Powerline: Congressional Republicans less than impressed with Fred

posted at 5:11 pm on June 29, 2007 by Allahpundit

Lots of people sending me this. A deflating blow, landed by one of Fred’s three favorite blogs? Say it ain’t so.

Dedicated to our resident Fred-hater, csdeven:

The Fred Thompson campaign recently set up an event for 60 of Congress’s most solid conservatives. Many of them were hoping to be able to endorse Thompson. Unfortunately, Thompson did not impress the Congressmen. He did not appear to be ready for a tough Presidential campaign. One of his aides explained that Thompson was “rusty,” which, as one Congressman told me, did not inspire much confidence in this YouTube era. Some of those who attended are now looking at Mitt Romney as the most viable conservative in the race.

Is this event attended by sixty-odd congressional Republicans the same as … this event attended by sixty-odd congressional Republicans? Because (a) that wasn’t all that recent and (b) by all available reports, Fred was exceedingly well received. Maybe it was another, more recent event? If so, how often do they throw campaign shindigs for dozens of House GOP members?

I don’t care either way; since yesterday, I’m a firm backer of a Sessions/DeMint ticket. But since I know we’ve got a lot of Fredheads here, here’s video from his recent stop in South Carolina. I like how he cracks himself up with the line about the $50 million he’s saved.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


I compared the dog incident with the pickup truck you keep harping on. I didn’t say anything about the lobbying. The pickup truck story is petty, the dog story is not, unless you have some information regarding Mr. Thompson tying someone on top of the truck and driving for 12 hours.

Rose on June 30, 2007 at 5:50 PM

Dear Rose,

Might as well let him be for now. His reasoning has departed him regarding this entire topic. If someone brings viable information that disagrees with his personal opinion on this topic, he shifts gears or finds some even battier person’s article to oppose it with. If someone brings a mild attempt at humor to expose his growing absurdity, he merely says something to the effect of “Ah, another convert, I’m glad you finally agree with me”.

In fact, I have become convinced that he is a mole, so-to-speak, an undercover operative for Sen. Thompson’s campaign. The overwhelming number of people who have done research into Sen. Thompson’s political career and publicly stated philosophy of governance, merely to counter this operative’s mind-numbingly insipid attacks against Sen. Thompson, have done far more to increase awareness of the former Senator’s solid conservative bona fides than he could ever have hoped. I congratulate his efforts to ensure the former Senator’s nomination, now that so many more people are engaged and informed.

I’m certain that he will find the reward to have been well worth the effort when President Thompson is inaugurated.

Meanwhile, for anybody living in or around the San Diego area, Lighthouse Baptist Church is holding it’s annual God and Country Day celebration at 10:30AM. Any and all are invited, espectially active and former military members and their families.

Freelancer on June 30, 2007 at 8:18 PM

Ahh, that is 10:30AM tomorrow, July 1.

Freelancer on June 30, 2007 at 8:19 PM

I compared the dog incident with the pickup truck you keep harping on. I didn’t say anything about the lobbying. The pickup truck story is petty, the dog story is not, unless you have some information regarding Mr. Thompson tying someone on top of the truck and driving for 12 hours.
Rose on June 30, 2007 at 5:50 PM

You may be use to getting people to buy into your straw man arguments, but I don’t fall for them.

freddie boy worked to make sure human beings were denied the money to sustain themselves after being victimized by an unscrupulous company. You prefer not to care about that and would rather fixate on an incident that you can’t prove even happened the way you think it did. That’s ok for you. I’ve dealt with people who love animals more than people and it ain’t my cup of tea and I’m not intimidated by your tears for an animal. I just wonder if you’re capable of shedding tears for the folks that were adversely affected by freds? actions? So far, it appears that you couldn’t care less.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 9:28 PM

Freelancer on June 30, 2007 at 8:18 PM

I thought so. You’re back trying to go off topic again. fred? is the topic and I have yet to see you produce one single argument that refutes the facts about fred? that I have produced here.

Lets try again…..

fred? was a lobbyist. He worked for a company trying to limit the awards to Americans by the company responsible for destroying their lives.

