Video: Hatchet job on Fred; Update: Fred rips Dems over lobbyist attacks

posted at 5:40 pm on June 27, 2007 by Bryan

Here’s the video, which could have come from any number of sources (more on the possible source below), and attacks Fred Thompson as “pro-choice.”

The editing is extremely tight to the most damning phrases and words, which is a tell that the editor is up to something nefarious. If Fred is really so pro-choice, why not let him finish a sentence saying so? All we really get in the way of substance is Fred talking about federalism and Fred opposing “criminalizing” “young women” who seek abortions. If Fred is indeed pro-choice, this video does not make a good case that he is. It only makes a good case that the editor is being dishonest with his audience.

The video finishes with a stat that’s a bald-faced lie.

fred-stat.png

Let’s go to the NRLC site and see about this 33% record. Of the three votes cast, only one concerns abortion, and Fred voted with right-to-life on that. The other two concerned McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, and Fred voted poorly on that. In fact, perusing the NRLC site, Fred’s voting record is right down the line on abortion, but also wrong down the line on CFR. If Fred’s opponents need a weakness to exploit with conservatives, there it is: McCain-Feingold, which is very unpopular with conservatives but evidently pretty popular with Fred.

But the editors didn’t exploit that weakness, did they? Instead, they chose a dishonest attack on Fred as “pro-choice” and left him alone on McCain-Feingold.

Which unmasks the man behind the video, doesn’t it.

mccain.jpg

And I’d have gotten away with it, if it hadn’t been for those meddling bloggers…

(h/t Conservathink on the NRLC links)

Update (AP): Might as well tuck this in here since we’ve got a Fred thread going. If the AP-assisted talking points memo issued by the Democrats the other day was a political Pearl Harbor, here’s the equivalent of a Doolittle Raid. Complaining about being attacked because he’s not in the race yet is weak, but he atones with his last line.

He’s not interested in skirmishing with the Dems yet anyway. For the moment, he’s after Rudy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Fred has a most funny response to his critics on his FredFile site. Fun-ny stuff.

Mojave Mark on June 28, 2007 at 1:20 AM

From what I can tell Fred has been saying the same thing all the time. Let the States decide. He doesn’t think it’s a federal issue. I agree 100%. I know if the states had a voice there would be a huge decrease in abortions. That is the end result we want who cares how we get there. Let the damn people decide in mass instead of 536 people. or 9 people in Black robes. What the hell do they know anyway. From the immigration “debate” it is obvious that the cream DID NOT rise to the top in Washington.

I personally would not want these people deciding what rode to take to get to the store. They would get so lost we would end up in South Africa

unseen on June 28, 2007 at 1:26 AM

The video of Reid Bashing Thompson in the news clips was surreal. I must have stared at the screen for more than a minute, thinking I didn’t get the joke or the jab or whatever the heck that was.

I think he was talking to the “fringe anti-American element” moonbats Thompson was referring to.

They were speaking pure Moonbatese. If we had the whole clip (and could stand listening to it for more than a few seconds in a row) you’d see exchanges just like that going on indefinitely.

This isn’t a joke. Those enclaves may seem bizarre, but they actually exist. They’re run like a gigantic group therapy session; they apply the cardinal rule “thou shalt not invalidate”. Except, instead of supporting each other’s FEELINGS, they provide unconditional support of each others THOUGHTS. Basically, the agreement is: “You believe my crazy-ass conspiracy theory, and I’ll believe yours.”

This allows them to run in what engineers refer to as an “open loop.” The theories just get crazier and crazier, and nothing ever gets decided or corrected. Basically, it’s what would happen if you had a whole forum full of csdevens all talking to themselves.

So this exchange went, essentially:

QUESTION: “Fred Thompson says we are bad.”
RESPONSE: “Fred Thompson is bad.”

That single exchange could be repeated over and over again, in a kind of verbal ping-pong, for literally HOURS without ever reaching anything even remotely like a conclusion.

The actual words swapped in and out to make up the concept “bad” don’t matter. It’s only the FEELINGS that count – and no one ever questions them, let alone makes fun of them, no matter how incredibly bizarre the word combinations end up becoming.

logis on June 28, 2007 at 1:27 AM

Actually I was gonna propose to fred? when that little home wrecker stole him from me. ;-)

csdeven on June 27, 2007 at 10:56 PM

Awesome! Reading all of csdeven’s Fred! posts pays off with a huge laugh.

