a real disappointment.
Focused
August 23, 2007 - 09:07 ET by JDWThompson has yet to accept a place in the race yet the juvenile news media continues to attack superfluous matters. His acting career?
How does sen Clinton's acting career (the cover-ups...) affect her?
Remember Rep Filner? CA(D) who has been charged with assault and battery, on record in 2003 for more problems where police were called to remove him from a detention center. This is invisible news, important, yet news media is concentrating on Mr Thompson's acting career in case he runs for election.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Acting
August 23, 2007 - 09:26 ET by conantOk- I get it Republican actors are fluff. Democrats like Pitt, Baldwin, Fonda, Sarandon are all geniuses. After watching Carter and Clinton acting like fools vs Reagan acting like a President I'll take my chances with Fred.
Team America
August 23, 2007 - 09:30 ET by Sergeant ROCK.. was an accurate portrayal of Hollywood.
"Matt Da-MON"
- Matt Damon
Thompson for President
August 23, 2007 - 10:09 ET by tymanThe bottom line is that the MSM and Democrat party are worried about this guy. Just as they were with Ronald Reagan. They believe he can win. I do too. In a debate, he would make Billiary look like a rookie. Go Fred!
Thompson/Keyes '08
August 23, 2007 - 10:14 ET by Sergeant ROCKI agree. If he would pick Alan Keyes as a running mate, we'd be on to something.
But what is acting? It's
August 23, 2007 - 10:54 ET by BruzillaBut what is acting? It's pretending to be someone you're not and reading lines that someone else writes. I think back to when Gore was running for president, and he was on Meet The Press. Russert was asking him the usual questions, and Gore was hitting the softballs out of the park. Then the subject of the death penalty came up, and Gore fielded those questions just fine. At that time there was a pregnant woman in Texas who was on death row, and out of the blue Russert asks Gore if he thought it was ok to execute a pregnant woman.
The first thing I noticed was a quick look of panic that crossed over Gore's face, and then he started into the usual "That's a great question Tim..." but instead of answering it he started rambling off things like "that's something we need to look at...", "I would need to look at the facts...", etc. This was a question that should have been a no-brainer... no one thinks you should execute a pregnant woman!!! But as Gore was getting more and more frustrated, he turned his head and there was an ear piece in his ear.
I had noticed that Gore answered every single question asked by starting with a "Tim, I'm glad you asked me that...", "That's a great question, and I like when I'm asked that...", etc., bit of blather. There's no doubt in my mind that he was making those statements to buy time while some off-camera aid fed him his "opinions" through the ear piece. The question from Russert about executing a pregnant woman was a very unpredictable, "spur of the moment", question, so Gore's aid didn't have an answer ready to pass to him. So rather than trying to come up with the obvious answer himself, he hemmed and hawed as he waited for his aid to feed him his lines.
Now that's acting.
Two Cents Worth
August 23, 2007 - 11:15 ET by stratmanI think a distinction is in order. Fred Thompson is a Movie/TV star or celebrity and not an actor in its purest sense. Fred plays roles as himself, basically, role after role. As Warner said, Fred the actor is "being" Fred the person in his roles, and that "being" was cultivated from his lifetime of experiences. We, or some of us at least, believe Fred in his (typecast) roles because he draws from real life experience and not some acting style taught in NY City or Hollywood. On a positive take on a Clintonism, Fred is what he is. No phony puffed up propaganda required or wanted.
There are very few real actors in Hollywood, and always have been few throughout history. Someone mentioned Johnny Depp. I would offer up others such as Peter O'Toole, Judi Dench, Glenn Close, Meryl Streep, John Lithgow, Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, Don Cheadle, Jeff Daniels and Christina Ricci to name a few. Movie/TV stars would include the likes of Eddie Murphy, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ben Affleck, Woody Allen, Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Aniston, , Samuel L. Jackson, Sylvestor Stallone, ect. ad nauseum. (Might have to include Peter O'Toole with the latter crowd as well based on his last couple of movies. Still he was splendid. Peter O'Toole playing Peter O'Toole is head and shoulders above most every actor because he has lived quite a life, debauched as it was.)
Movie stars play the same character no matter what the role. Actors become the unique character for each role.
PS - Fred Thompson as Arthur Branch was like every other role I've ever seen him play. Warner is correct about Fred. The rest is just a pissing contest.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
I think this is just over
August 23, 2007 - 11:24 ET by balboaI think this is just over analyzation of the article, looking for things to criticize.
I still think Thompson is my
August 23, 2007 - 14:20 ET by mostlymoderateI still think Thompson is my choice. I just like the guy; everything he stands for.
mostlymod...
August 23, 2007 - 14:27 ET by LionKingAm I seeing a shift to the right on your part? ...LOL
Why Fred Can't Win (immigration)
August 23, 2007 - 19:34 ET by PopularTechBelieve it or not but Fred's popularity begin's and ends with his TV show. I don't watch the show so I don't see the appeal. I simply look at the issues.
First of all he is weak on immigration, weaker than Romney,