Fred Thompson Goes Nutmeg

The New York Sun ^ | May 25, 2007 | Ryan Sager

[Josh Painter]

STAMFORD, Conn. — In his second major outing as a presidential candidate in waiting, Fred Thompson spoke last night to the Connecticut Republican Party for its annual Prescott Bush awards dinner...

"We are now living in a nation that is beset by people who are suicidal maniacs," Mr. Thompson said, laying into the recent proposed compromise, engineered by Senator McCain, that would provide legal status to millions of currently illegal immigrants while ostensibly strengthening border enforcement. "We're sitting here now with essentially open borders."

"They don't get it that putting it on a piece of paper anymore, even passing it into law, does not convince the American people that they will do what they say they're going to do," Mr. Thompson thundered.

And... he had much harsher words for the Democrats on the war in Iraq. "We look at our friends on the Democratic side who have clearly decided not what is best for their country, but what is best for the Democratic Party, and how they might get additional votes in future elections," he said.

"Our choice is where we will fight," Mr. Thompson said, echoing President Bush's familiar line about fighting the terrorists there, so as not to have to fight them here. All the Democrats want to debate, he said, is "the date of our surrender."

Agree or disagree, these were the words of a man ready for a fight. If folks weren't ready to believe it after Orange County, they should be after Stamford.

Talking to a likely Thompson staffer ahead of the speech, I said I hoped he'd get in the race and shake things up. The staffer said, coyly, "I think you'll get your wish." I didn't push for a date and time. But this guy's ready to go for it.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Rudy married his cousin, just like FDR.

[kinoxi]

I don’t feel as comfortable with the “open secret” concept regarding such an important position as most on this forum obviously. It requires decisiveness and commitment IMO. I’ d just like to hear the guy say he’s in it.

[no dems]

Rudy married his cousin, just like FDR.

You're kidding. Which one of his wives was it and how on earth did I miss that bit of information?

[fieldmarshaldj]

Wife #1. The whole thing was truly bizarre — he made it seem like it was a “brief” marriage and he was “really young” (he had just received his law degree, he wasn’t a High School sophomore), discovered they were “closely” related, and got an annullment — they were married a whopping 14 years, and they didn’t split until after he was appointed to the Justice Department. Well, at least they didn’t have kids — that in itself, for that long a marriage and at that age, also was strange.

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

[no dems]

Why is this such a well kept secret from the American public?

Granted, it wouldn’t have the same affect as it would in the ‘50s but still.......

[fieldmarshaldj]

I didn’t think it was that much of a secret, it’s been out there. The weirdness of that first marriage actually had me wonder if his cuz was some sort of a “beard.”

[Despot of the Delta]

EQUAL TIME RULE U.S. Broadcasting Regulatory Rule It is the closest thing in broadcast content regulation to the "golden rule." The equal time, or more accurately, the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time. Simply put, a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office. However, a candidate who can not afford time does not receive free time unless his or her opponent is also given free time. Thus, even with the equal time law, a well funded campaign has a significant advantage in terms of broadcast exposure for the candidate. The equal opportunity requirement dates back to the first major broadcasting law in the United States, the Radio Act of 1927. Legislators were concerned that without mandated equal opportunity for candidates, some broadcasters might try to manipulate elections. As one congressman put it, "American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations." When the Radio Act was superseded by the Communications Act of 1934, the equal time provision became Section 315 of the new statute. A major amendment to Section 315 came in 1959 following a controversial Federal Communications Commission (FCC) interpretation of the equal time provision. Lar Daly, who had run for a variety of public offices, sometimes campaigning dressed as Uncle Sam, was running for mayor of Chicago. Daly demanded free air time from Chicago television stations in response to the stations' news coverage of incumbent mayor Richard Daley. Although the airtime given to Mayor Daley was not directly related to his re-election campaign, the FCC ruled that his appearance triggered the equal opportunity provision of Section 315. Broadcasters interpreted the FCC's decision as now requiring equal time for a candidate anytime another candidate appeared on the air, even if the appearance was not linked to the election campaign. Congress reacted quickly by creating four exemptions to the equal opportunity law. Stations who gave time to candidates on regularly scheduled newscasts, news interviews shows, documentaries (assuming the candidate wasn't the primary focus of the documentary), or on-the-spot news events would not have to offer equal time to other candidates for that office. In creating these exemptions, Congress stressed that the public interest would be served by allowing stations the freedom to cover the activities of candidates without worrying that any story about a candidate, no matter how tangentially related to his or her candidacy, would require equal time. The exemptions to Section 315 have also served the interests of incumbent candidates, since by virtue of their incumbency they often generate more news coverage then their challengers. Since 1959, the FCC has provided a number of interpretations to Section 315's exemptions. Presidential press conferences have been labeled on-the-spot news, even if the president uses his remarks to bolster his campaign. Since the 1970s, debates have also been considered on-the-spot news events and therefore exempt from the equal time law. This has enabled stations or other parties arranging the debates to choose which candidates to include in a debate. Before this ruling by the FCC, Congress voted to suspend Section 315 during the 1960 presidential campaign to allow Richard Nixon and John Kennedy to engage in a series of debates without the participation of third party candidates. The FCC has also labeled shows such as The Phil Donahue Show and Good Morning America news interview programs. However, appearances by candidates in shows which do not fit under the four exempt formats will trigger the equal opportunities provision, even if the appearance is irrelevant to the campaign. Therefore, during Ronald Reagan's political campaigns, if a station aired one of his films, it would have been required to offer equal time to Mr. Reagan's opponents.