Balls in your court. Explain why fred? shouldn’t have to answer for that.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 9:32 PM

You know nothing about me. Your statements are slander, but judging from all your previous posts you are not a man to be reasoned with. I do not love animals more than people but I do have more regard for those who do not abuse them than I have for those who do.

Rose on June 30, 2007 at 9:32 PM

Rose on June 30, 2007 at 9:32 PM

Watching you try to suck me into your straw man argument is all I need to know about you. That is you trying AGAIN to make my statements fit the argument that you think you can defeat my argument.

I never said that all I need is freds? pickup truck fakery to eliminate him. Everyone here knows that I would never say that because I have a mile long list of freds? history of mediocrity and questionable behavior that I post all the time.

You’d LOVE it if all I had against fred? was his fake red pickup. Then you could claim fred? is better than Mitt! because Mitt! supposedly abused a dog. Unfortunately for you, fred? has done much worse than faking his supporters out with his pickup fakery. The guy worked to deny people, ya know PEOPLE, real live human beings, the awards they had coming to them from a company that callously exposed them to asbestos.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 9:51 PM

If the pickup truck is so irrelevant to your arguments than why do you constantly bring it up? You’re the one who has made it such a big issue that when someone argues that it isn’t you get angry and say they are groupies. You have made the pickup story important.

Rose on June 30, 2007 at 9:58 PM

Rose on June 30, 2007 at 9:58 PM

It is in it’s own right, but not nearly as bad as freds? behavior.

BTW, AP has a bash Mitt! for abusing his dog thread up top.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 10:13 PM

How can you possibly say he’s “over-hyped” when:…rmgraha on June 30, 2007 at 12:19 PM

I don’t know if you are coming back to this, but I’ll answer the question. Simply, my deft command of the English language! :-) But to answer the implied ‘why’ question, it’s just my opinion.

No, I don’t think MSM is over-hyping, frankly don’t know why you would say that. And be fair, AP puts tons of threads up on him…of course publicity is good for him. I’m talking in-house, as you said here, “The only people that are hyping him are the ones that have listened to what he has been saying, and resonating with his positions on many subjects.”

Someone on one of these threads compared him to George Washington! You.Have.Got.To.Be.Kidding.Me. Maybe in height, but not in stature. Besides ,:) I don’t think GW would vote for McCain-Feingold since he, like politicians of his time, lubricated the voting process with beer. The Washington comparison over the top for you? Sure was for me! Washington was a great man who did great things. How about another then, Reagan? Also incomparable, no equivalent executive experience and Reagan was like a bulldog on his beliefs. Is Fred?

If I were going to be sarcastic, I would say that I hope he announces this week, on the 4th of July, so we can compare him to Adams and Jefferson and then refer to his stance of this past immigration bill and compare him to Jackson and Teddy, and get that all out of the system, so we can get down to serious discussion. But I don’t want you to take that personally :) as I said already above I like Fred-supporters, I appreciate their optimism. Optimism is a good thing.

When I hear his sound-bites, sure I think he is a great communicator. But I sure don’t get that impression in his interviews and appearances. When Sean interviewed him, for example, when his answers were non-crisp, Sean lead him to the answers. Jay was very polite and leading, too. Now that may not matter to you, which is fine, but this current president isn’t very good at that either.

One of his best buddies is McCain right? Is that because they like to golf together or because their politics are similar? Until he is in the line of live-fire, I can’t tell. And as he was a big supporter of M-F, I got serious questions on that score.

Let’s take this Federalism thing. People who like Fred say – well he voted that way because he believes in Federalism. Well that’s all well and good if it’s a state’s right issue. But take Rudy and guns – a Federalist deferred to the states stance doesn’t work b/c it is at odds with the Bill of Rights. Same thing with Fred and abortion, (RvW makes it a national issue I think) he can claim a pro-life position, but if it comes down to a bill that restricts abortion at the national level, if he votes it down because he thinks it is a state’s right’s issue, will all his supporters cheer? Right now, do you know what he would do?

Does it matter? Look at immigration: the inability or unwillingness for the government at the national level to enforce the borders, leaves the state and local governments to try to make and enforce law to remedy the deferred responsibility. That’s not good leadership.