Spirit of 1776 on June 28, 2007 at 2:01 AM

Of course it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to criminalize abortion. Murder is a state felony.

csdeven,

Based upon the standards you have alluded to requiring of the candidates, and your wish that the best possible candidate emerge as the nominee, why on earth aren’t you spending your time hollering Hunter’s or Tancredo’s name from the rooftops? Why not do something positive?

I’m certain that if you channeled the effort you waste in bashing Sen. Thompson towards raising awareness of the true conservatives among the candidates, one or both of them would be first-tier by now. Your opinion IS that powerful, you know.

Freelancer on June 28, 2007 at 4:59 AM

Hunter and Tancredo, unfortunately are not viable. The MSM will give them no press and they can’t get the cash to get their message out.

You say I’m wasting my time bashing fred?. Why is my time wasted yet fred? groupies are not wasting their time? These are all opinions based on our understanding of the facts, exactly what HA is all about.

csdeven on June 28, 2007 at 7:44 AM

logis on June 28, 2007 at 1:27 AM

I’m pretty sure I understand

what

he was doing, but wasn’t aware of the mechanism. Thank you for that.

The thing that really made me pause was what he said. I guess it should surprise me. Sounded like he was taking public speaking lessons from the local mortician. Heh.

Tennman on June 28, 2007 at 8:44 AM

I should never

quote

before 8:00. Sorry about that.

Tennman on June 28, 2007 at 8:45 AM

Yes, you are very brave for agreeing with 99% of the HA crowd who thinks Fred is a god

No, that would be Mitt who thinks he’s a god.

No that would be the Ron Paul camp who think Ron Paul is God

RINO_Hunter on June 28, 2007 at 10:58 AM

Hunter and Tancredo, unfortunately are not viable.

So it really isn’t ideology that drives you, but viability? Be consistent. If those who have the MOST ACCEPTABLE message for conservatives aren’t receiving your support, you are helping fulfill that non-viability. Change, and maybe others will change with you.

But if it truly is viability that matters most to you, and not substance, then a man who is leading in polls without actually campaigning sure looks viable, eh?

The choice, as always is yours. Substance over viability = Hunter/Tancredo/Huckabee. Viability over substance = Fred!

There’s a third choice. Be completely irrational.

Freelancer on June 28, 2007 at 4:20 PM

PS: Fred!s viability being greater DOES NOT preclude his substance from also being entirely acceptable, which it indeed is, when compared to the other “viable” politicians.

Freelancer on June 28, 2007 at 4:22 PM

So it really isn’t ideology that drives you, but viability? Be consistent. If those who have the MOST ACCEPTABLE message for conservatives aren’t receiving your support, you are helping fulfill that non-viability. Change, and maybe others will change with you.

When these guys say “viability”, they’re referring to what the people on TV are telling them.

Remember, the media have been telling us over and over again who our “Top Candidates” are for more than half a year now. As we finally start to approach the actual primary season, they’re slowly beginning to realize that conservatives couldn’t possibly care less which candidates the TV people tell us are the only ones who we’re supposed to think are “viable.”

And it’s driving them BATTY!

logis on June 28, 2007 at 6:55 PM

So it really isn’t ideology that drives you, but viability?
Freelancer on June 28, 2007 at 4:20 PM

I’m not the type to waste his time and effort on a guy who can’t get elected. Tancredo and Hunter are ten times the candidate the non-candidate fred? is, but they didn’t star on some TV show.

Ideology is a start but then viability has to come into play. After that, the candidates that are ideologically acceptable and are viable, are the candidates who get my attention.

The only thing fred? has going for him is his celebrity status. No experience in any executive capacity and he lobbied against the american people. But that doesn’t stop the groupies from going ape-$hit over the guy.

Here is a line from the theme song I picked for fred?.

“Say, Tara and Billy, have you seen them yet
But they’re so spaced out, freddie? and Equitas
Oh but they’re weird and they’re wonderful
Oh freddie? he’s really keen
He’s got a chevy lease, America fleeced
You know I read it in a magazine
freddie? and Equitas”

csdeven on June 28, 2007 at 6:57 PM

As we finally start to approach the actual primary season, they’re slowly beginning to realize that conservatives couldn’t possibly care less which candidates the TV people tell us are the only ones who we’re supposed to think are “viable.”

And it’s driving them BATTY!

Here is a line from the theme song I picked for fred…
csdeven on June 28, 2007 at 6:57 PM

See what I mean?

logis on June 28, 2007 at 7:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2