Posted on 03/16/2007 1:42:16 PM PDT by STARWISE
I think it's a "I know he's running, he just hasn't announced yet" type of thing. You know, kinda how we knew Hillary was running back in 1999...
There, is that better?
No, that isn't better at all. He isn't living with his girlfriend, but with his wife.
Don't pursue this line of thinking with me anymore, because you'll get no more replies from me.
Both men have conduct in their pasts that Catholics, Protestants, and many other people might find dubious or questionable. The same people find Rudy's conduct off putting aren't nearly as critical of Thompson's conduct, and that's the main thrust of my point.
And this is my last post on this subject. I need to get ready for a St Patrick's Day party.
Don't be too sure about that. I just got reamed out royally at FireSociety.com by some dumb woman because Fred is an actor. She said it was OK that Ronald Reagan was an actor because he did his acting 50 years ago before Hollyweird got so corrupt. She lumps all modern actors in the loony left category. I tried to explain that Fred was a conservative actor and she went ballistic. I told her that if we had a Fred Thompson/Chuck Norris ticket she would really go into a tail spin. LOL She started her tirade with "I don't know anything about this Fred Thompson guy but..." I told her if she didn't know anything about him then she didn't have anything to talk about. It went dowhill from there. I think I held my own pretty good though. FireSociety is supposed to be a conservative forum but it seems to have been inundated with nut cases lately. I might lay low for a day or so because I seem to be getting out numbered for some reason.
You certainly implied it by the way you characterized his divorce from his first wife. In post 109 you wrote:
"He left his wife with 3 children after she worked hard to help put Fred through Vanderbilt University Law School."
That evokes betrayal and abandonment. You know---a ragged, exhausted woman with three barefoot babes clinging to her apron as her husband drives away in his new convertible with the diploma he couldn't have gotten without her. (Did he run over her mother while he was at it?)
You don't depict things that way, innocently; and you don't depict a good man that way.
Unless you're really bad at writing, and overall that does not seem to be the case.
That's a strange observation. I looked at post 109 and it describes the factual situation - the Thompson's marriage ended after he started getting acting gigs, that his wife had helped him through law school, and that they had three children at the time.
The point was that this is conduct that some folks would find dubious. You have an overactive imagination, though. The scenario you depict is overly dramatic and I don't think the average person would immediately visualize such an overstated scenario. I suppose that speaks volumes for you, and less about the original poster.
In any event, this is something Freepers consistently have a difficult time grasping. Someone may be considered a good guy, and still have acted less than admirably in the past. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. A person could have acted poorly, and then continue to be a good guy, a good husband, a good father, and a good friend. It's possible.
The poster on # 109 made the point to say, “I have liked the guy since I was a teenager. I think he is a fine actor and he was a good Senator - I like him personally.” I don't know why anyone would say that if he or she thought Thompson wasn't a good man. That's true even if he dropped the ball and acted poorly as his first marriage dissolved.
How do you know it describes the factual situation? "He left his wife with 3 kids..." They were married 25 years. Maybe some of those kids were grown? Do you know otherwise? If so please share your source.
As for my imagination, I was trying to demonstrate to Victoria that she was using loaded language. To say that a man left his wife with 3 kids after she helped him, most definitely conjures up a certain unflattering image.
We are speculating that FDT behaved badly with regard to his first marriage, and we do not know it for a fact. We should get the facts before we assume the man was a cad.
I read the words 'kids' or 'children' (I think the original post used 'children, and not 'kids,' which is your word) as a colloquial use of the word, and not necessarily limited to 'younger children,' as I think you (narrowly?) choose to read it. And yes, it is a fact that their marriage ended around the time when he started getting acting work in the movies. That is the truth. The posts on Thompson offered numerous links as sources.
And I don't think the language the poster used is unduly loaded - it's more the product of how you chose to read it and your worldview. I never considered the exaggerated imagery you depicted, for example, and I don't think most people would. Again, it speaks volumes for you more than anything else.
The posters point was that given the facts, we could reasonably expect some innuendo about the unflattering behavior and circumstances on Fred's part by the same types of folks who are very critical of Rudy's marital history. That's all. And the poster is right, leave it at that.
No, Hitman, the poster is not right unless you have proof that the first Mrs. Thompson was "left with 3 children" by Fred. If you think that I am reading it narrowly, whereas you are not reading it broadly, I cannot help that. Because it couldn't be more obvious, what "left his wife with 3 children" means; or what "left his wife with 3 children after she worked hard to help put Fred through Vanderbilt University Law School" implies.
Why are you permitted to interpret the sentence freely, while I am "speaking volumes" against myself when I employ obviously exaggerated imagery?
(Hint: it's called "satire.")
Again, you are assuming "unflattering behavior and circumstances on Fred's part" when they are not proven.
Your sensitive reference to Giuliani's marital history...speaks a chapter at least. ;)
(Get over him, he'll never win the nomination!)
Yep, that ultimately says it all. I am glad you have clarity on it. This is the most insightful thing I have seen you type.
As for me, I am in the minority on FR in that I have no problem with men or women who leave poor spouses. I think it's a good thing, in fact. Anything less is uncivilized - why stay with a dreadful person when you can be with a better quality person? And yes, it does speak volumes for me - I can think in 3-D.
Well, I buried my spouses, but leaving them poor works too.
Sometimes, the only way out is the sweet release of death!
>>Sometimes, the only way out is the sweet release of death!
That's really depressing!
Please add me to the list.
Except Thompson is Tennessee's most popular politician.
Welcome aboard the Thompson Express. :)
Ok, did my homework, now know. Fred's wife was not "left with three children" when they split. According to Who's Who and Current Biography and similar sources in the library, Fred's eldest was born in 1960 and their youngest child was born when Fred was in his first year at Vanderbilt.
Therefore when he divorced in 1985, all the children were adults, and to state that he left her with three children is open to misinterpretation.
I've got a copy of Fred's 1975 book, "At That Point In Time," about the Senate Watergate Committee. It's remarkable how consistent FT is, in his political views---so much of what he wrote then, you can still hear him affirm today.
He writes that he and his wife came from Democrat families and became Republicans in the mid-1960's.
You know--- a ragged, exhausted woman with three barefoot babes clinging to her apron as her husband drives away in his new convertible with the diploma he couldn't have gotten without her. (Did he run over her mother while he was at it?)
However, since he divorced his wife of 26 years, how on earth would her children be still young kids? I thank you for the research however, next time I will make sure to type [grown] besides 'children.'
P.S. Thanks for confirming that he divorced in 1985. And nothing I posted changed the fact that she worked to help him pay for his studies, and although the children were not young, he still divorced his wife the same year he made it big in the movies.
I suspect it's moot, because he'll decide not to run after all.
And whoever becomes the nominee, you know there'll be media bias; FT just isn't on their radar as yet, and may never be.
Meanwhile from all I can determine, he and his first wife had an amicable divorce after 26 years of marriage, some 20 years after she helped put him through law school; and all three of their children were adults by that time.
Incidentally, according to his book she was a teacher.
I'm glad to hear that, Graymatter. Sometimes things don't work out in marriages and people divorce - the reasons are unknown to most of us. I guess Rudy's divorce became so public that people just throw everything at him, lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.