That’s why I think he is over-hyped. Because he gets up in the polls without having addressed these questions. Now everyone knows more about their favorite candidate then the others I suppose, but Fred has a lot of questions to be answered in my opinion. Until he enters the race and they are answered, I think it’s more image than substance.

Spirit of 1776 on June 30, 2007 at 10:47 PM


I was the first person on this site to mention that Thompson served 18 years as a lobbyist prior to becoming a United States Senator. I don’t find it to be a liability. And your characterization of his lobbying clients and activites as anti-individual and potentially anti-American interest is disingenuous (no surprise). As has been said by others (and been ignored by you), the trust fund scenario for the asbestos claims litigation nightmare is far preferable to individual lawsuits with wildly varying sets of conditions, both for the claimaints, and for the corporations. Oh by the way, those corporations were his clients. Lawyers serve their clients’ best interests, or they’re fired. That’s how things work in the real world. Other of his clients during his lobbying period were major power-producing industries, seeking to reverse years of constricting regulations. Being a good conservative, you know that artificial price controls and regulations only end up hurting everyone, and fighting them is usually a good thing.

But please, keep it up, you’ve done Fred! a world of good here, I’m sure he has a nice steak dinner setup with which to thank you.

Freelancer on June 30, 2007 at 10:56 PM

I responded to your claims of what is best for the claimants and my response was that they are the damaged party, they should get to decide, not the company that made them claimants in the first place. That’s putting the fred? in charge of the hen house. Lawyers get to choose their clients and fred? chose money over ideology.

Conservative principles demand that those whom are responsibly must pay for their actions. fred? was doing everything he could to prevent that. If his client was honorable, the claimants wouldn’t need lawyers and the client would save all the attorneys fees it cost them for the claimants to drag what was due them out of the responsible party. freddie boy, hero of the working man, was THE HAMMER in that companies designs to avoid full restitution to the victims.

AGAIN, this is the second or third time I’ve explained this to you and you refuse to see it from the perspective of the victim.

Now, just who is fred? expecting support from, clients or regulars Joes who have to hire lawyers to get justice? The answer, in case you’re having a hard time, is the regular Joe. So, i suggest you try to distance yourself from justifying freds? lobbying and run away from it as fast as possible, because most reg’lar folk don’t buy into the concept that the attorney isn’t connected to the clients goals. It’s very clear that fred? could have put his efforts into a more altruistic endeavor, but instead he went for the bucks.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 11:44 PM

As a close relative of a victim and claimant in a very similar style of lawsuit involving harm through exposure to known toxic chemicals, I absolutely guarantee you that you know nothing of what you are saying.

Playing a “he should have been altruistic” card is pretty lame. When someone hires me, I serve their interests. “Nobody buys into the concept that the attorney isn’t connected to the client’s goals”, because that’s exactly what attorneys are paid for. That’s also what lobbyists do. You don’t agree with his client’s position. Fine. I know from personal experience in a 17 year legal battle with a major corporation that the proposition offered for in the asbestos cases by Fred’s client(s) would have saved time, money, and gotten more into the hands of the claimants quicker. Is was the lawyers of the claimants, trying to feather their own nests, who prefer the long, hard legal road. They know there is money coming, and they get to bill their clients until it comes as well. They don’t want it over fast and slick.

It is a standard socialist tactic to claim that your opponent treads on “the regular Joe”, whether it is true or not. You aren’t a socialist, quit acting like one.

I find no need to distance myself from anything Senator Thompson has done, save poor judgement in his McCain/Feingold vote.

Freelancer on July 1, 2007 at 2:15 AM

So, you go right ahead and keep posting his weak senate record and I’ll keep posting his damaging real life endeavors.