[kinoxi]

I have no idea what I am supposed to garner from that very large paragraph...

[Despot of the Delta]

My formatting screwed up. Just garner the bold at the end.

[Petronski]

The “prince of darkness” is Robert Novak, who wrote a review of the speech similar to yours. You need to get out more, or jump to fewer conclusions.

[Petronski]

jellybean; Petronski; STARWISE---As for the rest of you, no need for apologies, I know you guys are just plain sorry.

There's no reason for me to apologize, sparky. Get over yourself.

[kinoxi]

State your point please.

[Despot of the Delta]

If he declares now with a movie premiering on HBO this weekend that is two hours or however long the movie is, the network has to give every presidential candidate the same equal amount of airtime free. So if a Law & Order episode with him in it, that is one hour of airtime the networks have to give all the other candidates, as well as any movie he has appeared (Hunt for Red October, Days of Thunder and so on). Therefore, the last thing the networks want to do is give free airtime to the candidates because that cost them big $$$$$$$.

[calcowgirl]

The Equal Time regulations don't apply to cable networks.

[wardaddy]

Captain what?

[Fabozz]

George W. Bush announced he was running on June 12, 1999. To avoid some FEC reporting deadlines, Fred will announce in late June or early July. Not that big a difference, and definitely not a big deal.

If he officially announced, what would Fred be doing right now? Going around, talking to people, building support. Instead, he's... going around, talking to people, building support. Patience, grasshopper.

[Despot of the Delta]

Once a cable system allows a legally qualified candidate to use (identifiable appearance by voice or picture) its facilities, it must afford “equal opportunities” to all other legally qualified candidates for that office to use its facilities. The cable system may not censor the content of the candidate’s material in any way, and many not discriminate between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities or services rendered pursuant to the equal opportunities rules.

Candidates must submit requests for equal opportunities to the cable system within one week after a rival candidate’s first use of the cable system. If the person was not a legally qualified candidate at the time of the rival’s first use, he or she may submit a request within one week of the rival’s next use of the cable system after he or she becomes a legally qualified candidate.

[Despot of the Delta]

This article explains it all. I misunderstood it as equal time for the entire show, but it means only the time the candidate actually appears and doesn't kick-in till the candidate appears on official state ballots. Equal Time

[calcowgirl]

This issue was in the news a lot in 2003 during the California recall election and I did a lot of research at the time. True, the time in question would only apply to the duration of the appearance, but I was specifically referring to broadcast vs. cable networks. In the WaPo link you posted, the article says:

There is potential good news for "Law & Order" fans. The FCC rules have never been applied to cable channels, though several legal experts said cable often abides by an equal-time guideline in the hopes of avoiding a legal case that would set a precedent.

Those rules were written to apply to public airwaves and when you read them quite obviously exclude cable networks. TNT played old Schwarzenegger movies throughout the pre-election period (non-stop it seemed) without it being an issue (although there were a few challenges when he appeared on Howard Stern's radio program and on Jay Leno's show--both on public airwaves (those parties lost their challenge).

Anyway, some attorney could conceivably challenge those rules as they relate to Thompson and cable TV, trying to argue FCC original intent, but I think it's a longshot given the history of the regulations.

[calcowgirl]

I just realized that what you posted is a quote from an FCC factsheet.
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/program.html

Look closely at the language as it applies to “cable operator” or “cable system operators.” If you research the FCC website further, you will find an “operator” is distinguished from a cable network (i.e. HBO, TNT, A&E are not “cable operators”).