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 12:52 AM

Where did I post his record? You are ok by beating up on Fred, no big deal from me that’s how you get attention, but don’t misstate what I write, I never posted any record of Fred’s. That is what I mean by being painted in a corner, so anxious to condemn that you make those kind of mistakes, you lose your ability to be rational and you start making things up to secure your position. Your obsession is getting a little weird.

right2bright on June 30, 2007 at 1:29 AM

I am reposting this, I must have missed your apology for misquoting me.

right2bright on July 1, 2007 at 8:17 AM

Freelancer on July 1, 2007 at 2:15 AM

Like I said, you are taking the approach of the guilty client and rationalizing freds? choice of clients. If people like fred? would let these immoral companies suffer the consequences of their own actions, they would think twice about exposing their workers to these materials. freds? client, just like Ford with the Pinto in the 70’s, made a monetary decision weighing peoples lives verses corporate profits. It wasn’t until the cost of liability lawsuits became as expensive as a recall did Ford do anything about it. Nice. And there you stand defendeing the guy that took up their cause.

fred? will suffer for this because real people, who don’t get to live in the world of word and fact twisting, just don’t buy your story. fred? should have considered that helping a company screw Americans would not be looked upon favorable in a non-candidacy for president.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 8:45 AM

right2bright on July 1, 2007 at 8:17 AM

Too bad. I missed your apology for using personal attacks as your preferred form of debate.

And I also missed your apology for sticking your nose into the middle of a conversation without understanding what was being argued and what facts were use to support that argument. The second you took up that position, is the second you owned the entire debate.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 8:50 AM

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 8:50 AM

That is what I thought your response was going to be. Did not want to accuse you, and I was hoping that you would be more honest.

I think you showed what little integrity you have. Making a false accusation, then not taking ownership, well I don’t think I need to define what that means.

Show me again where I posted his record? Oh I forgot, if someone else said it, and I don’t agree with you, then that means I said it also. What a strange argument, If someone combats you, then they take ownership of all other remarks made by other people?

Well, thats one way to never lose an argument. Not very clever, and not very rational, but certainly creative. Now you have to convince everyone who reads this that you were joking.

Ah, your honor, I agree he did not say that, but his neighbor said it, and neither one like what I did so they are both guilty for saying it because he takes ownership of anything his neighbor says because they both don’t agree with what I believe…maybe for different reasons, but it doesn’t matter one said it so the other takes ownership. You understand that don’t you your honor?

right2bright on July 1, 2007 at 7:28 PM

right2bright on July 1, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Glad to see you’ve at least figured it out. Now you just have to learn the lesson. I dare say you probably have. I doubt you will ever stick your nose into another argument until you understand exactly what it is you are defending.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 8:09 PM

our worst candidate is still more trustworthy than the Dimocraps best candidate!

charmingtail on July 1, 2007 at 8:58 PM


That’s what he has done all along.

1. Make an inflammatory claim
2. If a response includes:
a) A factual rebuttal of the claim, then call the person a groupie with their panties in a twist who can’t see the light of day, or some other such ad hominem (yes, he DID initiate them, in spite of his victim cries to the contrary)
b) A humorous reference to his growing irrationality on the subject, then triumphantly proclaim that the person finally sees it his way, and he’s won another anti-Fred convert
3. In either case a) or b) above, when the weight of factual evidence against his original inflammatory claim reaches significant mass, jump to the next inflammatory claim.
4. Repeat 1. through 3. as required.

As required to what? Only he knows, but oh well. I still submit that Senator Thompson has been blessed with a net gain of supporters thanks to his unhinged attacks, and the reasoned and voluminous responses to them.

As Paul, while in chains on his way to Rome, noted that some mockingly preached about Christ merely to increase Paul’s discomfort:

But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places; And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

– Phillipians 1:12-18

Freelancer on July 3, 2007 at 4:17 PM

As per campaign tempo, to demand the culmination at the beginning would be impetuously foolish.

Fred was warmly received from the onset.

The only discontented are those demanding flash gordon, as though flash would realistically fulfill ALL expectations.

Those citizens who recognize the benefit of conservative realism enjoy getting to know Fred Thompson. His strategy works in marathon:

Andante con moto; Allegro con fuoco; Presto Vivace

Americans need a president who, once elected, can unite the nation without equivocation of a psychological social class caste system (to which Mitt adheres).

Fred’s campaign platform is exactly what the Republican Party represents.

There is genius in simplicity.

Don’t foolishly lose what we have with Fred because he just won’t dress up in political drag to court an impetuous John’s vote.

maverick muse on December 8, 2007 at 8:42 AM

right2bright & freelancer

csdevin typically exemplifies the convoluted logic of the Mormon.

What a nightmare to live with that mindset.

maverick muse on December 8, 2007 at 9:02 AM